Skip to main content

Tag: K-12 Education

Reimagining the School Funding Adequacy Study

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Funding Policy, Resource Equity.

In 2023, the Washington D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor of Education (DME) sought to re-examine how schools in D.C. are funded and how the existing funding structures serve students.

Over the past several years, D.C. has made great strides toward adequate and equitable funding, striving to ensure that students have the resources they need to succeed. Even so, persistent opportunity gaps exposed a need for further exploration, especially given that different funding levels targeted to needs did not easily explain those gaps. Why aren’t the investment levels lining up with outcomes?

In light of COVID-19 and other pressing external factors, it became clear that supporting students and families through a global pandemic and intergenerational poverty will take all of us. Schools have been asked to meet increasingly comprehensive needs, without the formal charge or funding structures to support that charge. What is the role of the school, and how can education and community leaders come together to provide the services and resources needed for brighter futures in their respective areas of influence? It was in this spirit of enduring commitment to continuous inquiry and improvement that led us to co-create an innovative approach to guide school leaders’ next steps.

Complex circumstances require a context-sensitive approach

Like many states, DC completes a periodic, legislatively required ‘funding adequacy study’ to determine the resources needed for students to meet standards. Adequacy studies go back to the 1990s as part of the standards-based movement, and the approaches remain in use today. While this history is an important foundation for school funding policies, The Deputy Mayor for Education (DME) saw the 2023 legislative requirement as an opportunity to think differently and partnered with Afton to collaboratively meet the moment. Given the complexity at hand, we knew we needed to examine the problem from multiple angles. We also knew we needed to engage the expertise of those most affected by—and yet also typically excluded from—policymaking decisions: students, families, and school communities.

The desire for a data-informed understanding of current resource use and future resource needs led us to embark on a deep data exploration journey. As part of this journey, we developed archetypes of students and schools that helped us understand current funding and spending relative to student and community needs and outcomes at a far more nuanced level than is typical. This also positioned us to ensure adequate stakeholder representation across all archetypes developed, creating a ‘diverse by design’ approach to gathering input and feedback.

As a team, our desire to more fully understand the local context laid the foundation for a pioneering triangulation method that linked:

  • national expertise, economic modeling, and quasi-experimental research findings;
  • broad local stakeholder engagement from school leaders and staff, parents and caregivers, students, and community agencies; and
  • deep data analysis on student demographics, needs, outcomes, and LEA- and school-level spending data.

This triangulation approach offered significant improvements to traditional adequacy study methods alone. While traditional methods– including the national Evidence-Based (EB) and Professional Judgement (PJ) panels– rightly form the foundation of this work, the triangulation of additional methodologies provides a richer understanding of needs and opportunities. Combining existing methods with deep student- and school-level data analysis and abundant stakeholder engagement allowed us to meaningfully incorporate the insights and wisdom of the students and families experiencing the system every day. While typical adequacy studies offer insight into how much should be spent, this study had a keen eye on how resources can be more effectively allocated. We could better understand student and resource needs at a more granular level than typical need categories, and then take several steps further to determine the appropriate level of local investment that would support those needs.

The substantial stakeholder engagement also provided a better basis for contextual recommendations. We were able to identify levers that can support LEAs and schools and ensure that dollars are spent efficiently and in a way that serves students most effectively.

A research approach that honors nuance, highlighting tensions and common ground

Triangulating the three methods brings out agreements and tensions in the data sets that otherwise may not surface. Where agreements exist, we can see elements of the problem in high contrast and know that it’s a clear pain point. Multiple lenses also can help clarify cause(s) and identify viable solutions. Where tensions exist, we’re better able to design solutions thoughtfully, with higher regard for the possible unintended consequences or trade-offs that we wouldn’t have known to be mindful of otherwise.

Stakeholder voice through school leader interviews and parent surveys helped us understand that schools were being asked to do more than they ever have and, in many cases, without the formal charge or necessary resources to meet those increased demands. Thanks to our triangulation method, we could immediately see that local data backed up that insight.

For instance: on average, schools spend less than 50% of their resources on instruction. Notably, schools with the highest needs often spent the least funding on instruction, as their student population required more non-instructional supports.

Our data also showed that resources spent on mental health support were high, relative to other spending. Even so, school leaders told us they would use extra dollars for additional mental health support and staffing, suggesting that their base resources did not adequately meet needs. Administrators also noted the increased demands of the teaching profession, expressing the desire to find ways to mitigate increasing burnout and turnover.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we heard from parents and families – across all wards and races – that they prioritize a positive academic reputation, highly qualified teachers, and a positive school culture. While we know from research these factors all directly impact student achievement, hearing directly from parents and families that they wanted to prioritize supportive measures to those ends created alignment. Leaders can now move towards pursuing well-informed additional investment and they strengthened the school-community connection having sought their valuable input on where the unmet needs exist.

A human-centered study facilitates better decision-making and promising outcomes

Our triangulation approach to the analysis provided a rich and diverse evidence base that informed a set of options and opportunities. Leaders are now equipped to make decisions for change that encompass immediately actionable shifts to funding levels within the funding formula, while also taking on related policy considerations to support change within and beyond the District.

In fact, change has already happened. Along with a 12.5% increase to the foundation level for teacher compensation, the weights within the funding formula are changing, too:

  • The at-risk weight will increase from 0.24 to 0.300
  • The alternative weight will increase from 1.52 to 1.58
  • The adult weight will increase from 0.91 to 1.00

Beyond the funding formula, specific recommendations also surfaced for additional funding outside the funding formula. These recommendations included support for mental health services, teacher pipeline development, and pilot programs for a neighborhood-based approach to school transformation. We also recommended specific avenues for pursuing improved system efficiencies, as well as enhanced financial reporting and transparency to keep a keen eye on spending patterns as they relate to outcomes.

In addition to the published report of the full study, the work informed an interactive website customized to various users to support broad engagement with study approaches, findings, and recommendations in a human-centered way.

At Afton, we put people first. Doing so results in stronger research design, more nuanced insights, and better decision-making. We are proud to come alongside communities to co-create both problem-solving processes and actionable solutions in a way that respects and engages those who stand to be most impacted. Ready to get started on yours? Get in touch.

Fiscal Cliff Pressures – the Impact of ‘the Six Es’ on District Budgets

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

At Afton, we’ve referred to these interrelated challenges in a framework called ‘the Six Es’:

  1. Economy: States, localities, and districts are facing overall rising costs, and those costs are frequently outpacing revenue growth.
  2. ESSER: Many states and districts used one-time pandemic relief funds to cover recurring, increasing costs, but these funds are slated to end this year while the costs remain.
  3. Employees: Educator talent is more difficult than ever to find and competitively compensate, which can be especially challenging for roles and locations that have seen long-standing shortages.
  4. Enrollment: States and districts are experiencing uneven enrollment changes, complicating district revenue in the short-term, and enrollment is likely to continue to decline overall in the long-term.
  5. Exceptional Needs: Although overall enrollment trends are down, the share of students with greater special education needs, language learner needs, mental health needs, and learning loss needs is rising.
  6. Expectations: Increased needs have led to changing community expectations of the role of schools, and a desire for a higher level of baseline services at all schools.

States and districts will need to rely on one another to address these challenges:

  • States need strong districts to provide the best possible experience for all their students.
  • Districts need states to support their work by providing clear expectations and equitable, adequate, and sustainable funding and systemic solutions.

