steering committee working draft
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
1/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 1
This report was done as part of an 8-week review at the request of theMayor’s office in collaboration with the district. Findings are preliminaryand indicate potential options for leadership consideration
INTRODUCTION
What this work IS NOTWhat this work IS
! These are not recommendations
– Further analysis is required toidentify specific opportunities andto implement
–
Public conversations abouttradeoffs required for manyoptions
–
Strategic process to weigh costsand benefits of options would be
needed to transform to
recommendations! Exact analysis to predict how much
money the district will save
! Exploration of potential options toimprove student achievement, lowerdistrict costs and drive operationalefficiency
!
Estimates of ranges of savings toidentify magnitude of savings fromvarious options
! Collaborative idea generation anddiscussion with district to bringinsights to light
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
2/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 2
The core focus of this review is on student outcomes inpursuing improved operational effectiveness and reduced costs, all whileengaging and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders
Multiple considerations are essential
Costeffective-
nessStudent
outcomes
Operationaleffective-
ness
Stakeholderengagement
Opportunities for BPS have been prioritizedwhile keeping all of these factors in mind
! Ultimately, improved student outcomes is thegoal of any effort to reduce cost and inefficiencyand reallocate those funds where they can domore for students
! Beyond students, considering the impact onteachers, parents, and other stakeholders is
critical to identifying the most beneficial andfeasible improvements
INTRODUCTION
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
3/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 3
Glossary of termsINTRODUCTION
Term Definition
English Language Learner (ELL) Students whose native tongue is not English and have not achieved fluencyin English appropriate with their grade level
Students with Disabilities (SWD) Students who have been formally evaluated by BPS and have been found tohave a disability that requires additional resources to meet the student need,beyond a traditional general education setting
Inclusion Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the generaleducation and special education populations and is research proven to be abetter approach to special education for the entire student population
Individualized Education Plan (IEP) When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP isdesigned by the school team to meet that student’s needs
Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy(OTPT)
OT is individualized support for students to help them acquire basic skills fordaily living (e.g., self-grooming, self-feeding, self-dressing); PT isindividualized support for developing motor skills (e.g., walking, jumping,lifting)
Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) FNS is the department responsible for delivering food to all BPS students
Office of Instructional and InformationTechnology (OIIT)
OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technologicalservices and hardware to the employees and the students of the district
Pull-out vs. push-in Current special education practices in BPS require the “pulling out” ofstudents from general education settings to receive additional resources; a“push in” method leaves the student in the general education classroom,while ensuring that the resources meet her/him where they are
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
4/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 4
Contents
! Executive summary
! System overview
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
!
Phase II: Area deep dives
! Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
5/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 5
Executive summaryEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
! BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics muchdifferent from the city of Boston and SWD and ELL populations that outpace
state and national averages! While BPS pushes 55% of its funds to the schools, BPS has a significant
number of underutilized buildings and classrooms, spreading funds thinacross the system and lessening the impact of resources on a per pupil basis
! To concentrate resources more effectively for students, BPS can right-size thedistrict to reflect current and projected BPS enrollment
! Over a quarter of the BPS budget goes towards Special Education, meaning thatsmall changes in student classification can translate to large BPS savingsand better learning environments for students. A move towards inclusion,currently underway, has a 12-year horizon that – if executed well – will improve
special education student outcomes and lead to substantial cost savings
!
As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addressesoverextension issues, the BPS central office will have an opportunity toaddress some of the misaligned parts of the organization, driving performanceand capturing operational efficiencies in other areas like transportation, foodservices and maintenance
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
6/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 6
Overview of BPS opportunitiesCapturable, but time-sensitive
Capturable
Activity
Right-sizethe BPS
Footprint
! Consolidate ~30-50 schools$1.7m savings per school
!
Sell 30-50 closed school buildingsestimated value $4.1m per school
$50-85M /yr
$120-205M one-time
Specialeducation
! Phase in of inclusion $63M /yr after full phase-in(currently FY26)
Transport!
Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,from current 0.16 mile
$6-19M /yr
Savings opportunity FY16
One-timeFY17 FY18
$1-3M /yr
! External paraprofessionals $9-11M /yr
! External related service providers $8-10M /yr
FoodServices
! Target meal participation to improverevenues
$5M /yr
! Centralize food preparation
$1-3M /yr
Main-tenance
!
Contract out for the 137 nightcustodian work
$1-3M /yr
!
Contract out all maintenance to singlecontractor
! Immediate opportunities to save ~$20-40m in FY16 if intense focus and execution placed on activities
! With bold decisions and focus, annual savings could total ~$200M /yr, and additional $120-200m one-time benefit
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
7/221DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 7
2,375
2,191
3,480
1,031
1,105
1,7124,051
17,455
Adminis-trators
Generaleducationclass-rooms
534
School-levelsupport
BuildingsBilingualSPED(includingtransportation)
Trans-portation
976
BenefitsCentraloffice
Total1
! Central officesupport functionscapture a lot ofspend, withsubpar systems
for managingtowardsimproved operat-
ions outcomes
! An overextendedBPS footprintstretches limitedfunds over a
large number ofschools
!
Special educationdrives per pupilexpenditures butonly reaches20% of students
Source: BPS FY15 all funds
1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
! $3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%is the “foundation” of each school
! These funds are spread across all 128
schools
2
Per pupil spending
$, per student
14% of per pupildollars are going tocentral officefunctions and support
20% of perpupil dollarsare directly for
SPED students
1
3
BPS’ per pupil spend is higher than peer averages, while just 36% of spendgets to all students in the classroom
DRAFT
BPS per pupil spendis 11% higher than thepeer average of$15,7552
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
8/221DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 8
BPS Potential Opportunities DRAFT
Key facts
Opportunity toreorganizecentral officeUp to ~$27M
ongoing reduction
! Superintendent has 18 direct reports, making system goal-setting, alignment and focus difficult! System goals are not tracked systematically, with a deep need for performance management systems to align central
metrics that matter (e.g., students eating lunch, buses on time) with student outcomes and manage staff and systemperformance better
!
If system moves towards right-sizing, up to $27M may be possible through ongoing reductions in support to smallerfootprint
Opportunity tospeed SPEDreforms~$17-21M in FY16
and ~$63M longer-
term annually
! Moving Boston in-line with state and national averages is better for students and translates to ~$5M saved for every% point decline
! Outsourcing paras and specialists can reap immediate savings of $15-$20M,but requires discussions withstakeholders
! The move to inclusion, already underway, can serve BPS students significantly better, but comes with substantialupfront investments whose financial benefits will not begin coming until 4 years out
! There is an opportunity to think about inclusion sequencing to get benefits faster and reduce net investments
Opportunities toimproveoperationsthrough policy~$10-33m/yr
! BPS bus riders average a 0.16 mile walk to their bus stop, 59% of students walk less than a 0.25 mile!
Moving the target walk to a 0.25 miles walk would reduce bus stops and could save $6-20M! Moving to district-wide maintenance contract would align incentives with contractor and could save ~$5M in annual
maintenance costs
! BPS is currently spending more per pupil on contracted meals, which student taste tests view as lower quality, andcan improve participation, changes in delivery and participation could capture ~$2-8M
Opportunity toconsolidate~30-50 schools~$51-85m/yr plus
~$120-200m
one-time
! BPS enrollment down 17% over last 20 years and 50% since 1970s! BPS currently has ~93K total physical seats with only ~54K seats filled
! The system is overextended with declining dollars stretched over, same number of buildings and declining studentcount
! Consolidating 30-50 schools could reduce annual spend by ~$51-85M
! Building sales could bring additional one-time ~$120-200M, while avoiding additional, unneeded CapEx! Right-sized system would concentrate more dollars in fewer schools, improving quality and breadth of student
resources
! Immediate opportunities for savings in FY16 total ~$20-40m if real focus is brought to opportunity areas
! With bold decisions and focus, savings over the next 2-3 years can total ~$200M / yr, with additional one-time benefits
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
9/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 9Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)
DRAFTValues survey reveals there is a desire for more accountabilityand less bureaucracy in the Central Office
1
Most experienced values
1.
