H-S takes a first pass through DPS' central admin numbers -- but what about the rest of the budget?

After part two of a lengthy (perhaps too-lengthy) look at the DPS budget back on May 18, I made the following call to action:

Frankly, as I said on "Shooting the Bull" last Thursday, it would be very nice to see some of Durham's professional paid journalists doing some quantitative analysis on school budgets; the closest any have come to a DPI report of late, it seems, is Mark Schultz's and Stanley Chambers' well-teased report in The Durham News last week looking at a single bottom-line DPI number, the rate of reportable criminal/safety acts in schools.

Instead, and regrettably, we're stuck with well-written articles from busy reporters doing the he-said/they-said. "School board says this." "Ruffin says they need less." "No, the board says they want more."

H-S' managing editor Nancy Wykle mentioned a couple of weeks back that the H-S would be diving in to the budget more after the BCR series' questions, and Matt Milliken has followed through with a story and two sidebars this morning that shed some more light on the budget picture.

First, a thank-you to the Herald-Sun for starting to look at the issue. And having a very capable Columbia J-school grad like Matt running numbers on school budgets is exactly what's needed.

After reading the series, though, my first impression comes back to one of the only things I remember from high school Latin, that Catullus phrase "venuste incohata" -- unfinished, but charmingly so.

The H-S focuses its analysis on central administration staffing, which certainly sits as one prominent question in DPS' budget.

And the bottom-line finding? Milliken's reporting concurs with the finding that central administration levels have grown faster than the student population.

BCR reported a 54% growth from 1998-99 to 2007-08; Milliken notes some potential data errors with the data in the Dept. of Public Instruction statistical abstract and uses 1999-00 instead, but still finds a 31% growth in overall administrative staff since then -- a 108% growth if principals/assistant principals are excluded.

The H-S also notes that local funding for DPS is the seventh-highest in NC, with significantly high supplemental funding for local operations.

At the same time -- and in what is probably the most important contribution to the debate that the Herald-Sun brings today -- the outcome of the growth is well-explained:

• The H-S' main article notes that among the eight "peer districts" of DPS (other large NC counties), five had fewer administrators per students, three had more, placing Durham's system squarely in the middle.
• Adding in 40 "other professionals" to the mix, Durham drops to the lowest level of administrative staff.
• Independently, a John Locke Foundation study that also included the "other professionals" number found Durham had more than twice the state average of students per administrator, a sign of overall efficiency. In general, Durham was average on the measure of students per overall FTE.
• DPS school board member Steve Martin notes the tremendous rise in IT professionals as explaining the growth in central administration; this (along with ESL/Latino services) were suggested here last month as possible drivers of growth.

And these are very useful, very good data to add to the mix.

But relatively speaking, while central administration positions are well-paid and important, in the figures released by DPS, there's only 61 of them counted -- 101 if you add in the "other professionals." Both the JLF and DPS analyses of efficiency appear to be looking, according to the H-S, only at these positions.

To me, the more important question is that of total non-instructional positions versus total instructional positions.

And focusing on 61 or 101 professional positions misses the fact that there are almost 900 other support positions -- in fields like laborers, clerical and secretarial... the bus drivers, cafeteria workers, maintenance staff and the like.

Those categories have also shown significant growth in the past decade. In fact, the total number of teacher assistants (included in what we've termed "support staff") have fallen -- 625 FTEs in '98-99 to 558 in '07-09 -- even as the broader category of "support staff" has increased by 24.4% relative to that 12% pupil increase.

Which brings us back to the point that started me digging in to the school budget in the first place, as noted in the May 11 story here at BCR:

And this is where it gets ugly. Most of the staff cuts appear to be in categories linked directly to student education and classroom instruction -- a 9.5% reduction, roughly speaking, in headcount in this category. That's as opposed to only a 1.5% reduction or thereabouts in support positions.

By looking only at central administration positions, and finding parity with other districts, one could leap to the assumption that clearly there's no opportunity to make cuts in non-classroom positions, that those areas are lean already.

The central administration may be, relative to other districts -- even despite its growth. But it represents a fraction of what we've classified as non-instructional positions.

(Now, as noted here on May 11, those classifications made by BCR against the original Carl Harris budget submission may not properly classify student facing vs. non-student facing positions. The original budget spreadsheet remains available for download via this link, if anyone wants to review and give feedback.)

Nonetheless, it's points like these that need attention and more research. The points I think are worthy of additional research, additional reporting, additional answers are--

• Why are classroom instruction positions taking a much greater budget reduction than non-classroom positions? (The likely answer here is that these are significantly funded by the state, making them susceptible to the heavy state cutbacks on the way -- one of the strongest arguments, in fact, for raising taxes locally to fill in the gaps.)
• While DPS still spends more on supplementing teacher headcount and pay than the state average, why is DPS funding fewer teacher assistants (100 fewer) and fewer teachers (20% fewer) than it was a decade ago?
• What's driven the overall increase in non-classroom support positions outside central administration?
• What impact has the presence of charter schools (and their absorption of an increasing number of students out of DPS) had on the budget picture and needs?
• What factors into the budget changes (or not) for exceptional children/special needs programs and magnet programs?

