'Weighted student funding' - any takers?
by Dale Mezzacappa on Feb 19 2010
When Arlene Ackerman came to Philadelphia, she said right off the bat that she planned to implement something called "weighted student funding." The idea is twofold: allocate resources based on students' academic and other needs, and give all schools more autonomy to make budgeting decisions.
Now she is following through.
On February 9, she sent out invitations to a group of principals, including the 25 at Vanguard schools, those with high academic performance, inviting them to become part of a pilot project of up to 40 schools to test the concept and exercise that autonomy for the next budget year. The plan is for the entire district to move to WSF in 2011-12.
The invited principals were given some background materials and gathered on February 16 to learn more about the concept. Their decisions about whether to participate in the pilot were due February 18. District spokesman Fernando Gallard said there is no plan to release the list of takers.
The program, if fully implemented, would change the process of how money is distributed to schools and who makes decisions on how to spend it.
Now, positions are allocated to schools based on enrollment - X teachers for X students. The District would switch, under the new system, to allocating dollars rather than positions. Since most teaching positions are mandated anyway due to class size requirements, not a lot would change there - schools would in most cases still have to buy the teachers they're now being allotted.
However, under weighted student funding, the schools are allocated money not based just on enrollment, but based on the demographic and academic profile of their students. Each student is assigned a certain "weight" based on the severity of their academic needs. Some factors that would figure into the weights include English proficiency, poverty, or giftedness. Presumably, the neediest schools would get more. Schools with more affluent populations will be wondering whether they will get less.
Since school-based budgeting was implemented in Philadelphia in the 1990s, schools have had discretion over a signficant portion of the money spent in a school, able to choose which of the non-required staff positions they want to buy. It is usually the principal making those decisions, though at some schools the councils that were mandated more than a decade ago are still functioning. Under WSF, principals would be expected to share decision-making. How to spend the school's entire budget would be in the hands of a school team made up of teachers, parents, and administrators.
While school-based budgeting may be familiar and ho-hum to many here, the distribution of money to schools under WSF is an interesting, complex, and politically fraught process. The community makes decisions such as: What student factors should be weighted? How much weight? Will this work against schools with little poverty and few ELLs? What about the magnets? Will they get less money or more? You get the picture.
WSF was implemented in San Francisco when Ackerman was superintendent there, and it was one of the things that made her attractive to the SRC members who hired her, especially former chair Sandra Dungee Glenn. On February 16, a team from San Francisco came to Philadelphia to present to principals about its benefits.
"Under this approach, each school will have more flexibility to design and implement programs that meet its specific characteristics and needs," said the letter that Ackerman sent to principals.
For the new pilot program next year, schools will not be assigned dollars based on any "weights." Instead, they will get $150 extra per student as an incentive to participate. A districtwide commission will meet to decide what value to assign to what student characteristics before the full implementation in 2011-12. The main point of the pilot is to give the schools practice in setting up school councils to allocate their funds.
"The pilot is not full-blown change; that will be in 2011-12 after the public planning committee [to decide the weights]," said District Chief Business Officer Michael Masch. "We’re modeling site-based budgeting. We're giving them the money, and the school can decide whether it would do things differently than the bureaucrats downtown. The key part is the principal bringing the staff and parents into the process, and figuring out what they would focus on that is different."
Schools besides Vanguard Schools have been invited to participate in the pilot, but Empowerment Schools -- for the most part, the schools having the most student needs -- are deliberately excluded.
This means that many of the schools likely to benefit most in the future from extra discretionary dollars are not being invited to practice their decision-making process this year.
Therein seems to lie a problem, and a question for how full implementation of WSF will proceed.
For Empowerment Schools seem to be the polar opposite of WSF, with the District dictating exactly what it must do and mandating additional positions, such as parent ombudsmen, a social services liaison, and an extra substitute.
If indeed full implementation of WSF is slated for 2011-12, these schools will have to do a swift about-face in decision-making, with some of them, perhaps, awash in additional dollars because they have students with so many needs.
Masch said he and Ackerman don't see this as a contradiction, but a continuum. First of all, he said the District did not include Empowerment Schools in the pilot because they "are already getting so many things, it didn't make sense." It could be argued that the District has already implemented a form of weighted funding by providing extras for these schools.
Secondly, he said Ackerman strongly believes that autonomy must be earned. In other words, a prescriptive program or "managed instruction" first, then freedom for more decision-making as schools get better.
But there is also a recognition implicit in all this that managed instruction only gets you so far. Masch said he has been in long conversations with people at the Broad Foundation, which gives annual awards to urban school districts that show significant improvement, "and what I get from Arlene Ackerman and Broad is that the districts getting the Broad prize all started with managed instruction."
