Agenda for Monday _ Tuesday_ Nov

Document Sample
Agenda for Monday _ Tuesday_ Nov Powered By Docstoc
					                                Quality Education Council


                               QEC Agenda for Tuesday, September 21
                               Senate Cherberg Bldg – Hearing Room 2
                                          9 a.m. – 4 p.m.
                                        Webcast live by TVW




9:00-10:00      1) Graduation Requirement Recommendation
                       • State Board of Education Proposal
                          Edie Harding, SBE

10:00-10:45     2) General Discussion on Costs of New SBE Proposed Graduation Requirements
                       • Shawn Lewis, OSPI

10:45-11:45     3) Building Bridges Workgroup Report and Recommendations
                        • Annie Blackledge, OSPI

11:45-12:00     Public Testimony

12:00-1:00      Lunch

1:00 - 2:00     4) Classified Staffing Adequacy Preliminary Report
                        • Isabel Muñoz-Colón, OSPI
                        • Andrea Cobb, OSPI
                        • Kate Davis, OSPI
                        • Barbara Billinghurst, OSPI

2:00 – 2:15     Break

2:15 - 2:45     5) State and Federal Timber Revenue and other Miscellaneous
                   Components of the Prototypical School Funding Formula
                        • Shawn Lewis, OSPI

2:45 - 3:15     6) Financial Reporting System – Changes Necessary to Support
                   Transparency and the Prototypical School Funding Formula
                       • Calvin Brodie, OSPI
                       • Shawn Lewis, OSPI

3:15 - 3:45     7) Member Comments and Questions/November Meeting Plan

3:45 – 4:00     Public Testimony

              Council Members:
              Sup. Dorn (Chair)      Mary Jean Ryan   Rep. Priest     Sen. McAuliffe   Speaker Chopp (alt)
              Dr. Bette Hyde         Rep. Dammeier    Rep. Sullivan   Sen. Oemig       Stephen Rushing
              Adie Simmons           Rep. Maxwell     Sen. King       Sen. Zarelli     Sen. Eide (alt)
              Sally Brownfield (alt)
                          September 21st QEC Agenda Item 1



Members
Randy Dorn, Chair
State Superintendent
Adie Simmons, Director,      Topic:           Graduation Requirement Revision Update
Office of the Education
Ombudsman                    Presenter:       Edie Harding, Executive Director, State Board of
                                              Education
Dr. Bette Hyde
Director, Department of      Date:            Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Early Learning
Bruce Dammeier               PURPOSE
House of Representatives
Marcie Maxwell
                             Provide the QEC with the provisional graduation requirements as
House of Representatives     adopted by the State Board of Education at its September 2010 meeting.
Skip Priest
                             SUMMARY
House of Representatives
Pat Sullivan                 The State Board of Education remains committed to a single
House of Representatives     college/career ready high school diploma with multiple pathways that
Stephen Rushing              prepares students for postsecondary education, the 21st century
Professional Educator        workplace and citizenship. A high school diploma, though a significant
Standards Board              accomplishment, is necessary to prepare for the demands of 21st century
Mary Jean Ryan               life. The diploma should pave the way for the education and training –
State Board of Education     apprenticeships, technical certificates and degrees – needed to meet
Curtis King                  those demands.
Washington State Senate
                             It is anticipated that the SBE will have explored several options and come
Rosemary McAuliffe           to agreement on:
Washington State Senate
Eric Oemig                       •    core graduation requirements,
Washington State Senate
                                 •    policy recommendations based on the work of the Core 24
Joseph Zarelli
Washington State Senate
                                      Implementation Task Force, to increase flexibility in graduation
                                      requirements,
Alternates
Frank Chopp                      •    phase-in strategy and timeline, and
Speaker of the House
Tracey Eide                      •    changes to the high school and beyond plan.
Washington State Senate
                             These provisional graduation requirements are presented to the QEC to
Sally Brownfield             lay the foundation discussing the fiscal impacts and as part of the public
Director of Tu Ha’ Buts      outreach process.
Learning Center
                             REQUESTED ACTION

                             This is for information purposes only.




                             http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC                       Updated: 9/17/2010 1:39 PM
The Washington
State Graduation
 Requirements

                        Career and College Ready
Edie Harding
Washington State Board of Education
Presentation to the QEC
September 21, 2010
Who’s At Stake?
Reframing the Vision for Career and College Readiness



 Old Framework:              New Framework
  • minimum                   • essential or core
    graduation                  graduation
    requirements                requirements
  • high school               • high school
    graduation as an            graduation as a
    ending                      beginning
  • a K-12 system             • a P-20 system view
    view
   Graduation Requirements Framework


                         Subject
   Local                                            State
Requirements          Requirements               Assessments




                             SBE
               Culminating         High School
                 Project           and Beyond
                                      Plan
Projected Employment Shares by Occupational Skill
                     Level

                            Nearly 80 percent of
                            the future job market
                            will require some form
                            of post secondary
                            training and
                            education.1
                        Source: Holzer, Harry & Robert Lerman (Feb 2009) “The
                        Future of Middle-Skill Jobs.” Brookings Institution;
                        “Forgotten Middle-Skill Jobs,” www.skills2compete.org
                                                                                   Chance of
                                                                                   College By
                                                                                   Nineteen


 46th in nation




Source: NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis
Are All Students Equally Prepared?




      Source: The BERC Group, December 2008. Washington State Board of Education
      Transcript Study. Based on a random sample of 14,875 2008 Washington public high
      school graduates
Graduation Requirements for the Class of 2013

 Subject            2013 State-mandated minimum credits to graduate
                                                  from high school
 English                                                           3
 Math                                                              3
 Science                                                   2 (1 lab)
 Social Studies                                                   2.5
 Arts                                                              1
 World Language                                                    0
 Health & Fitness                                                  2
 Occupational Ed.                                                  1
 Electives                                                        5.5
                                                         Total:   20
A Career and College- Ready Diploma

Framework revised to
provide greater
flexibility to meet
the needs of all
learners



                                      9
SBE Graduation Requirements Decision
               Points
   Student Choice 8.5
   credits

                        Automatic
                        Enrollment in
                        Career and
                        College- Ready
                        Requirements



  Mandatory 15.5
  credits
                                                                                As approved by SBE 2010.09.15

The Washington State Graduation Requirements
CORE COURSES                    CREDITS                  Meets or exceeds
English                                4                 HECB minimum                 At the end of 8th grade, students
                                                         subject requirements         would be enrolled in a career and
Math                                   3
                                                                                      college program of study that meets
Science (2 Labs)                       3                                              the Higher Education Coordinating
Social Studies                         3               Mandatory                      Board minimum subject
Art                                    1                                              requirements for four-year public
Occupational Education                 1                                              college admission and allows
Health                                .5                                              students to pursue a career program
                                                                                      of study. This would include these
       High School and Beyond Plan
                                                                                      prescribed subjects (unless
Arts                                  1*                                              substituted per the High School and
World Languages                       2*                                              Beyond Plan):
Fitness                             1.5*              Student Choice – *may
                                                      substitute per HSBP             English—4
Career Concentration                  2*                                              Math—3
Electives                              2                                              Science—3
           Summary                                                                    Social Studies—3
Total Required Credits              24**                                              Health --.5
            Culminating Project                                                       Fitness –1.5
                                                                                      Arts—2
                                                                                      World Languages—2
**Up to 2 credits could be waived by local administrators for
                                                                                      Career Concentration—2
students who have failed a class and taken the appropriate                            Occ. Ed – 1
credit recovery classes to regain the credit. Students must earn the                  Electives – 2
designated credits in the mandatory subjects.
                                                                                      Total=24

Note: Private schools may elect to use career concentration and electives for
 The Washington State Board of Education
their local requirements.                                                                                       11
                                         As approved by SBE 2010.09.15



  Policy Recommendations
1. Remove 150-Hour restriction on credit
   definition and substitute the following non
   time-based definition:

   “Successful completion of the subject area
   content expectations or guidelines
   developed by the state, per written district
   policy.”

        The competency-based definition will remain.)
        (




                                                               12
                                      As approved by SBE 2010.09.15



   Policy Recommendations
2. Two-For-One with required district reciprocity.

   Students may earn one credit and satisfy two
   graduation requirements (one academic and one
   career and technical) by completing a career and
   technical course determined by a district to be
   equivalent to an academic core course. Districts
   shall set the limit on the number of “two for one”
   classes a student may take. Students will still need
   to earn the state minimum number of credits.


                                                            13
                              As approved by SBE 2010.09.15



  Policy Recommendations
3. Start High School and Beyond Plan at
   middle school level

4. Make Washington State history and
   government a non credit requirement on
   student transcript

5. Add .5 credit of civics
                                                    14
                                                      As approved by SBE 2010.09.15

 Proposed Implementation Schedule
SBE Action                  Year Funding       Year Rule Put     Graduating
                            Would Need to      in Place          Class
                            Begin                                Affected
Advocate for funding        2011               2011              2016
beginning in 2011 to be     Assumes
fully funded and            funding is
implemented for the class   based on
of 2016.                    marginal costs
                            to add new
                            graduation
                            requirements—
                            not the costs to
                            fund all of the
                            underfunded
                            parts of basic
                            education.




                                                                              15
What are the Marginal Costs?
                1. Increased
                   instructional
                   time
                2. Instructional
                   materials
                3. Facilities


                                   16
What are the Related Costs?
               1. Guidance
                  Systems
               2. Support for
                  Struggling
                  Students




                                17
Graduation Requirements : Essentials

                           Local
                         Flexibility
           Culminating
                                       Assessments
             Project



     Mandatory &          Career
                                             High School
       Student             and
                                             and Beyond
        Choice            College               Plan
       Classes            Ready
The Places They’ll Go
              Work /
           Apprenticeship




                            Two-year
Military       Society       College




             Four-year
              College
               Next Steps
1. Cost proposal
2. Feedback collected in September and
   October
3. Finalized and adopted by the State Board in
   November
4. Present to the 2011 Legislative Session



                                                 20
                  Questions
Contact Information:

  Edie Harding
  Executive Director
  edie.harding@k12.wa.us
  360.725.6025




                              21
                          September 21st QEC Agenda Item 2



Members
Randy Dorn, Chair            Topic:           Projected Costs of Implementing SBE Proposed
State Superintendent                          Graduation Requirements
Adie Simmons, Director,
Office of the Education      Presenter:       Shawn Lewis, Chief Financial Officer, Office of
Ombudsman                                     Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Bette Hyde
Director, Department of      Date:            Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Early Learning
                             PURPOSE
Bruce Dammeier
House of Representatives
                             Provide the QEC with OSPI’s recommended cost model for the
Marcie Maxwell
                             provisional graduation requirements as adopted by the State Board of
House of Representatives
                             Education.
Skip Priest
House of Representatives     SUMMARY
Pat Sullivan
House of Representatives     The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction is responsible for
Stephen Rushing              providing a fiscal analysis regarding changes in graduation requirements.
Professional Educator
Standards Board              RCW 28A.230.090 provides that: “Changes that have a fiscal impact on
                             school districts, as identified by a fiscal analysis prepared by the office of
Mary Jean Ryan
                             the superintendent of public instruction, shall take effect only if formally
State Board of Education
                             authorized and funded by the legislature through the omnibus
Curtis King                  appropriations act or other enacted legislation.” Further, 2009 c 548
Washington State Senate      s112 states in part: “it is the intent of the legislature that no increased
Rosemary McAuliffe           programmatic or instructional expectations be imposed upon schools or
Washington State Senate      school districts without an accompanying increase in resources as
Eric Oemig                   necessary to support those increased expectations”
Washington State Senate
                             There continues to be debate regarding how to calculate the additional
Joseph Zarelli
                             costs and the associated increase in resources necessary to support the
Washington State Senate
                             changes in graduation requirements.
Alternates
Frank Chopp                  REQUESTED ACTION
Speaker of the House
                             OSPI requests QEC feedback regarding the methodology planned for
Tracey Eide
Washington State Senate      determining the additional costs associated with the increase in
                             graduation requirements.
Sally Brownfield
Director of Tu Ha’ Buts      The QEC should determine if they wish to include a recommendation
Learning Center              regarding funding the graduation requirement change in their report to
                             the legislature.




                             http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC                       Updated: 9/17/2010 1:41 PM
              Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
              K-12 Financial Resources




Projected Costs of Implementing SBE
Proposed Graduation Requirements
                      Presentation to the QEC
                         Shawn Lewis, OSPI
                        September 20, 2010

K-12 Financial Resources                                         Slide 1
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction                 9/17/2010
                                        Purpose
• This presentation document provides an
  overview of the methodology to be used in
  determining costs of implementing increased
  graduation requirements.
• Specific information will be developed based
  on the SBE proposal and will be provided at
  the QEC meeting. The SBE proposal was not
  available at the time this presentation was
  prepared.
 K-12 Financial Resources                           Slide 2
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction   9/17/2010
      Relevant Laws and Regulations
• RCW 28A.230.090 provides that: “Changes that have a
  fiscal impact on school districts, as identified by a fiscal
  analysis prepared by the office of the superintendent of
  public instruction, shall take effect only if formally
  authorized and funded by the legislature through the
  omnibus appropriations act or other enacted legislation.”
• 2009 c 548 s112 states in part: “…it is the intent of the
  legislature that no increased programmatic or instructional
  expectations be imposed upon schools or school districts
  without an accompanying increase in resources as
  necessary to support those increased expectations”


  K-12 Financial Resources                                  Slide 3
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction          9/17/2010
  Must start with one of the following
             assumptions:
  Assumption the State Now                           Assumption that the State
      Pays for 20 Credits                           Now Pays for Six Periods/Day
• Each student is being                            • Districts have certified that
   considered a 0.2 FTE in each                      they already meet the basic
   course (5 classes is 1.0 FTE).                    education requirement to
• The current graduation                             provide an average of 1000
   requirements are only 20                          hours of instruction.
   credits.                                        • The funding formula
• The State has not fully                            provides a full teacher
   funded the K-12 system.                           salary for every five periods
                                                     taught - additional classes
                                                     are no additional cost.
  K-12 Financial Resources                                                        Slide 4
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction                                9/17/2010
   The Debate About Funding High Schools
Start with 20 Credit                               Start with 24 Credit
Opportunities                                      Opportunities
• Proponents of this method                        • Proponents of this method
  indicate that the state should                     indicate that the real cost of
  simply add 20% additional                          increasing graduation
  funding for high school students                   requirements is the remediation
  due to a 20% increase in                           costs – costs associated with
  graduation requirements.                           students who fail or need extra
• Opponents point out that costs                     time within their four years to
  for teachers are already provided                  earn credits.
  and schools already provide 24                   • Opponents contend the state is
  credit opportunities as part of the                hiding its underfunding of high
  1000 hours of required basic                       schools by changing the funding
  education.                                         formula and burying the deficit
                                                     funding in “class size”.
  K-12 Financial Resources                                                             Slide 5
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction                                  9/17/2010
                        OSPI Methodology
• OSPI plans to utilize the new prototypical funding
  model to determine the costs associated with an
  increase in graduation requirements.
   – The state funds each teacher for five teaching
     periods and a planning period at high school.
     Students are counted as a 0.2 FTE in each course
     so that a full time teacher is funded after teaching
     five classes.
   – The state funds a class size of a little over 28
     students per class on average.
  K-12 Financial Resources                               Slide 6
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction       9/17/2010
           Major Components of Cost
• Staff Costs – The state must provide funding for
  students that fail more courses than assumed in the
  graduation requirements.
   – Option 1: Fund additional FTE for students to
     complete additional coursework
   – Option 2: Provide funding consistent with the LAP
     program for remediation services to complete
     coursework.
• Instructional Materials Costs for Specific Courses
• Facility Costs
  K-12 Financial Resources                            Slide 7
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction    9/17/2010
                     Staff Costs Option 1
• Example: If students are required to earn 22
  credits to receive a diploma:
   – Any student who has failed courses such that the class
     time remaining in their high school schedule will not allow
     them to graduate, the state should raise the limit of FTE
     (above 1.0) sufficient to allow them to retrieve the lost
     credits to graduate.
   – The number of students utilized for this calculation would
     be the percentage of students estimated to fail more than
     four courses in their high school career times the number
     of credits they are below 22.
 K-12 Financial Resources                                          Slide 8
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction               9/17/2010
                     Staff Costs Option 2
• Example: If students are required to earn 22
  credits to receive a diploma:
   – Any student who has failed courses such that the class
     time remaining in their high school schedule will not allow
     them to graduate, the state should allow additional
     funding for the student to enroll in a remediation course at
     the same rate paid for the Learning Assistance Program.
   – The number of students utilized for this calculation would
     be the percentage of students estimated to fail more than
     four courses in their high school career times the number
     of credits they are below 22.
 K-12 Financial Resources                                       Slide 9
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction               9/17/2010
        Instructional Materials Costs
• There would be additional costs that districts would incur to
  acquire sufficient materials to teach the new courses. The
  additional costs would vary by district and would be
  influenced by the courses that are currently offered and taken
  by students within each District.
• Factors to be considered in the cost calculation would include
  the percentage of the student population not currently
  completing certain courses and the cost of the instructional
  materials for the course.
    – Example: 35% of students do not complete 1 year of foreign language
      and the cost of new foreign language textbooks is estimated at $50.


  K-12 Financial Resources                                              Slide 10
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction                      9/17/2010
                                Facility Costs
• The primary concerns regarding facility space
  are:
   – (1) potential financial impact regarding an
     increased lab science requirement;
   – (2) potential financial impact regarding an
     increased fine arts requirement, and
   – (3) the potential financial impact associated with
     an increase in overall FTE.


 K-12 Financial Resources                                 Slide 11
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction       9/17/2010
                      Facility Cost Factors
• OSPI cannot accurately determine the facility costs without
  getting data directly from districts in the form of a survey or
  other reporting mechanism.
   – Some districts may currently have excess facility space
     while others may not.
   – Some districts may already have adequate facility space
     due to their current local graduation requirements.
• Utilizing the information from districts about capacity, OSPI
  would identify the number of classrooms needed to
  accommodate the change in graduation requirements and
  multiply by the estimated cost of either a portable classroom
  or new construction – ranges from $100 to $244 per sq. ft.
  K-12 Financial Resources                                      Slide 12
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction               9/17/2010
          OSPI Cost Analysis Timeline
• The cost analysis supplied by OSPI at the QEC
  meeting in September will be draft figures that
  will be finalized based on facility data and student
  data.
• The cost analysis will be provided to QEC
  members, the State Board of Education, and to
  the appropriate legislative committees and staff
  as soon as the data is available, but no later than
  January 1st with the best data available.

  K-12 Financial Resources                           Slide 13
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction    9/17/2010
                          September 21st QEC Agenda Item 3



Members
Randy Dorn, Chair            Topic:         Building Bridges Workgroup Report
State Superintendent
Adie Simmons, Director,      Presenter:     Annie Blackledge, Office of Superintendent of Public
Office of the Education                     Instruction
Ombudsman
                             Date:          Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Dr. Bette Hyde
Director, Department of
Early Learning               PURPOSE
Bruce Dammeier               Provide the QEC with recommendations to assist them in developing
House of Representatives
                             dropout reduction strategies and setting system goals.
Marcie Maxwell
House of Representatives     SUMMARY
Skip Priest
                             State law requires the Building Bridges Workgroup to provide
House of Representatives
                             recommendations to the QEC to assist in their charge to set goals
Pat Sullivan
House of Representatives
                             and develop dropout reduction strategies.
Stephen Rushing              The Workgroup is charged with making recommendations on the
Professional Educator        parameters of the school system’s responsibility to support at-risk
Standards Board
                             or vulnerable students through the program of basic education.
Mary Jean Ryan               Specifically, recommendations relate to 1) graduation and re-
State Board of Education
                             engagement goals, 2) funding for critical staff positions to support
Curtis King                  career guidance and school based, dropout prevention,
Washington State Senate
                             intervention and reengagement systems, and 3) dropout
Rosemary McAuliffe           prevention focused school improvement strategies necessary to
Washington State Senate
                             increase the graduation rate and reduce the achievement gap for
Eric Oemig                   ALL Washington students.
Washington State Senate
Joseph Zarelli               The workgroup has provided several recommendations
Washington State Senate      incorporated in the draft report that is included in the QEC
Alternates                   meeting materials.
Frank Chopp
Speaker of the House         REQUESTED ACTION
Tracey Eide                  Recommendations of the Building Bridges workgroup be incorporated
Washington State Senate
                             into the QEC goal setting process and the QEC annual report to the
                             Legislature.
Sally Brownfield
Director of Tu Ha’ Buts
Learning Center




                             http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC                  Updated: 9/17/2010 1:42 PM
                  Draft QEC Recommendations- Building Bridges Workgroup

    Addressing Dropout Prevention, Intervention and Re-Engagement in Basic Education

Introduction

As the funding of school reform has been studied over the last several years, the responsibility
of the school system to support at-risk or vulnerable students through the program of basic
education has been debated. In December 2008 and 2009, the Building Bridges Workgroup
recommended that legislative enhancements to public education include basic education
funding for support systems that motivate students and address academic and nonacademic
barriers to learning.

In the 2010 Legislative session, the Quality Education Council (QEC) was charged with making
recommendations for specific strategies, programs, and funding, including funding allocations
through the funding distribution formula in RCW 28A.150.260, designed to close the
achievement gap and increase the high school graduation rate in Washington public schools. In
support of this charge, ESSB 6403 (2010) an act related to accountability and support for
vulnerable students and dropouts, requires the Building Bridges Workgroup to provide
recommendations to the QEC to assist in their charge to set goals and develop dropout
reduction strategies. The Workgroup is charged with making recommendations on the
parameters of the school system’s responsibility to support at-risk or vulnerable students
through the program of basic education. Specifically, recommendations relate to 1) graduation
and re-engagement goals, 2) funding for critical staff positions to support career guidance and
school based, dropout prevention, intervention and reengagement systems, and 3) dropout
prevention focused school improvement strategies necessary to increase the graduation rate
and reduce the achievement gap for ALL Washington students.

Historically, the strategies for dropout prevention and recovery have been focused on
comprehensive school improvement to enhance instruction or targeted intervention programs
that are typically grant funded and not universally accessible for all schools. Support for
dropout prevention programs and activities are often marginalized in policy and practice.”As a
result, they usually are organized and function in relative isolation of each other.”(Adelman and
Taylor 2010). The research is clear. It is crucial to combine the best components of both
approaches through the development of a tiered dropout prevention, intervention and
reengagement framework. This framework brings together the use of:

    • Quality school and community data to drive decision making,
    • District- and school-wide reforms ( district and school improvement planning),
    • Integrated school/community/agency partnerships




                                                                                                   1
Recommendations

   1. State Level Graduation and Re-engagement Goals


Background: The 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act required State agencies (SEAs)
to include graduation rates for public secondary school students (as defined as the percentage
of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard
number of years.).

In the state’s Consolidated State Application for State Grants under Title IX, Part C, Section 9302
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110), the State set the
graduation goal of 85% to be met by 2014. The state plan requires greater improvement when
the rate is below the annual goal (see chart below). High schools that do not have the ability to
have graduates (e.g., schools serving only grades 9-10) will use their annual dropout rate as the
other indicator. The annual goal for the other indicator in these schools will be met if the
dropout rate is 7 percent or less of the previous year’s rate.

Engrossed 2nd Substitute House Bill 1418 (2010) requires the development of re-engagement
programs. As directed by the legislation, OSPI is consulting with representatives from the State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the Workforce Board, current dropout re-
engagement programs, school districts, and ESDs to develop a statutory framework for these
programs. These re-engagement programs coupled with the outreach efforts of graduation
specialists will eliminate barriers for students 16 to 21 to re-enter the K12 system and complete
their graduation requirements to prepare for post secondary education and/or the workforce.
Currently there is no base line data available for these types of programs. Once underway, OSPI
can determine the baseline data and set improvement goals.

Recommendation 1.a: State-Level Graduation Goal

The QEC should endorse a state level graduation goal of 85% on-time graduation by 2014 and
90% by 2018. These goals can be accomplished by phasing in support for a focused dropout
reduction improvement process and an integrated student support system.

Recommendation 1.b. Re-engagement Goal


State-level dropout reengagement goals should be established after baseline data is
developed by OSPI.

   2. Building a Dropout Reduction Focused District Improvement Process

                                                                                                 2
Background:

In response to state and national discussions of school accountability, including the passage of
the “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2001, the Washington State Board of Education has for many
years required schools to annually complete a School Improvement Planning process. The
Washington State Board of Education (in WAC 180-16-220) requires that each school district
receiving state basic education funds MUST develop a school improvement plan which “shall
include active participation and meaningful input by building staff, students, parents, and
community members.”

For all schools, OSPI developed an eight step School Improvement Planning Process that
includes the following steps: 1) Assess Readiness to Benefit; 2) Collect, Sort, and Select Data;
3) Build and Analyze the School Portfolio; 4) Set and Prioritize Goals; 5) Research and Select
Effective Practices; 6) Craft Action Plan; 7) Monitor Implementation of the Plan; 8) Evaluate
Impact on Student Achievement. Schools have used a variety of tools to assist in their planning,
and most schools have a plan in place that includes at least a reading goal, a mathematics goal,
and often another goal related to culture and climate in the school.

For schools that have fallen under the NCLB School Improvement status, there have been
several other targeted programs over the past decade, funded from both federal and state
appropriations. Under these OSPI programs, School Improvement Facilitators and District
Improvement Facilitators have worked with small groups of schools. The District and School
Improvement and Accountability Office at OSPI currently uses the Washington Performance
Management Framework as a way to provide Basic Assistance, Targeted Assistance, Intensive
Assistance, and Turnaround Assistance to the most struggling schools in the state.



Issue Statement:

Currently, School Improvement Plans are required for all Washington schools by State Board of
Education rules. However, while

   •   Coordination obstacles and lack of economies of scale can jeopardize individual school
       plans, school district plans are not required;
   •   the State Board requirements do not include annual dropout prevention, intervention,
       and retrieval goals; and
   •   Student academic achievement may be threatened by non-academic barriers, the
       current School Improvement Planning requirements only overtly address academic
       barriers and strategies and do not reflect the issues raised in a coordinated way by the
       student support framework;
   •   Many non-academic barriers can be addressed in a school setting and many resources
       can be provided by community partners, funding for community brokering, staff for
       school services, and improved professional development is not in place.
   •   Schools do go through a “data carousel” as part of the current School Improvement
       Planning process, the process often addresses only academic data, and only school

                                                                                                   3
       system data (as opposed to including both student-identifiable and anonymous
       community-level data) ;
   •   The data carousel process generates of some of the educational gaps facing an
       individual school, it can leave school staff guessing about root causes of the larger
       problems identified in the process. Schools need to use self-assessment tools to further
       delve into these gaps and find out more about root causes and limitations that might be
       built into their systems of educational delivery;
   •   Schools are able to identify and agree upon goals in the SIP, and begin to look for
       research-based effective practices, these practices tend to be “academic only” in nature,
       not geared toward meeting dropout prevention goals or removing non-academic
       barriers, and demand research for which school staff may not have time in their busy
       schedules.

Finding of the Committee:

After identifying the major issues, the Building Bridges School Improvement Planning
Subcommittee will be moving forward with a variety of recommendations for policy and
implementations at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. Some of these
recommendations involve funding, and will be presented to the Quality Education Council (in
the Recommendations Section below).

Other recommendations are likely to include:

   •   Improvement Plans must be completed annually at the district level statewide;
   •   District Improvement Planning must address annual dropout prevention, intervention
       and retrieval goals;
   •   District Improvement Planning must address non-academic barriers via the Student
       Support Framework;
   •   Plans must be shared with the public annually for all districts, via the current OSPI
       School Report Card;
   •   District Improvement Plans must be informed by both student-specific and populations-
       based community data, and by both academic and non-academic data;
   •   School districts must receive training on how to improve protection and authorized use
       of confidential information.
   •   The State must preserve the Healthy Youth Survey and other existing data sets, and
       improve the use of data, consistent with the recommendations of the BB Data
       Subgroup.
   •   The State must identify and make available self-assessment tools, across the issues
       addressed by the Student Support Framework, to enable District Improvement Planning
       to address not only patterns in data but also address root causes.
   •   The State must develop and maintain a clearinghouse of evidence-based practices (both
       education system and community based) to inform District Improvement Planning
   •   State must support implementation of Plans (through support of Professional Learning
       Communities, Core Teams, etc. at the local level).


                                                                                              4
Funding Recommendations:

The Quality Education Council should recommend that state Basic Education include funding to
assure that the state-required school district improvement process addresses dropout
prevention, intervention, and retrieval goals in a way that is consistent with the Student
Support Framework. The QEC should fund not only essential school district staffing for school
improvement and the coordination of a district wide dropout prevention, intervention and
reengagement system, but also the cost of providing effective professional development and
the cost of offering research-based strategies at the school district level.



Recommendation 2a: District Improvement Planning Coordinators

The QEC recommendations should include funding for 1 to 2 District Improvement Planning
Coordinators based the average sized district and on identified need. These coordinators are
needed to provide:

   •   Assistance in gathering/analyzing local data (including disaggregation);
   •   Coordination of school and community partnerships and outreach to communities of
       color, and support for vulnerable student populations;
   •   Designing/supporting district plans and structures to implement them (structures can
       include core teams; family support teams, PLCs; other);
   •   Monitoring implementation of district plans, structures, and organizational culture; and
   •   Funding and sustainability planning.

Recommendation 2b: Professional Development

The QEC recommendations should also include funding for professional development to
implement selected strategies identified in the District Improvement Plan. Funding can be
flexible and support staff professional development within the school district provided by
coaches or trainers (including the cost of substitutes if necessary), or for districts to contract for
staff to attend outside School Improvement or Student Support training and professional
development offerings tied to their school plan. Professional development can also support
implementation strategies such as core team, Professional Learning Communities, etc.)


Recommendation 2c: Research-based Interventions

The QEC recommendations should also include funding to implement the research-based
interventions identified in the District Improvement Plan. Once a district has identified in
their plan the research-based interventions they seek to implement, they should be able to
cover the costs of participating in offering those interventions (within an approval process).
Funds could cover the cost of subscriptions, web-based support tools, curriculum, curriculum-
specific training not covered by Recommendation 1b above, or other materials costs not
covered by the general categories of staffing or professional development above.

