Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
This report was done as part of an 8-week review at the request of the
Mayors office in collaboration with the district. Findings are preliminary
and indicate potential options for leadership consideration
What this work IS
INTRODUCTION
Cost
effectiveness
Student
outcomes
Operational
effectiveness
Stakeholder
engagement
INTRODUCTION
Glossary of terms
Term
Definition
Students whose native tongue is not English and have not achieved fluency
in English appropriate with their grade level
Students who have been formally evaluated by BPS and have been found to
have a disability that requires additional resources to meet the student need,
beyond a traditional general education setting
Inclusion
OT is individualized support for students to help them acquire basic skills for
daily living (e.g., self-grooming, self-feeding, self-dressing); PT is
individualized support for developing motor skills (e.g., walking, jumping,
lifting)
FNS is the department responsible for delivering food to all BPS students
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Appendix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive summary
While BPS pushes 55% of its funds to the schools, BPS has a significant
number of underutilized buildings and classrooms, spreading funds thin
across the system and lessening the impact of resources on a per pupil basis
To concentrate resources more effectively for students, BPS can right-size the
district to reflect current and projected BPS enrollment
Over a quarter of the BPS budget goes towards Special Education, meaning that
small changes in student classification can translate to large BPS savings
and 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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Right-size
the BPS
Footprint
Special
education
Transport
Activity
Savings opportunity
$50-85M /yr
Maintenance
FY16
FY17
FY18
Onetime
$120-205M one-time
Phase in of inclusion
External paraprofessionals
$9-11M /yr
$8-10M /yr
$6-19M /yr
Capturable
$5M /yr
revenues
$1-3M /yr
$1-3M /yr
custodian work
$1-3M /yr
contractor
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
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT
BPS per pupil spend is higher than peer averages, while just 36% of spend
gets to all students in the classroom
Per pupil spending
$, per student
BPS per pupil spend
is 11% higher than the
peer average of
$15,7552
17,455
Central office
2
2,375
2,191
976
3,480
Total1
Central
office
support functions
capture a lot of
spend, with
subpar systems
for managing
towards
improved operations outcomes
An overextended
BPS footprint
stretches limited
funds over a
large number of
schools
1,031
1,105
20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students
1,712
534
4,051
Special education
1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district
2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
Source: BPS FY15 all funds
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Opportunity to
consolidate
~30-50 schools
~$51-85m/yr plus
~$120-200m
one-time
Opportunity to
speed SPED
reforms
~$17-21M in FY16
and ~$63M longerterm annually
Opportunities to
improve
operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr
DRAFT
Key facts
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 system
performance better
If system moves towards right-sizing, up to $27M may be possible through ongoing reductions in support to smaller
footprint
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 student
count
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
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 with
stakeholders
The move to inclusion, already underway, can serve BPS students significantly better, but comes with substantial
upfront 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
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, and
can improve participation, changes in delivery and participation could capture ~$2-8M
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
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Since 1994, BPS student population has declined 17%, but the
number of schools has remained relatively constant
DRAFT
150
66,000
64,000
Projections
suggest no
additional space
will be needed in
the future
62,000
100
60,000
58,000
50
56,000
54,000
0
1994 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 2015
With students decreasing, the funding for each student must continue
to cover the systems fixed costs including the buildings but also the
principals and school staff which are present at each location
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education; Internal interviews; BPS data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Consolidate
classroom staff
Foundation
for school staff
Average
custodial
support
Average
building
maintenance
Average
utilities
Prior cost
Cost after
closing
Savings after
closing
$3.8m
$2.3-2.8m
$1.0-1.5m
$200k
$0
$200k
$166k
$50k
$116k
$191k
$57k
$134k
$260k
$0
$260k
Total
1 Assumed
DRAFT
$1.7- 2.2m
2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS
DRAFT
While these are possibilities, the school district will have the ability to choose
how it reinvests the money, taking into account the tradeoffs between
consistency across schools and school autonomy
Source: BPS data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 SPED is ~25% of the BPS spend and 73% of its costs are in 3
areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Total spending $ 265m
School
level
As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget
$ 49m
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
$ 3m
Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
32.3
Top 25%
17.8
Massachusetts
19.5
Boston
17.3
25-50%
16.2
10
16.5
Massachusetts
14.8
50-75%
13.1
United States
0
DRAFT
11.0
Botton 25%
15
20
10
15
20
25
30
% FARM
100
Boston
80
60
40
35
20
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
% SWD
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT
classrooms in 2013
1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 Office of Special Education City Council presentation, June 2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 SPED plan for roll-out currently spreads $326M in additional costs DRAFT
over 10 years, with eventual, annual savings reaching $63M, annually
Additional classrooms will add inclusion capacity
# inclusion classrooms added annually
141
139
135
133
107
95
73
27
85
75
50
38
25
Inclusion costs
123
129
123
119
103
91
83
75
70
Special education annual budget for classroom teaching will grow by ~$6M
annually at peak of 10 of roll out, with eventual budget shrinking by $65M / yr
$M, SPED classroom budget
124
63
59
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT
Decisions / actions
Opportunity to
reorganize central
office
Up to ~$27M ongoing
reduction
Opportunity to consolidate 30-50 schools
Decisions around central office alignment with new schools footprint will need to
happen with school closings to immediately align support as befits new district
~$51-85m/yr plus ~
$120-200m one-time
Opportunity to speed
SPED reforms
~$17-21M in FY16 and
~$63M longer-term
annually
Opportunities to
improve operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr
Transportation savings exist, but the decision would need to be made to lengthen
walks 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 aligned
with capital planning process
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 18
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Overview of BPS
DRAFT
Overview
Student
Outcomes
Finances
Key Issues
Key Insights
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
6%
Classroom and
Specialist Teachers
30%
Pupil Services
Teacher salaries,
benefits and other
teaching services
comprised 56% of the
FY13 annual budget
11%
Guidance, Counseling
1%
and Testing
3%
Instructional Materials,
Equipment and Technology 5%
Professional Development
17%
11%
Insurance, Retirement
Programs and Other
9%
Other Teaching Services
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Spending item
DRAFT
Amount
% of FY15 budget
$160M
14%
$138M
12%
Personnel
$57M
5%
Operations
Transportation
Food service
Facilities management
Custodial services
$36M
3%
$26M
2%
$22M
2%
Schools
School administration
Bilingual education
$51M
5%
$24M
2%
$45M
4%
SPED
$41M
4%
$34M
3%
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Fixed
costs
$ 232m (20%)
$ 1,178m
Variable costs
$ 947m
Non
$ 339m (29%)
instructional
Payments
to out-ofdistrict
schools1
Ops and
maintenance
Admin
$ 134m
$ 47m
$ 30m
Insurance, Pupil
Retirement services
and other
$ 196m
$ 125m
DRAFT
Instructional
Guidance,
counseling, etc.
Classroom
and
specialist
teachers.
Other
teaching
services
Instructional
leadership
$ 17m
$ 352m
$ 105m
$ 65m
$ 608m (51%)
Profess- Instructional
ional
Develop- materials
ment
$ 53m
$ 33m
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
Amount
Central budgets
Federal funds
(ARRA)
$2.1M
FY15 Lease
purchase
$11.2M
45%
55%
Grants
General funds
$134M
$975M
School
budgets
Total: $1,122M
ARRA and grant funding generally has little flexibility, and cannot
be used for purposes other than what they were initially identified
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Central budgets
45%
Total
Health
ins. &
pension
Ctrl. off.
admin &
support
Choice
transport.
SPED
transport.
24
26
Reserve
Tuition
22
Custodians
23
15
Utilities
10
Maintenance
Misc.
Secuity
HQ
equipment
ComInsurance
puters &
equipment
539
55%
184
School budgets
74
56
39
Total
29
29
27
Regu- SPED
BilinMisc.
SpeAdmin- SPED
lared.
teacher gual
teach- cialist
istrators aide
Teachers
teacher ing per- teacher
sonnel
(coaches,
librarians,
substitute
20
SPED
resource
20
15
10
SPED ProNurses
itinerant gram
support
8
Counselor
CoorAides
dinators
Clerical Other
Misc.
support other
personnel
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
It costs BPS $4.6M to run the average BPS school, excluding support
costs from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services
DRAFT
Custodial
support
36 teachers
3,800
200
Custodial support
166
Building maintenance
191
Utilities
260
1 principal,
1 secretary,
and others
418 students
Total cost
Thousands
4,617
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
BPS has an above average per pupil expenditure, partly driven by region
Average per pupil expenditure
$, thousands per student in the state,
2010-2011
New York
Wyoming
Alaska
New Jersey
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Vermont
Maryland
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Delaware
Maine
Ohio
Illinois
Hawaii
Wisconsin
Minnesota
National avg.
