mcps board meetingfile/prog perform...•mcps’ performance challenge is a result of both across...

© Education Resource Strategies, Inc. 2018

MCPS Board MeetingShare-out: ERS/MCPS Partnership

April 29, 2019

Who is ERS?

2

ERS is a non-profit organization dedicated to

transforming how urban school systems organize

resources (people, time, and money) so that every

school succeeds for every student.

2

We believe…

• All students deserve a great education tailored to their needs.

• One school-at-a-time reform is not enough; we must redesign school

systems to create the conditions for all schools to succeed.

• It’s not just about how much you have, but how well you use it:

districts can restructure their resources to meet their strategic goals

and schools’ unique needs.

3

We partner with states and districts across the country to transform

resource use so that every school succeeds for every student

Current State Work

Past State Work

Current District Work

Past District Work

ESSA Work

Agenda

• Performance Review

• MCPS/ERS Partnership: Project Overview and Approach

• Key Findings: School Funding

5

Performance

At an aggregate level, MCPS’ performance is higher than other MD districts with similar levels of students in poverty

7

Allegany

Anne Arundel

Baltimore City

Baltimore County

Calvert

Caroline

Carroll

CecilCharles

Dorchester

Frederick

Garrett

Harford

Howard

Kent

Montgomery, 51%

Prince George's

Queen Anne's

Saint Mary's

Somerset

TalbotWashington

Wicomico

Worcester

State

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

15% 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% 75%% o

f Stu

dent

s in

Sch

ool M

eetin

g P

AR

CC

Pro

ficie

ncy

Targ

et

% of Students in School Qualifying for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FARMs)

Overall % of Students Scoring Proficient or Higher on 2018 PARCC ELA Assessment Grades 3-8 by District % FARMs

Source: Maryland DOE MCAP (PARCC) 2018

However, only certain groups of students outperform peer MD districts

8

51%

75%

47% 46% 44%

28%

21%

47%

63%

41%

46%

32%

20% 20%

52%

63%

51% 50%

36%

28%25%

45%

58%

39%

45%

28%

18%22%

Overall Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups

(Monitoring)

Non-FARMsBlack or African-American

Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino

FARMsAll other Student Groups

FARMsBlack or African-American

FARMsHispanic/Latino

% of MCPS Students Proficient on 2018 PARCC ELA by Student Group, Grades 3-8

MCPS Anne Arundel Frederick Harford


% of Students % Monitoring % AA Non-FARMs % Hi Non-FARMs % Other FARMs % AA FARMs % Hi FARMs

MCPS 44% 10% 10% 5% 12% 20%

In addition to performing similarly to students in peer MD districts, African American and Hispanic FARMs students also perform similarly to that of students in another MD district, Prince George’s County

9

51%

75%

47% 46%44%

28%

21%

29%

62%

38%

32%34%

24%21%

Overall Non-FARMsAll other Student Groups

(Monitoring)

Non-FARMsBlack or African-

American

Non-FARMsHispanic/Latino

FARMsAll other Student Groups

FARMsBlack or African-

American

FARMsHispanic/Latino

% of MCPS Students Proficient on 2018 PARCC ELA by Student Group, Grades 3-8

MCPS Prince George's


Part of the performance challenge is a result of differences in performance across MCPS schools

10

R² = 0.78

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% o

f Stu

dent

s in

Sch

ool M

eetin

g P

AR

CC

Pro

ficie

ncy

Targ

et

% of Students in School Qualifying for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FARMs)

% of All ES Students in School Proficient on 2018 PARCC ELA by % FARMs

Wheaton

Woods

Source: MCPS Student Performance File, PARCC 2018

Spark M.

Matsunaga

Highland

Part of it is due to the fact that AA/Hispanic FARMs students do not perform substantially better in lower-poverty schools

11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%

% o

f Stu

dent

s in

Sch

ool M

eetin

g P

AR

CC

Pro

ficie

ncy

Targ

et

School % FARMs

% of Students Proficient on PARCC 2018 ELA by Subgroup and % FARMs – All School Levels

Other Non-FARMs

Other FARMs

AA Non-FARMs

Hispanic Non-FARMs

AA FARMs

Hispanic FARMs

Source: MCPS Student Performance File, PARCC 2018; ERS Analysis

* Other FARMs subgroup comprises off all FARMs students, excluding AA/Hispanic FARMs

