Steering Committee Working Draft

WORKING DRAFT
Last Modified 3/20/2015 9:03 AM Eastern Standard Time

Printed 3/10/2015 8:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
Boston Public Schools

Operational Review - Draft
March 5, 2015
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
Any use of this material without specific permission is strictly prohibited
INTRODUCTION
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
What this work IS NOT
Exploration of potential options to

improve student achievement, lower
district costs and drive operational
efficiency
Estimates of ranges of savings to

identify magnitude of savings from
various options
Collaborative idea generation and

discussion with district to bring
insights to light
These are not recommendations

Further analysis is required to
identify specific opportunities and
to implement
Public conversations about
tradeoffs required for many
options
Strategic process to weigh costs
and benefits of options would be
needed to transform to
recommendations
Exact analysis to predict how much

money the district will save
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 2|
INTRODUCTION
The core focus of this review is on student outcomes in

pursuing improved operational effectiveness and reduced costs, all while
engaging and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders
Multiple considerations are essential
Ultimately, improved student outcomes is the
Cost
effectiveness
Student
outcomes
Operational
effectiveness
goal of any effort to reduce cost and inefficiency

and reallocate those funds where they can do
more for students
Beyond students, considering the impact on
teachers, parents, and other stakeholders is
critical to identifying the most beneficial and
feasible improvements
Stakeholder
engagement
Opportunities
Opportunities for
for BPS
BPS have
have been
been prioritized
prioritized
while
while keeping
keeping all
all of
of these
these factors
factors in
in mind
mind
INTRODUCTION
Glossary of terms
Term
Definition
English Language Learner (ELL)
Students whose native tongue is not English and have not achieved fluency
in English appropriate with their grade level
Students with Disabilities (SWD)
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
Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the general

education and special education populations and is research proven to be a
better approach to special education for the entire student population
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP is

designed by the school team to meet that students needs
Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy

(OTPT)
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)
Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)
FNS is the department responsible for delivering food to all BPS students
Office of Instructional and Information

Technology (OIIT)
OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technological

services and hardware to the employees and the students of the district
Pull-out vs. push-in
Current special education practices in BPS require the pulling out of

students from general education settings to receive additional resources; a
push in method leaves the student in the general education classroom,
while ensuring that the resources meet her/him where they are
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
BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics much

different from the city of Boston and SWD and ELL populations that outpace
state and national averages
While BPS pushes 55% of its funds to the schools, BPS has a significant
number of underutilized buildings and classrooms, spreading funds 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
As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addresses

overextension issues, the BPS central office will have an opportunity to
address some of the misaligned parts of the organization, driving performance
and capturing operational efficiencies in other areas like transportation, food
services and maintenance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Capturable, but time-sensitive
Overview of BPS opportunities
Right-size
the BPS
Footprint
Special
education
Transport
Food
Services
Maintenance
Capturable
Activity
Savings opportunity
Consolidate ~30-50 schools
$50-85M /yr
Sell 30-50 closed school buildings
$120-205M one-time
Phase in of inclusion
$63M /yr after full phase-in

(currently FY26)
External paraprofessionals
$9-11M /yr
External related service providers
$8-10M /yr
Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,
$6-19M /yr
Target meal participation to improve
$5M /yr
Centralize food preparation
$1-3M /yr
Contract out for the 137 night
$1-3M /yr
Contract out all maintenance to single
$1-3M /yr
FY16
FY17
FY18
Onetime
$1.7m savings per school
estimated value $4.1m per school
from current 0.16 mile
revenues
custodian work
contractor
Immediate
Immediate opportunities
opportunities to
to save
save ~$20-40m
~$20-40m in
in FY16
FY16 ifif intense
intense focus
focus and
and execution
execution placed
placed on
on activities
activities
With
With bold
bold decisions
decisions and
and focus,
focus, annual
annual savings
savings could
could total
total ~$200M
~$200M /yr,
/yr, and
and additional
additional $120-200m
$120-200m one-time
one-time
benefit
benefit
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
2
4/27/16
1 14% of per pupil

dollars are going to
central office
functions and
support
4/27/
16
1
4/27/1
6
20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students
4/27/16 Trans- 4/27/16

portation
Central
Central office
office
support
functions
support functions
capture
capture aa lot
lot of
of
spend,
with
spend, with
subpar
subpar systems
systems
for
managing
for managing
towards
towards
improved
improved operatoperations
outcomes
ions outcomes
An
An overextended
overextended
BPS
BPS footprint
footprint
stretches
stretches limited
limited
funds
over
funds over aa
large
large number
number of
of
schools
schools
Special
Special education
education
drives
drives per
per pupil
pupil
expenditures
expenditures but
but
only
reaches
only reaches
20%
20% of
of students
students
$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%

is the foundation of each school
These funds are spread across all 128
schools
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 Adminis- General

trators
education
classrooms
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
BPS Potential Opportunities

Opportunity to
reorganize
central office
Up to ~$27M
ongoing reduction
Opportunity to
consolidate ~3050 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
Immediate opportunities
opportunities for
for savings
savings in
in FY16
FY16 total
total ~$20-40m
~$20-40m ifif real
real focus
focus is
is brought
brought to
to opportunity
opportunity areas
areas
With
With bold
bold decisions
decisions and
and focus,
focus, savings
savings over
over the
the next
next 2-3
2-3 years
years can
can total
total ~$200M
~$200M // yr,
yr, with
with additional
additional one-time
one-time benefits
benefits
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability

and less bureaucracy in the Central Office
Most experienced values
1. Internal Politics (41)
2. Bureaucracy (25)
3. Accountability (15)
4. Lack of shared purpose (14);
Customer focus (14)
Most desired values

1. Being collaborative (39)
3. Excellence (28)
4. Equity (21)
Least experienced values

1. Efficiency (28)
2. Equity (27)
3. Accountability (25);
Employee focus (25)
4. Fear (12);
Trust (12)
Least desired values

1. Inconsistent (40)
2. Bureaucracy (37)
3. Slow moving (31)
DRAFT
4. Silos (30);
Internal Politics (30)
Therefore,
Therefore, BPS
BPS could
could consider
consider
Defining
Defining what
what accountability
accountability looks
looks like
like for
for its
its Central
Central Office
Office
Reducing
Reducing the
the internal
internal politics
politics and
and bureaucracy
bureaucracy currently
currently experienced
experienced
Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 10

|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Since 1994, BPS student population has declined 17%, but the
number of schools has remained relatively constant
DRAFT
Schools vs. student population

# of school programs, # BPS students
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS
BPS can
can reduce
reduce
its
its footprint
footprint
based
based on
on the
the
large
difference
large difference
between
between its
its
enrollment
enrollment and
and
its
its capacity
capacity
Projections
Projections
suggest
suggest no
no
additional
additional space
space
will
will be
be needed
needed
in
in the
the future
future
4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/27
/16 27 27 27 27 27 /16 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 /16
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1
With
With6students
students
decreasing,
the
funding
each
student
must
continue
6 6 6 decreasing,
6
6 6 the
6 6funding
6 6 for
6for6each
6 6student
6 6 must
6
6 continue
to
to cover
cover the
the systems
systems fixed
fixed costs
costs including
including the
the buildings
buildings but
but also
also the
the
principals
principals and
and school
school staff
staff which
which are
are present
present at
at each
each location
location
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education; Internal interviews; BPS data

|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect

~$1.7M before property sales
Description
Prior cost
With fewer staff, BPS could commensurately

Consolidate
classroom staff
Foundation
for school staff
The foundation money is no longer needed
$3.8m
$2.3-2.8m
$1.0-1.5m
$200k
$0
$200k
$166k
$50k
$116k
$191k
$57k
$134k
$260k
$0
$260k
by the school
Custodial support is no longer required at
Average
building
maintenance
Maintenance is no longer required but may
the building but may increase by 30% at

receiving schools
1
increase by 30% at receiving schools

1
The closed buildings no longer needs to

spend on utilities (including electric, gas,
water, and telecom)
Total
1 Assumed
Savings after
closing
reduce teaching staff

The average teacher student ratio goes
from 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162
Average
custodial
support
Average
utilities
Cost after
closing
DRAFT
$1.7- 2.2m
2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1
Source: Team analysis; BPS Office of Finance

|
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
Expanded
Expanded beforebefore- and
and after-school
after-school
programming
programming for
for students
students in
in all
all
schools
schools
~$51-85M
~$51-85M in
in run-rate
run-rate savings
savings
garnered
garnered from
from closing
closing 30
30 50
50
schools
schools
Guaranteed
Guaranteed set
set of
of electives
electives or
or
specials
specials at
at all
all schools
schools (e.g.,
(e.g.,
Physical
Physical Education,
Education, Art)
Art)
Greater
Greater portfolio
portfolio of
of teacher
teacher supports
supports
and
and resources
resources (e.g.,
(e.g., instructional
instructional
coaches,
coaches, first-year
first-year mentors,
mentors,
counselors)
counselors)
~$120M
~$120M in
in one-time
one-time cash
cash from
from
property
property sales
sales of
of 30
30 50
50 schools
schools
Funds
Funds to
to build
build 11 state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art
high
high school
school (~$30M)
(~$30M) and
and 99 state-ofstate-ofthe-art
the-art lower
lower schools
schools (~$10M
(~$10M each)
each)
While
While these
these are
are possibilities,
possibilities, the
the school
school district
district will
will have
have the
the ability
ability to
to choose
choose
how
how itit reinvests
reinvests the
the money,
money, taking
taking into
into account
account the
the tradeoffs
tradeoffs between
between
consistency
consistency across
across schools
schools and
and school
school autonomy
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
24% of BPS budget
School
level
Central $ 136m (51%)
As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget
Transportation Private placement tuition
$ 49m
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
Other labor Misc. equipsupports (ad- ment and

ministrators, supports
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 3m
Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m

|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 BPS schools are classifying students at widely variable rates
DRAFT
Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15

% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD, by school
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
There are 14 schools who

classified 100% of the students
referred and 35 who referred 0%
Variable rates reflect differing
school cultures around
classification
A centralized auditing process
can narrow the band of
variability
The variable classification rates
imply that some students are
receiving services they do not
need, while others are missing
students who do need extra
supports
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
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
* Schools with less than 200 student enrollments

Source: Office of Special Education data

|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

State classification rates, 2011
DRAFT
Massachusetts district classification rates, 2015
% of students classified students with disabilities (SWD)
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
SWD vs. Free and Reduced Meal (FARM) rates by Mass.

District, 2015
There are districts with similar challenges and

lower SPED %
% of students SWD, % of students FARM
% FARM
4/27/16
Districts with equal or greater FARM, but lower SWD:

Revere
Everett
Brockton
Lynn
Chelsea
Springfield
4/27/16
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
3 BPS is increasing special education inclusion, a strong

research-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities
DRAFT
Inclusion is good for both special

education and general education students
BPS will move to full inclusion as a

district by 2019
BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWD

into inclusion classrooms, leaving just
those with disabilities that make
inclusion inappropriate in substantially
separate classrooms, movement of
roughly 2,500 students
The BPS plan is to create more inclusion

classrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, to
grow inclusion from the bottom, while
moving K-5 classrooms into inclusion a
zone at a time, at the rate of one zone a
year, over five years
A 2014 state of Massachusetts report

found that across the state, students with
disabilities who had full inclusion
placements appeared to outperform
similar students who were not included to
the same extent in general education
classrooms with their non-disabled peers.1
A 2013 BPS study found that general

education students in inclusion classrooms
performed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and
1.6x better on Math MCAS2
BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusion

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
|
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
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
The
The Special
Special Education
Education
departments
departments plan
plan for
for inclusion
inclusion
is
phased
in
fully
over
is phased in fully over 13
13
years,
years, calling
calling for
for gradual
gradual
adoption,
adoption, with
with two
two networks
networks (A(AG)
G) beginning
beginning the
the process
process every
every
year
year for
for the
the first
first five
five years
years
By
By the
the final
final year
year of
of the
the roll-out
roll-out
additional
costs
for
inclusion
additional costs for inclusion
will
will grow
grow to
to ~$43M
~$43M annually
annually
As
As critical
critical mass
mass of
of inclusion
inclusion
classrooms
grow,
a
classrooms grow, a tipping
tipping point
point
will
occur
allowing
elimination
will occur allowing elimination
of
of sub/separate
sub/separate classrooms
classrooms
at
an
increasing
rate,
at an increasing rate, beginning
beginning
in
in SY16-17
SY16-17
The
The annual
annual SPED
SPED budget
budget
should
should drop
drop below
below historical
historical
spends
beginning
in
spends beginning in SY17-18
SY17-18
The
The total
total $326M
$326M cost
cost of
of moving
moving
to
to inclusion
inclusion will
will be
be fully
fully paid
paid
for
for by
by the
the final
final year
year (SY26-27)
(SY26-27)
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Source: Interviews with Office of Special Education

|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential action items
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
Given calendar constraints, strategic decision to address district overextension and

consolidate 30-50 schools in next ~2 years needs to happen immediately for
planning to begin
~$51-85m/yr plus ~$120200m one-time
Given the calendar and union restrictions, a decision on outsourcing

Opportunity to speed
SPED reforms
~$17-21M in FY16 and
~$63M longer-term
annually
paraprofessionals and specialists should be made immediately, with potential

blowback weighed
Reassess pace and transition plans for SPED inclusion strategy to shorten time to
benefits and reduce financial investment to get there
Decisions to drive down SPED rates more in line with the state and nation will
require decision and cultural shifts
Transportation savings exist, but the decision would need to be made to lengthen
Opportunities to
improve operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr
Source: Team analysis
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
|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
Appendix

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Overview of BPS
Overview
Key Insights
54K students, down 6% in 10 years

Highly diverse system
20% of students Sped
30% students ELL, and growing
78% qualify for free or reduced
meals, only 8 Mass. districts
higher
Solid performance vs. other US urban

Districts
Throughout the 1990s and early
2000s, Boston was closing gap with
MA performance, now just keeping
pace with MA growth
BPS performance, while continuing to track with the

state, consistently lags state performance by
significant margins across all populations
$1.1B total budget,

$18K per student vs. $16K in peer
districts and $14K in Mass. districts
45% spent on central functions
~25% SpEd
~10% Transportation
Of the $18K, only $4,051 gets directly to the typical

student, with the rest going to system supports
The number has grown by 25% since 2005
because of steady budgets and decreasing student
counts, with no additional increase in student
services due to an overstretched system
Current footprint puts significant

burden on the system that doesnt
improve learning
Lack of central office strategy,
alignment, and efficient design
Inconsistent SpEd classification
Demographics
Student
Outcomes
Finances
Key Issues
DRAFT
Teacher population far more diverse than national

pool, but lags student and city populations
Only a handful of Mass. districts (Revere, Everett,
Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea, Springfield) have higher
poverty rates, but lower % SpEd classification
Enrollment projected to continue to decline
modestly, but if the charter cap is lifted, would
accelerate rapidly
Current footprint could be 30-50 buildings smaller,

liberating ~$35M annually and $120M in one time
sales for more things that really help kids
Central office hunger for better culture and
operations keyed in on more accountability
Small improvements in SpEd classification and
delivery model would be better for kids and finances
|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The BPS budget allocates 30% of spending to teacher salaries,

another 26% to benefits and teaching services
DRAFT
BPS budget break down

%, FY2013
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Teacher
Teacher salaries,
salaries,
benefits
and
benefits and other
other
teaching
teaching services
services
comprised
comprised 56%
56% of
of the
the
FY13
FY13 annual
annual budget
budget
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Instructional Materials,
Equipment and Technology 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The FY15 budget has a number of large spending items
Spending item
DRAFT
Amount
% of FY15 budget
Personnel
Regular education teacher
$160M
14%
Employee benefits (all BPS)
$138M
12%
Transportation
$57M
5%
Operations
Food service
$36M
3%
Facilities management
$26M
2%
Custodial services
$22M
2%
Schools
School administration
$51M
5%
Bilingual education
$24M
2%
Special Education transportation
$45M
4%
SPED
Private placement tuition
$41M
4%
Special Education inclusion
$34M
3%
Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Over 50% of spending comes from instructional variable costs

Total spending
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
Guidance
,
counseling, etc.
$ 17m
DRAFT
Instructional
Classroom
and
specialist
teachers.
Other
teaching
services
Instructional
leadership
$ 352m
$ 105m
$ 65m
$ 608m (51%)
Profess- Instructional
ional
Develop- materials
ment
$ 53m
$ 33m
1 Includes private and charter schools

Source: BPS 2013 budget, Massachusetts Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS provides 55% of general fund spending directly to schools
DRAFT

%, FY2015
Source of funds
Amount
4/27/16
Federal funds
(ARRA)
$2.1M
FY15 Lease
purchase
$11.2M
4/27/16
4/27/16
Grants
General funds
$134M
$975M
School
budgets
Total: $1,122M
ARRA
ARRA and
and grant
grant funding
funding generally
generally has
has little
little flexibility,
flexibility, and
and cannot
cannot
be
used
for
purposes
other
than
what
they
were
initially
identified
be used for purposes other than what they were initially identified

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Nearly all spending is driven by personnel at schools and central office

DRAFT
%, FY2015
BPS budget break down, by central and school spending

$M, FY2015
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
Health
ins. &
pension
4/27/16
Choice
transport.
SPED
transport.
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/1
6
4/27/16
Custodians
4/27/16
4/27/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/16
Maintenance
Misc.
4/27/16
HQ
equipment
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
ComInsurance
puters &
equipment
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Regu- 4/27/16 BilinMisc.