As both plan for the near- and long-term, neither can do it without the other. Understanding your unique state and district “6E context” is foundational to creating strong policies and programs as we move forward in 2024.

Interested in discussing the 6 Es in your context? Please contact Afton Senior Directors Heather Wendell and Kevin Wenzel to learn more about the work we do. We look forward to being in touch!

Affording Quality Schools – Solutions and Remedies 1 and 2: Reinventing Funding Formulas and Services with Costs That Seem Fixed

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

Solutions to Affording Quality Schools

At Afton, our work with school districts throughout the country affords us an opportunity to appreciate the complexities that school districts face to reduce costs during periods of enrollment decline. And our work with charter school operators also affords us the opportunity to appreciate how school choice can change the lives of students who have otherwise limited options.

So how can quality charter schools be afforded without financially harming district-run schools?

Afton identified 8 ways that school districts can mitigate the effects of enrollment decline (and these were highlighted in CRPE’s “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment”):

  1. Uniform intra-district funding formula for district and charter schools
  2. Continued operational efficiencies, with an eye toward making costs more variable
  3. School closures and corresponding real estate transactions
  4. Redistricting / efficient enrollment planning
  5. End “last in first out” methods of reducing staff
  6. End unsustainable/unfunded salary commitments (step/lane/raise)
  7. End proliferation of long-term fixed cost obligations (pension/OPEB)
  8. District commitment to decision-making based on long-term planning

None of these actions are easy. All require changes to institutionalized policies and practices. These actions displease stakeholders in the short term, as the benefits are ones of avoidance of fiscal insolvency rather than gaining programming from what exists today.

In the next few parts of our series, Afton will provide some context for some of these remedies to the negative fiscal impacts of enrollment decline in school districts. Today, we will highlight remedies 1 and 2.

Affording Quality Schools – Remedies 1 and 2: Reinventing Funding Formulas and Services With Costs That Seem Fixed

Enrollment losses are challenging to districts financially. But when charters come into the picture, there are additional complexities to address in long-term planning. Not only is the District losing enrollment, it is also often adding the service of being an authorizer and changing services by being an LEA to a different kind of customer. To ensure they meet these obligations and do so cost-effectively, districts should consider (a) implementing a student need-based funding formula and (b) restructure central and shared services to adapt to the differing needs of charter schools vs. district-run schools.

(1) Implement a student need-based funding formula for all schools including charter schools. If the district cannot control the charter funding formula, then lobby the state to ensure an equitable formula is in place. It is critical that certain “city-wide” obligations are considered in the funding formula, such as SPED outplacement, adjudicated students, etc. Additionally, other fixed or semi-fixed costs should be considered, including debt service and legacy pension. Notably, equitable funding formulas must reflect student needs. Below is an example of a small district in Illinois with an authorized charter school. State guidelines for funding use historical data and do not differentiate by student need. As we can see in the chart below, this state funding method for charter schools did not demonstrate equity. The charter school has significantly lower student needs, but would have received more money out of dollars available for K-12 education. In an agreed-upon equitable formula between the charter school and the school district, the charter school receives less than the state guidelines, primarily because its student population is recognized as lower needs.

(2) Create efficiencies and opportunities for variable costs in otherwise “fixed” cost services. As charters become a bigger proportion of total schools supported by the district, districts have an opportunity to restructure school design and centralized services to accommodate (a) a loss of enrollment, and (b) a different type of customer with different needs.

As enrollment declines within schools, it does not typically reduce a whole classroom in a grade – it more often looks like several students leaving each grade, making it more difficult for traditional school structures to reduce costs (and staffing) in proportion to the enrollment loss. Schools with more flexible designs, such as multi-age classrooms, personalized learning instructional methods, and reimagined school staffing structures, experience more variable cost structures, serving as an advantage to preserving high-quality instruction as enrollment declines. Collective Bargaining Agreements should be reviewed to understand constraints that may be present to the District’s ability to reduce or move staffing as enrollment declines or fluctuates. Possible constraints include class size maximums, termination provisions, severance obligations, post-retirement health plan benefits, and shared service workload minimums. These constraints, if present, should inform priorities in future collective bargaining discussions.

Outside of schools, the same kind of reimagination is required as enrollment declines. Districts should review each central service and shared service department (HR, IT, finance, etc.) and align its staffing and structure to the anticipated needs of the charter schools. During this review, each department’s role should be defined – what is the department’s purpose, what activities is it responsible for related to charter schools, and what activities is it responsible for related to district-managed schools. Capital planning could be incorporated into this review process. Given anticipated changes in enrollment mix over the longer term, how will the levels and types of activities in each department need to change? Outsourcing certain non-core services becomes an interesting option as it shifts the burden of staffing and related fixed costs outside of the school district and enables the costs of these services to become more variable. To the extent that districts have contractual obligations with service vendors, they should ensure that any longer-term contracts do not have service minimum requirements and offer flexibility so that districts can reduce services as there are changes in the numbers of students served and buildings operating.

North Chicago CUSD 187: Progress after Injustice

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability, Resource Equity.

When the state put forth its new education funding system in 2018, it calculated each of the state’s ~850 school districts’ funding adequacy targets. North Chicago Community School District 187 had just 54% of the funding it needed to serve its students. Meanwhile, the surrounding communities of more affluent and whiter students had 288% (Rondout), 158% (Lake Forest), 137% (Lake Bluff) of their education funding adequacy targets.

North Chicago is a city about 35 miles north of downtown Chicago and has a population of around 30,000 people. The city is home to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, which is the largest training installation for the United States Navy. Despite its proximity to some of the wealthiest communities in the state, North Chicago’s school district serves over 80% low-income students. The community has significant racial and ethnic disparities in poverty rates, with Black and Hispanic residents experiencing high rates of poverty.

In that context, it is not surprising that this school district failed its students as the community became more impoverished in the 1990s and early 21st century.

The state took over the schools in 2012. While there is much more to do, graduation rates have increased from 56% to 82% and 9th grade on track has soared to 94% today, compared to 2012. In particular, those graduation rate improvements have no significant gaps by race, and North Chicago Community High School has among the highest graduation rates for Black students than any other high school in Lake County (among 28 high schools). North Chicago is now home to a preschool which has received the state’s Gold Level of Quality two review cycles in a row. Further, the district has achieved the highest rating level of financial sustainability from the state for six years running.

What are the ingredients to progress, and what will it take to go much further for students? We are introducing you to Mrs. Dora King, chairperson of the school district’s independent authority, to tell this story. Our team at Afton has experienced Mrs. King as a North Chicago community hero.

Mrs. King, as a long-time community member of North Chicago and the chairperson of the North Chicago Community Unit School District 187 Independent Authority for the last decade, please tell us about your personal story.

My family came to North Chicago from Mississippi during the Great Migration in the 1950s seeking jobs at the factories. My street in North Chicago was full of strong Black men and women who were working hard and providing for their families. The community was segregated as were the schools. My church was my strength – it is where activities and structure were provided, and my church educated me and other children as much or more than the public schools did. In the 1960s, as young people in our church, we grew up in The National Baptist Convention around Baptist preachers and social justice advocate, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and others. I saw parents and community members going to school board meetings, advocating for a better education opportunity for all of the children. So, I learned how to advocate for change from the adults around me. I went on to raise my three children, all of whom have been accepted into PhD programs and are a physicist, an educator, and a biologist. I, myself, went on to get my college degree.

What led to you becoming the chairperson of the state’s independent authority over the school district?

