Sam Sperry, Center on Reinventing Public Education July 2010 This working paper by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) discusses the diverse needs of three “portfolio” school districts – Denver, New York, and New Orleans – when it comes to communications and marketing practices.
Sam Sperry, Center on Reinventing Public Education
July 2010
This working paper by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) discusses the diverse needs of three “portfolio” school districts – Denver, New York, and New Orleans – when it comes to communications and marketing practices.
Portfolio districts – which manage a “portfolio” of various types of schools, give school leaders great operational freedom over their schools, and hold schools accountable for academic performance – face marketing needs that are unique to each district’s context. The paper draws on interview data from communications personnel in the three districts and comes up with techniques to improve marketing and communications for other districts considering a portfolio approach, such as:
Just as the management of schools in portfolio districts is less rigid, so are the strategies discussed in this paper, which in some places reads more like personal advice from a friend than a policy paper. But the importance of this topic should not be overlooked, as portfolio districts often face complex and controversial reform issues and must demonstrate their success in ways that traditional districts don’t have to.
Portfolio districts oversee a diverse mix of schools – most of which are more autonomous than traditional district schools – and are defined by a sense of urgency to lift achievement and ensure that all schools continually improve (or get phased out). This complexity requires more than just basic communication strategies. This paper might be useful for anyone interested in portfolio districts or even other alternative (and high-stakes) schooling environments such as school turnarounds. Read it here.
Heather Zavadsky, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
July 2010
In this AEI policy paper Heather Zavadsky highlights five urban districts (also showcased in her book, Bringing School Reform to Scale) that are models of systemic, district-wide reforms. All five have won the Broad Prize for Urban Education for their ability to implement reform across the entire district, not just among failing schools.
They are: Aldine Independent School District in Texas; Boston Public Schools in Massachusetts; Garden Grove Unified School District in Los Angeles; Long Beach Unified School District in California; and Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia. While all these schools operate within varying policy, organizational, and community contexts, they faced similar challenges in lifting student achievement.
All five serve large percentages of minority populations, low-income students, English language learners. So how did these large urban districts serving some of the highest “at-risk” student populations succeed in outperforming their home states on multiple assessments? Zavadskly highlights key components of their success.
Aldine Independent School District and Long Beach Unified School District attribute their high performance to aligning curriculum vertically among all grades (pre-kindergarten through 12) and horizontally across all schools within the district. This change ensured their highly mobile student body would be taught the same curriculum at any school they attended (an important lesson for districts like Dayton that experience high levels of student mobility). Boston Public Schools redefined key leaders’ roles, reconstructed its HR department, and increased its use of data, creating clear goals and expectations for staff, students, and parents. Norfolk Public Schools also found success district wide by redesigning district curriculum (such as by reducing 24 reading programs down to one) and implementing a classroom-based professional development program to improve teachers’ capacity to deliver the instructional program.
The experience of these five districts proves that education reform can be scaled to the district level, although there’s no doubt that such reforms are difficult to replicate elsewhere. Still, the report offers multiple ideas for Ohio districts seeking wholesale reform. To read more about the experience of these award-winning districts read the entire article here.
Annie E. Casey Foundation
July 2010
The Annie E. Casey Foundation recently released its annual Kids Count Data Book, an analysis of various indicators related to child/youth wellbeing, such as infant mortality rates, teen birth rates, and the number of teens not enrolled in high school.
Unemployment is on the rise (10.5 percent in Ohio) and states are facing budget cuts resulting in less money for things such as healthcare and education (for the Buckeye State, the deficit will be $8 billion). Given that the data for this report come from the year 2007, before the economic meltdown occurred, current statistics related to child wellbeing are probably even more dire.
After collecting data for ten key indicators and coming up with a raw composite score, the report ranks Ohio 29th in terms of overall child well being, down one spot from 2009. The findings have several implications for the state of Ohio as a whole, and for the education of our children.
Take teen birth rate for example, which is calculated by looking at births per 1,000 females ages 15–19. The national average is 43; Ohio comes in just below that at 41 births per 1,000. Significant numbers of teen births have a tangible impact on K-12 education as babies born to teen mothers are often born into homes with fewer resources to spend on education, and because teen mothers often may not attend college or even finish high school. Consequently, children may come to school behind their peers and face educational challenges, which in turn present challenges to schools and teachers.