At the same time, he added, "managed instruction reaches a plateau if you don’t move to greater autonomy as a start to get parents more engaged." What Ackerman is doing in strongly managing the instructional program while also promoting site-based budgeting and decision-making "may seem contradictory, but each has a role to play regarding performance as a whole."
It will be interesting to see how enthusiastically the principals buy into the pilot and how this unfolds over the next year.
Comments (12)
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/20/2010 - 20:09.
Look at the Vanguard school list - all 4 high schools are magnets (Central, Masterman, Bodine and Motivation. So, Central gets $150/per pupil more - that is about $420,000. That's a lot of "play money" in a school district where some high schools have no library or gym, to speak of. Of course, most of the elementary schools are in high income sections of the city. The high schools which were selected benefit from their selectivity and the elementary schools from their demographics. So much for promoting equity...
Submitted by MW (not verified) on Sat, 02/20/2010 - 22:54.
Philly Student Union's radio show, On Blast, did a great short piece about Ackerman's track record with weighted student funding in her last 4 districts. The story was produced back when Ackerman first came to Philly, but all the info is still relevant today.
Listen to it here:
http://onblast.podomatic.com/entry/2008-10-08T19_33_55-07_00
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Sun, 02/21/2010 - 09:27.
The pod cast is excellent. I wonder, if the Vanguard schools get the "first chance" at weighted student funding, will the powers that be consider the outside resources some of the schools have such as endowment (Central - just look at their library), parent fund raising (Meredith, Penn Alexander, Central, Masterman, etc.), university funding/resources (Penn Alexander), etc. How is it fair, for example, that Science Leadership Academy has an endowment from Smith Kline to purchase science materials and funding through the Franklin Institute (last year bought their 1 lap top per student) when other schools don't even have enough money to purchase paper? (Yes, I just bought a box of paper.)
Weighted student funding should not be only for schools which have made AYP. Ideally, there should be a way for all schools to have the not only basic resources but the same educational opportunities offered at schools like Penn Alexander which includes a new building, full arts program including instrumental music, complete science labs, very small class size, $1000/extra per student (this case from a university), full computer labs/lap tops for all classes, professional development targeted for the school, etc....
Submitted by Angela Chan on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 17:44.
Thanks for this post. I’m not sure if there is enough info at this point for anyone to clarify some things for me:
1. In 2011-12, would schools with less needs end up receiving less than their pre-WSF budgets, or would they at least maintain their pre-WSF budgets but simply receive less than schools with higher needs?
2. Are you saying that even Empowerment Schools would have autonomy with their budgets? At that time, will they still be under “managed instruction”? If so, wouldn’t that limit what curricular decisions they could make?
3. Will schools actually receive a breakdown of how much money they are receiving for different weights? If schools receive additional dollars for, say, ELLs, would there be a way of making sure that that money is spent on just ELLs?
4. Does effective “managed instruction” in other districts look anything like what it does in Empowerment Schools in Philadelphia? The scripted programs – and we just received more, by the way – have left me scrambling to preserve the learning community students have helped to create. I am left wondering if there really is a way to earn our autonomy with this district’s style of “managed instruction”. The article implies that it has worked in other districts, so I’m just curious if our district could be doing things differently.
Submitted by Dale Mezzacappa on Fri, 02/26/2010 - 18:55.
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I don't think we know yet how Empowerment Schools will fit into WSF -- that was one reason for doing the post. As for your point 4, I don't know how the "managed instruction" worked well in other districts.
Submitted by f (not verified) on Sat, 02/27/2010 - 19:30.
The School District of Philadelphia has been implementing a weighted student funding formula for many years. Each fiscal year schools receive funding primarily from four revenue sources; state aid, the local tax base, state funds specifically for special education use, and federal funds from Title I.
State aid and local taxes fund the operational budget of the school district. The operational budget is used to pay for most of the district’s teachers, principals, counselors, and office staff positions. It is also the fund where money for books and supplies, and extra curricular activities is allocated. A lump sum of money is allocated to each school via the operational budget. The amount of this allocation is determined by taking into account the size of the school (small or large) as well as considering whether it is an elementary, middle or high school. The district also allocates local funds to schools for use in a gifted program. This money also comes from the operational budget and is calculated according to how many gifted students are enrolled in the school.
The number of special education students enrolled in a particular school determines the amount of money that a school will receive in its special education budget. State funds for special education can only be used to service special education students.
Finally the Title I budget provides a significant source of much need additional funding for high needs schools. By law these federal dollars are to be used to provide additional service to students of low-income families. Title I funds are to be allocated to the most needy students first and then spent down to service students of lesser need.
The budget formulas now in use take into account a variety of student needs. Dr. Ackerman is not offering a new concept here. What she is saying is that she wants to change the formulas currently in use to allocate funding to schools. I do not object to her intent to reexamine how the district distributes its resources to schools. It is an area of school reform that certainly deserves careful examination.