Assuming this governance role for the school district is an extension of my entire life’s work. During the time after I raised my children in the 1970s and 1980s, a lot changed in the school system and in our community of North Chicago. Industry started leaving in the 1990s, and families immigrated from the City of Chicago’s housing projects to North Chicago. Around the same time, more Hispanic families moved in. The culture of the city changed as well as the differentiated needs of the children. And our school district was unable to effectively serve the needs of the children. The state did a takeover of the school district, which by then was insolvent, and they asked me to take on this responsibility. I accepted the role because I believe in building something excellent for our students and can do so as a fair-minded, honest, respectful leader.

Here at Afton, we met you soon after the state took over the school district in 2012. A lot was written about the problems of the district at that time and what the community had experienced with regards to school failures, mismanagement, insolvency, and fraud. Since 2012, the school district’s academic progress has been improving and its finances are more stable. The community opened a brand new Neal Middle School this past year, and Superintendent Dr. John Price is being named Lake County Superintendent of the Year. By 2027, the district will transition to a fully elected school board. All of this has been done under your leadership. Through your eyes, what should our society learn from this history to better our service to the children of tomorrow?

This is a story about establishing stable and credible leadership, being accountable for student programs and governance processes, and being laser focused on taking responsibility for the children. After the first few years of building that trusted and stable leadership as a foundation, the ability to serve our students improved dramatically – including being able to attract the resources to invest in student services. What has been lifted off today was out of vision at the beginning because the school system was in such disrepair. Now, our children are college-going. We welcome parents into the high school for training. We have established a robust early learning center. We have business partnerships and community partnerships that have led to a new school facility and various student-serving programs after school and beyond.

What are your dreams for North Chicago’s students? What will it take moving forward to see those dreams through?

My dream is that each student in North Chicago is prepared for whatever they choose to be in life. My dream is that our students can dream and are prepared to fulfill their own dreams. This will require a continued child-centered focus. It will require that the adults continue to see the child and care for the child, and that decisions are made in that context. We have more to do to attract the funding and build the talent to be at our best. Right now, we have a foundation to build from.

*Link to report graphic.

ESSER: Our Latest Window to Unjust Public Education Funding

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Funding Policy, Resource Equity.

Yet headline after headline places much of the blame on schools themselves for their spending struggles, arguing that they are too slow to distribute the billions of dollars they received from ESSER. But what’s going on behind the scenes is more complex than many recent reports lead us to believe.

Before districts spend their pandemic aid, they must submit a plan to their state education department outlining how they will allocate and leverage the influx of funds. These reports demonstrate that schools are struggling to design plans with investments in programs, resources, and initiatives that measurably move the needle for students. However, there are also legitimate reasons behind that struggle that need to be explored.

  • Historical Inequities Hurt Planning and Talent Initiatives: Many public school districts receiving ESSER funding are historically underfunded relative to student need. As a result, long before the pandemic, these districts have had the unjust burden of trying to attract and retain top teacher talent into high stakes education and care circumstances without the ability to offer commensurate teacher pay and wraparound support services. This injustice was only exacerbated when districts sought more staff with ESSER funding in a competitive labor market. Moreso, these districts have become accustomed to the mindset of doing more with less by prioritizing limited resources that don’t adequately meet the needs of all students. Shifting from this scarcity mindset requires both adequate time and proper training, neither of which were provided in any type of intentional, consistent way. This funding is thus an opportunity and challenge to build a new muscle, albeit on a long-neglected playing field.
  • Decision Risks with Funding That’s Not Recurring: Districts are experiencing pressure to spend quickly and also produce strong results. This leaves little time to think strategically about how to allocate these funds to maximize their impact. Any strategic leader recognizes the danger of allocating one-time funds for recurring operating costs, such as teachers’ salaries or instructional positions. If district leaders come to rely on this surplus of funds, they will be confronted with a deficit if the money isn’t available in the next year or two. With this context, many leaders struggled to identify the best course of action with the funds.
  • Navigating the Day to Day: While the pandemic caused educators to feel burnout, district leaders were faced with retaining staff who felt overworked and underappreciated. These district leaders were not only navigating pandemic-era schooling, but were also focused on preventing a mass exodus of teachers leaving the profession due to stress. In any given month, week, or single day, these same leaders were taking in new information and having to make quick, high-stakes decisions about closing schools, supporting remote learning, shifting masking, quarantine, and vaccination policies, communicating effectively with parents, and addressing learning loss and trauma. As schools reopened, many have seen unprecedented enrollment declines – making planning for student needs uncertain and the funding expected to be received, lower than anticipated. With so many high-priority decisions taking precedence, school systems used the funding in unanticipated ways, at varying paces, and in some cases, as a replacement for funding they had anticipated for a higher number of students.

Now we’re faced with a critical question: Where do we go from here?

The challenges we’re seeing with spending only reinforce the larger challenges of chronic underfunding relative to student needs. As a one-time investment with little infrastructure to support effective spending, the challenges with ESSER are our window into how we might solve systemic problems. If the funding did exist in a reliable, equitable, sustained way, our schools furthest from success would begin to thrive, student mobility would begin to stabilize, and there would be no limit to the positive impact we could make for the next generation.

Financial planning for remote learning: Afton’s lessons learned from hundreds of technology-enabled school models

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability, Resource Equity.

Students, teachers, and parents received a crash course in the spring to varying degrees of success, and this summer has allowed schools to evaluate that experience. As SY20-21 approaches and COVID-19 risks grow, more and more cities and states across the country are anticipating delayed in-person re-openings and creating fully remote options for some or all families. For many of these schools, the financial aspects of this continuation in technology-enabled instruction remains blurry.

While the types of technology-enabled learning employed today with remote and virtual learning may change after the pandemic, the experience will inevitably have lasting effects on how instruction is delivered in a post-pandemic world. School systems have made significant investments in hardware, software, and access, all of which will be accessible beyond the pandemic. And teachers will have learned new approaches to instructional delivery and student engagement which may inform their future practices.

For school business officials and boards across the country, now is the time to ensure that your new year’s budget and procurement planning fully captures the needs of your school system as it delivers technology-enabled instruction. And now is the time to understand what longer term investments may be needed to sustain aspects of technology-enabled instruction that will be relevant beyond the pandemic.

Since 2011, Afton has worked with over 200 schools, school systems, and school leaders in developing and evaluating long-term resource plans to support innovative school models, including those incorporating technology into the classroom. While most of these school models were not the virtual classrooms being employed during COVID-19, many of them require similar resources to virtual and hybrid learning. Much can be gleaned from the investments made by these schools to assist in financial planning today. As follows, we share three primary points of advice for school systems about financial planning for technology-enabled instruction.

Invest heavily in staff and their professional development.

For many, this is a new way of instructional delivery. The most critical thing to remember is that technology does not do the teaching – it enables the teaching.

Our advice:

Ensure the budget includes a material, recurring investment in professional development and teacher collaboration and planning time. Time and time again, in our discussions with school leaders and evaluations of their financial plans, investments in additional staff and professional development to support technology-enabled instruction proved to be the most important investments.

District leaders of schools implementing technology-enabled instruction invested more than 50% of one-time and recurring funding in personnel.

Following is a summary of actual and projected 5-year expenditures of Districts and Charter networks implementing technology-enabled school models. The data represent the resource allocation plans for 11 school systems, 110 schools, 850 classrooms and 36,000 students as of fiscal year 2019.

Be flexible and expect trial and error.