Nebraska
North Dakota
West Virginia
Michigan
Louisiana
Kansas
Iowa
Montana
Washington
Virginia
Arkansas
Missouri
South Carolina
Oregon
New Mexico
California
Kentucky
South Dakota
Texas
Indiana
Florida
Colorado
Georgia
Alabama
Nevada
Tennessee
Arizona
North Carolina
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Utah
Idaho
New England
states
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
21.0
18.5
18.4
18.0
17.7
16.1
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.3
14.9
14.3
13.9
13.4
13.2
13.0
13.0
12.9
12.7
12.5
12.4
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.7
11.5
11.4
11.2
11.0
10.9
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.2
9.8
9.7
9.4
9.2
8.9
8.7
8.5
7.9
7.6
0
1 NCES 2010-2011
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Boston: $17,589
MA Avg.: $14,544
10,000
2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; counts just general funds
20,000
30,000
40,000
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Of BPS per pupil spend, 36% reaches directly into the classroom
DRAFT
17,455
2,375
Central office
976
3,480
Total1
Central
office
support functions
capture a lot of
spend, and needs
updated systems
for managing
towards
improved operations outcomes
An overextended
BPS footprint
stretches limited
funds over a
large number of
schools
1,031
1,105
20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students
1,712
534
4,051
Special education
1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district
2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
Source: BPS FY15 all funds
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
SPED is ~25% of BPS annual spending and 73% of SPED costs are in
three areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Total spending $ 265m
School
level
As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget
$ 49m
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
$ 3m
Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
59,000
1,000
58,000
800
57,000
600
56,000
400
55,000
200
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0
2005
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
Central office
Schools
(7-10%)
11,000
57,000
10,000
9,000
56,000
8,000
7,000
55,000
6,000
5,000
54,000
4,000
3,000
53,000
2,000
1,000
Future year
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
52,000
2009-10
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
Central
Schools
18
18
19
19
20
24
82
82
81
81
80
76
SY
2009-2010
SY
2010-2011
SY
2011-2012
SY
2012-2013
SY
2013-2014
SY
2014-2015
The change
in share is
representati
ve of smaller
school staff
numbers
with slightly
increased
central office
shares
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
10
21
35
62
13
3
BPS students1
18
24
84
BPS teachers2
47
Teachers nationally6
City of Boston3
Poverty indicators
% of population in poverty
78
Students at 185%
of federal poverty
line or below
42
Households at or below
185% of federal poverty
level for a family of four
BPS students4
DRAFT
City of Boston5
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS has a significantly higher rate of students qualifying for Free and
reduced meals than the state and nation
DRAFT
73.0
70.6
67.6
66.2
60.5
60.5
57.4
56.6
56.0
55.1
55.0
54.7
54.1
51.5
50.6
50.3
50.3
50.3
48.3
48.0
47.7
46.8
46.8
46.7
46.6
46.4
45.2
45.0
45.0
43.0
42.9
42.6
42.6
41.2
40.1
40.1
39.9
39.4
39.3
38.9
38.4
38.2
37.1
37.1
36.8
36.7
36.5
34.5
34.2
32.8
31.7
25.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
New England
states
Boston: 78%
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
BPS outpaces
the nation and
Massachusetts
districts in the
percentage of
students
qualifying for
free and
reduced meals
BPS is more in
line with urban
districts, where
38% of these
districts have
greater than
75% of students
qualifying for
free and
reduced meals
10 percent or less
26-50 percent
11-25 percent
51-75 percent
Locate
Total
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
15
21
15
20
38
28
36
16
27
26
22
29
21
37
36
14
15
30
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
18.7
17.8
17.4
17.3
17.2
16.8
16.7
16.6
16.5
15.7
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.0
15.0
14.8
14.8
14.7
14.7
14.6
14.6
14.3
14.3
14.2
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.0
14.0
13.9
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.1
13.0
12.6
12.5
12.4
12.3
12.3
12.2
11.9
11.3
11.3
11.2
11.1
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.3
9.9
9.1
10
15
20
19.5 Boston
New England
states
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
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
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
100
90
Boston
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
% SWD
% students classified with disabilities
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
+10%
31
31
28
30
28
2012 - 2013
14
16
15 15
14 13
11 11
9 10
9 10
9
6
Boston
41% of BPS
students now
identify as
Hispanic
BPS FY16
Weighted
Student Formula
allocates a
blended rate of
$1,677 per ELL
student
At FY16 rates,
this 10% change
would add
$12.8M to
district needs
30
25
Oakland1
Sacra- Tulsa
mento1
8
5
6
3
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Since 2009, BPS momentum has stalled. While it continues to track with
Massachusetts performance averages, the gap it narrowed in the early
2000s, is annually persistent
The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and their
white peers has not narrowed much in recent years
1 McKinsey and Company, "How the world's most improved school systems keep
getting better," 2010
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Grade 4 Reading
Average scale scores: 2003-2013
222
220
218
216
214
212
210
208
206
204
202
200
2201
2161
2201
220
221
270
265
215
217 2143
2101
2061
Large city
Grade 8 Reading
Average scale scores: 2003-2013
2171
2071
Boston
DRAFT
2101
211
212
2611
260
255
2601
2611
257
2521
2531
254
2061
245
2041
2491
266
258
255
2573
2551
250
2081
2621
2641
2501
2501
05
07
2521
240
2003
05
07
09
11
2013
2003
09
11
2013
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Grade 4 mathematics
Average scale scores: 2003-2013
Grade 8 mathematics
Average scale scores: 2003-2013
245
285
240
235
230
2371
2341
2391
2331
2291
2241
225
2281
2301
2391
240
2373
233
235
2761
265
2201
260
210
2781
2801
2821
2831
Large city
284
2832
2791
2761
2701
2691
2621
Boston
282
275
270
220
215
280
237
236
2311
241
DRAFT
274
276
2711
2651
2621
255
2003
05
07
09
11
2013
2003
05
07
09
11
2013
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
70
60
70
Mass
50
40
60
BPS
50
BPS
40
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
2006 07
08
09
10
11
12
13 2014
100
80
Mass
80
Mass
70
BPS
60
60
Mass
BPS
While BPS
tracks with the
state, Boston
consistently
underperforms
state averages
BPS students
are narrowing
the gap by
10th grade, but
are starting
significantly
behind their
peers in the
early grades
50
40
40
30
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
25
35
Mass
20
Mass
30
BPS
25
15
20
BPS
10
0
2008
15
0
09
10
11
12
13
2014
2008
10
11
12
13
2014
70
45
Mass
60
50
40
Mass
35
BPS
40
30
30
25
2008
09
BPS SPED
students are
tracking with
state
performance,
but with a
significant gap
in perfor-mance
from their
Massachusetts
peers
09
Source: MA DESE
10
11
12
13
2014
2008
BPS
09
10
11
12
13
2014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
35
60
Mass
30
BPS
BPS
50
Mass
40
BPS ELL
30
25
students rival
the performance of MA
ELL students
20
0
2008
0
09
10
11
12
13
2014
09
10
11
12
13
2014
60
50
Mass
55
50
BPS
45
BPS
BPS ELL
students
scores are
consistently at
or near overall
BPS performance
Mass
40
40
35
30
30
0
2008
2008
0
09
Source: MA DESE
10
11
12
13
2014
2008
09
10
11
12
13
2014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas, with 10th
White BPS students
Black BPS students
grade ELA being an exception
Mass. avg.
DRAFT
70
80
60
70
50
60
50
40
30
White BPS
students
perform at or
better than the
state average
40
30
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
2006 07
08
09
10
11
12
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
0
20
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
13 2014
Students of
color
consistently
achieve at a
rate nearly
half that of
white students
in the early
grades
0
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts, and its
population performs less well
DRAFT
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
Boston
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Boston
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
% SWD
% SWD
There is a correlation
in the state between
share of students
classified and overall
SWD performance
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state, BPS ELL
population performs better than correlations would predict
DRAFT
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
10 15
20 25
60
Boston
50
30 35
Boston
% ELL
10 15
20 25
30 35
% ELL
$ spent per SWD pupil
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DRAFT
Graduation rates
% of students graduating1
90
Mass
85
80
75
70
BPS
65
60
0
2006
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
2014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
70
47
DRAFT
42
28
1
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
70
28
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Parents perception of
Avg. score, 1-4 (4being the highest)
Parent Engagement
at Home
Overall Perception
of School
School Safety &
Welcoming Environment
Principal
Performance
Teacher
Performance
Parent Participation
at School
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
2.3
0
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
HUMAN CAPITAL
DRAFT
Year of birth
# of teachers by year of birth
1,275
933
680
151
75
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
968
96% of teachers
with evaluations on
file are rated
proficient or higher
2,719
626
24
No
evaluation
1990s
Evaluation rating
# of teachers
Unsatisfactory
131
NIP
Proficient
Exemplary
HUMAN CAPITAL
DRAFT
Age of principals
# of principals born in decade
51
36
21
The average
BPS principal
is 46 years old
18
7
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
Evaluation rating
# of teachers
75
Principals rated
lower than proficient
will almost always
be moved out of the
system
41
18
0
No
evaluation
Unsatisfactory
0
NIP
Proficient
Exceeds
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
ORGANIZATION
BPS is within range of peers, but still supports a lower than average
student to non-teaching staff ratio
DRAFT
4.9
5.8
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.4
8.4
If BPS were
at the peer
average, it
could have
500 fewer
FTEs
9.5
10.5
11.0
11.0
14.3
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 54
ORGANIZATION
The total number of FTEs, across schools and central office has not
declined in line with student population
Central office
DRAFT
Schools
11,000
57,000
(7-10%)
10,000
9,000
56,000
8,000
7,000
55,000
6,000
5,000
54,000
4,000
3,000
53,000
2,000
1,000
Future year
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
52,000
2009-10
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
DRAFT
Progress review
Phase 0:
Data collection and
interviews
Phase 1:
High-level diagnostic
Phase 2:
Deep-dive on priority areas
Phase 3:
Opportunity
development
Duration
Dec 8-19
Jan 5 -23
Jan 26 - Feb 13
Feb 16-27
Activities
Conduct high-level
quantitative and
qualitative analysis across
the 25 areas, including
benchmarking
Review previous reports,
studies, reviews, etc.
Analyze the BPS budget
Collect input on priority
operational areas from
internal and external
stakeholders through
interviews, focus groups,
and other forums
Synthesis of initial
key themes and
learning
Interim workshops as
requested by the City
Detailed diagnostic of
priority areas
Deliverables
Prioritize
improvement
opportunities based
on impact toward
BPS mission and
strategic goals
Identify short term
and long term
actions for
implementation
For priority opportunities, provide
rationale, estimates
of costs and cost
savings, and practical implementation
guidance
Workshop to align
on next steps for
BPS in capturing
opportunities
Agenda
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
CROSS-BPS THEMES
BPS has a strong talent base, but does not have a long-term strategy DRAFT
Challenge
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
to align process and execution
Stable, with opportunity
Overall
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
Positive inertia and a deep local talent pool sustains a comparatively good urban
system
Largely coasting for a number of years, modernizing and evolving has not been
deliberately and thoughtfully considered
Too large a physical footprint for the number of students currently being served
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., mutual
consent, weighted student funding)
Absence of overarching vision causes a focus on initiatives vs. system goals, drift in
how different areas move forward and causes an inability to execute/follow-through
Recurring budget shortages as available funds are spread thin across buildings and
programs, 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
CROSS-BPS THEMES
Challenge
DRAFT
Area of strength
Overall assessment
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student
assignment, q. parent engagement, r.
ELL)
Talent management
(a. personnel policies, b. contracts, c.
hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e.
instructional staff, s. licensing, t.
CORI / SORI)
Performance management
(v. performance objectives and
measurement tools)
Emerging themes
many areas
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
RFP 25
DRAFT
Analysis of RFP areas and cross-cutting themes identified 12 for
potential deep dive consideration
Cross-cutting theme, not an identified RFP area
From data and interviews, the Steering Committee considered the size of the opportunity in
terms of benefits to students, cost savings, and efficiency
From this approach, 11 areas emerged in two groups as potential Phase 2 targets
Quick wins
Long-term goals
These are areas of high opportunity that will also take time
3. Finance and
accounting
(budgeting process)
4. Org. structure
8. Technology
6. ELL
7. Data culture
9. Transportation
10. Special Education
11. Maintenance (of buildings)
12. Performance and quality objectives and measurement
tools
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 62
RFP 25
Approach
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
District overextension
ELL
Data culture
Technology
Transportation
Construction and
renovation
Negotiation
Student assignment
Purchasing
External funds
transparency
Instructional staffing
General staffing and
recruiting
Extracurriculars
Security
Licensure
Parent Engagement
School Committee
CORI / SORI
1. Food Services
2. Personnel
3. Org. structure
4. Finance & accounting
(budget process)
Outputs
Curriculum
Timekeeping
Role delineation
Ease
High
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 63
RFP 25
Security
FY14 budget:
$3.9M
Instructional
staffing
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
PRELIMINARY
Financial opportunity
Secure process keeps people from Have there been any lapses?
being hired before clearing
Is this a high-risk area?
activities
High-functioning department
Small budget ($2.6M) with small
saving potential
Focus on communities
BPS perceived to be largely safe
by school-based staff
Recent uptick in incidents, after 5year long decline
fresh thinking?