I am however alarmed by Michael Masch’s statement concerning Dr. Ackerman’s belief on how Empowerment Schools should be handled in the budgeting process.
“Autonomy must be earned. In other words, a prescriptive program ‘managed instruction’ first, then freedom for more decision–making as schools get better.”
The belief that a school must first earn autonomy in order to determine how much funding it will receive and how it can use that funding is a disturbing idea. All schools should receive the resources they need to provide an adequate and equal educational opportunity for all students regardless of their test score performance.
The particular needs of a school community should be what drive funding allocations. The people who are closest to the school’s operation should determine how school district budget dollars are utilized at a school site. It is totally inappropriate for budget decisions to be made on the basis that schools must first prove to the superintendent of schools that they are worthy of the funding they already deserve.
What is the determiner for being worthy and earning “autonomy” in budgeting? One might logically assume that it is being fiscally responsible with an individual school budget, or providing adequate resources, staffing, professional development opportunities, supplies and school facilities to support the instructional program. Mr. Masch’s statements suggest that for the Empowerment Schools, autonomy is not based on any of these responsible demonstrations. Instead it appears that earning autonomy is being solely defined as making AYP.
What will be the consequences of rerouting funds from the most needy schools to those who already have the resources to be successful? Will Title I funds allocated for the most needy students be funneled to less economically challenged schools, rather than remain in schools with those students for whom it was designated because they are not “worthy”?
Submitted by Dale Mezzacappa on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 01:01.
I don't think the intention is to reroute funds away from Empowerment Schools. The question is whether the WSF concept, specifically the school-based budgeting piece, will apply to them given Supt. Ackerman's commitment to the earned-autonomy idea. As I understood it, they will get the money, but not the authority to decide how to spend it, at least not at first. Unless I misunderstand Masch.
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 07:09.
Why aren't more people questioning who "earns" autonomy? The premise that "Vanguard" schools have done something "special" to earn their freedom is an insult to everyone in so-called "empowerment" schools. Look at the Vanguard list - they are either magnet schools (Conwell, Masterman, Central, GAMP, Motivation) or schools in high income neighborhoods (Emlen, Greenfield, Meredith, Penn Alexander, Comley, Loesche, Pollock, etc.) There are a few exceptions - Walsh, Cauyga, Logan, Wagner. To tell a neighborhood high school you will earn "autonomy" and funding when you can "match" Central, Masterman, GAMP, etc. is ridiculous unless the playing field is level. When Masterman has to admit any student and can't "cherry pick" its students, then it is a level playing field.
Submitted by f (not verified) on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:03.
I will be hopeful and agree with you that the intention isn’t to reroute funds away from Empowerment Schools to other district schools. But I fear the funds will be rerouted to favored vendors (SRA, Voyager, etc.) who will provide the programs, materials, and consultants that the central administration believes provide the best test prep materials.
Money will be distributed to Vanguard schools this year in an attempt to buy the silence of parent groups who have demonstrated that they are prepared to challenge administrative decisions that are ill advised. If the administration is successful in pulling off this trick, they will have a whole year in which to move forward their weighted formula plan with little if any resistance. Most likely the final plan will be unveiled at the last minute in the spring of 2011. It will be a done deal upon arrival.
Giving the general public little time if any time to react to suspect school reform plans has been a strategy that has been successfully employed since the inception of the state take over of our school district.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 13:07.
I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the forcefeeding of the Voyager and Corrective Reading & Math programs to the Empowerment Schools. The administration has now decided to double Corrective reading from 45 minutes to 90; Voyagers programs from 20 each to 40 minutes now; only the Corrective Math is staying put. remains the same time. As a result teachers are ending up with a whopping 1 hour and half to teach what the core curriculum requires. Good bye to subjects like science and social studies, Math and Guided Reading will only be hinted at in the future. These remedial programs don't even approach what will be on the PSSA. Teachers are wasting time doing decoding when they need to concentrate on things likes main idea, comprehension, etc. The math is not focusing on things the kids needs; instead some upper grades are still doing addition. This is the administration's solution to failing PSSA score?!?!? They are deliberating sabotaging students by making these remedial courses mandatory.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/01/2010 - 10:53.
We need to take a look into why these programs (voyager, corrective reading and math) are being implemented throughout the district. Why would Dr. Ackerman want these remedial, low level thinking programs for the students? They promote low expectations...shouldn't we have high expectations - where our students can become critical, creative and thoughtful thinkers? Has anyone asked Dr. Ackerman or her staff these questions?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 03/01/2010 - 20:14.
How could you ask them? They don't think they have to answer to anyone.
Post new comment