SpeAdmin- 4/27/
lared.
gual
teach- cialist
istrators 16
Teachers
teacher ing per- teacher
sonnel
(coaches,
librarians,
substitute
4/27/16
SPED
resource
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
SPED Pro4/27/1
itinerant gram
6
support
Counselor
Coor4/27/
dinators 16
4/27/16 Other
4/27/
support 16
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
130 total schools

4/27/16
Custodial
support
36 teachers
1 principal,
1 secretary,
and others
418 students
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Thousands
4/27/16
1 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

|
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
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
$, per student by Mass. district,

2012-20132
New England
states
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Boston: $17,589
MA Avg.: $14,544
Massachusetts
Massachusetts and
and New
New
England
more
broadly
England more broadlyhave
have
significantly
significantlyhigher
higher per
per pupil
pupil
expenditures
expenditures due
due to
to
historically
historically high
high investment
investment
in
education
in education
BPS
BPShigher
higher per
per pupil
pupil average
average
in
the
state
of
Massachusetts
in the state of Massachusetts
is
is driven
driven mostly
mostly by
by costs
costs of
of
living
in
Boston
living in Boston
The
The per
per pupil
pupil average
average of
of peer
peer
set
set of
of national
national districts
districts is
is
3
$15,755
$15,7553
When
When cost
cost of
of living
living
adjustments
adjustments are
are made
made to
to
national
national peer
peer set,
set, Bostons
Bostons
per
per pupil
pupil spending
spending declines
declines
to
to $12,472,
$12,472, below
below the
the peer
peer
average
average of
of $13,109
$13,109
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 NCES 2010-2011
2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; counts just general funds
3 Peer districts and methodology in the appendix

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Of BPS per pupil spend, 36% reaches directly into the classroom
DRAFT
Per pupil spending

$, per student
BPS per pupil spend
is 11% higher than the
peer average of
$15,7552
14% of per pupil

dollars are going to
central office functions
and support
4/27/
16
1
4/27/1
6
20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students
4/27/16 Trans- 4/27/16

portation
Central
Central office
office
support
support functions
functions
capture
a
capture a lot
lot of
of
spend,
and
needs
spend, and needs
updated
updated systems
systems
for
managing
for managing
towards
towards
improved
improved operatoperations
outcomes
ions outcomes
An
An overextended
overextended
BPS
BPS footprint
footprint
stretches
stretches limited
limited
funds
funds over
over aa
large
large number
number of
of
schools
schools
Special
Special education
education
drives
drives per
per pupil
pupil
expenditures
expenditures but
but
only
only reaches
reaches
20%
20% of
of students
students
$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%

is the foundation of each school
These funds are spread across all 128
schools
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 Adminis- General

trators
education
classrooms
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
24% of BPS budget
School
level
Central $ 136m (51%)
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%)
Other labor Misc. equipsupports (ad- ment and

clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 3m
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The BPS budget has not accounted for student declines

BPS budgets and student population since 2005
$ BPS budget, millions; # of students
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
In
In 2005,
2005, BPS
BPS had
had aa per
per
pupil
pupil spending
spending rate
rate of
of
$15,915,
by
2015,
that
$15,915, by 2015, that
same
same rate
rate had
had grown
grown
to
to $20,568
$20,568
Because
Because the
the BPS
BPS
footprint
footprint did
did not
not adjust
adjust
with
with population,
population, the
the per
per
pupil
spend
is
forced
pupil spend is forced up
up
to
cover
fixed
operating
to cover fixed operating
costs
costs
IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained
its
its per
per pupil
pupil spending
spending
rate
rate in
in 2015,
2015, the
the budget
budget
should
have
fallen
should have fallen to
to
$864M,
23%
less
than
$864M, 23% less than
FY15s
FY15s budget
budget
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, includes

grant funds and other sources
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
nor has FTE count
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS FTEs and student population since 2009

# of BPS FTEs, # of students
Source: BPS Human Capital data and Enrollment data
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
(7-10%)
IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to decrease
decrease
staff
staff with
with future
future enrollment
enrollment
trends
and
historical
trends and historical central
central
office
office FTE
FTE counts,
counts, BPS
BPS
would
would shrink
shrink by
by ~7-10%
~7-10%
In
In 2009-10,
2009-10, BPS
BPS had
had aa ratio
ratio
of
of 5.5
5.5 students
students per
per FTE,
FTE, by
by
2014-15,
2014-15, that
that ratio
ratio had
had
fallen
to
5.0
fallen to 5.0
IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained its
its
2009-10
student
to
FTE
2009-10 student to FTE
ratio,
ratio, in
in 2014-15,
2014-15, BPS
BPS would
would
have
have 9,875
9,875 FTEs,
FTEs, 902
902 fewer
fewer
than
than six
six years
years ago,
ago, at
at aa
savings
savings of
of ~$60-70M
~$60-70M
By
By operating
operating its
its current
current
number
of
schools,
number of schools, BPS
BPS
cannot
cannot currently
currently bring
bring
school
school staff
staff down
down
commensurately
commensurately

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The share of school-based employees has remained mostly constant
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
FTE break down

% of BPS employees
The change
in share is
representati
ve of smaller
school staff
numbers
with slightly
increased
central office
shares
SY 20092010
SY 20102011
SY 20112012
SY 20122013
SY 20132014
SY 20142015
The
The ratio
ratio of
of school-level
school-level to
to central
central office
office BPS
BPS
employees
employees constant
constant over
over the
the past
past 66 years,
years, with
with aa
slight
slight uptick
uptick in
in central
central to
to school
school ratios
ratios in
in recent
recent years
years
Source: BPS employee data, Office of Human Capital

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS is a diverse system, whose demographics differ from

Boston overall
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Other/multiracial
Racial break down
% of total population, out of 100%
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/162
4/27/16
4/27/166
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/163
Poverty indicators
% of population in poverty
Students at 185%
of federal poverty
line or below
Households at or below
185% of federal poverty
level for a family of four
BPS students4
City of Boston5
DRAFT
White
White BPS
BPS teachers
teachers
represent
30%
represent 30% more
more of
of the
the
teaching
teaching force
force than
than of
of the
the
city
city of
of Boston
Boston and
and nearly
nearly 55
times
times that
that of
of the
the student
student
body
body
BPS
BPS Hispanic
Hispanic students
students
represent
double
represent double the
the
student
student body
body share
share to
to the
the
Hispanic
share
of
the
City
Hispanic share of the City of
of
Boston
and
four
times
the
Boston and four times the
share
share of
of the
the teaching
teaching force
force
The
The Black
Black share
share of
of the
the
BPS
student
body
is
BPS student body is >50%
>50%
greater
than
the
teaching
greater than the teaching
force
force and
and of
of the
the city
city as
as aa
whole
whole
BPS
BPS teaching
teaching force
force is
is
significantly
more
diverse
significantly more diverse
than
than teachers
teachers nationally
nationally
BPS
BPS students
students are
are in
in
greater
need
than
the
greater need than the
population
population of
of the
the City
City of
of
Boston
Boston
1 BPS at a Glance, SY 2013-2014;

2 BPS employee data, Jan 1, 2015;
3 US Census Bureau, 2010
4 BPS data, 2013, last time data collected on this measure
5 Estimate from CLR research, 2010
6 EdWeek, Profiles of teachers in the US, 2011
|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS has a significantly higher rate of students qualifying for Free and
reduced meals than the state and nation
DRAFT
Free and reduced meal rate

% of students in state receiving free or reduced meals 1
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
% of students in district receiving free or reduced meals 2
New England
states
Boston: 78%
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students, by

locate and percentage of students in school eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (FRPL): Fall 2010
2012 MA Avg.: 25.7%
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Locate
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS
BPS outpaces
outpaces
the
the nation
nation and
and
Massachusett
Massachusett
ss districts
districts in
in the
the
percentage
percentage of
of
students
students
qualifying
qualifying for
for
free
free and
and
reduced
reduced meals
meals
BPS
is
more
BPS is more in
in
line
line with
with urban
urban
districts,
districts, where
where
38%
38% of
of these
these
districts
districts have
have
greater
greater than
than
75%
75% of
of
students
students
qualifying
qualifying for
for
free
free and
and
reduced
reduced meals
meals
Percentage of students in school eligible for FRPL
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 US Dept. of Education, 2011

2 Kidscount data, 2012
|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation
DRAFT
State classification rates

% of students in state classified SPED1
Identification Rate of Students with
Disabilities, by State 2009-10
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Nebraska
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Iowa
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
% of students in district classified SPED2

Identification Rate of Students with
Disabilities, by MA district 2013
Boston
2013 MA Avg.
New England
states
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
Massachusetts
Massachusetts has
has historically
historically
higher
higher SPED
SPED numbers
numbers due
due to
to being
being
aa leader
leader in
in SPED
SPED beginning
beginning in
in the
the
1970s
1970s their
their being
being higher
higher than
than
national
national averages
averages is
is not
not aa
reflection
reflection of
of any
any state
state policies,
policies,
but
but of
of state
state culture
culture
Assuming
Assuming direct
direct labor
labor aligns
aligns with
with
the
number
of
students,
the number of students, BPS
BPS could
could
save
save roughly
roughly $5M
$5M for
for every
every one
one
percentage
percentage drop
drop in
in classification
classification
Aligning
Aligning with
with state
state average
average
could
could translate
translate to
to $10-15M
$10-15M in
in
savings
savings
Aligning
Aligning with
with New
New England
England
average
of
16.2%
average of 16.2% could
could
capture
capture $15-18M
$15-18M
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
SWD and FARM classification are correlated across MA districts
DRAFT
Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status 1

% of students in district, 2013-2014
4/27/16
% of district FARM students
4/27/16
Districts
Districts with
with equal
equal or
or
greater
greater FARM,
FARM, but
but lower
lower
SWD:
SWD:
Revere,
Revere, Everett,
Everett,
Brockton,
Brockton, Lynn,
Lynn, Chelsea,
Chelsea,
Springfield
Springfield
Districts
Districts with
with equal
equal or
or
greater
FARM,
but
higher
greater FARM, but higher
SWD:
SWD:
Lawrence,
Lawrence, Fall
Fall River,
River,
Holyoke
Holyoke
AA 2014
2014 Massachusetts
Massachusetts study
study
found
that
low-income
found that low-income
students
students in
in the
the state
state were
were
identified
as
eligible
for
identified as eligible for
special
special education
education services
services
at
at substantially
substantially higher
higher
rates
rates than
than non-low-income
non-low-income
students
students
4/27/16
% students classified with disabilities
1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013

|
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS English Language Learners population continues to grow,

making it among the highest in national peer set
DRAFT
Percentage of ELL students

% of student body classified as ELL
This represented a raw
change of +7,656 students
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/
16
1
4/27/1
6
San 4/27/
Fran- 16
cisco1
4/27/1 4/27/
6
16
1
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/

16
4/27/16 4/27/1 4/27/16 4/2

6
7/1
6
41%
41% of
of BPS
BPS
students
students now
now
identify
identify as
as
Hispanic
Hispanic
BPS
BPSFY16
FY16
Weighted
Weighted
Student
Student Formula
Formula
allocates
allocates aa
blended
blended rate
rate of
of
$1,677
$1,677 per
per ELL
ELL
student
student
At
At FY16
FY16 rates,
rates,
this
this 10%
10% change
change
would
would add
add
$12.8M
$12.8M to
to
district
district needs
needs
4/27/16 4/27/1 4/27/1

6
6
1 No data on ELL students available in 2010 2011 school year

Source: NCES 2010-11, 2012 2013; adjusted MA DESE reporting

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
Appendix

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
System performance summary
BPS, beginning in the late1990s, began a transformation that brought it

national recognition as a high-performing, urban system. A 2010 report1
on the worlds most improved systems identified Boston as one of the
20 systems in the world and one of just 3 in the US to make
significant, systemic, and sustained improvements in student
achievement during the period from 1995-2009
Since 2009, BPS momentum has stalled. While it continues to track with
Massachusetts performance averages, the gap it narrowed in the early
2000s, is annually persistent
While BPS ELL population performs almost exactly as well as the

BPS student average and performs nearly as well as Massachusetts ELL
population, BPS SPED population lags all BPS students dramatically
and continues to lag Massachusetts SPED population significantly
The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and 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
Reading scores show frequent performance above Large City index

but below National average
Nation
Grade 4 Reading
Average scale scores: 2003-2013
Boston
DRAFT
Large city
Grade 8 Reading
4/27/161 4/27/161
4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/16
4/27/163
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/163
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/16 4/27/16
1
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27
/16
05
07
09
11
2013
4/27
/16
05
07
09
11
2013
BPS reading is beginning to decline
After large gains from 2003 through 2009, BPS performance
has stalled
Reading scores in particular are beginning to decline
Note: The NAEP Reading scale ranges from 0 to 500

1 Significantly different (P <.05) from 2013
2 Significantly different (P <.05) from Large City in 2013
3 Significantly different (P <.05) from Nation in 2013
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Math scores show frequent performance above Large City index

and only slightly below National average
Nation
Grade 4 mathematics
4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/161 4/27/161
4/27/16
Large city
4/27/162
4/27/161
4/27/16
1
4/27/161 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/161
1
4/27
/16
4/27/16
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
4/27/161
Boston
Grade 8 mathematics
4/27/161
4/27/161
DRAFT
4/27/161
1
4/27/161
4/27/161
05
07
09
11
2013
4/27
/16
05
07
09
11
2013
BPS math has leveled off
After large gains from 2003 through 2009, BPS performance
has fallen in line with the national trajectory

Math scores were rising rapidly but have recently begun to
plateau
Note: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500

1 Significantly different (P <.05) from 2013
2 Significantly different (P <.05) from Large City in 2013
3 Significantly different (P <.05) from Nation in 2013
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS tracks with, but consistently lags state districts in

MCAS performance
DRAFT
BPS student performance

3rd grade ELA
% of students proficient or advanced
3rd grade Math1

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 05 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1
10th grade
ELA
6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6
4/ 4/27
27 /16
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: MA DESE
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27 4/
4/
4/
4/ 4/
4/
/16
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1
/1
/1
/1 /1
/1
10th grade
Math
6
6
6
6
6
6
4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1
/1 math
/1 /1in /1
/1
1 MA only started
testing
3rd /1
grade
2006
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
4/27/16
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6
4/27 4/
/16 27
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6
While
While BPS
BPS
tracks
tracks with
with the
the
state,
Boston
state, Boston
consistently
consistently
underperforms
underperforms
state
state
averages
averages
BPS
BPS students
students
are
are narrowing
narrowing
the
the gap
gap by
by 10
10thth
grade,
grade, but
but are
are
starting
starting
significantly
significantly
behind
behind their
their
peers
peers in
in the
the
early
early grades
grades

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS SPED students lag state districts in MCAS performance

by even larger margins
DRAFT
BPS SPED student performance

3rd grade ELA
3rd grade Math

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade ELA
6
6
6
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade 6Math 6
6
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
27
/1
6
Source: MA DESE
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
BPS
BPS SPED
SPED
students
students are
are
tracking
tracking with
with
state
state
performance,
performance,
but
but with
with aa
significant
significant gap
gap
in
in perfor-mance
perfor-mance
from
from their
their
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
peers
peers
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27
/16

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass state

averages in MCAS performance
DRAFT
BPS ELL student performance

3rd grade ELA
3rd grade Math

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS
BPS ELL
ELL
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade ELA
6
6
6
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade 6Math 6
6
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
27
/1
6
Source: MA DESE
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16
students
students rival
rival
the
the perforperformance
mance of
of MA
MA
ELL
ELL students
students
BPS
BPS ELL
ELL
students
students
scores
scores are
are
consistently
consistently at
at
or
or near
near overall
overall
BPS
BPS perforperformance
mance
4/27/16
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27
/16

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas, with 10th
4/27/16
4/27/16
grade ELA being an exception
4/27/16
DRAFT
4/27/16
BPS non-white student performance

3rd grade ELA
3rd grade Math1

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
White
White BPS
BPS
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 05 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1
10th grade
6 6ELA
6
6 6 6 6 6 6
4/27/16
4/27 4/
4/
4/
4/ 4/
4/
/16
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1
/1
/1
/1 /1
/1
10th grade
6 Math
6
6
6
6
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1
/1 math
/1 /1in /1
/1
1 MA only started
testing
3rd /1
grade
2006
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Source: MA DESE
students
students
perform
perform at
at or
or
better
better than
than the
the
state
average
state average
4/ 4/27
27 /16
/1
6
Students
Students of
of
color
color
consistently
consistently
achieve
achieve at
at aa
rate
nearly
rate nearly
half
half that
that of
of
white
white students
students
in
in the
the early
early
grades
grades
4/27/16
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6
4/27/16
4/27 4/
/16 27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts, and its
population performs less well
DRAFT
Plot of MA district by SWD share and SWD 10th grade performance

% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % of students classified SWD
4/27/16
4/27/16
% of SWD scoring proficient or advanced % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced
There
There is
is aa correlation
correlation
in
in the
the state
state between
between
share
share of
of students
students
classified
classified and
and overall
overall
SWD
SWD performance
performance
4/27/16
Boston
Boston has
has aa higher
higher
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
share,
share, but
but its
its SWD
SWD
population
is
population is
performing
performing worse
worse
than
than would
would be
be
expected
expected
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
4/27/16

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state, BPS ELL
population performs better than correlations would predict
DRAFT
Plot of MA district by ELL performance and $ spent

% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % district ELL
4/27/16
% of ELL proficient or advanced
4/27/16
% of ELL proficient or advanced
BPS
BPS has
has one
one of
of the
the
largest
largest shares
shares of
of ELL
ELL
students
students in
in the
the state
state
of
of Massachusetts
Massachusetts
4/27/16
BPS
BPS ELL
ELL students
students
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013
outperform
outperform the
the
expected
expected
performance
performance levels
levels
4/27/16
$ spent per SWD pupil

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS lags, but tracks with state districts in graduation rates
DRAFT
Graduation rates
% of students graduating1
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
While
While on
on the
the
upswing,
upswing, BPS
BPS 4-year
4-year
graduation
graduation rate
rate is
is
significantly
significantly below
below the
the
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
average
average
BPS
BPS does
does track
track
generally
generally with
with
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
graduation
graduation rate
rate
improvement,
improvement, but
but is
is
not
closing
the
gap
not closing the gap
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/
4/
27
27
/1
/1
1 MA DESE 4-year graduation rate
6
6
Source: MA DESE
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/
27
/1
6
4/27
/16

|
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools, with some

specific concerns
This school is a good place for my child to
learn
% of parents responding
My child's teacher challenges him/her to do

their best and works hard to meet the needs
of my child
DRAFT
Perspectives from parents focus groups

Working parents cant start at 9:30am and
so our school is losing enrollment because
of the late bell time Elementary school
parent
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/
16
4/27/16
The school is doing a good job at preventing

bullying and harassment based on race,
gender, sexual preference and disabilities
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/
16
4/27/16
Parents perception of
Avg. score, 1-4 (4being the highest)
4/27/16
No one walks to school. Why are we

wasting resources on too many school
buses? Elementary school parent
When I first looked at BPS [years ago],

there were only 3 schools I would consider.
Now, I see many more options Im
comfortable sending my child to. High
school parent
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS has given me an incredibly diverse

community for my child High School
parent
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/
16
4/27/16
Source: Annual BPS school climate survey, 2013-2014; 20% of

parents on average responded t osurvey at each school
There are a lot of programmatic

inconsistencies, like having so many
different school models K-1, 2-8, etc.
Middle School parent

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
Appendix

|
HUMAN CAPITAL
BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution, and have been

rated proficient
DRAFT
Year of birth
# of teachers by year of birth
4/27/
4/27/
16
16
Evaluation rating
The average
BPS
teacher is
42 years old
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
21% of the teaching

force does not have
an evaluation on file
Unsatisfactory
Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data
4/2
7/1
6
4/27/16
94%
94% of
of teachers
teachers are
are
licensed
licensed to
to teach
teach in
in
their
subject
are,
their subject are,
compared
compared to
to 98%
98% of
of
teachers
teachers state-wide
state-wide
96%
96% of
of teachers
teachers
with
with evaluations
evaluations on
on
file
file are
are rated
rated
proficient
proficient or
or higher
higher
4/27/
16
# of teachers
No
evaluation
4/27/16

|
HUMAN CAPITAL
BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachers,

and none in the system have received a rating lower than proficient
DRAFT
Age of principals
# of principals born in decade
4/27/
4/27/
16
16
Evaluation rating
# of teachers
No
evaluation
The average
BPS principal
is 46 years
old
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Principals
Principals rated
rated
lower
lower than
than proficient
proficient
will
will almost
almost always
always
be
be moved
moved out
out of
of the
the
system
system
56% of principals do
not have evaluations on
file
Unsatisfactory
Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data
4/2
7/1
6

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization
Appendix

|
ORGANIZATION
BPS is within range of peers, but still supports a lower than average
student to non-teaching staff ratio
DRAFT
Average student-staff ratio

Ratio of total students to total teachers, 2011
Peer avg. 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011
IfIf BPS
BPS were
were
at
at the
the peer
peer
average,
average, itit
could
could have
have
500
500 fewer
fewer
FTEs
FTEs

|
ORGANIZATION
The total number of FTEs, across schools and central office has not
declined in line with student population
4/27/16
DRAFT
4/27/16

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
(7-10%)
IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to align
align staff
staff
with
future
enrollment
with future enrollment trends
trends
and
and historical
historical central
central office
office
FTE
FTE counts,
counts, BPS
BPS could
could
shrink
shrink by
by ~7-10%
~7-10%
In
In 2009-10,
2009-10, BPS
BPS had
had aa ratio
ratio
of
of 5.5
5.5 students
students per
per FTE,
FTE, by
by
2014-15,
that
ratio
had
2014-15, that ratio had
fallen
fallen to
to 5.0
5.0
IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained its
its
2009-10
2009-10 student
student to
to FTE
FTE
ratio,
ratio, in
in 2014-15,
2014-15, BPS
BPS would
would
have
have 9,875
9,875 FTEs,
FTEs, 902
902
fewer
than
six
years
fewer than six years ago
ago