RFP 25
Financial opportunity
Curriculum
FY14 budget: $7M
Timekeeping
FY14 budget: N/A
Some opportunities in
Extra curriculars
FY14 budget: N/A
General staffing
and recruiting
FY14 budget: N/A
External funds
transparency
FY14 budget: N/A
Role delineation
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
PRELIMINARY
Roles and duties between central Better communication and thought Is there a need to understand,
RFP 25
There are 4 areas with opportunities that are connected to other, PRELIMINARY
parallel process at this time
e Efficiency opportunity
$ Financial opportunity
Area
Construction
FY14 budget:
$26M
Purchasing
FY14 budget: N/A
Negotiations
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
e
Capital planning process running
Good process of collaboration with Student assignment opportunities How much of student
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
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Food services
DRAFT
FY14: $36M
Summary points
Food services currently runs a significant deficit, where most districts roughly break even
Carrying dual management structure of doing half internally and half through vendor, Whitsons
Delivers meals to students at a rate at the high end of peer comparisons
Challenges
Annual losses at 11% of revenues, district performs low among peers
on this measure, where the average district loses just 1.5% of
revenues
Managing internal food services preparation as well as a food services
contract, roughly splitting up the district
Poor management of cafeteria workers between food services and
individual schools lead to failed pilots
High direct labor costs
Low levels of data tracking below the major data points used for
compliance
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
77
101
16
45
26
62
58
25
33
1
56
5
20
19
13
9
67
3
14
52
8
54
34
30
M
39
79
21
28
48
66
37
4
44
41
12
23
57
55
10
35
71
18
47
2
43
7
49
6
DRAFT
Boston
Districts
Median
2.16
2.22
2.46
2.47
2.51
2.52
2.58
2.64
2.69
2.76
2.79
2.83
2.84
2.85
2.89
2.89
2.92
2.97
3.02
3.06
3.08
3.09
3.09
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.26
3.26
3.27
3.39
3.41
3.41
3.42
3.49
3.51
3.60
3.61
3.63
3.63
3.64
3.70
3.71
3.71
3.81
3.82
3.84
3.93
3.96
BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis
4.57
20
45
19
33
62
4
13
9
34
79
12
39
21
101
14
10
47
3
28
6
5
56
18
M
16
58
44
8
48
66
55
67
41
1
7
35
43
52
30
71
2
37
57
49
26
54
77
71.44%
79.52%
83.12%
83.44%
88.02%
88.22%
91.99%
92.39%
92.58%
93.52%
93.63%
94.08%
94.28%
95.17%
95.32%
95.40%
95.57%
95.61%
97.01%
BPS is not
97.03%
getting the
97.15%
data tracking
98.41%
it needs to be
98.57%
successful
98.57%
and drive
98.57%
98.68%
revenues
99.12%
99.34%
99.56%
99.62%
100.00%
100.25%
100.35%
100.98%
102.13%
102.94%
103.33%
103.85%
103.94%
104.85%
105.40%
105.53%
105.89%
110.45%
113.33%
120.81%
121.51%
SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 69
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY13: $53M in PD
Summary points
Strong teacher performance rubrics, weak central office rubrics with inconsistent application, and little data-driven management
Professional development at the central office level is non-existent, while teachers and principals are deeply dissatisfied with it at school level
Challenges
No regular, central office staff evaluation expectations and rubrics
that do not align with job duties
Professional development is inconsistent and lacks any
coordination as it comes from nearly every central department,
leaving teachers and principals frustrated, but spent $53M1 in FY13
(4.5% of budget)
Boilerplate and rarely updated job descriptions
Outside of IT, no onboarding process for new employees and no
requirements for succession planning
Data systems do not talk to each other (SIS, EDFS, PeopleSoft and
TalentED all exist independently)
Of the 4,500 non-school based employees, only 1,185 have a
review on file; in 13-14, only 15 employees dismissed
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $1.7M
Budget & Finance dept.
Summary points
Challenges
Budget process has no strategic plan on which to anchor and fund or
defund priorities
Schools are under enrolled, requiring soft landings under WSF
BPS has 193 cost centers, over half of the citys, with policy changes
that affect coding and budget tracking, making parts of the budget
difficult to track
Finance and Human Capital systems do not talk, requiring manual
connections and adjustments
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
Summary points
Improved compliance monitoring in wake of DOJ finding, but the office remains compliance driven and struggles to focus on student outcomes
Not well integrated with general education and curriculum
Challenges
Views core work as monitor and supportto meet federal, state and
local mandates, with no clear vision of how to provide exceptional
services
Number of ELL students have doubled since 2010, making it one of the
highest in peer set
Not integrated into general education approach, academics department
has struggled to collaborate with ELL
Teachers do not feel supported by OELL
Data tracking not used to disaggregate factors in student performance
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
DRAFT
2010 - 2011
2012 - 2013
+100%
31
30
28
30
28
25
14
14
16
15 15
14 13
11 11
9 10
9 10
9
6
Oakland1
San
OklaFrancis- homa
co1
City
8 8
5 6
3 3
RFP 25
Technology
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $11.6M
Summary points
OIT viewed as one of the best run departments by the customers they serve
Data-driven culture used to track customer service metrics and drive performance
Technology at schools are on regular upgrade cycles, leading to decent technological infrastructure in place at schools
Challenges
Boston has second lowest IT spend of peer districts, less than 1/4 of
the median, per pupil and per FTE spends1
No process to align departments and schools on technology has led to
incompatible departmental purchases on software and forced OIT to
buy hardware for BPS departments to use, rather than departments
describing needs first and OIT purchasing
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median
Boston
DRAFT
80
68.61
66.09
63.66
63.56
34.55
33.86
32.42
32.26
28.29
27.32
27.10
26.43
25.23
25.20
24.93
23.70
22.49
20.68
19.85
19.82
19.77
19.72
19.71
18.85
17.93
17.70
17.54
17.45
15.19
12.22
11.73
11.68
11.62
11.54
10.56
8.89
7.67
4.78
2.37
2.29
1.09
Districts
0
33
19
2
30
62
21
14
45
52
57
34
7
39
12
4
35
66
41
6
49
37
3
M
46
25
71
5
11
32
23
67
53
13
48
56
16
1
44
8
9
55
58
101
26
10
100
200
300
400
500
600
$507.85
$497.62
$420.86
$419.58
$413.55
$412.13
$399.75
$359.76
$341.16
$338.91
$337.42
$316.99
$307.55
$274.82
$266.99
$260.22
$255.74
$248.33
$248.15
$242.72
$222.48
$220.28
$219.88
$219.47
$206.61
$187.81
$185.38
$171.30
$168.82
$168.08
$158.98
$155.40
$152.58
$150.56
$149.51
$134.54
$128.84
$123.46
$115.19
$108.75
$103.51
$95.87
$82.50
$81.08
$56.56
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Transportation
DRAFT
FY14: $109M
Summary points
Transportation is a strength of BPS, leveraging data-driven decision making, with results to show for efforts
Opportunities for cost savings are possible with policy changes and efforts around Special Education
Challenges
In 2012-2013 spent $1,255 per student for transportation, 20% higher
than median for peers1; biggest line item in the budget, at $109M
annually, bringing in line with peers could save ~$20M
Required to provide transport for charter schools and provide some
parochial transportation ($2M)
SPED transport costs $51M2 a year 5% of BPS budget
High driver wages and occasional wildcat strikes can cost instructional
time and money
Transition from zone transportation to homebase system has legacy
costs that will be stretched out of 8 year transitions
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Boston
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
12/22
12/15
12/8
12/1
11/24
11/17
11/10
11/3
10/27
10/20
10/13
10/6
9/29
9/22
9/15
50
9/8
Districts
Median
9/1
DRAFT
Week of
SY2013-2014
Current year
SY2012-2013
67
14
21
18
55
23
37
3
8
2
13
50
5
7
10
71
20
19
12
41
49
1
52
48
M
33
30
9
34
44
35
45
28
6
26
63
39
43
25
79
4
56
16
66
58
11
57
101
62
54
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
415
425
427
463
500
540
559
602
610
654
665
676
676
684
687
695
756
803
829
927
934
968
993
1,001
1,008
1,008
1,010
1,081
1,108
1,112
1,168
1,185
1,241
1,242
1,255
1,309
Bostons transportation
is ~20% higher than
peer districts
With a budget of
$109M, further savings
could be expected to
net as much as $20M
1,521
1,526
1,633
1,716
1,769
1,848
2,349
2,443
2,554
3,186
3,220
3,397
3,916
4,588
SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 77
RFP 25
DRAFT
Jefferson
Parish
Large
Nashville
Memphis
Size of
district
(sq. miles)
Indianapolis
Chicago
Medium
New
Orleans
RSD
Henry
County
Cleveland
Boston
Sacramento
Spokane
Oak-land
SB
Fullerton
Lawrence MA
FM
Small
Low
Medium
High
RFP 25
Special education
Opportunity type
$
DRAFT
FY14: $263M
Summary points
More than a quarter of the BPS budget, with many difficult regulations and scenarios, but with some real opportunities
Recent focus on moving Special Needs students to inclusive environments in year two of five year implementation, will improve services
Separation of SPED from general academics loosened accountability of general education teachers to keep students in general education
Challenges
Currently 20% of BPS students are identified SWD, of which 43% are not in
inclusionary environments; nationally 15% of SWD are in inclusionary
environments, implying Boston may be over identifying students for SPED
services
Special education funds are more than a quarter of BPS budget
Private placements and transportation account for 15% and 17% of the SPED
budget
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
2010 - 2011
DRAFT
2012 - 2013
-21%
21 21 20
19 20 20
DC
17 17 17 18
Colum-Ombus
aha
15
17
16
15 15 14 15
13
13 13 13 13
11 12 11 12 11 11
11
Nash- Oakville
land
9 9
Atlanta
RFP 25
Building maintenance
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $48M
Summary points
Facilities department has outdated information on state of buildings, with tracking that has not been updated in at least 5 years
As much as $600M in deferred maintenance and potentially as much as $4B in needed renovations across the system
Challenges
Lost system for tracking assets in 2009 and much of data with it, no
one in the department has a granular understanding of the current
needs and state of building stock
All work orders are tracked by hand on paper and excel, no attempt to
use technology
2009 report estimated $600M in deferred maintenance, but department
gets only $52M annual budget
$20M annually on custodians
12M square feet of citys 16M are in schools
503 employees in facilities management and not a single evaluation on
file
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
BPS has developed adequate systems for tracking school-level data, but does not always use this data to manage for outcomes
BPS uses practically no data internally to manage central office and make strategic and operational decisions
Challenges
Performance office started to begin tracking performance across the
organization, scaled back significantly, lives now only in ops and to
date has only been leveraged for transportation
Non-existent data collection or creation in most central office
departments
KPIs are not developed for chiefs to track internal performance and
there is not regular reporting to the superintendent
Very few, good IT systems for tracking and collecting operational data
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
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
Strengths
Challenges
DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
Strengths
DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
Challenges
DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
Challenge
Strengths
Challenges
Overall
Overall
Strengths
Area of strength
Challenge
Challenges
DRAFT
No BPS-wide KPIs to align with goals and hold departments and individuals
accountable
Failure to report to the city certain data requests
Data not used to make decisions in majority of operational areas
DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
School committee sees role as setting strategy for the district and hiring a
superintendent to execute it, may hamstring any future hires and has created
tension in the past
RFP 25
Curriculum
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $7M
Summary points
Curriculum languished until recently, with ELA update recently and process to update outdated Math is now underway, but different curriculums
across different grades and subjects still lacks coherence for principals and teachers
Because of autonomous schools designation, schools are accountable for outcomes, not for fidelity to curriculum
Challenges
Math curricula not updated since 2000
Many different curricula at various grade spans difficult for principals to
align
Teachers feel budget cuts that have eliminated coaches, fewer
resources available to help them implement curriculum
Some schools found to still be teaching off old standards
Difficulty collaborating and integrating general education curriculum
with ELL and SPED
Autonomy practices among low performing schools unclear, causing
concerns about fidelity to curriculum in some pockets
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Student assignment
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $3.4M
Summary points
Student assignment is follows a rigorous assignment algorithm that is fair and protected from tampering
Student assignment process flows quickly, easily and transparently for families
New student assignment patterns were rolled out successfully, but at a cost in legacy transportation
Challenges
As homebase is phased in, some confusion and overlapping zones
will persist
All student files and registration still paper-based systems
Legacy costs for students under old zone system are unquantified, but
are potentially contributing significantly to $40M Choice bussing plans
Transition to SIS system has more than doubled processing time
Enrollment projection process not sophisticated and thusly costs
between $0.1 and $2M annually in added school needs
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Parent Engagement
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $2.6M
Summary points
Engagement department regarded by many stakeholders as strongest BPS department due to expectation setting and relentless focus on
engagement