There will likely be some initial hardware and software choices that, when implemented, do not fully fit the needs of staff and students.

Our advice:

Ensure the budget includes a contingency for hardware and software and that procurement policies and practices are in place to enable swift course corrections. These often require significant changes in policy, but also culture shifts to ensure responsiveness, flexibility, and adaptability.

Plan now for hardware refreshes and sustaining software and professional development.

Because there are likely to be aspects of today’s pandemic-induced instruction that will forever change instructional delivery practices, school systems will need to plan for maintaining its technology and professional development investments into the future. Devices purchased during the pandemic will need to be refreshed in a few years, and there will need to be a provision for annual replacement devices. Learning management systems and instructional content may need to be enhanced or upgraded. Teachers and administrators will evolve in their use of technology as will their professional development needs. Post-pandemic, there will be school systems that will re-think how instruction should be delivered – including migrating to more competency-based approaches, changing classroom structures, and rethinking school scheduling and course offerings with a new view of in-person and virtual instruction at some grade levels. These considerations may completely change needs for school-level staffing, technology, and professional development investments.

Our advice:

Ensure you have a multi-year financial plan and include a contingency for renewing the current technology and professional development investments. As it is appropriate, begin assessing successes and opportunities that arise from this shift to technology-enabled instruction, and what implications it may have in the post-pandemic world. As you think ahead to long-term strategic planning, identify resources and services that could potentially be repurposed to meet post-pandemic instructional design opportunities.

How does this apply to your remote learning plan now?

As you think about the fall, and investments you might need to make, we can look at the types of investments that have been made by school in other models of technology-enabled instruction. Here we share the costs you can expect at the district and school level, alongside a few ideas for tradeoff considerations.

One-time costs: we define one-time costs as those that will expire or end after the school model has been fully implemented. An example of a one-time cost includes intensive professional development, or a program manager position that may be filled only during implementation, which may take anywhere from one to three years.

These findings are consistent with outcomes of a study our team led through LEAP Innovations in Chicago, wherein we evaluated the costs of implementing personalized learning across six schools. This study, Sustaining Innovation and Preparing for Scale: Financial Sustainability Research and Analysis of Personalized Learning School Models, found one-time investments ranged from $233 to $1,135 on a per pupil basis across the six schools.

Recurring costs: Our definition of recurring costs to support tech-enabled school models includes those investments that will be required to sustain these models in the long-term (i.e. after an implementation period).

Trade-offs: To fund these recurring costs, we have seen Districts employ strategies such as developing a long term staffing strategy, identifying inefficient technology spending and reallocating funding for textbooks and school supplies.

  • Long-term staffing plan. We recommend each district implementing a tech-enabled school model(s) perform a review of their existing position structure to identify opportunities to create positions required for long term success of these new models (such as blended learning coaches, data specialists) while also identifying opportunities for change in their existing structure (review of job descriptions, plan for turnover, etc.). When implemented effectively, a significant component of long term funding of recurring tech-enabled needs can be sourced with this approach.
  • Evaluate technology spending. Various studies have shown a significant underutilization of existing technology within school districts. Performing even a basic technology audit (such as one offered by Learn) could identify opportunities to more effectively leverage limited available funding for more impactful information technology spending.
  • Reallocate existing funding. More and more districts are reallocating historical funding from supplies and textbooks to software, content and devices. There is also an opportunity to evaluate central services and determine how to best support schools utilizing technology-driven instruction through re-evaluating large major contracts.

The specific impact this has on your schools depends on your start point, your approach to SY20-21, and what you envision for the future:

Given this, as you build your financial plan, consider these specific questions:

  • What is our starting point for technology? Should we (have we) conducted a technology audit?
  • What supports do our teachers need? What professional development could be provided to effectively support teachers in effective use of technology for remote learning?
  • What is our level of student access, and what do we need to do now to improve access (including devices, wifi, servers), if anything?
  • Do we have the right blend of online/asynchronous vs. synchronous materials and content? Should we (have we) conducted a software/content audit?
  • Can we improve upon student assessment and/or data systems? Should we invest in or support data-driven instruction PD or platforms for our teaching staff?
  • Do we anticipate these being short-term or long-term investments?
  • What sources of funding exist for one-time and recurring investments?

What have you learned about the financial aspects of remote instruction? Do these findings and recommendations ring true to you? What would you add or change? Let us know! Contact us at connect@aftonpartners.com.

Planning for “Re-Entry”: What public school systems can learn from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability, Resource Equity.

Also featured in The74

This is truly a unique and unprecedented time for society. For the two of us, in our respective roles in public education, it’s eerily similar to the days and weeks in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. While the scale and expansiveness of COVID-19 is different than Hurricane Katrina, we find some uncomfortable similarities in the immediate situation… there are scarce resources and no playbook, and we have an urgent, moral imperative to provide for students and their families.

Beyond the immediate similarities, there are some lessons from the “re-entry to school” in New Orleans that we share below that we hope are useful for school systems now as they are planning to one day “re-open”.

This “pause” of normal course education delivery is a once in a generation opportunity. How can public school systems seize the moment as we “restart”?

Beyond the potential for learning loss during this time – there is a unique learning opportunity. Almost never do we get to completely hit the pause button on everything we are doing and then restart – and we have that opportunity now. In New Orleans 2005, there was an unplanned, traumatic pause. This pause and devastation became the opportunity to end decades of neglect of public school students and to invent a new system of schools. That system of schools today, while far from where it needs to be, has provided for significant learning beyond what could have ever been possible in the former system. SO – what is the equivalent opportunity for school systems today? It doesn’t need to be an overhaul of school governance as in New Orleans. The answer will be very different in different communities. For some states and districts, it could mean a shift toward competency-based learning from seat time. For others, it could mean a shift toward portfolios and evidence journals from grading and testing. And yet for others, it could be the time to better foster intergovernmental partnerships between schools, libraries, and park districts to create better access to the internet, creative spaces, and physical activity. Most of all, it’s important for school systems to take the unique opportunity this spring and summer to listen to their families and staff and answer that very question of how best to seize this unprecedented opportunity. Returning to things just as they were – this may not be a good option.

Focus on a culture that supports mental health for school system staff and students alike.

Creating a supportive school and district culture upon return becomes paramount to enabling learning later on. Consider what adults and children have experienced during this spring and summer – for some they will have experienced loss of loved ones, extreme poverty, traumatic home environments, and a disruption in virtually every aspect of life. During our initial years in New Orleans, our work was rooted in a trauma-informed approach with partners from Save the Children. Also recognize that this spring, teachers have made a major pivot in instructional delivery all while grappling with their own changed personal circumstances. Celebrate their work and the work of other school system heroes as part of creating a supportive culture. It is equally important to realize that some have struggled to make the shift to deliver instruction in the many unique ways that our current situation demands, so be prepared to meet them where they are.

Prepare for enrollment fluctuations and higher levels of student need.

In many districts next year, some schools will not have nearly the same number of students they did in March 2020. We already know that low-income families were among the first to lose their jobs. In the months to come, families will have to make difficult housing decisions while looking for new work. Districts that already had high mobility will likely see even higher mobility. In New Orleans, we had no idea how many students to plan for and where – literally everyday for many weeks, we had no idea how many new students we would have and at which schools or how many existing students would need to change schools because their temporary housing shifted. Imagine planning teaching and learning, special education services, transportation routes, and food service for that situation. Districts and schools will need to plan staffing, services, and budgets with a great deal of flexibility throughout the first year of “return to school” post-COVID-19. Use this spring and summer to do in-depth listening in the community to understand housing and population shifts to plan and prepare to meet these shifts alongside greater student needs.