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Framework for RFP 25
RFP areas for possible deep dive
Other RFP areas
Appendix

|
APPROACH AND WORKPLAN
The operational review was conducted over a period of

~3 months, shifting from a broad scan to deep dives
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
Collect existing data

and reports based
on data request
Identify internal and
external
stakeholders for
interviews and focus
groups
Begin scheduling
and conducting
interviews and focus
groups
Start initial analysis
and benchmarking
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
For the prioritized areas,

review diagnostic findings
and identify gaps vs. best
practice
Conduct additional deepdive analyses to assess
efficiency and
effectiveness
opportunities
Prioritize areas with
greatest opportunity to
explore further
Synthesis of initial
key themes and
learning
Overview of BPS fiscal

and operational health
across each of the 25
areas
Identification of priority
areas for deep-dives
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
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas
Appendix

|
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
Overall
Overall
Strengths
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/followthrough
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
Challenges

|
CROSS-BPS THEMES
BPS faces challenges that cut across the organization
Challenge
DRAFT
Area of strength
Overall assessment
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student
assignment, q. parent engagement, r.
ELL)
Strong foundation, in need of more robust
Talent management
(a. personnel policies, b. contracts, c.
hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e.
instructional staff, s. licensing, t.
CORI / SORI)
Dissatisfaction with professional develop-
Non-academic student supports

(l. transportation, m. food service, p.
extracurriculars, u. security)
Opportunities for cost capturing likely exist
Performance management
(v. performance objectives and
measurement tools)
focus on reaching all students where they

are
ment and advancement opportunities
Innovation in school staffing areas (e.g.

mutual consent)
Emerging themes
Data and technology not actively or
consistently used to support decision

making
Budget development process has
in many areas
opportunities for efficiencies and

collaboration, is unaligned with strategy,
while not evaluating spending for
effectiveness at school level
Organizational structure is not always
No robust performance management
aligned with functional needs of students,

with inefficiencies that stymie crossorganizational collaboration
system
Lack of follow-through and execution
BPS is overextended physically and
Administrative services (f.

accounting systems, y. external
funds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing,
o. IT, n. building maintenance, x.
school construction and renovation)
Many facilities in need of repair

OIT effective at meeting customer needs
Back office functions get done
Leadership and governance

(w. School Committee)
Serves community well, may be tensions
budgetarily, supporting buildings and

schools that lead to subscale services in
some pockets
with supt. over strategy

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas
Appendix

|
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 with

opportunities that may
be readily captured :
1. Food Services
2. Personnel
3. Finance and
accounting
(budgeting process)
4. Org. structure
These are areas of high opportunity that will also take time
and a good deal of effort, but are worth it:
5. District overextension
6. ELL
7. Data culture
8. Technology
9. Transportation
10. Special Education
11. Maintenance (of buildings)
12. Performance and quality objectives and measurement
tools
|
RFP 25
Framework for approaching RFP areas and crosscutting themes
Approach
Comparison of RFP areas

Opportunity ($, efficiency) v. ease ($, time, quality)
Opportunity
High
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
District overextension
ELL
Data culture
Technology
Transportation
10. Special education

11. Maintenance
12. Performance
management tools
External funds
Purchasing
transparency
Instructional staffing
General staffing and
recruiting
Extracurriculars
Security
Licensure
Parent Engagement
School Committee
CORI / SORI
Quick wins and Long-term goals

comprise over 60% of BPS budget
Low
Opportunity: This is the size of

1. Food Services
2. Personnel
the opportunity that exists for

improvement; it could be time
saved, money saved,
improvement in outputs, etc.
Ease: This is how much effort on
BPS part it will take to capture the

opportunity; it could be in dollars
required, time required to execute,
etc.
Construction and
renovation
Negotiation
Student assignment
FOR STEERCO DISCUSSION
3. Org. structure
4. Finance & accounting
(budget process)
Outputs
Quick wins: Large opportunities

for savings and/or performance
improvement that are easily
implementable and should be
considered for immediate action
Curriculum
Timekeeping
Role delineation
Long-term goals: Large
opportunities for savings and/or

performance improvement that
require a good deal of effort/time
to implement
Not a priority now: Opportunities

4/27/16
High
that are too small and/or too

difficult to be worth the effort and
attention required capture them

|
RFP 25
There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue to

e Efficiency opportunity
pursue without further deep dive (1/2)
Area
CORI / SORI
FY14 budget: N/A
School Committee FY14 budget:
$0.3M
Licensure
FY14 budget: N/A
Parent engagement FY14

budget: $2.6M
Security
FY14 budget:
$3.9M
Instructional
staffing
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
PRELIMINARY
$ Financial opportunity
Rationale to not include
Key factors to consider
e 5,000 CORI / SORI forms

processed annually by fax, even
though technology exists
Secure process keeps people
Have there been any lapses?

Is this a high-risk area?
Small budget, narrow scope of
$300K budget, any savings will be Will there be an expanded role?
activities
from being hired before clearing
tiny, no processes to improve
Inconsistent staffing and attention, While frustrating, no great gains
but no deep problems exist

Licensing more compliance-driven
The Engagement department is

considered one BPS strongest
relative to other options
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
Weighted student formula allots
school staffing by policy

Transparent system, with some
funding backstops necessary
Are we planning a licensing
push of any kind that would

need this function bolstered?
Are there concerns about
engagement that is not led by

the Engagement department?
Is the recent uptick in events
significant enough to require a

deep dive?
Determined by formula and policy, Does the WSF need analysis or

not by operations or budget usage
decisions
fresh thinking?

|
RFP 25
There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue to

pursue without further deep dive (2/2)
Area
$ Changes begun to evaluate

partners and manage better
e
Limited transparency into
effectiveness of programs
There are opportunities to
How concerned are we that
Curriculum
FY14 budget: $7M
$ Recent leadership has begun

reassessment of curriculum, which
e
is outdated
Opportunities for savings and
How much of the rest of the
Timekeeping
FY14 budget: N/A
e Paper systems utilized with

manual entry
Supervisor process for checks on
this process
Some opportunities in
Are there ways we can leverage
Some new thinking around
Small department with
Are we concerned about
New rigor of analysis brought to
Grantmaking bodies (including the Have there been historical
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
conversion rates of applicants

doing more with less
funds and where they come from

Compliance requests handled
department by department
enhance services, but would

require a good deal of work to
capture smaller opportunities
better outcomes will come from

deep review of pedagogy and
curriculum
technological enhancements, but
not critical upgrade
opportunities that are largely cost

centers
feds) mostly require accounting,

building internal accountability
BEDF is not maximizing

potential?
Are principals concerned by a
lack of extracurricular options?
system does curriculum drive?
Should they be considered as
part of another deep dive?
the city here to move BPS more
automated process?
pipelines and the need for

further analysis and
identification?
audits that turned up issues?
Roles and duties between central Better communication and thought Is there a need to understand,
office and schools unclear under

network model
Some overlap in roles (e.g., PD)
on roles can improve clarity

quickly, without needing to go very
deep
more deeply what is driving the

lack of clarity?

|
RFP 25
There are 4 areas with opportunities that are connected to other, PRELIMINARY
parallel process at this time
Area
Construction
FY14 budget:
$26M
Purchasing
FY14 budget: N/A
Negotiations
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
$ $3-$4B in current needs
e Procurement has conservative
culture and policies set by city

Some frustration about speed of
procurement turnarounds
Negotiations planning (for
teachers) slated to begin in the fall

for next contract (2017)
New thinking around contracts at
BPS (e.g., open-hiring)
With the capital planning process How will the future footprint be
e Capital planning process running
Student assignment FY14

budget: $3.4M

underway, efforts would be
duplicative
Costs here driven by academic
decisions around future footprint
Some process improvements
exist, but they would also involve

heavy coordination with the city
aligned to enable more

efficiently filled buildings and
classrooms even as enrollment
fluctuates?
Is there a quick win here that

should be investigated?
Timeline for major changes in this Are there analyses that we
area is set a ways off

Currently managing contract and
innovating effectively
should be considering that are

valuable now or valuable
enough to do now in preparation
for negotiations? (e.g., cost of
contractually required
class/support ratios, model for
pay for performance approach)
Good process of collaboration with Student assignment opportunities How much of student
Engagement office to assign

students and communicate with
families
Forecasts largely accurate at
district level, vary widely at school
level
are tied up in capital planning

process and considerations about
the size of the district as well as
WSF
assignment issues are driven by

the department vs. other policies
and other departments?

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas
Appendix

|
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
Area strengths and challenges

Strengths
Above benchmarks on breakfast and lunch participation rates, and
very high for those eligible for F/RM
One of the lowest cost per meals against benchmark
Participant in Provision II, but at low rates
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
Opportunities and potential impacts

Coherence
By managing a contract, while also providing services, BPS makes it structurally difficult to bring coherence to food services as well as have direct
accountability for specific areas; Whitsons current contract accounts for just a third of the food service budget, implying there could be real savings
to make this a more coherent area
BPS is carrying employees and costs associated with them while also using contractors and contracted employees. If BPS employees were shifted
to contract employees, costs could be expected to go down by 20-30% in the employee area, a savings of $1-3M
Revenues
BPS is delivering meals, but failing to cover costs in line with peers; an operational review and mapping can identify the areas that drive lost
revenues, while also developing a better system of accountability to capture available revenues
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

|
RFP 25
Food services has pushed costs down, but revenues lag

peers significantly
Cost per meal
$, per meal, 2012-13
Food services costs

% of revenue, 2012-13
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
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
BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis
SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools
DRAFT
Boston
Districts
Median
BPS is not
getting the
data tracking
it needs to be
successful
and drive
revenues

|
RFP 25
Personnel policies and procedures

(and development)
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

Strengths
New open placement policies loved by principals
Good implementation of teacher evaluations and use of data
systems has led to more transparency and more appropriate
quicker processes to remove poor performers
Some of the best salaries in the country, with good benefits
Have flexibility in management contractual terms
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

Professional development
Professional development needs coherence, either fully coordinated across all departments with an annual coordination and process by which a
department must clear trainings, or pushed to schools entirely with some oversight; in both situations, schools would get the PD they need, when
they need it; some potential cost savings if PD was pushed entirely to schools
Evaluations
Standardized evaluation processes with consequences for managers would bring consistency to central office and provide a culture shift that would
model for schools effective management policy; research into performance management shows improved employee performance and satisfaction
when evaluations are implemented
Consistent evaluations would also allow for a greater ability to manage out low performers
1 MA Dept. of ESE

|
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Finance and accounting systems

and policies
DRAFT
FY14: $1.7M
Budget & Finance dept.
Summary points
Annual budgeting driven by previous budgets, not by actual, historical spends

Procurement office viewed as unimpeachable internally at BPS, culturally sets the tone

Strengths
City and BPS budgeting systems collaborate and allow program
directors to view budget and budget spend
Weighted Student Formula is generally transparent to principals and
the public and aligns with goals of fairness and equity within the
system
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

Budgeting
Budgets built from base of the previous year and historical needs, where zero-based budgeting is considered best-practice; a zero-based budgeting
process would allow for transparent weighting of priorities and alignment of budget with priorities
While there are plans at department levels, and the School Committee is developing one, there is not currently a long-term strategic plan to guide
the district in budgeting decisions and identifying areas that need more or less investment to achieve the identified goals
Technology
A fully integrated system between human capital and budget data will provide significantly greater visibility into cost centers and practices, while
giving budget managers greater control over budgets, which can be used to effectively monitor costs and drive towards hitting budgeting marks

|
RFP 25
English Language Learners
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $5.6M dept.

FY14: $62M schools
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

Strengths
After nearly 2 years without a report, have now submitted 40-50
reports, 85% on track
MCAS data shows increase in ELL student performance in ELA
Recent uptick of ELL students moving from ELL to general
education, 13% of ELL population
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

Organization
ELL and Academics departments are not integrated and so develop PD, curriculum and student supports largely in isolation of the other; this creates
what principals and teachers feel like wasted time and no feeling that they are supported in ELL, only from a compliance standpoint
PD and data support
There is a large appetite at schools for ELL support that uses WIDA data to move more students into general education population, but sense of a
lack of support in this area, including no visibility into or availability of data. A better data management system that gives teachers and schools
access and support would push the needle and potentially lower ELL costs in the long term

|
RFP 25
BPS now has double the number of English Language Learners

than in 2010, making it among the highest in peer set
Percentage of ELL students
% of student body classified as ELL
4/27/16
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
1
4/27/161 4/27/
16
4/27/1
6
4/27/1
6
1
4/27/
16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/

16
4/27/1
6
4/27/1
6
4/27/16 4/2
7/1
6
4/27/16 4/27/1
6
4/27/1
6
1 No data on ELL students available in 2010 2011 school year

SOURCE: NCES 2010-11, 2012 - 2013

|
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

Strengths
OIT consistently named as teachers and principals best
performing department; recent roll out of laptops was described as
flawless by many
Data dashboards provide transparency into performance of OIT on
customer service issues
Recently launched MyBPS for teachers to connect to PD, early
success with getting 93% of teachers to log in and complete a
module
5 year network upgrade cycle keeps schools current, with fewer
costs in the future as a consequence
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

Align with city technology
The City provides a great deal of systems support to agencies that BPS does not fully take advantage of; savings of $500K - $1M could be had by
allowing the City to run data centers and networks BPS currently maintains
Align with departments
A process of technological procurement for schools and departments would provide better technology to end users and eliminate risks of purchasing
systems that cannot be used
1 Council of Great City Schools

|
RFP 25
IT spend and performance lags other districts

Bandwidth per student
Kilobytes per second (kbps)
Median
Boston
DRAFT
IT spend per student

$ / student
4/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
Districts
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS
BPS approaches
approaches peer
peer
averages
for
kbps,
averages for kbps,
despite
despite having
having aa
comparatively
comparatively low
low IT
IT
spend
against
peer
spend against peer
districts
districts
Interviews
Interviews with
with principals
principals
and
teachers
indicate
and teachers indicate very
very
high
high levels
levels of
of satisfaction
satisfaction
with
with the
the performance
performance of
of the
the
IT
department
IT department
1 Council of Great City Schools, 2012-2013

|
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

Strengths
Transportation moved bus ontime arrival from 65% to 90% in three
months in 2011 through data driven management
Successfully moved all 8th graders to MBTA passes
Refined distance metrics to move some students off mandatory bus
list
Tiered start times maximize driver utilization
BPS does CORI/SORI checks (not vendor), ensuring city process is
adhered to
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

MBTA
Can move all 7th graders to the T, and possibly even 6th graders, dropping per student costs from $1,500 to $260 a year, a $1-2M savings
Homebase
Changing policy around homebase process, which grandfathers transportation can cut the number of students entitled to transportation
Special education
Special Education transportation is $51M, a coordinated effort to move students in-district and correct classifications to appropriate levels could net a
modest drop in needs, leading to significant savings as the budget line is so large
Parochial and charter transportation
Parochial and charter transportation could be looked at to save ~$5M, if policy changes can be agreed upon
2 This is in-district and private out of district transportation

|
RFP 25
Transportation department is more expensive than peers, despite

using data management to manage performance
Boston
Bus on time tracking

% of buses on time, weekly
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
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
4/27/16
9/8
Districts
Median
Peer school district transportation costs

$ cost per rider, 2012-2013
% Before Bell: Year-to-Year comparison
9/1
DRAFT
Week of
SY2013-2014
Current year
SY2012-2013
2011-2012 % Before Bell
By using data on bus leaving and arrival times, the transportation

department, drove on-time bus arrivals from 65% to 90% over
three months in 2011, where it has consistently stayed
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Bostons transportation
is ~20% higher than

peer districts
With a budget of
$109M, further savings
could be expected to
net as much as $20M
4/27/16
SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 78
|
RFP 25
BPS spends more per student on transportation than other

high choice school districts as rated by CRPE
DRAFT
Comparative district size and cost per student in choice categories

$ per student, 2009
Los Angeles
Jefferson
Parish
Large
Size circle indicates

level of transportation
spending per student
FM = Franklin-McKinley, CA
SB = Spring Branch, TX
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
CRPE Choice Score

SOURCE: Choice dimension: Center for Reinventing Public
Education (CRPE); Spend dimension: NCES 2008-09

|
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

Strengths
Planning to move 30-50% of students from substantially separate to
inclusive environments over the next five years, enhancing services
General education students in inclusionary environments at BPS perform up
to 3x better than schools without inclusion1
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

Over-identification
A deeper audit of students in special education could align Boston with national norm of 15%, potentially freeing up $10-13M
Paraprofessionals and clerks
BPS has a policy of 1:1 para/aide to teacher ratio in most settings, when research suggests lower ratios are equally appropriate and effective; pushing higher ratios
(which would require some alignment with the state) could reduce costs by 5-10%, or $1.4-2.8M
Paraprofessionals can also be contracted out, which some districts have seen capture as much as 30% savings, equivalent to $8M at BPS
SPED clerical services are required by contract, but are largely outdated positions, totaling $2.75M, annually, most of which could be cut
Private placement
A deeper audit of students in special education private placement could identify students who can be effectively served in BPS; even bringing back 10% of students
could amount to savings of $4.1M, annually, while more aggressive efforts could net significantly more
A deep dive on what the triggers are for private placement could identify the schools/coordinators/teachers who are more likely to end up with students privately
placed, building a preventative plan to lessen that burden over a longer time horizon
Transportation
A deeper audit of student classification and SPED bus routes can allow for consolidation, where a 10% savings is $4.5M
Organization
Integrate SPED with academics, driving better collaboration and more holistic focus on student experience and supports, as well as greater ownership by
academics for keeping students in a general education environment, not simply reacting to student poor performance
1 SPED City Council presentation on inclusion June 2014

|
RFP 25
Special education benchmarking shows BPS has 21% more special

education students than peer districts, with little change since 2010
Percentage of SPED students
% of student body classified as SPED
4/27/16
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/1 Bos6
ton
4/2
7/1
6
4/27/1 Om6
aha
SOURCE: NCES 2010-11, 2012 - 2013
4/27/1 4/27/ Tucson

6
16
New- Wich- 4/27/1 4/27/ Sacark

ita
6
16
ramento
4/27/
16
Oakland
4/27/1
6

|
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

Strengths
Despite tremendous budget shortfalls, much of day-to-day needs
are addressed
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

Consolidation of contractors
By moving maintenance to one contract (as opposed to many, small vendors called in on work orders) can capture economies of scale and align
incentives for upkeep of facilities; districts that have done this have seen modest decreases in costs with improved level of services
Outsource maintenance
Outsourcing janitorial services can expect to see 20-30% savings on current facilities funds could net $10-$15M, as well as improve janitorial
management
Energy management
BPS spends $20M on energy (electric, gas and oil); recent pilot energy audits identified massive opportunities in a few, specific schools, even a 10%
improvement in efficiency can net $2M annually; districts have seen successful lowering of bills through incentivizing principals as well as buying
energy cooperatively and using long-term contracts

|
RFP 25
Performance and quality objectives

and measurement tools
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

Strengths
Focus on generating and delivering data to schools has
empowered schools to look at student performance and adjust
practice appropriately
Most schools are focused on using the data they are given
Centrally, data-driven management in transportation drove bus on
time rates from 65-90% over three months in 2011
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

Organization and business practices:
Best management practices identify KPIs that align with organizational goals and can be tracked on a regular (e.g., monthly) basis; By establishing
these KPIs and tracking them regularly, performance on progress towards goals can be continually monitored, allowing managers to make
adjustments to personnel and approaches as necessary
Municipalities have established City Stat types of tracking events, where managers have to present progress towards goals and are held
accountable; similarly districts have school stats to drive performance; BPS can leverage these types of management techniques to improve
operational and financial performance
Systems
BPS can tap into the citys OIT resources, or build their own systems and analytical tools to collect, manage and analyze data at a central office level;
better data collection and analysis will drive performance across BPS operations as well as

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas
Appendix

|
In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths

and opportunities (1/6)
Challenge
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student assignment,
q. parent engagement, r. ELL)
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
DRAFT
Area of strength
Good bones in the schools and the system