Internal Politics (41)
2.
Bureaucracy (25)
3.
Accountability (15)
4.
Lack of shared purpose (14);Customer focus (14)
Most desired values
1.
Being collaborative (39)
2.
Accountability (33)
3.
Excellence (28)
4.
Equity (21)
Least experienced values1.
Efficiency (28)
2.
Equity (27)
3.
Accountability (25);Employee focus (25)
4.
Fear (12);Trust (12)
Least desired values1.
Inconsistent (40)
2.
Bureaucracy (37)
3.
Slow moving (31)
4. Silos (30);Internal Politics (30)
Therefore, BPS could consider
! Defining what accountability looks like for its Central Office
! Reducing the internal politics and bureaucracy currently experienced
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
10/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 10
! BPS can reduceits footprintbased on thelarge differencebetween its
enrollment and itscapacity
! Projectionssuggest noadditional spacewill be needed inthe future
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary andSecondary Education; Internal interviews; BPS data
Schools vs. student population# of school programs, # BPS students
DRAFT
0
50
100
150
54,000
66,000
62,000
64,000
56,000
58,000
60,000
012 1311 201510090807060504 140201200099 039796951994 98
With students decreasing, the funding for each student must continueto cover the system’s “fixed costs” including the buildings but also theprincipals and school staff which are present at each location
Since 1994, BPS student population has declined 17%, but thenumber of schools has remained relatively constant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
11/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 11
Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect~$1.7M before property sales
1 Assumed 2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1
Description Prior cost Cost afterclosing
Savings afterclosing
Consolidateclassroom staff
!
With fewer staff, BPS could commensuratelyreduce teaching staff
! The average teacher – student ratio goesfrom 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162
$3.8m $2.3-2.8m $1.0-1.5m
“Foundation”for school staff
! The “foundation” money is no longer neededby the school
$200k $0 $200k
Averagecustodialsupport
! Custodial support is no longer required atthe building but may increase by 30%1 atreceiving schools
$166k $50k $116k
Averagebuildingmaintenance
! Maintenance is no longer required but mayincrease by 30%1 at receiving schools
$191k $57k $134k
Averageutilities
! The closed buildings no longer needs tospend on utilities (including electric, gas,water, and telecom)
$260k $0 $260k
$1.7- 2.2mTotal
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
Source: Team analysis; BPS Office of Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
12/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 12
While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bringthe promise of a better future for BPS
Source: BPS data
DRAFT
! ~$51-85M in run-rate savingsgarnered from closing 30 – 50schools
! Guaranteed set of electives orspecials at all schools (e.g.,Physical Education, Art)
! Expanded before- and after-schoolprogramming for students in all
schools
!
Greater portfolio of teacher supportsand resources (e.g., instructionalcoaches, first-year mentors,counselors)
!
~$120M in one-time cash fromproperty sales of 30 – 50 schools
! Funds to build 1 state-of-the-art
high school (~$30M) and 9 state-of-the-art lower schools (~$10M each)
While these are possibilities, the school district will have the ability to choosehow it reinvests the money, taking into account the tradeoffs betweenconsistency across schools and school autonomy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
13/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 13
SPED is ~25% of the BPS spend and 73% of its costs are in 3areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses
Total spending $ 265m
$ 136m (51%)
$ 13m$ 49m $ 24m
Sub/septeacher
$ 64m
Sub/sepaides
$ 23m
Resourceteacher
$ 21m
Com-plianceprogramsupport
$ 12m
Other laborsupports (ad-ministrators,clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 37m
Misc. equip-ment andsupports
$ 3m
Schoollevel
$ 129m (49%)
$ 2m $ 2m$ 9m
Central
Transportation Specialists(e.g., OTPT,autism)
Private place-ment tuition
Admin. &super-advisory
InsuranceMisc. expenses(e.g., equipment,inclusion, itiner-ant support)
Compliance
24% of BPS budget
As the biggestthree areas in thebiggest part of the
BPS budget, theseareas are 18% oftotal BPS budget
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
14/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 14
! There are 14 schools who
classified 100% of the studentsreferred and 35 who referred 0%
! Variable rates reflect differingschool cultures aroundclassification
! A centralized auditing processcan narrow the band ofvariability
!
The variable classification ratesimply that some students arereceiving services they do not
need, while others are missingstudents who do need extrasupports
Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15
% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD, by school
0 155 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 9590 10085
Mildred Avenue K-8
Dudley StNeigh. Schl
Hernandez K-8
Middle School Academy
Shaw Pauline AElemHaley Elementary
Lyon K-8
Alighieri Montessori
Hale ElementaryUp Academy Holland
Kennedy Patrick Elem
Frederick PilotMiddle
Perry K-8
Curley K-8Russell Elementary
Manning Elementary
Madison Park High
New Mission High
Charlestown HighTaylorElementary
McKay K-8
Ohrenberger
Grew ElementaryHaynes EEC
Condon
Boston Latin
Orchard Gardens K-8
Murphy K-8Philbrick Elementary
Lyndon K-8
TechBoston Academy
Snowden InternationalRogers Middle
KilmerK-8 (4-8)
Edison K-8
Kennedy HC Fenwood 9-10
Clap Innovation SchoolEliotK-8
Jackson/Mann K-8
Ellis Elementary
Greenwood Sarah K-8
O’BryantMath & Sci.MatherElementary
Tynan Elementary
Kennedy HC Fenway 11-12
Brighton HighBradley Elementary
Boston Arts Academy
Fenway High
Quincy Elementary
DeverElementaryYoung Achievers K-8
McCormack Middle
Holmes Elementary
KilmerK-8 (K-3) Adams Elementary
Higginson/Lewis K-8
WestZone ELC
Ellison/Parks EES
Trotter SumnerElementary
Harvard/KentElementary
Lee K-8
King K-8
E Greenwood LeadershipWarren/PrescottK-8
Blackstone Elementary
Chittick Elementary
Otis Elementary
Henderson 5-8
EverettElementaryUPAcademy Dorchester
EastBoston High
Dearborn
Lyon High
GardnerPilot AcademyHurley K-8
Conley Elementary
MattahuntElementary
Kennedy John FElemenHennigan
Winship Elementary
Perkins Elementary
Winthrop Elementary
Bates ElementaryChanning Elementary
O’Donnell Elementary
Guild Elementary
Boston Day/Evening Acad
Margarita Muniz AcademyMission Hill K-8
Irving Middle
Mario Umana AcademyKenny Elementary
EastBoston EEC
Beethoven Elementary
BTU K-8 Pilot
Tobin K-8
Mendell ElementaryBaldwin E.L.PilotAcad
RooseveltK-8 (K1-1)
Henderson K-4
Community Academy
Boston Green Academy
Boston InternationalQuincy UpperSchool
GreaterEgleston High
AnotherCourse College
Burke High
Boston Latin AcademyBoston CommLead Acad
MozartElementary
DorchesterAcademy
Edwards Middle
CommAcad Sci HealthEnglish High
Henderson 9-12
Newcomers Academy
RooseveltK-8 (2-8)Boston AdultTech Acad
Excel High
Timilty Middle
WestRoxbury Academy
UPAcademy BostonUrban Science Academy
Mason Elementary
DRAFT
! Deeper data dives, at the level of IEP are needed to understand whether students
in these programs are being classified, when they may be over classified! Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification is
systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population
* Schools with less than 200 student enrollments
BPS schools are classifying students at widely variable ratesEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
Source: Office of Special Education data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
15/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 15
Massachusetts district classification rates, 2015 State classification rates, 2011
% of students classified students with disabilities (SWD)
SWD vs. Free and Reduced Meal (FARM) rates by Mass.District, 2015
% of students SWD, % of students FARM
There are districts with similar challenges andlower SPED %
! Districts with equal or greater FARM, but lower SWD:
– Revere
– Everett
– Brockton
– Lynn
– Chelsea
– Springfield
BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation