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that there aren't good answers to all of these questions. There certainly may be; in fact, there likely are.

And it's hard to emphasize enough how much of this comes down to state cuts -- in general, DPS' budget cuts reflect state priorities, not local ones.

But if the community is going to support increasing local taxes or cutting other local services to supplement or back-fill state funding, these are the kind of questions that need more research, more answers.

And unfortunately, while top-line administrator counts are the juiciest targets to look at and report on, they may not tell the whole story. In fact, they almost certainly don't.

.....

That said, there are still two big asterisks in Milliken's story.

One quibble with the H-S' reporting of what that forty-employee "other professionals" group "includes information technology and social workers, nurses, consultants, mechanics and maintenance workers." Not sure where mechanics and maintenance workers came in to the picture; the DPI's definition of that category includes only "non-classroom teachers, dentists, speech therapists, school social workers, community workers, attendance officers, attorneys, architects, engineers, registered nurses, and other noninstructional staff."

The bigger quibble, though, underlies what data factors in to the 61 central administration positions (or 101, if you count those 40 "other professionals.") According to the H-S:

Durham's chief operating officer, Hank Hurd, and human resources executive director, Thomas Crabtree, noted that Durham Public Schools has a narrower view of who counts as central staff than other districts.

Now, I would have kinda thought that part of the point of classifying staff for statewide statistical reporting would be to make like-like comparisons between districts, but hey, maybe not.

Given that the DPS and John Locke Foundation analyses are so heavily laden on a fairly small base of a few dozen employees, small changes in classification there could have a big impact on how the overall numbers look when you drill down into them. Without knowing more about who counts as central staff and who doesn't, it's hard to make really good comparisons to other districts.

Comments

[Jen Minnelli]

Thank you for the explanation and analysis, Kevin! As an SLP, I find it hard to believe that speech pathologists and occupational therapists are classified as non-instructional staff.

[Kim]

In DPS-related news, we just found out today that Latin has been cut from the curriculum at Riverside. I was wondering if this is also the case at Jordan, the other Durham high school offering Latin.

They are loosing a great young and enthusiastic teacher with this cut of a "non-essential" class. Our son loved learning Latin and had plans to go through to AP Latin. There is a possibility for an online course; but, it is not a given that this will happen.

Anyone else experience a painful cut to the curriculum at their school?

[DRR]

Kim - as things stand now, your son should be able to take Latin online through the NCVPS program. It is a state-funded system, and last I heard it was not a likely cut in the current state budget. The other on-line option, EdOptions, is locally funded, and may or may not be available next year.

We are seeing a fair number of cuts here at the middle school level, though not many programs are being eliminated. We will have larger classes next year, though.

[Philip]

Great stuff! Please continue to shine the light on this. While part of me is incredulous that there is no clear and consistent line between instructional and non-instructional positions, I'd be satisfied with consistent.

[Steve Martin]

I like the questions you are raising in your continued analysis of the DPS budget. They are very similar to the questions that we, as Board members, have asked in our analysis of the budget. As an elected representative of a large portion of Durham County, I took on two duties as a School Board member: one, to ensure that DPS adequately educates the children of Durham County (mine included), and, two, to make sure DPS did so in an efficient, cost-effective manner so that we could be accountable for the myriad state and federal reporting requirements.

One of the positives in how North Carolina funds its schools is that no State money can be expended by the Local Education Authority (LEA) without it first being approved by the State. As an example, while the State provides teachers salaries and the local LEA prepares its monthly payroll, the money for that payroll is not deposited in the LEA’s bank account until the payroll has been checked by the State DPI. This process is in place across the board with state monies. So, the State process helps prevent some of the financial abuses that have occurred in other states with respect to financial management.

I wanted to respond to some of your questions and musings regarding the School Board’s budget. I do this not as a spokesman for the School Board, since we as a body did not vote that I should reply, but as an individual who has spent seven years wrestling with a very complex budget and some rather rapid growth in facilities, schools and students.

First, your question about classroom instruction positions taking much greater hit than non-classroom positions has a couple of answers. The first is as you surmised, the State funds positions, not money, so we do put as many of our higher paid classroom positions on State positions as we can rather than on the County. This actually helps us hire more teachers. When the State cuts back, we have to either remove those state funded positions or fund them locally. State cuts for enrollment declines due to the reclassifying of the kindergarten age, total 98 in the proposed budget. The budget cuts envisioned by the Senate will mean that a total of 163 State positions will be eliminated. The class size adjustment envisioned by the House’s will eliminate up to 14,000 teachers, statewide. The current budget envisions the Senates’ recommendation, not the more draconian version from the House. The more fundamental issue that impacts your analysis is whether a position is classroom instruction (teacher) or classroom support (literacy, remediation, mentors, etc.) In the application of whatever budget we end up with, classroom support, administration and non-instructional support positions will have to be cut before classroom instruction, simply to meet the class size restrictions.