Another telling statistic outlined by Kids Count is the number of teens not in high school and “not a high school graduate.” Ohio has 5 percent of teens not in high school and not a high school graduate. Even though Ohio fares better than many states in this category (40 other states have higher percentages of teens not in school), it’s imperative that our young people obtain the necessary skills to be gainfully employed. Graduating from high school is absolutely crucial to go on to achieve post- secondary education and to contribute to our state’s economy.
Another stark figure is the percentage of children living in poverty: In Ohio 19 percent of children live in poverty, compared to the national average of 18 percent. Children who grow up in poverty will be more prone to undesirable outcomes in school, and economic instability later on in life.
The future success of our nation depends on how well our children are provided for and the ability they have to flourish. These numbers illustrate there is still a great deal of room for improvement when it comes to the wellbeing of our children in Ohio and nationally.
To check out the complete report and see how your state stacks up click here.
Ohio’s faces an unprecedented $8 billion budget deficit next year. With 40 percent of state revenue invested in K-12 education, Ohio’s public schools will surely have to endure a fair share of the cuts. To his credit, Governor Strickland has taken action, asking the Cincinnati-based KnowledgeWorks Foundation to investigate options for cost-savings and efficiencies in education. One area that should be examined closely is student-teacher ratios, as upward of two-thirds of district spending goes toward staff salaries and benefits.
Current state law calls for ratios no larger than 25 students per teacher (though the governor’s education reform plan, passed into law last summer, aims to lower the ratio in kindergarten through third grade to 15:1 over the next several years). In practice, however, average student-teacher ratios don’t fall anywhere close to the state maximum. Just a handful of Ohio districts have a ratio higher than 25:1 and more than half have ratios below 18:1.
My colleagues and I analyzed average student-teacher ratio, enrollment, and teacher salary data for local school districts that the state education department makes publicly available. We wanted to know what the financial impact of increasing student-teacher ratios might be – especially if ratios were increased by just a few students. How much money could really be saved? Would the state and local school districts see a sizeable difference in their bottom line?
Here is what we found:
This is a simple analysis to be sure. Many factors impact student-teacher ratios and aren’t fully accounted for here, from districts classifying administrative staff as teachers for reporting purposes to the increasing number of intervention specialists needed to serve students with special needs to the requirement that Title I elementary schools maintain very small class sizes.
But it can’t be denied that making a small increase in the number of students that teachers serve could give the state, and local districts, real fiscal relief. When you consider the fringe benefits, professional development needs, and retirement costs that go along with each teacher, the potential savings would be even greater. Further, these are savings that could be realized almost immediately, as opposed to other suggestions that will take time to phase in, like the increased use of technology to provide instruction.
At the district level, the savings become even starker. Take Bexley, a suburban Columbus district which is asking voters for an additional $3 million per year on November 2. Bexley’s reported student-teacher ratio, for the most recent year data are available, is just over 16:1. Increasing it to 20:1 would realize up to $1.8 million per year in savings in teacher salaries alone. Boosting it to 22:1 would save $2.4 million – just $600,000 shy of what voters are being asked to support.
The situation is similar in Oakwood, a district outside Dayton which is asking voters for an additional $1.8 million per year. Oakwood’s average student-teacher ratio is just under 16:1. Increasing it to 18:1 would realize about $996,000 per year in savings in teacher salaries alone. Boosting it to 20:1 would save $1.7 million annually – $100,000 shy of the levy request.
There are surely similar examples across the state – districts that are essentially sitting, perhaps unknowingly, on a pot of money that could ameliorate their fiscal pain with little to no actual impact on student learning.
Advocates of smaller class sizes won’t be happy with any recommendation to put more kids in a classroom. But research shows that good teachers can be just as effective with 21 or 23 students as they can with 15 or 18, especially in grades four and up.
There are obviously clear losers in this scenario. Increasing student-teacher ratios means fewer teaching jobs. But when the state is facing a mammoth budget deficit and is trimming off tiny expenditures at every corner, we have to consider all opportunities for larger potential savings.
This article originally appeared in the Columbus Dispatch.
Earlier this year the Brookings Institution and the Greater Ohio Policy Center garnered attention from both gubernatorial candidates for their suggestion in the Restoring Prosperity report that smaller Ohio school districts consolidate. Despite typically having negative connotations, consolidation came across as a pragmatic rather than ominous idea. That’s because, according to Brookings, Ohio spends 49 percent more on district administration than the national average. It ranks 47th in the level of spending that makes it into K-12 classroom, but ninth in terms of money spent on administration.