Struggles to meet all children where they are and move them
Strong principals and network superintendents drive good implementation

New vision for SPED moving towards inclusion model
Strong culture of parent and community engagement
Good implementation of student choice model
High rates of SPED classification and lack of inclusion

Gen. ed. does not own SPED or ELL classification, impeding coordinated
efforts
ELL focused on compliance, not on improving services and outcomes
Principals work to keep central office out their schools, rather than turn to for
supports
Curriculum is at times confusing and overlapping for principals and teachers
|

Challenge
Talent management (a. personnel policies, b. contracts,
c. hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e. instructional
staff, s. licensing, t. CORI/SORI)
Overall
Strengths
Area of strength
Little training or development centrally, quality of PD at schools highly
Challenges
DRAFT
variable
Undefined roles, responsibilities and hiring criteria
Innovation and modernization needed in support areas
(e.g. contracting, hiring)
High caliber people throughout the organization and schools
Recruiting shifting resource focus to smaller areas BPS has historically been
successful and leveraging technology to track recruits
Reliable (if not always efficient) processes for back office functions
Most school PD not coordinated across departments, viewed negatively by
teachers and principals who believe they can design better PD at their
schools
Outdated and restrictive contracts, requiring positions and duties
unnecessary for modern school district
Unclear responsibilities between networks, schools and central departments
under new network structure
Organizational chart designed around personalities
|

Challenge
Non-academic student supports
(l. transportation, m. food service, p. extracurriculars,
u. security)
Overall
DRAFT
Area of strength
Challenge
New thinking and momentum in operations leading to savings and efficiency
improvements
Rigor of data and evaluation not applied across all operations
Strengths
Arrests and incidences in schools on downward trajectory

Transportation routes and operations drastically improved
Partnerships beginning to add rigor to annual evaluations of partners
Challenges
Continually running lossmaking food services department

Transportation policies losing money due to legacy policies
Partnerships driven by relationships, not proven outcomes

|

Challenge
Performance management
(v. performance objectives and measurement tools)
Overall
DRAFT
Area of strength
Challenge
No culture of central office data collection and management

Few measurement tools are used with fidelity to drive outcomes across the
organization, beyond the school level
Strengths
Good, reliable data on school-level, student performance, mostly accessible
Challenges
to teachers and principals

Operations department building and implementing data dashboards and
systems
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

|

Challenge
Administrative services (f. accounting systems, y. external funds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing, o. IT, n. building maintenance, x. school construction and renovation)
Overall
DRAFT
Area of strength
Systems are largely in place to get back office functions completed

Many outdated and slow moving processes that have not been actively
updated to benefit from technology
Strengths
Challenges
Autonomy and WSF allows schools to be more flexible with spending

Purchasing is very conservative, culturally protecting from potential abuses
Facilities funding is a fraction of reported needs and is used to upkeep
buildings that are frequently not being used efficiently

Budgeting process is reactive to financial pressures and historical practices,
rather than proactive about aligning with priorities and historical actual
spends
Fundraising aligned to initiatives, not to larger district goals
Paper timekeeping systems not well designed to ensure accuracy

|

Challenge
Leadership and governance
(w. School Committee)
Overall
Challenges
Area of strength
The School Committee has a limited budget, spent wisely

Focus on community input and accountability has kept parts of BPS focused
Strengths
DRAFT
on execution
Tension between the role of a superintendent and the role of the committee in
setting strategy can be distracting
Involved in oversight, but not meddlesome

Small, transparent budget makes impropriety difficult
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

Strengths
BPS has many recognized curriculum experts in the field
Deliberate processes for curriculum testing and piloting, guards
against flavor of the month approaches
Teachers empowered to raise concerns with curriculum to
improve it
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

Organizational structure
Fully integrate and align SPED, ELL and Academics to ensure greater coherence of curriculum and approaches
One office for all PD to ensure quality and coordinate goals for educators and leverage resources to maximum potential for supporting curriculum
implementation; will lead to better integration of resources, cost savings and better experiences for teachers
Long-term planning
Develop policies and long-term plans to regularly review curriculum with principals and teachers on regular cycles, to keep curricula fresh, continually
competitively bid and negotiate for pricing (where applicable) and develop full K0-12 alignment

|
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

Strengths
Welcome centers staffed with trained professionals, who help
families through a simple process, managed by Engagement office
Schools assignments are protected from tampering through
computer system and randomized lottery
Parents and families do not wait longer than 3 days for initial school
assignment
New, homebase assignments have successfully ensured options
closer to home
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

Technology enhancements
Better technology and moving away from paper-based systems would improve turnaround time and errors in data, while likely decreasing need for
manual roles in department
Better software or process for creating enrollment projections can lead to better direction of student assignment and prevent the need to add
teachers at the beginning of every school year

|
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

Strengths
Engagement office is very clear with all stakeholders what the office
can and cannot do
Superintendent circulars require three, representative parents on
principal screening committee, with quorum only achieved with at
least one parent or one teacher present
Parent University has reached 6,000 parents
School site councils require schools to actively engage with parents
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

Expanded engagement
Principals concerns over lost connection to city could be alleviated by an expanded portfolio of constituent relations for mayoral staff, or more formal
links through the Engagement office

|
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Union contract implementation, management

and negotiation
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
Good working relationships with unions

Departments affected by union contracts not as fully involved as would like to be

Strengths
Strong working relationship with unions through regular meetings
and working sessions
Innovative mindsets in Human Capital around better ways to
leverage contracts to drive value for kids and schools (e.g., openhiring,
H.R. functions aligned with executing contractual obligations, with
few complaints from teachers
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

BPS-wide contract communication / collaboration
Many different functions in many different parts of the organization interact with union requirements and have thoughts on opportunities to adjust
duties and find cost savings; a formal process for soliciting areas of strength and opportunity BPS-wide with each contract negotiation could lead to
effective insights and more robust thinking around BPS students needs

|
RFP 25
Opportunity type
General staffing and recruiting policies

and procedures
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

Strengths
New culture of using data on previous conversion rates being used
to target high likelihood teachers and principals also using data to
target recruitment of diverse work force
New system (TalentED) in place to engage, recruit, track and hire
teaching candidates
Have some of the best compensation in the country for teachers,
makes BPS a destination
Innovative uses and placement of unplaced teachers, using them
as subs, or co-teachers
Created recruitment fellows to engage teachers in 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

Central office recruiting
While significantly less of a priority, pipelines and pathways for central office hiring could be attached to current teacher and principal efforts, to
leverage the BPS brand and resources currently already in the field

|
RFP 25
Delineation of duties between BPS

and schools
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

Strengths
New network structure has pushed more resources and attention to
the schools
Network superintendents believe they have far greater insights and
are able to bring more targeted PD and supports to the problems
they see
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)

Organization
BPS has a handful of successful cross departmental meetings and task forces (chiefs, deputy chiefs, directors, etc.), however regular crossdepartmental meetings and communications would increase collaboration and identify areas of overlap and opportunities for more efficiently
leveraging resources
Policy communication
Lack of clarity among principals and central office staff about expected relationships and duties of each need specific policy clarification and
communication to all BPS employees

|
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

Strengths
Weighted student formula effective in providing both transparency
and equity in the system
New open posting policy freed up principals greatly and they have
much higher degree of confidence in their hires
Jump in teacher hiring by June from 7% to 87% year over year
through big central office push
Student to teacher ratios are in line with research-backed
appropriate levels
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)
District population alignment:

With some schools at maximum capacities and others well below these levels, student to teacher ratios will vary; a strategic direction for the
districts footprint and a district right-sizing will narrow the spectrum between schools
WSF review:
A deeper dive on how WSF allocation and decisions on usage affects student outcomes can provide additional insights into how the WSF might
be adjusted to better account for the needs of schools

|
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

Strengths
Clear business processes in place for capturing licensure
Recent hire will have a an FTE dedicated to keeping data current
and working with instructional leads to identify opportunities
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

Alignment with student outcomes
A systematic review of licenses and outcomes of students could identify licensing pathways and specific licenses that correlate with strong student
performance and align policies as appropriate

|
RFP 25
CORI and SORI processes
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

Strengths
Structurally, no one can be hired at BPS without completing CORI /
SORI checks
Business process in place to reliably get to City, as needed
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

Technology:
Getting BPS system online and fully aligned with the city will improve time required for checks, decrease errors and provide better data tracking;
technology exists and city Human Capital can train and incorporate BPS into its systems

|
RFP 25
External funds transparency
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

Strengths
Secured $40M in outside funding in FY14, $30M from competitive
grants and $10M from private funds
Recent trainings of program managers who manage grants have
been instituted by the Department of Institutional Advancement
Most grants require disclosures and transparency into funds usage,
compelling grant managers to comply to continue 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

|
RFP 25
BPS spends $10M annually on partnerships that are not regularly

reviewed for student impact
Schoolbased
partnerships
Non-school
based
Program
Outlay
Achievement Network
Alliance for inclusion and
prevention (AIP)
BELL
Blueprint
Boston debate league
Citizen Schools
City Connects
City Year
Communities in schools
Key steps
Talent development
Tenacity
American Student Assistance

BPE Boston Teacher Residency
Boston Partners in Education
Edvestors
Generations, Inc.
MassInsight
Teach For America
TeachPlus
PIC
UMASS TAG Alerta
Source: BPS Office of Partnerships
DRAFT
$500
K
$65K
$60K
$223
K
$482
K
$1.2M
$994
K
$2.4M
$50K
$55K
$265
K
$600
$100
K
K
$80K
$200
$100
K
K
$10K
$500
K
$78K
$122
K
$1.2M
$450
Partnerships
Partnerships bring
bring in
in ~$28M
~$28M of
of funds
funds
from
from partners
partners to
to bear
bear on
on system
system
Recently
Recently aa systematic
systematic review
review of
of
these
partnerships
has
begun,
but
these partnerships has begun, but
funding
funding continues
continues to
to be
be granted
granted
centrally
centrally on
on aa relational
relational basis
basis more
more
than
on
a
strategic
basis
than on a strategic basis
At
At the
the school
school level
level there
there are
are
hundreds
hundreds of
of partners
partners (most
(most of
of whom
whom
are
not
receiving
BPS
funds)
who
are not receiving BPS funds) who are
are
also
not
evaluated
for
efficacy,
also not evaluated for efficacy,
process
process for
for central
central evaluation
evaluation should
should
be
mimicked
at
schools
be mimicked at schools

|
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

Strengths
While not efficient, process requires both manager and timekeeper
to approve employee time and principal or department heads to
sign off on payroll reports
Errors are avoided as the electronic system into which time is keyed
is set to default hours that just have to be adjusted, rather than
entered anew
Recent work at BPS to identify processes that lead to higher levels
of employees on leave identified process changes
City of Boston payroll department regularly audits timekeeping at
BPS
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

|
RFP 25
Contracts and purchasing
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
BPS performs roughly 50% of citys procurement transactions

City purchasing requirements and regulations are observed and in place for all purchases
The large volume of procurement that BPS handles regularly leads to slower approvals and execution

Strengths
BPS procurement policies set by city and followed consistently
Stories of procurement officials not eating food at official functions
because they dont believe money should go to food abound
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

|
RFP 25
Building construction and renovation
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

Strengths
Master plan on track to select vendor; part of the contract will
encompass building audit and data system for tracking
New plan will also look at BPS financing directly (as opposed to
through the city) for the first time, which could open up additional
financing streams
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

|
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

Strengths
Between 600 and 800 out of school time (OST) providers providing
extra-curricular activities at at least 80% of BPS schools 1
Most OST are self-funded, bringing additional support dollars to
BPS students
Recent attempt to capture panoply of providers has given principals
a better view to what is available to them, to structure partnerships
and school programming as they see necessary
Increased oversight recently of partners that are centrally funded
and managed
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
1 Investing in success, 2007 report

|
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

Strengths
Incidents down 20% since 2008-2009
Arrests down 67% since 2008-2009
Security officers have training and approach to schools that involves
proactive culture building, not only reactive policing to incidents
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

|
RFP 25
The number of school incidents and arrests have been on a

steady decline
DRAFT
Arrests and reported incidents at BPS schools

Count of arrests / incidents
Incidents
Arrests Year to date incidents in

2014-2015 are up 10%
Downward trajectory in
incidents provides
opportunities for police
officers to be more
proactively involved in
school communities,
putting further
downward pressure on
incidents
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
SOURCE: Operations department performance management;

Council of Great City Schools
4/27/
16
4/27/
16

|
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

Strengths
Very small budget, run lean organization, supported by 1.8 FTEs
New blood on the School Committee is very involved and
passionate about its role as providing effective oversight
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

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas
Appendix

|
PHASE II: DEEP DIVES
Through an analysis of the RFP areas, the Steering Committee

identified four areas for further deep dives
Description
District
overextension
DRAFT
Deep dive
Many operational limitations that the district

A deep dive in this area is structured to
faces stem from stretching too few resources capture the magnitude of the situation and
too thin across too many schools
identify the opportunities for right-sizing the
district footprint
2 Organization
Interviews revealed a lack of goal alignment

across BPS as well as poor data tracking
and management
A survey of central offices employees and an

analysis of current structures is designed to
provide insights into opportunities for
organizational restructuring and alignment
Special
education
Special education comprises nearly 25% of

the BPS budget and does not deliver
improved services for students with
disabilities
A fuller understanding of where BPS stands

relative to peers in special education and an
accounting of current and future spends is
leveraged to identify opportunities for better
services and cost savings
Other operational
areas
While not systematic, BPS has a number of

operational areas that have large spends and
have potential opportunities for ensuring that
spend gets fully to the student
A medium dive investigation of large spend

areas including areas like maintenance, food
services, transportation and professional
development for further efficiencies

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Appendix

|
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Warning on use of values in this section
DRAFT
Values have been used throughout this section to

estimate the potential costs and savings associated with
closing a BPS school
These numbers are based on averages that, while

helpful for estimation, do not take into account the full
complexity of the situation
These numbers should give a sense of the situation but

should not be used as expectations for future work
without taking into account a full analysis of the situation

|
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

|
BPS has 15% fewer students than 20 years ago

and could lose up to another 13% if the charter
cap is lifted
4/27/16
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
Student population
# of students
Since
Since 1994,
1994, BPS
BPS
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
has
has lost
lost nearly
nearly
9,000
students
9,000 students
While
While the
the
population
population of
of
Boston
Boston is
is expected
expected
to
to grow
grow by
by over
over
20%
20% over
over the
the next
next
15
15 years,
years, BPS
BPS
current
trend
current trend
suggests
suggests very
very little
little
change
in
student
change in student
population
population
Lifting
Lifting the
the charter
charter
cap
cap can
can have
have
strongly
strongly negative
negative
impacts
impacts for
for BPS,
BPS,
losing
losing another
another
7,000
7,000 students
students
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
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education; UMass Donohue Institute;

|
In the same period, the number of schools in the district has

remained relatively constant
DRAFT
School programs
# of school programs
4/27/16
Today
Today BPS
BPS has
has
10
10 more
more
schools
schools than
than in
in
1994
1994
Many
Many of
of the
the
2011
2011 school
school
closures
closures were
were
operationally
operationally
consolidations,
consolidations,
limiting
limiting the
the
change
change in
in
schools
schools to
to 99
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters

Education; Internal interviews; BPS data

|
The current 130 schools could hold over 90,000 students if

operating at full capacity without student-teacher ratio limits
DRAFT
School capacities
Number of physical seats
4/27/16
This
This includes
includes
the
the total
total count
count
of
of classroom
classroom
seats,
seats, without
without
counting
counting
resource
resource rooms
rooms
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
The
The average
average
4/27/16
school
school has
has 715
715
seats
seats
4/27/16
The
The total
total
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
capacity
capacity is
is
92,950
92,950
4/27/16
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)

|
The extra seats are mostly well distributed across the district
with an average of 68% utilization
DRAFT
School facility capacity utilization

Percent of seats filled
4/27/16%
4/27/16%
4/27/16%
4/27/16%
4/27/16%
Half
Half of
of the
the
schools
schools are
are
under
under 2/3rds
2/3rds
utilized
utilized
Some
Some schools
schools
are
are being
being very
very
overutilized
overutilized
based
based on
on
Facilities
Facilities
assessment
assessment of
of
available
available seats
seats
4/27/16%
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)

|
BPS may have as many as 38,000

seats beyond what is necessary
4/27/16
4/27/162
4/27/161
4/27/16
DRAFT
Student population
# of school programs, # of students
BPS
BPS could
could
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
reduce
reduce its
its
footprint
footprint
based
based on
on the
the
large
large
difference
difference
between
between its
its
enrollment
enrollment
and
and its
its
capacity
capacity
Projections
Projections
suggest
suggest no
no
additional
additional
space
space may
may
be
needed
be needed in
in
the
future
the future
With
With students
students decreasing,
decreasing, the
the funding
funding for
for each
each student
student must
must continue
continue
to
to cover
cover the
the systems
systems fixed
fixed costs
costs including
including the
the buildings
buildings but
but also
also the
the
principals
principals and
and school
school staff
staff which
which are
are present
present at
at each
each location
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
Education; UMass Donohue Institute;

|
Declining enrollment coupled with a stable footprint drives a far

lower student-teacher ratio than intended
DRAFT
Average student-teacher ratio1

Ratio of total students to total teachers
While
While BPS
BPS has
has set
set
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
limits
limits that
that would
would
allow
allow class
class sizes
sizes to
to
be
be 20
20 or
or more
more
students,
students, BPS
BPS
operates
operates with
with ~12
~12
students
students in
in aa classclassroom;
room; most
most peer
peer
districts
districts operate
operate
with
with more
more
IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to meet
meet
peer
peer average,
average, they
they
would
would carry
carry ~1,300
~1,300
fewer
fewer teachers,
teachers, at
at
aa savings
savings of
of $90$90110M
110M
Peer avg. 4/27/16
1 These numbers include all students (e.g., SPED, ELL), so equally wrong, but comparable; method of choosing peer set in appendix
Source: Common Core of Data

|
The average BPS school costs $4.6m to run, excluding support

costs from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services
DRAFT
130 total schools
4/27/16
Custodial
support
36 teachers
1 principal, 1
secretary, and
others
418 students
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Thousands
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

|
Consolidating schools could net the district ~$1.7M before

property sales
Prior
cost
Description
Class room
staff
reduction
DRAFT
Cost after Savings

closing
after closing
The average teacher student ratio goes

from 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162
District adjusts teaching staff accordingly,
with impact on compensation and benefits
$3.8m $2.3-2.8m
$1.0-1.5m
Foundation
for school
staff
District adjusts staff where classrooms can

be consolidated in receiving buildings
$200k
$0
$200k
Average
custodial
support
Custodial support is no longer required at

the building but may increase by 30% 1 at
receiving schools
$166k
$50k
$116k
Average
building
maintenance
Maintenance is no longer required but may

increase by 30%1 at receiving schools
$191k
$57k
$134k
The closing school no longer needs to

spend on utilities (including electric, gas,
water, and telecom)
$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
Source: Team analysis and Office of Finance data

|
The non-staff savings are consistent with what other systems

have experienced
DRAFT
Four other school districted that consoidated schools

saw an average saving of $580K per school per
year
Other
districts
Milwaukee: $330K per school per year with 20

closures
Washington D.C.: $726K per school per year with

23 closures
Pittsburgh: $668K per school per year with 22

closures
Detroit: $593K per school per year with 59 closures

Research
Research into
into savings
savings has
has found,
found, How
How much
much
money
money is
is saved
saved by
by closing
closing schools
schools depends
depends
in
in part
part on
on the
the degree
degree to
to which
which closings
closings
are
are accompanied
accompanied by
by job
job reductions.
reductions.
Source: Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia - Lessons from Six Urban Districts, the
Philadelphia Research Initiative, PEW Charitable Trusts, October 19, 2011

|
Additionally, BPS could recognize many positive gains beyond

a reduction in operating costs from consolidating schools
Potential gain
True neighborhood
schools
Closure of lowestperforming schools
Better targeting for
Central Office support
Reduction in
transportation complexity
Avoidance of building
maintenance expenditures
Revenues from property

