KEY FINDINGSKEY FINDINGS

An Analysis of DCPS General Education

Resources in Preliminary Local School Budgets for

FY 2009Analysis by Mary Levy, Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban

Affairs

July 17, 2008

WHAT WAS ANALYZEDWHAT WAS ANALYZED• General education resources for DCPS local

schools for Fiscal year 2009 • Based on May 2008 posting of local school

budgets by DCPS. Changes may have been made since then—but no information is available.

• Does not include funds for English Language Learners, special education, or federal funds.

• 112 schools included. Excludes special education schools and centers, Peabody early childhood, Oyster bilingual, schools-within-schools (Reggio Emilia, Dunbar Pre-Engineering, Woodson Business & Finance) and STAY programs.

DCPS PER STUDENT DCPS PER STUDENT FUNDINGFUNDING

• Public education funding is higher this year than ever before.

• In three-fourths of the schools, per pupil funding increased by more than enough to cover the likely amount of negotiated pay increases, but a few will have less funding per pupil than last year and one-fourth will lack funding fully to cover likely pay

increases.

DCPS PER STUDENT DCPS PER STUDENT FUNDINGFUNDING

• DCPS replaced the Weighted Student Formula with a Staff & Budget Allocation model.

• New goal = make sure every student has the same staffing at every school with variances based on grades served, school size, and “comprehensive staffing” of consolidating schools.

• Art, music and PE added to every ES. Professional developers (coaches) for literacy and sometimes math added to schools. Other positions eliminated or replaced with similar functions.

Key Finding #1: Key Finding #1: Discrepancies between Low Discrepancies between Low

Income & Affluent Income & Affluent Communities’ SchoolsCommunities’ Schools

• Overall, as groups, the ES and HS with the fewest low-income students receive more local funding per pupil than any other groups of schools in the city, including the ES with the greatest percentage of low-income students.

• Last year the situation was the reverse. Total average per student local funding for the most affluent schools was $5,925 compared to $6,222 for the highest poverty elementary schools.

Comparison of average per pupil local funds of the lowest and highest poverty

schoolsGrade Level

Students Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch

# schoolsAverage per pupil

local fundingFY2009

Elementary (Pre S-grade 6)

33% or lessLowest poverty

12 $ 7,269

More than 85%Highest poverty 16 $ 6,805

PreS-8(up to grade 7/8)

All are greater than 40%High poverty

19 $ 7,118

Middle (grades 6/7 – 8)

Less than 40% Low poverty

3 $ 6,351

Greater than 40%High poverty

10 $ 7,255

Regular senior high

Less than 40% (1 @ 38%)Low poverty

1 $ 5,848

Greater than 40% High poverty

9 $ 6,340

Magnet senior high (selective admissions)

Less than 31%Low poverty

3 $10,570

Greater than 40% (1 @ 43%) High poverty

1 $ 8,376

Key Finding #2:Key Finding #2:Funding Variations are Funding Variations are

ExtremeExtreme• The budgets show discrepancies of up to

$4,200 per student among individual schools at the same grade level. The extremes are not just a few exceptions, since the discrepancies between the 25th and 75th percentiles at all grade levels run from over $1,000 to over $2,000 per student.

• Last year (SY 2007-08) the gap between the lowest and highest elementary schools was a little under $2000, but differences of that magnitude were exceptional: the funding difference between the 10th and 90th percentile schools was $625 and between the 25th and 75th percentile schools only $265.

Key Finding #3: Key Finding #3: Restructuring Funding Lower

than OthersElementary, Pre-K - 8, and high schools undergoing NCLB restructuring receive less local funding per pupil on the average than higher performing schools.

DCPS Local $$ Per Pupil: Restructuring vs. Other Schools

$6,788 $7,088 $7,035 $7,270 $7,378$6,553 $6,282

$9,689

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

ESRestruc

ES Other PreS-8Restruc

PreS-8Other

MSRestruc

MS Other SHRestruc

SHMagnet

(notrestruc)

Key Finding #4: Class Size Key Finding #4: Class Size VariationsVariations

Elementary and high schools with the fewest low-income students have smaller class sizes on the average than those in other schools in the city.

Within the middle school group, however, higher poverty schools on the average have smaller class sizes.

Comparison of average class size of the lowest and highest poverty schools

Grade Level Students Eligible forFree/Reduced Lunch

# of schools

Average class size

PreS-PreK K-12

Elementary (PreS-grade 6)

33% or less (lowest poverty) 12 17.0 21.8

More than 85% (highest poverty) 16 16.3 24.1

PreS-8 (up to grade 7/8)

All are more than 40% (high poverty) 19 19.6 21.9

Middle (grades 6/7 – 8)

Less than 40% (low poverty) 3 26.2

More than 40% (high poverty) 10 24.7

Regular high schools Less than 40% (low poverty) 1 22.9

More than 40% (high poverty) 9 23.7

Magnet high schools (selective admission)

Less than 31% (low poverty) 3 14.5

More than 40% (1 @ 43%) (high poverty) 1 16.2

Class Size in Restructuring Class Size in Restructuring HSHS

Average class sizes in schools undergoing NCLB restructuring generally do not differ much from those in other schools—except at the high school level.

DCPS magnet high schools (all non-restructuring) have much smaller classes than the high schools in restructuring. 15.1 vs. 23.5

Key Finding #5:Key Finding #5:ESL Not in ComplianceESL Not in Compliance

About half the schools needing teachers for English Language Learners are allocated fewer teachers than required by the DCPS Compliance Agreement with the US

Department of Education.

Key Finding #6:Key Finding #6:DCPS Teacher Allocation Model DCPS Teacher Allocation Model

Not FollowedNot Followed

Only 24% of the school allocations actually adhere to the Staffing Model as to classroom teachers. Most of the rest have fewer classroom teachers than they are entitled to, but a small number have more.

Key Finding #7:Key Finding #7:Custodial Staffing UnfairCustodial Staffing Unfair

Custodians are assigned on the basis of enrollment, with a minimum of three per building, resulting in per custodian coverage of as little as 5,500 square feet or as much as 37,000 square feet of school floor space.

If a typical classroom is 800 sq. ft., then some custodians will clean the equivalent of 7 classrooms and others will clean 46.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS1. Increase funds to low-income schools with the

greatest need, without pulling resources from other schools. Estimated cost = $48 million dollars.

2. Use the staffing model to permit the hiring of teachers and other personnel at schools where they are short personnel under the model. Estimated cost $9 million dollars (included in $48 million above).

3. Retain local school influence over budgets and staffing and permit increased flexibility in the staffing model to allow local schools to meet individualized needs within their budget allocation.

RECOMMENDATIONSRECOMMENDATIONS4. Bring the staffing of ESL teachers into

compliance with the federal compliance agreement.

5. Assign custodial staff based on building size as well as enrollment.

6. Assess the staffing model for special education programs and services.

7. Establish an ongoing working group of DCPS central office officials, budget analysts and local school and community representatives who begin now to evaluate the model, address inequities, and field test any changes for next year.