A few districts have experimented with consolidating administrative positions. Two Bexley schools – the district’s middle and high school – will have just one principal next year (with assistant principals at each school), a move that will save $100,000. And several years ago, Rittman Exempted Village School District and Orville City School District (in Wayne County) merged their top administrative staffs to realize $270,000 in annual savings. A previous Ohio Gadfly analysis estimated that if school districts with fewer than 1,700 pupils consolidated a few administrative roles it could result in up to $40 million in savings. These numbers are important when one consider that of Ohio’s current 613 districts, half serve fewer than 1,300 students – the size of many high schools.
But can Ohio districts really thin out their central offices, or is there a critical mass of administrative staff toward which most Ohio districts converge out of necessity? How many administrators do districts actually employ, and how much do they spend on them? And do these patterns vary according to district size? We examined student-administrator* ratios and the amount spent on administrators as a percent of total expenditures in all Ohio districts for which the data were available, and broke down the data to see if patterns emerge according to district size. Here’s what we found.
The average student-administrator ratio is 150.2, with the most top-heavy district (Bettsville Local) at 37.4 students per administrator and the leanest (New Albany-Plain Local) at 308.6.
Graph I: Average student-admin ratios in Ohio districts, by size (2008)
Source: FY 2009 Cupp Report, Ohio Department of Education.
As graph I illustrates, the workload for each administrator (as measured by student-administrator ratio) grows with district size up until the largest category of districts with 15,000 or more students (of which Ohio has very few, actually). The smallest districts, those with less than 1,000 students, have nearly 100 fewer pupils per administrator than the leanest districts.
That the largest districts experience a drop in average student-administrator ratio actually makes sense. Large districts – especially urban ones - experience unique management challenges, more complicated and overlapping funding, and a level of performance data tracking that probably justifies extra staff support.
The same findings hold true when comparing spending patterns on administrators, which ranked from 7.3 percent in the leanest district and 21.9 percent at the high end. When broken down by size, we observed a similar pattern-- the larger the district, the more “lean” – up until a point. (View this graph on Flypaper.)
It’s worth noting that the size of district administrative staffs may in fact be higher than reported by this analysis, as it’s commonly purported that districts and schools “hide” administrators in teaching positions instead of reporting them appropriately.
It’s also worth pointing out that while $40 million in savings is significant, true savings potential from staffing reductions – the likes of which will address Ohio’s impending $6 to $8 billion deficit – will only be realized by curbing the number of teachers. (See piece above.)
Unfortunately, increasing student-teacher ratios is not the most politically palatable idea, and Ohio leaders are more likely to gravitate toward a piecemeal approach to savings. Consolidating administrative positions – especially within and across Ohio’s smallest districts—represents one cost savings opportunity that won’t wreak havoc on student performance and could garner bipartisan support.
* Note: “Administrator” is defined broadly in this data and differs from the definition in Restoring Prosperity. This definition is based on state-defined classifications that include: 100-Official/Administrative; 101-Administratoristrative Assistant; 102-Assistant, Deputy/Associate Superintendent; 104-Assistant Principal; 107-Ombudsman; 108-Principal; 109-Superintendent; 110-Supervising/managing/directing assignment; 111-Tax assessing/collecting assignment; 112-Treasurer; 113-Coordinator; 114-Education Administrative Specialist; 115-Director; 116-Community school administrator; 199-Other official/administrative.
Sam Sperry, Center on Reinventing Public Education
July 2010
This working paper by the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) discusses the diverse needs of three “portfolio” school districts – Denver, New York, and New Orleans – when it comes to communications and marketing practices.
Portfolio districts – which manage a “portfolio” of various types of schools, give school leaders great operational freedom over their schools, and hold schools accountable for academic performance – face marketing needs that are unique to each district’s context. The paper draws on interview data from communications personnel in the three districts and comes up with techniques to improve marketing and communications for other districts considering a portfolio approach, such as:
Just as the management of schools in portfolio districts is less rigid, so are the strategies discussed in this paper, which in some places reads more like personal advice from a friend than a policy paper. But the importance of this topic should not be overlooked, as portfolio districts often face complex and controversial reform issues and must demonstrate their success in ways that traditional districts don’t have to.