                                                                                                     5
   3. Building the Foundation for Building Level, Student Support Systems


Background:

If the state is to increase the graduation rate for all students, it needs to address both academic
and non-academic systems and supports that impact academic success. Reform efforts to date,
have failed to recognize that schools have two major education delivery systems: core
instruction and guidance and counseling programs. These systems are interrelated in fostering
successful student outcomes. Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Programs (CGCP) are
critical to student engagement and success as supported by national and Washington State
research. (Gysbers & Henderson, 2000 ; Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R.,2003; Utah State Office of
Education, 2007; Sink, C. A., Akos, P., Turnbull, R. J., & Mvududu, N. 2008).

A Comprehensive Guidance and Counseling Program (CGCP), coupled with a support system
that utilizes a drop-out early warning data system and a tiered intervention framework to
address academic and non-academic barriers to learning is a proven approach to improving
student success outcomes. Such a system allows for focused strategies for:
    • Dropout prevention for all students,
    • Targeted academic and non-academic intervention strategies for “at-risk” students, and
    • More intensive intervention for students who need more support and those students
         who have already dropped out of school.


Washington State school counselor certification standards (WAC 181-78A-270) identify the
American School Counselor Association National Model as a preferred approach for delivery of
effective guidance and counseling support to students. This systems approach of support
identifies four program delivery strategies that are parallel in design with the three tiers of the
Student Support Framework design for dropout prevention, intervention, and retrieval:
guidance curriculum, individual planning, responsive services, and system support (i.e.
coordination with other student support systems, evaluation).


School counselors serve as a bridge between parents, schools, students, teachers, and
community resources. Counselors help students make informed choices about their futures
through instruction, guidance, and encouragement to define goals, understand their abilities
and preferences, and prepare accordingly. School counselors make a significant, vital and
indispensible contribution toward the success of “at-risk” students. School counselors, working
as a member and leader of a team with other student service professionals including, but not
limited to school nurses, social workers, and school psychologists, and in liaison with staff and
parents/families, identify potential dropouts and other students at risk, and work closely with
them to help students stay in school and find productive means to further their educations.


                                                                                                      6
School counselors in Washington have been trained to provide responsive programs such as
short-term individual, group, family and crisis counseling, provide curriculum programs for
individual planning such as Navigation 101 ( RCW 28A.600.045), and to meet academic and
career counseling needs. Their training and roles equip them to identify at-risk students, and
when appropriate, make informed referrals to other support programs within the school,
district and broader community.

The use of Graduation Specialists to provide intensive, individual services to high-need students
is repeatedly cited in the literature as a best practice in dropout prevention and has been
implemented with success in several states and local school districts throughout Washington
State. These positions are sometimes referred to as advocates, graduation coaches, or
mentors and are responsible for providing case management and outreach type services for
indentified high needs students and outreach to re-engage students who have already dropped
out of school. “Best practice” requires close collaboration of these specialists with school
counselors within a CGCP.

Issue Statement:

Washington State has not funded school counselors as a distinct position category within BEA,
and thereby not supported their (CGCP) programs as part of basic education, until recent
legislation (RCW 28A.410.043). U.S. Department of Education data indicates that Washington
ranks 43rd out of the 50 states in counselor to student ratios. Adoption of the following school
counselor staffing recommendation would move Washington into the top 20% nationwide.

Because of the importance of the school guidance and counseling program in support of
healthy student career and personal/social development as well as academic achievement, a
comprehensive guidance and counseling delivery system should be a keystone element in all
school dropout prevention, intervention, and retrieval efforts. Staffing recommendations for
supporting a student support framework should be based upon the role of school counselors
providing key leadership in developing and sustaining such efforts, in addition to supporting
legislatively funded programs such as the student advisory based program, Navigation 101, as
part of a broader comprehensive school guidance and counseling program. Staffing
recommendations should also recognize that graduation coaches /advocate positions are most
effective within the scope of program services of a comprehensive guidance and counseling
program and leadership of a school counselor.

Recommendation 3: The Quality Education Council should recommend that State Basic
Education include funding to assure minimum recommended levels of building-level staff
positions, identified in ESSB 6403 are sufficient to fully implement the Student Support
Framework.


                                                                                                   7
Recommendation 3a: School Counseling Ratios

The Quality Education Council should recommend that State Basic Education including
funding for school counselors at the following levels, based on school prototype size outlined
in earlier QEC recommendations: Elementary = 1.0, Middle School = 1.7, High School 2.0.

Rationale: This recommendation is based upon the consideration and balancing of staffing
recommendation standards of the American School Counselor Association (1:250), vetting input
from two statewide regional stakeholders K-20 meetings, analysis of research and vetting
feedback by the Building Bridges Student Support Framework committee membership, and
recognition of the contributions other staff ( i.e. teachers in advisory programs, graduation
specialists in Tier 2 and 3 support) “Best practice” CGCPs are uniquely specific to supporting all
levels of the student support framework. WA State school counselor training standards equip
this group of certified staff to provide leadership in developing and sustaining the student
support framework.

Recommendation 3b: Graduation Specialists

The Quality Education Council should recommend that state Basic Education including
funding for Graduation Specialists / Advocates at the following levels, based on school
prototype size outlined in earlier QEC recommendations: Middle School = 1.0, High School =
1.5.

Rationale: This recommendation is based upon earlier analysis of this position completed by
OSPI staff and vetted with regional stakeholders. The recommendation is supported by the
Building Bridges Student Support Framework committee membership. Our recommendation is
based on an understanding that these individual’s primary focus would be on the top 10-15% of
the students (Tiers 2 & 3) most at-risk of not completing graduation requirements. Schools
within WA that are currently implementing Graduation Specialist / Advocate models report that
effectiveness is linked to managing caseloads that allow such specialists to identify, assess, and
support these students.

Recommendation 3c.: Student Support Staff

The Quality Education Council should recommend enhancements in the State Basic Education
funding formula for student support staffing in districts serving student populations with
graduation rates significantly below state average, and high numbers of vulnerable youth (i.e.
homeless, foster care, juvenile justice), to provide focused assistance, targeting such student
populations with effective programs to reduce barriers to learning. This should be a high
priority for phasing in additional staffing for districts. It should maintain the flexibility for


                                                                                                8
schools based on their student populations needs as identified by data and tied to
district/school improvement plans.

Rationale: Additional school supports as well as collaborative efforts with community agencies
would be required to insure that these “at-risk” groups were afforded the wrap-around services
to identify student needs, and to establish and implement Tier 2 and 3 student support
framework treatment protocols within the school, district, and community. This increased
volume and complexity requires additional student support staff to plan, implement, and
manage in collaboration with school and district leadership and processes (SIP), with family, as
well as community supports.




                                                                                               9
Building Bridges Workgroup

 QEC Recommendations


      September 21, 2010
ESSB 6403: QEC Recommendations
• State graduation and re-engagement goals

• Phase in the expansion of the Improvement Planning process
  to include state-funded, dropout-focused technical
  assistance for districts in significant need.

• Provide staff to coordinate a K-12 dropout prevention,
  intervention and reengagement system.

• Graduation coaches, mentors, certified school counselors,
  and/or case managers for vulnerable students identified as
  needing a more intensive one-on-one adult relationship
1.a: State-Level Graduation Goal
The QEC should endorse a state level
graduation goal of 85% on-time graduation by
2014 and 90% by 2018. These goals can be
accomplished by phasing in support for a
focused dropout reduction improvement
process and an integrated student support
system.
    1.b. Re-engagement Goal

State-level dropout reengagement goals
should be established after baseline data is
developed by OSPI.
Building a Dropout Reduction
Focused District Improvement
Process
2a: District Improvement Planning
            Coordinators
The QEC recommendations should include funding for
1 to 2 District Improvement Planning Coordinators
based the average sized district and on identified need.

These coordinators are needed to provide:
  • Assistance in gathering/analyzing local data (including disaggregation);
  • Coordination of school and community partnerships and outreach to
     communities of color, and support for vulnerable student populations;
  • Designing/supporting district plans and structures to implement them
     (structures can include core teams; family support teams, PLCs; other);
  • Monitoring implementation of district plans, structures, and
     organizational culture; and
  • Funding and sustainability planning.
      2.b and 2.c. Professional
 Development and Researched-based
           Interventions
• Provide professional development to implement
  selected strategies

• Provide funding to implement the research-based
  interventions identified in the District
  Improvement Plan
Building the Foundation for Building
Level, Student Support Systems
3. Staffing Recomendations

The Quality Education Council should
recommend that State Basic Education include
funding to assure minimum recommended
levels of building-level staff positions,
identified in ESSB 6403 are sufficient to fully
implement the Student Support Framework.
                   School Counselors
• Provide prevention /early intervention programs
   • Guidance curriculum that strengthen student and family engagement
   • Individual planning support for academic, career and personal/social
     needs
• Provide & Coordinate Responsive Support Program
   • Defining & Identifying at-risk students
   • Provide short-term counseling to maximize student educational
     engagement
   • Coordinate “at-risk” referrals within the school /district & in
     collaboration with community agencies
   • Coordinate student assistance team efforts
   • Provide professional development to staff to increase student / family
     engagement and other protective factors
   Graduation Specialists/ Advocates
• Work with students to develop graduation plans
• Help create a welcoming atmosphere to the school
  considering multicultural needs of the community
• Assist school counselors with connecting students to supports
  that will lead to diplomas
• Assist school administration regarding student disciplinary
  issues that affect graduation
• Assist staff in adapting curriculum and instruction to help at-
  risk students
• Provide training to parents/guardians of students as at-risk of
  not graduating
• Gather and analyze data for assessing and monitoring student
  progress
         3.a and 3.b: Key Staffing
                Recommendations
       Staff        Current Funding     Elementary       Middle     High
                         Status            (400)          (432)     (600)


School Counselors   Elementary (.49)   1.0           1.7          2.0
                    Middle (1.12)
                    High (1.91)

Graduation          N/A                N/A           1            1.5
Specialists/
Advocates
 3c: Student Support Staff
The Quality Education Council should
recommend enhancements in the State Basic
Education funding formula for student support
staffing in districts serving student populations
with graduation rates significantly below state
average, and high numbers of vulnerable youth
(i.e. homeless, foster care, juvenile justice), to
provide focused assistance to reduce barriers to
learning.
                          September 21st QEC Agenda Item 4



Members
Randy Dorn, Chair            Topic:           Classified Staffing Preliminary Reports
State Superintendent
Adie Simmons, Director,      Presenter:       Barb Billinghurst, Research Analyst
Office of the Education                       Andrea Cobb, Research Analyst
Ombudsman                                     Kate Davis, Data Analyst
                                              Isabel Muñoz-Colón,
Dr. Bette Hyde
Director, Department of                       Director of Financial Research and Policy
Early Learning
Bruce Dammeier
                             Date:            Tuesday, September 21, 2010
House of Representatives
Marcie Maxwell               PURPOSE
House of Representatives
Skip Priest                  QEC is required in SHB 2776 to develop recommendations for adequate
House of Representatives     levels of classified staffing. This presentation is a brief introduction to
Pat Sullivan                 classified staffing.
House of Representatives
Stephen Rushing              SUMMARY
Professional Educator
Standards Board              The presentation will cover the following:
Mary Jean Ryan                            •   Overview of QEC charge and current staffing baseline
State Board of Education
Curtis King                               •   The study approach used to develop recommendations
Washington State Senate
                                          •   A brief review of how to interpret the recommendations
Rosemary McAuliffe
Washington State Senate
                                          •   The preliminary recommendations by staffing category
Eric Oemig
Washington State Senate                   •   Next steps before presenting the final reports in
Joseph Zarelli                                November
Washington State Senate
                             REQUESTED ACTION
Alternates
Frank Chopp                  Staff request input on the preliminary staffing recommendations. Staff
Speaker of the House         will be working to finalize the reports with the recommendations for the
Tracey Eide                  November QEC meeting.
Washington State Senate

Sally Brownfield
Director of Tu Ha’ Buts
Learning Center




                             http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC                     Updated: 9/17/2010 1:43 PM
Preliminary Classified Staffing
          Reports

Barb Billinghurst, Research Analyst
Andrea Cobb, Research Analyst
Kate Davis, Data Analyst
Isabel Muñoz-Colón, Director of Financial Research and Policy




                     September 21, 2010                         1
                   Outline
• QEC Charge and Staffing Baseline

• Study Approach

• Interpreting the Recommendations

• Preliminary Recommendations

• Next Steps



                   September 21, 2010   2
                QEC Charge


Under Substitute House Bill 2776 the QEC is
 required to make recommendations to the
 Legislature on the adequate level of classified
 staffing.




                   September 21, 2010              3
    Classified Staffing Categories & Baseline
                                          Staff Per 1000 FTE   % of total Classified
Staff Type                                     Students                Staff
Teaching Assistance                                1.817              10.67
Parent Involvement Coordinators                    .000                 0
Office Support and Non-Instructional
                                                   5.223              30.68
Aides
Student and Staff Safety                           0.212               1.25
Custodians                                         4.459              26.20
Technology                                        0.628                3.69
Warehouse/Laborers/Mechanics                       0.332               1.95
Facilities, Maintenance, Grounds                   1.813              10.65
Supervisors/Finance/Personnel/
                                                   0.773               4.54
Communications
Office Clerical – Central Admin.                   1.765              10.37
Total Classified Staff                            17.021             100.00



                                   September 21, 2010                                  4
              Study Approach
• Identified research when available on workload
  drivers and adequate staffing levels

• Convened expert group that:
   Defined core job duties for each position
   Identified workload drivers
   Determined level of staffing needed

• Coordinated with other working groups on
  duties, responsibilities and level of staffing
                    September 21, 2010             5
  Interpreting Recommendations
• Key Assumptions
  Certificated staff calculations assume a 180 day a
   year schedule
  Classified staff calculations assume a 260 day a
   year schedule
• Classified Staffing FTEs may be smaller than the
  actual headcount during the school year
  Example, student and staff safety personnel in
   high school identified at .7 FTE with an intended
   head count of 1

                    September 21, 2010                  6
                        Custodians
                  SHB 2776       State and Local      Work Group
                  Staff Level      Staff Level       Recommended
                                                       Staff Level
Elementary         1.657              1.988               3.186
  Middle           1.942              2.157               3.454
   High            2.965              2.981               4.412

• Custodians are responsible for daily cleaning and non-cleaning
  facilities management tasks.
• Staffing recommendations are based on assumptions regarding:
  – The space requirements of the prototypical schools,
  – An adequate state-funded cleaning standard, and
  – A ratio of custodial staff to square feet.


                           September 21, 2010                        7
    Facility Maintenance and Grounds
Warehouse Workers, Laborers, & Mechanics
                                                                   Recommended
                              SHB 2776           State and Local
                                                                     Adequate
                              Staff Level          Staff Level
                                                                     Staff Level
   Facility M&O                  1.813              2.037             4.719
Warehouse, Laborers,
                                 .332                .347             .842
   & Mechanics
• Facilities maintenance crew conduct routine and preventative
  building system and grounds maintenance.
• Staffing recommendations are based on assumptions regarding:
  – The space requirements of the prototypical schools and their sites,
    and
  – A preventive maintenance standard.
                            September 21, 2010                                     8
  Parent Involvement Coordinator
                 SHB 2776       State and Local      Work Group
                 Staff Level      Staff Level       Recommended
                                                      Staff Level
Elementary           0            No Data               1.000
  Middle             0            No Data               1.000
   High              0            No Data                .800
• Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinators help to engage families
  in partnerships with schools to support academic achievement
• Staffing recommendations are based on assumptions that:
   The FIC does not play a specialized social service delivery role,
   Community involvement strategies will be coordinated centrally, and
   The (FIC) does not have full responsibility for the administrative
    tasks associated with coordinating parent volunteers.
                          September 21, 2010                              9
                             Technology Staff
          SHB 2776                     State and Local Staff            Work Group Recommended
          Staff Level                          Level                           Staff Level
            0.628                                 1.30                                  1.78
Staff levels are stated as FTE per 1,000 students. Recommended staff do NOT include 0.23 FTE for IT Director.


 • IT support staff needed directly relates to IT inventories—hardware,
   software, and network infrastructure.

 • TWG made assumptions regarding:
     – Classroom equipment and student to computer ratios
     – Districtwide support applications
     – School and central administration needs


                                           September 21, 2010                                                   10
                Instructional Aides
                  SHB 2776       State and Local      Work Group
                  Staff Level      Staff Level       Recommended
                                                       Staff Level
Elementary          .936              1.123              1.195
  Middle            .700              0.774              1.295
   High             .652              0.655              1.121

• Instructional Aides based on staff supplementing student
  instruction & serving as “success coordinators” for at-risk students.
   Working Group is coordinated with Building Bridges Work Group on
    the “success coordinator” recommendations.
• Working group made assumptions regarding number of students
  at-risk for failing & not already receiving supplemental services.

                           September 21, 2010                             11
Office Staff & Non-Instructional Aides

                  SHB 2776       State and Local    Work Group
                  Staff Level      Staff Level     Recommended
                                                     Staff Level
Elementary         2.012              2.414            3.305
  Middle           2.325              2.569            3.029
   High            3.269              3.287            3.382

• Office Staff & Non-Instructional Aides Work Group focused on five
  core job areas: customer service, data management, office services,
  health assistance, & student supervision
• Working group may also recommend enhanced funding for schools
  with above average FRPL %

                           September 21, 2010                           12
          Student and Staff Safety
                  SHB 2776        State and Local       Work Group
                  Staff Level       Staff Level        Recommended
                                                         Staff Level
Elementary          0.079               .095               .099
  Middle            .092                .110               .506
   High              .141               .169               .723
• Student and Staff Safety Personnel focus primarily on campus
  security related duties
• SSSP also made recommendations regarding:
  – Enhanced funding based on other drivers in addition to enrollment
  – Amount of professional development needed each year
  – Gap analysis for materials supplies and operating cost allocation as it
    relates to safety

                            September 21, 2010                                13
                Next Steps
• Funding Formula Working Group will review
  recommendations

• Get input from other stakeholder groups

• Make final adjustments to recommendations
  and give final report to QEC in November




                  September 21, 2010          14
                          Facilities Maintenance
                          & Operations Classified
                          Staffing Adequacy

                          A Preliminary Draft Report to the
                          QEC




  Randy I. Dorn
                                                    September 2010
State Superintendent of
   Public Instruction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION TO FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS .............................................................. 4

   Definition .................................................................................................................................................. 4

   Why maintenance matters ....................................................................................................................... 4

   What staff are involved, and what do they do? ....................................................................................... 5

HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 6

   2006: Washington Learns ........................................................................................................................ 6

   2009: Basic Education Finance Task Force ............................................................................................... 6

   2009: ESHB 2261 ...................................................................................................................................... 6

   2010: Quality Education Council .............................................................................................................. 6

   2010: SHB 2776 ........................................................................................................................................ 7

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE? ....... 7

   Inventory ................................................................................................................................................... 7

   Current State and Local Funding for Facilities Maintenance and Operations .......................................... 8

   Evidence of the Current Under-Investment in Facilities Maintenance and Operations .......................... 8

   Staff time required for adequate maintenance ........................................................................................ 8

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERNINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY ......................................................... 9

   Challenges with comparing state funding with industry standards ......................................................... 9

   Guiding Questions ..................................................................................................................................... 9

   Work Plan................................................................................................................................................ 10

KEY FINDINGS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 18

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 24

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION, FUNDING AND OTHER
IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 24

Appendix A – Supplemental Data Tables .................................................................................................... 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The OSPI staff, acting as a Work Group for Facilities Maintenance and Operations convened three expert
groups to analyze the needs of schools and districts:

    •   A team of architects who have designed Washington schools and understand their space
        requirements;

    •   A team of facilities maintenance and grounds professionals with expertise in preventive
        maintenance of building systems (i.e. heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC); electrical;
        and plumbing) and school grounds; and

    •   A team of operations professionals with expertise in daily cleaning and routine facilities
        maintenance requirements.

In practice, facility maintenance staffing includes the work of skilled crafts people who conduct
scheduled inspections and services, and who repair and replace building system components.
Operations staffing includes custodians, grounds workers, and general maintenance crews who respond
to emergent and routine maintenance needs.

For the purposes of reporting the findings of this analysis in the context of Washington State’s
prototypical school model, the Work Group summarized these roles into two slightly different
categories; facilities maintenance and grounds, and custodians. In the prototypical school model,
facilities maintenance and grounds staff provide districtwide support while custodians are building
based staff.

The work of the Expert Groups informed the Facilities Maintenance and Operations Work Group, and
provided the information needed to assess the adequacy of current funding for facilities maintenance
and operations staff. The resulting staffing recommendations are based on carefully crafted
assumptions about the space required to deliver state-funded education programs, and the staff needed
to adequately maintain those spaces.

To achieve the level of school facility maintenance required to support state-funded education
programs, the Expert Groups recommend that funding be provided for:

    •   3.186, 3.454, and 4.512 FTE custodians at the prototypical elementary, middle and high schools
        respectively; and

    •   4.719 FTE district-wide support facilities, maintenance and grounds staff per 1000 students.

The Expert Group of maintenance and grounds professional also identified the central office support
staff and supervision required to facilitate and oversee the work of maintenance and grounds crews.
These staff are funded out of districts allocations for central office administration, but are highlighted
here because their work is integrally related to facilities maintenance and operations. The Expert Group
recommended that funding be provided for:

    •   0.130 FTE central office maintenance support staff per 1000 students, and
    •   0.130 FTE for central office maintenance supervision per 1000 students.

Finally, the Expert Group of maintenance and grounds professionals also made recommendation about
the number of districtwide support warehouse workers, laborers, and mechanics needed to support the
prototypical district. The Expert Group recommends that funding be provided for:

    •   0.842 FTE districtwide support warehouse workers, laborers, and mechanics per 1000 students.
INTRODUCTION TO FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

Definition
Facility maintenance and operations comprise the activities and costs required to maintain a facility and
its campus over the course of its useful life. This includes daily cleaning and maintenance, preventive
and emergent maintenance and repair of infrastructure such as heating and ventilating equipment,
painting, and roof repairs. It also includes upkeep of school grounds. (State support for these activities
does not include funding for the upkeep of athletic fields or other facilities that are used for extra-
curricular activities; they are funded by local levies.)

The goals of operational and infrastructure maintenance are to:

    •   Maintain a safe and healthy learning and working environment for students and staff;

    •   Maximize building efficiency; and

    •   Protect the state’s and local district’s capital investment.

Why maintenance matters
The condition of a school has a direct effect on student achievement and teacher performance. A 2003
study found that the quality grade teachers assigned to their school facility has a greater effect on the
average teacher’s decision to stay in the profession than the quality grade they assigned to their salary i.
There is also a growing body of research that documents the effect of factors such as air quality, lighting,
noise and the condition of furniture and lockers on student achievement. ii Poor indoor air quality is
known to cause “sick building syndrome” which can lead to higher absenteeism. iii Conversely, well
maintained and well ventilated buildings can bolster students’ comfort, concentration, and success.

Protecting capital investments
In the last 17 years, the state and local school districts have invested $19.6 billion in new construction
and modernization projects – an average investment of $1.1 billion per year. In addition, an average of
$42 million per year of federal and other funds are invested in capital projects.

In the 2010 supplemental capital budget, the legislature provided OSPI with $250,000 to develop a K-12
facility inventory and condition evaluation system. The legislature sought to:

    •   Encourage school districts to invest in activities that extend the useful life of school district
        facilities so as to preserve these assets, and

    •   Develop an information system that will provide better data about school districts’ use of state
        funds for maintenance and operations, and to monitor facilities’ conditions. iv

The legislature acknowledged that adequate maintenance of school facilities is a priority, and that
districts must receive sufficient funding to cover these costs.
Health and safety: rising standards
Washington state law requires school districts to ensure that all school buildings are properly heated,
lighted, ventilated and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. In addition districts must maintain,
repair, furnish and insure their school buildings. v In order to meet their obligations, school districts must
carry out both routine and preventative maintenance.

In support of state law, the Washington State Board of Health has recently adopted a new set of rules
regarding the maintenance of school facilities. The rules establish a more modern minimum
environmental health and safety standard for school facilities to be maintained to in order to promote
healthy and safe school environments. However, implementation of these rules is dependent on a
commitment of resources from the Legislature sufficient to allow districts to achieve the standard of
care stipulated in the rules vi.



What staff are involved, and what do they do?
Operational maintenance
Operational maintenance includes the work of custodians, grounds workers, and general maintenance
crews who do the daily work of cleaning and routine maintenance. In addition to these daily, routine
tasks, operational maintenance includes responding to calls for emergency repairs, patching holes,
replacing light bulbs and repairing furniture and fixtures.

Custodians clean, sanitize and remove trash. They also perform a variety of other tasks such as opening
the school, checking for vandalism, identifying safety and maintenance needs, inspecting playgrounds
and fields, responding to teachers’ and principals’ requests, setting up for special activities and events,
ordering and delivering supplies, and putting up the flag and PE equipment.

Grounds workers mow, trim, irrigate and otherwise care for school grounds.

Infrastructure maintenance
Infrastructure maintenance includes the preventive building system maintenance required to maximize
the useful life of building systems such as heating and ventilation, roofs, and electrical systems.
Infrastructure maintenance also includes scheduled inspections and services and system component
repairs and replacements.

Over the course of a building’s life cycle, operational maintenance costs are stable, but the annual cost
of infrastructure maintenance can vary widely depending on the age and condition of a building and its
component systems.
HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
In the past five years, various commissions, task forces and new legislation have made
recommendations about funding for facilities maintenance and operations. Many have addressed
allocations for custodial, maintenance and grounds staff explicitly. Recommendations have differed as to
whether these allocations should be provided for prototypical schools or for school districts as a whole.

2006: Washington Learns
The K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns recommended that schools receive a per pupil
allocation for custodial staff. In addition, the Committee recommended that school districts receive a
per pupil allocation for grounds and maintenance staff. The suggested allocations are:

    •   Custodians, $182

    •   Maintenance workers, $77

    •   Groundskeepers $55

    •   Maintenance and operations supplies $39.

These allocations translate into a staffing recommendation of 6.772 school level custodians and 3.278
district-wide groundskeepers and maintenance workers per 1,000 students.

2009: Basic Education Finance Task Force
This task force recommended that state funding be provided for 4 maintenance/cleaning staff at each
prototypical elementary, middle and high school. In addition, the task force recommended that schools
receive $130 - $150 per pupil for facilities maintenance supplies. (The exact amount is not known,
because funding for facilities maintenance and supplies were combined with other categories.)

2009: ESHB 2261
This legislation requires that the minimum allocation for each prototypical school shall include an
allocation for custodians, warehouse, maintenance, laborer, and professional and technical education
support employees. It also stipulates that the minimum allocation for each school district will include an
allocation per annual average FTE student for materials, supplies and operating costs, including building
level costs for maintenance, custodial work, security, and central office administration.

2010: Quality Education Council
In January, 2010, the QEC recommended that the legislature fund all classified staff at the 2009-10
operating budget level, based on 17.021 classified staff per 1,000 students. The QEC also recommended
that within this classified staff ratio, districts should receive funding for 1.657, 1.942, and 2.965 FTE
custodians at the prototypical elementary, middle and high school, respectively. In addition, the QEC
recommended that school districts receive an allocation for 1.813 FTE for district-wide support facilities,
maintenance and grounds staff per 1,000 FTE students.
2010: SHB 2776
This legislation calls for a minimum allocation for staff at the prototypical elementary, middle and high
school to include an allocation for 1.657, 1.942 and 2.965 FTE custodians, respectively. In addition, each
school district is to receive 1.813 staff per 1,000 FTE students for district-wide support services related
to facilities maintenance.

SHB 2776 also stipulates that in fiscal year 2011 districts will receive $73.27 per pupil for facilities
maintenance supplies. Funding for materials, supplies and operating costs will be increased in the 2011-
13 biennium as specified by the omnibus appropriations act, and in the 2015-16 school year, districts
will receive $153.18 per pupil, adjusted for inflation from the 2007-08 school year.

2017-18 Funding Recommendations
Table 1. Recommended Facility Maintenance and Operations FTEs & MSOC
                              Staff per                                                            Amount per
                               1,000     Elementary     Middle       High                          Student for
                             Students*      (400)        (432)      (600)                           Supplies
1    Washington Learns         3.278         1.85         1.92       3.0                               $39
2    Finance Task Force           -          4.0          4.0        4.0                            $130-150
3    QEC                          -            -            -          -                             $153.18
4    SHB 2776**                   -            -            -          -                             $153.18
* Represents the allocation for district wide support maintenance and grounds staff while school level allocations
are provided for custodial staff.

** SHB 2776 stipulates that funding for MSOC should be enhance to reflect 2007-08 actual expenditure levels,
adjusted for inflation, beginning in the 2015-06 school year.

2008-09 Baseline Funding Values
Table2. Funded Facility Maintenance and Operations FTEs & MSOC
                               Staff per                                                           Amount per
                                 1,000     Elementary     Middle                     High          Student for
                               Students       (400)        (432)                     (600)          Supplies
1    QEC*                        1.813        1.657        1.942                     2.965           $73.27
2    SHB 2776                    1.813        1.657        1.942                     2.965           $73.27
3    District Practice           2.001        1.988        2.157                     2.981           $153.18
*QEC staffing recommendations were based on maintaining the state's operating budget funding level for
classified staff at 17.021 staff per 1000 students.




WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS
IN WASHINGTON STATE?

Inventory
OSPI estimates that the 295 local school districts in the state maintain roughly 2,050 school sites. These
sites include an estimated 140 million square feet of instructional space, vii valued at an estimated $28
billion.
This count of square feet, and corresponding value does not include all of facilities that districts are
responsible for maintaining. By definition, instructional space excludes non-permanent facilities (i.e.
portables); central administration facilities, stadiums and grandstands, bus garages, warehouse space, or
other spaces that are not directly related to instructions.

At the State level, we do not currently capture data on non-instructional space or grounds acreage;
however, OSPI is currently developing a building condition inventory system that will do so.

Current State and Local Funding for Facilities Maintenance and Operations
Funding for facilities maintenance is currently allocated to districts as part of their classified staff
allocation and their allocation for non-employee related cost (NERC). Districts do not receive a specific
allocation for facilities maintenance.

In 2008-09, districts received funding for 6.272 facilities maintenance, grounds keepers and custodians
per 1,000 students (37 % of the state allocation for classified staff). In that same year, local districts paid
for an additional 0.698 facilities maintenance staff per 1,000 students, for a total of 6.970 maintenance
and operations staff per 1,000 students in basic education programs.