sales
DRAFT
Description
Parents, as evidenced in focus groups, highly value

students remaining with the same neighborhood-based
class throughout years of schooling
The district can move students from Level 4 and Level 5
to higher performing schools, raising academic
achievement in the district
By closing schools, the Central Office will have fewer
schools to cover with supports, helping prevent its
resources from being stretched too thin
If school consolidations follow the neighborhood
scheme, it further reduces the need for transportation
services in the district
With up to $600M in deferred maintenance on the books,
closing schools can avoid this costly expenditure, while
also halting altogether potential investments that would
otherwise be planned for existing buildings
Many closed school buildings could go towards City
needs or be sold in areas where value is high
|
BPS has many opportunities that could be pursued to free up funding

and improve the student experience through school consolidations
Projected run-rate value
$ Millions per year
ILLUSTRATIVE
~10
~15
~35
~10
4/27/
16
4/27/
16
Bottom ~10
schools in
academics could
be identified in
the first set of
schools
~10 closures
could focus on
the costliest
schools in
maintenance
4/27/
16
Additional ~10
closures could
include schools
that are in lowdemand
4/27/16
In all, BPS could

choose to close
many schools
based on a
combination of
factors
The
The buildings
buildings chosen
chosen should
should be
be based
based on
on aa detailed
detailed
analysis,
including
factors
such
as
demand
for
analysis, including factors such as demand for seats,
seats,
academic
academic achievement,
achievement, academic
academic progress,
progress, deferred
deferred
maintenance
maintenance and
and operation
operation costs,
costs, and
and others
others
Numbers are illustrative and kept simple (but within range) as they will vary by school
DRAFT
In
In addition
addition to
to the
the
monetary
monetary value,
value, BPS
BPS will
will
also
gain:
also gain:
AA better-focused
better-focused Central
Central
Office
Office to
to serve
serve students
students
with
with aa path
path forward
forward on
on
direction
direction of
of district
district and
and
the
size
of
the
Central
the size of the Central
Office
Office needed
needed to
to support
support
itit
AA smarter
smarter allocation
allocation of
of
resources
resources with
with wider
wider and
and
deeper
deeper resources
resources
allocated
allocated
to
to narrower
narrower set
set of
of
individual
individual schools
schools to
to
support
support students
students and
and
improve
improve district-wide
district-wide
academics
academics
Schools
Schools reflecting
reflecting the
the
local
local communities
communities with
with
more
more neighborhood
neighborhood
schools
schools and
and reduced
reduced
transportation
transportation complexity
complexity

|
BPS may unlock one-time revenues from property sales

that could be reinvested in the capital facilities plan
The
The average
average BPS
BPS
elementary
elementary school
school property
property
is
is worth
worth $4.1M
$4.1M
Altogether,
Altogether, ~30
~30 school
school
properties
properties may
may be
be worth
worth
~$120M
~$120M
BPS
BPS also
also has
has two
two properties
properties
which
which have
have exceedingly
exceedingly high
high
land
land value
value (in
(in Fenway
Fenway and
and in
in
Copley)
Copley) which
which could
could also
also be
be
examined
examined for
for aa capital
capital
infusion
infusion
Source: Based on a random sampling (n=10) of property values using

City of Boston assessment values
DRAFT
This
This infusion
infusion of
of capital
capital can
can
be
be reinvested
reinvested into
into the
the
system
system to:
to:
Improve
Improve existing
existing schools
schools
in
in need
need of
of maintenance
maintenance
projects
projects
Special-build
Special-build capital
capital
projects
projects to
to improve
improve the
the
programming
programming capabilities
capabilities
of
of existing
existing schools
schools
Build
Build new
new state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art
schools
schools

|
While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS
DRAFT
Expanded
Expanded beforebefore- and
and after-school
after-school
programming
programming for
for students
students in
in all
all
schools
schools
~$51-85M
~$51-85M in
in run-rate
run-rate savings
savings
garnered
garnered from
from closing
closing 30
30 50
50
schools
schools
Guaranteed
Guaranteed set
set of
of electives
electives or
or
specials
specials at
at all
all schools
schools (e.g.,
(e.g.,
Physical
Physical Education,
Education, Art)
Art)
Greater
Greater portfolio
portfolio of
of teacher
teacher supports
supports
and
and resources
resources (e.g.,
(e.g., instructional
instructional
coaches,
coaches, first-year
first-year mentors,
mentors,
counselors)
counselors)
~$120-200M
~$120-200M in
in one-time
one-time cash
cash
from
from property
property sales
sales of
of 30
30 50
50
schools
schools
Funds
Funds to
to build
build 11 state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art
high
high school
school (~$30M)
(~$30M) and
and 99 state-ofstate-ofthe-art
the-art lower
lower schools
schools (~$10M
(~$10M each)
each)
While
While these
these are
are possibilities,
possibilities, the
the school
school district
district will
will have
have the
the ability
ability to
to choose
choose
how
how itit reinvests
reinvests the
the money,
money, taking
taking into
into account
account the
the tradeoffs
tradeoffs between
between
consistency
consistency across
across schools
schools and
and school
school autonomy
autonomy
Source: BPS data

|
DRAFT
A handful of big-city districts have successfully confronted over-extension
problems to concentrate resources on students
Situation
Resolution
The number of students in

CPS had shrunk and the
district was operating at a
large deficit
Decline in student population

by 50% with a growing budget
deficit
Consolidated 59 schools in
2010 and 70 schools in 2011
to arrive at a district of just 72
schools
Greater use of charters,

deteriorating facilities, and the
need for NCLB-mandated
restructuring at some schools
Aggressive school
consolidations from the
superintendent and mayor
created savings but process
fostered distrust
Lots of unused district space

in school buildings and a
demand for more space from
charters
Passed an ordinance allowing

unused space to be rented to
charters
1 Chicago
2 Detroit
3 DC
Los
Angeles
Consolidated 53 schools over

3 years, redirecting all
students to a school
academically equal to or better
than their current
While
While these
these
school
school
consolidations
consolidations
were
were tough
tough in
in
the
the short-term,
short-term,
many
many systems
systems
have
gone
have gone on
on to
to
see
see positive
positive
long-run
long-run
academically
academically
and
and fiscal
fiscal
benefits
benefits11
1 Full case study examples in the appendix

|
When considering which schools, BPS could

consider a few factors
Academic
performance
Description
Key analyses
BPS currently has many Level 4 and 5 schools

An increase in numbers of these schools could
downgrade the districts overall rating
BPS could factor in academic performance of
schools to improve the overall average rating of
the district
BPS can factor in the schools most in need of

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
Despite having more seats available in many

schools, BPS places an artificial market cap on
the number of students admitted to each school
Many students are turned away from schools that
are in-demand yet not allowed to maximize their
student-teacher ratios or classroom spaces
Students could benefit from filling the highest
demanded schools to the fullest capacity
BPS would then factor in the least demanded
schools, thereby displacing the fewest number of
students; these students could still be
guaranteed an improved seat
Maintenance
costs
School
demand
DRAFT
Programmatic
offerings aligned with
student needs
Academic
performance data
ranking schools in
multiple dimensions
Ranked list of average
on-going maintenance
needs in all schools
Ranked list of deferred
maintenance needs in
all schools
Ranked list of number
of applications for
spots in every school
in the district
Ranked list of current
school occupancy
levels
Ranked list of potential
school capacities
Combining
Combining
all
all of
of these
these
factors
factors
could
could help
help
the
district
the district
make
make
informed
informed
decisions
decisions
about
about
which
which
schools
schools
might
might be
be
targeted
targeted

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Appendix
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Executive Summary
DRAFT
Classrooms,
Classrooms, transportation
transportation and
and private
private tuitions
tuitions account
account for
for 73%
73% of
of SPED
SPED
budget.
budget. SPED
SPED accounts
accounts for
for ~25%
~25% of
of the
the BPS
BPS budget,
budget, meaning
meaning these
these costs
costs together
together
account
account for
for ~20%
~20% of
of the
the overall
overall BPS
BPS budget
budget
Classroom
Classroom costs
costs are
are driven
driven by
by variability
variability in
in classification
classification and
and non-inclusion
non-inclusion
models.
models. Investigating
Investigating this
this variation
variation will
will give
give BPS
BPS aa few
few levers
levers to
to focus
focus on
on programs
programs
that
that may
may be
be over-classifying
over-classifying students
students as
as ways
ways to
to both
both improve
improve services
services and
and limit
limit
unnecessary
unnecessary costs.
costs.
SPED
SPED placement
placement and
and transportation
transportation decisions
decisions are
are driving
driving BPS
BPS transportation
transportation
costs.
costs. Decisions
Decisions around
around tracking
tracking students
students to
to current
current zone
zone patterns
patterns and
and which
which
students
students are
are getting
getting transportation
transportation as
as part
part of
of their
their IEPs
IEPs are
are contributing
contributing to
to an
an already
already
large
large transportation
transportation line
line item.
item.
Private
Private placement
placement decisions
decisions are
are driving
driving both
both transportation
transportation and
and tuition
tuition costs.
costs.
BPS
BPS has
has an
an opportunity
opportunity to
to direct
direct private
private placement
placement students
students to
to better
better programs
programs while
while
also
also decreasing
decreasing costs
costs associated
associated with
with these
these placements.
placements.
BPS
BPS has
has begun
begun an
an ambitious,
ambitious, 12-year
12-year plan
plan to
to move
move almost
almost all
all SPED
SPED students
students to
to
inclusion
inclusion classrooms.
classrooms. In
In SY13-14
SY13-14 BPS
BPS began
began aa phasing
phasing in
in of
of inclusion
inclusion classrooms.
classrooms.
The
The gradual
gradual phasing
phasing in
in will
will grow
grow SPED
SPED costs
costs by
by up
up to
to $8m
$8m aa year
year at
at the
the roll-out
roll-out peak,
peak,
but
but an
an aggressive
aggressive adherence
adherence to
to phasing
phasing out
out sub
sub // separate
separate classrooms
classrooms can
can capture
capture
~$63m
~$63m annually
annually and
and provide
provide significantly
significantly better
better education
education by
by year
year 12.
12.

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Special education costs have been rising nationally for

years, but BPS budget is more heavily weighted towards SPED
DRAFT
Special education as % of total per pupil spending1

SPED as % of total PPS
Special
Special education
education
4/27/16
4/27/16
costs
costs have
have been
been
rising
rising nationally
nationally since
since
the
the 60s,
60s, capturing
capturing aa
continually
continually larger
larger
share
share of
of per
per pupil
pupil
spending,
spending, annually
annually
4/27/16
4/27/16
By
By 2005,
2005, special
special
education
education made
made up
up
21%
21% of
of budgets
budgets
4/27/16
In
In 2014,
2014, actual
actual BPS
BPS
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
1975: passage of
IDEA
4/27
/16
1 Where has the money been going?, Economic Policy Institute, 2010
19
4/27
/16
20
20
4/27 4/27
/16 /16
expenditures
expenditures on
on
special
special education
education
were
were 24%
24% of
of the
the
BPS
BPS budget
budget

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
73% of special education costs are in three areas:

classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Central

$ 49m
24% of BPS
budget
School
level
$ 136m (51%)
As the biggest three

areas in the biggest
part of the BPS
budget, these areas
are 18% of total
BPS budget
$ 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%)
Misc. equipOther labor

supports (ad- ment and
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 3m
Misc. expenses
Admin. &
(e.g., equipment,
superadvisory inclusion, itinerant
support)
$ 13m
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
In the largest areas of SPED spending, BPS has a few

levers that can be used to control costs
Budget areas and spend
DRAFT
Classroom-based
Key drivers
Classification Ratios
Inclusion Location IEPs
Staffing model
Sub/separate teachers
$64M
$4/27/16M
Transportation
$4/27/16M
Private placement tuition

$37 $4/27/16M
Sub/separate aides
$23M
$4/27/16M
Resource teachers
$21
$4/27/16M

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Appendix
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

New England
states
State classification rates

% of students in state classified SPED1
Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Nebraska
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Iowa
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
DRAFT
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
% of students in district classified SPED2

Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by MA district 2013
AA2011
2011 Fordham
Fordham Institute
Institute report
report found
found
Boston
2013 MA Avg.
4/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/16
that
that Massachusetts
Massachusetts has
has historically
historically
higher
SPED
numbers
due
higher SPED numbers due to
to being
being aa
leader
in
SPED
beginning
in
the
leader in SPED beginning in the 1970s
1970s
their
their being
being higher
higher than
than national
national
averages
averages is
is not
not aa reflection
reflection of
of any
any
state
policies,
but
of
state
culture
state policies, but of state culture
Boston
Boston has
has 19.5%
19.5% of
of students
students in
in special
special
education,
education, slightly
slightly above
above the
the
Massachusetts
Massachusetts district
district average
average of
of
16.5%
and
significantly
16.5% and significantly above
above the
the
national
national average
average of
of 13.1%
13.1%
AAreassessment
reassessment of
of SPED
SPED classification
classification
standards
could
more
accurately
standards could more accurately
classify
classify students
students and
and align
align the
the district
district
with
with peer
peer aveages
aveages
Assuming
Assuming direct
direct labor
labor aligns
aligns with
with the
the
number
of
students,
BPS
could
number of students, BPS could save
save
roughly
roughly $5M
$5M for
for every
every one
one
percentage
drop
in
classification
percentage drop in classification
Aligning
Aligning with
with state
state average
average could
could
translate
translate to
to $10-15M
$10-15M in
in savings
savings
Aligning
Aligning with
with New
New England
England average
average
of
16.2%
could
capture
$15-18M
of 16.2% could capture $15-18M
IfIf we
we believe
believe MA
MAhas
has moved
moved to
to far
far
from
from proper
proper classification,
classification, moving
moving
even
even closer
closer to
to the
the national
national average
average
can
bring
greater
savings
can bring greater savings and
and more
more
accurate
accurate classifications
classifications
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
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
SWD designation varies little by income statuses of MA districts,
however low income students have a higher likelihood to be classified
Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status 1

% of students in district, 2013-2014
4/27/16
% of district FARM students
A
A 2014
2014 Massachusetts
Massachusetts
study
study found
found that
that lowlowincome
income students
students in
in the
the
state
were
identified
state were identified as
as
eligible
eligible for
for special
special
education
education services
services at
at
substantially
substantially higher
higher
rates
rates than
than non-lownon-lowincome
students
income students
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
% 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
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
27 schools are referring students to SPED at rates more than double

the district average, and are classifying students 39% more frequently
DRAFT
Rates of SPED referrals, by school, SY 14-15

% of student population referred for SPED evaluation
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
HS avg.: 1.2% of students

referred for testing
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
MS avg.: 2.3% of students

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
ES avg.: 3.7% of students

BPS avg.: 2.8% of

students referred for
testing
The
The top
top 20%
20% of
of BPS
BPS
schools
are
referring
schools are referring
an
an average
average of
of 5.8%
5.8%
of
their
students
of their students
twice
twice the
the district
district
average
average
This
This 20%
20% of
of schools
schools
is
is classifying
classifying 39%
39%
more
more of
of those
those
referred
referred as
as special
special
education
education than
than the
the
BPS
BPS average
average
Moving
Moving the
the top
top 20%
20%
of
referring
schools
of referring schools
into
into alignment
alignment with
with
the
district
the district could
could
save
save $80-90K
$80-90K
annually
annually across
across
those
those 27
27 schools
schools
Investigation
Investigation and
and
training
training at
at these
these
schools
schools could
could move
move
schools
into
schools into
alignment
alignment with
with the
the
district
district
83%
83% of
of referrals
referrals are
are
coming
coming from
from parents
parents
2.8%
Source: BPS Office of Special Education data

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Wide variation of classification means over classification could be

costing ~$500K annually, while 34 schools may be under classifying
DRAFT

% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
HS avg.: 25% of students referred

for testing are classified
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
MS avg.: 25% of students referred

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
ES avg.: 50% of students referred

We feel subtle pressure

sometimes to avoid classifying
students BPS teacher
41%
20%
20% of
of BPS
BPS schools
schools
classified
classified 87%
87% of
of
referred
referred students
students
120
120 students
students
The
The schools
schools with
with high
high
classification
classification rates
rates
also
also are
are referring
referring
3.5%
3.5% of
of their
their
students,
students, 21%
21%
above
above the
the district
district
average
average
Moving
Moving the
the top
top 20%
20%
of
classifying
of classifying schools
schools
into
into alignment
alignment with
with
the
district
the district average
average
could
could save
save $400$400600K
annually
600K annually
across
across those
those 27
27
schools
schools
Between
Between Feb
Feb and
and
Sept,
Sept, the
the 34
34 schools
schools
with
with 0%
0% classified
classified
had
had 216
216 students
students
referred
referred some
some
schools
schools may
maybe
be
under
under classifying
classifying
BPS avg.
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
There is a signification correlation of higher referral rates and higher

classification rates
DRAFT

4/27/16
% of referred students classified
Schools
Schools that
that refer
refer
higher
higher percentages
percentages
of
of their
their students
students are
are
also
likely
to
also likely to
classify
classify referred
referred
students
students at
at higher
higher
rates
rates as
as well
well
While
While the
the
correlation
correlation is
is not
not
overwhelming,
overwhelming, itit
indicates
indicates that
that there
there
could
could be
be cultures
cultures
of
overreliance
of overreliance on
on
special
special education
education
in
in some
some school
school
communities
communities
4/27/16
% of total student body referred for testing

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Communication is the leading single category of classification, a

frequently misused diagnosis and an opportunity for further study
Types of SPED classification, % of SPED students
with this classification, out of 100%
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: BPS Office of Special Education
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS
BPS distribution
distribution is
is mostly
mostly aligned
aligned with
with the
the
state,
with
some
potential
opportunity
in
state, with some potential opportunity in
Intellectual
Intellectual classification
classification
Communication
Communication is
is the
the leading
leading single
single
classification
classification and
and is
is aa disorder
disorder frequently
frequently
applied
applied to
to students
students who
who are
are ELL
ELL or
or have
have
simply
not
received
quality
instruction
simply not received quality instruction
Looking
Looking at
at rates
rates of
of communication
communication
classification
classification at
at various
various schools
schools could
could present
present
opportunities
opportunities to
to reclassify
reclassify students
students or
or move
move
them
them into
into general
general education
education classrooms,
classrooms,
identifying
10%
of
communication
identifying 10% of communication
classifications
classifications as
as misidentified
misidentified cases
cases could
could
save
save $500-700K
$500-700K
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS policies around special education staffing are aligned with

higher costs and not the most effective outcomes for students
Area of
opportunity
Description
DRAFT
Potential opportunity
Paraprofessional quality is highly As BPS phases in inclusion, phase out paras

variable and research suggests
Outsourcing paraprofessional services can net $9-11M
Paraprofessionals
Resource
room teachers
they do not add quality to student

experience
Resource room teachers are
Resource room teachers can be staffed as push-in
currently used primarily as pullouts
Special services like OTPT are

Related
services
currently very expensive and not

managed closely
teachers, providing additional resources in classrooms

and lessening the need for paras
Employ assistants under supervision of specialists, can
Staff to avg.
daily
attendance
Attendance for severely
handicapped students is very low,

but BPS staffs to full attendance
savings, with no diminished services1

Eliminating paras in favor of 3 teachers for every 2
classrooms can improve services and could save
money if implemented correctly
save 40-50% ($8-10M) at no diminishment of services

Outsourcing related services can save up to 50%
(~$10M), with no diminished services1
Better scheduling for specialists can identify efficiencies
BPS has the ability to staff to average daily ratios, with

no diminishment of services in cases where teachers
are underutilized
1 "Something has to change: Rethinking Special Education," Levenson, 2011