When ready, focus on a strong curriculum.

As mentioned, we see the focus on mental health for staff and students as the priority on re-entry. Alongside this, now is the time to step back to ensure that that current curricula choices can both adjust to meet individual learning trajectories and can do so in a blended learning environment, supporting a competency-based approach. This will also require significant tiered support for educators as they make the shift. Leverage and celebrate the early adopters and take steps to support those who need it. In our school network in New Orleans, we were able to make significant academic gains (four out of five schools demonstrated high growth and the fifth experienced average growth) in the first few years. This growth came from an emphasis on coaching teachers, heavily staffing key areas such as academic intervention and using one-time disaster recovery funding to develop solid core curricula.

Education funding equity is more important than ever.

The impending economic crisis will exacerbate pre-existing inequities in our society. State budget shortfalls will impact the poorest districts the hardest in most if not all states. Equity in public funding must be considered, at the state-level and within districts themselves, as dollars get further stretched. This means sharp focus on funding at the school level relative to student needs. Since Katrina and the initial performance growth of the system of schools, New Orleans now has increased expectations for student achievement via an ambitious and appropriate accountability system that has been met by a plateau in school performance scores. Additionally, the hurricane-related funding and much of the federal and philanthropic resources that poured into New Orleans have mostly dried up, and schools are forging ahead with the customary per pupil funding which is not adequate relative to the needs of students. In our experience, this serves as a significant point of reflection because what Katrina taught us was that anything is possible in urban settings when adequate resources exist.

Governance and leadership matter now more than ever.

The relationship between school system leadership and board governance matters now more than ever. Communication, alignment, and relationships matter as schools are faced with important and unprecedented decisions. It is critical that there is no daylight between boards and leaders on how schools move forward in this environment. Equally critical is the communication that boards and leaders provide to the communities that are served. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, governance, especially in the charter school sector, was a sidecar to school leadership. Over time, through trials and errors, Orleans Parish schools have grown to better understand and respect the necessity of strong governance.

Kevin Guitterrez is the Governance Director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools and served as the founding Chief Academic Officer of the Algiers Charter School Association. Carrie Stewart is co-founder and CEO of Afton Partners, an education finance consultancy, and served as the founding Chief Operating Officer of the Algiers Charter Schools Association. The Algiers Charter School Association opened 5 public schools on December 14, 2005, to over 1,300 students. The schools welcomed 3,000 more students in the immediate weeks and months that followed.

* Tonn, Jessica. (January 18, 2006). New Orleans Charter Network Gets Underway. Education Week.

Deriving Value from ESSA’s Site-Based Expenditure Reporting

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Resource Equity.

Currently in Illinois, as in most states, public education finances are reported at the local education agency (LEA) / school district level. With the implementation of ESSA, school-level expense reporting will be required. ISBE has created an intentional process to make sure the state and its districts not only meet the requirement but find value in it as well.

Arguably, the most critical component of ISBE’s approach has been the creation of a value proposition for site-based expenditure reporting. An advisory group comprised of key stakeholders has been guiding this work from the onset, and co-created the following shared value proposition:

  • Site-level expenditure reporting provides an excellent opportunity for LEAs to maximize care for the whole child, in a whole and healthy school, nested within a whole and healthy community.
  • With site-level expenditure reporting, how resources are allocated will be more readily accessible and revealing to schools and stakeholders.
  • This reporting should ultimately lead to greater equity and improved outcomes for kids: it empowers LEAs and communities to assess and improve equity in funding between individual schools, and it enables a better understanding of the relationship between student outcomes and financial resources.
  • It will also enable LEAs, schools, and the state to identify evidence-based best practices and opportunities to foster innovation between peers.

ISBE is intentionally encouraging local responsibility and dialogue about resource allocation. Notably, because the advisory group identified the value as primarily for LEAs and communities (and explicitly not for the state agency), decisions forming the plan for site-based expenditure reporting have been made through these lenses.

As we get closer to the reporting timeframe in Fall 2019, ISBE and the advisory group have shifted our focus from developing Guidance (or “rules”) for reporting development to helping prepare districts for both completing the reporting and making meaning of it – thereby making strides in realizing the value proposition. Two key mechanisms are enabling this focus, and both are guided by the value proposition: data visualization and training.

Data visualization is “where the rubber meets the road” for this initiative – where our value proposition comes to life and the data become public, contextualized, and actionable. Our process to create visualizations was intentional, aiming to answer the following questions:

  1. What are the conversations that are aligned with the value proposition that we want to encourage?
  2. What data are necessary to contextualize and inform these conversations?
  3. Among these data possibilities, what should be prioritized for Year 1 Reporting?

ISBE and the advisory group worked through a framework containing a series of exercises to answer these questions. This framework is shown below.

Following this framework allowed ISBE to design draft visualizations grounded in a shared understanding of priorities.

Training is the other critical component enabling LEAs and other local stakeholders to make meaning of site-based expenditure data. ISBE believes district leaders are best positioned to lead their local communities in dialogue about data outcomes and making meaning of the data. While the focus of training can easily default to technical capacity building, our ISBE/Afton team believes that equipping district leaders with the tools necessary to understand what this data is telling them, in order to make informed decisions about future resource planning, is pivotal to the success of this initiative. Consider, for example, the following real data set from an Illinois district (anonymized).

Before this data becomes public through site-based expenditure reporting, ISBE is helping districts prepare to acknowledge the types of questions the data will beg – from themselves, and from other stakeholders. Through thoughtful analysis of site-based expenditure data alongside contextual data on student needs and academic outcomes, the goal is for local leaders to be able to determine if outcomes of resourcing decisions (seen through site-based expenditure data) promote equity and are aligned with their intended strategic priorities. If not, LEAs should be equipped to determine if resourcing decisions should be reevaluated or if strategic priorities should be reevaluated in light of actual data on equity and outcomes. By doing so, we will see meaningful progress toward the value proposition.

For districts considering how to make this new reporting requirement meaningful, regardless of your state’s approach to developing the reporting, Afton recommends the following:

  1. Develop a local value proposition for this data – what does your district and community want to do with the data? For example, evaluate equity, evaluate the relationship between spending and outcomes, or something else?
  2. Facilitate early exploration of your site-based expenditures.
    • What, approximately, has your district been spending by site?
    • Considering contextual data such as student needs and academic outcomes, what can you hypothesize about equity? About the relationship between spending and student outcomes? How can you explore these hypotheses?
    • Are there any intentional changes you may want to make during this year or in anticipation of budgeting for next year?
  3. Suggest Cabinet-level discussions of what the early exploration reveals. Don’t be caught off-guard when data becomes public.
  4. Acknowledge that data, when available, will need to be unpacked and evaluated, and be transparent in the process of doing this.
  5. It may be helpful to form an advisory group of stakeholders to guide this process to ensure community involvement in understanding and making decisions based on the outcomes of this work. At minimum, ensure transparency into the analysis process.

Defining “Principal Autonomy”

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Resource Equity.

For example, a school principal with an innovative instructional delivery idea might earn control over how many of what types of staffing positions their school will operate with (up to a defined cost ceiling) rather than be assigned specific positions by central office. School systems may provide principals with more of these kinds of “autonomies” as levers to improve lower-performing schools, promote innovation, increase hyper-local ownership, and/or for development of strong leaders.