In the 2008-09 school year the total NERC allocation was $517.91 per-pupil. Of this allocation,
distributed proportionally based on district spending, the state allocated $73.27 per student for facilities
maintenance supplies. In contrast, districts spent an average of $153.18 per pupil on facilities
maintenance supplies in that same year.

At 2008-09 funding levels, the general apportionment allocation for facilities maintenance and
operations covered 60 percent of total maintenance expenditures, and districts paid for the remaining
40 percent with local funds. Even at these enhanced spending levels, evidence suggests that districts
are not able to make sufficient investments in preventive maintenance.



Evidence of the Current Under-Investment in Facilities Maintenance and
Operations
In January 2009, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction conducted a survey of districts to
identify the outstanding need for school repairs. One hundred and seventy-nine districts identified a
need for school repairs totaling $1.8 billion, or roughly $16 per instructional square foot.

Staff time required for adequate maintenance
The U.S. Department of Education establishes benchmarks for how much space can be assigned to one
properly supplied custodian in an 8 hour shift to meet specified levels of cleanliness. viii This scale
specifies benchmarks for:

    1) Spotless cleaning – 10,000 to 11,000 square feet

    2) Intensive cleaning – 18,000 to 20,000 square feet
    3) Cleaning required to ensure the health and comfort of building users – 28,000 to 31,000 square
       feet

    4) Cleaning not generally acceptable for a school environment – 45,000 to 50,000 square feet

    5) Cleaning that is not considered healthy – 85,000 to 90,000 square feet

As of 2007, the average custodial staff person in Washington State was responsible for maintaining
28,172 square feet per shift. ix Custodial staff responsibilities ranged from a high of 76,948 sq. ft. to a low
of 17,197 sq. ft. per shift in 2007. This is clear evidence that there are insufficient resources dedicated
to facilities maintenance in many districts.

The State average operations staff-to-square feet ratio ranks Washington school’s cleanliness at a level
3; the minimum acceptable level for a school environments. It would take an average decrease of more
than 8,000 sq. ft. per staff to bring schools up to a Level 2 – the intensive cleaning standard.


METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERNINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY
To determine what constitutes adequate levels of custodial staffing at prototypical schools, and district-
wide maintenance and grounds workers, the Work Group attempted to compare private industry
standards for facility maintenance and operations with current state school funding. However, this
proved difficult.

Challenges with comparing state funding with industry standards
Our current maintenance and operations funding model calculates these needs differently than the way
these costs are calculated in industry settings. In addition, lack of state level facility data prevent staff
from fully analyzing the standard of maintenance of school facilities that should be expected, given
current funding for maintenance and operations. The specific challenges staff identified include:

    •   Industry standards are based on costs per square foot rather than costs per pupil.

    •   There is no identified per pupil square footage requirement for basic education upon which to
        base assumptions about total maintainable square footage.

    •   Currently, state level data only captures square footage for instructional space, and does not
        include all spaces that districts are responsible for maintaining.

    •   There is currently no data available on total site acreage for use in the comparison between
        current funding for grounds maintenance and industry standards.

Guiding Questions
In order to ensure that districts receive funding for an adequate number of school level custodians and
district-wide support facility maintenance and grounds staff, funding for these staff must be tied to
assumptions about square footage, standards of maintenance, and the staffing required to achieve
those standards. In order to tie funding for facilities maintenance and operations to industry standards,
the Work Group identified key questions that the Quality Education Council and or the Legislature must
answer:

    •   What are the basic square footage requirements for the prototypical elementary, middle, and
        high school? What are the basic square footage requirements for district-wide and central
        administration support spaces?

    •   What operational and infrastructure maintenance activities are required in an adequate
        maintenance plan?

    •   What are appropriate levels of service for operational and infrastructure maintenance?

    •   How much time does it take to implement an adequate maintenance plan at given levels of
        service, over a given area?

    •   How does current funding for both facility maintenance staff and related materials and supplies
        compare to the funding required to achieve a given standard of facility maintenance? What will
        it require in additional resources to achieve that standard?

Work Plan
OSPI staff, acting as a Work Group for Facilities Maintenance and Operations, identified specific tasks to
help inform the Quality Education Council’s recommendation for classified facilities maintenance and
operations staff. The Work Group’s goals were to answer the guiding questions listed above. To do this,
the Work Group assembled three teams of technical experts. Expert teams consisted of architects who
design schools; maintenance and grounds professionals; and operations/custodial professionals. The
Work Group provided each team with a specific task and list of assumptions to guide their work.

Table 3 summarizes the assumptions that guided the work of the three groups of technical experts. All
assumptions are salient in the analysis conducted by the Work Group. However, the table highlights
those assumptions that were most relevant to the discussions of each expert group. To generate this list
of guiding assumptions, the Work Group considered:

    •   The descriptions of the prototypical school given in ESHB 2261 codified as RCW 28A.150.260;

    •   The baseline funding values adopted in SHB 2776;

    •   The need to isolate the space and staff required to deliver state-funded education programs
        from those spaces and staff required to support extracurricular activities that should be
        supported by local funds; and

    •   Federal mandates that require space, and therefore have an impact on maintenance staffing
        needs.
Table 3. Guiding Assumptions
                     Prototypical Schools                     Architects Maintenance Grounds Operations
Elementary School - 400 FTE (400 head count)                                               
Middle School - 432 FTE (436 head count)                                                   
High School - 600 FTE (642 head count)                                                     
Permanent space                                                                            
Self-contained school                                                                      
1-Story building                                                                             
50-Year building                                                                            
Meets current codes                                                                
                                                                                               
Class sizes reflect current basic education funding x            
                         School Sites                         Architects Maintenance Grounds Operations
Elementary School - 10 Acres                                                           
Middle School - 15 Acres                                                               
High School - 17 Acres                                                                 
Central Administration & District Wide Support Facilities     Architects Maintenance Grounds Operations
Prototypical District - 1432 FTE (1478 head count)                        
Permanent space                                                           
Self-contained school                                                     
1-Story building                                                          
50-Year building                                                          
Meets current codes                                                       
Include Space for:
    − District Offices                                           
    − Capital Projects                                           
    − Maintenance                                                
    − Food Service                                               
    − Transportation                                             
                           Staffing                           Architects Maintenance Grounds Operations
Staffing is in-house (non-contracted services)                                               
1 FTE is equivalent to a 260-day employee                                                    
Recommendations are based on the current regulatory
  environment                                                                                
                        Scope of Work                         Architects Maintenance Grounds Operations
Maintenance of extra-curricular sports and athletic fields
  are supported by local levy dollars                                                  
No intense turf program                                                                
Cleaning activities include only those in support of the
  state-funded education programs                                                                
Custodial staff will have responsibility for only those
  outdoor areas adjacent to the building                                                         
Food service staff clean cafeteria tables, service and food
  preparation areas                                                                              
Architects’ Task
To guage the specific needs of schools and districts for
facilities maintenance, grounds maintenance, and
operations staff, OSPI convened a team of architects
with expertise in designing schools for districts. The    Architects were asked to design
Work Group provided the architects with a list of            prototypical schools, central
specific assumptions to use regarding the type of         administration and district-wide
educational program to be delivered, and the number
of students and staff to consider in the process of
                                                                   support facilities.
designing prototypical elementary, middle, and high
schools, and the central administration and district-
wide support spaces required to deliver state-funded education programs.

Prototypical school sizes are outlined in RCW 28A.150.260, and are represented in terms of FTE
students. In contrast, architects build for head count. The Work Group used actual historical enrollment
data and Washington’s Caseload Forecast Council’s K-12 Long Range Projection Data for October 2006
through October 2009 to determine the relationship between student FTE and head count. To capture
the difference between FTE and head count, the Work Group inflated FTE numbers at the middle and
high school levels by 1% and 7% respectively. The resulting prototypical school sizes are referenced in
Table 3.

After reviewing the guiding assumptions for the prototypes, the architects began to “build” them, space
by space. They first established the spaces that occupy the largest portion of the school facility– the
basic, general education classrooms. The number of these classrooms was calculated by dividing the
prototypical school size by the funded class size at each of the prototypical school levels (as identified in
SHB 2776) and then dividing that amount by the classroom utility rate to factor in the additional
classrooms needed to allow for teacher planning time in their own rooms.

Table 4 demonstrates the calculation used to determine the number of basic, general education
classroom needed in each school.



Table 4. Methodology for Calculating the Basic, General Education Classrooms
                                                                                                  Basic, General
                   Prototype                    General Education                  Classroom        Education
                  Student HC                       Class Size                      Utility Rate    Classrooms
Elementary*           400          divided by        26.410           divided by     84.5%              15
Middle                436          divided by        28.530           divided by     80.0%              11
High                  642          divided by        28.740           divided by     80.0%              19
* The Elementary General Education Class Size is an average of Grades K-3 at 25.23, Grade 4 at 27 and Grades 5-6 at
27.
Other spaces typically designed for elementary, middle and high schools were then added. As each
prototype was built, there was agreement to a “no trade-off” assumption for the spaces. As an example,
music rooms were built into the elementary prototype, rather than assuming music would be taught on
a stage or in a common area.

Finally, building materials are an important factor in the time it takes to maintain or to clean a building.
The building materials categories assumed for the prototype were based on the 19 categories of
materials listed on OSPI’s Building Condition Evaluation Form (BCE). The BCE is a tool used to assess a
school district’s facilities’ condition during the planning processes of the School Construction Assistance
Program (SCAP). The BCE assesses the condition of existing facilities’ major systems, subsystems and
components. The Criteria the Work Group used when suggesting the materials for the purposes of this
exercise included sustainability, maintainability, cleanability (can the material be cleaned with ease),
efficiency (how much time is required to cleaning/maintenance the material), cost-effectiveness and
durability.

Facilities maintenance and grounds Professionals’
task                                                                Maintenance and grounds
Facilities maintenance and grounds professionals were
                                                                   professionals were asked to
asked to identify the staff required to adequately maintain
the prototypical schools and central administration and            identify the staff required to
district-wide support facilities designed by the architects.         maintain the prototypical
                                                                       schools and central
The first step in the process of identifying maintenance
staffing needs was to clearly define adequate building           administration and district-wide
system and grounds maintenance in reference to state-                    support facilities
funded education programs. The National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) outlines a maintenance
spectrum depicted in Figure 1 xi.



FIGURE 1. THE MAINTENANCE SPECTRUM
NCES identifies five categories of maintenance:

    •   Emergency (or response) maintenance – the elevator breaks on the warmest day of the year, or
        the water main breaks and floods the lunchroom.

    •   Routine maintenance – maintenance required at the at the end of a piece of equipment’s useful
        life

    •   Preventive maintenance – scheduled maintenance of a piece of equipment.

    •   Predictive Maintenance – cutting edge of facility management; uses sophisticated computer
        software to forecast the failure of equipment based on age, user demand, and performance
        measures.

The National Center for Education Statistics xii notes, and the facilities maintenance and grounds
professionals agreed, that as an institution’s maintenance program moves along the maintenance
spectrum, that institution increases overall efficiency and reduces the incidence of building system
failures. The facilities maintenance professionals agreed that an adequate maintenance program should
be founded on preventive maintenance. This level of service allows for good stewardship of facilities;
balances facility maintenance requirements with other school funding needs; and provides maintenance
staff an opportunity to do some long-range facility planning without fully adopting the predictive level of
maintenance.

Once the facilities maintenance and grounds professionals agreed on an adequate level of facility
maintenance, they identified specific tasks required in a preventive maintenance program, and
estimates for the FTE staff time required by various facility maintenance trades to complete those tasks
in the prototypical school district.

To identify adequate staffing levels for each maintenance trade, the facilities maintenance and grounds
professional created a formula that takes into account their district’s square footage, the staff they
would require in their district to achieve a preventive maintenance standard, and the ratio of their
district’s size to the size of the prototypical school district. Table 5 illustrates how this formula was used
to arrive at recommended maintenance staff FTEs.


Table 5. Methodology for Calculating Facilities Maintenance FTEs
                               Prototypical District                      Participating
                                  Total Square                           District Square      Prototype to
Participating School Districts      Footage                                 Footage*          District Ratio
Bethel                              309,535           divided by           2,700,000             11.50%
Evergreen (Clark)                   309,535           divided by           3,000,000             10.30%
Snoqualmie Valley                   309,535           divided by             880,000             35.20%
Spokane                             309,535           divided by           4,000,000             7.70%
*Estimated Square Footage
Level of Service – Grounds. The facility maintenance and grounds professionals went through the same
process of identifying an adequate level of grounds maintenance before beginning to discuss staffing
needs. To inform their conversations, the maintenance and grounds professionals referenced the three
levels of grounds maintenance service that Whitestone Research establishes for school facilities in their
2009-10 facility operations cost reference. The three levels are standard, medium and high and are
described in Table 6.

Table 6. Levels of Service for Grounds Maintenance
Level of Service               Description
                               Mow once every 2 weeks, fertilize every 26 weeks, clean and trim walks
Low                            every 4 weeks.
                               Mow once per week, fertilize every 13 weeks, clean and trim walks every 2
Medium                         weeks.
                               Mow six times per month, fertilize every 8 weeks, clean and trim walks
High                           once per week.


Given the guiding assumptions regarding the scope of work required for grounds workers, the facilities
maintenance and grounds professionals identified a medium level of service as adequate for state
funded education programs. In addition to the tasks outlined by Whitestone, the facility maintenance
and grounds professionals identified several other tasks that they would expect to be completed as part
of a medium level grounds maintenance program. Table 7 expands upon the description that
Whitestone provides, and includes additional tasks associated with a Medium Level of grounds
maintenance and the frequency with which they should be completed as described by the facilities
maintenance and grounds professionals.



Table 7. Medium Level of Service – Grounds Maintenance Tasks and Frequencies
Task                                                        Frequency
Cleaning and trimming walks                                 Every 2 weeks
Conducting hazardous tree inspections                       Annually
Controlling for weeds                                       Twice per year
Fertilizing                                                 Every 13 weeks
Following Integrated Pest Management Practices (IPM)        On-going
Maintaining and repairing irrigation systems                As needed
Maintaining and repairing grounds equipment                 As needed
Maintaining parking lots                                    As needed
Making fence repairs                                        As needed
Mowing Lawns                                                Once per week
Replacing site lighting                                     As needed
Responding to inclement weather related needs               As-needed
Facilities operations (custodial) professionals’ task
Operations professionals were asked to identify the tasks
required to adequately maintain the facilities from an          Operations professionals were
operations perspective, taking in to account the guiding        asked to identify the cleaning
assumptions, materials, spaces, and their associated
                                                               and non-cleaning tasks required
sites. In addition, the professionals were asked to
estimate the time it would take for properly equipped          in order to adequately maintain
custodial staff to complete the tasks that they identified.      the prototypical schools from
Although custodians are solely identified at the school
                                                                   an operations perspective
level in the new prototype, the Work Group asked the
operations professionals to identify the operations staff
that would be required in order to maintain the defined central administration and district-wide support
facilities given that districts are required to maintain those facilities in practice.

Before beginning to discuss custodial staffing levels for the prototypical schools, the operations experts
identified an appropriate level of cleaning for school facilities given the guiding assumptions. The
operations experts used the National Center for Education Statistics’ five-tiered system of expectations
for cleanliness as a scale to describe the cleanliness to be expected in a school facility, given the square
footage assigned to each custodian. The NCES’ tiered system does not establish a standard; it reflects a
set of general expectations to aid in facility planning. There are gaps between the recommended bands
of square feet per staff, so determining whether 25,000 square feet per staff equates to Level 2 or Level
3 cleanliness is somewhat subjective, and can be influenced by the actual circumstances contributing to
the expectations of custodians – types of flooring, wall covers, number of windows, etc.

Despite the limitations of the NCES’ tiered list, the operations professionals generally agreed that a Level
2, or 18,000 – 20,000 square feet per staff, is an appropriate level of service for state-funded school
facilities. The facility operations professionals described the Level 2 cleaning as work that will extend
the life of the school building, allow for cleaning that keeps indoor air quality high (routine dusting,
vacuum filter changes, etc.), and meets the varying cleanliness requirements of all programs for
students in grades K-12.

The facilities operations professionals began their discussion of required staffing to achieve a Level 2
cleaning standard by identifying two categories of work and two categories of workers within the
operations/custodial category. The work was divided by cleaning and non-cleaning custodial tasks. The
workers performing the custodial tasks are day custodians, sometimes referred to as the head
custodians because they typically have supervisory responsibilities, and shift custodians who typically
work at night, and whose primary role is cleaning.

The representative school districts felt they were currently cleaning at between Levels 3-5 at the current
classified staffing levels. Table 8 describes the cleaning tasks that are required and the frequency with
which they are to be completed in order to achieve a level 2 standard of cleaning.
Table 8. Level 2 - Custodial Cleaning Tasks and Frequencies
                                                                            2-3 Times                      As
                                                                 Daily                     Weekly
                    Basic Classrooms                                        per Week                     Needed
Check and replace light bulbs                                     
Clean door windows inside and out                                               
                                                                                                         
Clean entrance windows inside and out                             
                                                                                                         
Clean sinks and wipe countertops                                                                        
Clean under wheeled equipment                                                                           
Dust (white boards, chalk boards, surfaces)                                     
                                                                                                         
Empty Trash                                                       
                                                                                                         
Remove marks or graffiti                                                                                  
                                                                                                            
Replace towels and paper products                                 
                                                                                            
Spot clean carpets                                                                                          
Sweep and mop hard surfaces – removal of black marks              
Vacuum area rugs (if allowed)                                     
Vacuum carpets, including edge vacuuming                          
Wash trash cans                                                                 
Wash outside windows                                                                                        
Wash walls                                                                                                  
Wipe down and sanitize light switches, pencil sharpeners,
  door handles                                                                  
                                                                            2-3 Times                      As
                                                                 Daily                     Weekly
   Special Classrooms (Art, Gym, Music, Library, etc.)                      per Week                     Needed
      Treat same as basic classrooms if used daily                                           
                                                                                             
                                                                 Daily
                                                                            2-3 Times        
                                                                                           Weekly
                                                                                                           As
                      Common Areas                                          per Week                     Needed
Restrooms                                                         
  Clean and sanitize from top to bottom                                          
Locker Rooms                                                      
                                                                               
  Clean and sanitize from top to bottom                                          
  Clean and sanitize showers from top to bottom                                 
  Disinfect floors                                                              
Multi Purpose Room/Cafeteria                                      
                                                                                
  Clean floors
  Empty trash                                                      
Air Vents                                                                                    
                                                                   
 In addition to identifying cleaning task required at Level 2, the facility operations professionals described
 the non-cleaning tasks required of custodians (primarily day/head custodians) and estimated times
 required to complete those tasks.

 Finally, using the individual space definitions and sizes established by the architects for the prototypical
 schools as a template, the facilities operations/custodial professionals determined the amount of time
 (in minutes) required of custodial staff to achieve a Level 2 standard. The operations professionals also
identified the time required by custodial staff to complete the list of identified non-cleaning custodial
tasks.


KEY FINDINGS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND ANALYSIS
Each of the technical expert teams provided OSPI with comprehensive data and founded
recommendations which can inform the QEC and the Legislature as they make final decisions about
adequate classified staffing levels. The four key findings are:


        Finding #1 – Architects identified sizes for prototypical schools, district-wide support facilities,
        central administration buildings and their associated sites and building materials that
        represent what is required to support state-funded education programs.

        Finding #2 – Facilities maintenance professionals identified that 6.890 FTE classified facility
        maintenance staff are required to maintain a prototypical school district enrolling 1,432 FTE
        students and sized at 309,535 square feet.

        Finding #3 – Grounds maintenance professionals identified that 1.450 FTE district-wide
        support grounds crew are required to support a prototypical school district enrolling 1432 FTE
        students situated on 36.92 acres.

        Finding #4 – Facilities Operations professionals identified that 11.152 FTE custodians are
        required to support the prototypical elementary, middle and high schools enrolling a total of
        1,432 FTE students.



Finding #1 – Architects identified sizes for prototypical schools, district-wide support facilities, central
administration buildings and their associated sites along with to building materials that represent
what is required to deliver state-funded education programs.


Table 9 summarizes the architects’ work to identify sizes for the prototypical schools and related
support facilities. The total building space for the three prototypical schools is 298,648 square feet, and
their maintainable grounds total 35.14 acres. Maintainable acreage is calculated as the site size minus
the building square feet.
Table 9. Prototypical School, District-Wide Support and Central Administration Building Sizes
                                                 FTE       HC     Square Footage        Acreage*
Elementary                                       400       400         72,446              8.34
Middle                                           432       436         90,712              12.92
High                                             600       642        122,385              14.19
               Sub-Total Prototypical Schools 1,432       1,478       285,543              35.45
District-Wide Support Facilities
   Maintenance                                                         4,718               0.18
   Warehouse                                                           1,721               0.04
   Transportation                                                      6,836               0.86
   Food Service                                                        2,785               0.12
Central Administration                                                 7,932               0.27
                     Sub-Total Support Areas                           23,992              1.47
Total Prototypical School District              1,432     1,478       309,535              36.92
*Acreages exclude the building footprint.


Building space and site sizes for district-wide support and central administrations facilities were based
on the space needed to carry out essential district functions identified in the guiding assumptions. The
total building space for district-wide support and central administrations facilities is 23,992 square feet,
and their maintainable grounds total 1.47 acres.

Considerations

Total square footage calculation
Total square footage was calculated as the total space that facilities, maintenance and operations staff
are required to maintain, as opposed to the American Institute of Architect’s (AIA) calculation used for
the School Construction Assistance Program. The calculation used to determine maintainable square
feet starts with the AIA calculation as a base and adds space for overhangs around the school perimeter,
entry canopies, and outdoor play sheds. These spaces are typically not included in square footage
counts, but are maintained by facilities maintenance and operations staff. If these spaces were
excluded, the resulting school sizes would be 63,982; 80,408; and 108,891 square feet at the
elementary, middle, and high school levels. This difference is particularly important to note at the
elementary school level, as it is large in comparison to what has historically been built. The architects
felt that at this size, school personnel needs for storage and flexibility of space would serve the needs of
K-6 grade students, and eliminate the need for any portable facilities on the school site.

School sites
For the prototypical school sites, the acreages are based solely on those recommended in the state
School Construction Assistance Program (SCAP) rules (WAC 392-342-020). The architects agreed that
since extracurricular athletic fields are excluded from the analysis, the acreages recommended for the
SCAP are adequate to support the prototypical schools that they identified. The SCAP recommends site
sizes of 10, 15, and 17 acres at elementary, middle and high schools, respectively.

Space allocation
As is noted in the guiding assumptions, all schools were assumed to be self-contained facilities. For
example, full kitchens were assumed in each school as opposed to a scenario where a district chooses to
have a large central kitchen and smaller serving kitchens within schools. The architects acknowledged
that as districts get larger, they may choose to centralize their food service. However, they agreed that
allocating space for kitchens to each school helps to ensure that districts will receive sufficient funds to
support the maintenance of either option.

The impact of class size reduction on space assumptions
The number of basic general-education classrooms in each school was determined as a function of the
current state-funded class size. As the legislature adopts recommendations to reduce the state-funded
class sizes, assumptions regarding the space required to deliver state-funded education programs should
be re-evaluated to determine whether the space assumptions outlined in this report still meet program
requirements.



Finding #2 – Facilities maintenance professionals identified that 6.890 FTE classified facility
maintenance staff are required to maintain a prototypical school district enrolling 1,432 FTE students
and sized at 309,535 square feet.


Table 10 demonstrates how the facilities maintenance and grounds experts used the formula described
in Table 5 to identify the staffing required in each maintenance trade to a achieve a preventive
maintenance standard. In this example, the maintenance and grounds professionals identified the
number of FTE carpenters they needed in their own school districts, and adjusted that value by the ratio
of the prototypical school district’s square footage to their own districts square footage in order to
arrive at a recommendation for the number of FTE carpenters in the prototypical school district.


Table 10. Example: Maintenance Trade FTE Calculation
                                                                    Prototype        FTE Carpenter per
                                 FTE Carpenter                      to District     Prototypical District
Participating School Districts      Needed                            Ratio
Bethel                              10.000          multiplied by    11.50%                1.150
Evergreen (Clark)                   11.200          multiplied by    10.30%                1.154
Snoqualmie Valley                    3.300          multiplied by    35.20%                1.161
Spokane                             14.900          multiplied by     7.70%                1.147


Considerations

Relationship to other categories of classified staffing
Within the 6.890 FTE, there are categories of staffing that are typically part of the Facilities Maintenance
departments within school districts, but that are identified in a separate category of staffing in the
prototype. This staff includes Warehouse Workers along with maintenance supervision and support
staff. Warehouse workers are identified in the prototype as part of district-wide support Warehouse,
Laborers, and Mechanics; and maintenance supervision and support staff are identified as part of
central administration. Among these staff, the most significant in terms of FTE is the category of
Warehouse Worker. In this analysis, it is the second largest percentage of the total recommended
maintenance FTE at 14%. While not significant in terms of number, supervision and support staff are
critical to facilitating the work of maintenance staff, and should be provided for through some
mechanism; be it through funding for central administration or maintenance and operations.

Facilities maintenance work that must be contracted
There are certain facilities maintenance tasks that must be performed by outside contractors because
they require specialized certifications or skills. These include work like elevator maintenance, fire
protection systems maintenance and environmental assessments and testing. It is assumed that these
always have been and will continue to be paid for by allocations for maintenance, supplies and
operating costs (MSOC).

Regulatory requirements, inspections, fees, permits and taxes
The facilities maintenance recommendations are based on the current regulatory environment. New
requirements will require a review of the classified staffing levels and the supporting maintenance,
supplies and operation costs.



Finding #3 – Grounds maintenance professionals identified that 1.450 FTE district-wide support
grounds crew are required to support a prototypical school district enrolling 1432 FTE students
situated on 36.92 acres.


Considerations

Relationship to other categories of classified staffing
Within the 1.450 FTE, the facilities maintenance and grounds experts identified .250FTE for a mechanic
whose time is often needed in support of grounds maintenance for small engine and grounds equipment
maintenance and repair. Mechanics, however, like the category of warehouse workers identified in the
maintenance staffing recommendation, are part of the district-wide support warehouse, laborers and
mechanics category identified separately from facilities maintenance staff in the prototype.

Extra-curricular activities have a significant impact on the work of grounds maintenance staff
The grounds maintenance professionals reported that maintaining extra-curricular athletic fields can
add an additional 40-50% of staff time or acreages to the work load of grounds crew. For example, sand
fields are often used for varsity athletic fields because they promote better drainage, but they are not
necessary for basic use. Sand, unlike soil, does not have adequate nutrients to support the turf without
significant fertilization and watering which results in a higher level of required maintenance.

Caring for extracurricular athletic fields requires a significant amount of staff time and resources in
excess of those provided by the state. Given that these recommendations only address the staffing
required to support state-funded educational activities, the recommendations for grounds maintenance
staff included in this report do not show a significant increase over the levels at which districts are
currently staffing with state and local funds. At these staffing levels however, the medium level of
grounds maintenance can only be achieved if the extra-curricular and competitive athletic requirements
for grounds maintenance staff are adequately funded by other sources.

Grounds Compliances
To provide a consistent medium level of service, the grounds maintenance professionals assumed a
number of activities into the General Grounds category. Some of the activities may require specialized
skills or certifications to complete the work: storm water management, integrated pest management
with certified applicators, water testing on school district-owned wells, and arborists.

Emergencies
To provide a consistent medium level of service, the grounds maintenance professionals assumed that
an average of one day per week (52 days per year) is required to respond to emergencies. This could
include activities like snow removal or storm debris clean-up.



Finding #4 – Facilities Operations professionals identified that a sum of 11.152 FTE custodians are
required to support the prototypes elementary, middle and high schools enrolling a total of 1,432 FTE
students.

After going through the process of identifying the custodial staffing needed at each of the prototypical
schools, the operations staff revisited the parameters of the Level 2 standard to assess whether the
staffing they had identified was adequate. Table 11 summarizes the square footage per FTE in relation
to NCES’ Level 2 range. At the custodial staffing levels that the operations professionals identified,
operation professionals felt that districts could achieve a Level 2 cleaning standard.

Table 11. Facilities Operations/Custodial Professionals Recommendation Meets the Level 2 Standard
                                                                Elementary    Middle        High
Square Footage Per Prototype (AIA Standard for Count)             63,982      80,408      108,891
Square Footage Per Custodial FTE                                  20,082      23,279       24,133
Square Footage at a Level 2 Standard                                     18,000-20,000


Operations experts also identified the custodial staff required to support district-wide support and
central administration facilities, despite the fact that custodial staff are only identified at the school level
in the prototypical school funding model. Operations experts based their recommendation for these
district-wide support and central administration custodial staff on the average space allocated to each
FTE custodian at three prototypical schools. The resulting need to support these spaces is 1.066 FTE
custodians and the resulting recommendation is summarized in Table 12.
Table 12. Facilities Operations/Custodial Needs in District-Wide Support and Central Administration
Buildings

Square Footage for District-Wide Support and Central Administration Buildings                   23,992
Custodial FTE at Prototypical School Square Footage per FTE                                     1.066

Considerations

Day Custodian Calculation
It was assumed there would be a Head Custodian assigned to each prototypical school. This person
works in both a supervisory and cleaning support role. Given the head custodian’s administrative
responsibility, these staff members typically do not bear as much cleaning responsibility as the shift
custodian. The method used to establish custodial staffing needs took this into account.

Mandatory Break
The operations/custodial FTE were calculated from the “bottom-up” minute by minute. Paid breaks
during an 8-hour shift were accounted for to determine accurate FTE numbers. There is 30 minutes of
paid break time within an 8-hour shift; or 6.25% of the shift.

Facility Use
Custodians are often charged with managing facility use by both the outside community and extra-
curricular program groups. This use creates a challenge for staff to complete both the tasks required by
state-funded program, and to meet the needs of other users. For the purpose of this analysis, use was
limited to state-funded programs, but questions surrounding facility use and the custodial staff needed
to support that use still need to be explored.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To achieve the level of school facility maintenance required to support state-funded education
programs, the Expert Groups recommend that funding be provided for:

    •    3.186, 3.454, and 4.512 FTE custodians at the prototypical elementary, middle and high schools
         respectively; and

    •    4.719 FTE district-wide support facilities, maintenance and grounds staff per 1000 students.