13.1
16.2
17.8
0 5 10 15 20
United States
New England average
Massachusetts
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 “districts” in MA, many ofwhich are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
11.0
14.8
16.5
17.3
19.5
32.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Botton 25%
50-75%
Massachusetts
25-50%
Boston
Top 25%
DRAFT
0
20
40
60
80
100
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Boston
% SWD
% FARM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
16/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 16
BPS is increasing special education inclusion, a strongresearch-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities
DRAFT
1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 20142 Office of Special Education City Council presentation, June 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BPS will move to full inclusion as adistrict by 2019
! BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWDinto inclusion classrooms, leaving justthose with disabilities that makeinclusion inappropriate in substantiallyseparate classrooms, movement of
roughly 2,500 students
! The BPS plan is to create more inclusionclassrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, togrow inclusion from the bottom, whilemoving K-5 classrooms into inclusion azone at a time, at the rate of one zone ayear, over five years
Inclusion is good for both specialeducation and general education students
! A 2014 state of Massachusetts reportfound that across the state, “students withdisabilities who had full inclusionplacements appeared to outperformsimilar students who were not included to
the same extent in general educationclassrooms with their non-disabled peers.”1
! A 2013 BPS study found that generaleducation students in inclusion classroomsperformed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and1.6x better on Math MCAS2
! BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusionclassrooms in 2013
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
17/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 17
SPED plan for roll-out currently spreads $326M in additional costsover 10 years, with eventual, annual savings reaching $63M, annually
25
50
7585
95
133135139141
107
73
3827
Additional classrooms will add inclusion capacity
# inclusion classrooms added annually
DRAFT
26-2725-2624-2523-2422-2321-2220-2119-2018-1917-1816-1715-16
66
123103
11991 83
70
SY14-15
75 63 59
124 129123
Special education annual budget for classroom teaching will grow by ~$6Mannually at peak of 10 of roll out, with eventual budget shrinking by $65M / yr
$M, SPED classroom budget
Inclusion costs
Sub / separate costs
! The Special Education
department’s plan for inclusionis phased in fully over 13years, calling for gradualadoption, with two networks (A-G) beginning the process everyyear for the first five years
! By the final year of the roll-outadditional costs for inclusionwill grow to ~$43M annually
! As critical mass of inclusionclassrooms grow, a tipping pointwill occur allowing eliminationof sub/separate classroomsat an increasing rate, beginningin SY16-17
! The annual SPED budget
should drop below historicalspends beginning in SY17-18
! The total $326M cost of movingto inclusion will be fully paidfor by the final year (SY26-27)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
Source: Interviews with Office of Special Education
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
18/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 18
Potential action items
Decisions / actions
Opportunity toreorganize central
officeUp to ~$27M ongoing
reduction
! Decisions around central office alignment with new schools footprint will need tohappen with school closings to immediately align support as befits new district
Opportunity to speedSPED reforms
~$17-21M in FY16 and~$63M longer-term
annually
! Given the calendar and union restrictions, a decision on outsourcingparaprofessionals and specialists should be made immediately, with potentialblowback weighed
! Reassess pace and transition plans for SPED inclusion strategy to shorten time tobenefits and reduce financial investment to get there
! Decisions to drive down SPED rates more in line with the state and nation willrequire decision and cultural shifts
Opportunities toimprove operationsthrough policy~$10-33m/yr
! Transportation savings exist, but the decision would need to be made to lengthenwalks to bus stops and not guarantee busing on the current scale
! Outsourcing custodial and maintenance services can capture savings immediately,but may require a reduction in unionized employees
! Moving toward in-housing all food services needs to be researched and alignedwith capital planning process
Opportunity to cons-olidate 30-50 schools~$51-85m/yr plus ~$120-200m one-time
! Given calendar constraints, strategic decision to address district overextensionand consolidate 30-50 schools in next ~2 years needs to happen immediately forplanning to begin
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Source: Team analysis
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
19/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 19
Contents
! Executive summary
! System overview
–
System performance
– Human Capital
– Organization
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
20/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 20
Overview of BPS
Demographics
! 54K students, down 6% in 10 years! Highly diverse system
– 20% of students Sped
–
30% students ELL, and growing – 78% qualify for free or reduced
meals, only 8 Mass. districts higher
! Teacher population far more diverse than nationalpool, but lags student and city populations
! Only a handful of Mass. districts (Revere, Everett,
Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea, Springfield) have higherpoverty rates, but lower % SpEd classification! Enrollment projected to continue to decline
modestly, but if the charter cap is lifted, wouldaccelerate rapidly
Student
Outcomes
! Solid performance vs. other US urbanDistricts
! Throughout the 1990s and early
2000s, Boston was closing gap withMA performance, now just keepingpace with MA growth
! BPS performance, while continuing to track with thestate, consistently lags state performance bysignificant margins across all populations
Finances
! $1.1B total budget,! $18K per student vs. $16K in peer
districts and $14K in Mass. districts –
45% spent on central functions –
~25% SpEd
–
~10% Transportation
! Of the $18K, only $4,051 gets directly to the typicalstudent, with the rest going to system supports
! The number has grown by 25% since 2005 becauseof steady budgets and decreasing student counts,with no additional increase in student services due
to an overstretched system
Key Issues
! Current footprint puts significantburden on the system that doesn’timprove learning
! Lack of central office strategy,alignment, and efficient design
! Inconsistent SpEd classification
! Current footprint could be 30-50 buildings smaller,liberating ~$35M annually and $120M in one timesales for more things that really help kids
! Central office hunger for better culture andoperations keyed in on more accountability
! Small improvements in SpEd classification anddelivery model would be better for kids and finances
Overview Key Insights
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
21/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 21
Teacher salaries,benefits and otherteaching servicescomprised 56% of theFY13 annual budget
BPS budget break down
%, FY2013
The BPS budget allocates 30% of spending to teacher salaries,another 26% to benefits and teaching services
Pupil Services
Operations andMaintenance
6%
11%
Guidance, Counselingand Testing 1%
Instructional Materials,Equipment and Technology
3%
Professional Development
5%
Payments To Out-Of-District Schools
11%
Other Teaching Services
9%
Insurance, RetirementPrograms and Other
17%
Classroom andSpecialist Teachers
30%
Instructional Leadership
6% Administration
3%
Source: Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
22/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 22
The FY15 budget has a number of large spending items DRAFT
Personnel
Operations
Schools
SPED
AmountSpending item % of FY15 budget
$160M 14%
$57M 5%
$51M 5%
! Private placement tuition $41M 4%$45M 4%
! Food service $36M 3%
!
