MASA Presentation
How does achievement influence budgeting
My Experience With Data Ferndale Schools 2014
Ferndale Schools 2017
Lakeview Schools 2017
3% Fund Equity
15% Fund Equity
15% Fund Equity
10 years of enrollment decline
3 years of enrollment increases
Increase SOC enrollment but not resident
Elementary schools underperforming
Elementary restructured to address achievement gap
Restructuring middle school
Achievement gap Multiple research based growing across all areas interventions put in place with reallocation of funds
Multiple years of increased spending on interventions resulted in lower test scores
WHAT DID THE DATA TELL US??? • We were the lowest spending on instruction in Oakland County • The second highest spending in operations • Spending more per student in non-Title buildings than Title buildings • Overspending in high school and underspending in elementary • Low academic achievement (especially upper social economic)
BUDGET PROCESS
We had to increase spending in elementary • Use M-STEP and NWEA to target areas where we needed to invest Decrease spending in high school • What did SAT, ACT, dropout rates, and failure rates tell us We restructured the following…. • K-2 and 3-5 building configuration • Move 6th grade to MS • Behavior and academic support positions added • Restorative Practices positions added • Updated math materials K-12 • Redesign HS into career pathways • Design seminar period in MS/HS for tier II/III intervention
We moved from lowest in instructional spending to county average in two years
Lakeview School District Student Count Free and Reduced Staff FTE ACT Average M-Step Proficiency Square Miles Foundation Allowance
4143 45% 404 19.2 34% 14 $7395
Comparison Districts District Clio Garden City Greenville Lapeer Lincoln Schools Northview Reeths-Puffer Saginaw Township Southgate Swartz Creek
Students 3115 3769 3739 5054 3815 3349 3787 4883 4039 3814
FRL 46% 51% 47% 44% 43% 42% 48% 44% 45% 46%
What Did The Data Show Lakeview
What Did Data Show Me?
We are not performing compared to our Free/Reduced Lunch peer group…
3rd Grade ELA
3rd Grade ELA is our lowest performance…how are we budgeting for elementary???
NWEA
Expenditures (*excluding special education)
Spending $1.7 million more than our peers, many outperforming us….
Curriculum Instruction Comparison Function 221
Most of this spending is for elementary intervention and coaching
12
Curriculum Instruction Comparison Function 125
Also intervention, both elementary and secondary 13
Non-Instructional Technology
Spending on 1 to 1 Chromebooks
14
Salaries and Benefits to Expenditures
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Lakeview -Calhoun 77.1% 79.0% 82.0% 81.2% 80.8% 82.6% 81.7% 82.1% 82.1% 83.4%
Peers 84.2% 84.4% 84.4% 84.2% 84.1% 83.3% 82.9% 81.5% 81.3% 80.3%
Non-deficit LEAs and PSAs 78.0% 77.7% 77.6% 77.2% 76.7% 75.3% 74.6% 74.4% 74.6% 73.9%
Deficit Line 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8%
15
Teacher Salary Data…
So what did we learn??? • We are underperforming on the M-STEP with comparative schools • We are overspending by $1 million on Improvement of Instruction but dropping on test scores (had a $900,000 grant) • NWEA does not show any significant growth
What happened???
This Is What Happened… • We had instructional support personnel but no MTSS system in place (there was very little tier I) • We were so focus on F/P scores that we rarely did M-STEP like questions • We did not use the NWEA information to inform instruction • Our middle school had far more classroom teachers than elementary (per student) due to type of schedule
So What Did We Do With This Information 1.
Show Board that just hiring more staff does not equal achievement
2.
Show admin team that increased intervention has not equaled achievement
3.
Set budget targets based upon higher performing school districts
4.
Program evaluation rubric for all buildings and departments…using Hattie’s research
For Example…. Program
One to One Technology
Purpose/Goal
To close achievement gap through universal use of technology
Starting Year
2014-2015
Cost
$250,000 per year
MTSS Tier
I, II, and III
Evidence
Tier II and III online interventions are showing data that is closing the gap (Math XL, Study Island, etc…)
Hattie’s Research
Effect size of 0.16
Once everyone has done this, then we can start having conversations about what we are spending money on that is making a difference in achievement.
Did you reduce everything noninstructional first???
Operations spending is not too far off…
Transportation...