The Expert Group of maintenance and grounds professional also identified the central office support
staff and supervision required to facilitate and oversee the work of maintenance and grounds crews.
These staff members are funded out of districts allocations for central office administration, but are
highlighted here because their work is integrally related to facilities maintenance and operations. The
Expert Group recommended that funding be provided for:

    •    0.130 FTE central office maintenance support staff per 1000 students, and

    •    0.130 FTE for central office maintenance supervision per 1000 students.

Finally, the Expert Group of maintenance and grounds professionals also made recommendation about
the number of districtwide support warehouse workers, laborers, and mechanics needed to support the
prototypical district. The Expert Group recommends that funding be provided for:

    •    0.842 FTE districtwide support warehouse workers, laborers, and mechanics per 1000 students.




ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION,
FUNDING AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Continuing to determine funding adequacy
The scope of this analysis was limited to the data that OSPI staff had available to them regarding school
district’s facilities inventories. As the new school facilities condition inventory becomes operational and
districts begin to report more accurate data, this analysis should be revisited to reassess the adequacy of
the recommended staffing levels.

Districtwide support facilities operations/custodial staff
There are facilities custodial requirements for districtwide support facilities and in central administration
buildings. The classified staffing needed to support these facilities should be identified and funded as
part of districts allocations for central administration in order to help ensure that these facilities are also
adequately maintained.
Appendix A – Supplemental Data Tables
Expert Recommendation for Facilities Maintenance Adequate Classified Staffing
Trade/Staffing Category                                         Annual FTE                   %
Carpenter                                                          1.150                    17%
Plumber                                                            0.480                    7%
Electrician                                                        0.860                    12%
Painter                                                            0.480                    7%
HVAC Technician                                                    0.950                    14%
Locksmith                                                          0.240                    3%
Glazier                                                            0.110                    2%
Roofer                                                             0.100                    1%
General Maintenance                                                0.570                    8%
Resource Conservation Managers                                     0.240                    3%
Warehouse Worker                                                   0.950                    14%
Foreman/Lead                                                       0.380                    6%
Supervision                                                        0.190                    3%
Support Staff                                                      0.190                    3%
Total Facilities Maintenance FTE (District-Wide Support)           6.890                   100%
Staff per 1000 Students                                            4.810


Expert Recommendation for Grounds Maintenance Adequate Classified Staffing
Trade/Staffing Category                                      Annual FTE                  % of Time
General Grounds                                                 1.200                     82.8%
Mechanic                                                        0.250                     17.2%
Total Grounds Maintenance FTE (District-Wide Support)           1.450                      100%
Staff per 1000 Students                                         1.013

Total Prototypical School District Acreage                              36.92
Total Acres per Grounds Maintenance FTE                                 25.46



Methodology Used to Calculate Grounds Maintenance FTEs
                            Total Acres per                                           Estimated Acres
    Participating School      FTE (includes                  % Grounds Estimated as   Per FTE (excludes
          Districts          extra-curricular)                  Extra-Curricular       extra-curricular)
Bethel                             46.0        multiplied by           45.0%               20.70
Evergreen (Clark)                  68.0        multiplied by           45.0%               30.60
Snoqualmie Valley                  51.0        multiplied by           45.0%               22.95
Spokane                            66.0        multiplied by           45.0%               29.70
     Average Acres per FTE
 Excluding Extra-Curricular       25.99
                           Total Acres Per Prototypical Grounds Maintenance FTE            25.46
Expert Recommendation for Facilities Operations/Custodial Adequate Classified Staffing
                                                               Elementary      Middle                   High
Day Custodian
     Cleaning                                                     0.388         0.346                  0.238
     Non-Cleaning                                                 0.445         0.479                  0.552
     Mandatory Break                                              0.052         0.052                  0.049
Sub-Total Day Custodian FTE                                       0.885         0.877                  0.840
Shift Custodian
     Cleaning                                                     2.052         2.290                   3.301
     Non-Cleaning                                                 0.114         0.135                   0.155
     Mandatory Break                                              0.135         0.152                   0.216
Sub Total Shift Custodian FTE                                     2.301         2.577                   3.672
Total All Custodial FTE by Prototypical School                    3.186         3.454                   4.512
Summary of All Three Prototype’s Custodial FTE                                                         11.152


Outline of Operations/Custodial Tasks
Tasks                                         Elementary      Middle         High          Total          %
Cleaning                                         2.440        2.636          3.539         8.615         77.3
Raise/Lower the Flag                             0.021        0.021          0.021         0.063         0.6
Boiler Run/Check Building Heat                   0.021        0.031          0.042         0.094         0.8
Security Check/Open & Close Building             0.063        0.104          0.146         0.313         2.8
Inventory/Order Supplies                         0.013        0.013          0.013         0.038         0.3
Food Service Unloading                           0.003        0.003          0.003         0.009         0.1
Check/Respond E-Mail                             0.056        0.056          0.056         0.168         1.5
Work Orders                                      0.014        0.022          0.029         0.065         0.6
Facility Use                                     0.029        0.029          0.043         0.101         0.9
Staff Requests                                   0.168        0.168          0.168         0.505         4.5
Minor Repairs/Replacements                       0.029        0.043          0.043         0.115         1.0
Playground Safety Checks                         0.022          -              -           0.022         0.2
Emergencies/Sick Students                        0.043        0.043          0.043         0.130         1.2
Weather Management                               0.038        0.038          0.038         0.113         1.0
Supervision                                      0.039        0.043          0.063         0.145         1.3
Mandatory Break                                  0.187        0.204          0.265         0.656         5.9
Total Facilities Operations/Custodial FTE        3.186        3.454          4.512        11.152




i
   Schneider, M. (2003). Linking School Facilities Conditions to Teacher Satisfaction and Success. A
publication of the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Available at:
http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/teachersurvey.pdf.
ii
   Buckley, J., Schneider, M., & Shang, Y. (2004). The Effects of School Facility Quality on Teacher
Retention in Urban School Districts. A publication of the National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities. Available at: http://www.edfacilities.org/pubs/teacherretention.pdf
iii
    See: Environmental Protection Agency document at: http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/sbs.html
iv
    ESHB 2836 Section 5006(4)
v
   Source: RCW 28A.335.010
vi
    WAC 246-366A - Environmental health and safety standards for primary and secondary schools
vii
     Instructional space is defined in WAC 392-343-019.
viii
      U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Forum on Education
Statistics. Facilities Information Management: A guide for State and Local Education Agencies, NCES
2003-400, prepared by the Education Facilities Data Task Force. Washington, DC: 2003.
ix
    Moberly, D. (2007) Study of School Deficiency Repair Grant and Facilities Maintenance Operations in
Washington School Districts. Available at:
http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/Publications/pubdocs/FacilitiesMaintenanceInWASchools.pdf
x
   Baseline as stipulated in SHB2776
xi
    Adapted from U.S. Department of Education, 2003
xii
     ibid.
                          Parent Involvement
                          Coordinator Classified
                          Staffing Adequacy

                          A Preliminary Draft Report to the
                          QEC




  Randy I. Dorn
                                                    September 2010
State Superintendent of
   Public Instruction
Classified Staff Adequacy




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2

HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 3

   Washington Learns: .................................................................................................................................. 3

   Basic Education Finance Task Force:......................................................................................................... 3

   ESHB 2261: ................................................................................................................................................ 4

   Quality Education Council: ........................................................................................................................ 4

   SHB 2776: .................................................................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................. 5

   What is Family Involvement...................................................................................................................... 5

   What the Research Says............................................................................................................................ 5

   Why is Family Involvement Important? .................................................................................................... 6

   What Role Do Family Involvement Coordinators (FIC) Play?.................................................................... 7

   What are the Tasks that Drive the Work of the Family Involvement Coordinator? ................................. 8

   What do we know about Family Involvement? ...................................................................................... 10

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY ...................................................... 12

   Challenges with Determining the Adequacy of FIC Staff ........................................................................ 12

   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 12

   Work Plan................................................................................................................................................ 13

   Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 13

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 14

RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................... 14

PARTICIPANT LIST........................................................................................................................................ 15



                                                                                                                                                     Page | 1
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OSPI’s staff, with assistance from the Washington State Office of the Education Ombudsman, convened
a group of school district and education service district representatives, who are experts in the field of
family involvement, in order to help the QEC answer questions regarding an adequate level of staffing
for classified parent involvement coordinators. The work group members were chosen because of
their extensive experience working to engage the diverse families, in the State of Washington
and beyond, in the education of their students.

The working group noted that while parents have traditionally been student’s support, students today
often rely on a constellation of other individuals that make up their families. The working group
recommends that this position be titled family involvement coordinator (FIC) in order to reflect and
acknowledge, all families, not just the nuclear families of the students in our schools. Throughout this
report the role is referred to as family involvement coordinator.

For purposes of this report family involvement coordinators are defined as the staff that work as an
integral part of the student support team to involve families as full partners in the education of their
students. Generally, family involvement coordinators are charged with building relationships with
families and leveraging those relationships to help ensure the academic success of all students.

The working group drew on their professional experience, best-practice research in the field of family
engagement and the input of other stakeholder groups to identify an adequate staffing level for
classified family involvement coordinators. This recommendation was also informed by the tasks that
the working group identified as the drivers of their work. In order to adequately support student
achievement through the development of family-school partnerships, the working group recommends
that districts receive funding for 1.0 FTE FIC in the prototypical elementary school, 1.0 in the
prototypical middle school and 0.8 in the prototypical high school.

In addition to consulting with school and education service district representative, OSPI staff also
consulted with both the Center for Improving Student Learning and the Building Bridges Work Group to
solicit input on what level of staffing is required in order to achieve the States goals around closing the
achievement gap; improving student achievement overall; and drop-out prevention, intervention, and
re-engagement.




                                                                                                   Page | 2
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator



HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
 In recent years there has been much debate about what constitutes adequate funding for basic
education in the state of Washington. Various commission, task forces and pieces of new legislation
have attempted to specify both the district and school personnel that are essential to school district
operations. Those recommendations however, have been inconsistent in the inclusion of parent/family
involvement staff among this group of essential personnel.

The K-12 advisory committee of Washington Learn, and the Basic Education Finance Task Force
acknowledged parent/family involvement or outreach in their staffing models. In contrast, Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 2261, which passed in 2009, did not include parent involvement staff among the
classified staff categories identified in the prototypical school model. As follows, in January of 2010, the
Quality Education Council did not recommend staffing for parent involvement as it was not a category of
staff up for debate. Following the 2010 Legislative session, the debate over adequate staffing for
parent/family involvement staff was reintroduced as Substitute House Bill 2776 included this staff
among the school level staff in the state’s new prototypical model. A detailed description of each
group’s recommendations follows.

Washington Learns: In their final report to the K-12 Advisory Committee of WA Learns
researchers Picus and Odden noted that in most schools guidance counselors, social workers and other
student support staff work in isolation from one another. Instead of this model, they proposed
integrated family/community outreach-pupil support teams that would stress the actions that families
can take to help their students learn. 1

Picus and Odden go on to say that schools need a student support and family outreach strategy, and the
level of resources devoted to this strategy should be influenced by the level of disadvantage of the
student body. They noted a general standard of one licensed professional for every 20-25 percent of
students from low-income backgrounds, with a minimum of one for every 500 students.

Their ultimate staffing recommendation was to provide one teacher for every 100 free and reduced
price lunch eligible students, with a minimum of one for each of the prototypical schools. In addition,
they recommended providing an additional 1.8 guidance counselors in the prototypical middle school
and an additional 2.4 guidance counselors in the prototypical high school based on the American School
Counselor Association’s standard of 1 counselor to every 250 students.

The recommendation would enable districts and schools to allocate FTE staff across guidance
counselors, nurses, as well as social workers, in a way that best met each school district’s needs. Picus
and Odden also noted that this recommendation would provide substantial and adequate resources for
family outreach and involvement, as well as counseling for students.

Basic Education Finance Task Force: The Task Force recommended that an allocation for
guidance counselors/parent outreach staff be included as part of the certificated educational staff
                                                                                                 Page | 3
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


associates. The allocation would provide 1.5 FTE per 432 students in middle school and 1.5 FTE per 600
students in high school. The recommendation did not provide for any such staff in the prototypical
elementary school, and the recommendation did not speak to a need for classified staff in this role.

ESHB 2261: The legislations did not identify family involvement coordinators as one the staff types
included in the prototypical model schools.

Quality Education Council: In its January 2010 report to the legislature the Quality Education
Council did not recommend any level of staffing for a family involvement coordinator as it was not
included among the staffing types in the prototypical model schools.

SHB 2776: The legislation included family involvement coordinators among the list of classified staff
elements in each of the prototypical model schools. However, the Legislature determined that the
baseline funding level for this staff is zero.



2008-09 Baseline Funding Values
Family Involvement Coordinator FTEs
                               Staff per                                                          Amount per
                                 1,000             Elementary       Middle          High          Student for
                               Students               (400)         (432)           (600)          Supplies
1    QEC Recommendation*           na                    -             -               -              na
2    SHB 2776                      na                   0             0               0               na
3    District Practice*            na                   na            na              na              na
*At the time of the QEC submitted its January 2010 report the family involvement coordinator was not identified in
the prototypical model, as follows, district practice for category of staff is undetermined.



2017-18 Funding Recommendations
Family Involvement Coordinator FTEs
                              Staff per                                                           Amount per
                                1,000              Elementary       Middle          High          Student for
                              Students                (400)         (432)           (600)          Supplies
1   Washington Learns             na                   4.0           4.3             6.0              na
2   Finance Task Force            na                    0            1.5             1.5              na
3   QEC Recommendation            na                    -             -               -               na
4   SHB 2776                      na                    -             -               -               na




                                                                                                        Page | 4
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY INVOLVEMENT
What is Family Involvement
Families play critical roles in student success. They support their children’s learning, guide them through
a complex school system, advocate for more and improved learning opportunities, and collaborate with
educators and community organizations to achieve more effective educational opportunities. Families
raise their children in multiple settings and across time, in collaboration with many others.


What the Research Says
Joyce Epstein, well know researcher in family involvement, and her colleagues at the Johns Hopkins
University Center for Family, School and Community Partnerships have developed a framework that
identifies six types of family involvement. These involvement types include 2:

    •   Parenting – Assist families with parenting and child-rearing skills, understanding child and
        adolescent development, and setting home conditions that support children as student at each
        age and grade level. Assist schools in understanding families

    •   Communicating – Communicate with families about school programs and student progress
        through effective school-to-home and home-to-school communications.

    •   Volunteering – Improve recruitment, training, work, and schedules to involve families as
        volunteers and audiences at the school or in other locations to support students and school
        programs.

    •   Learning at home – Involve families with their children in learning activities at home, including
        homework and other curriculum-linked activities and decisions.

    •   Decision making – Include families as participants in school decisions, governance, and advocacy
        through PTA/PTO, school councils, committees, and other parent organizations.

    •   Collaborating with the community – Coordinate resources and services for families, students,
        and the school with businesses, agencies, and other groups, and provide services to the
        community.

Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family/School Partnerships was co-authored by Anne T.
Henderson (a senior consultant with the Institute for Education and Social Policy at New York
University), Dr. Vivian Johnson ( leading researcher on Parent/Family Centers in schools), Karen L. Mapp
(a lecturer on education at Harvard and former Deputy Superintendent for Family and Community
Engagement in Boston) and Don Davies (the founder of the Institute for Responsive Education and
Professor Emeritus at Boston University). The book identifies important elements of family engagement:



                                                                                                   Page | 5
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


    •   Addressing differences: Recognize, learn about, and affirm all cultures in the school. Connect
        families’ cultures to what students are learning. Recognize and support different forms of parent
        involvement. Build cultural competence. Make accommodations for language barriers. Address
        racial tensions and bias.

    •   Supporting advocacy: Help families understand and use advocacy to resolve problems. Give
        families and students information and support to make smooth transitions. Help families be
        actively involved in setting goals for their children’s future.

    •   Building relationships: Welcome all families to your school community. Honor families by
        recognizing their strengths and contributions. Connect with families through a focus on the
        children and their learning. Establish a family center.

    •   Linking to Learning: Help families understand what is happening in the classroom. Put student
        work front and center. Communiate regularly with families about learning. Put learning at the
        center of the parent-teacher conferences and include students. Use student achievement data
        to design programs for families. Collaborate with community organizations.

    •   Sharing power: Provide workable mechanisms for teachers, parents, and students to take part
        in decision making. Build a broad base of involvement by increasing families’ connections to
        others in the community. Strengthen families’ links with community organizations and
        resources.

Despite the fact that these framework exists, researchers acknowledge that family involvement will look
different for every family. Ensuring a child gets enough sleep and eats a healthy breakfast before
attending school every day is a form of involvement just as meaningful as attending parent-teacher
conferences or volunteering in a child's classroom. Each of these types of involvement will lead to
different results for students, families, and school staff. Schools must choose the practices that will help
achieve the outcomes they want to see in their building.

Why is Family Involvement Important?
National research consistently shows that when a student's family is actively involved in his or her
education, that student’s rates of academic achievement increase. This success holds true for all
students and families, regardless of ethnicity, income level or education backgrounds. 3 Research shows
that by increaseing family involvement students’ achievment improves as measured by:

    •   Higher grade point averages and scores on standardized tests or rating scales,

    •   Enrollment in more challenging academic programs,

    •   More classes passed and credits earned,

    •   Better attendance,
                                                                                                   Page | 6
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


    •   Improved behavior at home and at school, and

    •   Better social skills and adaptation to school. 4

What Role Do Family Involvement Coordinators (FIC) Play?
A family involvement coordinator is an integral part of a comprehensive guidance and counseling team.
The family involvement coordinator works with the guidance and counseling team to “engage and assist
families in participating as full partners in their children’s education.” 5 FICs help to close achievement
gaps by specifically reaching out to those families whose students struggle the most, and working with
them to develop strategies that will help to ensure that their students achieve academic success. The
roles played by the family involvement coordinator fall into three broad categories: relationship
building, improving school climate, and build the capacity of families to support student achievement.

In their work to build relationships family involvement coordinators:

    •   Create partnerships between families and schools in an effort to ensure the academic success of
        their students.

    •   Helps to facilitate two way communications between families and schools.

    •   Help to create platforms for families to ask questions and voice their concerns.

In their work to improve school climate family involvement coordinators:

    •   Help to create a welcoming school environment that encourages family involvement.

    •   Act as a cultural bridge between families and the school environments.

    •   Assesses school climate as it relates to how welcoming the community is to all families

    •   Identifies trends that point toward ways in which school policies and operating procedures do
        not encourage family involvement

    •   Recommends strategies for improving climate (i.e. training in cultural competence, multi lingual
        communications, non-traditional conference/open house schedules)



In their work to build the capacity of families to support academic achievement family involvement
coordinators:

    •   Help to ensure that families have access to the information they need in order to ask informed
        questions.



                                                                                                   Page | 7
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


    •   Develops strategies for families to support student achievement by both being present in school
        when able, and when is appropriate; and through at-home activities.

    •   Connects families with appropriates social and emotional supports (i.e. certificated building staff
        who can then make referrals to external services providers if necessary) that improve the
        stability of the family and ultimately bolster the families ability to support their students
        achievement.

    •   Help families manage transitions from one school level to the next, making clear for families the
        ways in which one school level differs from the next and how that impact the family’s
        interaction with the school and how they can continue to support their student’s achievement.

Family involvement coordinators play several roles, but there is a distinction between the role that
these classified personnel plan in their work with families and the role that certificated staff (i.e.
guidance counselors, and school social workers) play in their work.

In the context of Response to Intervention; a multi-level prevention system aimed at maximizing student
achievement, FICs provide Tier 1 (universal) services. In cases where students have needs beyond Tier 1
and families therefore need access to professional staff support in order to devise strategies for
supporting their student, FIC provide minimal Tier 2 services aimed at connecting families with those
supports.

Family involvement coordinators should not be charged with delivering specialized social services rather
they are in a position to leverage the strengths of families and the benefits that they can bring to
schools. For example, the family involvement coordinator does not do “home visits” in the way that a
social worker would, rather, they may schedule “meetings with families” in their homes if that is the
best way to connect with them and begin to build relationships.

The family involvement coordinator is also not synonymous with the community partnerships
coordinator or the volunteer coordinator. Community partnerships extend beyond families, and given
that FICs are school level staff community partnerships may be coordinated more efficiently and
effectively at the district level. Similarly, school volunteers extend beyond just families and in many
districts these non-family volunteer represent community organizations businesses, and faith-based
organizations. Coordinating the volunteer from these various organizations and doing the administrative
work that comes along with this role could easily monopolize and entire staff person’s time. In order
family-school partnerships to be developed fully FICs cannot be pulled in three different, and equally
compelling, directions.

What are the Tasks that Drive the Work of the Family Involvement
Coordinator?
The role of the family involvement coordinator (building relationships, improving school climate, and
developing families’ capacities to support academic achievement) remains constant as students and
                                                                                                   Page | 8
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


families move through the schools system. However, the tasks that drive the work of the FIC change
slightly to meet the needs of family at the various stages in their students’ lives. The following list details
examples of the specific tasks or activities that enable FICs to fulfill the roles that they play.

At all grade levels the FIC does the following:

    •   Reaches out to families through mailings, phone calls, and face to face meetings in an effort to
        inform families about ways in which they can help their students succeed (on-going; targeted
        communications during school conference, assessment, registration, and other times when
        family engagement is critical).

    •   Plays an active role in and is visible during school orientation activities (annually).

    •   Actively welcomes new families who enter after the start of the school year (on-going).

    •   Seeks families’ perspectives on how schools are meeting their needs (on an ongoing basis
        informally; and formally twice per year).

    •   Helps to develop peer to peer networks (on-going).

    •   Works with school leadership and families to identify meaningful ways that families can be
        involved in school governance, and helps to ensure that families are prepared for those
        interactions. (attend regularly scheduled staff meetings, and meetings of the school leadership
        team)

    •   Conducts workshops for other school staff regarding strategies for working with families given
        the feedback they get from families, and the strategies they learn from targeted professional
        development opportunities (annually).

    •   Works in collaboration with the guidance and counseling team to ensure that there is a parent
        component to all relevant activities, and that parent’s voices are represented in the decision
        making processes (attend regularly scheduled guidance and counseling team meetings
        through-out the year with).

    •   Contributes to the school improvement plan; especially as it relates to family involvement
        (attend school improvement planning meetings and monitor progress toward achieving family
        involvement goals).

    •   Provides information about how to support academic success at home and at school (on-going).

    •   Provides families with information about how to be an advocate for their children and how to
        navigate the school’s systems (on-going: i.e. daily expectations for attendance and absence
        notification, registration, special program assessments).

                                                                                                      Page | 9
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


    •   Shares age and developmentally appropriate expectations with families regarding state learning
        standards and grade level expectations (on-going; formally at the start of each new term).

    •   Conducts workshops for families regarding things they need to know, in addition to topics
        families say that they would like to know more about (monthly).

    •   Inform families about how to support their student’s transitions from one school level to the
        next, and help make families aware of how they can best support their students at each stage
        (annually).

    •   Connects families with continuing education opportunities if the FIC finds that is an effective
        strategy available to increase family engagement (on-going).

At the middle school level the FIC also:

    •   Informs families about strategies for maintaining engagement through middle school (on-going).

    •   Reiterates and clarify the details of course planning at the middle school and inform how middle
        school course taking impacts future post-secondary opportunities (bi-annually).

At the high school level the FIC also:

    •   Informs families about strategies for maintaining engagement through high school.

    •   Informs families about alternative routes to graduation

    •   Informs families about post secondary opportunities

What do we know about Family Involvement?
Current State and Local Funding for Family Involvement:
The state does not currently allocate funds for family involvement. Any staff working in the district must
be funded by a combination of local levy, federal, and private funds. The existence of these staff varies
from district to district with some staff working at the district level and some staff working in schools.
OSPI does not currently collect data on these staff, but based on information we have received from
district staff these staff have becoming more rare in recent years as districts budgets have become more
constrained.

Federal Requirements and Funding for Family Involvement:
Federal law states that any district that receives $500,000 or greater of Title I, Part A funds must set
aside 1% of that allocation for parent involvement. Of that one percent 95% of the funds must be
allocated to Title I funded schools to build capacity for parent involvement (Section 1118 (b)).



                                                                                                   Page | 10
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


Each Title 1 funded district and school that is subject to this requirement must work with parents to
develop a written parent involvement plan. In addition, these funds must be used to implement
programs, activities, and procedures for the involvement of parents in the programs assisted by Title 1
funds.

As a component of the school-level parental involvement policy each school that receives Title 1 funds
must work with parents to develop a school-parent compact that outlines how parents, the entire
school staff, and students will share the responsibility for improved student academic achievement and
the means by which the school and parents will build and develop a partnership to help children achieve
the State's high standards (Section 1118 (d)).

The legislation goes on to say that in order to ensure effective involvement of parents and to support a
partnership between the school, involved parents, and the community to improve student academic
achievement, districts and schools must work to build parent’s and the school’s capacity for
involvement.

In the 2009-10 school year, 81 of the 295 school districts in Washington received more than $500,000 in
Title 1 Funds (excluding temporary ARRA funds). Allocations to these 81 districts totaled nearly $152.6
million. Based on 2009-10 allocations for classified staff salaries and benefits 1% of these funds would
only be sufficient to hire 31.826 FTE family involvement coordinators across the state.




                                                                                                Page | 11
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY
Challenges with Determining the Adequacy of FIC Staff
Family involvement coordinator is a new element that was added to the prototypical school model in
SHB 2776 that passed during the 2010 legislative session. The legislation determined that in the 2008-09
school year, funding for this staff type was zero. This inclusion of family involvement coordinators in the
prototypical school model, and subsequent determination that current state funding is zero indicates
that current funding for this element is wholly in adequate. However, this scenario presents the first
challenge to determining and adequate level of FIC staff. There is no state-wide context in which to
assess the extent to which districts have been able to achieve the goals of this position given current
state funding.

Additionally, given that local districts have born the entire cost of having FICs on staff they have found
creative ways to fund these critical positions. As follows, among the districts that do have FICs it is
sometimes difficult to distinguish the activities of the FIC from the related work of other members of the
student support team.

In the process of determining an adequate level of staffing for FICs it was important to note where the
work of one staff ended and the work of the FICs begin in an effort to not duplicate efforts and to
highlight the activities that will continue to need to be accomplished by the FIC if and when these other
staffing categories are enhanced. In some respects, and the changing need for some staff as the number
of these other staff grows and declines

Guiding Questions
When first asked to help determine adequate levels of state-funded family involvement coordinators,
OSPI staff began by surveying the current landscaped around family and community involvement in the
state. To that end staff met with representatives from the Building Bridges Work Group, the Center for
Improving Student Learning (CISL), and the State’s Title 1, Part A program staff; groups that all have an
interest in seeing that districts develop stronger partnerships with families. The following questions
came out of those meetings and were used to guide the work of determining the adequacy of FIC staff.

    1. Is the term “parent” involvement coordinator (PIC) reflective of the community of individuals
        school staff know to be students’ support?
    2. What is the role of a PIC?
    3. What tasks drive the work of the PIC?
    4. How does the work of the PIC relate to the work of the larger student support network within
        the school (I.E. Guidance Counselors, Social Workers, School Psychologists, Instructional and
        Non-Instructional Aides, etc.)?
    5. How is the work of the PIC distinct from the work of other school-based student support staff?
                                                                                                 Page | 12
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


    6. Given the role PICs play, the tasks that drive their work, and the relationship between PIC’s and
        other members of the school-based student support team, how many full-time equivalent PICs
        are required to support the prototypical elementary, middle and high school?

Work Plan
After working with these internal stakeholder groups, OSPI’s staff worked with the Washington State
Office of the Education Ombudsman to convene a group of school district and education service district
representatives, who are experts in the field of family involvement, in order to help the QEC answer
these questions regarding FIC staffing. The work group members were chosen because of their
extensive experience working to engage the diverse families in the State of Washington and
beyond, in the education of their students.

The working group drew on their professional experience, best-practice research in the field of family
engagement and the input of other stakeholder groups to identify an adequate staffing level for
classified family involvement coordinators. This recommendation was also informed by the tasks that
the working group identified as the drivers of their work.

Findings
The work group agreed unanimously with the Building Bridges group, CISL, and Title 1 program staff that
the term family involvement coordinator is more inclusive then “parent” involvement coordinator and
should replace the term in the prototypical model. While this recommendation is a small change in
practice it represents a larger symbolic change that acknowledges the non-nuclear families that exist in
society today. While parenting is an important part of family involvement, parents alone are not the sole
parenting force in many students’ lives.

The group of family involvement experts described in detail the role of the FIC and the activities that
drive their work. The descriptions provided by this group are represented in the description of roles and
activities provided on pages 7 and 8 of this report. A description of how this role relates to those of
other school staff is also summarized on these pages.




                                                                                                Page | 13
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


CONCLUSIONS
The family involvement coordinator must be an integral part of the guidance and counseling team.
Family involvement coordinators must also play a leadership role in the school improvement planning
process to help ensure that families’ voices are represented in the strategic planning process.

As a member of the student support team, family involvement coordinators should be included among
the group of staff for whom districts receive allocations for professional development. FIC must be
provided with opportunities to continually refine their intercultural communication, facilitation, and
organizational management skills if order to help ensure that they are knowledgeable and effective
resource for parents and families. FIC must also have access to formal opportunities to collaborate with
and share strategies with their colleagues, and they must be trained in how all school processes, policies
and systems work in order to best support family engagement.

RECOMMENDATION
To help to ensure that both families and schools have the tools they need to act as partners in the
education of student, and to help support student achievement through the development of family-
school partnerships, the Family Involvement Coordinator Work Group recommends that districts receive
funding for 1.00 FTE FIC for the prototypical elementary school; 1.00 FTE FIC for the prototypical middle
school; and 0.80 FTE FIC for the prototypical high school. The total cost to implement this
recommendation is estimated at $98.7 million for the 2011-12 school year.