Special Education transportation
! Special Education inclusion $34M 3%
!
Facilities management $26M 2%
! School administration
! Bilingual education $24M 2%
!
Regular education teacher
! Employee benefits (all BPS) $138M 12%
! Transportation
! Custodial services $22M 2%
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
23/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 23
Over 50% of spending comes from instructional variable costs
Total spending
Fixedcosts
Variable costs
Noninstructional
Instructional
$ 1,178m
$ 947m$ 232m (20%)
$ 339m (29%) $ 608m (51%)
Guidance,counsel-ing, etc.
Insurance,Retirementand other
Pupilservices
Ops andmain-tenance
$ 47m
Admin
$ 30m $ 17m$ 196m $ 125m
Paymentsto out-of-districtschools1
$ 134m
Classroomandspecialistteachers.
$ 352m
Otherteachingservices
$ 105m
Instruc-tionalleader-ship
$ 65m
Profess-ionalDevelop-ment
$ 53m
Instruc-tionalmaterials
$ 33m
Source: BPS 2013 budget, Massachusetts Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education
1 Includes private and charter schools
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
24/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 24
FY15 Leasepurchase
$11.2M
Source of funds
$2.1MFederal funds(ARRA)
Amount
Grants $134M
General funds $975M
Total: $1,122M
ARRA and grant funding generally has little flexibility, and cannotbe used for purposes other than what they were initially identified
BPS budget break down
%, FY2015
BPS provides 55% of general fund spending directly to schools
Central budgets
45%
Schoolbudgets
55%
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
25/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 25
Nearly all spending is driven by personnel at schools and central office
Central budgets
45%
School budgets
55%
Secuity
3
Misc.HQequipment
10
Main-tenance
15
Utilities
23
Custo-dians
22
Tuition
26
Reserve
24
SPEDtransport.
48
Choicetransport.
InsuranceCtrl. off.admin &support
85
Healthins. &pension
119
53
435
2
Com-puters &equipment
5
Total
BPS budget break down%, FY2015
BPS budget break down, by central and school spending$M, FY2015
Total
539
1
Othersupportper-sonnel
Misc.other
5
Clerical
7
Aides
7
Coor-dinators
8
Coun-selor
8
Nurses
10
Pro-gramsupport
15
SPEDitinerant
20
SPEDre-source
20
SPEDaide
27
Admin-istrators
29
Spe-cialistteacher
29
Misc.teach-ing per-sonnel(coaches,librarians,substitute
39
Bilin-gualteacher
56
SPEDteacher
74
Regu-lared.Teachers
184
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
26/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 26
It costs BPS $4.6M to run the average BPS school, excluding supportcosts from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services
36 teachers
418 students
1 principal,1 secretary,and others
Custodialsupport
Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams
1 Does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school
130 total schools
4,617
Utilities
Total costThousands
260
Building maintenance 191
Custodial support 166
"Foundation" to cover school staff 200
Classroom staff costs 3,800
DRAFT
DRAFTSYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
27/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 27
BPS has an above average per pupil expenditure, partly driven by region
20100 228 122 144 6 16 18
8.9 Arizona 9.2Tennessee 9.4Nevada 9.7
Alabama 9.8Georgia 10.2Colorado 10.4Florida 10.4Indiana 10.5Texas 10.7South Dakota 10.7Kentucky 10.7California 10.7New Mexico 10.8Oregon 10.9South Carolina 10.9Missouri 11.0
Arkansas 11.2Virginia 11.4Washington 11.5Montana 11.7Iowa 11.8Kansas 12.0Louisiana 12.2Michigan 12.3
West Virginia 12.4North Dakota 12.4Nebraska 12.5National avg. 12.7Minnesota 12.9Wisconsin 13.0Hawaii 13.0Illinois 13.2Ohio 13.4Maine 13.9Delaware 14.3New Hampshire 14.9
Idaho
15.3Massachusetts 15.4Maryland 15.5Vermont 15.6Rhode Island 16.1Connecticut 17.7
New Jersey 18.0
Pennsylvania
18.4Wyoming 18.5New York 21.0
7.6Utah 7.9Oklahoma 8.5Mississippi 8.7North Carolina
Alaska
Average per pupil expenditure
$, thousands per student in the state,2010-2011
$, per student by Mass. district,2012-20132
Boston: $17,589
MA Avg.: $14,544
New Englandstates
Massachusetts/Boston
Groupaverage
1 NCES 2010-2011 2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; counts just general funds 3 Peer districts and methodology in the appendix
! Massachusetts and NewEngland more broadly havesignificantly higher per pupilexpenditures due tohistorically high investmentin education
! BPS’ higher per pupil averagein the state of Massachusettsis driven mostly by costs ofliving in Boston
! The per pupil average of peerset of national districts is$15,7553
! When cost of livingadjustments are made tonational peer set, Boston’s
per pupil spending declinesto $12,472, below the peeraverage of $13,109
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
28/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 28
2,375
2,191
976
3,480
1,031
1,105
1,7124,051
17,455
Adminis-trators
Generaleducationclass-rooms
534
School-levelsupport
BuildingsBilingualSPED(includingtransportation)
Trans-portation
BenefitsCentraloffice
Total1
!
Central officesupport functionscapture a lot ofspend, and needsupdated systems
for managingtowardsimproved operat-
ions outcomes
! An overextendedBPS footprintstretches limitedfunds over a
large number ofschools
! Special education
drives per pupilexpenditures butonly reaches20% of students
Source: BPS FY15 all funds
1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
! $3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%is the “foundation” of each school
! These funds are spread across all 128schools
Per pupil spending
$, per student
14% of per pupildollars are going tocentral office functionsand support
20% of perpupil dollarsare directly forSPED students
Of BPS’ per pupil spend, 36% reaches directly into the classroom DRAFT
BPS per pupil spendis 11% higher than the
peer average of$15,7552
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
29/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 29Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses
Total spending $ 265m
$ 136m (51%)
$ 13m$ 49m $ 24m
Sub/septeacher
$ 64m
Sub/sepaides
$ 23m
Resourceteacher
$ 21m
Com-plianceprogramsupport
$ 12m
Other laborsupports (ad-ministrators,clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 37m
Misc. equip-ment andsupports
$ 3m
Schoollevel
$ 129m (49%)
$ 2m $ 2m$ 9m
Central
Transportation Specialists(e.g., OTPT,autism)
Private place-ment tuition
Admin. &super-advisory
InsuranceMisc. expenses(e.g., equipment,inclusion, itiner-ant support)
Compliance
24% of BPS budget
As the biggestthree areas in thebiggest part of the
BPS budget, theseareas are 18% oftotal BPS budget
DRAFTSPED is ~25% of BPS annual spending and 73% of SPED costs are inthree areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
30/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 30
BPS budgets and student population since 2005
$ BPS budget, millions; # of students
The BPS budget has not accounted for student declines!