Systems and culture in place that maximize engagement across the organization
Challenges
Some principal hiring processes were done incorrectly and invited
lawsuits, when circulars were ignored
Principals concerned over a lost connection to the mayors office and
the city with changing of administration
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
Challenges
Teacher contract negotiation planning not yet underway, concerns
about timeline of previous negotiations (1-2 years of negotiations)
should expect negotiations to start soon
Some departments frustrated by previously negotiated union rules
around duties and practices BPS must follow and have untapped
perspectives on new needs
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Improving processes and pipelines for school-level recruiting through use of historical data, however not a clear strategy for central office
recruiting
Challenges
Unpredictable staffing openings in schools with weak communication
around how staffing will change year-to-year
Managerial step changes and pay grades have not been reviewed for
years, leading to inconsistencies in appropriate designations
Under teachers union contracts, principals can make significantly less
than some teachers, lessening interest in principal pathways
Union contracts limit what can and cannot be in job descriptions,
making unique hires difficult
Data on hiring pools and performance not available
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Belief in varying levels of autonomy has created low-level confusion around who is responsible for what duties
New network structure has created vague structure of accountability with FTEs shared between networks and central office
Central office departments do not collaborate often enough to identify opportunities for shared approaches
Challenges
Principals and central office staff are often unclear about what certain
designations mean (e.g., pilot school) and improvise
Networks now share FTEs with central office, creating accountability
and management problems
Principals unclear about when to reach out to network v. HQ
Central office does not coordinate effectively across offices, missing
opportunities to leverage shared goals and resources (e.g., PD,
employee evaluations, integration of curriculum with SPED and ELL)
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Instructional staffing
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $7M
Summary points
Weighted student formula used to build school budgets provides good framework, could use updating
New open posting policy has improved hiring process for principals as has mutual consent hiring
Wide spectrum of popularity among schools has student to teacher ratios varying across schools and the district
Challenges
WSF is not deeply evaluated for academic outcomes or alignment that
could inform principals about effective (and ineffective) ways to
leverage budget allocations
Student to teacher ratios vary across schools as overall school
populations vary (e.g., K0-5 schools average 13.3, with a range of 10.4
to 17.9)
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
License maintenance
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Human Capital systems tracks licenses and identifies areas of need, but poor PD and expectations that teachers will self-certify lead to occasional
delays
Viewed as a compliance function, is not fully aligned with producing better student outcomes
Challenges
Because much of this is considered compliance, there is difficulty
getting all teachers to self-certify as needed, resulting in a recent lag in
ELL certifications
Frustrations around some licensure being more driven by compliance
than by what is good for kids
PD is not always aligned and available to aid in getting licensure
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Attached to hiring process, applicants cannot be hired without satisfying requirement, keeping unapproved out of positions or work, extra vigilance
needed for volunteers
BPS is one of the few (if not the only) City department that still uses a paper-based system of faxing required
Challenges
Any entirely manual, paper-based process, despite the rest of the City
executing these checks online arranged through previous work with the
state
Forms required for volunteer adults in schools who are not employees,
leaving school with responsibility of verifying adult has received
clearance
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
BPS does not have a unified strategy for securing external funds, leaving applications and efforts largely to the department and school level
While most grant funding is accounted for, a less formal process exists for providing transparency for private funds
Challenges
Funds are identified by offices as needed and are applied to on a
departmental or school level, without coordination across the
organization
No unifying view of what BPS should be directing private funds
towards, without alignment to any strategy
Funds accepted for programs or ideas without a formal evaluation
of whether the new programs align with BPS academic strategies
No formal review of grant funding and impacts
Funder strategy:
BPS is potentially leaving money on the table without a clear vision for fundraising and its uses; through aligning fundraising activities with
overall department strategy additional funders can be more easily identified and ultimately solicited
Organizational structure:
BPS has an irregular structure from other districts in that its foundation is run in-house, a legacy structure. A further review of the pros and cons
for this structure may reveal that it is better run as an independent foundation, or should be more tightly interwoven into BPS; in either case the
resulting structure will be a more deliberate decision and will more effectively support BPS activities
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Schoolbased
partnerships
Non-school
based
Program
Outlay
Achievement Network
Alliance for inclusion and
$500K
$65K
$60K
$223K
$482K
$1.2M
$994K
$2.4M
$50K
$265K
$100K
$200K
$55K
$600K
prevention (AIP)
BELL
Blueprint
Boston debate league
Citizen Schools
City Connects
City Year
Communities in schools
Key steps
Talent development
Tenacity
$80K
$100K
$10K
DRAFT
$500K
$78K
$122K
$1.2M
$450K
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 100
RFP 25
Timekeeping
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Timekeeping is a process that is still paper-based, requiring sign-in sheets followed by manual keying in of time later
Effective process controls require managers to approve time and department heads to review manager time approvals before time can be entered
Challenges
Time entry is done by sign-in sheets, none of which is automated
Leave of absences have historically not been tracked effectively,
leaving it open for abuse, although recent staff addition and policy
changes have begun to be instituted
Certain types of leave (e.g., medical) have low standards of
verification
Technology:
BPS can transition to a fully automated, electronic system, which would lessen paperwork and potential manual errors
Accountability:
Continuing to implement recommendations for improving verification for various types of leave will likely drive down false leave (both purposeful
and inadvertent) , with a focus on data tracking of trends and building automated processes into technological systems to push accountability
and accuracy
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
Challenges
School and central based staff complain that procurement process
frequently takes too long
Responsible for 50% of citys purchasing transactions, while
representing just over a third of the citys budget
Process mapping:
A fuller understanding of where procurement slows down, from an operations perspective, could unlock capacity and improve customer
satisfaction with procurement functions; the process mapping could identify areas for deeper collaboration with the city
BPS as the largest city agency could drive different procurement practices for the city if opportunities are identified for improved processes
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $26M
Summary points
Rough estimates that current schools stock requires between $3 and $4B in renovation
12M square feet of buildings in BPS system (3/4 of all city square footage), with little scaling back of footprint despite declining enrollment over
decades
Challenges
No facility renewal plan or cycle for buildings or long term vision for
the facilities needs for the academic program moving forward
No data tracking on current state of the buildings at a comprehensive
level, which allows for consideration of usage and utilization of
rooms, buildings and system
Back of the envelope estimates based on perceived state of the
buildings point towards as much as $4B in needed renovation across
nearly 75% of school buildings
Building financing has historically been done through the city,
preventing schools from seeking independent financing for upgrades
District footprint:
The district has lost ~10K students (1/6 of enrollment) in the last 20 years, but still operates the same number of buildings; the master facilities
plan process now underway, can incorporate a strategic academic plan and align on the actual needs of the district for educating the current
population now and into the future
Master plan has to ensure that investments are not being made on buildings that will potentially no longer be part of the BPS portfolio
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Extra-curricular activities
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
Extra-curricular activities are largely managed at the school-level, leaving principals and communities with a great deal of autonomy around what
types of activities are made available to students
Limited accountability for partnerships at district and school levels
Challenges
Very thin data available on available programming no
comprehensive audit of effectiveness and distribution across
schools has been undertaken
Limited oversight on school spending on OST providers and
partners
No policies or expectations around what extracurriculars are
expected to be available to all students
Accountability:
The department of partnerships and the CAO can do a comprehensive audit of extracurriculars currently available and align on KPIs and
metrics to evaluate year to year effectiveness for both partners as well as any programming offered internally at schools;
A more robust accounting for funding of extracurricular activities at the school level would provide an opportunity to see where partners could
be leveraged to maximize multiplier effects of dollars invested at schools
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Security
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $3.9M
Summary points
Schools are increasingly safe over a 6 year period, with a recent uptick in incidents in school year 2014-2015
Not all schools have been fully trained in active shooter scenarios, due to limits on principal time
Challenges
Recent spike in activity in the 1st semester, incidents up 10% versus
2013-2014 year to date, with spikes in Assault with a Dangerous
Weapon (+83%), Disruption of School Assembly (32%), Possession
of controlled substance (+27%)
Multiple attempts by school security to principals active shooter
trained have failed as principals have not attended workshops
Some district policies are not clearly established or enforced (e.g.,
use of metal detectors)
Assault and battery incidents 2012-2013 three times the rate of
peer average1
Facilities plan:
As part of master facilities plan, school security should be considered and integrated into evaluations of buildings; under-enrolled facilities are
harder to secure and keep students safe, looking at incidents against building capacities and occupancies could reveal certain tipping points in
school security numbers
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
DRAFT
5,000
4,000
400
3,000
300
2,000
Incidents
Arrests
1,000
0
200
100
Downward trajectory in
incidents provides
opportunities for police
officers to be more
proactively involved in
school communities,
putting further downward
pressure on incidents
RFP 25
School committee
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $0.3M
Summary points
School Committee has a newer set of folks who are engaged and passionate about community engagement and oversight
In the process of developing a district strategy, which could complicate and discussions with future superintendents who were not involved in
developing the district strategy
Challenges
Lack of clarity around whether school committee sets strategy and
hires superintendent to implement, or whether superintendent sets
strategy and committee approves it
Strategy:
School Committee is developing strategy through conversations with the community, but is not working closely with BPS leadership and without
a permanent superintendent in place, there could be eventual tensions with the new superintendent; School Committee could slow the process
some to involve candidates and not finalize the strategy until a permanent leader has been hired to put her or his final touches to the eventual
vision
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
District
overextension
Organization
DRAFT
Deep dive
Interviews revealed a lack of goal alignment A survey of central offices employees and an
across BPS as well as poor data tracking and analysis of current structures is designed to
management
provide insights into opportunities for
organizational restructuring and alignment
Special
education
Other operational
areas
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Executive Summary
DRAFT
BPS has a larger footprint than is required of its comparable peers. Since the early 1970s, the
total number of students enrolled in the district has declined by ~40,000, while the number of active
BPS buildings has remained relatively constant. In the next 15 years, student enrollment may
continue to change due in part to a changing population but could change drastically if the charter
cap is lifted, leaving BPS with up to 44,000 seats in excess capacity.
Operating with extra capacity costs BPS. BPS incurs annual expenses of ~$4.6M per open
school in operating expenses, before considering the additional tolls of a large system including
a more dispersed focus for Central Office teams than is truly needed, smaller communities of
support and engagement due to less-than-capacity schools, and an overstretch on programming
budgets (e.g., Athletics or Wellness).