                                                                                                Page | 14
Classified Staff Adequacy
Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator


PARTICIPANT LIST
OSPI Staff
Andrea Cobb – Financial Research Analyst
andrea.cobb@k12.wa.us
(360) 725-6177

Technical Experts
Sarah Fairweather
Family and Community Partnerships                               Trise Moore
Coordinator                                                     Family and Community Engagement Director
Clover Park School District                                     Federal Way School District
sfairwea@cloverpark.k12.wa.us                                   tmoore@fwps.org

Liz Frausto                                                     Adie Simmons (Co-Convener)
RTL Coordinator                                                 Director
ESD 121                                                         Office of the Education Ombudsman
lfrausto@psesd.org                                              Adie.Simmons@gov.wa.gov

Kisa Hendrickson                                                Sally Telzrow
Family Engagement Specialist                                    RTL Coordinator
Highline School District                                        Seattle School District
hendrikb@hsd401.org                                             stelzrow@seattleschools.org

Susan Martin                                                    Steve Witeck
Parent and Parent and Prevention Coordinator                    Director
ESD 105                                                         Washington Parental Information Resource
Susan.Martin@esd105.org                                         Center
                                                                switeck@eds123.org
Bernadette Merikle
Community Engagement Manager
Highline School District
meriklbl@hsd401.org



1
 Odden, A., Picus, L., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An Evidence Based Approach to School
Finance Adequacy in Washington. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
2
  Epstein, J., Coates, L., Salinas, K., Sanders, M., & Simon, B. (1997). School, Family, and Community Partnerships:
Your Handbook for Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
3
  Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence:The Impact of School, Family, and Community
Connections on Student Achievement. Austin: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL).
4
  (Henderson & Mapp, 2002)
5
  Conley, D., & Rooney, K. (2007). Washington Adequacy Funding Study. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy
Improvement Center (EPIC).


                                                                                                            Page | 15
                          Student & Staff Safety
                          Classified Staffing
                          Adequacy

                          A Preliminary Draft Report to the
                          QEC




  Randy I. Dorn
                                                    September 2010
State Superintendent of
   Public Instruction
Classified Staff Adequacy




TABLE OF CONTENTS
Student and Staff Safety Personnel




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 3
   Funding Recommendation History ........................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION TO STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY........................................................................................ 5
   Why is Student and Staff Safety Important? ............................................................................................ 5
   Definition of Student and Staff Safety Personnel ..................................................................................... 7
   The Roles of School Security Officers........................................................................................................ 8
   History of Student and Staff Safety Personnel & Safety Funding ............................................................. 9
DETERMINING STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY PERSONNEL STAFFING ADEQUACY ..................................... 12
   Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 12
   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 12
   Method for Determining Recommendations ......................................................................................... 12
   Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 13
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 15
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 16
PARTICIPANT LIST........................................................................................................................................ 17




                                                                                                                                                     Page | 1
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Concern about the safety and security of school campuses has been heightened by violent events such
as the Columbine High School shooting, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and increasing gang and drug-
related violence. The Department of Education reported that nationally, 78% of public schools reported
at least one incident of violence to the police. 1 The percentage of schools that report violent crimes
varies by school region: a larger percentage of urban schools report higher numbers of violent incidents
than do urban fringe schools or rural schools. 2

As costs to maintain safe schools increases, available funding to cover new requirements has been
limited and mostly supported through one-time grants. The gang and drug problems impacting schools
in the late 1980’s and 1990’s prompted a series of state grants and saw a short-term increase after the
series of shootings by students on school campuses. In 2001, the Legislature established a regular
funding mechanism for school safety, an allocation of $6.36 per student. The 2002 Legislature,
however, eliminated the allocation. These funds were never replaced, forcing districts to dismantle
existing programs and use general educational operating budgets to support the limited programs they
could afford.

The Legislature, in an effort to address the adequacy of classified staffing levels asked the Quality
Education Council to develop recommendations for student and staff safety personnel (SSSP). To
support the work of the QEC, OSPI convened safety and security experts from large and small districts
representing different parts of the state, school and district administrators, Educational Service District
staff, employee representatives, insurance providers, and security contractors. The SSSP Working Group
identified the core duties and appropriate staffing amounts for each prototypical school level, and what
level of FTE to assign to each grade span.

The following table identifies the SSSP Working Groups recommendations for the level of staffing
required to perform the basic education duties. The table shows the staffing level for the full 260
classified staffing days in the new model. The second column shows what that staffing would be if
applied to the academic year of 180 days.

                                    Student and Staff Safety Personnel FTEs
                                           Elementary (400) Middle (432)                High (600)
    1   Contract Days                        260        180      260     180           260      180
    2   SHB 2776 Baseline                   .079       .114     .092 .133             .141     .203
    3   District Actual Expenditure         .095       .137      .11    .159          .169     .244
    4   SSSP Subgroup Recommendations       .043       .100     .303 .700             .433     1.00




Recommendation #2


                                                                                                  Page | 2
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


Additional factors should be identified to drive out enhancements to school districts based on additional
safety needs due to either the demographic makeup of the school and/or the level of crime within the
surrounding community. The subgroup recommends that the Funding Formula Technical Working
Group should so further study on how enhancements maybe determined and calculated.

Recommendation #3

The subgroup also recommends that 10 training days be provided to SSSP staff each year. This training
provides SSSP staff with the skills and strategies they need to deal with a multitude of situations from
going into lock down because of an intruder on campus to intervening in a dispute between two
students.

Recommendation #4

The subgroup recommends that funding for materials, supplies and operating costs be evaluated to
determine the true cost of supporting the safety and security needs of schools. Though additional
MSOC funding will be phased-in over the next five years, the level of per pupil funding is based on 2007-
08 expenditures and not a comprehensive evaluate of what is required to support a safety MSOC. The
subgroup recommends that a gap analysis be conducted to determine the actual costs of safety related
MSOC.


BACKGROUND
Funding Recommendation History
Washington Learns: Dr. Picus and Odden, consultants for Washington Learns, recommended an
expenditure of $13 per student for safety related costs. At the time this translated to .2 FTE staff
per 1,000 students. The researchers identified smaller schools (432, 450 and 600 for elementary,
middle, and high school respectively), and expenditures for pupil support, as the best investment to
address school climate.

Basic Education Finance Task Force: The BEFTF made suggestions for student at 1 FTE per
school.

ESHB 2261: The minimum allocation for each school district shall include allocations per annual
average full-time equivalent student for the following materials, supplies, and operating costs:
Student technology; utilities; curriculum, textbooks, library materials, and instructional supplies;
instructional professional development for both certificated and classified staff; other building-level
costs including maintenance, custodial, and security; and central office administration.

Quality Education Council: The QEC recommended in their 2010 report a staffing level for
student and staff safety personnel at .079 at elementary, .092 at middle, and .141 at high school. In
addition, the QEC recommended a baseline for materials, supplies, and operating costs. School
                                                                                                 Page | 3
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


safety costs are included as part of the Security and Central Office category ($3.58 out of the total
$50.76 per student amount is safety related). The QEC also made recommendations that Security
and Central Office MSOC allocation be increased to $106.12 of which $7.48 is safety related.

SHB 2776: The legislation adopted the QEC recommendations including the phase-in of additional
security funding.

2017-18 Funding Recommendations:
Student and Staff Safety Personnel
                               Elementary           Middle          High           Amount per Student for
                                  (400)             (432)           (600)                Supplies
1   Washington Learns                                                          Funded as part of Maintenance,
                                                                               Supplies, and Operating Cost allocation
                                   .100               .117          .179       ($13/student); equivalent to .2 staff per
                                                                               1000 students.
2     Finance Task Force                 1              1             1
3     SHB 2776/ QEC                    .079           .092          .141             Enhancement: $7.48
* SHB 2776 stipulates that funding for MSOC should be enhance to reflect 2007-08 actual expenditure levels,
adjusted for inflation, beginning in the 2015-06 school year.

2008-09 Baseline Funding Values
Student and Staff Safety Personnel FTEs
                               Elementary           Middle          High           Amount per Student for
                                  (400)             (432)           (600)                Supplies
1    QEC*                          .079              .092            .141           Crosswalk: $3.58
2    SHB 2776                      .079              .092            .141           Crosswalk: $3.58
3    District Practice             .095               .11            .169           Crosswalk: $7.48
*QEC staffing recommendations were based on maintaining the state's operating budget funding level for
classified staff at 17.021 staff per 1000 students.




                                                                                                               Page | 4
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel



INTRODUCTION TO STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY

Why is Student and Staff Safety Important?

It is commonly believed that children do not progress academically or socially if they do not have a sense
of personal safety. Schools must therefore be safe environments if students are to attain learning goals.
Unfortunately, national statistics indicate that at least 5% of secondary students are afraid of fear or
harm while at school. 3 In Washington, 20% of 8th grade students and 18% of 10th grade students
reported not feeling safe at school. 4 In a national survey conducted in 2005, 6 percent of high school
students did not attend school on one or more days in the previous month because they feared for their
safety. 5

Concern about the safety and security of school campuses has been heightened by violent events such
as the Columbine High School shooting, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and increasing gang and drug-
related violence. A The Department of Education reported that nationally, 78% of public schools
reported at least one incident of violence to the police. 6 The percentage of schools that report violent
crime varies by school demographics: a larger percentage of urban schools report high numbers of
violent incidents than do urban fringe schools or rural schools.7

The increasing use of technology and online social networks has also raised concerns as it relates to
school safety. Schools are seeing instances where students are being bullied online or through text
messages. Schools are also dealing with the use of technology for sexting and the sharing of
pornography on and off school grounds. Trying to keep students secure and safe therefore is greatly
complicated with the introduction of these new technologies in the school building.

“School safety” encompasses a much broader domain than security issues related to crime and violence,
however. The public expects that schools are prepared to care for students emotionally and physically,
no matter the crisis or disaster that may affect the school. The school safety field therefore must
address issues as broad as natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, pandemics or tsunamis;
unnatural disasters such as acts of terrorism; and human caused crises such as those stemming from
illness, accidents and disease, as well as gangs, bullying, property crimes, internet crimes, harassment
and lethal threats, sexual offenses, and other anti-social behaviors. As a result of this increased concern
regarding student and staff safety, mandates for the K-12 public school system to improve school safety
and security programs have been generated in an effort to keep campuses safe, including passage of SSB
5097 by the 2007 Washington Legislature.

Increasing Legislative Requirements

Substitute Senate Bill 5097 requires public schools to develop and implement comprehensive safety
planning and preparation programs. These requirements were implemented as a result of violent, high-
                                                                                              Page | 5
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


profile school incidents and the general perception that schools did not have viable disaster plans
coordinated with local emergency preparedness and response agencies. SSB 5097 required schools to
develop and have in place safety plans by September 1, 2008. The plans must address the full spectrum
of safety and security measures, including prevention, intervention, disaster preparedness, emergency
response and post-incident recovery. This legislation also implemented new training requirements for
school principals and additional emergency drill and exercise requirements.

These requirements result in district expenditures to (a) hire personnel to manage emergency
preparation efforts and work directly with community emergency-response agencies, (b) purchase
emergency equipment and supplies for school campuses, (c) hire substitute staff to provide for release
time for school personnel to participate in training and drills (or provide supplemental contracts to
extend the school day or year for permanent staff), and (d) contract with safety specialists to provide
assessment and planning services.

While the requirements of SSB 5097 impose additional direct costs on school districts, recent experience
with grant recipients demonstrates that schools also need professional guidance and support in order to
develop and implement effective safety practices; many districts and communities currently lack staff
with special expertise in emergency preparations and security. It is therefore important that there be a
state-level or regional school safety support network to provide schools the guidance they need on
school safety; in short, experience shows that at the current level of preparation and planning, schools
need on-site assistance in addition to funding for equipment and supplies.


School Safety Factors in Washington

Many varied factors affect school safety and security in Washington, including juvenile crime trends,
overall crime levels, societal dynamics, technological advances, environmental or man-made hazards,
and even terroristic threat levels.

Juvenile arrest and incarceration continue to be at relatively low levels, although anecdotal evidence
indicates that juvenile crime has increased slightly. The Washington State juvenile arrest rate for most
violent crime categories increased from 2004 to 2005 (the latest year for which data is available),
including between 4 to 6 percent increases in rape, murder/manslaughter, and robbery. The proportion
of drug arrests within the total juvenile arrests for drugs/alcohol increased each year between 2003 and
2005, with drug arrests amounting to 36 percent of drug/alcohol arrests in 2003, 38 percent in 2004,
and 40 percent in 2005. Yakima County was singled out as having twice the juvenile violent offense rate
compared with the state average. There is no reliable database for such arrests on school grounds for
Washington State.




                                                                                                Page | 6
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


Gang activity in most communities is on the rise, with law enforcement agencies reporting gang
presence even in rural areas previously unaffected by gangs. Counties particularly impacted by the rise
in gang activity include King, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Lewis, Spokane, Benton, Franklin, and Clark
Counties. Information from the Washington Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) mirrors anecdotal information
from law enforcement: between 2002 and 2006, the percentage of 10th grade students self-identifying
as members of a gang more than doubled. Extrapolation from HYS data generates an estimate of
approximately 20,000 gang-involved youth in Washington’s schools. Among other factors, economic
downturns are a strong predictor of increased gang activity, and authorities expect both gang and
extremist group activity to continue to rise. 8

Possession of weapons on school grounds – especially firearms – is one indicator of the likelihood of
violent crime in or near a school. Eight percent of high school students reported in 2008 that that they
had carried a weapon at school in the last 30 days. 9 The rate of weapons incidents in the last decade has
remained relatively constant, while the rate of firearm incidents has been reduced by 50%. 10 School
districts reported more than 3,000 weapons incidents for 2007-2008, including 74 firearm incidents and
1912 knife or dagger incidents. The rate of knife possessions and other (mostly martial arts) weapons
have gradually increased over the past decade.

Washington schools must prepare for a number of natural and man-made hazards, including
earthquake, tsunami, severe weather, and flooding. Unlike the hurricane Katrina scenario, earthquakes
strike without warning and schools must be prepared to shelter, treat, and house students during the
crisis. Most recently, schools have been challenged to plan for the H1N1 Influenza pandemic, and
districts in the Kent Valley have been preparing for the possible breaching of the Howard Hansen Dam.

Definition of Student and Staff Safety Personnel
The definition of safety relates to a fairly broad spectrum of activities that ensure the health and well
being of students, staff, and others on a school campus. The issues and activities that fall under school
safety include but, are not limited to:
Prevention and Mitigation
    •   Policy and procedure development
    •   Hazard Assessments
    •   Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
    •   Facility Mapping
Student Health Literacy and Education including: Drug and alcohol prevention, Suicide Prevention; anti-
bullying programs, Hand Hygiene and Respiratory Etiquette Training, Universal Precautions
Preparedness, including training and resources
    •   Pandemic disease


                                                                                                 Page | 7
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


    •   Incident Command Training
    •   Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)/Automatic External Defibrillator (AED)/First Aid Training
    •   Psychological First Aid Training
    •   Child Protective Services and Crime Reporting
    •   First Aid and Mass Care resources for Disaster Management
Response
    •   Incident Command Drills and Simulation, After Action Review
    •   Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) and Interagency response coordination to intervene in
        crimes or incidents involving anti-harassment, bullying, sexting or Registered Sex Offenders
Recovery
    •   Critical Incident debriefing and grief counseling
In a school building, while every staff person contributes, school administrators and school security staff
are primary responsible for school safety.
For the purpose of the current funding recommendations, we are narrowing the definition of safety to
the personnel whose primary function is to provide campus security. “Security” when applied to K-12
public schools, means the provision of services that focuses on prevention, intervention, response and
recovery with specific emphasis upon prevention of human-caused emergencies which pose a likelihood
of harm to persons or property within the school environment. While there is overlap in these
definitions, much of what is referred to as a “security” program involves active monitoring of individuals
and groups, provision of physical security to limit access or the probability of creating a problem
undetected, or the interruption or apprehension of individuals involved in escalating incidents which
could cause harm to persons or property.


Staffing for security activities falls generally into two categories of staff, school security officers (SSO)
and school assigned police officers. School security officer is any person employed by the local school
district for the purpose of maintaining order and discipline, preventing crime, investigating violations of
school board policies and detaining persons violating the law or school board policies on school property
or at school sponsored events and who is responsible solely for ensuring the safety, security and welfare
of all students, faculty and staff in the assigned school. Since police officers are county employees and
their assignment to a school is largely dependent on the available resources at the local level, the
subgroup decided not to include there specific duties in with the SSSP category.

The Roles of School Security Officers
The SSSP Subgroup identified three major roles of a school security officer: prevention, intervention,
and enforcement. The following identify the duties performed under each of the major roles at
elementary, middle and high school.

Prevention:


                                                                                                    Page | 8
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


   •   Assists in establishing a positive rapport with students, parents, staff and community agencies;
       promotes communication with students to ensure a safe campus environment; and encourages
       prescribed standards of conduct and behavior and positive student attitudes.
   •   Provide Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design analysis and School Mapping Support
   •   Serves as a liaison with the school district’s Security Department and the local authorities.
   •   Works with staff and student leaders to develop and implement campus policies and
       procedures.
   •   Monitors parking lots and building areas where students congregate before school, during the
       school day, and after school.
   •   Patrols school property for safety of staff and students and the physical security of the buildings
       and property.
   •   Assist in school and district wide safety related drills.
   •   Assist in threat assessment evaluations of the school and school district.

Intervention:

   •   Document criminal activity as well as school/district policy violations and assist both school
       district security and local law enforcement agencies with investigations when requested.
   •   Meets and interacts with students and non-students on and adjacent to high school property,
       gathers information and, if necessary, issues No-Trespass Warnings where appropriate.
   •   Intervene and help de-escalate confrontations among students, staff, and visitors on the school
       campus.
   •   Performs search of student and/or school property when there is reasonable suspicion as
       directed district policy.
   •   Provides gang liaison and indentifies student needing support to gain/maintain pro-social
       behaviors

Enforcement:

   •   Facilitates the registration of vehicles and enforcement of parking violations.
   •   Responds to incidents involving alcohol, drugs, fights, and threatening situations and intervenes
       in student conflicts and may physically detain individuals in circumstances where such detention
       is allowed by state law.

History of Student and Staff Safety Personnel & Safety Funding
As necessary school safety expenditures are increasing, available funding to cover new requirements has
been limited and mostly derived from one-time grants. The gang and drug problems impacting schools
in the late 1980’s and 1990’s prompted a series of state grants and saw a short-term increase after the
series of shootings by students on school campuses. In 2001, the Legislature established a regular
funding mechanism for school safety, an allocation of $6.36 per student. The 2002 Legislature,
however, eliminated all of these funds. These funds were never replaced, forcing districts to dismantle
existing programs and use general educational operating budgets to support the limited programs they
could afford.

                                                                                                  Page | 9
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel



Although the Legislature has provided funds to support the school mapping system (i.e., the Critical
Infrastructure Planning and Mapping System), none of these funds support the management, training
and response planning associated with the technology. In 2007, the Legislature appropriated $800,000
per year for small grants to help districts establish safety planning programs compliant with the 2007
passage of SSB 5097; these funds were not renewed for the 2009-11 biennium. The Legislature also
established the Gang Task Force in 2007.

Due to cuts in funding streams, there has been a decrease in the number of school resource officers
(SROs) and school security officers (SSOs) in Washington. Federal funding for SROs has been eliminated,
forcing many jurisdictions to remove officers from school assignments. Because of declining school
budgets, some districts have let go both SROs and security officers, and currently it is estimated that
only 20 percent of Washington schools have security or law enforcement officers.

Schools are also challenged by the increasing demands to work collaboratively with community agencies
that have access to federal grants through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Washington
K-12 system has been unable to access these funds despite the fact that Congress determined that
school districts are included in the definition of “local government” in the 2002 Homeland Security Act.
While counties and cities have been able to purchase supplies, personnel, training, and support for drills
and exercises, schools have not been systematically included in these efforts, despite the fact that
schools are obviously an important partner in violence prevention.

The only school funding for general safety related programs has been the federal Safe and Drug Free
Schools (Title IV) funds, which has seen a 29% reduction in funding over the last 15 years taking it from a
high of $13.8 million in the 1997-99 biennium to $9767,000 in the 2009-11 biennium. Title IV funds are
primarily used by most districts to provide drug/alcohol prevention services for students, rather than for
emergency preparation and security. At this juncture, all indications are that Safe and Drug Free School
funding will be eliminated in the 2010 federal budget.




                                                                                                 Page | 10
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


The graph below displays total state funding for school safety for the past 15 years.



                          State and Federal Safety Related School
                                         Funding      School Mapping
                                                                       State - Technical Assistance
                   $35
                                                                       State Grants to School Districts
        Millions




                                                                       Federal Funds
                   $30


                   $25


                   $20


                   $15


                   $10


                    $5


                    $0
                           1997-99   1999-01    2001-03    2003-05    2005-07     2007-09      2009-11




Currently, districts are expending more on student and staff safety personnel than what is provided in
the baseline allocation. It is important to note that the calculation for a full time SSSP employee
assumes a 260 day contract at eight hours a day. If the time these staff work is concentrated during the
180 day school year, the actual amount of staffing time per day is higher. The table below illustrates
both the formula driven staff amount based on 260 days and how that staffing level translates when
applied only to a 180 calendar.



                                          Student and Staff Safety Personnel FTEs
                                                 Elementary (400) Middle (432)           High (600)
        1          Contract Days                   260        180      260     180      260      180
        2          SHB 2776 Baseline              .079       .114     .092 .133        .141     .203
        3          District Actual Expenditure    .095       .137      .11    .159     .169     .244




                                                                                                          Page | 11
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel




DETERMINING STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY PERSONNEL STAFFING
ADEQUACY
Challenges
There are several challenges the subgroup identified in trying to determine the adequate level of SSSP
staffing at each of the prototypical school levels. The primary challenge is that there is very little data on
the deployment of security staff currently in school districts. The State’s current personnel data
collection system does not completely capture the total number of security related staff in districts. For
the 2008-09 school year, the personnel report only identified 244 security personnel across the state.
There have been several attempts to survey districts to gather data on the number of school security
personnel but the response rates have been too low to make the findings generalizable. Secondary
challenge is that there is very little research about the adequate level of security staffing for elementary,
middle and high schools.

A third challenge is identify work load drivers for security staffing that is not limited to student
enrollment but includes crime related statistics. Using multiple drivers will insure that schools in high
crime areas or perhaps with large gang populations receive the additional staffing to both prevent
crimes and intervene appropriately when necessary.

Guiding Questions
To guide the SSSP Subgroup Work, the members developed the following guiding questions.

    1. What is the definition of safety? What is the definition of security?
    2. What are the duties performed by classified student and staff safety personnel in a district?
       What RCWs contribute to defining the work of staff safety personnel?
    3. What level of staffing is needed to perform those duties at a school level? What is the level of
       staffing needed for non-instructional time?
    4. Should there be enhancements for some schools that may need additional SSSP staff? If so,
       what should those enhancements be based on and how much of an enhancement should
       schools receive.
    5. What kind of training and how much training time should be provided?
    6. What equipment and supplies schools/districts need to ensure the safety and security of their
       students and staff?

Method for Determining Recommendations
OSPI used a professional judgment panel model to determine the level of SSSP staffing needed at each
of the prototypical school model levels. The group included safety and security experts from large and
small districts representing different parts of the state, school and district administrators, Educational
Service District staff, employee representatives, insurance providers, and security contractors. The
group identified the core duties SSSP and what level those duties are preformed at each prototypical
school level, and what level of FTE to assign to each grade span.
                                                                                                   Page | 12
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


Findings


Finding #1: More SSSP Staff Needed but Additional is Dependent on Grade Spans

Before trying to identify the level of staffing needed for each prototypical school level, the subgroup
identified the factors that drive amount of SSSP staffing needed.

Elementary

At the elementary level, the need for services provided by an SSSP is low. The students’ day typically
involves staying in one classroom space for most of the day. Intervening in disputes among students
does necessitate the presence of an SSSP because students are small enough for teachers and
administrator to intervene without assistance. Student and staff safety personnel typically focus on
prevention types of supports such as general patrolling of the campus and less of the intervention and
enforcement duties identified earlier. However, given the increase in special education inclusion
programs and community/domestic violence the intervention rates are increasing.

It is important to note that supervision at lunch and on the playground is not included in the work of the
SSSP. Those safety related responsibilities are part of the duties identified under office and non-
instructional aides staff.

Middle

SSSP staff provide more support at the middle school level. There tend to be greater incidents of
violence between students that necessitate SSSP staff to intervene. A recent study from the Education
Research Data Center of school related violence supports the assumptions that there are more
incidences of violence between students and against staff starting at the middle school level. Student
and staff safety personnel are doing more work around prevention and intervention at the middle
school grades which requires approximately full time person.

High

At the high school level, the need for SSSP is only slightly more than what is needed at middle school.
Though students tend to be developmentally more mature, the level of violence, when it does occur is
more serious in nature. For this reason, SSSP staff are performing not only prevention and intervention
services, but also enforcement. In addition, there are higher security risks due to the nature of school
schedules and the fact that students are driving on campus. SSSP staff are performing such as ensuring
the security of parking lot areas and classroom transitions between periods. Another consideration at
the high school level is the increasing number of students between the ages of 18-21. As the districts
continue to focus on helping all students graduate and reengaging, schools will be serving more young
adults complicating the way schools are kept secure and safe. For these reasons high schools will
typically need a full time staff to ensure the safety and security needs of students and staff.
                                                                                                 Page | 13
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


Finding #2: Enhancements Necessary for Some School Districts

The subgroup in developing the recommendations for the prototype recognized that there are two
instances where the safety and security needs of a school may be greater than what is supported by the
basic SSSP model. First is where a district may have an small alternative school with a high
concentration of students transitioning back to the K-12 system from juvenile justice. Though the school
may only generate a portion of an SSSP staff person, because of the risk level at the school, the district
must assign a full time security staff person at the building. Second, districts with high rates of crime in
the community , especially juvenile gang related crimes, may need additional resources to ensure that
the violence does not spill over onto the school campus.

Finding #3: Increasing Need for Safety and Security Related Training

In order to perform their prevention, intervention, and enforcement duties, SSSP staff need to be
properly trained. The specific type of training is driven reality on the ground and in some cases
legislative requirements. The subgroup identified the following areas of training needed for SSSP staff:

Preparedness

    •   Incident Command Systems Training

    •   National Incident Management System Training

    •   School Mapping System

Prevention

    •   Monitoring of Juvenile Sex Offenders in Schools

    •   Dealing with Gangs and Gang Violence in Schools

    •   Dealing with bullying including cyberbullying

    •   Addressing Incidences of Sexting

Intervention

    •   De-escalation and Appropriate Use-of-force Training

    •   Threat Assessment Training

Training SSSP staff does not negate the need to train administrators at the school and district levels.
There are specific legislative requirements for district and school based administrators to directly
respond to specific safety and security issues. Principals at the elementary level are impacted the most
because they tend to be the first responders to incidences at the school.

                                                                                                  Page | 14
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


Finding #4: Need for Materials, Supplies and Operating Costs Resources

In addition to training, there are non-employee related costs necessary to keep students and staff safe
and meet state level requirements. Security Staff related supplies and equipment including but not
limited to:

    •   Two-way radios, cameras, phones, computers, and uniforms

In addition, there are needs for district-wide facility systems including but not limited to:

    •   Fast Alert Systems

    •   Ring Tone Emergency Communication System

    •   Integrated Security Systems: Intrusion, Access, and Close Circuit Cameras

General safety related supplies are not included in this list. For example supplies related to pandemic
flu preparedness are not included.


RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation #1

The following table identifies the SSSP Working Groups recommendations for the level of staffing
required to perform the basic education duties. The table shows the staffing level for the full 260
classified staffing days in the new model. The second column shows what that staffing would be if
applied to the academic year of 180 days.

                                    Student and Staff Safety Personnel FTEs
                                           Elementary (400) Middle (432)                  High (600)
    1   Contract Days                        260        180      260     180             260      180
    2   SHB 2776 Baseline                   .079       .114     .092 .133               .141     .203
    3   District Actual Expenditure         .095       .137      .11    .159            .169     .244
    4   SSSP Subgroup Recommendations       .043       .100     .303 .700               .433     1.00


Recommendation #2

Additional factors should be identified to drive out enhancements to school districts based on additional
safety needs due to either the demographic makeup of the school and/or the level of crime within the
surrounding community. The subgroup recommends that the Funding Formula Technical Working
Group should so further study on how enhancements maybe determined and calculated.

Recommendation #3

                                                                                                  Page | 15
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


The subgroup also recommends that 10 training days be provided to SSSP staff each year. This training
provides SSSP staff with the skills and strategies they need to deal with a multitude of situations from
going into lock down because of an intruder on campus to intervening in a dispute between two
students.

Recommendation #4

The subgroup recommends that funding for materials, supplies and operating costs be evaluated to
determine the true cost of supporting the safety and security needs of schools. Though additional
MSOC funding will be phased-in over the next five years, the level of per pupil funding is based on 2007-
08 expenditures and not a comprehensive evaluate of what is required to support a safety MSOC. The
subgroup recommends that a gap analysis be conducted to determine the actual costs of safety related
MSOC.


CONCLUSION
Student and staff safety personnel play an important role in keeping Washington State students safe.
They are one of the first responders at a school during moments of crisis. If provided adequate training
and support, student and staff safety personnel can prevent minor arguments to turn into serious
altercations. To ensure that schools have the staffing they need, the SSSP Subgroup recommended a
differentiated level of funding for schools that reflect their average security needs.




                                                                                                Page | 16
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel


PARTICIPANT LIST
OSPI Staff
Isabel Muñoz-Colón – Director of Financial Resources
isabel.munoz-colon@k12.wa.us
(360) 725-6019

Travis Smith
Travis.smith@k12.wa.us
(360) 725-6049

Technical Experts

Tom Boehme, Principal                                  Orrin Knutson, Operations Manager
Centralia High School, Centralia School District       CWI Security
                                                       Yakima Region
Mary Sue Linville
Washington Schools Risk Management Pool                Dr. Frank Hewins, Superintendent
                                                       Franklin Pierce School District
Ray Roberts
Washington Schools Risk Management Pool                Miguel Villahermosa, Director of School Safety
                                                       and Security
Deputy Larry Sanchez                                   Tacoma Public Schools
Grant Co. Sheriff’s Dept.
Wahluke School District
                                                       Joe Madsen, Risk and Claims Manager
Randy Town, School Safety Coordinator                  NEW ESD 101
ESD 105 and Criminal Justice Training Center
                                                       Joe Pope, Safety Coordinator
Pegi McEvoy, Manger of Safety and                      Association of Washington School Principals
Security
Seattle Public Schools                                 Dave Westberg, Buisness Manager/Legislative
                                                       Representative
                                                       International Union of Operating Engineers –
                                                       Local 609




                                                                                             Page | 17
Classified Staff Adequacy
Student and Staff Safety Personnel




1
  Ibid.
2
  Fifty-three percent of urban schools reported 20 or more violent crime incidents, compared to 42
percent of urban fringe schools and 43 percent of rural schools. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008.
3
  Department of Education. (2007). Indicators of school crime and safety. Washington (DC): U.S.
Government Printing Office.
4
  Healthy Youth Survey 2008. Washington Department of Health.
5
  Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National youth risk behavior survey 1991-2005: trends in
the prevalence of behaviors that contribute to violence on school property. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyouth/yrbs/pdf/trends/2005_YRBS_Violence_School.pdf.
6
  Ibid.
7
  Fifty-three percent of urban schools reported 20 or more violent crime incidents, compared to 42
percent of urban fringe schools and 43 percent of rural schools. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008.
8
  National Gang Threat Assessment 2009. National Gang Intelligence Center. Washington, D.C.
9
  Healthy Youth Survey 2008.
10
   2008 Report to the Legislature: Weapons in Schools. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.