1,000
600
800
59,000
58,000
55,000
57,000
56,000
0
1,200
400
200
0
2 0 1 5
2 0 1 4
2 0 1 3
2 0 1 2
2 0 1 1
2 0 1 0
2 0 0 9
2 0 0 8
2 0 0 7
2 0 0 6
2 0 0 5
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, includesgrant funds and other sources
! In 2005, BPS had a perpupil spending rate of$15,915, by 2015, thatsame rate had grown to$20,568
! Because the BPS
footprint did not adjustwith population, the perpupil spend is forced upto cover fixed operatingcosts
! If BPS had maintainedits per pupil spending
rate in 2015, the budgetshould have fallen to$864M, 23% less thanFY15’s budget
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
31/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 31
BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009
# of BPS FTE’s, # of students
!nor has FTE count
Source: BPS Human Capital data and Enrollment data
Schools
Central office
! If BPS were to decrease staff
with future enrollment trendsand historical central officeFTE counts, BPS wouldshrink by ~7-10%
! In 2009-10, BPS had a ratioof 5.5 students per FTE, by2014-15, that ratio had fallen
to 5.0! If BPS had maintained its
2009-10 student to FTEratio, in 2014-15, BPS wouldhave 9,875 FTE’s, 902 fewerthan six years ago, at asavings of ~$60-70M
!
By operating its currentnumber of schools, BPScannot currently bringschool staff downcommensurately
DRAFT
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,00011,000
52,000
53,000
54,000
55,000
56,000
57,000
(7-10%)
F u t u r e
y e a r
2 0 1 4 - 1 5
2 0 1 3 - 1 4
2 0 1 2 - 1 3
2 0 1 1 - 1 2
2 0 1 0 - 1 1
2 0 0 9 - 1 0
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
32/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 32
FTE break down
% of BPS employees
The share of school-based employees has remained mostly constant
Source: BPS employee data, Office of Human Capital
SY
2009-2010
SY
2010-2011
SY
2011-2012
SY
2012-2013
SY
2013-2014
SY
2014-2015
The ratio of school-level to central office BPSemployees constant over the past 6 years, with aslight uptick in central to school ratios in recent years
82 82 81 81 80 76
18 18 19 19 20 24
Schools
Central
The changein share isrepresentative of smallerschool staffnumberswith slightlyincreasedcentral officeshares
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
33/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 33
BPS is a diverse system, whose demographics differ fromBoston overall
Poverty indicators% of population in poverty
42
78
City of Boston5 BPS students4
! White BPS teachersrepresent 30% more of the
teaching force than of thecity of Boston and nearly 5times that of the student
body
! BPS Hispanic studentsrepresent double the
student body share to theHispanic share of the City ofBoston and four times the
share of the teaching force
! The Black share of theBPS student body is >50%
greater than the teachingforce and of the city as awhole
! BPS teaching force issignificantly more diverse
than teachers nationally! BPS students are in
greater need than the
population of the City ofBoston
1 BPS at a Glance, SY 2013-2014; 2 BPS employee data, Jan 1, 2015; 3 US Census Bureau, 20104 BPS data, 2013, last time data collected on this measure 5 Estimate from CLR research, 2010 6 EdWeek, Profiles of teachers in the US, 2011
Racial break down% of total population, out of 100%
62 84
4735
2124
4018
13
10
BPS students1
3 9
City of Boston3
2 9
Teachers nationally6
4
7 6
BPS teachers2
1 6
Other/multiracialWhite (non-Hispanic) AsianBlackHispanic
Students at 185%of federal povertyline or below
Households at or below185% of federal povertylevel for a family of four
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
34/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 34
BPS has a significantly higher rate of students qualifying for Free andreduced meals than the state and nation
4020 60 700 805010 30
41.2Nebraska 42.6Ohio 42.6Rhode Island 42.9
45.2Michigan
Illinois
46.4State average 46.6
Maine 43.0Idaho 45.0Missouri 45.0
Arizona
Wisconsin 39.3Pennsylvania 39.4Colorado 39.9Washington 40.1Maryland 40.1
Minnesota
Wyoming
Alaska
Utah
New Jersey
38.2
32.831.7
37.1
34.5
37.1
Vermont36.736.5
Virginia
South Dakota
North Dakota
34.2
36.8
25.2
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Iowa
Massachusetts
38.438.9
Montana
46.7Indiana 46.8
Hawaii 46.8Kansas 47.7Delaware 48.0New York 48.3Texas 50.3North Carolina 50.3Nevada 50.3Oregon 50.6West Virginia 51.5California 54.1South Carolina 54.7Tennessee 55.0
Alabama 55.1Florida 56.0Kentucky 56.6Georgia 57.4
Arkansas 60.5Oklahoma 60.5
Louisiana 66.2New Mexico 67.6Mississippi 70.6District of Columbia 73.0
Free and reduced meal rate
% of students in state receiving free or reduced meals 1 % of students in district receiving free or reduced meals2
Boston: 78%
2012 MA Avg.: 25.7%
New Englandstates
Massachusetts/Boston
Groupaverage
1 US Dept. of Education, 20112 Kidscount data, 2012
! BPS outpacesthe nation andMassachusettsdistricts in thepercentage ofstudentsqualifying forfree and
reduced meals
! BPS is more inline with urbandistricts, where38% of thesedistricts havegreater than75% of studentsqualifying forfree andreduced meals
40 8060 907030 50100 20
Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students, bylocate and percentage of students in s chool eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL): Fall 2010
37
8
21
21 14
9
9 362
15
8City
15
16
28
6 26
22
29
38
Total
Suburban
15
2027
36 30 10
Town
Rural
More than 75 percent26-50 percent
51-75 percent11-25 percent
10 percent or less
Locate
Percentage of students in school eligible for FRPL
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
35/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 35
BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation
0 5 10 15 20
14.6Minnesota 14.7Oklahoma 14.7Ohio 14.8South Dakota 14.8Illinois 15.0Nebraska 15.0Kentucky 15.6New Hampshire 15.6Delaware 15.6Vermont 15.7Indiana 16.5West Virginia 16.6Pennsylvania 16.7New Jersey 16.8Wyoming 17.2Maine 17.3
New York 17.4Massachusetts 17.8Rhode Island 18.7
California 10.6Nevada 10.7
Arizona 11.1 Alabama 11.2Hawaii 11.3Utah 11.3
North Carolina 11.9Montana 12.2Washington 12.3Connecticut 12.3Tennessee 12.4Maryland 12.5Louisiana 12.6Mississippi 13.0United States 13.1Virginia 13.4
Arkansas 13.6New Mexico 13.8Iowa 13.9
Alaska 14.0Michigan 14.0Florida 14.1South Carolina 14.1Kansas 14.1Oregon 14.2North Dakota 14.3Missouri 14.3D.C. 14.6Wisconsin
Identification Rate of Students withDisabilities, by State 2009-10
Texas 9.1Idaho 9.9Colorado 10.3Georgia 10.5
! Massachusetts has historicallyhigher SPED numbers due to beinga leader in SPED beginning in the1970s – their being higher thannational averages is not areflection of any state policies,but of state culture
!