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS has additional opportunities outside the classroom around

policy and contract negotiations to improve SPED services while
also lowering costs
DRAFT
Area of
opportunity Description
Clerks
SPED
Coordinators
SPED
zone
alignment
Bus
attendants
Union contracts require SPED clerks and typists, a position intended

for a world where IEPs were not electronic
Currently 73 on the books, at a salary of $2.75M
By contract, SPED coordinators are not permitted to also be teachers,
they must be separate
Negotiating a split role can improve student services, while also
increasing the efficiency of SPED teams at schools
In an effort to mimic feeder patterns across the district, SPED patterns
have forced opening of a handful of programs that are subpar and
prevents steering students to the best SPED services available
Abandoning SPED zone alignment can potentially improve student
services, while closing a few poorly performing programs
Budgets are occasionally misused to get SPED bus attendants on
buses that need general education monitors; a review of attendants
could reveal bus routes that do not need them
|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Appendix
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
A third of district IEPs require door-to-door transport, but wide

variations by school identify schools to research further
DRAFT
IEPs with transportation

% of SPED students receiving door-to-door transportation as part of IEP, by school
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
While
While some
some schools
schools have
have
concentrated
concentrated programs
programs where
where
busing
busing is
is likely
likely aa part
part of
of all
all
IEPs,
IEPs, the
the distribution
distribution in
in
variation
variation by
byschool
school points
points to
to
opportunities
opportunities to
to revisit
revisit IEPs
IEPs
for
for needs
needs
Investigation
Investigation and
and training
training at
at
these
schools
could
these schools could move
move
schools
schools into
into alignment
alignment with
with
the
district
the district
At
At an
an average
average of
of $1,500
$1,500 aa
student
student for
for transportation,
transportation,
students
students receiving
receiving door-todoor-todoor
door transportation
transportation represent
represent
$4.5M
$4.5M annually
annually
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: BPS transportation data

|
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
BPS bus routes
20%
20% of
of BPS
BPS routes
routes have
have
fewer
fewer than
than 55 students
students and
and
those
those routes
routes collectively
collectively
transport
transport 3%
3% of
of the
the students
students
BPS
BPS transports
transports
4/27/16
The
The average
average student
student
receiving
receiving transportation
transportation
has
has 0.16
0.16 mile
mile walk
walk to
to their
their
bus
bus stop
stop
BPS students riding buses

4/27/16
59%
59% of
of students
students are
are
classified
classified as
as bus
bus stop
stop (i.e.,
(i.e.,
not
not door-to-door)
door-to-door) riders
riders and
and
have
have aa walk
walk of
of less
less than
than aa
quarter
quarter mile
mile
59%
59% of
of the
the transportation
transportation
4/27/16
Source: BPS data
4/27/16
4/27/16
budget
budget is
is $67M
$67M

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
78 of the 81 SPED private placement routes carry fewer

than 5 students
DRAFT
BPS private SPED bus routes
78
78 routes,
routes, or
or 96%
96% of
of BPS
BPS
private
private SPED
SPED routes
routes have
have
fewer
fewer than
than 55 students
students and
and
those
those routes
routes collectively
collectively
transport
transport 140
140 students
students
BPS private SPED students riding buses
There
There are
are aa number
number of
of
private
private placements
placements with
with poor
poor
reputations,
reputations, an
an effort
effort to
to
concentrate
concentrate private
private
placements
placements in
in quality
quality
programs
programs could
could improve
improve
student
student services
services and
and limit
limit
costs
costs
4/27/16
Source: BPS data
4/27/16
4/27/16

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Appendix
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS has 93 private placement sites, of which

13 sites account for 50% of tuition dollars
DRAFT
Private placements
$, millions, spent on tuition at each private placement site
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
$37M
$37M11 is
is spent
spent on
on private
private
placements
placements each
each year,
year, on
on 346
346
students,
$107K
per
student
students, $107K per student
Private
Private placement
placement spending
spending
has
a
long
tail,
with
has a long tail, with 89%
89% of
of
sites
accounting
for
50%
sites accounting for 50% of
of
spending
spending and
and 64%
64% of
of
students
students
Many
Many sites
sites require
require private
private
transportation,
a
cost
transportation, a cost of
of $9M
$9M aa
year,
year, with
with 78
78 routes
routes
transporting
transporting just
just 140
140
students
students
Consolidating
Consolidating students
students at
at high
high
quality
quality sites
sites can
can improve
improve
student
student outcomes
outcomes and
and save
save
transportation
costs
transportation costs
4/27/16
1 Includes transportation
Source: BPS data

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
There are a few concentrated areas that are triggering private

placement, which present opportunities to adjust or drop placements
DRAFT
Private placement triggers, 2013-2015

# of private placements by cause
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
92%
92% of
of placements
placements
are
are from
from DCF
DCF
placements
placements and
and court
court
settlements
settlements
DCF
DCF adds
adds ~$2M
~$2M
annually
annually
Settlements
Settlements add
add
~$1.6M
~$1.6M
Better
Better coordination
coordination
with
with DCF
DCF could
could
improve
improve placements
placements
for
students
for students and
and limit
limit
transportation
transportation and
and
needless
needless tuition
tuition costs
costs
4/27/16
More
More tactical
tactical placements
placements can
can lessen
lessen the
the intensity
intensity of
of transportation
transportation needs
needs
Source: BPS Office of Private Placement data

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view
Appendix
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS is moving to special education inclusion, a strong

research-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities
DRAFT
Inclusion is good for both special

education and general education students
BPS will move to full inclusion as a

district by 2019
BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWD

into inclusion classrooms, leaving just
those with disabilities that make inclusion
inappropriate in substantially separate
classrooms, movement of roughly
2,500 students
The BPS plan is to create more inclusion

classrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, to
grow inclusion from the bottom, while
moving K-5 classrooms into inclusion a
network at a time, at the rate of two
networks a year, over five years,
phasing in fully over twelve years
A 2014 state of Massachusetts report

found that across the state, students with
disabilities who had full inclusion
placements appeared to outperform
similar students who were not included to
the same extent in general education
classrooms with their non-disabled peers.1
A 2013 BPS study found that general

education students in inclusion classrooms
performed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and
1.6x better on Math MCAS2
BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusion

classrooms in 2013
1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 OESESS City Council presentation, June 2014
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
The move to full inclusion is being phased in over 12 years
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
Savings will only be captured with aggressive adherence to inclusion model,

which involves closing down sub / separate classrooms
DRAFT
A
A note
note on
on this
this section:
section: The
The Office
Office of
of Special
Special Education
Education built
built costs
costs for
for
SY15-16,
SY15-16, but
but has
has not
not done
done long-term
long-term cost
cost // benefit
benefit analyses.
analyses. This
This
section
section is
is an
an early
early approximation
approximation of
of the
the adoption
adoption of
of inclusion,
inclusion,
performed
performed with
with broad
broad estimates
estimates from
from the
the Office
Office of
of Special
Special Education
Education and
and
other
other experts
experts and
and represents
represents only
only aa rough
rough estimation
estimation of
of outcomes
outcomes

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS will phase-in inclusion by network, over a 12 year period,

adding as many as 140 classrooms per year at peak of roll-out
DRAFT
Additional classrooms1
# inclusion classrooms added annually
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
4/27/16
4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/

16
16
16
4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/

16
16
16
4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
BPS
BPS began
began moving
moving
towards
inclusion
towards inclusion in
in
SY
SY 14-15
14-15 with
with
wave
wave 1,
1, but
but
recast
recast plan
plan for
for rollrollout
to
network-byout to network-bynetwork
network process
process
beginning
beginning in
in SY15SY1516
16
In
In each
each network
network
the
roll-up
the roll-up will
will
begin
begin at
at K1
K1 and
and
th
th grade
roll
up
to
8
roll up to 8 grade
over
over 88 years
years
4/27/
16
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
There are significant short-term costs, with $1.4M budgeted for

SY15-16
DRAFT
SY15-16 inclusion transition costs

Area
District-wide
grade 1
Network A,
grades 2-5
Additional resources
28 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals
Costs
$30K each = $840K
10 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals
$30K each = $300K
3 1.0 FTE inclusion

specialists
$90K each = $270K
Total cost: $1.41M
Network
Network A
A transition
transition will
will target
target 99 schools
schools for
for full
full inclusion,
inclusion, creating
creating 50
50
new
inclusion
seats,
in
addition
to
students
transitioned
new inclusion seats, in addition to students transitioned
Additionally,
Additionally, 11
11 schools
schools will
will get
get just
just aa grade
grade 11 inclusion
inclusion transition,
transition,
bringing
bringing 135
135 new
new inclusion
inclusion seats
seats on-line,
on-line, in
in addition
addition to
to those
those
transitioned
transitioned
The
The full
full costing
costing of
of inclusion
inclusion has
has not
not yet
yet been
been performed
performed by
by BPS
BPS
SPED
SPED offices,
offices, so
so granular
granular projections
projections of
of costs
costs are
are not
not yet
yet available
available
Source: BPS Office of Special Education budget presentation, 2014
SY
SY 15-16
15-16 will
will bring
bring
online
online 38
38 new
new
inclusion
inclusion
classrooms,
classrooms, each
each of
of
which
will
require
an
which will require an
additional
additional
paraprofessional
paraprofessional
In
In the
the first
first few
few years
years
of
of inclusion
inclusion
transition,
transition, there
there will
will
be
no
cost
savings,
be no cost savings,
as
as there
there will
will be
be aa
delay
delay in
in BPS
BPS ability
ability
to
to take
take off-line
off-line
sub/separate
sub/separate
classrooms
classrooms

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
and longer-term costs growing to $7M a year with total,

10-year investment of $42M
DRAFT
4/27/16
Inclusion
specialists
Additional FTEs
# FTEs of each type added per year
1
4/27/16
4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/
$, thous.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
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
270 3,060 3,060 3,060
-At peak- roll-out,

- BPS will
- be adding $7.3M in one year
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 12,93 20,22 24,39 28,44 32,43 35,28 37,83 40,08 41,58 42,33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
As
As the
the number
number
of
of inclusion
inclusion
classrooms
classrooms
grow,
grow, the
the
annual
annual need
need to
to
support
them
support them
will
will as
as well
well
By
By the
the end
end of
of
the
the inclusion
inclusion
roll-out,
roll-out, BPS
BPS
will
will have
have
added
added ~1100
~1100
paras
paras and
and
~115
~115
specialists
specialists to
to
schools
schools
Annual
Annual cost
cost
additions
additions over
over
the
period
the period will
will
average
average ~$3M,
~$3M,
spiking
spiking to
to as
as
much
as
$6-7M
much as $6-7M
in
in SY18-19
SY18-19
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff

|
SPECIAL EDUCATION
with annual savings that outstrip annual costs by SY18-19
DRAFT
SPED spend on substantially separate classroom support1

$, millions
As
As critical
critical mass
mass
4/27/16
of
of inclusion
inclusion
classrooms
classrooms grow,
grow,
aa tipping
tipping point
point
will
will occur
occur
allowing
allowing
elimination
elimination of
of
sub/separate
sub/separate
classrooms
classrooms at
at an
an
increasing
increasing rate
rate
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16 4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
$, mil.
Annual
sub /
separate
costs
Annual
inclusion
costs
Total
SPED
budget
Impact of
inclusion
4/27/
16
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
122.0 122.0
122.0
109.8
6
6
6
1.71
1.41
4/
27
/1
98.8
6
4/
27
/1
79.1
6
4/
27
/1
63.2
6
4/
27
/1
50.6
6
4/
27
/1
40.5
6
4/
27
/1
32.4
6
4/
27
/1
25.9
6
4/
27
/1
20.7
6
4/
27
/1
16.6
6
The
The $326M
$326M costs
costs
of
of inclusion
inclusion over
over
13
13 years
years will
will be
be
fully
covered
by
fully covered by
the
the final
final year
year
(SY26-27)
(SY26-27)
6.66 12.93 20.22 24.39 28.44 32.43 35.28 37.83 40.08 41.58 42.33
123.7 123.4 128.7 122.7 119.0 103.4
(1.71) (1.41) (6.66) (0.73)
91.7
83.0
75.8
70.2
66.0
62.3
58.9
By the end of the

roll out, BPS could
be saving ~$60M
annually
2.96 18.55 30.32 38.97 46.24 51.79 56.01 59.70 63.09
Source: Decline in costs scaled to expected decline in classrooms,
determined by interviews with BPS staff and outside experts

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Appendix

|
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
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.
Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72; One-on-one Cabinet Leader

interviews; Org chart analysis

|
The Central Office organization is well-structured pyramid with

the exception of the top layer of management
Total number of managers and individual
contributors in each organizational layer
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
DRAFT
Average number of direct reports for

managers in each organizational layer
4/27/16
4/27/16
13
4/27/16
4/27/16
40
4/27/16
4/27/16
52
4/27/16
4/27/16
13
119
4/27/16
4/27/16
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
Average student-staff ratio

Ratio of total students to total teachers, 2011
Peer avg. 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011
Moving
Moving BPS
BPS
to
to the
the peer
peer
set
set average
average
could
could reduce
reduce
~500
~500 FTEs
FTEs
of
of district
district
staff
staff

|
Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability

and less bureaucracy in the Central Office
Most experienced values
1. Internal Politics (41)
2. Bureaucracy (25)
4. Lack of shared purpose (14);
Customer focus (14)
Most desired values

1. Being collaborative (39)
3. Excellence (28)
4. Equity (21)
Least experienced values

1. Efficiency (28)
2. Equity (27)
3. Accountability (25);
Employee focus (25)
4. Fear (12);
Trust (12)
Least desired values

1. Inconsistent (40)
2. Bureaucracy (37)
3. Slow moving (31)
DRAFT
4. Silos (30);
Internal Politics (30)
Therefore,
Therefore, BPS
BPS could
could consider
consider
Defining
Defining what
what accountability
accountability looks
looks like
like for
for its
its Central
Central Office
Office
Reducing
Reducing the
the internal
internal politics
politics and
and bureaucracy
bureaucracy currently
currently experienced
experienced
Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)

|
Goal alignment within departments is strong, but there is not strong

consensus on what the districts goals are
When we set our goals as a department, we make
sure that we start with the districts goals and then
determine what ours should be. Cabinet Department
leader
DRAFT
Results from BPS Central Office Survey

Departmental goals align with districts top goals
and priorities, number of respondents
I dont even know what the districts or

superintendents goals are [] its too unclear. Our
only mission is to avoid lawsuits. Cabinet
Department leader
Strengths
The employees in every department seem very well
aligned with their departmental goals
A few departments ensure that their departmental
goals tie directly to the districts goals
Areas for improvement
There is no consensus across the departments about
what the districts goals actually are
Some goals are shared by multiple departments (e.g.,
adjusting the liaison structure to better serve the
schools) but there is little-to-no collaboration in
accomplishing these goals leading to poor returns
Great examples in departments:
Academics Ensures that initiatives and goals directly
support one of the districts goals
Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72); One-on-one Cabinet
Leader interviews
Direct-report employees well aligned with my top

goals and priorities, number of respondents
Strong accountability for reaching individual

goals, number of respondents
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/1
6

|
While every department collects data, few are collecting meaningful

data and using it to inform decision-making and strategy
Departmental KPIs are used to reflect departments
progress and effectiveness, number of respondents
Departmental KPIs are actively used to make changes in

departments strategy to better reach goals,
number of respondents
DRAFT
Strengths
Every department has some form of metrics being tracked and
collected
A few departments can draw a direct link from KPIs to
performance to strategy to diagnose how the department is
doing and make adjustments to better reach departmental goals
Most departments, while collecting data, are not collecting data
that would help inform strategic decision-making; even more,
most departments dont even attempt to use that data in their
decision-making
Some departments rely on annual student performance data as
a KPI, despite the low frequency and the lack of defined
causality
Many departments believe avoiding lawsuits is a meaningful
KPI, even though it doesnt help make decisions
OIIT uses dashboards that show real-time performance and
can help diagnose problems and adjust course as necessary
SPED team takes ownership for a collection of metrics and
sets goals based on those metrics
Engagement feedback is collected from constituencies at
every opportunity and used to dynamically improve strategy
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Leader interviews
We collect data, but we dont use it for strategy; we know our

strategy is good because everyone on my team agrees and
knows its good. Cabinet Department leader
|
On-boarding is decentralized and inconsistent, and professional

development is addressed differently by each department
I know Human Capital needs to focus on teachers, but
somebody needs to focus on training and retaining my people,
too! Cabinet Department leader
Since I receive no support and I dont know that it is worth my
time, an employees professional development is his/her own
responsibility [] with my oversight and support. Cabinet
Department leader
Strengths
Every department offers some form of professional
development, even if its just ad-hoc (e.g., conference
attendance)
There is no formal on-boarding and most departments use
mentorship and learn-as-you-go for all new employees
Some departments have created robust orientation programs,
but lack of collaboration keeps these program from being shared
across the Central Office
Professional development is not targeted nor actively
considered; department chairs feel they have no time to commit
to thinking about it
Engagement Department has a robust on-boarding program
where new employees learn about all aspects of the Central
Office, learn essential skills, and work together to create
workplans for their first months
Leader interviews
DRAFT

Descriptions of departmental on-boarding,
Percent of Cabinet members
4/27/16
4/27/16
Decent,
Mostly mentorship
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Employees in my department receive exceptional training
and professional development, number of respondents
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

|
While informal feedback is strong in departments, a strong culture of

feedback and evaluation is missing in the Central Office
DRAFT
Strengths

Regular informal evaluations and feedback that helps
in day-to-day work, number of respondents
Every department has a strong culture of informal feedback from

superior to direct-report
Some departments have excellent feedback loops including

upward feedback and peer feedback
Every department conducts formal evaluations

4/27/16
Very few department chairs feel they are receiving adequate

evaluation (formal or informal) and desire more
Very few department chairs use data to support evaluations

There is no consistency around formal evaluations: all
4/27/16
Regular formal evaluations that encourage or redirect
behaviors, number of respondents
departments use the evaluation from the Circular; most hate it

but some modify it; some believe its mandatory and others
believe its optional
OIIT strong culture of 360 degree feedback; evaluations that

are data-driven and informed by performance
4/27/16
I feel like I have never received meaningful feedback and Ive
not once been evaluated since starting my job. Cabinet
Department leader
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Leader interviews
I use the evaluation because I have to but it does not make

sense for my people and is a worthless exercise [] I dont use
any other tool either. Cabinet Department leader
|
An improved organization will benefit BPS staff and students
DRAFT
Long-term potential impact
Central Office Staff

Clearer role descriptions, goals, and reporting
structures leading to more efficiency and faster
delivery of support to schools
and students
Tighter alignment with and accountability for district
goals
Stronger professional development and goal-oriented
evaluation and feedback
Students, Parents, and Teachers

Clearer points of contact and sources for information
and support for parents and teachers
No students falling through the cracks left by
misaligned support structures in the Central Office

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance
Appendix
|
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF FOCUS
BPS has other areas where focus could amount to cost savings
Description
Food
A services
55% of FNS costs are food

Cafeteria sites are more cost effective than
disorganized and misses opportunities for

coordination
Students on average have a walk to their

Transport
C ation
bus stops of just 0.16 miles

3% of students are currently running 20% of
routes
Custodial services are inconsistent and

MainD tenance
Source: BPS data
~$5-8M
satellite sites
Highly variable school participation offers
revenue opportunities
Professional development is diffused,

B Personnel
Savings
opportunities
$ Millions per year
require a large FTE base

Incentives not aligned with contractors for
preventative maintenance
TBD
~$20-60M
~$1-4M
DRAFT
In
In addition
addition to
to cost
cost
savings,
a
review
savings, a review in
in
these
areas
could
these areas could yield:
yield:
Better
Better food
food options
options
for
for kids.
kids. BPS
BPS
cafeterias
cafeterias perform
perform
better
better in
in taste
taste tests
tests
than
than contractors
contractors
Better
Better PD
PD for
for
schools.
More
schools. More
coherence
coherence at
at less
less
expense.
expense.
Fewer
Fewer BPS
BPS bus
bus lines.
lines.
Fewer
Fewer routes
routes makes
makes
for
for an
an easier
easier system
system to
to
manage.
manage.
Improved
Improved building
building
maintenance.
maintenance. Aligned
Aligned
incentives
with
incentives with
contractors
contractors can
can
improve
preventative
improve preventative
work.
work.