Transportation... Use comparisons for square miles… • Are we $500,000 less than our peers or • $174,000 more than our peers Using similar square miles we are $174,000 more than our peers
So what’s next??? Increased achievement with decreased overall spending
Questions??? Blake J. Prewitt Ed.S Superintendent Lakeview School District [email protected] 269-565-2401 Denise Kish Director of Academic Services Eidex [email protected] 989-295-2073
My Experience With Data Ferndale Schools 2014
Ferndale Schools 2017
Lakeview Schools 2017
3% Fund Equity
15% Fund Equity
15% Fund Equity
10 years of enrollment decline
3 years of enrollment increases
Increase SOC enrollment but not resident
Elementary schools underperforming
Elementary restructured to address achievement gap
Restructuring middle school
Achievement gap Multiple research based growing across all areas interventions put in place with reallocation of funds
Multiple years of increased spending on interventions resulted in lower test scores
WHAT DID THE DATA TELL US??? • We were the lowest spending on instruction in Oakland County • The second highest spending in operations • Spending more per student in non-Title buildings than Title buildings • Overspending in high school and underspending in elementary • Low academic achievement (especially upper social economic)
BUDGET PROCESS
We had to increase spending in elementary • Use M-STEP and NWEA to target areas where we needed to invest Decrease spending in high school • What did SAT, ACT, dropout rates, and failure rates tell us We restructured the following…. • K-2 and 3-5 building configuration • Move 6th grade to MS • Behavior and academic support positions added • Restorative Practices positions added • Updated math materials K-12 • Redesign HS into career pathways • Design seminar period in MS/HS for tier II/III intervention
We moved from lowest in instructional spending to county average in two years
Lakeview School District Student Count Free and Reduced Staff FTE ACT Average M-Step Proficiency Square Miles Foundation Allowance
4143 45% 404 19.2 34% 14 $7395
Comparison Districts District Clio Garden City Greenville Lapeer Lincoln Schools Northview Reeths-Puffer Saginaw Township Southgate Swartz Creek
Students 3115 3769 3739 5054 3815 3349 3787 4883 4039 3814
FRL 46% 51% 47% 44% 43% 42% 48% 44% 45% 46%
What Did The Data Show Lakeview
What Did Data Show Me?
We are not performing compared to our Free/Reduced Lunch peer group…
3rd Grade ELA
3rd Grade ELA is our lowest performance…how are we budgeting for elementary???
NWEA
Expenditures (*excluding special education)
Spending $1.7 million more than our peers, many outperforming us….
Curriculum Instruction Comparison Function 221
Most of this spending is for elementary intervention and coaching
12
Curriculum Instruction Comparison Function 125
Also intervention, both elementary and secondary 13
Non-Instructional Technology
Spending on 1 to 1 Chromebooks
14
Salaries and Benefits to Expenditures
Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Lakeview -Calhoun 77.1% 79.0% 82.0% 81.2% 80.8% 82.6% 81.7% 82.1% 82.1% 83.4%
Peers 84.2% 84.4% 84.4% 84.2% 84.1% 83.3% 82.9% 81.5% 81.3% 80.3%
Non-deficit LEAs and PSAs 78.0% 77.7% 77.6% 77.2% 76.7% 75.3% 74.6% 74.4% 74.6% 73.9%
Deficit Line 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8%
15
Teacher Salary Data…
So what did we learn??? • We are underperforming on the M-STEP with comparative schools • We are overspending by $1 million on Improvement of Instruction but dropping on test scores (had a $900,000 grant) • NWEA does not show any significant growth
What happened???
This Is What Happened… • We had instructional support personnel but no MTSS system in place (there was very little tier I) • We were so focus on F/P scores that we rarely did M-STEP like questions • We did not use the NWEA information to inform instruction • Our middle school had far more classroom teachers than elementary (per student) due to type of schedule
So What Did We Do With This Information 1.
Show Board that just hiring more staff does not equal achievement
2.
Show admin team that increased intervention has not equaled achievement
3.
Set budget targets based upon higher performing school districts
4.
Program evaluation rubric for all buildings and departments…using Hattie’s research
For Example…. Program
One to One Technology
Purpose/Goal
To close achievement gap through universal use of technology
Starting Year
2014-2015
Cost
$250,000 per year
MTSS Tier
I, II, and III
Evidence
Tier II and III online interventions are showing data that is closing the gap (Math XL, Study Island, etc…)
Hattie’s Research
Effect size of 0.16
Once everyone has done this, then we can start having conversations about what we are spending money on that is making a difference in achievement.
Did you reduce everything noninstructional first???
Operations spending is not too far off…
Transportation...
Transportation... Use comparisons for square miles… • Are we $500,000 less than our peers or • $174,000 more than our peers Using similar square miles we are $174,000 more than our peers
So what’s next??? Increased achievement with decreased overall spending
Questions??? Blake J. Prewitt Ed.S Superintendent Lakeview School District [email protected] 269-565-2401 Denise Kish Director of Academic Services Eidex [email protected] 989-295-2073