Assuming direct labor aligns withthe number of students, BPS couldsave roughly $5M for every onepercentage drop in classification
– Aligning with state averagecould translate to $10-15M insavings
– Aligning with New Englandaverage of 16.2% couldcapture $15-18M
State classification rates
% of students in state classified SPED1
16.5
19.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 5 40 45 50
Identification Rate of Students withDisabilities, by MA district 2013
% of students in district classified SPED2
Boston
2013 MA Avg.
New Englandstates
Massachusetts/Boston
Groupaverage
1 Fordham Institute, "Shifting trends in Special Education," May 2011 2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 “districts”in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
DRAFT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
36/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 36
SWD and FARM classification are correlated across MA districts
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Free and reduced meal
% of district FARM students
% SWD % students classified with disabilities
Boston
1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013
! A 2014 Massachusetts studyfound that low-incomestudents in the state were
identified as eligible forspecial education services
at substantially higherrates than non-low-incomestudents
! Districts with equal or greaterFARM, but lower SWD:
– Revere, Everett,
Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea,Springfield
! Districts with equal or greaterFARM, but higher SWD:
–
Lawrence, Fall River,Holyoke
% of students in district, 2013-2014
Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status1
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
37/221
C
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
38/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 38
Contents
! Executive summary
! System overview
–
System performance
– Human Capital
–
Organization
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
S t fSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
39/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 39
System performance summary
! BPS, beginning in the late1990s, began a transformation that brought it
national recognition as a high-performing, urban system. A 2010 report1 on the world’s most improved systems identified Boston as one of the20 systems in the world – and one of just 3 in the US – to makesignificant, systemic, and sustained improvements in student
achievement during the period from 1995-2009
! Since 2009, BPS’ momentum has stalled. While it continues to track with
Massachusetts performance averages, the gap it narrowed in the early2000s, is annually persistent
! While BPS’ ELL population performs almost exactly as well as theBPS student average and performs nearly as well as Massachusetts’ ELLpopulation, BPS’ SPED population lags all BPS students dramatically and continues to lag Massachusetts’ SPED population significantly
! The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and theirwhite peers has not narrowed much in recent years
1 McKinsey and Company, "How the world's most improved school systems keepgetting better," 2010
R di h f t f b L Cit i dSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
40/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 40
Reading scores show frequent performance above Large City indexbut below National average
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Grade 4 Reading Average scale scores: 2003-2013
Grade 8 Reading Average scale scores: 2003-2013
221220
215
212211
200
202
204
206
208
210
212
214
216
218
220
222
2013
2143
11
217
09
2101
2201
07
2081
2101
2201
05
2061
2071
2171
2003
2041
2061
2161
Large cityBostonNation
Note: The NAEP Reading scale ranges from 0 to 5001 Significantly different (P
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
41/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 41
Math scores show frequent performance above Large City indexand only slightly below National average
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Grade 4 mathematics Average scale scores: 2003-2013
Grade 8 mathematics Average scale scores: 2003-2013
241240
237
236235
233
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
2013
2373
1109
2311
2391
07
2301
2331
2391
05
2281
2291
2371
2003
2241
2201
2341
Large cityBostonNation
284
282
276
274
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
2013
2832
11
2831
09
2711
2791
2821
07
2691
2761
2801
05
2651
2701
2781
2003
2621
2621
2761
Note: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 5001 Significantly different (P
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
42/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 42
BPS tracks with, but consistently lags state districts inMCAS performance
70
60
50
40
0
Mass
BPS
20141312111009080706050403022001
3rd grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
70
60
50
40
0
Mass
BPS
2014131211100908072006
3rd grade Math1
% of students proficient or advanced
100
80
60
40
0
Mass
BPS
20141312111009080706050403022001
10th grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
80
70
40
60
50
30
0
Mass
BPS
2014131211100908050403022001 0706
10th grade Math% of students proficient or advanced
Source: MA DESE
! While BPStracks with thestate, Bostonconsistentlyunderperforms
state averages! BPS students
are narrowing
the gap by10th grade, butare startingsignificantlybehind their
peers in the
early grades
1 MA only started testing 3rd grade math in 2006
BPS student performance
DRAFT
BPS SPED t d t l t t di t i t i MCAS fSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
43/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 43
3rd grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
3rd grade Math% of students proficient or advanced
10th grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
10th grade Math% of students proficient or advanced
BPS SPED students lag state districts in MCAS performanceby even larger margins
25
20
15
10
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
35
30
25
20
15
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
70
60
5040
30
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
45
40
25
3530
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
BPS SPEDstudents aretracking withstateperformance,
but with asignificant gapin perfor-mancefrom theirMassachusettspeers
BPS SPED student performance
DRAFT
Source: MA DESE
BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass stateSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
44/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 44
BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass stateaverages in MCAS performance
3rd grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
3rd grade Math% of students proficient or advanced
10th grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
10th grade Math% of students proficient or advanced
35
30
25
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
60
50
40
30
20
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
60
50
40
30
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
55
50
35
45
40
30
0
Mass
BPS
201413121110092008
!
BPS ELLstudents rivalthe perfor-mance of MA
ELL students! BPS ELL
students’scores are
consistently ator near overallBPS perfor-mance
BPS ELL student performance
DRAFT
Source: MA DESE
BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas with 10thSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
45/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 45
BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas, with 10th grade ELA being an exception
70
60
50
40
30
020141312111009080706050403022001
3rd grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
80
70
60
50
40
30
02014131211100908072006
3rd grade Math1
% of students proficient or advanced
100
80
60
40
20
0
20141312111009080706050403022001
10th grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced
100
80
60
40
20
0
20141312111009080706050403022001
10th grade Math% of students proficient or advanced
Source: MA DESE
! White BPSstudentsperform at orbetter than thestate average
!
Students ofcolorconsistently
achieve at arate nearlyhalf that ofwhite studentsin the early
grades
1 MA only started testing 3rd grade math in 2006
BPS non-white student performance
Hispanic BPS studentsMass. avg.
Black BPS studentsWhite BPS students
DRAFT
BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts and itsSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
46/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 46
BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts, and itspopulation performs less well
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
282624222018161412100
MCAS 10th grade ELA % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced
% SWD
Boston
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
282624222018161412100
MCAS 10th grade Math % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced
% SWD
Boston
! There is a correlationin the state betweenshare of students
classified and overallSWD performance
! Boston has a higher
share, but its SWDpopulation is
performing worsethan would beexpected
Plot of MA district by SWD share and SWD 10th grade performance
% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % of students classified SWD
Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
DRAFT
While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state BPS’ ELLSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
47/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 47
While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state, BPS ELLpopulation performs better than correlations would predict
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
% ELL
MCAS 10th grade ELA % of ELL proficient or advanced
Boston
Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Boston
% ELL $ spent per SWD pupil
MCAS 10th grade Math % of ELL proficient or advanced
! BPS has one of thelargest shares of ELL
students in the stateof Massachusetts
! BPS ELL studentsoutperform the
expectedperformance levels
Plot of MA district by ELL performance and $ spent
% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % district ELL
DRAFT
BPS lags but tracks with state districts in graduation ratesSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
48/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 48
! While on the upswing,BPS’ 4-yeargraduation rate issignificantly below theMassachusettsaverage
! BPS does track
generally withMassachusetts’graduation rateimprovement, but is
not closing the gap
Graduation rates
% of students graduating1
BPS lags, but tracks with state districts in graduation rates