* Monitoring subgroup includes off all Non-FARMs students, excluding AA/Hispanic Non-FARMs

n = 35 n = 28 n = 28 n = 16 n = 18 n = 27 n = 20 n = 14 n = 9

MCPS is unlike the national trend when evaluating the “Peer Effect” (where FARMs students in low-poverty schools outperform all students (FARMs and non-FARMs) in high-poverty schools)

12

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

1-5% 6-10% 11-25% 26-34% 35-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%

Ave

rage

Sca

le S

core

201

7 N

AE

P G

rade

8 R

eadi

ng

School % FARMs

National Data: Average Scale Score on 2017 NAEP Grade 8 Reading Assessment by School % FRL (National Average)

Non-FARMs Students

FARMs Students

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2017 Reading Assessment.

Summary - Performance

• While at an aggregate level MCPS outperforms districts of similar levels of need,

only certain groups of students within MCPS experience this outperformance

• MCPS’ performance challenge is a result of both across school and within school

performance differences

oAcross school: Like most districts studied across the U.S., in MCPS, high FARMs schools have

lower performance than low FARMs schools

oWithin school: Unlike most districts studied across the U.S., in MCPS, African American and

Hispanic FARMs students who attend low need schools do not do profoundly better than their

peers in high need schools

13

ERS/MCPS PartnershipProject Overview

What is resource equity?

15

Resource equity is the allocation and use of resources

(people, time, and money) to create student experiences

that enable all children to reach empowering, rigorous

learning outcomes — no matter their race or income.

EQUALITY EQUITY

Copyright 2018 The Education Trust

How Much and How Well

How MuchStudent

OutcomesHow Well

Inequities persist, even when funding increases. How well those funds are used is critical to equitably improving student outcomes.

17

18

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Equity Dimension Vision: All Students…

School FundingAttend schools with sufficient funding to meet their needs, and those dollars

are used well

Teaching Quality Experience an effective educator workforce that reflects student diversity

Empowering, Rigorous

Curriculum &

Coursework

Are held to high expectations and have access to -and succeed in- rich and

empowering curriculum materials, coursework, and class offerings.

Instructional Time &

AttentionGet the instructional time and teacher attention they need to thrive

Diverse & Inclusive

Schools

Attend schools and classes that are racially and socioeconomically

diverse and inclusive of English learners and students with disabilities

Whole Child Approach

Feel engaged, respected, and like they belong in school. They have the

academic, physical and mental supports, and college and career guidance

they need to succeed in school and life

School Leadership

Quality

Experience effective school leadership that raises the overall effectiveness

of their entire teaching staff

Early Intervention

Receive the early academic, physical, and mental health supports and

interventions they need such that needs are addressed early before

students can fall behind

Early Learning Start kindergarten ready to thrive, and with a sound foundation for success

Family Academic

Engagement

All families feel welcome and empowered to meaningfully engage in their

child’s school experience.

Learning-Ready

Facilities

No student attends schools that are unsafe, unwelcoming, or otherwise

impede learning.

19

We Cannot Forget: ESSA creates unprecedented levels of transparency around district and school funding

* ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C)

Districts must report actual per pupil

expenditures for the district and each school

starting in FY20

Inspire actions to improve equity &

outcomes?

Objectives for our work• Build a deep understanding of resource allocation, use, and equity across the district and

within schools

• Build an understanding of how MCPS compares to other similar districts in resource allocation,

use, and equity

• Share learnings on promising practices from schools that are getting student results

• Create a set of tools that enable school and system leaders to make changes to resource use

that aim to improve the equitable and effective use of resources

• Identify considerations for change or further study

• Develop and implement an effective communication and engagement plan around per pupil

spending and resource allocation and use

20

21

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Equity Dimension Vision: All Students…

School Funding• Intended staffing formulas

• Actual spending by school

Teaching Quality

• Which teachers (novice, teacher leaders) are teaching which

students (focus groups, previous achievement) in which classes

• Teaching loads and course loads (number of students, number of

sections, number of preps) by different teacher types (novice,

experienced)


Curriculum &

Coursework

• Courses offered

• Courses taken


Attention

• Class sizes

• Ratios of students/adults

• Time spent on core content

Diverse & Inclusive

Schools• Student makeup within classes

Whole Child Approach• Staffing formulas

• Principal survey responses

School Leadership

Quality• Principal tenure (length of time in education, leadership, school)

Early Intervention

Early Learning

Family Academic

Engagement

Learning-Ready

Facilities

What data did we look at?