BPS could consider saving money and improve the system by consolidating schools to fill
each school to capacity, theoretically allowing BPS to close ~30-50 schools. This could allow BPS
to capture ~$50-80M in annual opex savings, potential one-time revenue from ~$120-200M in
property sales or long-term leases, targeted Central Office support for a smaller portfolio of
schools, and more robust school communities with larger programming budgets from
reinvestment.
Should BPS choose to proceed in addressing this overextension, deliberate planning will be
required to make the transition the most beneficial to students and least disruptive. Many
districts have experienced school consolidation from which BPS can learn in order to maintain or
improve the academic achievement of every seat while engaging the community productively.
With careful identification of schools and a thoughtful timeline for implementation, BPS can let the
academic vision drive its footprint
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 112
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Past enrollment
Best case scenario
Student population
# of students
While the
population of
Boston is expected
to grow by over
20% over the next
15 years, BPS
current trend
suggests very
little change in
student population
105,000
100,000
97,344
95,000
90,000
85,000
80,000
-44.2%
75,000
70,000
65,000
60,000
54,475
55,000
0
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
DRAFT
2020
2030
NOTE: This reflects all students in traditional and non-traditional (BPS charter) schools
1 Best case scenario assumes charter cap is maintained and BPS keeps its current share of school-aged students, despite recent decline
2 Worst case scenario assumes BPS continues to lose share at its current rate and loses students to new charters at the same rate as in the past
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
School programs
# of school programs
150
135
100
Many of the
2011 school
closures were
operationally
consolidations,
limiting the
change in
schools to 9
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
School capacities
Number of physical seats
4,000
This includes
the total count
of classroom
seats, without
counting
resource rooms
3,500
3,000
2,500
The average
2,000
1,500
The total
1,000
500
715
capacity is
92,950
0
NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters
METHODOLOGY: Rooms were counted as A or B by the facilities team; A rooms could hold 21-30 students depending on the
school, B rooms can only hold 12 students
Source: BPS Facilities data (2011)
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
The extra seats are mostly well distributed across the district
with an average of 68% utilization
DRAFT
50%
100%
150%
200%
Half of the
schools are
under 2/3rds
utilized
Some schools
are being very
overutilized
based on
Facilities
assessment of
available seats
68%
NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters
METHODOLOGY: Based on building capacity data from prior analysis; does not take into account student teacher-ratio or use of resource classrooms
Source: BPS Facilities data (2011)
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Past enrollment
Building capacity
DRAFT
Student population
# of school programs, # of students
105,000
100,000
95,000
90,000
85,000
80,000
75,000
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
BPS could
reduce its
footprint
based on the
large
difference
between its
enrollment
and its
capacity
Projections
suggest no
additional
space may
be needed in
the future
92,950
38,638
58,530
54,312
48,618
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
With students decreasing, the funding for each student must continue
to cover the systems fixed costs including the buildings but also the
principals and school staff which are present at each location
NOTE: This reflects all students in traditional and non-traditional (BPS charter) schools; assumes an average building student capacity based on
BPS facilities analysis from 2009
1 Best case scenario assumes charter cap is maintained and BPS keeps its current share of school-aged students, despite recent decline
2 Worst case scenario assumes BPS continues to lose share at its current rate and loses students to new charters at the same rate as in the past
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education; UMass Donohue Institute;
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
11.0
11.3
11.6
13.1
13.3
13.4
13.6
13.9
14.4
15.6
16.3
17.0
17.0
17.3
18.8
19.8
21.8
23.5
26.3
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
36 teachers
3,800
200
Custodial support
166
Building maintenance
191
Utilities
260
1 principal, 1
secretary, and
others
418 students
Total cost
Thousands
4,617
1 Does not include benefits; does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers
2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school
Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Description
Class room
staff
reduction
DRAFT
$3.8m $2.3-2.8m
$1.0-1.5m
Foundation
for school
staff
$200k
$0
$200k
Average
custodial
support
$166k
$50k
$116k
Average
building
maintenance
$191k
$57k
$134k
$260k
$0
$260k
Average
utilities
Total
1 Assumed
$1.7- 2.2m
2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
closures
Source: Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia - Lessons from Six Urban Districts, the
Philadelphia Research Initiative, PEW Charitable Trusts, October 19, 2011
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
Description
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
~10
~15
~35
~10
Set A
Set B
Bottom ~10
schools in
academics could
be identified in
the first set of
schools
~10 closures
could focus on
the costliest
schools in
maintenance
Set C
Additional ~10
closures could
include schools
that are in lowdemand
Total run-rate
cost reduction
In all, BPS could
choose to close
many schools
based on a
combination of
factors
DRAFT
In addition to the
monetary value, BPS will
also gain:
A better-focused Central
Office to serve students
with a path forward on
direction of district and the
size of the Central Office
needed to support it
A smarter allocation of
resources with wider and
deeper resources
allocated
to narrower set of
individual schools to
support students and
improve district-wide
academics
Schools reflecting the
local communities with
more neighborhood
schools and reduced
transportation complexity
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS
DRAFT
While these are possibilities, the school district will have the ability to choose
how it reinvests the money, taking into account the tradeoffs between
consistency across schools and school autonomy
Source: BPS data
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
A handful of big-city districts have successfully confronted over-extension
problems to concentrate resources on students
Situation
Resolution
Consolidated 59 schools in
2010 and 70 schools in 2011
to arrive at a district of just 72
schools
Aggressive school
consolidations from the
superintendent and mayor
created savings but process
fostered distrust
Chicago
Detroit
DC
Los
Angeles
While these
school
consolidations
were tough in
the short-term,
many systems
have gone on to
see positive
long-run
academically
and fiscal
benefits1
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Academic
performance
Description
Key analyses
Programmatic offerings
maintenance
This would help avoid those costs and free up
significant funding for investing in other schools
The capital saved may be enough to build entirely
new, state-of-the-art flagship schools in the
coming years
School
demand
DRAFT
on-going maintenance
needs in all schools
Ranked list of deferred
maintenance needs in
all schools
of applications for
spots in every school
in the district
Ranked list of current
school occupancy
levels
Ranked list of potential
school capacities
Combining
all of these
factors
could help
the district
make
informed
decisions
about
which
schools
might be
targeted
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Executive Summary
DRAFT
Private placement decisions are driving both transportation and tuition costs.
BPS has an opportunity to direct private placement students to better programs while
also decreasing costs associated with these placements.
BPS has begun an ambitious, 12-year plan to move almost all SPED students to
inclusion classrooms. In SY13-14 BPS began a phasing in of inclusion classrooms.
The gradual phasing in will grow SPED costs by up to $8m a year at the roll-out peak,
but an aggressive adherence to phasing out sub / separate classrooms can capture ~
$63m annually and provide significantly better education by year 12.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Special education
25
21.0%
20.1%
20
17.0%
18.3%
15
By 2005, special
education made up
21% of budgets
10
5
3.7%
0
1967
1975: passage of
IDEA
1991
1996
2001 2005
expenditures on
special education
were 24% of the
BPS budget
1 Where has the money been going?, Economic Policy Institute, 2010
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 130
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Central
24% of BPS
budget
School
level
$ 136m (51%)
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
$ 3m
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Classroom-based
Key drivers
Classification Ratios
Staffing model
Sub/separate teachers
$64M
$64M
Transportation
$49M
Sub/separate aides
$23M
$23M
Resource teachers
$21
$21M
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
SPECIAL EDUCATION
18 .7
17.8
17.4
17.3
17.2
16 .8
16 .7
16 .6
16 .5
15.7
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.0
15.0
14 .8
14 .8
14 .7
14 .7
14 .6
14 .6
14 .3
14 .3
14 .2
14 .1
14 .1
14 .1
14 .0
14 .0
13 .9
13 .8
13 .6
13 .4
13 .1
13 .0
12 .6
12 .5
12 .4
12 .3
12 .3
12 .2
11.9
11.3
11.3
11.2
11.1
10 .7
10 .6
10 .5
10 .3
9 .9
9 .1
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New York
Maine
Wyoming
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Indiana
Vermont
Delaware
New Hampshire
Kentucky
Nebraska
Illinois
South Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Wisconsin
D.C.
Missouri
North Dakota
Oregon
Kansas
South Carolina
Florida
Michigan
Alaska
Iowa
New Mexico
Arkansas
Virginia
United States
Mississippi
Louisiana
Maryland
Tennessee
Connecticut
Washington
Montana
North Carolina
Utah
Hawaii
Alabama
Arizona
Nevada
California
Georgia
Colorado
Idaho
Texas
0
10
15
20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
19.5 Boston
DRAFT
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
SWD designation varies little by income statuses of MA districts,
however low income students have a higher likelihood to be classified
100
90
80
70
A 2014 Massachusetts
study found that lowincome students in the
state were identified as
eligible for special
education services at
substantially higher
rates than non-lowincome students
Boston
60
50
40
Massachusetts
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% SWD
% students classified with disabilities
1 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 Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 135
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Henderson 5-8
Rogers Middle
Frederick Pilot Middle
UP Academy Boston
Timilty Middle
Edwards Middle
Irving Middle
Haynes EEC
Manning Elementary
Bates Elementary
Hale Elementary
Trotter
Clap Innovation School
Grew Elementary
Winthrop Elementary
Henderson K-4
Ellison/Parks EES
Roosevelt K-8 (K1-1)
Perkins Elementary
Baldwin E.L. Pilot Acad
E Greenwood Leadership
Philbrick Elementary
Conley Elementary
Winship Elementary
Everett Elementary
Mendell Elementary
Alighieri Montessori
Tynan Elementary
Greenwood Sarah K-8
Channing Elementary
Chittick Elementary
Perry K-8
Hurley K-8
Blackstone Elementary
Warren/Prescott K-8
Lyon K-8
Haley Elementary
Tobin K-8
West Zone ELC
Ellis Elementary
King K-8
Shaw Pauline A Elem
Lyndon K-8
Sumner Elementary
Higginson/Lewis K-8
Adams Elementary
Kilmer K-8 (K-3)
Mattahunt Elementary
Edison K-8
Hernandez K-8
Dudley St Neigh. Schl
Curley K-8
Russell Elementary
Orchard Gardens K-8
Guild Elementary
Condon
Holmes Elementary
BTU K-8 Pilot
Harvard/Kent Elementary
Ohrenberger
Mildred Avenue K-8
UP Academy Dorchester
Otis Elementary
Murphy K-8
Mather Elementary
Beethoven Elementary
Mason Elementary
Gardner Pilot Academy
East Boston EEC
Young Achievers K-8
Jackson/Mann K-8
McKay K-8
Dever Elementary
Lee K-8
Quincy Elementary
Eliot K-8
Kenny Elementary
Kennedy Patrick Elem
Up Academy Holland
Taylor Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
ODonnell Elementary
Bradley Elementary
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Hennigan
Kennedy John F Elemen
Mozart Elementary
Mission Hill K-8
Investigation and
training at these
schools could move
schools into
alignment with the
district
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
2.8%
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Irving Middle
McCormack Middle
Kilmer K-8 (4-8)
Rogers Middle
Frederick Pilot Middle
Middle School Academy
Henderson 5-8
UP Academy Boston
Timilty Middle
Edwards Middle
Henderson K-4
Roosevelt K-8 (K1-1)
Baldwin E.L. Pilot Acad
Mendell Elementary
Tobin K-8
BTU K-8 Pilot
Beethoven Elementary
East Boston EEC
Kenny Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
Mission Hill K-8
Guild Elementary
ODonnell Elementary
Channing Elementary
Bates Elementary
Winthrop Elementary
Perkins Elementary
Winship Elementary
Hennigan
Kennedy John F Elemen
Mattahunt Elementary
Conley Elementary
Hurley K-8
Gardner Pilot Academy
UP Academy Dorchester
Everett Elementary
Chittick Elementary
Blackstone Elementary
Warren/Prescott K-8
E Greenwood Leadership
King K-8
Lee K-8
Harvard/Kent Elementary
Sumner Elementary
Trotter
Ellison/Parks EES
West Zone ELC
Higginson/Lewis K-8
Adams Elementary
Kilmer K-8 (K-3)
Holmes Elementary
Young Achievers K-8
Dever Elementary
Quincy Elementary
Bradley Elementary
Tynan Elementary
Mather Elementary
Greenwood Sarah K-8
Ellis Elementary
Jackson/Mann K-8
Eliot K-8
Clap Innovation School
Edison K-8
Lyndon K-8
Philbrick Elementary
Murphy K-8
Orchard Gardens K-8
Condon
Haynes EEC
Grew Elementary
Ohrenberger
McKay K-8
Taylor Elementary
Manning Elementary
Russell Elementary
Curley K-8
Perry K-8
Kennedy Patrick Elem
Up Academy Holland
Hale Elementary
Alighieri Montessori
Lyon K-8
Haley Elementary
Shaw Pauline A Elem
Hernandez K-8
Dudley St Neigh. Schl
Mildred Avenue K-8
Otis Elementary
Mason Elementary
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Mozart Elementary
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
41%
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
BPS avg.