80
70
60
0
85
75
90
65
Mass
BPS
2014131211100908072006
1 MA DESE 4-year graduation rate
DRAFT
Source: MA DESE
Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools with some
SYSTEM PERFORMANCEDRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
49/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 49
Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools, with somespecific concerns
“This school is a good place for my child tolearn” % of parents responding
70
28
21
Stronglyagree
Disagree AgreeStronglydisagree
“My child's teacher challenges him/her to dotheir best and works hard to meet the needsof my child”% of parents responding
4247
84
Stronglyagree
AgreeDisagreeStronglydisagree
The school is doing a good job at preventingbullying and harassment based on race,gender, sexual preference and disabilities”% of parents responding
70
28
21
Stronglyagree
AgreeDisagreeStronglydisagree
2.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.5
0 1 2 3 4
Parent Participationat School
TeacherPerformance
PrincipalPerformance
School Safety &
Welcoming Environment
Overall Perceptionof School
Parent Engagementat Home
Source: Annual BPS school climate survey, 2013-2014; 20% ofparents on average responded t osurvey at each school
Parents perception of ! Avg. score, 1-4 (4being the highest)
“Working parents can’t start at 9:30am andso our school is losing enrollment becauseof the late bell time” – Elementary schoolparent
Perspectives from parents focus groups
“No one walks to school. Why are wewasting resources on too many schoolbuses? – Elementary school parent
“When I first looked at BPS [years ago],there were only 3 schools I would consider.Now, I see many more options I’mcomfortable sending my child to.” – Highschool parent
“BPS has given me an incredibly diversecommunity for my child” – High School
parent
“There are a lot of programmaticinconsistencies, like having so manydifferent school models – K-1, 2-8, etc.” –Middle School parent
DRAFT
Contents
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
50/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 50
Contents
! Executive summary
! System overview
–
System performance
– Human Capital
–
Organization
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution and have beenHUMAN CAPITAL
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
51/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 51
Year of birth
# of teachers by year of birth
Evaluation rating
# of teachers
! 94% of teachers arelicensed to teach intheir subject are,
compared to 98% ofteachers state-wide
! 96% of teacherswith evaluations onfile are ratedproficient or higher
BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution, and have beenrated proficient
151
1,420
1,275
933
680
75
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s
626
2,719
13124
968
Noevaluation
Unsatis-factory
NIP Proficient Exemplary
21% of the teachingforce does not have
an evaluation on file
DRAFT
The average
BPS teacheris 42 yearsold
Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data
BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachersHUMAN CAPITAL
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
52/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 52
BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachers,and none in the system have received a rating lower than proficient
18
51
36
21
7
1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s
18
41
00
75
Unsatis-factory
Noevaluation
NIP Proficient Exceeds
Evaluation rating
The averageBPS principalis 46 years old
56% of principals do nothave evaluations on file
Age of principals
# of principals born in decade
# of teachers
DRAFT
! Principals ratedlower than proficientwill almost alwaysbe moved out of thesystem
Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data
Contents
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
53/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 53
Contents
! Executive summary
! System overview
–
System performance
– Human Capital
–
Organization
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
54/221
The total number of FTE’s, across schools and central office has notORGANIZATION
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
55/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 55
BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009
# of BPS FTE’s, # of students
The total number of FTE s, across schools and central office has notdeclined in line with student population
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,0006,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
52,000
53,000
54,000
55,000
56,000
57,000 (7-10%)
F u t u r e
y e a r
2 0 1 4 - 1 5
2 0 1 3 - 1 4
2 0 1 2 - 1 3
2 0 1 1 - 1 2
2 0 1 0 - 1 1
2 0 0 9 - 1 0
SchoolsCentral office
! If BPS were to align staffwith future enrollment trendsand historical central office
FTE counts, BPS couldshrink by ~7-10%
! In 2009-10, BPS had a ratioof 5.5 students per FTE, by2014-15, that ratio hadfallen to 5.0
!
If BPS had maintained its2009-10 student to FTEratio, in 2014-15, BPS wouldhave 9,875 FTE’s, 902 fewerthan six years ago
DRAFT
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Contents
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
56/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 56
Contents
! Executive summary
!
System overview
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
– Cross-BPS themes
–
Framework for RFP 25
–
RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
The operational review was conducted over a period of APPROACH AND WORKPLAN
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
57/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 57
The operational review was conducted over a period of~3 months, shifting from a broad scan to deep dives Progress review
Phase 0:Data collection andinterviews
Phase 1:High-level diagnostic
Phase 2:Deep-dive on priority areas
Phase 3:Opportunitydevelopment
Dec 8-19 Jan 5 -23 Feb 16-27Jan 26 - Feb 13Duration
Activities ! Conduct high-levelquantitative andqualitative analysis acrossthe 25 areas, includingbenchmarking
! Review previous reports,studies, reviews, etc.
!
Analyze the BPS budget! Collect input on priority
operational areas frominternal and externalstakeholders throughinterviews, focus groups,and other forums
! Collect existing dataand reports basedon data request
! Identify internal andexternalstakeholders forinterviews and focus
groups! Begin scheduling
and conductinginterviews and focusgroups
! Start initial analysisand benchmarking
! For the prioritized areas,review diagnostic findingsand identify gaps vs. bestpractice
! Conduct additional deep-dive analyses to assessefficiency and
effectivenessopportunities! Prioritize areas with
greatest opportunity toexplore further
! Prioritizeimprovementopportunities basedon impact towardBPS’ mission andstrategic goals
! Identify short term
and long termactions forimplementation
! For priority oppor-tunities, providerationale, estimatesof costs and costsavings, and prac-tical implementation
guidance
Deliver-ables
! Overview of BPS’ fiscaland operational healthacross each of the 25areas
! Identification of priorityareas for deep-dives
! Interim workshops asrequested by the City
! Detailed diagnostic ofpriority areas
! Workshop to alignon next steps forBPS in capturingopportunities
! Synthesis of initialkey themes andlearning
Agenda
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
58/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 58
! Executive summary
!
System overview
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
– Cross-BPS themes
–
Framework for RFP 25
–
RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
Agenda
BPS has a strong talent base, but does not have a long-term strategyCROSS-BPS THEMES
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
59/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 59
Stable, with opportunity
Overall!
Positive inertia and a deep local talent pool sustains a comparatively good urbansystem
! Largely coasting for a number of years, modernizing and evolving has not beendeliberately and thoughtfully considered
! Too large a physical footprint for the number of students currently being served
Strengths
! High caliber people in schools as teachers and principals and in central office roles
!
Dynamic (but siloed) visions in pockets of central office
! Strong approaches to community engagement and technology support
! Some key conditions for success put in place across the system (e.g., mutualconsent, weighted student funding)
Challenges
! Absence of overarching vision causes a focus on initiatives vs. system goals, drift inhow different areas move forward and causes an inability to execute/follow-through
!
Recurring budget shortages as available funds are spread thin across buildings andprograms, many of which are underutilized and under-enrolled
! Data not used broadly for decision making
! Org. structure reflects personalities, not functional needs or core goals
! Lack of coordination and collaboration, as focus rests with where people want it
g , g gyto align process and execution Challenge Area of strengthStable, with opportunity
Overall
BPS faces challenges that cut across the organizationCROSS-BPS THEMES
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
60/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 60
g g! Challenge ! Stable, with opportunity ! Area of strength
! Data and technology not actively orconsistently used to support decisionmaking
! Budget development process hasopportunities for efficiencies andcollaboration, is unaligned with strategy,while not evaluating spending for
effectiveness at school level
! Organizational structure is not always
aligned with functional needs of students,with inefficiencies that stymie cross-organizational collaboration
! BPS is overextended physically andbudgetarily, supporting buildings and
schools that lead to subscale services insome pockets
Emerging themes
Performance management(v. performance objectives andmeasurement tools)
Academic student support(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. studentassignment, q. parent engagement, r.ELL)
Non-academic student supports(l. transportation, m. food service, p.extracurriculars, u. security)
Administrative services (f.accounting systems, y. externalfunds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing,o. IT, n. building maintenance, x.school construction and renovation)
Leadership and governance(w. School Committee)
Talent management(a. personnel policies, b. contracts, c.hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e.instructional staff, s. licensing, t.CORI / SORI)
Overall assessment
!