                                                                                                 Page | 18
                          Technology Classified
                          Staffing Adequacy

                          A Preliminary Draft Report to the
                          QEC




  Randy I. Dorn
                                                    September 2010
State Superintendent of
   Public Instruction
Classified Staff Adequacy




Table of Contents
Technology




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 2

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 2

   Funding Recommendation History ........................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 5

   Technology Support is Critical to Education ............................................................................................. 5

   What is Technology Support? .................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

   Four Main Roles for (Classified) IT Support Professionals ........................................................................ 6

   Current Funding Environment for IT Staff ................................................................................................ 7

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY ........................................................ 9

   Challenges ................................................................................................................................................. 9

   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 10

   The Technology Working Group ............................................................................................................. 10

   Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 11

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADEQUATE LEVELS OF IT SUPPORT ................................................................. 13

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX A: SYSTEMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IT DEPARTMENT .................................................. 15




                                                                                                                                                     Page | 1
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OSPI relied heavily on the professional judgment of district technology experts to inform
recommendations about adequate classified technology staff. OSPI convened IT directors and staff as a
Technology Working Group (TWG). The Technology Working Group members candidly shared the
challenges they face in supporting the complex technical systems required to keep school districts
operational.

The TWG worked through a set of guiding questions to identify workload drivers and staffing adequacy.

The first step was to clearly define the following roles and functions of IT support staff:
    • IT director, manager or supervisor,
    • Those with specialized IT skills, such as system analysis and engineering, and telecom
         management and support,
    • Network and desktop support, and
    • Asset tracking.
The need for IT support staff is directly linked to technology inventories—the hardware, software, and
network infrastructure in a district. With this relationship in mind, the TWG identified essential
technology inventories and used this information to arrive at recommendations for necessary IT support
staff.

The Technology Working Group recommends 1.78* IT staff FTE per 1000 students, which includes:
    •  0.75 FTE for classified staff with specialized IT skills
    •  0.87 FTE for network and desktop support positions
    •  0.16 FTE for asset tracking staff.

A staff ratio of 1.78 to 1000 students will reduce security vulnerabilities currently caused by insufficient
support for network and system software. Adequately funding technology staff and infrastructure will
ensure that educators have the technology they need to prepare Washington students for an ever-
changing economy. It is imperative that the Legislature define a standard of adequacy for IT support
staffing (and its consequent funding) that guarantees all districts can deliver high-availability network
services, and web-based environments conducive to learning, staff development, and efficient
operations and administration.

*The position(s) of IT director, managers and supervisors (.23 FTE) from the Technology Working
Group’s recommendations was excluded because they are accounted for within the SHB 2776 central
administration allocation.




                                                                                                    Page | 2
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


BACKGROUND
Funding Recommendation History
Washington Learns:
The K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns recommended a district allocation for technology
staffing as well as a per pupil allocation for technology maintenance, supplies and operation costs
(MSOC). The staff recommendation included both a central office technology staff and a school-based
expert who can fix modest problems (such as printer issues and loading software on machines). The
central office technology staff recommendation is one Director of Technology for a district of 3,500
students. The recommended school-based expert was to be an instructional facilitator who can install
programs and help school staff use equipment effectively. This position is certificated and is therefore
not included in the classified staffing recommendations.

In regards to MSOC, Washington Learns recommended that each school receive $250 per pupil to
purchase and maintain computers, servers and software, (including security, instructional and
management software), to achieve a ratio of one computer to every two to three students.

 Basic Education Finance Task Force:
The BEFTF recommended funding technology staff at 0.9 per 1000 students. In addition, the Task Force
recommended a per pupil allocation of $200 for student technology.

Quality Education Council:
The QEC recommended that school districts receive an allocation to provide district-wide services
related to technology support of 0.628 staff per 1000 students.

The Council also recommended that districts receive a per pupil allocation for MSOC that reflects the
level at which districts are currently spending. To that end, the Council recommended that districts
receive $ 113.80 per pupil for MSOC related to technology.

SHB 2776:
This bill stipulates that the minimum allocation for each school district to provide district-wide support
services related to technology shall be 0.628 staff per 1000 students.

SHB 2776 also stipulates that each school district shall receive an allocation for MSOC for each full-time
equivalent student. In fiscal year 2011, districts will receive $ 54.43 per pupil for this purpose. That
amount will be increased in the 2011-2013 biennium as specified by the omnibus appropriation act, and
in the 2015-16 school year districts will receive $113.80 per pupil adjusted for inflation from the 2007-08
school year.



2017-18 Funding Recommendations

                                                                                                   Page | 3
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


(Insert Topic) FTEs
                                    Staff per                                                    Amount per
                                      1,000       Elementary        Middle         High          Student for
                                    Students         (400)          (432)          (600)          Supplies
1     Washington Learns               0.280            -              -              -             $250.00
2     Finance Task Force              0.900            -              -              -             $200.00
3     QEC Recommendation              0.628            -              -              -             $113.80
4     SHB 2776                        0.628            -              -              -             $113.80
* SHB 2776 stipulates that funding for MSOC should be enhance to reflect 2007-08 actual expenditure levels,
adjusted for inflation, beginning in the 2015-06 school year.

2008-09 Baseline Funding Values
(Insert Topic) FTEs
                            Staff per                                                            Amount per
                              1,000               Elementary        Middle         High          Student for
                            Students                 (400)          (432)          (600)          Supplies
1     QEC Recommendation*     0.628                    -              -              -             $113.80
2     SHB 2776                0.628                    -              -              -             $54.43
3     District Practice       0.841                    -              -              -             $113.80
*QEC staffing recommendations were based on maintaining the state's operating budget funding level for
classified staff at 17.021 staff per 1000 students.




                                                                                                         Page | 4
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology



INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY

What is Technology Support?
Classified staff assigned to IT support keep networks, hardware and software accessible and operational
in schools and districts. (For example, they work on-site at schools as computer technicians, or at the
district level as network and database administrators.) They do not deliver direct support for teaching,
learning, assessment and professional development. While it is critical to have these educational
support roles in the prototypical school model, the focus of this paper is classified technology support
staff. The professionals who support technology integration at the classroom level hold certificated
positions.



IT Support Staff Are Critical to K-12 Education
District networks form the computing and communications infrastructure on which complex system
software transmits student data, runs the instructional applications that deliver curricula, drives human
resource and finance functions, activates state and federal reporting, tracks student health records,
portfolios and learning plans, and makes direct communication possible between the school and the
community. Technology integration has enormous benefits for K-12 education. Teaching and learning
are enriched by the fluid interaction and connection to the vast resources and productivity
improvements that technology makes available.

The classified IT staff, who maintain and build out this sophisticated information technology
infrastructure and its networked peripherals in classrooms, labs, libraries and central offices are skilled
professionals whose work is critical to K-12 operations. The expanding inequality between well-
resourced and under-resourced districts has led policymakers to address the adequacy of current
funding for IT support professionals as a front-and-center issue.

The experience of districts across Washington is clear—when IT support is adequately staffed,
administrators:
    •  Lower the risk and security vulnerabilities present in high-availability networks;
    •  Boost the ability of K-12 teachers to create technology-enriched learning environments that
       stimulate and engage 21st century students, and level the playing field for all students,
       regardless of location;
    •  Increase in the productivity and efficiency of K-12 administrators and educators.




                                                                                                    Page | 5
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


Four Main Roles for Classified IT Support Professionals
This report proposes an adequate ratio of IT staff to number of students -- a ratio that will level the
technological inequality among have and have-not districts and reduce the risk and security
vulnerabilities created by insufficient support for network and system software.
The staffing level we recommend relates directly to the IT inventory because staff and inventory must
expand and contract in direct proportion to each other.
We group classified staff who support the IT infrastructure into four roles:
   • IT director, manager or supervisor,
   • Those with specialized IT skills, such as system analysis and engineering, telecom management
       and support,
   • Network and desktop support, and
   • Asset tracking.

All districts, regardless of size, depend on a combination of these IT support functions.

Classified staff with IT skills are responsible for computer networks and network security, data systems,
desktop support, email and file servers, databases, telecommunications, and hardware peripherals. They
might also support application development, network engineering, hardware repair, and online voice
and video services. However, the size and complexity of district network and IT infrastructure drive the
ratio and staffing mix to number of students. Here is a closer look at each role:

IT Director, Manager or Supervisor
IT directors oversee all the information systems (SIS, HR, financial), network services (email and file
servers, WAN, LAN), and network and desktop support staff.
Network size and complexity determine whether districts staff this position with a full FTE or a part-
time position.
Duties could include:
    • Personnel supervision,
    • Budget and revenue management, grant management,
    • Policy development and implementation,
    • State/federal reporting and compliance,
    • Strategic planning and research,
    • Contract administration, procurement, vendor management, and
    • District representation on local, state and national boards, commissions and task forces.


Classified Staff with Specialized IT Skills
Medium and large districts maintain classified staff with specialized IT skills in-house; small districts
contract for these services, often through their educational service district (ESD) or other vendors. As


                                                                                                    Page | 6
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


with the functions of the IT director position, network size and complexity determine how districts staff
these positions.
Duties include:
    • Network engineering and management within and between buildings,
    • Systems integration and management—support, engineering and analysis,
    • Database administration—includes financial, student data and the student information system,
    • Telecommunications support for telephone system and video services,
    • Application support and development,
    • Business analysis, including product research and budget justifications, and
    • Planning and project management.


Network & Desktop Support Staff
Often called computer technicians, these classified staffers handle software and hardware problems
that the local user cannot resolve. Medium and large districts maintain these positions in-house; small
districts often contract for these services through the ESD or other vendors.
Network and desktop support can arrive two ways:
   • Site-based technicians for desktop hardware and software support, or
   • Centralized staff (Help Desk) dispatched as needed—a solution that works best for issues related
      to network connectivity, district information systems and databases.

Asset Tracking Staff
Working closely with classified IT staff, these staff usually oversee three discrete management
systems—IT assets, library book processing, and textbooks.


Current Funding Environment for IT Staff
Local, state and federal sources fund educational technology at the district level. However,
comprehensive data on spending are not available, and remain outside what districts must report to
state and federal agencies. Washington is a local control state, and local school district management
exercises great autonomy as to how it generates and allocates funds. Typically, districts blend state,
federal and local revenues and then pay the bills—salaries, benefits, contracts, goods and services—
from a single account.




                                                                                                  Page | 7
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


There are four primary ways districts find money for technology and the staff who support IT operations.

Capital Bonds & Levies
Many districts appeal to voters with special levies and bonds that target specific projects, often based
on building needs: maintenance and operations, capital projects, or to shore up technology
infrastructure. These revenue streams have proved to be a significant source of funding for instructional
technology, but not for the staff needed to keep it operational. Voter-dependent, these levies are crucial
for prosperous districts able to pass a technology initiative. However, districts that are unable to pass a
technology levy must live within the limited state and federal allocations.

State General Fund
Although the state allocates money for classified staff (and for non-employee related costs or NERC),
funding is not specified for the IT support staff needed to maintain and build out district networks. As
critical as these positions are today, technology was not on the legislative agenda 20 years ago when the
allocation mechanisms for classified staff and NERC were institutionalized. Today, most districts pay for
IT support staff with the classified staff allocation.
An analysis of districts’ staffing reports submitted recently to OSPI indicates that the staffing ratio for IT
support staff is 0.841 per 1000 students. We regard this ratio with great caution, however, because
districts code many of the staff who support technology directly to the programs and activities they
support. A small direct sampling of districts revealed that only 62 percent of classified staff hired to
maintain IT infrastructure were coded to “information systems.”

Federal Funding
Federal funding remains a minor revenue stream for technology acquisition—instructional and
administrative—and not a factor in IT support staffing. In recent years, the average federal allocation
per student for technology has averaged $1.64 and will be much lower for the 2010-2011 school year.
This is money derived from the Enhancing Education Through Technology grant (EETT) program of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. EETT funds target schools with high rates of disadvantaged students.

E-rate Discount Program
The E-rate discount program lowers the cost of Internet access and telecom and network data services
for schools and libraries. Administered by the Schools and Library Division of the Federal
Communications Commission, these dollars are critical for districts with high concentrations of students
from low-income households. Over the past five years, E-rate reimbursements to Washington state
districts have averaged $20 million annually. Nearly all districts apply for discounts related to basic
telecom and the Internet, but only districts with a high percentage of disadvantaged students are likely
to be reimbursed.




                                                                                                      Page | 8
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology



SHB 2776 Baseline Values
Districts are currently staffing 0.841 technology staff per 1000 students. However, taking this amount at
face value presents a unique problem—technology staff and expenditures are often coded directly to
the programs and activities they support. For example, the technician who staffs the computer lab could
be coded to “Teaching,” not “Information Systems,” making it impossible to identify these expenses as
technology.

When SHB 2776 was signed into law in spring, 2010, the Legislature replaced the Basic Education
Allocation (BEA) formula with a prototypical-school and district allocation formula that will clarify how
the state funds basic education. SHB 2776 calls out specific staff categories essential to basic education.
Technology support positions are listed among these funded staff categories, along with principals,
teacher librarians, school nurses, office support, custodians and others. The new formula is streamlined
and transparent, and easily adapted to the multiplicity of district conditions, including variations in the
size and complexity of their computing and telecommunication networks.

The new funding formula will be implemented in the 2011-12 school year. Under this new method,
school districts will be allocated 0.628 classified staff per 1000 student FTE for Technology support. This
translates the current BEA formula to the new transparent formula. It is not an enhancement from
current funding levels or a statement of adequacy; in fact, it is less than districts are currently spending.




METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY
The Technology Working Group approached the question, “what are adequate levels of classified
technology staffing” by defining the scope of district- and school-level technology infrastructure and
then identifying its related workload drivers. The Technology Working Group made a rigorous inquiry
into the definition of adequate levels of classified technology staffing.

Challenges
District technology experts indentified three key challenges to the development of a durable and
adequate IT staffing ratio.
    • Everyone is an IT worker. Technology is now integrated in nearly every aspect of the education
         system. From computers in the classroom to the building locks and intercoms to the payroll
         system in the central office; technology is an integral part of managing a school district.

    •   Varying service expectations drive workload. Technology staff workload is driven by hardware
        and software, infrastructure and networks, and the level of service that is expected by state
        requirements, board members, teachers and school staff, and the community. These differing
        service levels drive the need for systems and applications, and can vary widely across the state.


                                                                                                    Page | 9
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


    •   Comparisons of actual practice to standards are difficult to make. The current accounting
        methods make it difficult to know how much districts are spending on technology and how they
        are staffing technology support. Technology expenditures for staff and supplies can be coded to
        Activity 72, Information Services, or to the specific activity they support. As technology is
        interwoven into most activities of a district, it is difficult to track these expenditures.



Guiding Questions
The size, complexity and service expectations of district networks drive the need for IT support staffing.
This relationship determines both the number and the skill level of tech support staff and gives rise to
these guiding questions:


    1. What are the technology-related positions and corresponding workload drivers that affect
       technology integration in the classroom and district-level administration?
    2. What are the essential hardware, software, and network infrastructure requirements for the
       prototypical elementary, middle, and high school?
    3. What are the essential hardware, software, and network infrastructure requirements for
       district-wide and central administration support services?
    4. What staffing level is necessary to support essential hardware, software, and network
       infrastructure, based on changing workload drivers, the increasing complexity of networked
       technology and around-the-clock service expectations?



The Technology Working Group
OSPI staff convened a Technology Work Group (TWG) of experts from the field to develop a well-
researched set of recommendations that could lead to an accurate ratio for sufficient staffing of IT
support. They were asked to reflect the realities of the current K-12 operating environment—technology
inventory, staffing levels for IT support and workload drivers.
Sixteen technology directors that represent small, medium and large districts from around the state —
Auburn, Bellevue, Burlington-Edison, Edmonds, Garfield-Palouse, Highline, Kent, Northshore, Peninsula,
Seattle, Shoreline, Sumner, Tacoma, Tenino, Tukwila, Wahluke—comprised the TWG and led the
research activities.




                                                                                                 Page | 10
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


Findings
The TWG established four major factors that drive the need for IT support staff:


    1. The growing demands for hardware and software by instructional and administrative staff,
    2. The computing requirements of school-based applications and systems, and enterprise systems
       at the district level,
    3. The demand for increasingly sophisticated levels of dedicated tech support for the mission-
       critical hardware and system software that run on K-12 networks, and
    4. The rising need for availability and access to online services as regulators, school boards,
       teachers, students, parents and the community communicate, share data and do business
       online with local schools.

Hardware & Software Recommendations
What are the essential inventories for technology and network infrastructure in the classroom and in
central district administration, based on the prototypical models for elementary, middle and high
schools?
Classroom Level Technology
At the classroom level, technology integration depends on reliable, standards-based, current equipment
and adequate tech support to keep it connected and working. The TWG recommends that the
equipment inventory of every K-12 classroom should meet the baseline inventory detailed below. This
configuration is the inventory of choice in many school districts already, and aligns closely with OSPI’s
Technology for 21st Century Teaching & Learning, a proposal presented to the Basic Education Finance
Joint Task Force on June 9, 2008. This level of technology infrastructure is also needed to accommodate
new, online student assessment.
Computer/laptop/notebook/iPad or other web-enabled access device with appropriate software:
   •  One per teacher,
   •  3:1 ratio (that is, one computer for every three students) in elementary schools, and
   •  1:1 ratio in middle and high schools
Presentation hardware:
    •  LCD projector
    •  Cart with surge suppressor
Instructional hardware and software could include:
    •   Document camera
    •   Interactive whiteboard
    •   Student response system (handheld remote controls that students use to send their responses
        to the teacher, often called clickers)

                                                                                               Page | 11
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


    •   Sound amplification system (Amplified sound helps all students, and particularly special needs
        students, to overcome distance from the teacher and the distractions of background noise and
        its tendency to overwhelm the teacher’s voice.)
    •   Printer or printer access
    •   Digital cameras and scanners
    •   Specialized instructional software
    •   Technology supplies (ink and laser cartridges, storage devices, such as CDs and USB drives, cords
        and cables, etc)
Beyond the baseline, school networks must have the technological headroom that enables learners to
bring handheld wireless devices into the learning environment, and to deliver access to files and digital
resources twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.

District Level Technology
District technology includes computers and equipment for school support staff, school and district
administration, and central office staff, including human resources and accounting. The devices, used
throughout schools and the district, are also supported by classified technology staff.

Examples of district-level IT inventory outside the classroom include:

    •   Computers and productivity software (such as Microsoft Office) for office support, instructional
        aides, district-wide support, and central office positions
    •   Enterprise systems 1 that process student data, and support administrative, financial, and human
        resource operations at the district and state level
    •   Software systems that reconcile and prepare student information for outbound communication
        and reporting
    •   Communication systems such as:
            o Call out systems for community and parent or student communications
            o Web sites and portals for internal and external communications


IT Positions & Workload Drivers
What are the technology-related positions and corresponding workload drivers that affect technology
integration in the classroom and in district-level administration?

The TWG identified over 100 software systems (Appendix A, page 15) central to district-level
management. These systems represent the new convergence of voice, video and data streams—flexible,

1
 A system that supports enterprise-wide or cross-functional requirements, rather than a single department or
group within the organization.

                                                                                                      Page | 12
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


complex and powerful—and they are now mission critical for all external communications in most
districts. Many of these systems were maintained by other classified staff members in the past.
However, as the complexity of the hardware and software outpaced the skill level of clerical and facility
staff, maintenance has migrated to IT support departments where highly skilled staff are able to support
the diagnostic and maintenance needs of the equipment.

Two examples:
   • Auto Dialer, which replaced the one-by-one attendance phone calls staff made to parents and
       guardians and
   • HVAC and building security systems, maintained in the past by facilities staff, are now the
       responsibility of IT support staff.
The TWG points out that service expectations are high and rising. Administrators and teachers look to
their IT staff to create and sustain online environments that keep administrative throughput fast and
reliable for learning, staff development activities, and for the inbound/outbound communications
essential to district operations. Outages, downtime, inadequate bandwidth and limited network
resources impair the ability to deliver a 21st century education.


RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADEQUATE LEVELS OF IT SUPPORT
What staffing level is necessary to support an essential inventory of technology and network
infrastructure, based on changing workload drivers, the increasing complexity of networked technology
and 24 X 7 service expectations?
The TWG frames its recommendations mindful of the fact that their districts currently maintain more
than twice the funded staffing ratio—1.45 FTE per 1000 students—determined by SHB 2776. The TWG
points out that even this doubled ratio is inadequate. It is a staffing level that perpetuates risk for
network outages, security vulnerabilities, connectivity problems, and a patchwork support functionality
that doesn’t deliver what educators and administrators need to do their jobs.

This table takes the three primary categories of IT staff (excluding IT director, manager, supervisor),
page 6, states the SHB 2776 funding level, the current ratio, and identifies, in the last column, a
recommended level for IT support staffing.

Classified Staff Role               SHB 2776 Staff Level      Current Staff Level    Recommended Staff Level
                                     per 1000 students        per 1000 Students         per 1000 Students
Specialized IT skills                       N/A                     0.59                      0.75
Field support and Help Desk                 N/A                     0.58                      0.87
support
Asset Tracking                               N/A                     0.13                       0.16
Total IT staff                              0.628                    1.30                       1.78

                                                                                                  Page | 13
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology



SHB 2776 specifies that 5.3 percent of staff generated at a school and district-wide support level is for
central administration staffing. The position(s) of IT director, managers and supervisors (.23 FTE) would
be funded through this central administration formula. Thus, these personnel are removed from the
Technology Working Group’s recommendations.

The Technology Working Group recommends 1.78 IT staff FTE per 1000 students, which includes:
    •  0.75 FTE for classified staff with specialized IT skills
    •  0.87 FTE for network and desktop support positions
    •  0.16 FTE for asset tracking

Salaries for Classified IT Support Staff
The Technology Work Group recognizes that the QEC’s Compensation Work Group will not convene
until July 1, 2011, and will produce its final report June 30, 2012. However, it is critical to understand
that although the salary allocation for all classified staff is $32,295, the average salary for staff reported
in Activity 72 (Information Services reported on the S-275), was $60,079. This changes the ratio
significantly. Washington is set to fund only 0.338 classified staff for IT support per 1000 students
because the state-funded salary is insufficient to attract IT professionals. Districts need nearly twice
the allocation to support their IT operations.


CONCLUSION
An adequate ratio of IT support staff to students—1.78 per 1000—is the single greatest determinant of
the viability of the IT infrastructure that powers K-12 education. With adequate technical support, we:
    •   Lower the risk and security vulnerabilities present in high-availability networks,
    •   Strengthen the ability of K-12 teachers to create technology-enriched learning environments
        that stimulate and engage 21st century students, and level the playing field for all students,
        regardless of location, and
    •   Increase the productivity and efficiency of K-12 administrators and educators.




                                                                                                     Page | 14
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology




APPENDIX A: SYSTEMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IT DEPARTMENT


Network Management
1    Network Directory Services   6    Networking Equipment        11   File Storage
2    Domain Name Services         7    Wiring Infrastructure       12   Asset Management
3    Firewalls                    8    Printer Management          13   Email and Archiving
4    VPN                          9    Wireless Data Network       14   Theft Tracking/RFID
5    Packet Shaping               10   LAN and WAN                 15   Anti-Virus




Data Management Systems
Student Information Systems                                        Student Assessment Systems
16   Online Access for Students   22   Special Ed - IEP Tracking   30   Data Warehouse
17   Online Access for Parents    23   Special Program Tracking    31   Standards Based Grading
18   Attendance                   24   Health Records              32   DIBELS
19   Scheduling                   25   Curriculum Management       33   Fitness Gram
20   Grades                       26   Graduation Requirements     Learning Management &
21   Discipline                   27   Portfolios                  Student Performance System

Miscellaneous Data Management                                      34   Formative Assessment
28   Data Exchange and Data Integration (ETL EII)                  35   Summative Assessment
29   Professional Development Management System                    36   Online Quiz




                                                                                         Page | 15
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology




Central Administration Systems
Fiscal Management Systems         Human Resources                  Communications
                                  Management Systems
37   Cash Management              45   Substitute Management       52   Collaboration (Share Point,
                                                                        Blogs, Wikis)
38   Accounts Payable             46   Applicant Tracking          53   Website
39   Accounts Receivable          47   Certification Tracking      54   Phone System
40   Fixed Assets Management      48   Payroll                     55   Auto Dialer
41   Chart of Accounts            49   Time Reporting and Clocks   56   Video Conferencing
42   Reporting                    50   Online Employee
                                       Information Access
43   Budgeting                    51   Fingerprinting/Background
                                       Checks
44   Purchasing




Facilities and District Management
Facilities and Grounds            Capital Projects                 Food Services
57   Transportation System - Bus 63    Future Planning For         68   Food Service Management -
     Routing and Maintenance           Infrastructure                   Including FRPL Applications
58   Maintenance System           64   Construction Management     69   Food Service POS
59   Warehouse Management         Telecommunications               Help Desk
60   Facilities Scheduling        65   Telephone Voicemail         70   Support Knowledge Base
61   HVAC Power Management        66   Intercom Pager Clock        71   Technology Help Desk
                                                                        Ticket System
62   Security - Locks & Cameras   67   Cell Phones




                                                                                           Page | 16
Classified Staff Adequacy
Technology


Miscellaneous Systems
72    Textbook Inventory            76    School Board Management        80    Instructional Resources
                                                                               (IPTV)
73    Library Automation            77    Computer Based Learning        81    Disaster Recovery
74    Print Management System       78    Internet Filtering
75    School POS                    79    Calendar System



State and Federal Reporting
82-92*        Required State Reports (for example, P223 Enrollment)
93-102*       Required Federal Reports (for example, Special Education count, Highly Qualified
              Teachers)
103-106*      Required State and Federal Reports (for example, F196 Annual Financial Statement)
107           Electronic Reporting via EDS (for example, Assessment Data, Health and Safety,
              Technology Survey, iGrants)
108           Electronic Reporting via Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS)
*25 (11 state, 10 federal, and 4 state and federal) reports are required of all districts. Up to 84 reports
are required of some districts.