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 137
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
higher percentages
of their students are
also likely to
classify referred
students at higher
rates as well
While the
correlation is not
overwhelming, it
indicates that there
could be cultures
of overreliance on
special education
in some school
communities
0
0
10
Referral rates
% of total student body referred for testing
SPECIAL EDUCATION
29.4%
28.2%
27.5%
26.0%
18.1%
17.9%
17.0%
17.0%
12.8%
12.6%
12.7%
11.5%
11.4%
12.2%
8.0%
9.3%
10.2%
10.5%
10.2%
10.8%
3.0% 4.1%
4.6%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
4.3%
3.9%
3.6%
2012-2013
2013-2014
2014-2015
11.0%
9.0%
11.0%
1.0%
9.0%
Mass.
2013-14
Intellectual
Communication
Health
Developmental Delay
(ages 3-9 only)
Physical
Emotional
All others
Autism
10.0%
6.0%
DRAFT
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Description
Potential opportunity
Paraprofessionals
Resource
room teachers
Related
services
Staff to avg.
daily
attendance
DRAFT
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Area of
opportunity Description
SPED
Coordinators
Bus
attendants
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
5.0
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
20%of BPS bus routes transport 3% of its student population, while
~60% of students are walking to bus stops less than a quarter mile away
312
748
27,671
receiving transportation
has 0.16 mile walk to their
bus stop
Routes with
<5 students
Total BPS
bus routes
budget is $67M
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
78
3
140
16
Routes with
5+ students
Routes with
<5 students
Total BPS
bus routes
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Private placements
$, millions, spent on tuition at each private placement site
May Inst
Easter Seal NH
JRI
Home Total
Perkins
League Sch
N.E.C.C.
Compass Emer.
Protestant Guild
Boston Higashi
Latham
Walker Home
Compass
Learning Cntr Deaf
Judge Baker
RCS
MAB
Wediko Summer
Nashoba Learning Group
Franciscan/Hope Aca
Crotched Mountain
Cardinal Cushing
Seaport
Franciscan/KDS
Learning Prep / Little Peoples
Lighthouse
So. Shore Collab
SEEM Collaborative
Brandon
Farr Academy
Amego
Kids are People
Stetson
Crystal Springs
Gifford
Judge Rotenburg
N.E. Pedi
St. Anns
Schools for Child
Cotting
CHARMS Collab
Hillcrest
Melmark
Walker Home Beacon High
C.C. Braintree
Italian Home
Germaine Lawrence
Plymouth Rehab
Milestones
Crossroads
LABB Collab
Carroll Sch
Valley Collab
YOU, Inc. Cottage H
Fall River Deaconess
Franklin Perkins
New England Academy
Whitney Academy
Futures Clinic
Integrated Learning
Eagleton School
Murphy & Dwyer
Landmark
Bay Cove
Stevens
RF Kennedy
Evergreen
Creest Coll
McLean
Boston College
Granite Academy
Beverly School
Kenndey Donovan
Chamberlain
Shore Collab
FLLAC Ed Collaborative
Bridge G Stanley Hall
Willow Hill
Devereux
Seven Hills Groton
Pilgrim Area Coll
READS Collab
North Shore Spec
Wayside
South Coast Collab
Wachusett Regional
Southeastern MA Ed Col
Wediko Res
So. Worcester
Education Cooperative
Waltham Public
Central Mass Sped Collab
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1 Includes transportation
Source: BPS data
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
117
53
Court settlements
IEPs
Temporaray placements
Move In
Mediation
New to Boston
92% of placements
are from DCF
placements and court
settlements
Settlements add ~
$1.6M
Better coordination
with DCF could
improve placements
for students and limit
transportation and
needless tuition costs
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 OESESS City Council presentation, June 2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 150
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
The move towards inclusion at BPS is underway in the current school year
A phasing-in of inclusion by BPS network (e.g., A-G) begins next year with Network
A, with two more networks every year for the following three years
Each phase-in begins at K0 and grows in network every year, over 8 years, until
the network has full, K-8 inclusion; high schools will be phased in on a different
timetable that is still in the planning stages
Costs outlays in the initial years will be substantial, with substantial savings
coming in the out years that will offset and eventually pay for the entire
roll-out by the end of the roll-out
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Additional classrooms1
# inclusion classrooms added annually
Wave 1
Net. D
Net. A
Net. E
Net. B
Net. F
Net. C
Net. G
141
139
135
133
107
95
85
73
75
50
38
27
25
towards inclusion in
SY 14-15 with
wave 1, but
recast plan for rollout to network-bynetwork process
beginning in
SY15-16
In each network the
roll-up will begin at
K1 and roll up to
8th grade over 8
years
SY14- 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27
15
Current
year
1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Additional resources
28 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals
Costs
$30K each = $840K
10 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals
The full costing of inclusion has not yet been performed by BPS
SPED offices, so granular projections of costs are not yet available
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
Paras
Inclusion
specialists
FTEs1
Additional
# FTEs of each type added per year
73
38
3
34
107
34
As the number
141
139
135
133
95
85
34
75
50
25
SY15- 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27
$, thous.
16
Additional 1,140 2,190 3,210 4,230 4,170 4,050 3,990 2,850 2,550 2,250 1,500
750
para cost
Additional
specialist
cost
Additional
annual
spend
1,410 5,250 6,270 7,290 4,170 4,050 3,990 2,850 2,550 2,250 1,500
750
Total
model
spend
1,410 6,660 12,930 20,220 24,390 28,440 32,430 35,280 37,830 40,080 41,580 42,330
of inclusion
classrooms
grow, the
annual need to
support them
will as well
By the end of
the inclusion
roll-out, BPS
will have
added ~1100
paras and ~115
specialists to
schools
Annual cost
additions over
the period will
average ~$3M,
spiking to as
much as $6-7M
in SY18-19
1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
63
63
63
57
51
41
20
20
$, mil.
Annual
sub /
separate
costs
Annual
inclusion
costs
Total
SPED
budget
Impact of
inclusion
20
20
20
20
18
18
16
33
13
26
21
19
19
19
17
15
12
10
10
10
FY14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
98.8
79.1
63.2
50.6
40.5
32.4
25.9
20.7
16.6
1.41
16
13
8
8
8
7
6
17
5
5
5
13
11
9
4
3
3
4
4
3 3
3 3
As critical mass
of inclusion
classrooms grow,
a tipping point will
occur allowing
elimination of
sub/separate
classrooms at an
increasing rate
6.66 12.93 20.22 24.39 28.44 32.43 35.28 37.83 40.08 41.58 42.33
91.7
83.0
75.8
70.2
66.0
62.3
58.9
1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Decline in costs scaled to expected decline in classrooms,
determined by interviews with BPS staff and outside experts
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Executive summary
DRAFT
BPS has key organizational strengths. At the present, each department is internally wellaligned and works as a team to accomplish its goals; additionally, other than at the top level,
there is a standard manager-employee ratio and generally balanced organizational
structures.
Among peer district BPS has a smaller student to staff ratio. When benchmarked against
other, large districts, BPS still supports a non-classroom teaching staff that is larger as a ratio
than its peers, hinting at further opportunities to streamline
There are also potential areas for improvement that BPS can focus on to be more effective at
serving the students and the city at-large. For example, clear, focused goals could be set from
the top of the district with clarity so that the departments can rally around and support those
goals. Additionally, departments could be sure that KPIs track progress toward goals and are
useful for strategic departmental decision-making. With clearer goals and a KPI structure in
place, each department would be made aware of adjacent goals in other departments, and then
collaboration can be improved. Finally, the Central Office would benefit from a better human
capital system to help on-board, train, develop, meaningfully evaluate, and ultimately retain
its best people.
Improving BPS organization would help to further unlock its Central Offices potential.
The superintendent would have more clarity into the daily performance of the district against its
goals, leading to better accountability. Parents, students, and teachers would have clearer
points of contact for concerns or questions. Collaboration would help ensure that
programming occurs in a more integrated way to better support students.
Managers
Individual Contributors
13
40
52
n-4
overall
13
119
13.0
n
n-1
2.5
33
n-2
n-3
DRAFT
3.7
148
5.6
n-3
291
472
overall
4.0
Observations
BPS has an average of 4.0 direct reports per manager (2-15 across departments)
Departments vary in how many Assistant Directors they have (0-9 per department)
While the pyramid looks mostly standard, there may be too many direct-reports at top level
Source: Analysis of Org Charts from many departments; does not
represent Comp. Student Services Org Charts
BPS is within range of peers, but still supports a lower than average
student to non-teaching staff ratio
DRAFT
4.9
5.8
Moving BPS
to the peer
set average
could reduce
~500 FTEs
of district
staff
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.4
8.4
9.5
10.5
11.0
11.0
14.3
DRAFT
DRAFT
21
Completely
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
16
Completely
agree
DRAFT
Strengths
collected
20
17
14
14
23
14
15
13
Completely
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Completely
agree
DRAFT
Decent,
Mostly mentorship 45
36
Weak or non-existant
18
Strengths
20
20
10
12
10
Completely
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Completely
agree
14
14
17
19
Receiving
superior to direct-report
22
23
12
17
12
16
1
Completely
disagree
Receiving
12
Giving
Giving
DRAFT
13
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Completely
agree
DRAFT
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Food services
Professional development
Transportation
Maintenance
BPS has other areas where focus could amount to cost savings
Description
Food
A
services
B Personnel
Transport
C
ation
MainD
tenance
Savings
opportunities
$ Millions per year
~$5-8M
TBD
~$20-60M
~$1-4M
DRAFT
In addition to cost
savings, a review in
these areas could yield:
Better food options
for kids. BPS
cafeterias perform
better in taste tests
than contractors
Better PD for
schools. More
coherence at less
expense.
