Public school districts in the United States face a tough reality: Student needs are mounting and accountability demands are on the rise, but resources remain limited or are on the decline. In recent years, there has been great energy around how to do more with less through technology-supported instruction, class-size management, new staffing patterns, school closures, etc. But in the end, many districts have resorted to doing less with less, such as offering fewer electives, reducing administrator and support-staff positions, delaying maintenance, and postponing textbook adoptions.
But there is good news. There are practical, real-world opportunities for districts to realign resources and free up funds to support their strategic priorities. It is possible to do more with less, if you are spending money wisely. Many district leaders might defensively respond that they in fact have a multitude of ideas, but the budgeting process and political pushback make many options virtually impossible. The challenge is to find cases in which the political pushback is manageable and both the impact on student achievement and the financial benefit are significant. Fortunately, recent research shows that such scenarios do exist.
We at the District Management Council detailed the top ten opportunities for resource reallocation in our book Spending Money Wisely: Getting the Most from School District Budgets. Focusing on these achievable opportunities offers the potential to free up significant resources that can be used to improve a district’s performance and ultimately bring about what we all hope for: improved outcomes for students.
For example, all district leaders know that class size has an enormous impact on finances; but district leaders also know all too well the outcry that arises from any discussion of even a small increase in class size. A far less controversial way to create significant savings without the pushback is to achieve the class size that a district has already set, agreed upon, and approved. It turns out that in many districts, and for many unintended reasons, districts do not actually meet their stated class-size targets. In many larger districts, if the existing target can be achieved, millions of dollars can be saved. In smaller districts, the savings can still exceed a million dollars, which goes a long way to fund priorities. The beauty of this opportunity is that the political battle of determining the class-size target is in the past. What is left is the often-overlooked challenge of managing staffing to student enrollment with laser-like precision through detailed teaching-load analysis, review of low-enrollment courses, and meticulous scheduling. Additional techniques such as managing grade configuration, ensuring that student assignment policies mesh with class-size management strategies, and considering the impact of school size on class size can allow districts to meet existing class-size targets and save significant dollars.
In a different vein, some districts have tipped the class-size debate on its head, creating a demand for larger classes by both teachers and parents. How? By offering extra compensation and responsibilities to the most effective teachers to have larger classes. Parents want the top teachers, and some staff jump at the opportunity. This winning combination means savings without the uproar, as well as more kids in front of highly effective teachers.
Another opportunity lies in taking a different approach to purchasing. This may not sound like flashy reform, but making adjustments to purchasing methods can significantly reduce costs and increase the value of every purchase made. All school districts spend a great deal of time, thought, and even political capital answering the question, “What should the district spend its limited resources on?” Lengthy debates accompany the decision of whether to spend on new math curriculum, school renovations, or supplies. But in many districts, far less time and attention are devoted to how these items should be purchased. Taking a lesson from the private sector, where vendors compete to provide the best solution as opposed to just providing the lowest price to specified requirements, has allowed some districts to free up millions of dollars and increase the value of tens of millions of dollars of purchases. While changes to purchasing methods will not directly raise student achievement, the savings can be directed to advance the district’s strategic initiatives, and the political capital required to effect these changes is relatively modest.
Lowering the cost of extended learning time (ELT) is yet another opportunity. ELT has proven essential to the success of nearly all high-performing urban charter schools and has been embraced by a growing number of traditional urban schools. But the majority of ELT efforts began as grant-funded activities; sustaining these efforts under the operating budget after the grants dried up has been problematic for many districts. But there are many creative solutions that can allow a district to preserve ELT programs: Incorporating lower-cost options such as blended learning supported by paraprofessionals, staggering teacher start times and vacations, and lengthening class periods are just a few of the options.
Frankly, no change in resource allocation is easy—if they were, most districts would already have implemented them. But there are opportunities where the political cost is manageable, implementation is feasible, and the impact on student achievement and finances are substantial and attainable in a few years.
Nate Levenson is the senior managing director of the District Management Council. To download a free copy of the e-book on which this blog post is based, click here.