Simply being intentional about assigning specific decision making authorities to school principals and central office can contribute to meeting district-wide and school accountability goals. As noted in the recent publication by Public Impact: “Autonomous District Schools: A New Path to Growing High-Quality, Innovative Public Schools” (full report here), school systems can consider formalizing autonomous relationships with their schools.

Without clear governance agreements, policies, or other formal establishments of decision making authority guidelines, there may be confusion over responsibilities, making it difficult to effectively oversee school improvement strategies. To get to a clarified view of decision making authority in a school system, consider this example below of a school system’s decisions matrix.

Four major decision categories were identified as Academics, Culture, Operations, and Finance and underneath each category, several types of decision areas were identified. For each of these decision types, the school system identified the role of the central office and the role of schools. Two examples of culture-related decisions and the corresponding roles of central office and principals were articulated as follows:

As school systems define their decision making authorities between schools and central office, they strengthen their ability to implement and oversee school improvements. School systems can take it a step further by aligning financial practices and policies to the decision making authorities. For example, if a school system decides to assign responsibility for student recruitment to school principals, the school system could provide them with the spending authority to repurpose funds toward any number of ideas they may have to recruit students. Compensation and procurement policies could also be reviewed to determine how they might further the implementation of these kinds of autonomy decisions.

After all, how can we reasonably expect district-wide and school improvements without giving clear lines of authority and resource allocation rights to those we ask to be responsible for the results?

Afton Provides Recommendations for State Education Agencies on ESSA Financial Transparency Requirement

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Resource Equity.

In February 2018, Afton Partners joined Edunomics Lab, the Building State Capacity and Productivity Center, and the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) who hosted a one-day conference for over 30 State Education Agencies (SEAs).

Afton led a session focused on how state agencies can play a role in fostering the usage of per-pupil financial data at the local level. In our session, members of state education agencies took on various roles within a district (teacher, principal, superintendent, parent, etc.) and reviewed a district’s site-level data from the lens of those roles. They looked at the data with questions in mind such as: “What do these data tell you? What more information do you need to play your role effectively?” The small groups convened as “districts” to discuss their data and then presented their site level data to neighboring districts.

Issues raised within the groups included:

  • Equity. Participants pointed to various reasons why school per pupil data within the district could be driven by student-need factors, while acknowledging potential misunderstandings in the community if the data is not communicated properly.
  • Context. Participants noted that more information is needed alongside the expenditure data to “tell the story.” Context such as student demographic information, teacher salary, and school-level outcomes would help in providing context for per pupil spending data.
  • Improvement & Outcomes. Participants recognized how this kind of site-level data can produce value for resource allocation decisions, smart programmatic decisions, and trade-off decisions – given enough contextual data alongside the data.

As the group stepped back from playing the role of district stakeholder or staff member, we reflected on the role of State Education Agencies in fostering effective use of school site-based expenditure reporting. Our conclusion was that SEAs can do a lot to encourage effective use of this data, including training, issuing reporting guidance, clearly defining roles/responsibilities between state/local, and leading dialogue on the value of the reporting.

Afton sees the bottom component – value proposition – as a critical grounding mechanism from which all other work on this initiative at both the state and local levels build. Having this stated purpose of the reporting moves the reporting beyond simply a compliance requirement. It guides the way the reporting is developed, visualized, and explained, and focuses efforts to use this data as complementary to other school-level data already available. Afton believes ultimately that site-based expenditure reporting promotes:

  • Transparency. Resource allocation will be more readily accessible to schools and stakeholders
  • Equity. Empowers LEAs and communities to assess and improve equity (and possibly define equity for their community)
  • Outcomes. Enables LEAs and communities to gain a better understanding of the relationship between student outcomes and financial resources
  • Best Practices. Enables LEAs, schools, and the state to identify evidence-based best practices and opportunities to foster innovation between peers

For more information on the ESSA financial transparency requirement:

Affording Quality Schools – Remedy 8: Make a Commitment to Long-Term Planning

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

As we’ve outlined throughout this series, Afton identified 8 ways that school districts can mitigate the effects of enrollment decline (and these were highlighted in CRPE’s “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment”):

  1. Uniform intra-district funding formula for district and charter schools
  2. Continued operational efficiencies, with an eye toward making costs more variable
  3. School closures and corresponding real estate transactions
  4. Redistricting / efficient enrollment planning
  5. End “last in first out” methods of reducing staff
  6. End unsustainable/unfunded salary commitments (step/lane/raise)
  7. End proliferation of long-term fixed cost obligations (pension/OPEB)
  8. District commitment to decision-making based on long-term planning

In the final installment of this series, we will highlight remedy 8.

Affording Quality Schools – Remedy 8: Make a Commitment to Long-Term Planning

Districts need to maintain a well-informed long-term plan including detailed projections of enrollment patterns, such that their planning can be adjusted to accommodate student needs. Almost all of Afton’s recommendations for school districts coping with financial challenges from enrollment migration stem from this long-term planning point, and almost all of Afton’s findings for school districts struggling with this issue could have been identified as issues and potentially mitigated through better long-term planning by school districts.

Policies, practices, and infrastructure that drive costs to be fixed or partially fixed take time to adjust – significant changes to contractual commitments, facility footprints and enrollment boundaries, school closures and openings, size and type of central and shared services to be provided, and capital/debt plans take time to develop and execute. But most districts are operating without a long-term plan for serving students that encompasses enrollment migration and the impact of potential charter school authorizations. As evidenced, most of the inefficient money is caught up in organizational policies and facility structures, which could be adjusted given enough time, making seemingly fixed costs more variable with enrollment decline.

Any capital bond program being contemplated by a District should be carefully balanced with the reality that many school buildings may not be needed in the future. One risk with this kind of financing planning is that Districts will incur long-term debt to make significant upgrades to buildings that may need to be closed or reconfigured in the next decade. Comprehensive long-term planning with an eye toward enrollment patterns can lead to better capital planning decisions.

And, while Districts typically have a small amount of perfectly fixed costs, they are still relevant in that the District must pay them no matter how many students it serves, and therefore the long-term planning of the District must ensure there is funding set aside to pay for these obligations. And sometimes there are off-balance-sheet obligations such as OPEB which further increase fixed cost obligations and must be considered as commitments that need funding during long-term planning.

Districts tend to focus on the annual budget and not the long-term enrollment and school-type mix forecasts. Districts need to consider the implications of potential enrollment shifts as they plan their organizational structure, building operations, capital investments, and financing plans.

Affording Quality Schools – Remedies 5, 6, and 7: Curb Agreements That Inflate Costs As Enrollment Declines

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

As we outlined earlier in this blog series, Afton identified 8 ways that school districts can mitigate the effects of enrollment decline (and these were highlighted in CRPE’s “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment”):

  1. Uniform intra-district funding formula for district and charter schools
  2. Continued operational efficiencies, with an eye toward making costs more variable
  3. School closures and corresponding real estate transactions
  4. Redistricting / efficient enrollment planning
  5. End “last in first out” methods of reducing staff
  6. End unsustainable/unfunded salary commitments (step/lane/raise)
  7. End proliferation of long-term fixed cost obligations (pension/OPEB)
  8. District commitment to decision-making based on long-term planning
    In this part of our series, we will highlight remedies 5, 6, and 7.

Affording Quality Schools – Remedies 5, 6, and 7: Curb Policies That Inflate Costs as Enrollment Declines

Most districts have long-standing contractual agreements and debt agreements that inhibit a school district’s ability to make changes to operations. Making changes to those agreements and avoiding common pitfalls are critical elements to weathering the financial impact of enrollment decline, as highlighted below.