                                                                                                   Page | 17
                          September 21st QEC Agenda Item 5



Members
Randy Dorn, Chair            Topic:          State and Federal Forest Funding and Miscellaneous
State Superintendent                         Components of the Prototypical Funding Formula
Adie Simmons, Director,
Office of the Education      Presenter:      Shawn Lewis, Chief Financial Officer, Office of
Ombudsman                                    Superintendent of Public Instruction
Dr. Bette Hyde
Director, Department of      Date:           Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Early Learning
                             PURPOSE
Bruce Dammeier
House of Representatives
                             Senator Margarita Prentice and Representative Kelli Linville requested
Marcie Maxwell
                             that the QEC include a review of the deductible revenues policy within
House of Representatives
                             the K-12 finance reform effort. In addition to timber revenue
Skip Priest
House of Representatives
                             deductions, there are other small funding issues that will be brought to
                             the QEC’s attention.
Pat Sullivan
House of Representatives
                             SUMMARY
Stephen Rushing
Professional Educator        Before the mid-1960s, school districts were able to keep revenue
Standards Board              generated from state land timber sales as an additional revenue stream
Mary Jean Ryan               outside of their general apportionment.
State Board of Education
                             Timber revenue districts perceive that the current system is not
Curtis King
Washington State Senate      appropriate as it: (1) deducts this revenue, (2) does not allow the district
                             to levy a tax on the forest property and (3) is not included in the
Rosemary McAuliffe
                             calculation of state and federal funds for determining the levy based of a
Washington State Senate
                             district.
Eric Oemig
Washington State Senate      Beyond timber revenue, fire district payments and other minor issues
Joseph Zarelli               that have been raised by stakeholders will be discussed to determine if
Washington State Senate      the QEC is interested in making a recommendation or receiving
                             additional information regarding these funding issues.
Alternates
Frank Chopp                  REQUESTED ACTION
Speaker of the House
Tracey Eide                  The QEC reach agreement regarding a recommendation for changing
Washington State Senate      existing statutes regarding these funding formula components in its
                             upcoming report.
Sally Brownfield
Director of Tu Ha’ Buts
Learning Center




                             http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC                     Updated: 9/17/2010 1:46 PM
                          QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
                                                                                                                                                  295
(a) - with the deduction of timber revenues.                                                                                 neutral               12
(b) - Includes the timber revenues in the levy base.                                                                         "winners"            199
                                                                                                                             "losers"              84
                             Statewide 12% Tax Rate
                                        (a)          (b)      Difference
                                       1.008        1.011                0.003
                                                      Levy Equalization                                                                    Change in
                                      Timber                                                     Net Impact
                                                                                                                 2008-09      Adjusted        State
                                     Revenue                                                      (Timber
                                                                                 Difference                     State Rev    Revenue Per    Revenue
                                 (Amount added                                                  Revenue plus
                                                                                                                 Per FTE       Student         Per
                                  to Levy Base)                                                change in LEA)
                                                     (a)             (b)                                                                     Student
Sedro-Woolley                     $    1,716,273 $    883,472 $ 1,094,770        $   211,298   $   1,927,571    $    6,588   $     7,049   $      461
Mount Baker                       $    1,140,244 $    342,885 $      482,985     $   140,100   $   1,280,344    $    7,242   $     7,854   $      612
Centralia                         $    1,054,484 $    935,066 $ 1,062,256        $   127,190   $   1,181,674    $    6,559   $     6,915   $      356
Arlington                         $      954,068 $    677,824 $      789,003     $   111,179   $   1,065,247    $    6,283   $     6,483   $      200
Stevenson-Carson                  $      798,778 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     798,778    $    5,371   $     6,100   $      729
Sultan                            $      748,871 $    547,980 $      640,342     $    92,362   $     841,233    $    6,523   $     6,921   $      398
Port Townsend                     $      666,929 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     666,929    $    5,961   $     6,411   $      450
Wenatchee                         $      662,419 $ 3,563,230 $ 3,635,781         $    72,551   $     734,970    $    6,693   $     6,793   $      100
Port Angeles                      $      534,018 $    211,794 $      269,822     $    58,028   $     592,046    $    6,459   $     6,602   $      143
Crescent                          $      525,818 $        -    $       15,904    $    15,904   $     541,722    $    7,774   $     9,643   $    1,869
Chimacum                          $      507,046 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     507,046    $    6,406   $     6,875   $      468
Chehalis                          $      484,584 $    654,211 $      710,201     $    55,990   $     540,574    $    6,791   $     6,982   $      191
Sequim                            $      442,816 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     442,816    $    6,131   $     6,286   $      155
Quillayute Valley                 $      441,626 $ 1,867,768 $ 1,914,659         $    46,891   $     488,517    $    6,175   $     6,352   $      177
Pe Ell                            $      429,768 $    180,868 $      235,537     $    54,669   $     484,437    $    8,565   $    10,181   $    1,617
Eatonville                        $      420,668 $    326,220 $      374,847     $    48,627   $     469,295    $    6,468   $     6,704   $      237
Yakima                            $      414,017 $ 12,586,871 $ 12,625,630       $    38,759   $     452,776    $    7,635   $     7,666   $        31
Bellingham                        $      332,105 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     332,105    $    6,185   $     6,217   $        32
Newport                           $      300,975 $    322,226 $      357,753     $    35,527   $     336,502    $    7,336   $     7,641   $      305
North Mason                       $      296,272 $     54,647 $        85,286    $    30,639   $     326,911    $    6,606   $     6,756   $      150
Woodland                          $      292,948 $    525,922 $      558,624     $    32,702   $     325,650    $    6,772   $     6,923   $      151
Tenino                            $      289,841 $    236,716 $      270,699     $    33,983   $     323,824    $    6,795   $     7,054   $      259
Adna                              $      287,849 $    197,033 $      232,677     $    35,644   $     323,493    $    6,728   $     7,290   $      562
Quilcene                          $      253,794 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     253,794    $    8,986   $    10,034   $    1,048
Willapa Valley                    $      240,220 $    186,257 $      216,408     $    30,151   $     270,371    $   10,237   $    11,093   $      857
Omak                              $      238,785 $ 1,028,843 $ 1,057,236         $    28,393   $     267,178    $    7,231   $     7,394   $      163
Winlock                           $      238,134 $    453,818 $      483,239     $    29,421   $     267,555    $    7,308   $     7,666   $      358
Ellensburg                        $      225,631 $    505,015 $      526,537     $    21,522   $     247,153    $    6,241   $     6,326   $        85
Issaquah                          $      216,908 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     216,908    $    5,837   $     5,850   $        13
Toledo                            $      168,829 $    485,999 $      506,393     $    20,394   $     189,223    $    6,771   $     6,976   $      205
Edmonds                           $      168,142 $        -    $           -     $       -     $     168,142    $    6,261   $     6,269   $         8
Mount Vernon                      $      165,669 $ 2,483,380 $ 2,491,885         $     8,505   $     174,174    $    7,063   $     7,092   $        30
Granite Falls                     $      165,291 $    431,661 $      447,592     $    15,931   $     181,222    $    6,404   $     6,486   $        82
                       QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Cape Flattery               $    163,454 $    497,743 $  518,265 $   20,522 $     183,976 $  8,981 $   9,406   $   425
Sunnyside                   $    162,904 $ 5,910,291 $ 5,927,331 $   17,040 $     179,944 $  7,562 $   7,594   $    32
Dayton                      $    160,789 $     39,560 $   58,562 $   19,002 $     179,791 $  7,386 $   7,757   $   371
Olympia                     $    159,359 $        -   $      -   $       -    $   159,359 $  6,195 $   6,213   $    18
Seattle                     $    158,160 $        -   $      -   $       -    $   158,160 $  6,740 $   6,743   $     4
Ferndale                    $    156,478 $    609,198 $  614,102 $     4,904 $    161,382 $  6,506 $   6,537   $    31
Onalaska                    $    155,211 $    448,262 $  466,778 $   18,516 $     173,727 $  6,651 $   6,851   $   200
Everett                     $    155,186 $    299,367 $  261,963 $  (37,404) $    117,782 $  6,546 $   6,553   $     6
Tumwater                    $    154,256 $ 1,024,797 $ 1,029,864 $     5,067 $    159,323 $  6,525 $   6,549   $    24
Tonasket                    $    149,299 $    744,830 $  762,611 $   17,781 $     167,080 $  7,274 $   7,435   $   161
Shelton                     $    148,834 $ 1,515,271 $ 1,527,287 $   12,016 $     160,850 $  7,016 $   7,056   $    39
Okanogan                    $    148,007 $    794,309 $  812,316 $   18,007 $     166,014 $  7,206 $   7,369   $   163
Republic                    $    142,407 $    221,081 $  238,692 $   17,611 $     160,018 $  7,605 $   8,022   $   416
West Valley (Yakima)        $    137,317 $ 2,235,818 $ 2,245,881 $   10,063 $     147,380 $  6,616 $   6,647   $    31
Napavine                    $    135,410 $    369,970 $  386,295 $   16,325 $     151,735 $  6,948 $   7,151   $   202
Burlington-Edison           $    133,940 $    321,191 $  328,342 $     7,151 $    141,091 $  6,541 $   6,578   $    37
Mossyrock                   $    129,869 $    195,642 $  210,723 $   15,081 $     144,950 $  7,237 $   7,473   $   236
Cashmere                    $    129,859 $    822,395 $  837,166 $   14,771 $     144,630 $  6,573 $   6,673   $   100
Mukilteo                    $    122,543 $        -   $      -   $       -    $   122,543 $  6,283 $   6,291   $     9
Brewster                    $    121,830 $    729,506 $  744,186 $   14,680 $     136,510 $  7,979 $   8,141   $   163
Central Kitsap              $    119,906 $ 3,512,318 $ 3,503,578 $    (8,740) $   111,166 $  6,649 $   6,658   $    10
Lake Chelan                 $    118,761 $        -   $      -   $       -    $   118,761 $  7,222 $   7,313   $    91
Cascade                     $    107,390 $        -   $      -   $       -    $   107,390 $  6,627 $   6,716   $    90
Longview                    $    103,035 $ 2,065,466 $ 2,064,765 $      (701) $   102,334 $  6,652 $   6,667   $    15
Marysville                  $     96,541 $ 3,519,469 $ 3,509,966 $    (9,503) $    87,038 $  6,669 $   6,676   $     8
Rochester                   $     96,265 $    808,740 $  817,767 $     9,027 $    105,292 $  7,387 $   7,435   $    48
Grandview                   $     96,087 $ 3,066,042 $ 3,076,088 $   10,046 $     106,133 $  7,498 $   7,530   $    32
Pomeroy                     $     95,556 $    233,427 $  245,178 $   11,751 $     107,307 $  9,202 $   9,536   $   334
Selah                       $     94,876 $ 1,768,964 $ 1,776,595 $     7,631 $    102,507 $  6,926 $   6,958   $    31
Kent                        $     94,558 $ 3,311,110 $ 3,243,617 $  (67,493) $     27,065 $  6,275 $   6,276   $     1
Toppenish                   $     94,314 $ 3,483,684 $ 3,494,090 $   10,406 $     104,720 $  7,730 $   7,762   $    32
Snohomish                   $     93,816 $    567,754 $  550,757 $  (16,997) $     76,819 $  6,263 $   6,272   $     8
Wapato                      $     92,646 $ 3,136,830 $ 3,137,359 $       529 $     93,175 $  7,513 $   7,543   $    29
Monroe                      $     90,872 $ 1,043,707 $ 1,037,709 $    (5,998) $    84,874 $  5,934 $   5,946   $    11
Oroville                    $     86,246 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    86,246 $  7,817 $   7,960   $   143
Aberdeen                    $     84,813 $ 2,241,664 $ 2,248,489 $     6,825 $     91,638 $  7,595 $   7,623   $    28
Curlew                      $     83,902 $    198,313 $  208,777 $   10,464 $      94,366 $  9,169 $   9,597   $   428
Lake Washington             $     83,491 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    83,491 $  5,997 $   6,001   $     4
Selkirk                     $     82,208 $    209,703 $  219,541 $     9,838 $     92,046 $  9,441 $   9,739   $   298
Lynden                      $     81,898 $    296,596 $  299,105 $     2,509 $     84,407 $  6,274 $   6,305   $    31
Battle Ground               $     80,758 $ 4,613,443 $ 4,598,555 $  (14,888) $     65,870 $  6,497 $   6,502   $     5
Cusick                      $     77,844 $        -   $    3,086 $     3,086 $     80,930 $  8,233 $   8,514   $   281
East Valley (Yakima)        $     77,751 $ 1,387,851 $ 1,394,216 $     6,365 $     84,116 $  6,619 $   6,650   $    31
Kittitas                    $     76,511 $    273,751 $  281,821 $     8,070 $     84,581 $  6,197 $   6,297   $   100
Anacortes                   $     76,485 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    76,485 $  6,169 $   6,197   $    28
                      QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Federal Way                $     76,233 $ 5,899,014 $ 5,866,322 $  (32,692) $     43,541 $   6,502 $    6,504   $       2
Methow Valley              $     76,061 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    76,061 $   7,278 $    7,421   $     144
White Pass                 $     75,653 $     25,216 $   33,602 $     8,386 $     84,039 $   7,957 $    8,163   $     206
Colville                   $     75,351 $ 1,207,159 $ 1,213,201 $     6,042 $     81,393 $   6,919 $    6,953   $      34
Inchelium                  $     73,665 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    73,665 $  10,123 $   10,488   $     365
Tacoma                     $     72,295 $ 4,228,034 $ 4,172,527 $  (55,507) $     16,788 $   6,688 $    6,688   $       1
Cle Elum-Roslyn            $     70,878 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    70,878 $   6,264 $    6,342   $      78
Boistfort                  $     70,305 $     26,142 $   34,842 $     8,700 $     79,005 $   9,509 $   10,579   $   1,070
Northshore                 $     68,583 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    68,583 $   6,302 $    6,305   $       4
White Salmon               $     68,282 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    68,282 $   7,017 $    7,076   $      58
Riverview                  $     68,113 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    68,113 $   6,197 $    6,219   $      22
Blaine                     $     65,011 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    65,011 $   6,471 $    6,501   $      30
Lake Stevens               $     63,453 $ 2,007,267 $ 2,001,471 $    (5,796) $    57,657 $   6,404 $    6,411   $       8
Morton                     $     62,744 $    149,741 $  156,886 $     7,145 $     69,889 $   8,373 $    8,575   $     202
Highline                   $     62,301 $    547,557 $  511,961 $  (35,596) $     26,705 $   6,478 $    6,480   $       2
Orient                     $     61,298 $    111,310 $  117,211 $     5,901 $     67,199 $   8,159 $    8,573   $     414
Bellevue                   $     60,214 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    60,214 $   6,045 $    6,049   $       4
Tahoma                     $     60,050 $    748,537 $  736,646 $  (11,891) $     48,159 $   6,239 $    6,246   $       7
Naselle Grays River        $     59,305 $    166,953 $  173,628 $     6,675 $     65,980 $   9,925 $   10,083   $     158
Nooksack Valley            $     57,736 $    668,233 $  672,511 $     4,278 $     62,014 $   6,954 $    6,993   $      39
Meridian                   $     55,223 $    548,318 $  552,005 $     3,687 $     58,910 $   6,281 $    6,312   $      31
Elma                       $     54,852 $    400,715 $  404,362 $     3,647 $     58,499 $   7,130 $    7,164   $      34
Puyallup                   $     54,093 $ 4,568,583 $ 4,522,525 $  (46,058) $      8,035 $   6,367 $    6,367   $       0
Manson                     $     52,651 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    52,651 $   8,569 $    8,661   $      92
Auburn                     $     51,409 $ 2,476,154 $ 2,443,871 $  (32,283) $     19,126 $   6,251 $    6,253   $       1
Hoquiam                    $     49,759 $ 1,309,276 $ 1,313,561 $     4,285 $     54,044 $   6,868 $    6,896   $      28
Skamania                   $     49,670 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    49,670 $   7,904 $    8,685   $     781
Kelso                      $     49,580 $ 2,768,005 $ 2,767,761 $      (244) $    49,336 $   6,840 $    6,850   $      10
Castle Rock                $     49,044 $    535,753 $  539,334 $     3,581 $     52,625 $   6,756 $    6,795   $      40
Renton                     $     48,647 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    48,647 $   6,248 $    6,251   $       4
Clarkston                  $     46,826 $ 1,680,499 $ 1,682,884 $     2,385 $     49,211 $   7,065 $    7,084   $      19
Stanwood-Camano            $     45,549 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    45,549 $   6,274 $    6,282   $       9
Bethel                     $     44,752 $ 6,148,651 $ 6,116,621 $  (32,030) $     12,722 $   6,614 $    6,615   $       1
Hockinson                  $     43,555 $    586,347 $  587,777 $     1,430 $     44,985 $   6,380 $    6,403   $      23
Hood Canal                 $     43,512 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    43,512 $   7,806 $    7,955   $     149
Darrington                 $     43,237 $    154,174 $  158,335 $     4,161 $     47,398 $   7,498 $    7,601   $     103
Green Mountain             $     43,046 $      7,867 $   13,062 $     5,195 $     48,241 $   6,216 $    6,636   $     420
Naches Valley              $     42,095 $    654,136 $  657,252 $     3,116 $     45,211 $   6,595 $    6,626   $      31
Granger                    $     41,338 $ 1,510,574 $ 1,515,055 $     4,481 $     45,819 $   8,246 $    8,279   $      33
Pateros                    $     39,959 $    161,916 $  166,366 $     4,450 $     44,409 $   9,299 $    9,457   $     158
Mill A                     $     38,840 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    38,840 $   9,761 $   10,472   $     711
Zillah                     $     37,681 $    939,117 $  942,844 $     3,727 $     41,408 $   6,700 $    6,732   $      32
Lyle                       $     36,214 $    202,975 $  206,881 $     3,906 $     40,120 $   9,316 $    9,440   $     124
Snoqualmie Valley          $     33,396 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    33,396 $   5,837 $    5,842   $       6
Montesano                  $     33,163 $    448,153 $  450,362 $     2,209 $     35,372 $   6,512 $    6,540   $      28
                        QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Shoreline                    $     31,793 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    31,793 $    6,425 $    6,429   $     4
Highland                     $     31,702 $    852,594 $  855,315 $     2,721 $     34,423 $    7,316 $    7,347   $    31
Entiat                       $     31,132 $    197,841 $  201,169 $     3,328 $     34,460 $    8,321 $    8,421   $   100
Raymond                      $     30,585 $    401,277 $  404,452 $     3,175 $     33,760 $    8,774 $    8,839   $    66
Clover Park                  $     29,292 $ 5,305,856 $ 5,285,185 $  (20,671) $       8,621 $   7,262 $    7,263   $     1
Camas                        $     28,697 $    513,668 $  504,055 $    (9,613) $    19,084 $    6,172 $    6,176   $     3
Concrete                     $     27,927 $    191,282 $  192,681 $     1,399 $     29,326 $    7,630 $    7,672   $    42
Mount Pleasant               $     26,889 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    26,889 $    8,667 $    9,387   $   719
Mount Adams                  $     26,435 $    675,055 $  674,985 $       (70) $    26,365 $    7,722 $    7,750   $    29
Mabton                       $     26,323 $    983,390 $  986,271 $     2,881 $     29,204 $    7,816 $    7,848   $    32
Pioneer                      $     26,172 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    26,172 $    6,467 $    6,503   $    36
Chewelah                     $     25,408 $    425,866 $  427,181 $     1,315 $     26,723 $    7,343 $    7,370   $    27
Peninsula                    $     22,953 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    22,953 $    6,342 $    6,345   $     3
Goldendale                   $     22,570 $    231,698 $  231,765 $        67 $     22,637 $    6,504 $    6,526   $    22
Valley                       $     21,918 $    726,169 $  728,566 $     2,397 $     24,315 $    6,605 $    6,632   $    28
Lakewood                     $     20,695 $     16,643 $   11,889 $    (4,754) $    15,941 $    6,251 $    6,258   $     7
Trout Lake                   $     20,429 $     59,931 $   61,936 $     2,005 $     22,434 $   11,652 $   11,790   $   138
Sumner                       $     20,369 $    694,436 $  680,022 $  (14,414) $       5,955 $   6,167 $    6,168   $     1
Kettle Falls                 $     19,664 $    362,811 $  363,823 $     1,012 $     20,676 $    7,454 $    7,480   $    27
Nespelem                     $     19,626 $    304,430 $  305,789 $     1,359 $     20,985 $   10,427 $   10,577   $   150
Conway                       $     18,884 $     75,027 $   76,018 $       991 $     19,875 $    6,643 $    6,692   $    49
Franklin Pierce              $     18,736 $ 3,107,203 $ 3,094,566 $  (12,637) $       6,099 $   6,706 $    6,707   $     1
La Conner                    $     17,667 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    17,667 $    6,683 $    6,711   $    29
North Beach                  $     17,036 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    17,036 $    6,838 $    6,865   $    27
Ocosta                       $     16,739 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    16,739 $    6,768 $    6,794   $    26
Union Gap                    $     16,677 $    481,319 $  482,205 $       886 $     17,563 $    7,358 $    7,389   $    30
Wellpinit                    $     15,579 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    15,579 $    6,301 $    6,327   $    26
Mercer Island                $     14,259 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    14,259 $    5,943 $    5,947   $     4
Mary Walker                  $     14,004 $    398,512 $  398,368 $      (144) $    13,860 $    8,128 $    8,152   $    25
Brinnon                      $     13,575 $        -   $      -   $       -    $    13,575 $   16,284 $   16,735   $   451
University Place             $     13,518 $ 1,381,695 $ 1,370,986 $  (10,709) $       2,809 $   6,273 $    6,274   $     1
Steilacoom Historical        $     13,055 $ 1,402,248 $ 1,394,823 $    (7,425) $      5,630 $   5,441 $    5,442   $     1
Queets-Clearwater            $     12,872 $     62,929 $   64,427 $     1,498 $     14,370 $   19,835 $   20,416   $   580
Keller                       $     12,627 $    135,323 $  136,902 $     1,579 $     14,206 $   17,122 $   17,555   $   433
Thorp                        $     11,701 $     92,896 $   93,770 $       874 $     12,575 $   11,539 $   11,623   $    84
McCleary                     $     10,827 $    223,335 $  224,272 $       937 $     11,764 $    6,893 $    6,937   $    45
White River                  $     10,671 $    711,541 $  704,773 $    (6,768) $      3,903 $   6,473 $    6,474   $     1
Asotin-Anatone               $     10,378 $    326,561 $  326,874 $       313 $     10,691 $    7,634 $    7,652   $    18
Enumclaw                     $      9,855 $    628,673 $  617,347 $  (11,326) $      (1,471) $  6,521 $    6,521   $    (0)
Kalama                       $      9,850 $        -   $      -   $       -    $      9,850 $   5,700 $    5,710   $    10
Tukwila                      $      9,734 $        -   $      -   $       -    $      9,734 $   6,797 $    6,801   $     4
Starbuck                     $      8,812 $        -   $      -   $       -    $      8,812 $  18,688 $   19,028   $   340
Fife                         $      8,722 $        -   $      -   $       -    $      8,722 $   6,174 $    6,176   $     3
Southside                    $      8,297 $     24,304 $   24,600 $       296 $       8,593 $   6,830 $    6,869   $    39
Glenwood                     $      8,085 $    160,275 $  161,176 $       901 $       8,986 $  25,175 $   25,327   $   152
                      QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Evaline                    $      7,258 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      7,258 $   8,531 $    8,724   $   193
Grapeview                  $      7,120 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      7,120 $   6,438 $    6,474   $    36
Oakville                   $      7,077 $    253,471 $    253,918 $     447 $       7,524 $   9,670 $    9,698   $    28
Northport                  $      6,829 $    217,432 $    217,869 $     437 $       7,266 $   9,127 $    9,154   $    27
Easton                     $      6,821 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      6,821 $  17,073 $   17,153   $    80
Loon Lake                  $      6,276 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      6,276 $   6,130 $    6,154   $    24
Mary M Knight              $      6,268 $    123,326 $    123,648 $     322 $       6,590 $  11,452 $   11,491   $    39
Toutle Lake                $      6,148 $    255,637 $    255,182 $    (455) $      5,693 $   7,698 $    7,708   $    10
Lake Quinault              $      5,739 $    184,212 $    184,510 $     298 $       6,037 $  11,821 $   11,849   $    27
Orting                     $      5,577 $    574,181 $    570,977 $  (3,204) $      2,373 $   5,763 $    5,764   $     1
Vashon Island              $      5,386 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      5,386 $   6,200 $    6,203   $     4
Klickitat                  $      5,253 $    216,943 $    217,513 $     570 $       5,823 $  15,784 $   15,835   $    51
Taholah                    $      5,071 $    289,776 $    290,366 $     590 $       5,661 $  10,844 $   10,873   $    30
Columbia (Stevens)         $      4,901 $    204,826 $    204,471 $    (355) $      4,546 $  12,865 $   12,889   $    24
Cosmopolis                 $      4,392 $    146,320 $    146,340 $      20 $       4,412 $   7,171 $    7,197   $    26
Bickleton                  $      4,392 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      4,392 $  15,082 $   15,125   $    43
Index                      $      3,727 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      3,727 $  18,772 $   18,955   $   183
Wishkah Valley             $      3,662 $    150,426 $    150,652 $     226 $       3,888 $   9,139 $    9,166   $    27
Centerville                $      3,384 $     51,592 $     51,807 $     215 $       3,599 $   9,342 $    9,389   $    47
Dieringer                  $      3,146 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      3,146 $   6,241 $    6,243   $     3
Evergreen (Clark)          $      2,749 $ 10,753,571 $ 10,709,344 $ (44,227) $   (41,478) $   6,525 $    6,523   $    (2)
Damman                     $      2,229 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      2,229 $   9,992 $   10,068   $    76
Walla Walla                $      2,123 $ 2,897,735 $ 2,888,609 $    (9,126) $     (7,003) $  6,970 $    6,969   $    (1)
Vancouver                  $      2,078 $ 6,602,579 $ 6,554,695 $   (47,884) $   (45,806) $   6,567 $    6,564   $    (2)
Summit Valley              $      2,038 $    122,020 $    121,754 $    (266) $      1,772 $   9,057 $    9,078   $    21
Stehekin                   $      1,526 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      1,526 $  18,959 $   19,045   $    85
Wishram                    $      1,443 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      1,443 $  21,841 $   21,863   $    22
Roosevelt                  $      1,255 $        -   $        -   $     -    $      1,255 $  16,212 $   16,262   $    50
Satsop                     $      1,238 $     82,527 $     82,563 $      36 $       1,274 $   8,528 $    8,556   $    27
Onion Creek                $        658 $     92,360 $     92,376 $      16 $         674 $  24,605 $   24,629   $    24
North Thurston             $        639 $ 1,856,549 $ 1,822,179 $   (34,370) $   (33,731) $   6,322 $    6,320   $    (3)
Carbonado                  $        434 $    113,288 $    113,007 $    (281) $        153 $   7,448 $    7,448   $     1
Ridgefield                 $        395 $        -   $        -   $     -    $        395 $   5,944 $    5,944   $     0
Columbia (Walla)           $        317 $    342,940 $    341,249 $  (1,691) $     (1,374) $  6,569 $    6,567   $    (2)
Washougal                  $        281 $    384,070 $    376,183 $  (7,887) $     (7,606) $  6,325 $    6,322   $    (3)
College Place              $        255 $    165,758 $    162,855 $  (2,903) $     (2,648) $  7,175 $    7,171   $    (4)
Yelm                       $        255 $ 1,844,779 $ 1,834,560 $   (10,219) $     (9,964) $  6,453 $    6,452   $    (2)
Skykomish                  $        218 $        -   $        -   $     -    $        218 $  24,665 $   24,668   $     4
La Center                  $        145 $    403,693 $    400,528 $  (3,165) $     (3,020) $  6,158 $    6,156   $    (2)
Evergreen (Stevens)        $        142 $        -   $        -   $     -    $        142 $  36,566 $   36,586   $    20
Waitsburg                  $        122 $    264,489 $    264,115 $    (374) $       (252) $  8,594 $    8,593   $    (1)
Touchet                    $        114 $    147,426 $    146,702 $    (724) $       (610) $  8,598 $    8,596   $    (2)
Prescott                   $         86 $    160,972 $    160,216 $    (756) $       (670) $ 10,182 $   10,179   $    (3)
Rainier                    $         44 $    297,527 $    295,733 $  (1,794) $     (1,750) $  6,284 $    6,282   $    (2)
Griffin                    $         43 $        -   $        -   $     -    $         43 $   6,921 $    6,921   $     0
                   QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Dixie                   $          7 $     33,744 $   33,551 $      (193) $       (186) $ 20,005 $   19,996   $       (9)
Benge                              0 $     31,843 $   31,791 $       (52) $        (52) $ 40,556 $   40,550   $       (6)
Washtucna                          0 $    192,779 $  192,659 $      (120) $       (120) $ 29,375 $   29,373   $       (2)
Star                               0 $        -   $      -   $       -    $        -    $ 28,792 $   28,792   $   -
North River                        0 $        -   $      -   $       -    $        -    $ 28,013 $   28,013   $   -
Kahlotus                           0 $    182,051 $  181,925 $      (126) $       (126) $ 27,672 $   27,669   $       (2)
Almira                             0 $    189,522 $  189,337 $      (185) $       (185) $ 26,714 $   26,711   $       (3)
Endicott                           0 $    151,080 $  150,820 $      (260) $       (260) $ 24,290 $   24,286   $       (4)
Mansfield                          0 $    187,482 $  187,323 $      (159) $       (159) $ 23,051 $   23,049   $       (2)
Shaw Island                        0 $        -   $      -   $       -    $        -    $ 19,772 $   19,772   $   -
Garfield                           0 $    194,459 $  194,264 $      (195) $       (195) $ 19,298 $   19,296   $       (2)
Sprague                            0 $    120,788 $  120,558 $      (230) $       (230) $ 18,656 $   18,653   $       (3)
Palisades                          0 $     42,505 $   42,352 $      (153) $       (153) $ 17,719 $   17,713   $       (6)
Lamont                             0 $     62,943 $   62,840 $      (103) $       (103) $ 17,450 $   17,446   $       (3)
Creston                            0 $     47,332 $   46,712 $      (620) $       (620) $ 16,782 $   16,776   $       (6)
Oakesdale                          0 $    160,009 $  159,728 $      (281) $       (281) $ 16,664 $   16,661   $       (3)
Lacrosse                           0 $    114,728 $  114,292 $      (436) $       (436) $ 16,181 $   16,177   $       (4)
Wilson Creek                       0 $    208,250 $  208,084 $      (166) $       (166) $ 16,046 $   16,045   $       (1)
Harrington                         0 $    153,722 $  153,415 $      (307) $       (307) $ 14,624 $   14,622   $       (2)
Steptoe                            0 $     49,821 $   49,726 $       (95) $        (95) $ 14,455 $   14,453   $       (3)
St. John                           0 $    160,202 $  159,701 $      (501) $       (501) $ 12,373 $   12,370   $       (3)
Rosalia                            0 $    240,041 $  239,712 $      (329) $       (329) $ 11,991 $   11,989   $       (2)
Tekoa                              0 $    257,640 $  257,456 $      (184) $       (184) $ 11,743 $   11,742   $       (1)
Lind                               0 $    142,838 $  142,213 $      (625) $       (625) $ 11,659 $   11,656   $       (3)
Coulee-Hartline                    0 $    117,082 $  116,560 $      (522) $       (522) $ 11,599 $   11,596   $       (3)
Odessa                             0 $    172,409 $  171,885 $      (524) $       (524) $ 11,303 $   11,301   $       (2)
Colton                             0 $    149,570 $  149,215 $      (355) $       (355) $ 11,142 $   11,139   $       (2)
Lopez Island                       0 $        -   $      -   $       -    $        -    $ 10,859 $   10,859   $   -
Wilbur                             0 $    173,094 $  172,656 $      (438) $       (438) $ 10,328 $   10,326   $       (2)
Palouse                            0 $    166,222 $  165,903 $      (319) $       (319) $  9,914 $    9,913   $       (2)
Waterville                         0 $    216,468 $  216,030 $      (438) $       (438) $  9,433 $    9,431   $       (2)
South Bend                         0 $    436,893 $  436,198 $      (695) $       (695) $  9,374 $    9,373   $       (1)
Paterson                           0 $        -   $      -   $       -    $        -    $  9,265 $    9,265   $   -
Orondo                             0 $     22,188 $   21,132 $    (1,056) $     (1,056) $  9,134 $    9,128   $       (6)
Great Northern                     0 $     12,265 $   12,013 $      (252) $       (252) $  8,882 $    8,876   $       (6)
Ritzville                          0 $    153,709 $  152,836 $      (873) $       (873) $  8,615 $    8,612   $       (3)
Bridgeport                         0 $    805,152 $  804,806 $      (346) $       (346) $  8,461 $    8,460   $       (0)
Liberty                            0 $     86,944 $   85,400 $    (1,544) $     (1,544) $  8,421 $    8,418   $       (3)
Orchard Prairie                    0 $     16,905 $   16,632 $      (273) $       (273) $  8,179 $    8,175   $       (4)
Davenport                          0 $    396,350 $  395,648 $      (702) $       (702) $  7,956 $    7,955   $       (1)
Grand Coulee Dam                   0 $    440,725 $  440,065 $      (660) $       (660) $  7,900 $    7,899   $       (1)
Wahluke                            0 $ 1,828,219 $ 1,826,858 $    (1,361) $     (1,361) $  7,827 $    7,826   $       (1)
Soap Lake                          0 $    441,566 $  440,992 $      (574) $       (574) $  7,787 $    7,786   $       (1)
North Franklin                     0 $ 1,552,397 $ 1,550,339 $    (2,058) $     (2,058) $  7,772 $    7,771   $       (1)
Wahkiakum                          0 $     94,111 $   92,693 $    (1,418) $     (1,418) $  7,692 $    7,689   $       (3)
                        QEC STATE AND FEDERAL TIMBER REVENUE EXAMPLES - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Warden                                   0 $     773,789 $     772,816 $    (973) $       (973) $ 7,632 $   7,631   $       (1)
Reardan                                  0 $     361,833 $     360,664 $  (1,169) $     (1,169) $ 7,623 $   7,622   $       (2)
Orcas Island                             0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 7,568 $   7,568   $   -
Riverside                                0 $     950,758 $     947,928 $  (2,830) $     (2,830) $ 7,536 $   7,535   $       (2)
Royal                                    0 $ 1,158,032 $ 1,156,628 $      (1,404) $     (1,404) $ 7,500 $   7,499   $       (1)
Finley                                   0 $     662,461 $     661,303 $  (1,158) $     (1,158) $ 7,460 $   7,459   $       (1)
Prosser                                  0 $ 2,062,144 $ 2,059,120 $      (3,024) $     (3,024) $ 7,417 $   7,416   $       (1)
Ocean Beach                              0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 7,406 $   7,406   $   -
Quincy                                   0 $ 1,046,713 $ 1,041,400 $      (5,313) $     (5,313) $ 7,309 $   7,306   $       (2)
Othello                                  0 $ 2,862,249 $ 2,859,400 $      (2,849) $     (2,849) $ 7,282 $   7,281   $       (1)
Colfax                                   0 $     325,441 $     324,372 $  (1,069) $     (1,069) $ 7,223 $   7,221   $       (2)
Pasco                                    0 $ 9,989,500 $ 9,976,543 $     (12,957) $    (12,957) $ 7,209 $   7,208   $       (1)
Kiona-Benton                             0 $ 1,149,343 $ 1,147,895 $      (1,448) $     (1,448) $ 7,135 $   7,134   $       (1)
Spokane                                  0 $ 13,664,721 $ 13,611,824 $   (52,897) $    (52,897) $ 7,088 $   7,086   $       (2)
East Valley                              0 $ 1,872,099 $ 1,864,405 $      (7,694) $     (7,694) $ 7,085 $   7,083   $       (2)
Eastmont                                 0 $ 2,635,391 $ 2,626,376 $      (9,015) $     (9,015) $ 7,080 $   7,078   $       (2)
Kennewick                                0 $ 9,406,521 $ 9,388,662 $     (17,859) $    (17,859) $ 7,011 $   7,009   $       (1)
Deer Park                                0 $ 1,595,899 $ 1,593,170 $      (2,729) $     (2,729) $ 6,974 $   6,973   $       (1)
Cheney                                   0 $ 1,340,927 $ 1,333,236 $      (7,691) $     (7,691) $ 6,957 $   6,955   $       (2)
Freeman                                  0 $     411,287 $     409,652 $  (1,635) $     (1,635) $ 6,952 $   6,950   $       (2)
Ephrata                                  0 $ 1,468,473 $ 1,466,080 $      (2,393) $     (2,393) $ 6,943 $   6,942   $       (1)
Medical Lake                             0 $ 1,507,446 $ 1,505,721 $      (1,725) $     (1,725) $ 6,929 $   6,928   $       (1)
Moses Lake                               0 $ 3,979,098 $ 3,967,962 $     (11,136) $    (11,136) $ 6,914 $   6,912   $       (2)
Bremerton                                0 $     921,096 $     907,210 $ (13,886) $    (13,886) $ 6,893 $   6,890   $       (3)
Nine Mile Falls                          0 $     745,536 $     742,880 $  (2,656) $     (2,656) $ 6,781 $   6,780   $       (2)
West Valley (Spokane)                    0 $ 1,696,572 $ 1,690,942 $      (5,630) $     (5,630) $ 6,622 $   6,621   $       (2)
Central Valley                           0 $ 4,713,313 $ 4,691,493 $     (21,820) $    (21,820) $ 6,514 $   6,512   $       (2)
San Juan Island                          0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 6,507 $   6,507   $   -
Mead                                     0 $ 3,606,110 $ 3,590,634 $     (15,476) $    (15,476) $ 6,490 $   6,488   $       (2)
Richland                                 0 $ 4,257,137 $ 4,239,878 $     (17,259) $    (17,259) $ 6,474 $   6,472   $       (2)
South Whidbey                            0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 6,447 $   6,447   $   -
South Kitsap                             0 $ 1,751,757 $ 1,726,969 $     (24,788) $    (24,788) $ 6,446 $   6,444   $       (3)
North Kitsap                             0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 6,387 $   6,387   $   -
Coupeville                               0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 6,349 $   6,349   $   -
Bainbridge                               0 $         -   $         -   $     -    $        -    $ 6,287 $   6,287   $   -
Oak Harbor                               0 $     818,056 $     806,428 $ (11,628) $    (11,628) $ 6,217 $   6,215   $       (2)
Pullman                                  0 $     456,871 $     451,718 $  (5,153) $     (5,153) $ 6,211 $   6,209   $       (2)
State Total                     24,473,086   261,845,979   262,728,896   882,917    25,356,003
              Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction
              K-12 Financial Resources