Tools and Communications

• Strategic resource dashboards

• Promising practice school spotlights

• Communication and stakeholder

engagement planning

Diagnostic

• Principal survey

• Performance

• District and school funding assessment

• School level resource use and school

design assessment

Key project deliverables

22

We engaged a cross-functional MCPS project team as a critical partner in this work

23

Members Role

Kecia Addison Supervisor, Applied Research Unit

Elliot Alter Principal, Beall Elementary School

Deborah Higdon Principal, Lakewood Elementary School

Troy Boddy Director, Equity

Juan CardenasAssistant to Associate Superintendent, Office of Shared

Accountability

Jeff Cline Principal, Oak View Elementary School

Deann Collins Director, Division of Title I and Early Childhood Programs

Amy CroppDirector, Division of Prekindergarten, Special Programs and

Related Services

Nicky Diamond Chief Financial Officer

Dana Edwards Director, Certification and Staffing

Mary Jane EnnisDirector, Deputy Superintendent of School Support and

Improvement

Dyan Gomez Supervisor, School and Financial Operations Team

Members Role

Julie HallDirector, Division of Business, Fiscal and Information

Systems

Niki HazelAssociate Superintendent, Curriculum and Instructional

Programs

Diane MorrisArea Associate Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent of

Schools Support and Improvement

Scott MurphyDirector, Department of Secondary Curriculum and

Districtwide Programs

Yolanda Stanislaus Director, Department of Professional Growth Systems

Sharron Steele Executive Director, Office of Chief Academic Officer

Carly Thompson Management / Budget Specialist, Budget Unit

Jennifer Webster Director, Associate Superintendent of Secondary Schools

Travis Wiebe Principal, Wyngate Elementary School

Janet Wilson Associate Superintendent, Office of Shared Accountability

Myriam Yarbrough Principal, Paint Branch High School

MCPS comparison districts from the ERS database

24

Comparison districts do not reflect best practices.

Differences from comparison districts are expected and help prioritize deeper inquiry.

Austin, TX

Baltimore City, MD

Montgomery County, MD

Boston, MA

Charlotte, NC

Fulton, GA

Los Angeles,

CA

Palm Beach, FL

Shelby County,

TN

About comparison districts

• Selected from dozens of

districts in the ERS database

• Relatively similar in size,

student composition and

context when viewed

nationally

School Funding

School Funding: What does research say?

26

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

“[School finance] reforms cause increases in the achievement of

students…the implied effect of school resources on

educational achievement is large.”–Lafortune, Julien; Rothstein, Jesse; and Schanzenbach, DianeWhitmore. (2016)

Jackson, C.K., Johnson, R., and Persico, C. (2016). “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms,” The

Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 131, No. 1: 157-218. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036.

Lafortune, Julien; Rothstein, Jesse; and Schanzenbach, DianeWhitmore. School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement. Revised 2016. Institute for

Research on Labor and Employment. http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2016/School-Finance-Reform-and-the-Distribution-of-Student-Achievement.pdf; .

“…a 10% increase in per pupil spending each year…leads

to 0.31 more complete years of education, about 7%

higher wages, and 3.2 percentage point reduction in

the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are more

pronounced for children from low-income families”–Jackson, C.K., Johnson, R., and Persico, C. (2016)

https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036

http://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2016/School-Finance-Reform-and-the-Distribution-of-Student-Achievement.pdf

How do we measure school funding equity?

To assess this, we can look at:

• Adequacy of funding

• Differentiation in funding by:

oStudent populations

oSchool need levels

• Type of resources in which we invest

27

All students attend schools with sufficient funding to meet their needs

Our focus today

First, we explore how MCPS differentiates funding for different student populations

28

$2.5BSY17-18 Expenditure

All Students

(General Education)

English Language

Learners

• Classroom teachers

• School administrators

• District administrators

• School operations

• Materials and supplies

• ESOL teachers

Students with Disabilities• Special education teachers and paraeducators

Students in Poverty• Focus and Academic Intervention teachers

• Extra classroom teachers

How much do we spend? Who do we serve? What do we spend it on? (examples)

Our focus

today

Compared to peer districts, MCPS spends more overall per general education student and differentiates spending more for students in poverty

29

DistrictGeneral Education

Base ($000s)