(5) End “last in, first out” methods of reducing staff. Most districts have collective bargaining agreements that require the most junior staff to be laid off. The resulting impact is an increase in average teacher salary, at a time when a district is trying to reduce costs in proportion to enrollment decline.

(6) End unsustainable/unfunded salary commitments (step/lane/raise). Another commitment that school districts often make is guaranteed salary increases in the form of the typical step/lane/raise teacher salary scale. These salary increases can only be afforded if funding increases proportionally either through economic growth or enrollment growth. Basically, growth can often mask the fact that a district made future commitments that far exceed funding that current and future levels of student enrollment will produce.

(7) End proliferation of long-term fixed cost obligations (pension/OPEB). Even if school districts reduce their staffing levels in proportion to enrollment decline, they are often left with future obligations to past employees. These obligations grow exponentially on a per-pupil basis and in proportion to a district’s overall budget in the wake of enrollment decline. To protect a district’s commitments to the students of today and tomorrow, commitments to support employees with pension and health care far beyond their service time at a school district need to be carefully weighed and front-funded.

Affording Quality Schools – Remedies 3 and 4: Infrastructure Changes and Redistricting

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

As we outlined earlier in this blog series, Afton identified 8 ways that school districts can mitigate the effects of enrollment decline (and these were highlighted in CRPE’s “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment”):

  1. Uniform intra-district funding formula for district and charter schools
  2. Continued operational efficiencies, with an eye toward making costs more variable
  3. School closures and corresponding real estate transactions
  4. Redistricting / efficient enrollment planning
  5. End “last in first out” methods of reducing staff
  6. End unsustainable/unfunded salary commitments (step/lane/raise)
  7. End proliferation of long-term fixed cost obligations (pension/OPEB)
  8. District commitment to decision-making based on long-term planning
  9. In this part of our series, we will highlight remedies 3 and 4.

Affording Quality Schools – Remedies 3 and 4: Infrastructure Changes and Redistricting

School districts must plan and implement reductions in school infrastructure, staffing and operations to be fiscally responsible as new charter schools are authorized and enrollment is stagnant or declining.

3) School closures. School closures, if done effectively, are among the most financially beneficial actions to take; however, they are also the most complex and controversial given the value of schools in their communities, the turmoil they cause to staff, and the potential negative impact on students when hastily executed.

Yet, keeping under-enrolled schools open creates costs in instructional quality. School-level costs are primarily semi-variable, and often act fixed when enrollment decline happens unevenly across schools and within grade levels. These kinds of “hard to unfix” semi-variable costs include principals, assistant principals, instructional coaches, clerks, and custodians. Every school that is open needs at least one of this or that, and therefore the failure to close schools as enrollment declines drives up per-pupil spending requirements.

To the extent that turnaround schools (a charter operator takes over an existing school) are a compelling instructional option in a neighborhood, they carry with them a financial advantage to the school district in comparison to the authorization of traditional charter schools and corresponding school closure. This option mitigates the financial impairment created by uneven enrollment migration across many grades of many schools because the district is losing students from only one school. As a result, the district eliminates that school’s full cost of instructional staffing, school administration, and other services and goods associated with educating those students. It is also able to eliminate many facility costs such as utilities, janitorial, and repair services.

(4) Enrollment boundaries and redistricting. The financial impact of school closures is greatly enhanced by informed district-wide planning on enrollment. Redistricting and enrollment boundary planning in anticipation of enrollment pattern changes, coupled with school closures, will lead to improved efficiency and therefore better use of dollars in schools.

How Districts Can Afford High Quality Schools Despite Enrollment Decline: Defining The Problem

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

In 2017, The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) convened practitioners, funders, and researchers from across the country to contemplate the challenges that school districts face when in a period of enrollment decline, specifically when that enrollment decline is influenced by the growth of charter schools. Out of that convening and various research done by CRPE, Dr. Marguerite Roza at Edunomics Lab, Afton Partners, and others, CRPE released Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment.

Afton has completed many analyses with school districts of all sizes across the country related to the fiscal complications associated with enrollment decline, and in some cases, the decline was specifically attributable to students migrating from district-run schools to charter schools. Through our work, we have sought to answer the questions:

  • Why does the perception that “charters financially hurt districts” exist?
  • Is this issue just perceived, or is this reality?
  • If it is real, why, and what can be done at the local level to ensure (a) students in district-run schools do not end up under-resourced, and (b) quality public schools of all kinds can be supported going forward?

Our experience led us to define four major reasons that school districts with stagnant or declining enrollment could be financially impaired by opening and growing new charter schools.

  1. Inequitable Funding. School funding formulas used by some states and districts do not allocate resources equitably between charter school students and district-run school students, sometimes leaving district-run school students with less than equitable funding.
  2. Lack of District Cost Flexibility. Most school districts lack the flexibility and ability to reduce their cost structure when facing significant enrollment fluctuations; some of this stems from fixed-cost structures and legacy matters that are not possible or easy to unwind, and some of this stems from institutionalized policies and practices that districts need to change.
  3. Inability to Take Difficult Actions. Some school districts and stakeholders lack the willingness to take significant action necessary, such as school closures, to adjust to significant enrollment fluctuations.
  4. Lack of Understanding in the Charter Sector. Sometimes, charter operators have a difficult time understanding the challenges that enrollment migration presents to school districts, and are therefore hesitant to negotiate terms that would be beneficial to all students, district and charter.

THE PROBLEM: MANY PARTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT COST STRUCTURES ARE HARD TO UNFIX

As part of work Afton conducted in a large urban school district with declining enrollment partially attributed to the increase in charter schools, we answered the question – is the district allocating more or less dollars for instructional spend than a decade ago? What we found was – yes, the district’s proportional spend on school-level expenses decreased from 58% in FY07 to 50% of the budget in FY14 while enrollment declined 27% during the same period.

We found that the fixed nature of district costs was a big driver of the district’s budget shifting away from instruction during the enrollment decline. A larger portion of this district’s budget went to “non K-12 commitments”, including pension obligations, debt service, and outplacement costs. The district has managed to shrink its staff along with enrollment: staffing decreased by 31% — including a 27% reduction in teachers, 37% in the central office, and 33% in all other positions. However, schools have not been closed at the same rate as enrollment has been lost, meaning there are dollars tied up in administrative staffing positions and operational staff (including maintenance, janitorial, security, etc.). School count decreased by 18% while enrollment decreased by 27%. Additionally, most buildings remained owned/operated by the district, with total buildings (including school buildings, offices, and vacant buildings) decreasing by only 6% – and these extra buildings need to be maintained. Finally, contractual costs for teacher salaries increased by 21% and the pension rate increased by 262% over this period.

This district’s situation highlights how difficult it is to cope with enrollment loss and maintain quality instructional programming and supports. Consider that in addition to the fixed cost challenges, the school district faces challenges with how to efficiently spend dollars left for instruction. Most salaries are contractual and will increase in average cost no matter the funding available, reducing the district’s buying power for teachers. Also, migration of enrollment to charter schools is uneven from grades and schools at the district, leading to inefficient class sizes, further draining resources in non-optimal ways. All of this contributes to a feeling in schools of ‘lack of resources’, as proportional district spending at the school level shrinks and buying power for services and supports gets squeezed.