No robust performance management system
! Lack of follow-through and execution
! Strong foundation, in need of more robustfocus on reaching all students where theyare
! Opportunities for cost capturing likely exist inmany areas
! Many facilities in need of repair
! OIT effective at meeting customer needs
! Back office functions get done
! Serves community well, may be tensionswith supt. over strategy
! Dissatisfaction with professional develop-ment and advancement opportunities
! Innovation in school staffing areas (e.g.mutual consent)
Contents
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
61/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 61
! Executive summary
!
System overview
! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
– Cross-BPS themes
–
Framework for RFP 25
–
RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas
! Phase II: Area deep dives
!
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
! Appendix
Analysis of RFP areas and cross-cutting themes identified 12 forRFP 25
DRAFT
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
62/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 62
y gpotential deep dive consideration
Quick wins
! From data and interviews, the Steering Committee considered the size of the opportunity interms of benefits to students, cost savings, and efficiency
!
From this approach, 11 areas emerged in two groups as potential Phase 2 targets
! These are areas with
opportunities that maybe readily captured :
1.
Food Services
2.
Personnel
3.
Finance andaccounting(budgeting process)
4. Org. structure
Long-term goals
! These are areas of high opportunity that will also take time
and a good deal of effort, but are worth it:
5.
District overextension
6.
ELL
7.
Data culture
8.
Technology
9.
Transportation10.
Special Education
11. Maintenance (of buildings)
12.
Performance and quality objectives and measurementtools
Cross-cutting theme, not an identified RFP area
Framework for approaching RFP areas and cross-RFP 25
FOR STEERCO DISCUSSION
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
63/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 63
5.
District overextension
6.
ELL7.
Data culture8.
Technology9. Transportation
10.
Special education
11.
Maintenance12.
Performancemanagement tools
! Construction andrenovation
!
Negotiation!
Student assignment
! External fundstransparency
!
Instructional staffing!
General staffing andrecruiting
1.
Food Services
2.
Personnel
3.
Org. structure4.
Finance & accounting(budget process)
! Purchasing ! Extracurriculars!
Security! Licensure!
Parent Engagement! School Committee
! CORI / SORI
! Curriculum!
Timekeeping! Role delineation
High
pp gcutting themes
ApproachComparison of RFP areasOpportunity ($, efficiency) v. ease ($, time, quality)
Low High
! Opportunity: This is the size ofthe opportunity that exists forimprovement; it could be time
saved, money saved,improvement in outputs, etc.
! Ease: This is how much effort onBPS’ part it will take to capture theopportunity; it could be in dollars
required, time required to execute,etc.
Outputs
! Quick wins: Large opportunitiesfor savings and/or performanceimprovement that are easilyimplementable and should beconsidered for immediate action
! Long-term goals: Largeopportunities for savings and/or
performance improvement thatrequire a good deal of effort/timeto implement
! Not a priority now: Opportunitiesthat are too small and/or toodifficult to be worth the effort andattention required capture them
Oppor-tunity
Ease
Quick wins and Long-term goalscomprise over 60% of BPS budget
There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue toRFP 25
PRELIMINARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
64/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 64
pursue without further deep dive (1/2) Financial opportunity$Efficiency opportunitye
Current situation Key factors to considerArea Rationale to not include
School Comm-ittee FY14 budget:$0.3M
! Small budget, narrow scope ofactivities
! $300K budget, any savings will betiny, no processes to improve
! Will there be an expanded role?
Licensure
FY14 budget: N/A
! Inconsistent staffing and attention,but no deep problems exist
!
Licensing more compliance-driven
! While frustrating, no great gainsrelative to other options
! Are we planning a licensingpush of any kind that would
need this function bolstered?
CORI / SORI
FY14 budget: N/A
! Secure process keeps people frombeing hired before clearing
! Have there been any lapses?! Is this a high-risk area?
! 5,000 CORI / SORI formsprocessed annually by fax, even
though technology exists
e
Security
FY14 budget:$3.9M
! Focus on communities
!
Recent uptick in incidents, after 5-year long decline
! BPS perceived to be largely safe
by school-based staff
! Is the recent uptick in events
significant enough to require adeep dive?
InstructionalstaffingFY14 budget: N/A
! Weighted student formula allotsschool staffing by policy
! Transparent system, with somefunding backstops necessary
! Determined by formula and policy,not by operations or budget usagedecisions
! Does the WSF need analysis orfresh thinking?
! The Engagement department isconsidered one BPS’ strongest
! High-functioning department
! Small budget ($2.6M) with smallsaving potential
! Are there concerns aboutengagement that is not led bythe Engagement department?
Parent engage-ment FY14budget: $2.6M
There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue toRFP 25
PRELIMINARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
65/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 65
pursue without further deep dive (2/2) Financial opportunity$Efficiency opportunitye
Current situation Key factors to considerRationale to not include
General staffingand recruitingFY14 budget: N/A
! Some new thinking aroundconversion rates of applicantsdoing more with less
! Are we concerned aboutpipelines and the need forfurther analysis andidentification?
! Small department withopportunities that are largely costcenters
External funds
transparencyFY14 budget: N/A
! New rigor of analysis brought to
funds and where they come from! Compliance requests handled
department by department
! Grantmaking bodies (including the
feds) mostly require accounting,building internal accountability
! Have there been historical
audits that turned up issues?
Extra curriculars
FY14 budget: N/A
! How concerned are we thatBEDF is not maximizing
potential?
! Are principals concerned by alack of extracurricular options?
! There are opportunities toenhance services, but would
require a good deal of work tocapture smaller opportunities
! Changes begun to evaluatepartners and manage better
!
Limited transparency intoeffectiveness of programs
e
$
CurriculumFY14 budget: $7M
! Recent leadership has begunreassessment of curriculum, whichis outdated
! How much of the rest of thesystem does curriculum drive?Should they be considered aspart of another deep dive?
! Opportunities for savings andbetter outcomes will come fromdeep review of pedagogy andcurriculum
$
e
TimekeepingFY14 budget: N/A
! Paper systems utilized with
manual entry! Supervisor process for checks on
this process
! Are there ways we can leverage
the city here to move BPS moreautomated process?
! Some opportunities in
technological enhancements, butnot critical upgrade
e
Role delineationFY14 budget: N/A
! Roles and duties between centraloffice and schools unclear undernetwork model
! Some overlap in roles (e.g., PD)
! Better communication and thoughton roles can improve clarityquickly, without needing to go verydeep
! Is there a need to understand,more deeply what is driving thelack of clarity?
Area
There are 4 areas with opportunities that are connected to other,RFP 25
PRELIMINARY
-
8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft
66/221
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 66
parallel process at this time Financial opportunity$Efficiency opportunitye
Current situation Key factors to considerArea Rationale to not include
Construction
FY14 budget:$26M
! $3-$4B in current needs
!
Capital planning process running
! With the capital planning processunderway, efforts would be
duplicative
! Costs here driven by academicdecisions around future footprint
! How will the future footprint bealigned to enable more
efficiently filled buildings andclassrooms even as enrollmentfluctuates?
NegotiationsFY14 budget: N/A
!
Negotiations planning (forteachers) slated to begin in the fallfor next contract (2017)
! New thinking around contracts atBPS (e.g., open-hiring)
!
Timeline for major changes in thisarea is set a ways off
! Currently managing contract andinnovating effectively
!
Are there analyses that weshould be considering that arevaluable now or valuableenough to do now in preparationfor negotiations? (e.g., cost of
contractually required class/support ratios, model for pay forperformance approach)
Student assign-ment FY14b