Incremental Poverty

(FARMs) %

Incremental Poverty

(FARMs) $s

MCPS $10.9 14% $1.5

Peer Median $10.2 9% $0.9

MCPS Diff from Peer Median $0.7 5% $0.6

Charlotte $9.0 17% $1.5

Fulton County $8.7 9% $0.8

Palm Beach County $10.2 7% $0.7

Austin $9.1 9% $0.8

Shelby County $10.2 12% $1.2

Los Angeles $10.2 9% $0.9

Baltimore City $11.3 8% $0.9

Boston $13.4 5% $0.7

Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database* Note: This data does not include $4.1M of poverty investments in PreK

MCPS’ incremental investment in FARMs students is targeted to ES, with ES receiving 2x the incremental FARMs investment of MS and HS

30

Of the $87M incremental dollars MCPS

invests in students living in poverty, 74%

goes towards elementary schools, who

serve 54% of all FARMs students.

DistrictGeneral Education

Base ($000s)

Incremental Poverty

(FARMs) %

MCPS $10.9 14%

• MCPS ES 19%

• MCPS MS/HS 8%

Peer Median $10.2 9%

Charlotte $9.0 17%

Fulton County $8.7 9%

Palm Beach County $10.2 7%

Austin $9.1 9%

Shelby County $10.2 12%

Los Angeles $10.2 9%

Baltimore City $11.3 8%

Boston $13.4 5%

* Note: This data does not include $4.1M of poverty investments in PreKSource: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database

MCPS’ investments in FARMs and EL students drives higher spending per pupil for high need schools across all school levels

31

$8,770

$10,421

$11,565

$9,197 $9,718

$8,800

$9,993

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Non-Focus Focus Title I Non-Focus IM Non-Focus/IM HI

Spe

nd p

er P

upil

($s)

Dollar Per Pupil Spend at Schools Excluding Special Education Spend and Self-Contained Student Populations

Average of EL Dollars per Pupil

Average of FARMs Dollars per Pupil

Average of Dollars per Pupil without FARMsand EL Dollars

Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis

Elementary School Middle School High School

* Excluding Special Education Spend and Self-Contained Student Populations

Without the incremental EL and FARMs spend, higher need elementary and middle schools spend slightly less than lower need schools

32

$8,770

$10,421

$11,565

$9,197 $9,718

$8,800

$9,993

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000


Spe

nd p

er P

upil

($s)




Average of Dollars per Pupil without FARMsand EL Dollars


Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis* Excluding Special Education Spend and Self-Contained Student Populations

This is partially due to the fact that higher need schools have lower average teacher compensation and higher % novice teachers than lower need schools

33

$103,398 $99,402 $97,060

$107,624

$98,567

$107,249 $102,701

$-

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000


Ave

rage

Tea

cher

Com

pens

atio

n ($

s)

Average Teacher Compensation (Salary + Benefits) & % Novice Teachers by School Level and School Need

Average Teacher Compensation


% Novice Teachers 13% 16% 22 % 11% 23 % 10% 16 %

* Compensation is defined as salary plus benefits, but does not include pension contributions

* Average Teacher Compensation excludes special education and pre-k teachersSource: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis

If higher need schools had the same average teacher compensation as their lower need counterparts, they would get an additional $32M (or over 1/3 of the current incremental poverty investment)

34

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000


Spe

nd p

er P

upil

($s)




Total Teacher Compensation Differenceper Pupil

Average of Dollars without FARMs andEL Dollars per Pupil

Elementary School Middle School High SchoolSource: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis

Practically all of MCPS’ incremental FARMs spend goes towards instruction, unlike peer districts

35

94%

64%

83%

58%

40%

60% 59%53%

73%83%

20%

10%

36%

50% 10%22%

14%

14%

9%

5% 6%9%

15%7%

23%

8%

MontgomeryCounty

Peer Average Charlotte Fulton County Palm BeachCounty

Austin ShelbyCounty

Los Angeles Baltimore City Boston

% of Incremental FARMs Spending in Schools by Use

Untracked Budget Set-Aside

Business Services

Leadership

Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

Pupil Services & Enrichment

Instructional Support & ProfessionalGrowth (ISPG)

Instruction

Source: MCPS SY17-18 Expenditures, ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database* Nurse and Nurse Aid dollars excluded from calculations