One more note here. The State budget cuts funding for teaching positions, administration and teaching assistants, as well as supplies, textbooks and remediation funding. The Superintendent’s budget took that into account. The Superintendent’s absorbed the $4.4 million he felt DPS needed to continue at par, accounting for the reduction in student enrollment, the slowed student growth and the County’s budget crunch. His budget absorbed $4.4 in inflation and cut an additional $650,000. In his budget, he targeted 40 administration positions and 48 instructional positions over and above the State’s reduction. The County Manager’s budget targeted an additional reduction of $2.3 million.

Second, I am assuming you are using the DPI statistics to quote your numbers. If so, here are some facts that both support and don’t support your analysis. The State has indeed cut back support for teaching assistants from 1999 to 2008. Those positions have been entirely in State funded positions. In 1999, DPS had 625 TA’s. In 2008, DPS had 558 TA’s. 67 fewer, not 100. What should be more alarming is the fact that both the House and Senate versions of the budget call for an $8,300,0000 reduction in teaching assistants in this year’s budget. If that takes effect, DPS will have to eliminate those positions.

As far as fewer teachers go, that is simply not the case. In 1999, DPS employed 2073 teachers. In 2008, it had grown to 2,386. Whether they are each in an individual classroom or utilized as an instructional support position might speak to the question you raise, but each principal is charged with utilizing his or her allotments of positions to best address the needs of the specific school population. They are held responsible for the educational growth and performance for their students.

Your third point regarding what is driving non-classroom support positions outside central administration is certainly a valid one. These positions could be guidance counselors, psychologists, janitors, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, and trades workers.
Consider that in the past decade we have gone from 42 schools to 52 schools. Not all driven by enrollment, although that did increase by about 3500 students in the DPS population. Some of the school growth was the result of smaller learning environments such as Hillside New Tech, City of Medicine Academy, Southern School of Engineering, Early College High School, Middle College High School and the Performance Learning Center. Each of these took students away from the traditional high schools, delaying the near term need to build a new high school and targeting those students most at-risk of dropping out or underperforming. So, growth in non-classroom support positions and some of the growth in administration has certainly been in support of those initiatives.

We also added three elementary and one middle school into the mix in that time frame. For the current budget proposal, we have added the expenses and personnel for Holton coming on line and a full year’s operation for Spring Valley Elementary. In the next budget, we will need to plan for the Lakewood Montessori Middle School coming on line and increased floor space at Creekside, to account for the addition of 8 classrooms.

Exceptional Children expenses are determined by State and Federal guidelines and by the child’s Individual Educational Plan. Not all EC children are severely disabled, or cognitively impaired. For instance, an EC student under the laws, may be a student who scores 3 or 4 on the end of course tests, but may have a learning disability that allows for time modification in taking the test, if that need is an outgrowth of the identified and documented disability. Still classified EC. The State has not cut EC teachers. It appears that EC is the only place that DPS can indeed utilize the federal stimulus dollars this year and next to fund EC teaching positions. In the proposed DPS budget, we have taken 30 of the County positions and used the stimulus funds to replace the funding. Just one strategy that allowed the Superintendent to absorb the $5.1 million cut proposed in his budget.

The State has authorized 100 charter schools. The intent was one per county.
Durham has 10. 3,000 students who otherwise would go to DPS schools now attend Charter schools. Charter Schools get roughly ten cents of every dollar DPS receives from the State and County. The State per student funding goes with the child, as does the County’s.

If you use the same statistical profile and combine the state and local dollars per student from 2007-2008, $8,149 follows every child. If six children leave a classroom of 25, the teacher’s salary follows them. The remaining 19 children have to be moved into other teachers’ classrooms. If those same 5 children decide to return to DPS for the second semester, the remaining State funding remains at the charter school. At the moment, the County funding follows the child, because DPS reconciles enrollment with charter schools each month before we send the funds to the charter schools. It is important to note that the monies that DPS is requesting from the County, whether it is in the amount recommended by the County Manager, requested by the Superintendent or by the Board, the charter schools funding of $9.3 million (Board’s budget, less if the lesser amounts are funded) will be paid by the County to DPS and by DPS to the charter schools.

One final comment. The analysis that the H-S did was based on an apples to apples comparison. Regardless, of how each county counts administration, and there is great leeway under the current school reporting requirements, the comparison that I provided to Matt was the result of one of our Board members requesting that comparison. For the purposes of those figures, DPS used the state’s definition of administration, consultants and supervisors, and other professionals as the apple, for each of the school districts compiled.