Fewer BPS bus lines.
Fewer routes makes
for an easier system to
manage.
Improved building
maintenance. Aligned
incentives with
contractors can
improve preventative
work.
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Food services
Professional development
Transportation
Maintenance
ADDITIONAL AREAS
DRAFT
4.57
20
45
19
33
62
4
13
9
34
79
12
39
21
101
14
10
47
3
28
6
5
56
18
M
16
58
44
8
48
66
55
67
41
1
7
35
43
52
30
71
2
37
57
49
26
54
77
71.44%
Boston
79.52%
83.12%
Districts
83.44%
88.02%
Median
88.22%
91.99%
92.39%
92.58%
93.52%
93.63%
94.08%
94.28%
95.17%
95.32%
95.40%
95.57%
95.61%
BPS is not
97.01%
97.03%
getting the
97.15%
data
98.41%
tracking it
98.57%
needs to be
98.57%
successful
98.57%
and drive
98.68%
revenues
99.12%
99.34%
99.56%
99.62%
100.00%
100.25%
100.35%
100.98%
102.13%
102.94%
103.33%
103.85%
103.94%
104.85%
105.40%
105.53%
105.89%
110.45%
113.33%
120.81%
121.51%
ADDITIONAL AREAS
78% of FNS budget goes to food and direct labor at school sites
DRAFT
Food
Labor
23%
Food
9.3
23%
12.8
55%
7.3
2.1
Caf.
($M)
Sat.
($M)
The current total forecast for 2014-2015 is $41M, $6M of which are fixed
costs and so shared across cafeterias and satellite sites
Current forecasts project $37M in revenue this year, a shortfall of $4M
Schools also pay $2.6M for school-based lunch monitor positions, not
reflected in the overall cost
ADDITIONAL AREAS
DRAFT
Cafeterias
Satellites
Student
population, by
school type
#, thousands
Cost per
student
population
$
32.7
607
14.9
506
24.6
Total cost
($M)
Student
population
(#,000)
Annual
cost per
enrolled
student ($)
Whitson satellite
sites are less
efficient than
cafeteria sites,
costing 20% more
per student, per year
If facilities were
available, moving to
cafeteria sites could
save $1-3M
As part of the capital
planning process, a
cost/benefits
analysis should be
conducted to see
how investing in
new, central
cafeterias could
save costs
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS has better participation rates than peers, but still leaves $5M
on the table
Overall meal participation1
% of students in state classified SPED
45
25
39
19
3
21
26
18
33
20
2
66
28
58
30
54
41
10
16
67
79
M
6
23
12
47
37
48
14
62
71
44
56
5
8
13
101
4
52
55
7
1
77
Districts
Boston
Median
81.03%
69.35%
60.34%
56.26%
55.88%
55.17%
52.24%
50.79%
50.36%
50.05%
46.77%
46.34%
44.55%
43.82%
42.88%
40.35%
37.53%
36.13%
35.70%
35.69%
34.55%
34.16%
33.77%
33.40%
31.96%
31.23%
28.78%
27.03%
26.23%
25.90%
25.71%
24.91%
24.34%
24.19%
24.03%
23.40%
23.23%
22.85%
22.35%
21.58%
72
45
14.89%
14.05%
10.74%
0
DRAFT
Sat.
65
49
Breakfast
participation
Lunch
participation
ADDITIONAL AREAS
DRAFT
Lunch participation1
% of students buying lunch
Elihu Greenwood Leadership Academy
Dearborn
UP ACADEMY DORCHESTER
East Boston Early Childhood Center
The English High
Hugh Roe ODonnell
Paul A Dever
Orchard Gardens
Mildred Avenue Middle School
Michael J Perkins
Dudley Street Neighborhood Charter School
Henry L Higginson
UP Academy Holland
John Winthrop
Clarence R Edwards Middle
Wm B Rogers Middle
Mario Umana Middle School Academy
John F Kennedy
David A Ellis
Sarah Greenwood
Martin Luther King Jr Mid
Harvard-Kent
James W Hennigan
Charles H Taylor
Dr. Catherine Ellison-Rosa Parks Early Ed School
Donald Mckay
Expulsion Alt School (COUNSELING INTERVENTION CTR.)
Mattahunt
Lee Academy @ Fifield
HIGGINSON/LEWIS K-8
Haynes Early Education Center
MCKINLEY ELEM & MCKINLEY SE Acad
William E Russell
John W McCormack
Henry Grew
William Monroe Trotter
TECH BOSTON ACADEMY (6-12)
Joseph Lee
James Condon Elementary
William Ellery Channing
Jackson Mann
Washington Irving Middle
Josiah Quincy
Mary E Curley Middle
Curtis Guild
UP ACADEMY BOSTON & Middle School Acad
East Boston High
O W Holmes
KENNEDY HEALTH CAREERS (9-10)
Edward Everett
Nathan Hale
Joseph P Tynan
Lilla G. Frederick Middle School
Gardner Pilot Academy
Samuel W Mason
James Otis
James P Timilty Middle
Blackstone
Rafael Hernandez
Jeremiah E Burke High
Samuel Adams
George H Conley
Charlestown High
Quincy Upper High - Washington St
Young Achievers
MADISON PARK HIGH
Mather
William H Ohrenberger
Thomas J Kenny
Thomas A Edison Jr High
Maurice J Tobin
Joseph J Hurley
Winship Elementary
Patrick J Kennedy
Compass School
South Boston High
MCKINLEY MIDDLE
Manassah E Bradley
James J Chittick
Franklin D Roosevelt
Franklin D Roosevelt Lower Elementary School
Roger Clap
Richard J Murphy
HYDE PARK EDUCATION CENTER
Agassiz
Another Course College
MCKINLEY PREP HIGH
Lyon K-8
Phineas Bates
Lyndon
Dr. William Henderson Upper
Quincy Upper School
Ellis Mendell
Boston Teachers Union School
Charles Sumner
Boston International High School
Beethoven
Dennis C Haley
Mozart
Brighton High
Baldwin Early Learning Center
Dorchester Academy
John D Philbrick
Boston Latin
West Roxbury School
Dr. William Henderson Lower
Boston Latin Academy
Carter Developmental Center
BOSTON ADULT TECHNICAL ACADEMY (BATA)
Joseph P Manning
KILMER K-8 LOWER (K1-3)
LYON 9-12
ABCD, INC
Warren-Prescott
KILMER K-8 UPPER (4-8)
Eliot Elementary
Boston Arts Academy
Oliver Hazard Perry
Greater Egleston Community High School
Snowden International School at Copley
Community Academy
KENNEDY HEALTH CAREERS (11-12)
Boston Day and Evening Academy Charter School
EDCO YOUTH ALT
half of lunch
performers, 48
programs, to the
BPS average would
net $2M in lunch
revenues
A similar move on
breakfast at the
same set of schools
would capture
$1.4M
Next Steps:
Investigate what is
driving high
participation sites that
can be pushed to low
participation sites
What are ways to
incentivize schools to
get rates up?
What leverage is
there with contractor
to drive rates?
67
1 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 173
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Food services
Professional development
Transportation
Maintenance
ADDITIONAL AREAS
DRAFT
48
13
12
7
5
2
P.D.
Tot.
ContractSchool Gen.
days impr. ed.
Misc.1 Princ.
1
Math
Elem.
Ed.
ADDITIONAL AREAS
DRAFT
Used
MyLP PD
43
Did not
use MyLP
The average
teacher who used
My LP registered
for 1.5 courses
68% of teachers
registered for
just one class
57
Other
22%
Early Childhood
4%
12%
World Languages 1%
Special Education 9%
1%
Secondary English/
7%
Language Arts
Elementary English/
7%
Language Arts
Science
Elementary
Mathematics
6% Secondary
Mathematics
1% Family and Student
3%
Engagement
7% History and
Social Sciences
2%
6%
Instructional Technology
Leadership
9%
School Climate
School Health
2%
2014-15
Only ~30% of teachers who use My Learning Plan have returned for further professional development through
the portfolio of options
22% of courses offered are outside of the traditional cores set of academic subjects and training functions
and can only be tracked as other
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Food services
Professional development
Transportation
Maintenance
ADDITIONAL AREAS
PRELIMINARY
Special education
40
Choice
Attendant 6
SPED out of city
11
29
SPED
In 2014 BPS operated a $113M transportation
system, over one tenth of the budget
ADDITIONAL AREAS
20%of BPS bus routes transport 3% of its student population, while ~60%
of students are walking to bus stops less than a quarter mile away
PRELIMINARY
312
748
27,671
Routes with
<5 students
Total BPS
bus routes
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 179
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Area of
opportunity
DRAFT
Description
student transportation
1 Due to a number of transportation policy changes this year, Transportation has not been able to isolate exactly how much of savings came from this
policy change
2 Assuming that enough routes are eliminated to capture half of the savings of going from $1,500 a year per student to $260
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 180
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
District overextension
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Food services
Professional development
Transportation
Maintenance
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Area of
opportunity
FTE
structure
Description
Opportunity
Maintenance
DRAFT
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
Before you start the process, the solution space will be bounded by
answers to a few questions
DRAFT
Internally?
Externally? In collaboration?
DRAFT
A After determining the future state of BPS, the vision for the schools
will best require alignment on approach towards key educational
drivers, including school action guidelines and portfolio strategy
DRAFT
DRAFT
DRAFT
Mobility
Garfield-Humboldt and enrollment analyses
Input/analysis
Demand
2011
Supply
2011
Demand
2021
14230
22791.6
13111
1765
1995.3
910
1482.12
School type
Total
Demand projection
by11555school19314.2
Traditional
Charter/Contract
Magnet/gifted
9681
ID
Unit
400010
7950
School
ACE Tech Charter
ADDRESS
Community (NE)
5410 S State St
WASHINGTON PARK
609772
2020
Addams School
10810 S Avenue H
609773
2030
Agassiz School
610513
1055
610334
7690
610212
6290
Collaborative
Network
Enrollment Efficiency
(2010/2011)
Program Enrollment
(2010/2011)
Utilization
(Enrollment/DC)
Uti
South
Burnham Park
-24%
624
55%
476
870
Far South
Lake Calumet
93%
474
139%
915
660
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
-15%
506
61%
430
705
Southwest
Pershing
-73%
797
19%
212
1110
West
Garfield-Humboldt
-41%
944
42%
558
1315
North/NW
O'Hare
-60%
646
29%
261
900
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
-50%
355
36%
178
495
North/NW
Fullerton
-25%
678
54%
511
945
Far South
Lake Calumet
-50%
571
36%
284
795
Southwest
Englewood-Gresham
-34%
883
48%
587
1230
Southwest
Englewood-Gresham
-20%
524
58%
420
730
North/NW
Fullerton
-46%
1044
39%
568
1455
EAST SIDE
LAKE VIEW
ARMOUR SQUARE
EAST GARFIELD PARK
ALBANY PARK
Data sources
Operations (e.g., school based health
clinics)
Demographics (e.g., enrollment)
Academic performance
Security
ADA accessibility
610524
8035
Alcott Humanities HS
609774
2040
Alcott School
2625 N Orchard St
NORTH CENTER
LINCOLN PARK
609848
2710
Aldridge School
630 E 131st St
609775
2050
Altgeld School
1340 W 71st St
RIVERDALE
WEST ENGLEWOOD
609707
2035
Amandla Charter HS
609780
2090
Ames School
ENGLEWOOD
LOGAN SQUARE
609695
1210
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
48%
1110
106%
1645
1547
609776
2060
Andersen Community
1148 N Honore St
WEST TOWN
West
Fulton
-33%
154
48%
103
215
609951
3640
1119 E 46th St
KENWOOD
South
Burnham Park
-32%
775
49%
524
1080
609777
2070
Armour School
950 W 33rd Pl
Southwest
Pershing
-47%
624
38%
332
870
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
27%
1120
91%
1419
1560
West
Austin-North Lawndale
-58%
258
30%
108
360
Southwest
Midway
-21%
581
57%
461
810
LINCOLN SQUARE
BRIDGEPORT
609779
2080
Armstrong School
610156
5700
WEST RIDGE
AUSTIN
610287
7100
610268
6900
Ashe School
400013
7803
South
Skyway
North/NW
Fullerton
-27%
646
52%
469
900
-3%
538
70%
524
750
CHATHAM
AVONDALE
B The cost-benefit model could provide a critical input and fact base
on financials for decision making
Model outputs
Open schools
Closed schools
Repurposed buildings
Timing and sequencing
DRAFT
Scenario savings
Scenario costs
Execute plan
according
to agreed timetable
1 Explicitly
detail the
nature of
the
change
4 Develop
an integrated
stakeholder
engagement
plan
Prepare to articulate a
good understanding of the
proposed changes to be
implemented and of
change approach
5 Execute
Engagement plan
Mobilizing
stakeholders
DRAFT
2 Identify
stakeholders
Analyze and
3
prioritize
stakeholders
Identify any
individual or group
that impacts or is
impacted by
proposed changes
(e.g., unions, media,
political groups, local
communities, etc.)