Over 80% of MCPS’ total incremental FARMs investment is in teacher positions

36

43%

33%

12%

5%

3%

1%1% 1% 1%

0%

% Investment in FARMs Dollars in Schools Spent on Position

Focus and Intervention Teachers

Classroom Teachers

Paraeducators

Other Teachers

Assistant Principals

Non-Position

Coordinators/Managers

Guidance Counselors

Instructional Coaches

All Others


MCPS’ additional poverty investments result in significantly more staff in higher-need schools across all school levels

37

FTE/500 FTE per 500 Students by School Level and School Need

Excluding Special Education Spend and Self-Contained Student Populations

Elementary School FTE/500 Stud:

Non-Focus: 41

Focus: 51 (+10 or 24%)

Title 1 : 58 (+17 or 41%)

Middle School FTE/500 Stud:

Non-Focus: 42

Impacted: 47 (+5 or 12%)

High School FTE/500 Stud:

Non Focus/Impacted: 40

Highly Impacted: 47 (+7 or

18%)


Summary: School Funding• MCPS differentiates funding for FARMs students and schools more than peer districts across the

nation

• MCPS’ incremental FARMs investment is targeted to higher need ES. At higher need MS and HS,

the incremental investment is smaller and is mostly offset by differences in teacher compensation

costs

• MCPS’ incremental FARMs investment results in significantly more staff at higher-need schools,

mostly in teacher positions

• While we see this additional financial investment at higher need schools, we still see that

performance declines at higher need schools

• Now that we understand how much resources, we must look at how well those resources are used

38

Summary of Findings

39

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Equity Dimension Data Studied (SY1718)

School Funding• Higher-need schools have higher per-pupil spend

and more staff per student than lower-need schools

Teaching Quality• Do all students have access to highly quality

teachers? Do teachers have the supports they

need to be successful?


Curriculum & Coursework• Do all students have access to advanced

coursework?


Attention

• Are schools differentiating class sizes and time in

priority subjects, grades, and for students who are

furthest behind?

Diverse & Inclusive

Schools

• Who are students’ peers in their classes? Are lower-

performing students more likely to be in classes

with lower-performing peers?

Whole Child Approach• What practices do principals report their school

uses to support social-emotional learning?

School Leadership Quality• Do all students have access to high quality school

leaders?

Looking ahead

40

TEACHING

QUALITY

EARLY

LEARNING

WHOLE

CHILD

APPROACH

FAMILY

ACADEMIC

ENGAGEMENT

EARLY

INTERVENTION

INSTRUCTIONAL

TIME &

ATTENTION

EMPOWERING,

RIGOROUS

CURRICULUM &

COURSEWORK

Equity Dimension Data Studied (SY1718)

School Funding• Higher-need schools have higher per-pupil spend

and more staff per student than lower-need schools

Teaching Quality• Do all students have access to high-quality

teaching? Do teachers have the supports they

need to be successful?


Curriculum & Coursework• Do all students have access to advanced

coursework?


Attention

• Are schools differentiating class sizes and time in

priority subjects, grades, and for students who are

furthest behind?

Diverse & Inclusive

Schools

• Who are students’ peers in their classes? Are lower-

performing students more likely to be in classes

with lower-performing peers?

Whole Child Approach• What practices do principals report using to support

social-emotional learning?

School Leadership Quality• Do all students have access to high-quality school

leaders?

Appendix

Pupil Services & EnrichmentInstruction

Operations & Maintenance (O&M)

Instruction Support & Professional Growth (ISPG)

Business Services

Leadership

• Teacher Compensation

• Aides Compensation

• Substitute Compensation

• Librarian & Media Specialist

• Instructional Materials & Supplies

• Other Non-Compensation

• Other Compensation

• Extended Time & Tutoring

• Enrichment

• Social Emotional

• Physical Health Services & Therapies

• Career Academic Counseling

• Parent & Community Relations

• Professional Growth

• Curriculum Development

• Recruitment (of Instructional Staff)

• Special Population Program Management & Support

• Facilities & Maintenance

• Security & Safety

• Food Services

• Student Transportation

• Utilities

• Governance

• School Supervision

• School Administration

• Research & Accountability

• Communications

• Student Assignment • Human Resources

• Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution

• Data Processing & Information Services

• Facilities Planning

• Development & Fundraising

• Legal

• Insurance

42

To compare with other districts, ERS applies a consistent definition of “uses” and “functions”

mcps board meetingfile/prog perform...•mcps’ performance challenge is a result of both across...

Documents