Portfolio districts oversee a diverse mix of schools – most of which are more autonomous than traditional district schools – and are defined by a sense of urgency to lift achievement and ensure that all schools continually improve (or get phased out). This complexity requires more than just basic communication strategies. This paper might be useful for anyone interested in portfolio districts or even other alternative (and high-stakes) schooling environments such as school turnarounds. Read it here.
Heather Zavadsky, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
July 2010
In this AEI policy paper Heather Zavadsky highlights five urban districts (also showcased in her book, Bringing School Reform to Scale) that are models of systemic, district-wide reforms. All five have won the Broad Prize for Urban Education for their ability to implement reform across the entire district, not just among failing schools.
They are: Aldine Independent School District in Texas; Boston Public Schools in Massachusetts; Garden Grove Unified School District in Los Angeles; Long Beach Unified School District in California; and Norfolk Public Schools in Virginia. While all these schools operate within varying policy, organizational, and community contexts, they faced similar challenges in lifting student achievement.
All five serve large percentages of minority populations, low-income students, English language learners. So how did these large urban districts serving some of the highest “at-risk” student populations succeed in outperforming their home states on multiple assessments? Zavadskly highlights key components of their success.
Aldine Independent School District and Long Beach Unified School District attribute their high performance to aligning curriculum vertically among all grades (pre-kindergarten through 12) and horizontally across all schools within the district. This change ensured their highly mobile student body would be taught the same curriculum at any school they attended (an important lesson for districts like Dayton that experience high levels of student mobility). Boston Public Schools redefined key leaders’ roles, reconstructed its HR department, and increased its use of data, creating clear goals and expectations for staff, students, and parents. Norfolk Public Schools also found success district wide by redesigning district curriculum (such as by reducing 24 reading programs down to one) and implementing a classroom-based professional development program to improve teachers’ capacity to deliver the instructional program.
The experience of these five districts proves that education reform can be scaled to the district level, although there’s no doubt that such reforms are difficult to replicate elsewhere. Still, the report offers multiple ideas for Ohio districts seeking wholesale reform. To read more about the experience of these award-winning districts read the entire article here.
Annie E. Casey Foundation
July 2010
The Annie E. Casey Foundation recently released its annual Kids Count Data Book, an analysis of various indicators related to child/youth wellbeing, such as infant mortality rates, teen birth rates, and the number of teens not enrolled in high school.
Unemployment is on the rise (10.5 percent in Ohio) and states are facing budget cuts resulting in less money for things such as healthcare and education (for the Buckeye State, the deficit will be $8 billion). Given that the data for this report come from the year 2007, before the economic meltdown occurred, current statistics related to child wellbeing are probably even more dire.
After collecting data for ten key indicators and coming up with a raw composite score, the report ranks Ohio 29th in terms of overall child well being, down one spot from 2009. The findings have several implications for the state of Ohio as a whole, and for the education of our children.
Take teen birth rate for example, which is calculated by looking at births per 1,000 females ages 15–19. The national average is 43; Ohio comes in just below that at 41 births per 1,000. Significant numbers of teen births have a tangible impact on K-12 education as babies born to teen mothers are often born into homes with fewer resources to spend on education, and because teen mothers often may not attend college or even finish high school. Consequently, children may come to school behind their peers and face educational challenges, which in turn present challenges to schools and teachers.
Another telling statistic outlined by Kids Count is the number of teens not in high school and “not a high school graduate.” Ohio has 5 percent of teens not in high school and not a high school graduate. Even though Ohio fares better than many states in this category (40 other states have higher percentages of teens not in school), it’s imperative that our young people obtain the necessary skills to be gainfully employed. Graduating from high school is absolutely crucial to go on to achieve post- secondary education and to contribute to our state’s economy.
Another stark figure is the percentage of children living in poverty: In Ohio 19 percent of children live in poverty, compared to the national average of 18 percent. Children who grow up in poverty will be more prone to undesirable outcomes in school, and economic instability later on in life.
The future success of our nation depends on how well our children are provided for and the ability they have to flourish. These numbers illustrate there is still a great deal of room for improvement when it comes to the wellbeing of our children in Ohio and nationally.
To check out the complete report and see how your state stacks up click here.