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance
Appendix
|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Food services has pushed costs down, but revenues lag

peers significantly
Cost per meal
$, per meal, 2012-13
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
Food services costs

% of revenue, 2012-13
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis
4/27/16
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
Source: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools
4/27/16
Boston
4/27/16
4/27/16
Districts
4/27/16
4/27/16
Median
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS is not
4/27/16
4/27/16
getting the
4/27/16
data
4/27/16
tracking it
4/27/16
needs to be
4/27/16
successful
4/27/16
and drive
4/27/16
revenues
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
78% of FNS budget goes to food and direct labor at school sites
DRAFT
4/27/16
Food and direct labor are >3/4 of

FNS costs
% of FNS 2014-15 cost projections
($41M)
Direct labor and food costs of BPS

cafeteria sites and Whitson satellite sites
$, millions
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27
/16
The
The current
current total
total forecast
forecast for
for 2014-2015
2014-2015 is
is $41M,
$41M, $6M
$6M of
of which
which are
are fixed
fixed
Source: FNS data
costs
costs and
and so
so shared
shared across
across cafeterias
cafeterias and
and satellite
satellite sites
sites
Current
forecasts
project
$37M
in
revenue
this
year,
Current forecasts project $37M in revenue this year, aa shortfall
shortfall of
of $4M
$4M
Schools
also
pay
$2.6M
for
school-based
lunch
monitor
positions,
Schools also pay $2.6M for school-based lunch monitor positions, not
not
reflected
reflected in
in the
the overall
overall cost
cost

|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS food services are currently less expensive, than using a

contractor
DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16
Direct labor and food costs

of BPS cafeteria sites and
Whitson satellite sites
$, millions
4/27/16
4/27/16
Student
population, by
school type
#, thousands
4/27/16
Cost per
student
population
$
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: FNS data
4/27/16
4/27/16
Whitson
Whitson satellite
satellite
sites
are
sites are less
less
efficient
efficient than
than
cafeteria
cafeteria sites,
sites,
costing
costing 20%
20% more
more
per
student,
per
per student, per year
year
IfIf facilities
facilities were
were
available,
moving
available, moving to
to
cafeteria
cafeteria sites
sites could
could
save
save $1-3M
$1-3M
As
As part
part of
of the
the capital
capital
planning
planning process,
process, aa
cost/benefits
cost/benefits
analysis
analysis should
should be
be
conducted
to
see
conducted to see
how
how investing
investing in
in
new,
new, central
central
cafeterias
cafeterias could
could
save
costs
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
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Districts
Boston
DRAFT
Median
4/27/16
While in the top of peers, BPS

still trails best in class by
nearly 50%
If BPS were able to get
participation up in both
categories by 10% (57% at
breakfast and 78% at lunch), it
would capture $5M in
revenues
Meal participation by site2
% of students purchasing on average
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
1 Council of Great City Schools, 2012-2013
2 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014

|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
School participation is highly variable, targeting the low performers

would drive revenues
DRAFT
Lunch participation1
% of students buying lunch
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Moving the bottom

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
Next Steps:
Steps:
Investigate
Investigate what
what is
is
driving
high
driving high
participation
participation sites
sites that
that
can
be
pushed
to
low
can be pushed to low
participation
participation sites
sites
What
What are
are ways
ways to
to
incentivize
schools
incentivize schools to
to
get
get rates
rates up?
up?
What
What leverage
leverage is
is
there
there with
with contractor
contractor
to
to drive
drive rates?
rates?
4/27/16
1 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014
|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance
Appendix
|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS professional development is inconsistent and expensive
DRAFT
Professional development spending

$M, 2013-2014
I want all the PD money pushed out
to the schools I can do it better than
central office
BPS Principal
4/27/16
Over half of PD spending

goes to contractual days
and specific school
improvement schools
4/27/16
I have never had a PD that was at all

valuable
BPS teacher
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16
4/27/16 4/27/1 4/27

6
/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/

16
4/27/16
4/2
7/1
6
4/27/16
4/27/
16
1
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/
16
4/27
/16
We do our own PD, because we

know what we need to get out.
BPS administrator
4/27/
16
9%
9% of
of PD
PD logged
logged in
in My
My Learning
Learning Plan
Plan in
in 2014-15
2014-15 had
had no
no category
category
of
of focus
focus (e.g.,
(e.g., Special
Special Education,
Education, Math,
Math, etc.)
etc.)
27%
27% of
of PD
PD was
was registered
registered as
as having
having other
other as
as category
category of
of focus
focus
1 Miscellaneous areas include: Equity, Adult ed., Social Studies, Science, Health, Early ed.
Source: BPS Office of budget and finance

|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
My Learning Plan data shows interest in PD, but not consistency

2014-2015 My Learning Plan PD usage
% teachers registered for >0 PD
DRAFT
2014-2015 My Learning Plan PD offerings

% of offering by category, 278 PD offerings
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
The average
teacher who used
My LP registered
for 1.5 courses
68% of teachers
registered for
just one class
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Only
Only ~30%
~30% of
of teachers
teachers who
who use
use My
My Learning
Learning Plan
Plan have
have returned
returned for
for further
further professional
professional development
development through
through
the
the portfolio
portfolio of
of options
options
22%
22% of
of courses
courses offered
offered are
are outside
outside of
of the
the traditional
traditional cores
cores set
set of
of academic
academic subjects
subjects and
and training
training functions
functions
and
can
only
be
tracked
as
other
and can only be tracked as other
Source: Office of Human Capital, My Learning Plan data

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance
Appendix
|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS transportation is driven by special education and Choice

busing routes
PRELIMINARY
BPS transportation budget

$M, 2014
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Special
Special education
education
drives
drives nearly
nearly 40%
40%
of
of the
the transportatransportation
tion budget
budget
Choice
Choice busing
busing
policies
policies drive
drive the
the
need
need for
for busing
busing as
as
itit is
is now
now
4/27/16
4/27/16
In
In 2014
2014 BPS
BPS operated
operated aa $113M
$113M transportation
transportation
system,
system, over
over one
one tenth
tenth of
of the
the budget
budget
Source: 2014 drill down

|
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
BPS bus routes
20%
20% of
of BPS
BPS routes
routes have
have
fewer
fewer than
than 55 students
students and
and
those
those routes
routes collectively
collectively
transport
transport 3%
3% of
of the
the students
students
BPS
BPS transports
transports
The
The average
average student
student receiving
receiving
BPS students riding buses
transportation
transportation has
has 0.16
0.16 mile
mile
walk
walk to
to their
their bus
bus stop
stop
4/27/16
59%
59% of
of students
students are
are classified
classified
as
as bus
bus stop
stop (i.e.,
(i.e., not
not door-todoor-todoor)
door) riders
riders and
and have
have aa walk
walk
of
of less
less than
than aa quarter
quarter mile
mile
59%
59% of
of the
the transportation
transportation
budget
budget is
is $67M
$67M
4/27/16
Source: BPS data
4/27/16
4/27/16

|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Other transportation opportunities
Area of
opportunity
Description
Parochial
schools
MBTA
passes
DRAFT
BPS spends $2M a year on parochial

student transportation
A review of this state policy could
potentially scale back this spending
A successful migration of 8th graders
to the MBTA netted savings1
A review of 7th and 6th grader policies
could move another 3,000 6,000
kids to the MBTA and cut the number
of routes and potentially $2-4M2
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
|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance
Appendix
|
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Facility maintenance, while underfunded, can capture some savings

through outsourcing of functions
Area of
opportunity
FTE
structure
Maintenance
Description
Opportunity
Facilities has 550 employees,

but just 130 buildings under
their care
Outsourcing the 137 night

custodians work could net $1-3M
BPS has 100s of contractors

who are engaged to fix various
problems (e.g., broken toilets)
Contracts do not do
preventative work and are not
incentivized to perform good,
timely work
Contracting out all maintenance

work to a single contractor could
align incentives around preventative maintenance, could net
savings of $1-3M on $22M
maintenance budget
One blanket contract could allow
performance incentives around
timeliness and quality
Source: Interviews with BPS staff
DRAFT

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Taking action on overextension

Taking action on SPED
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix

|
TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION
Before you start the process, the solution space will be bounded by
answers to a few questions
What
What pace
pace of
of change
change to
to the
the new
new footprint
footprint is
is most
most
appropriate?
appropriate?
How
How will
will the
the future
future design
design be
be developed?
developed? Internally?
Internally?
Externally?
Externally? In
In collaboration?
collaboration?
How
How will
will the
the system
system engage
engage the
the community
community
proactively
proactively in
in the
the path
path forward?
forward?
Will
Will the
the overall
overall system
system be
be addressed
addressed all
all at
at once
once or
or will
will
change
change happen
happen neighborhood
neighborhood by
by neighborhood?
neighborhood?
What
What other
other city
city services
services and
and benefits
benefits can
can be
be
brought
brought into
into communities
communities as
as support
support during
during
transition?
transition?
How
How will
will student
student academic
academic progress
progress and
and safety
safety be
be
ensured
ensured through
through the
the process?
process?
DRAFT

|
If BPS wishes to reduce its footprint, it may want to consider focusing

its efforts in four ways going forward
DRAFT
A Align on approach and vision for making school

closure decisions
B Build a strong fact-base that supports data-driven
decisions
C Engage the community at each step of the process
D Make decisions transparently along a public timeline

|
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
School type and autonomy

Align on a BPS-wide perspective on possible school types (e.g., traditional, charter, SPED, exam,
pilot, innovation) and programs and determine optimal mix to ensure quality choices and access
system-wide
Align on a BPS-wide guarantee of the services and programs that all schools will provide
School size
Determine optimal school size ranges for elementary and high schools
Develop BPS policy towards housing multiple schools on one campus and develop criteria for
determining when this action is required as part of building performance & space utilization
standards
Enrollment and choice approach
Determine enrollment boundaries for elementary schools including flexibility of zone boundaries,
with exceptions for specific open enrollment school types (e.g., selective enrollment)
System-wide options
Define overall strategy for system-wide open enrollment schools/programs and align with other
stakeholder plans
Determine optimal location and facility requirements for existing and new programs
School action approach
Incorporate new performance policy approach and finalize criteria to take school action
Include updated biannual building assessments into footprint tool
Align on BPS/city leaderships threshold/approach towards action (e.g., large waves vs. small set
annually) and determine annual target/capacity for executing school actions
|
A Design choices will also need to take known constraints

into account
Example constraints
Potential policy changes
Safety concerns and

neighborhood
differences
Current enrollment
and mobility
approach
Human capital
challenges
Low levels of
support for receiving
students from lowperforming schools
DRAFT
Increase security and safety resources in school and

ensure safe passage during a 2-year transition period to
support students to travel to school
Historic and geographic boundaries between communities
have often impeded transfer or consolidation of students
Reclassify elementary school enrollment boundaries for
zones and encourage overlays for open enrollment
schools to meet demand where possible
Consider increasing enrollment for better performing
schools where feasible
Proactively support movement of high quality teachers

and school leaders from the consolidated low-performing
schools when students are transferred or consolidated
Provide sweeteners for schools receiving students

Support performing schools with additional
programmatic and facility support
Improve facility and fund turnaround efforts for
consolidated schools
|
B To lay the analytical foundation for determining the BPS footprint

reduction, several analyses could be integrated
Objective: to provide a tool to support data
driven decision-making in order to
determine BPS footprint through the
following:
Comprehensive database of all schools
across a set of key variables
School-level snapshot of current seat
supply and demand
School level academic performance to
understand best place for students
Target reduction or expansion of
seats in 10 years to meet demand
Initial list of schools identified to
potentially achieve targets
DRAFT
Mobility and enrollment analyses
Demand projection by school
Master School List Academics and Ops.
District level output
Data sources
Operations (e.g., school based health
clinics)
Demographics (e.g., enrollment)
Academic performance
Security
ADA accessibility
ESRI and US Census (external, for
population projection)

|
B The cost-benefit model could provide a critical input and fact base
on financials for decision making
Typical input levers
Typical assumption variables
Model outputs
Facilities maintenance costs
Transportation costs
Communications costs
Open schools
Closed schools
Repurposed buildings
Timing and sequencing
Projected capital investments
DRAFT
Scenario savings
Scenario costs
School closure costs

Revenue from sale or rental
of unused buildings
Labor costs (teachers and
administrators)
The financial model will

illuminate where money is
being saved for potential
reinvestment

|
C Community buy-in will be the product of a thoughtful

and well-executed stakeholder engagement approach
Gather feedback on progress
Prepare to articulate a
and make required midcourse adjustments
Execute plan
according
to agreed timetable
6 Monitor stakeholders and

take required
actions
1 Explicitly
detail the
nature of
the
change
4 Develop
an integrated
stakeholder
engagement
plan
tools/approaches to develop
overall stakeholder plan
Use results of stakeholder analysis
to carefully plan schedule and
agenda of stakeholder interactions
good understanding of the

proposed changes to be
implemented and of
change approach
Identify any
5 Execute
Engagement plan
Mobilizing
stakeholders
Use consensus building
DRAFT
2 Identify
stakeholders
Analyze and
3
prioritize
stakeholders
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

|
C The community engagement strategy will need to account

for a variety of communication channels (1 of 2)
1-way communication
Formal Channels
Large, formal
meeting
Presentation,
speech
Memo
Channels
Descriptions
Address a relatively large group of people

with little opportunity for Q & A
Press
Interview held for news reporters
conferences
Face-to-face In-person meeting to discuss and

meetings
exchange ideas
A formal speech to persuade an audience

to commit to pursue a common a course of
action
Workshops/
Educational seminar emphasizing

interaction and information exchange
A brief written record, proposal or reminder
Small group
Series of meetings with people of similar

background or for a specific tailored
message
Usually internal debrief of recent
happening to hear employee reaction
seminars
meetings
Email
Quick and easy dispersion of message
Video/audio
Use pre-recorded video or audio tapes to a

target audience
Town hall
Short messages to briefly and quickly

update the audience
Question and Internal session intended to answer
tapes
Voice mail
Web
Informal
2-way communication
Descriptions
Press release An announcement issued to the press
DRAFT
Posted on internets and intranets for public

viewing
Brochure
Small booklet or pamphlet containing key

messages or promotional materials
Bulletin
Board or poster displaying brief key

messages, usually to internal people
boards,
posters
meetings
answer
session
questions regarding a series of events
Small group
Gathering of similar minded people to

build relationships and informally
exchange opinions
Retreats
Off-site activities by a select group of

people to exchange ideas in an informal
setting
dinner

|
C The community engagement strategy will need to account

for a variety of communication channels (2 of 2)
Descriptions
Reach
Message
Frequency
Spectrum of options
Who and how many people

are actually reached using One single person
this channel?
Large group of people
Is it appropriate to deliver
tailored, urgent, effective
messages?
Suitable for prompt

delivery of tailored
messages
Is it effective and reliable in

Little differentiation
delivering desired
to various
message to targeted
audiences
audience?
Are there opportunities for

discussion or feedback
through this channel?
Audience response
not critical for
success
Immediate feedback
desired for ongoing
and future
interactions
How regular is it? How

convenient is it to
organize?
Takes a lot of effort

to organize,
happens irregularly
Easy to organize, can

happen frequently
Effectiveness
Responsivenes
s
DRAFT
Suitable for nonurgent generic

messages
Effective for target

audience

|
D BPS could follow a six month journey to align on the 10-year

vision for the schools
Data and
analytics
Policy
decisions
Month 1
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
July
Data and analytics
Project 10-year
neighborhood
baseline for
student
demographics
Develop initial
financial model
that estimates
costs and
savings
associated with
actions
August
Data and analytics
Refine financial
model and
cost/savings
estimates
September
Data and analytics
Refine financial
model and
cost/savings
estimates
October
November
Data and analytics
Refine 10-year
neighborhood
vision, based on
input to feedback
from BPS team
members and
other key stakeholders, and
build alignment
and ownership
across the team
Finalize financial
model
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Align on BPS/
Identify critical
Develop
city approach
participatory
decisions around
towards action
process that
issues such as
and determine
safety,
enables school
annual target
transportation,
actions endorsed
and capacity
budget, policy
by stakeholders
in affected
alignment
Outline potential
policy options
communities
Document set of
around key
reqs for and
issues
constraints to
school actions
Facilitate crossfunctional
dialogue across
key departments/
groups
Month 5
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

Data next steps
3-6 month plan
effectiveness
Appendix

|
TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION
There are 14 schools who classified 100% of referred

students as having disabilities
DRAFT

There are 14 schools who classified

100% of the students referred:
Henderson K-4
Roosevelt K-8 (K1-1)1
Baldwin E.L. Pilot Acad1
Mendell Elementary
Tobin K-8
BTU K-8 Pilot
Beethoven Elementary
East Boston EEC1
Kenny Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
Irving Middle
Mission Hill K-8
Margarita Muniz Academy
Boston Day/Evening Acad
Deeper
Deeper data
data dives,
dives, at
at the
the level
level of
of IEP
IEP are
are needed
needed to
to understand
understand whether
whether students
students
in
in these
these programs
programs are
are being
being classified,
classified, when
when they
they may
may be
be over
over classified
classified
Cultural
shifts
in
the
district
may
be
necessary
to
identify
whether
Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification
classification is
is
systematically
too
high,
or
appropriate,
given
the
student
population
systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 Schools with fewer than 200 student enrollments

|
while there are 34 schools who classified 0% of its

student population
DRAFT

Deeper
Deeper data
data dives,
dives, at
at the
the level
level
of
IEP
are
needed
to
of IEP are needed to
understand
understand whether
whether students
students in
in
these
these programs
programs are
are not
not getting
getting
services
services they
they need
need
There are 35 schools who classified 0% of the students referred:
Urban Science Academy Dorchester Academy
Hale Elementary1
Mozart Elementary1
Alighieri Montessori1
UP Academy Boston
Boston Comm Lead Acad
Lyon K-81
West Roxbury Academy
Haley Elementary
Boston Latin Academy
Shaw Pauline A Elem1
Timilty Middle
Burke High
Middle School Academy1
Excel High
Another Course College

Hernandez K-8
Boston Adult Tech Aca.1 Greater Egleston High
Dudley St Neigh. Schl

Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Quincy Upper School
Mildred Avenue K-8
Newcomers Academy1
Boston International
Otis Elementary
Henderson 9-121
Boston Green Academy

Henderson 5-8
English High
Community Academy1
Mason Elementary
Comm Acad Sci Health
Edwards Middle
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 Schools with fewer than 200 student enrollments

|
Further research into outlying programs may identify students who

are not receiving the services they need or are being over-classified
School type
Lowest
classifiers
Highest
classifiers
Standardization
DRAFT
Action
Outcome
Interview/observe special education

coordinators to understand methods
Interview general education teachers

to get a sense of school culture
around referrals
Identify best practices of leveraging

interventions to avoid
misclassification
Identify programs that have

opportunities to properly classify
overlooked students
Interview/observe students in
classrooms to verify proper
placement
Identify potential areas of frequent

misclassification for school and
district training
Interview coordinators and teachers

to capture school culture of special
education
Get IEP information to track trends in

classification
Capture school or coordinator

practices/cultures that are
misidentifying students and develop
correctional plans
Identify where BPS guidance does

and does not come into the
classification process
Bring clarity and transparency to

where the bar for classification lies
Be clearer on processes and train

those involved across multiple school
sites to maintain consistency
Identify influencers around culture

and intuition

|
Further understanding variations can move misidentified

students into more appropriate settings and capture savings
Area for further
research
Coordinators
Description
Data needed
Analysis and next steps
Closely analyzing special
Data on IEP creation, by
Identify high and low classifiers
education coordinator patterns

of classification can move
classification rates in to a more
specific band
Tracking student
Student progress
progression/regression in
classification can identify
programs into which more
students should be encouraged
and bring focus to programs
that arent improving student
outcomes
Correlate teacher evaluations