In the Appendix to CRPE’s “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment”, Afton shows how and why it is difficult for districts to unwind their fixed costs.

Afton’s work has shown that very few costs in a school district are truly fixed; yet many behave as fixed costs due to district decision-making (for example, contracts, teacher and other staff allocation policies, and facility footprint decisions). By understanding the root causes of fixed or partially fixed costs, districts may be better able to address them. The rest of this blog series will focus on actions school districts can consider to mitigate the challenges.

An orange school locker in between a black and gray locker

How Districts Can Afford High Quality Schools, Despite Enrollment Decline: Defining the Problem

Written by hbutler@aftonpartners.com on . Posted in Effective Governance, Financial Sustainability.

In 2017, The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) convened practitioners, funders, and researchers from across the country to contemplate the challenges that school districts face when in a period of enrollment decline, specifically when that enrollment decline is influenced by the growth of charter schools. Out of that convening and various research done by CRPE, Dr. Marguerite Roza at Edunomics Lab, Afton Partners, and others, CRPE released Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment.

Afton has completed many analyses with school districts of all sizes across the country related to the fiscal complications associated with enrollment decline, and in some cases, the decline was specifically attributable to students migrating from district-run schools to charter schools. Through our work, we have sought to answer the questions:

  • Why does the perception that “charters financially hurt districts” exist?
  • Is this issue just perceived, or is this reality?
  • If it is real, why, and what can be done at the local level to ensure (a) students in district-run schools do not end up under-resourced, and (b) quality public schools of all kinds can be supported going forward?

Our experience led us to define four major reasons that school districts with stagnant or declining enrollment could be financially impaired by opening and growing new charter schools.

  1. Inequitable Funding. School funding formulas used by some states and districts do not allocate resources equitably between charter school students and district-run school students, sometimes leaving district-run school students with less than equitable funding.
  2. Lack of District Cost Flexibility. Most school districts lack the flexibility and ability to reduce their cost structure when facing significant enrollment fluctuations; some of this stems from fixed-cost structures and legacy matters that are not possible or easy to unwind, and some of this stems from institutionalized policies and practices that districts need to change.
  3. Inability to Take Difficult Actions. Some school districts and stakeholders lack the willingness to take significant action necessary, such as school closures, to adjust to significant enrollment fluctuations.
  4. Lack of Understanding in the Charter Sector. Sometimes, charter operators have a difficult time understanding the challenges that enrollment migration presents to school districts, and are therefore hesitant to negotiate terms that would be beneficial to all students, district and charter.

THE PROBLEM:  MANY PARTS OF SCHOOL DISTRICT COST STRUCTURES ARE HARD TO UNFIX

As part of work Afton conducted in a large urban school district with declining enrollment partially attributed to the increase in charter schools, we answered the question – is the district allocating more or less dollars for instructional spend than a decade ago? What we found was – yes, the district’s proportional spend on school-level expenses decreased from 58% in FY07 to 50% of the budget in FY14 while enrollment declined 27% during the same period.

We found that the fixed nature of district costs was a big driver of the district’s budget shifting away from instruction during the enrollment decline.  A larger portion of this district’s budget went to “non K-12 commitments”, including pension obligations, debt service, and outplacement costs. The district has managed to shrink its staff along with enrollment: staffing decreased by 31% — including a 27% reduction in teachers, 37% in the central office, and 33% in all other positions. However, schools have not been closed at the same rate as enrollment has been lost, meaning there are dollars tied up in administrative staffing positions and operational staff (including maintenance, janitorial, security, etc.). School count decreased by 18% while enrollment decreased by 27%. Additionally, most buildings remained owned/operated by the district, with total buildings (including school buildings, offices, and vacant buildings) decreasing by only 6% – and these extra buildings need to be maintained. Finally, contractual costs for teacher salaries increased by 21% and the pension rate increased by 262% over this period.

This district’s situation highlights how difficult it is to cope with enrollment loss and maintain quality instructional programming and supports. Consider that in addition to the fixed cost challenges, the school district faces challenges with how to efficiently spend dollars left for instruction. Most salaries are contractual and will increase in average cost no matter the funding available, reducing the district’s buying power for teachers.  Also, migration of enrollment to charter schools is uneven from grades and schools at the district, leading to inefficient class sizes, further draining resources in non-optimal ways. All of this contributes to a feeling in schools of ‘lack of resources’, as proportional district spending at the school level shrinks and buying power for services and supports gets squeezed.

In the Appendix to CRPE’s “Better Together: Ensuring Quality District Schools in Times of Charter Growth and Declining Enrollment”, Afton shows how and why it is difficult for districts to unwind their fixed costs.

Afton’s work has shown that very few costs in a school district are truly fixed; yet many behave as fixed costs due to district decision-making (for example, contracts, teacher and other staff allocation policies, and facility footprint decisions). By understanding the root causes of fixed or partially fixed costs, districts may be better able to address them. The rest of this blog series will focus on actions school districts can consider to mitigate the challenges.

Afton Leads Discussion on New ESSA Financial Transparency Requirements

Written by Afton Group on . Posted in Effective Governance, Resource Equity.

Although the US Department of Education has delayed the effective date of ESSA regulations until at least March 21st, States continue to release their draft ESSA plans. Though the federal regulatory framework is in flux, as evidenced by Afton’s session with several SEAs and LEAs, many leading states and Districts continue to support increased transparency and accountability, though identified challenges to address along the way.

The workshop

Afton Partners joined Edunomics Lab, the Building State Capacity and Productivity Center, and the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) who hosted a one day workshop for more than 100 State Education Agency (SEA) and Local Education Agency (LEA) representatives from nearly 45 different locations, who are leading the effort to ensure their schools are ready to implement and are in compliance to meet the proposed financial transparency reporting requirement in ESSA.

Afton led a session focused on LEA implications, challenges and opportunities stemming from the financial transparency requirements. The leaders from each District identified specific areas of concern or optimism in each of three categories – technical implementation, communications and engagement, and overall impact and outcomes of this reporting.

Technical Implementation

Overall, the area of greatest concern was on technical implementation of the reporting requirement, with general optimism regarding the potential outcomes of this work. The technical challenges ranged from developing, implementing and adhering to a unified expense coding methodology to the potential need for additional capacity to implement. Other concerns included how rural districts would be supported, and potential systems implications.

Communications

The group identified both a set of challenges and opportunities. LEAs saw the benefits of transparency, including opportunities to improve trust and provide a deeper understanding of how districts operate (and the constraints they operate under), but also expressed concern about potential misunderstandings if data is not communicated properly. Overall, the opportunity to engage and communicate with District stakeholders using meaningful, relevant and timely data was viewed positively, with a caveat that planning for the communications effort should start well before the analysis and reporting has been completed.

Outcomes

Impact on outcomes – both academic and financial – was an area of optimism from nearly everyone in the session. The group recognized how this kind of site-level data can produce value for resource allocation decisions, smart programmatic decisions and trade-off decisions.

As the conversation progressed, each district team shared their concerns and how states could help address their most immediate issues. There were a few districts, including those in Rhode Island and Indiana, who have begun to implement site-level reporting and their insights enriched the conversation for others in the planning process. Representatives from Rhode Island shared their experience transitioning to site-level reporting took five years from inception to implementation. It’s important for states and districts to recognize it will take time for a successful shift to meet the new financial transparency reporting requirement under ESSA.

For more information and our site-level per-pupil expenditure analysis, you can view Afton’s presentation “ESSA Financial Transparency: View from the LEA.”