I hope this helps answer some of the concerns raised by you and other caring and committed citizens. I know that my colleagues want only to make DPS system and its students the best in the State. Over the past two years we have been working diligently to improve systemic capacity, accountability and sustainability. In spite of the short-term economic downturn, we must keep a long-term perspective on the children. This is not about saving jobs. It is about sustaining and improving effective teaching and learning so that our community not only meets, but exceeds performance and growth expectations. That takes classroom teachers, teaching assistants, administrators, parents, students, textbooks, supplies, innovative programs and non-classroom support personnel. All but the parents and students have been and will be cut, regardless of what level of support the State funds and the County and DPS agree on.

[tina]

I find it interesting the school's board focus on Charter Schools and monies that the district looses as a result of them. I would bet DPS looses more kids to relocation (sometimes to other nearby more competitive school districts) than to Charter Schools. Also, keep in mind transfers into DPS after the Sept/Oct official head count date, do not bring state dollars with them.

I do think that Charter Schools siphone involved, dedicated families and kids with higher test scores. If DPS is worried about loosing these students or the dollars that go along with these students, then maybe DPS should send a survey to parents who choose to send their kids to charter schools or ask any parent withdrawing their child from DPS a few questions. Customers who are statisfied stay and those who aren't find a new school.

[Steve Martin]

Tina, I appreciate your point. Wouldn't have brought the Charter Schools into the discussion if Kevin hadn't asked how they affect the budget. I just wanted to provide the information.

[Kevin Davis]

Steve--

Thanks for taking the time to write in and address the questions. As I've noted from the first post on the DPS budget situation, nine-tenths of this is really a state problem, given the enormous budget crunch being seen in Raleigh. And it's hard to see how additional revenue in the form of taxes won't be needed, at the state level, to prevent crushing blows to service delivery in education.

I have some broader ruminations I'd like to share on education and the question of where we spend money and what we get in return, but those relate to issues outside of DPS per se and I'll return to that theme later at BCR.

The task of digging in to the DPS budget brought up the curiosities I've noted on the relative cuts to instructional vs. non-instructional positions, among other areas of interest. Thank you for addressing these in your reply.

One clarification: in terms of the number of teachers and teacher assistants, my mention of a decline in those numbers was related to the number of _locally funded_ teachers and teacher assistants. According to the DPI:

Teachers: 1999-00 - 436 locally funded teachers. 2007-08 - 414 locally funded teachers.

Teacher assistants: 1999-00 - 105 locally funded teacher assistants. 2007-08 - 37 locally funded teacher assistants.

The numbers for '98-99 were 529 teachers and 138 teacher assistants, though after Matt's mention of data questions on the '98-99 DPI survey, I wanted to look at the following year as well.

Based on what you're saying about how the district allows the State to pick up the tab on teacher positions wherever possible, to minimize the burden on county taxpayers, I'm surmising that much of this reduction in the number of locally funded classroom instructional positions has been -- pardon the phrase, I actually mean it in a positive way -- opportunistic. That is, take advantage of outside dollars for teaching needs and fund other priorities using what you get back.

The financial burden of charter schools is a real one. I'd be curious whether DPS has released any data on net gainback of students who go to charters -- how many come back during the school year in the way you've envisioned?

Personally, I'd like to see charter schools be required to have populations that reflect the diversity of a district within each school; the relative resegregation that charters are creating statewide, with successful high-SES charters and unsuccessful low-SES charters, is entirely predictable but too often ignored. But that's a subject for another discussion.

The growth in facilities is also a point that Durhamites must keep in mind in weighing operational growth... though in fairness, our capital spending per pupil has also remained quite moderate, ranking 35th in the state now, vs. 33rd in the 1999 profile. (A point that I fear BOCC member Joe Bowser is off the mark on when he talks about the County's debt load for schools.)

Based on the line by line budget analysis in my original post, I continue to attribute some of the maintenance of non-classroom positions spending to the fact that some of these kinds of positions saw their expected state or federal contributions unaffected, and thus providing no reason for reduction.

Which ultimately is a reflection of the rather disjointed system we have for financing education in this country. I can't blame DPS for keeping positions fully staffed with state/federal dollars -- or using a redirection, a la the EC program funding from stimulus bucks allowing funds to be saved and thrown into mainline programs -- but it does create, at the top level, odd distortions, in which spending priorities locally reflect the spending priorities of the upstream funders.

Frankly, if there are less effective programs out there that will go staffed this year in DPS since the district cannot redirect funds from them to classroom instruction, that's too bad... and also beyond the ability of DPS to impact.

Steve, there's ample food for thought in your comments. Thanks for taking the time to write.