Teachers
with student progression/

regression to understand
where the strongest teachers
are and leverage BPS
strengths most effectively
Looking at patterns in types of

Needs
identification
DRAFT
classifications can identify

specific types of classifications
that are happening at irregular
rates and can be shifted
coordinator
and provide appropriate

training and coaching
Data on IEP maintenance, by

coordinator
IEP level data on student

classifications
Use the data to identify
Longitudinal data on changes

in student classifications,
aligned with program
IEP level data on student

classifications
Through correlating student
Longitudinal data on changes
in student classifications,
aligned with program
Identify teachers that have
serviced students and align
with their performance evals.
IEP level data on identified

student needs
Aligned data with coordinators

and schools
programs that are moving

students into general education
faster
Figure out what these
programs are doing differently
achievement and progression

with teachers and
performance, develop a
detailed view of BPS strengths
and weaknesses
Use areas of strength to
capture best practices, and
focus resources on weak spots
Analyze where certain types of
needs are being identified and
interview to figure out drivers of
irregularity
Train highly variable areas in
better classification of needs

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview

Data next steps
3-6 month plan
effectiveness
Appendix

|
SPED opportunities are both short-term and long-term

Time horizon
Short-term
3 months 1 year
Opportunities
Time to realization
Potential to be captured
Focus on high / low classifying
Can begin immediately, with
$300-500K
Identify and leverage programs
Identifying can begin
TBD
Evaluate para. approach
Can evaluate immediately, with
$9-11M
Evaluate specialist approach
Can evaluate immediately, with
$8-10M
Analyze bus attendant usage
IEP analysis immediately, with
$7.2M in attendants currently,
Evaluate SPED zone alignment
Zone policy changes would have
TBD
Contract changes around clerks,
Negotiate around with expir-ation
$3-8M
Private placements and
Begin coordination process
$2-10M
Inclusion
Gains from full inclusion model
~$60M annually after final year of
schools to target district average
with excellent student

progression outcomes
Long-term
1-10 years
DRAFT
for SY 15-16
coordinators
transportation
Source: Team analysis
changes in school rates seen in

SY15-16
immediately, with best practices
and student placement by SY1415
changes in SY14-15
changes in SY14-15
any attendants removed over the

course of the next calendar year
to be communicated by end of
the year, with streamlined
patterns in SY15-16 and gains in
classroom consolidation over 4
years of inclusion roll-out
of contraction in 2016
today, with gains seen beginning

5 years out
expected to be seen in year 4,
with savings coming in out years
10% reduction saves $720K
implementation

|
Short-term opportunities can be realized over the next 12 months
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
Monitor high / low

classifiers closely
in beginning of
year to encourage
new approaches
Create peer set

dashboards for
schools to
understand where
rates are against
BPS and MA. set
Create school
regression/progre
ssion 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
Evaluate specialist approach

for SY15-16
through cost/
benefit
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

|
Long-term opportunities have varying time horizons, but can capture

as much as $60M, annually by 2026
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3-4
Year 5-6
Do analysis of
enrollment #s
in classrooms
Do analysis of
classroom
performance in
feeder
patterns
Identify new,
educationally
appropriate
feeder
Develop
patterns
preferred
feeder schools
Create
process with
DCF for better
placement
Begin closing
classrooms in
alignment with
inclusion
expansion
Continue
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout
Complete
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout
Begin to align
new bus
routes with
consolidated
placements
Continue to
consolidate
placements
Monitor
placemen
rates
Expand to
Zone A
Expand to
Zones B and C
Begin
identifying
sub/separate
classrooms
that can be
eliminated
Expand to
Zones F and G
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes
SPED zone
realignment
Private
placement
& transportation
Inclusion
Expand to
Zones D and E
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes
Years 7-8
Years 9-10
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases
DRAFT
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview

effectiveness
Appendix

|
TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
BPS could pursue a few steps to improve organizational effectiveness

Step to take
DRAFT
Why its important
1 Consider reorganizing the top team so that

a pyramid structure is maintained
throughout the organization with increasing
numbers of direct reports at each layer
Smaller top organization increases accountability, focuses priorities, and allow for
more tradeoffs within departments,
rather than across 18 silos
2 Define the districts top goals and define

superintendent-level metrics, committing as
a top team to prioritize all work around
these goals and metrics
Goals agreed to throughout (from top to

bottom) will help align the organization
and ensure everyone is working toward the
same ends
3 Set departmental goals that work toward the

districts top goals with departmental KPIs
and metrics which inform superintendents
metrics, help track progress against
departmental goals, and inform strategic
decision-making throughout the
organization
Having well-aligned departmental goals and

metrics, supported by KPI team will allow
the superintendent to check-in on the wellbeing of every department while
understanding how successes and failures
will affect the districts overall performance
on its goals
4 Identify departmental best-practices in onboarding, training, evaluation, and

professional development and share these
best-practices across departments
Retention and development of the best staff

members will improve the districts ability
to meet its goals; this can only be done by
unlocking the staffs potential
|
BPS largest gap is in having the right KPIs to track

departmental performance
DRAFT
Filter criteria
Relevance
Outcome
ultimately
affects
district
performance
Influencability
Positive feedback for a

BPS department does
not always correlate
with an effect on
district performance
Many
performance
measures
Process
owners can
influence
KPIs
Improvement
levers can be
assigned
Availability
Data can be
continuousl
y obtained
Student test
Many BPS departments
scores are not
cite MCAS as a KPI,
useful as an
despite unclear
always available
influenceabilitiy
KPI
KPIs
KPIs could
could be
be
defined
defined for
for all
all
BPS
BPS
departments
departments
along
along relevant
relevant
performance
performance
dimensions
dimensions
such
such as
as
Student
Student
performance
performance
Productivity
Productivity
Quality
Quality
Service
Service
Safety
Safety
4-6 sets of
measures
Source: BPS district interviews

|
BPS should ensure that its departments KPIs are SMART
DRAFT
KPIs must be carefully designed using 'smart' guidelines and limited in number
Questions
Simple and
specific
Measurable
Achievable
and agreed
Resultsoriented
Timely
Does it have a clear definition?

Is it straightforward to understand?
Can it be easily generated without complex calculations?
Is it addressed to a specific BPS department or goal?
Is it easy to measure?
Can it be benchmarked against other teams/outside data?
Can the measurement be defined in an unambiguous way?
Can the BPS department responsible for it actually influence it?

Does the BPS department understand the drivers that are behind it?
Can the department take steps to mitigate the impact of drivers
beyond its control?
Does the BPS department have all it needs to reach the target?
Is it relevant to the district as a whole?

Does it support the high-level targets?
Is it aligned with the districts strategy and objectives?
Can it be measured at a frequency that will allow the department to

solve problems in the reporting cycle?
When will the department measure it?
The
The number
number
of
KPIs
of KPIs must
must
be
limited
be limited to
to
help
help focus
focus
BPS
BPS
departments
departments

|

DRAFT
BPS may consider adding a KPI Team to address potential
deficiencies in metric alignment and help drive performance on initiatives
Boston Public Schools KPI Team

Purpose
Organization
Key activities
Small, highly capable,

responsive group of
people
Reports directly to the

superintendent and has
leaders visible backing
Strong performancedriven, results-oriented

culture
Monitor progress toward

aspirations:
Collect and analyze
relevant data
Coordinate individuals
to make sure results
are on track
Report regularly to system

leader
Take corrective action as

necessary to achieve
aspirations
Implement the aspirations

defined by the
superintendent, school
committee, and/or mayor
Promote urgent and

visible action
Amplify superintendents
authority over others in
the system
Ensure forward
momentum toward
aspiration

|
Part of the KPI Team design will be determining which BPS

challenges it should address
Typical
challenges
Typical functions of transformation units

to overcome challenges
Huge,
complex tasks
1 Monitor overall program success
Many players
3 Facilitate coordination among players
Need for
fundamental
behavior
change
DRAFT
2 Detail and adjust overall planning as needed
4 Support owners with initiatives they cannot

(yet) perform alone
5 Take over tasks for which KPI Team itself is
better suited than other owners
"Minimum
role" of KPI
Team
Potential
additional
roles of KPI
Team
6 Facilitate sustainable behavior change

|
The KPI Team can take the form of any of the three
fundamental setups for a transformation unit
DRAFT
Driver of change
Potential organizational setups for KPI Team on the district level
Description
When
does it
work
best
"Existing leader"
Delivery unit"
"Catalytic driver"
KPI Team role is played by an

existing stakeholder (e.g., a
key division such as Data &
Accountability)
KPI Team performs either
only monitoring/adjustment of
strategy or also does active
stakeholder supports, owns
initiatives and drives
behavioral change
KPI Team reports to overall

"system leader" (i.e,
superintendent)
KPI Team function is limited
to monitoring, detailing and
some coordination
No actual project work
KPI Team reports to overall

"system leader"
(i.e, superintendent)
KPI Team performs all
possible functions
(monitoring, adjustment of
strategy, support of
stakeholders, owning select
own initiatives, driving
behavioral change)
"Leading stakeholder" has

significant influence over
others
"Leading stakeholder" has
sufficient will, capability and
capacity to drive
transformation
All or most stakeholders in

the program have sufficient
will, capability and capacity,
and skill and will to drive
transformation
Political will to create

powerful new entity given
Stakeholders have
significant issues with skill
and or will for change
Strong need for central
coordination among different
entities

|
A critical factor in the KPI Teams success would be staffing

the right individuals
Attributes
Description
Influencing and
Demonstrates an understanding of the thoughts and
Leading others and
Inspires devoted followership; leads groups to accomplish
Presence and
Articulate, able to engage senior system leaders and
Problem structuring
Demonstrates ability to disaggregate a problem into a set
empathy for others
Leadership
and
presence
teamwork
listening
Problemsolving
skills
feelings of others; able to adopt personal style to

successfully influence others
high aspirations
stakeholders
of key elements to be resolved
Analytical capabilities Able to conduct end-to-end analyses; and draw insights

and implications
Creativity (able to
Drawing from experience to bring new insight to solve a
Passion for public
Shows passion and is committed improving delivery for
Goal orientation
Ethics
Sets and achieves challenging goals for responsible area

Bound by strong ethics
bring new insight)
Personality
fit
DRAFT
service
different problem
citizens

|
If BPS pursues overextension opportunity, BPS FTE count

would be expected to align with new district
DRAFT

4/27/16

Education
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
(7-10%)
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to decrease
decrease
staff
staff in-line
in-line with
with future
future
enrollment
trends
enrollment trends and
and
historical
historical central
central office
office FTE
FTE
counts,
counts, BPS
BPS could
could shrink
shrink
by
by ~7-10%
~7-10%
In
In 2009-10,
2009-10, BPS
BPS had
had aa ratio
ratio
of
of 5.5
5.5 students
students per
per FTE,
FTE, by
by
2014-15,
that
ratio
had
2014-15, that ratio had
fallen
fallen to
to 5.0
5.0
IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained its
its
2009-10
2009-10 student
student to
to FTE
FTE
ratio,
ratio, in
in 2014-15,
2014-15, BPS
BPS would
would
have
have 9,875
9,875 FTEs,
FTEs, 902
902
fewer
than
six
years
fewer than six years ago
ago

|
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Appendix

|
1 Case Study: Chicago Public Schools

Context
Improving academic performance
With one of the largest school footprints in the
Academic performance at closed and

welcoming schools in 2013
Percent of students
country, dozens of schools were closed in the

early 2000s under Arne Duncan
CPS still had a footprint much larger than its
need, so it s school board voted in 2013 to close

50 more elementary schools
Factors for school closings:

Declining population of school-age children
Greater impact of charters in the state
Facilities with long-deferred maintenance
Long-held system of choice leading to largely
Level 1
(excellent)
4/27/16
Level 2
(good)
Level 3
(probation)
4/27/16
4/27/16
under-demanded schools
Many were concerned about the rounds of

school closings, even calling for a moratorium at
the state level, due to perceived disproportionate
effects on minorities and safety issues
CPS took care to ensure that improved

academics and student safety were the primary
drivers of which schools to close
Source: Chicago Tribune; Chicago Public Schools; University of Chicago

report on academic impact
Chicago designed its school closures so that

students would be designated to welcoming
schools where the academics were at least as
good as their former school
Over a third of the students in closed schools
were welcomed at the top performing schools,

while only 21% remained in probationary schools

|
2 Case Study: Detroit Public Schools utilized a clear,

non-negotiable decision matrix for school closings
Context
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
Approach highlights
highlights
Clear data-driven decision
matrix that included
Clear community
communications
Maintained focus on academics
Student performance data

(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
Emergency financial manager

was the face of the campaign
Shared criteria for selecting
schools, but they were nonnegotiable
Externally facilitated community
discussions, which included
critical follow-up discussions
Communicated choices to
families whose schools were
closed
Source: Detroit Public Schools; The Pew Charitable Trusts; CNN
Leadership relentlessly worked

to maintain academic focus in
the midst of transitions
DPS made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP)

|
3 Case Study: DC Public Schools compressed timeline for

closing schools led to academic and fiscal returns
Context
How did they do it?
Factors for school closings:

Declining population of school-age children
Greater use of charters
Deteriorating facilities
No Child Left Behind requirements to
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
However, in her first six months as Chancellor,
Michelle Rhee announced school closures as
part of a larger set of reforms involving teacher
performance and central office staff reductions
In 2008, DC closed 23 schools. In 2009
and 2010, DC closed an additional two
schools and one school, respectively
Source: Literature search; DC Public Schools; Closing Schools in Philadelphia:

Lessons From Six Urban Districts (Pew Charitable Trusts)
DC law gave Rhee authority to close schools

with mayoral approval only
The compressed timeline gave little opportunity
for public input, which led to opposition from
public and city council
Annual cost savings were about $16.7
million, lower than projections of $23 million
Maintenance and repair costs offset savings
$10 million teacher buyout covered 700
teachers who were in 50 schools being
closed or overhauled for academics
About $200 million was spent on 60
buildings in the summer and fall of 2008
for school upgrades, especially among
schools receiving new students
However, the district saw many gains as a result
of the closures including:
Improved academic performance across the
system
Saved money to reinvest in teachers

|
4 Co-locating charter schools and LAUSD schools increased utilization of

public school facilities but created tension between schools
In 2000
Resulting Co-location Pros
Saw the passing of Los Angeles United
Provide charter schools with much needed
School Districts (LAUSD) Proposition 39

(School Facilities Local Vote Act)
Allowed charter schools to request
for unused space on public school
property
public school facilities should be shared
fairly among all public school pupils,
including those in charter schools
Proposition 39
In 2012
Judge ruled that LAUSD was not abiding by

proposition because it was not providing
facilities to charter schools in the same ratio as
it is to public schools
LAUSD appealed because it believes it is
not feasible to do so without placing district
students at risk
Source: United Teachers Los Angeles; Highland Park-Mount

Washington Patch; The Argonaut; Southern California Public Radio.
facilities to operate in
Schools applying for the temporary space do
not have a permanent home
Charter schools pay rent to the city for the space

Resulting Co-location Concerns
Actually utilized unused space (e.g. reading

labs, special programs)
Hostile environment for charter school students

if district teachers, students, and family
members are not receptive
Competition from charter schools recruiting new

students at district schools
Equitable sharing of health, facility, and student

resources
Communication breakdowns between charter

schools and district schools

|
BPS may be able to avoid backlash by closing schools in a predictable,

moderate way, learning from other districts examples
Timing of school closings
Potential state takeover if it did not reduce spending gap

22 schools out of 86 schools closed in 2006
Eliminated 10,000 of 13,700 excess seats (88% capacity)
Closed underutilized and low-achieving schools
Leveraged Rand Corporation to measure school effectiveness
Superintendent visited every community to pitch closures
Pittsburgh
6-7
2006
2007-12
DC was averaging 300 kids per school

In 2007, chancellor given power to close schools with mayoral approval
Compressed timetable (6 months):
September 2007: Announcement of school closures
2 months later: List of target school closures
2 months later: Final decision made on school closings
Negative
reaction from public because of the lack of community
Washington D.C.
2008
2009
Kansas City
2009
2012
2010
involvement
Officials believe they should have allocated extra time for feedback
Potential state takeover if it did not reduce spending gap
Enrollment down 42% between 2000 and 2010 school years
Kansas City actively made case for closures
Secured support of groups such as Civic Council, who paid for an
informational campaign for closings
Residents had input criteria for closures
Local teachers union agreed that schools need to close
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.

|
BPS peer districts for benchmarking
HIGHLY
DRAFT PRELIMINARY
We looked at ~19,000 districts across the country and found 13 peers
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
1 Most recently available data

2 Indicates district is located in a Right to Work state, where unions have limited options
Source: NCES 2010-11

|
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

Amanda Present
Human Capital
Acadmics
Deb Pullin
Human Capital
Human Capital
Avery Esdaile
Comprehensive student support services
SPED and related services
Angela Rubenstein
Human Capital
ELL
John McDonough
Equity
Al Taylor
Acadmics
Engagement
Dr. Hardin Coleman
School Committee
Data and accountability
Andy Horgan
Technology
Diane Hauser
Technology
Operations
Deborah Ventricelli
Communications
Joseph Larusso
Environment, Energy and Open Space
Technology
Todd Isherwood
Environment, Energy and Open Space
Finance
Matt Mayrl
City OIT
Finance
Paul Curran
Office of Labor Relations (City)
na
Julia Bott
Boston Public School
SPED and related services
Kelly Hung
Operations
Lynne Teta
Operations
Nicole Bahnam
Operations
Stephanie Sibley
CoS
Tanya Freeman-Wisdom
Human Capital
Traci Walker
CFO
William Thomas
Acadmics
Cathy O'Flaherty
Acadmics
Alice Laramore
Acadmics
Marjie Crosby
Human Capital
Casandra Wallace
Acadmics
Kristen Davolio
Operations
Paul Tritter
BTU
Operations
Vivian Leonard
Boston HR
Operations
Bernard Killarney
Boston HR
Operations
Rahn Dorsey
Mayor's Office
Human Capital
Shaun Blugh
Mayor's Office
Human Capital
The Operational Review process conducted six focus groups:
Two with principals (15 total participants)
Two with parents (27 total participants)
Two with teachers (20 total participants

|

Steering Committee Working Draft

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Steering Committee Working Draft

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WORKING DRAFT

Last Modified 3/20/2015 9:03 AM Eastern Standard Time

Boston Public Schools

What this work IS NOT

Exploration of potential options to

Estimates of ranges of savings to

Collaborative idea generation and

These are not recommendations

Exact analysis to predict how much

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 2|

The core focus of this review is on student outcomes in

Ultimately, improved student outcomes is the

goal of any effort to reduce cost and inefficiency

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 3|

English Language Learner (ELL)

Students with Disabilities (SWD)

Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the general

Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP is

Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy

Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)

Office of Instructional and Information

OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technological

Pull-out vs. push-in

Current special education practices in BPS require the pulling out of

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 5|

BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics much

As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addresses

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 6|

Capturable, but time-sensitive

Overview of BPS opportunities

Consolidate ~30-50 schools

Sell 30-50 closed school buildings

$63M /yr after full phase-in

External related service providers

Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,

Target meal participation to improve

Centralize food preparation

Contract out for the 137 night

Contract out all maintenance to single

$1.7m savings per school

estimated value $4.1m per school

from current 0.16 mile

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 7|

1 14% of per pupil

4/27/16 Trans- 4/27/16

$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 Adminis- General

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 8|

BPS Potential Opportunities

1 Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability

Most desired values

Least experienced values

Least desired values

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 10

Schools vs. student population

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 11

2 Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect

With fewer staff, BPS could commensurately

The foundation money is no longer needed

Custodial support is no longer required at