Analyze stakeholders
to determine key
needs and interests
and how change will
impact them
Large, formal
meeting
Presentation,
speech
Memo
Channels
Descriptions
Press
conferences
Face-to-face
meetings
Workshops/
Small group
seminars
meetings
Video/audio
Town hall
tapes
Voice mail
Web
Informal
2-way communication
Descriptions
DRAFT
Brochure
Bulletin
boards,
posters
meetings
answer
session
Small group
dinner
Retreats
Descriptions
Spectrum of options
Is it appropriate to deliver
tailored, urgent, effective
messages?
Audience response
not critical for
success
Immediate feedback
desired for ongoing
and future interactions
Reach
Message
Effectiveness
Responsiveness
Frequency
DRAFT
Data and
analytics
Policy
decisions
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
July
August
September
October
November
Data and analytics Data and analytics Data and analytics Data and analytics
Project 10-year Refine financial Refine financial Refine 10-year
neighborhood
model and cost/
model and cost/
neighborhood
baseline for
savings
savings
vision, based on
student
estimates
estimates
input to feedback
demographics
from BPS team
Develop initial
members and
financial model
other key stakethat estimates
holders, and
costs and
build alignment
savings
and ownership
associated with
across the team
actions
Finalize financial
model
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Align on BPS/
Develop
Identify critical
city approach
participatory
decisions around
towards action
process that
issues such as
and determine
enables school
safety,
annual target
actions endorsed
transportation,
and capacity
by stakeholders
budget, policy
Outline potential
in affected
alignment
policy options
communities
Document set of
around key
reqs for and
issues
constraints to
Facilitate crossschool actions
functional
dialogue across
key departments/
groups
Finalize list of
school actions
Share widely the
results of the
participatory
process
DRAFT
Month 6
December
Finalize 10-year
vision
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Data next steps
3-6 month plan
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 195
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Data next steps
3-6 month plan
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 196
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
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
DRAFT
Hernandez K-8
Otis Elementary
Henderson 5-8
Mason Elementary
Haley Elementary
Timilty Middle
Excel High
Boston Adult Tech Aca.1
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Newcomers Academy1
Henderson 9-121
English High
Comm Acad Sci Health
Edwards Middle
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Highest
classifiers
Standardization
DRAFT
Action
Outcome
Interview/observe students in
classrooms to verify proper
placement
Coordinators
Description
Data needed
DRAFT
coordinator
Data on IEP maintenance, by
coordinator
classifications
Longitudinal data on changes
in student classifications,
aligned with program
classifications
Longitudinal data on changes
in student classifications,
aligned with program
Identify teachers that have
serviced students and align
with their performance evals.
student needs
Aligned data with coordinators
and schools
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Data next steps
3-6 month plan
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 201
DRAFT
Opportunities
Time to realization
Potential to be captured
$300-500K
TBD
$9-11M
$8-10M
TBD
$3-8M
$2-10M
Inclusion
Short-term
3 months 1 year
Long-term
1-10 years
Classification
rates
Month 1 + 2
Month 3 + 4
Month 5 + 6
Month 7 + 8
Month 9 + 10
Month 11 + 12
Mar. + Apr.
May + Jun.
Jul. + Aug.
Sept. + Oct.
Nov. + Dec.
Jan. + Feb.
Interview high/
low classifiers
Create school
and student data
from IEP analyses
Develop picture of
drivers of variable
classifications
Identify students
for reevaluation
Develop and
deliver training for
high classifiers
Create school
regression/
progression data
from IEP analyses
Interview
progressing /
regressing
schools
Identify high
regression /
progression sites
Begin to work
with IEP meetings
to move students
where appropriate
Develop and
deliver training
around best
practices
Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate
Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate
Evaluate para.
approach for
SY15-16 through
cost/benefit
Decide on best
approach for para
usage
Negotiate
contracts or begin
adjusting staff as
appropriate for
SY15-16
Implement and
monitor new para
system at schools
Decide on best
approach for
specialist usage
Negotiate
contracts or begin
adjusting staff as
appropriate for
SY15-16
Implement and
monitor new
specialist system
at schools
Create data to
capture universe
of bus attendants
from IEP
Reevaluate
students for bus
attendant needs,
reclassifying
where needed
Monitor any
routes where
attendants have
been removed to
ensure safety
Student
progression
Para
approach
Specialist
approach
Bus
attendant
DRAFT
Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate
Year 2
SPED zone
realignment
Private
placement
& transportation
enrollment #s
in classrooms
Do analysis of
classroom
performance in
feeder patterns
Identify new,
educationally
appropriate
feeder patterns
Year 5-6
Continue
Complete
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout
Develop
Expand to
Expand to
preferred
feeder schools
Create
process with
DCF for better
placement
Zone A
Inclusion
classrooms in
alignment with
inclusion
expansion
Year 3-4
new bus
routes with
consolidated
placements
Zones B and C
Begin
identifying sub/
separate
classrooms
that can be
eliminated
Years 7-8
Years 9-10
Continue
Continue
DRAFT
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout
consolidate
placements
Monitor
placemen
rates
Expand to
Zones D and E
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes
Expand to
Zones F and G
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
Smaller top organization increases accountability, focuses priorities, and allow for
more tradeoffs within departments,
rather than across 18 silos
DRAFT
Filter criteria
Relevance
Outcome
ultimately
affects
district
performance
Influencability
KPIs could be
defined for all
BPS departments
along relevant
performance
dimensions
such as
Process
owners can
influence KPIs
Improvement
levers can be
assigned
Availability
Data can be
continuously
obtained
Student
performance
Productivity
Quality
Service
Safety
4-6 sets of
measures
Source: BPS district interviews
DRAFT
KPIs must be carefully designed using 'smart' guidelines and limited in number
Questions
Simple and
specific
Measurable
Achievable
and agreed
Resultsoriented
Timely
Is it easy to measure?
Can it be benchmarked against other teams/outside data?
Can the measurement be defined in an unambiguous way?
The number of
KPIs must be
limited to help
focus BPS
departments
Organization
Key activities
Amplify superintendents
authority over others in
the system
Ensure forward
momentum toward
aspiration
Typical
challenges
Huge,
complex tasks
Many players
Need for
fundamental
behavior
change
DRAFT
"Minimum
role" of KPI
Team
Potential
additional
roles of KPI
Team
The KPI Team can take the form of any of the three
fundamental setups for a transformation unit
DRAFT
Driver of change
Description
When
does it
work
best
"Existing leader"
Delivery unit"
"Catalytic driver"
Description
Influencing and
Presence and
listening
Problem structuring
DRAFT
Problemsolving
skills
Creativity (able to
bring new insight)
service
Goal orientation
Ethics
DRAFT
11,000
57,000
(7-10%)
Central office
Schools
10,000
9,000
56,000
8,000
7,000
55,000
6,000
5,000
54,000
4,000
3,000
53,000
2,000
1,000
Future year
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
52,000
2009-10
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Appendix
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Level 1
(excellent)
Level 2
(good)
Level 3
(probation)
19%
0%
81%
44%
21%
Closed schools
35%
Designated
welcoming
schools
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Under the leadership of emergency financial managers, DPS closed schools due to:
50% decline in student population over the last decade
Growing budget deficit
In 2009 2010, closed 59 schools in a compressed time frame:
Announced first round of closure candidates in March 2009
Final decisions made in April 2010
In 2011, announced plans to close an additional 70 schools by 2014, which will result in a district with only 72
schools
Approach highlights
Clear data-driven decision matrix
that included
Clear community
communications
(3-year trend)
Enrollment patterns (3-year period)
Quality of school leadership team
Facility index
Safety
Cost analysis (e.g. transportation)
Special partnerships and programs
(e.g., invested community groups)
Political considerations
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
restructure 27 schools
In spring 2007, DCPS was placed under
mayoral control
In 2007, Superintendent Clifford B. Janey
proposed closing 19 schools with low
enrollment on a staggered schedule until 2019
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
In 2012
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
22
6-7
2006
2007-12
Washington D.C.
23
2008
2009
2010
Kansas City
21
8
2009
2012
Boston Public Schools can benefit from the support of many parents and community leaders for working to
improve the academic situation of every child and trying to create community engagement for local, neighborhood
schools; BPS needs to create this community engagement and not be too aggressive in planning these moves
Source: Closing public schools in Philadelphia. The Pew Charitable Trusts;
New York Times, Local school districts.
HIGHLY
DRAFT PRELIMINARY
Description of
files/metric
Initial
consideration set,
NCES 2010-111
BPS
Number of
peer districts
18,840
Newark
District of
Columbia
Cleveland
Total student
enrollment
between 40-70k
Location:
Large city
~56k
Large city
74%
428
91
34
28
13
Columbus
Atlanta2
San Francisco
% of students
qualifying for free/
reduced lunch >50%
Wichita2
Oakland
Tucson
Number of
students/ school
300 600
Sacramento
Tulsa2
Omaha2
Oklahoma City
List of interviewees
Name
Area
Name
Area
Melissa Dodd
Eileen de los Reyes
Ross Wilson
Eileen Nash
Antonieta Bolomey
Tanisha Sullivan
Michele Brooks
Kamal Chavda
Sam DePina
Kim Rice
Lee McGuire
Mark Racine
Erika Giampietro
Chris Guilani
Linh Vuong
Elaine Ng
Jaime Racanelli
Barry Kaufman
Paul Sloan
Jon Sproul
Shakera Walker
Nate Kuder
Melissa Partridge
Mary Skipper
Margarita Ruiz
Ann Chan
Kavita Venkatesh
Khadijah Brooks
Jonathan Steketee
Jerry Burrell
Carleton Jones
Jon Barrows
Emily Qazilbash