State and Federal Forest Funding
                        Presentation to the QEC
                           Shawn Lewis, OSPI
                          September 21, 2010


K-12 Financial Resources                                         Slide 1
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction                 9/17/2010
                                  Background
• The portion of timber revenues sent to school
  districts is deducted from state general
  apportionment for K-12 education.
• For districts that receive timber revenue,
  increasing or decreasing timber sales from
  state forest board lands is primarily a revenue
  neutral event.
• Skamania County schools only deduct 30% of
  their timber revenue
 K-12 Financial Resources                           Slide 2
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction   9/17/2010
                  Timber Revenue Issue
• Timber revenue districts perceive that the
  current system is not appropriate and fair:
   – Timber revenue is deducted from basic
     apportionment
   – The timber land that generates this funding is
     generally not subject to excess property levies
   – The timber revenue is not included in the
     calculation of state and federal funds for
     determining the levy based of a district.

 K-12 Financial Resources                                Slide 3
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction        9/17/2010
               Timber Revenue Impact
• In 2010, 214 districts received either federal
  or state timber revenue that was at least
  partially deducted from their apportionment
  payments.
• Total federal and state timber revenue is $24.5
  million per year. The cost to the state of not
  deducting this revenue would be $25.4 million
  in total, due to an increase in levy equalization
  costs (see QEC materials).
 K-12 Financial Resources                           Slide 4
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction   9/17/2010
    School District Impact if Timber
        Revenue not Deducted
  Greater than $500K in Timber Revenue                   Greater than $500 per student impact
                                                              by not deducting Revenue
Sedro-Woolley                              1,716,273   Crescent                    $   1,869
Mount Baker                                1,140,244   Pe Ell                      $   1,617
Centralia                                  1,054,484   Boistfort                   $   1,070
Arlington                                    954,068   Quilcene                    $   1,048

Stevenson-Carson                             798,778   Willapa Valley              $    857
                                                       Skamania                    $    781
Sultan                                       748,871
                                                       Stevenson-Carson            $    729
Port Townsend                                666,929
                                                       Mount Pleasant              $    719
Wenatchee                                    662,419
                                                       Mill A                      $    711
Port Angeles                                 534,018   Mount Baker                 $    612
Crescent                                     525,818   Queets-Clearwater           $    580
Chimacum                                     507,046   Adna                        $    562




  K-12 Financial Resources                                                                 Slide 5
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction                                         9/17/2010
 Analysis of Timber Revenue Issue
• No significant correlation exists between the state or
  local revenue per pupil a district receives and the
  timber revenue that is received.
• The variation between state and local revenue per
  pupil is due primarily to other factors than the
  deduction of timber revenue.
• If the method were changed to non-deduction, an
  example of the impact by school district is shown in
  the QEC materials.

  K-12 Financial Resources                                 Slide 6
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction      9/17/2010
  Fire Protection District Payments
• School Districts that are located within fire
  protection districts are governed by RCW 52.30.020
  and WAC 392-121-460 with respect to the
  arrangement for fire protection services.
• OSPI presents an amount sufficient to reimburse
  affected school districts for money necessary to pay
  the costs of the uniform rates established to pay for
  services.
• School Districts then pay the established rate to the
  appropriate fire protection district.

  K-12 Financial Resources                                Slide 7
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction      9/17/2010
         Fire Protection District Issue
• While OSPI and school districts have been utilized as
  a conduit to provide state funds to fire protection
  districts, it is not the most efficient mechanism for
  the distribution of the funding.
• Several other state agencies are included in the
  development of the uniform rates and could provide
  the funding directly to fire districts.
• In 2010, the total payments amounted to $576,000
  distributed to 207 districts.


  K-12 Financial Resources                                Slide 8
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction     9/17/2010
       Other Miscellaneous Funding
                 Issues
• Legislative staff along with OFM and OSPI continue to
  work collaboratively to determine implementation
  issues that need to be addressed in the new funding
  formula.
• OFM has discussed convening the Funding Formula
  Technical Working Group to provide feedback and
  counsel regarding issues that arise. Decisions that
  are made before December will be communicated to
  the QEC prior to the Legislative session.


  K-12 Financial Resources                            Slide 9
  Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction    9/17/2010
                          September 21st QEC Agenda Item 6



Members
Randy Dorn, Chair            Topic:         Financial Reporting System – Changes to Support
State Superintendent                        Transparency in the School Accounting System
Adie Simmons, Director,
Office of the Education      Presenter:     Cal Brodie and Shawn Lewis, Office of Superintendent of
Ombudsman                                   Public Instruction
Dr. Bette Hyde
Director, Department of      Date:          Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Early Learning
                             PURPOSE
Bruce Dammeier
House of Representatives
                             Provide the QEC with OSPI work regarding SHB 2261 reporting
Marcie Maxwell               requirements along with considerations for future improvements in
House of Representatives     financial reporting.
Skip Priest
House of Representatives     SUMMARY
Pat Sullivan                 OSPI has an Excel based tool targeted for the general public to access
House of Representatives
                             school district revenue, expenditure and staffing data. While this data
Stephen Rushing              has been available in other formats in the past, this tool provides a
Professional Educator
Standards Board              new method to view school district financial information and to
                             easily access comparative data and charts reflecting a group of
Mary Jean Ryan
State Board of Education     districts as selected by the user.
Curtis King                  The financial data available at this time is limited to school district
Washington State Senate
                             data. Collection of school based financial data requires additional
Rosemary McAuliffe           work and costs, but models have been developed for collecting
Washington State Senate
                             this information in the future. Examples of school based data to
Eric Oemig                   be collected annually are included in the QEC meeting materials.
Washington State Senate
Joseph Zarelli               In addition, the new funding models and ongoing changes in the
Washington State Senate      education environment may require a more flexible accounting
Alternates                   system. Changes, including the ability to add new funds to the
Frank Chopp                  schools district accounting system, would provide more
Speaker of the House         transparency and flexibility – but would also require legislative
Tracey Eide                  action.
Washington State Senate
                             REQUESTED ACTION
Sally Brownfield
Director of Tu Ha’ Buts      The QEC should consider the recommendations made and determine
Learning Center              whether to incorporate them into their report to the Legislature.




                             http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC                   Updated: 9/17/2010 1:47 PM
                   Basic Education Staff Costs Per Student                                                                                     Basic Education Total Costs
5,000
                                                                                                               70




                                                                                                    Millions
4,800                                                                                                          60
4,600                                                                                                          50
4,400                                                                                                          40
4,200                                                                                                          30
4,000                                                                                                          20
3,800                                                                                                          10
3,600                                                                                                           0




                                                                                                                                                                     Rochester
                                                                                                                                                 Olympia
                                                                                                                    Griffin




                                                                                                                                                           Rainier
                                                                                                                              North Thurston




                                                                                                                                                                                 Tenino




                                                                                                                                                                                                     Yelm
                                                                                                                                                                                          Tumwater
                                     Olympia




                                                                                             Yelm
                                                                        Tenino




                                                                                  Tumwater
         Griffin




                                                Rainier
                    North Thurston




                                                           Rochester




        Basic Education Non-Employee Related Costs Per Student
1,200
1,000
 800
 600
 400
 200
   -
                                     Olympia
        Griffin




                                               Rainier
                   North Thurston




                                                                       Tenino




                                                                                             Yelm
                                                          Rochester




                                                                                 Tumwater
Exhibit - Report A - These reports would be a published part of each school district's annual financial report

                                                                                 Sample School District #048
                                                                           Summary of Direct Expenditures by Object
                                                                             For the Year Ending August 31, 2010

                                                                                             Expenditure Object Code
  Sch                                 2 - Certificated       3 - Classified      4 - PR Tx and    5 - Supplies and   7 - Purchased                             9 - Capital
 Code                School               Salaries              Salaries            Benefits          Materials         Services            8 - Travel           Outlay              Total
   7546   McConnesty Middle School $       732,332.57    $      2,919,954.72   $ 1,598,849.02 $         444,196.61 $    2,089,243.79    $       9,944.49   $            $
                                                                                                                                                                  29,996.91         7,802,536.07
   8213   Marchlik Senior High School$ 1,296,439.23      $      6,211,479.38   $ 2,904,755.12 $         759,459.10 $    5,575,485.15    $     47,108.70    $            $
                                                                                                                                                                  37,350.46        16,833,661.54
   6573   Drozhd Middle School       $     630,395.34    $      3,006,884.65   $ 1,375,681.39 $         533,564.62 $    2,902,711.16    $     32,762.10    $            $
                                                                                                                                                                  23,414.70         8,506,206.36
   6435   Donahue Middle School $          849,986.01    $      4,400,518.42   $ 2,296,810.28 $         662,564.31 $    4,345,196.37    $     11,940.48    $            $
                                                                                                                                                                  11,937.32        12,594,657.83
   1463   Ryan Elementary            $     119,495.25    $        528,887.52   $     284,986.66 $        64,262.73 $      559,169.37    $       1,812.55   $            $
                                                                                                                                                                   4,499.82         1,563,683.02
   2631   Dorn Elementary            $     128,949.80    $        340,660.58   $     240,154.21 $        59,021.62 $      335,182.70    $         722.19                $           1,105,115.09
   4392   Quinn Elementary           $     239,847.55    $        891,472.91   $     470,824.02 $       153,527.93 $    1,061,732.21    $     16,273.42    $   8,508.35 $           2,843,264.42
   1804   Sellers Elementary         $     193,240.56    $        541,874.39   $     320,157.85 $        87,020.18 $      740,508.27    $     10,283.26    $   1,252.08 $           1,896,166.05
          District Total             $ 4,190,686.31      $    18,841,732.57    $ 9,492,218.55 $ 2,763,617.10 $ 17,609,229.02            $    130,847.19    $ 116,959.64 $          53,145,290.38


                                                                                Sample School District #048
                                                                Summary of Direct Expenditures by Object - Per Capita Student
                                                                            For the Year Ending August 31, 2010

                                                                                      Expenditure Object Code Per Student
  Sch                                 2 - Certificated       3 - Classified      4 - PR Tx and    5 - Supplies and   7 - Purchased                             9 - Capital
 Code                School               Salaries              Salaries            Benefits          Materials         Services            8 - Travel           Outlay              Total
   7546   McConnesty Middle School $            635.71   $          2,534.68   $        1,387.89 $          385.59 $         1,813.58   $           8.63   $          26.04    $       6,773.03
   8213   Marchlik Senior High School$          592.79   $          2,840.18   $        1,328.19 $          347.26 $         2,549.38   $          21.54   $          17.08    $       7,697.15
   6573   Drozhd Middle School       $          582.08   $          2,776.44   $        1,270.25 $          492.67 $         2,680.25   $          30.25   $          21.62    $       7,854.30
   6435   Donahue Middle School $               647.86   $          3,354.05   $        1,750.62 $          505.00 $         3,311.89   $           9.10   $            9.10   $       9,599.59
   1463   Ryan Elementary            $          353.54   $          1,564.76   $          843.16 $          190.13 $         1,654.35   $           5.36   $          13.31    $       4,626.28
   2631   Dorn Elementary            $          381.51   $          1,007.87   $          710.52 $          174.62 $           991.66   $           2.14   $             -     $       3,269.57
   4392   Quinn Elementary           $          624.60   $          2,321.54   $        1,226.10 $          399.81 $         2,764.93   $          42.38   $          22.16    $       7,404.33
   1804   Sellers Elementary         $          397.61   $          1,114.97   $          658.76 $          179.05 $         1,523.68   $          21.16   $            2.58   $       3,901.58
          District Average           $          526.96   $          2,189.31   $        1,146.94 $          334.27 $         2,161.21   $          17.57   $          13.99    $       6,390.73
Exhibit - Report B - These reports would be a published part of each School Districts Annual Financial Report

                                                                    Sample School District #048
                                                                 School Based Expenditure Report
                                                                For the Year Ending August 31, 2010

                                                                            % of     Districtwide &    % of       Unassigned        % of
SchCode             School               Enrollment       Direct Costs                                                                            Total
                                                                            Total     Admin Costs      Total     Program Costs      Total
    7546   McConnesty Middle School           1152    $    7,802,536.07    73.32%   $     399,601.05   3.75%   $    2,440,018.50   22.93%   $   10,642,155.62
    8213   Marchlik Senior High School        2187    $   16,833,661.54    75.74%   $     758,617.61   3.41%   $    4,632,222.62   20.84%   $   22,224,501.78
    6573   Drozhd Middle School               1083    $    8,506,206.36    76.11%   $     375,666.61   3.36%   $    2,293,871.56   20.53%   $   11,175,744.53
    6435   Donahue Middle School              1312    $   12,594,657.83    79.57%   $     455,101.19   2.88%   $    2,778,909.96   17.56%   $   15,828,668.98
    1463   Ryan Elementary                     338    $    1,563,683.02    65.24%   $     117,244.06   4.89%   $      715,908.21   29.87%   $    2,396,835.28
    2631   Dorn Elementary                     338    $    1,105,115.09    57.02%   $     117,244.06   6.05%   $      715,908.21   36.94%   $    1,938,267.35
    4392   Quinn Elementary                    384    $    2,843,264.42    75.02%   $     133,200.35   3.51%   $      813,339.50   21.46%   $    3,789,804.27
    1804   Sellers Elementary                  486    $    1,896,166.05    61.28%   $     168,581.69   5.45%   $    1,029,382.81   33.27%   $    3,094,130.55
           District Total                     7280    $   53,145,290.38    74.76%   $ 2,525,256.62     3.55%   $ 15,419,561.36     21.69%   $   71,090,108.36


                                                                  Sample School District #048
                                                      School Based Expenditure Report - Per Capita Student
                                                              For the Year Ending August 31, 2010

                                                                            % of     Districtwide &    % of       Unassigned        % of
SchCode             School               Enrollment       Direct Costs                                                                            Total
                                                                            Total     Admin Costs      Total     Program Costs      Total
    7546   McConnesty Middle School            1152   $         6,773.03   73.32%   $         346.88   3.75%   $        2,118.07   22.93%   $       9,237.98
    8213   Marchlik Senior High School         2187   $         7,697.15   75.74%   $         346.88   3.41%   $        2,118.07   20.84%   $      10,162.10
    6573   Drozhd Middle School                1083   $         7,854.30   76.11%   $         346.88   3.36%   $        2,118.07   20.53%   $      10,319.25
    6435   Donahue Middle School               1312   $         9,599.59   79.57%   $         346.88   2.88%   $        2,118.07   17.56%   $      12,064.53
    1463   Ryan Elementary                      338   $         4,626.28   65.24%   $         346.88   4.89%   $        2,118.07   29.87%   $       7,091.23
    2631   Dorn Elementary                      338   $         3,269.57   57.02%   $         346.88   6.05%   $        2,118.07   36.94%   $       5,734.52
    4392   Quinn Elementary                     384   $         7,404.33   75.02%   $         346.88   3.51%   $        2,118.07   21.46%   $       9,869.28
    1804   Sellers Elementary                   486   $         3,901.58   61.28%   $         346.88   5.45%   $        2,118.07   33.27%   $       6,366.52
           District Average                           $         6,390.73   72.17%   $         346.88   3.92%   $        2,118.07   23.92%   $       8,855.68
                         All Certificated Instructional Staff FTE - Basic Ed                                                                                                                                                                 All Teacher FTE - Basic Ed Programs
  700                                                                                                                                                                           700
  600                                                                                                                                                                           600
  500                                                                                                                                                                           500
  400                                                                                                                                                                           400
  300                                                                                                                                             All Teacher FTE - Basic       300                                                                                                                                              All Teacher FTE - Basic
                                                                                                                                                  Ed Programs                                                                                                                                                                    Ed Programs
  200                                                                                                                                                                           200
                                                                                                                                                  All Certificated                                                                                                                                                               All Certificated
  100                                                                                                                                             Instructional Staff FTE -     100                                                                                                                                              Instructional Staff FTE -
                                                                                                                                                  Basic Ed                                                                                                                                                                       Basic Ed
       -                                                                                                                                                                             -
                                                      Olympia




                                                                                                   Tenino




                                                                                                                                        Yelm
                                                                                                                    Tumwater
               Griffin




                                                                          Rainier
                          North Thurston




                                                                                       Rochester




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Olympia




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Tenino




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Yelm
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tumwater
                                                                                                                                                                                            Griffin




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Rainier
                                                                                                                                                                                                      North Thurston




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Rochester
               Basic Ed Student to All Certificated Instructional Staff Ratio                                                                                                                                                     Basic Ed Student to Teacher Ratio
25.0                                                                                                                                                                          30.0

20.0                                                                                                                                                                          25.0

                                                                                                                                                                              20.0
15.0
                                                                                                                                                                              15.0
10.0
                                                                                                                                                                              10.0
 5.0                                                                                                                                                                           5.0

  -                                                                                                                                                                             -
                                                                Olympia




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Olympia
           Griffin




                                                                                                                                                                                         Griffin
                                                                                    Rainier




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Rainier
                                     North Thurston




                                                                                                                                                                                                                 North Thurston
                                                                                                                               Tenino




                                                                                                                                                                   Yelm




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Tenino




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Yelm
                                                                                                        Rochester




                                                                                                                                               Tumwater




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Rochester




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Tumwater
                       Highly Capable Technical Working Group 2010


PURPOSE:

The Highly Capable Program (HCP) Technical Working Group was created by ESSB 6444, Section 501(q). The
purpose of the HCP Technical Working Group is to establish recommendations to be provided to the Legislature on
what constitutes a basic education program for highly capable students. In addition, the working group will
recommend an appropriate funding structure to support the state's HCP students.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

The working group's objectives are to:

         •   Establish standards, guidelines, and definitions for what constitutes a basic education program for
             highly capable students.

         •   Identify an appropriate HCP funding structure.

         •   Ensure that students who are both highly capable and students of color, who are poor, or who have
             disabilities, have equitable access to the state’s HCP.

         •   Prepare and deliver HCP recommendations to the Quality Education Council (QEC) and state
             legislators by December 1, 2010.

STATUS:

MEETINGS

The HCP Technical Working Group has had two meetings thus far. The final meetings of the Working group are
scheduled for October 26-27, and tentatively for November 9 if needed. All meetings are held at the Renton
School District’s central office and are scheduled from 9AM – 5PM.

At the August 3 meeting the Working Group reviewed their legislative charge and finalized a work plan that will
enable them to meet their objectives; a plan that will include dividing into three sub-groups. The sub-group topics
are: identification of highly capable students, HCP models and program evaluation, and funding for the HCP. At this
meeting Working Group members identified the sub-group in which they want to participate, and the Working
Group reviewed identification procedures.

The discussion around identification procedures was led by national expert in the identification of gifted and
talented students, Mary Ruth Coleman. Dr. Coleman walked the Working Group through best practices in the
identification of students in general with a particular focus on the identification of students of color, low income
students and other populations that have traditionally been underrepresented in highly capable/gifted education
programs.

The focus of the September 16 meeting was program design and evaluation. National expert in gifted program
design and evaluation, Carolyn Callahan led this discussion. The group also reviewed current RCWs, and WACs
related to the HCP and began to think through how current legislation supports or undermines best practices in
                       Highly Capable Technical Working Group 2010

gifted education given what experts have shared regarding identification procedures, program design, and
evaluations of K-12 programs.

WORK PLAN

The outcomes of each meeting and the work of OSPI staff in the interim will be consolidated into a report to be
presented to the Legislature by December 1, 2010. Meeting agendas and materials will be posted on the highly
capable website for review and comment leading up to the submission of the final report. The highly capable
website is located at www.k12.wa.us/highlycapable/workgroup. As the Working Group continues to develop
recommendations, OSPI staff welcomes any input and or comment from members of the QEC regarding questions
for the Working Group to explore in addition to those outlined above.



WORK GROUP MEMBERS:

           Organizations Represented                                        Representative

Commission on African American Affairs             Rosalund Jenkins

Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs       Mele Aho

Commission on Hispanic Affairs                     Uriel Iniguez

District Representatives

    •   Counselor
                                                   Nita Hill, Bethel School District


    •   Paraeducator
                                                   Melinda McColley, Sumner School District


                                                   David Ford, Tenino School District
    •   Principal
                                                   Carla Lobos, Pasco School District
                                                   Karen Remy-Anderson, North Thurston School District

                                                   Charlotte Akin, Evergreen (Clark) School District
    •   Program Administrator                      Kari DeMarco, Wenatchee School District
                                                   Robert Vaughan, Seattle School District
                                                   Stephanie Wood-Garnet, Bellevue School District

    •   School Psychologist
                                                   Laurie Filzen, Everett School District


    •   Special Education Teacher
                                                   Terri Jackson, Oak Harbor School District


    •   Teacher                                    Anita Urmann, Newport School District
                                                   Luanne Williams, Mead School District
                      Highly Capable Technical Working Group 2010


WORK GROUP MEMBERS:

           Organizations Represented                               Representative

Federally Recognized Tribe                   Wendy Peone

Governor's Office of Indian Affairs          SusanRae Banks-Joseph

                                             David Berg, Puyallup, Northwest Gifted Child Association
                                             Richard Frailey, Spokane, Spokane Gifted Parent Organization
                                             Margaret Nowak, Tacoma, University of Puget Sound
Parent
                                             Lynne Tucker, Seattle Special Education PTA, NW Exceptional
                                             Children’s Association
                                             Janis Traven, Seattle, Washington State PTA

                                             Mona Bailey
State Leader/Expert in Gifted Education
                                             Jaysari Ghosh

Washington Association of Educators of the
                                             Mary Freitas
Talented and Gifted (WAETAG)

Washington Coalition for Gifted Education    Barbara Maurer

                                             Margo Long, Whitworth University
Washington Higher Education
                                             Nancy Robinson, University of Washington
        Learning Assistance Program Technical Working Group 2010


PURPOSE:

The Learning Assistance Program (LAP) Technical Working Group was created in response to the Quality
Education Council’s (QEC) desire to tie the new funding formula for the LAP to best practice for the instruction and
support of low-achieving students. The purpose of the LAP Technical Working Group is to establish
recommendations for a funding model linked to programs that effectively support the academic needs of
struggling students.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

The Working Group's objectives are to prepare recommendations that identify:

    •    Best practice programs and services that research has shown to be effective for the instruction and
         support of low-achieving students, specifically in the content areas of reading/language arts and
         mathematics;

    •    Best practice programs and services for the support of high school students who are at-risk of not meeting
         state and local graduation requirements;

    •    An appropriate state-level funding structure;

    •    An appropriate system to evaluate the effectiveness of the LAP;

    •    Barriers or capacity issues that hinder implementation of the LAP program; and

    •    Other topics deemed to be relevant by the Working Group.

STATUS:

MEETINGS

The LAP Technical Working Group has had two meetings thus far. The final meeting of the TWG is scheduled for
October 12 at the Fife School District’s Central Office from 9AM – 5PM.

At the August 2 meeting of the TWG, OSPI staff provided the Working Group with background information
regarding their charge, the current funding formula for the LAP, and the new funding model for the LAP as outlined
in SHB 2776. The Working Group began to identify programs that are effective at supporting struggling students,
and began to discuss options for measuring the effectiveness of those programs. After identifying effective
programs the Working Group began to discuss whether the proposed funding structure for the LAP will provide
sufficient resources to fully implement effective programs in all districts, both large and small, across the state.

At the September 14 meeting the TWG, members spent the morning sharing information about the program
models that are currently in place in the districts they represent. Members highlighted the strategies that are
working in their districts along with those that have not been successful, noting the barriers that that have
prevented those strategies from having a positive effect on student achievement.
       Learning Assistance Program Technical Working Group 2010

As a result of this conversation members begin to identify the program elements that must be adequately funded
in order to help ensure that programs can be implemented with integrity.

The afternoon’s discussion continued to build on the funding conversation began at the first meeting of the TWG.
To help inform this discussion, representatives from the State Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program and the
Funding Formula Technical Working Group were asked to participate in this portion of the meeting.

While the TWG is not yet at the point of making recommendations, preliminary conclusions suggest that the
current funding structure for the LAP outlined in SHB 2776 is not ideal, and the baseline funding level of an average
of 1.5156 hours of instruction of supplemental instruction per week is not adequate to support effective programs
strategies.

WORK PLAN

The outcomes of each Working Group meeting and the work of OSPI staff, in the interim, will be consolidated into
a report to be presented to the QEC at its November 17 meeting. Meeting agendas and materials will be posted on
the QEC website for review and comment. As the Working Group continues its work, OSPI staff welcomes any
input and or comment from members of the QEC regarding topics for the Working Group to explore in addition to
those outlined above.

WORKGROUP MEMBERS:

             District Representatives                                        Representative

                                                     Susana Reyes, Pullman School District
                                                     Barbara Gilbert, Highland School District
                                                     Karla Schlosser, Vancouver School District
                                                     Tammie Jensen-Tabor, Tumwater School District
                                                     LaVonne Grimes, Chimacum School District
LAP Program Administrator
                                                     Erich Bolz, Richland School District
                                                     Nancy Duffey, Wenatchee School District
                                                     Steven Dahl, Lynden School District
                                                     Vickie Damon, Renton School District
                                                     Genevieve Ramsey, Renton School District

                                                     Doug Matson, West Valley School District
                                                     Angela Watts, West Valley School District, President; WASBO
Fiscal Director
                                                     James Schwob, Port Angeles School District
                                                     Kevin Corrigan, Seattle School District

                                                     Cory Plager, ESD 101
                                                     Sam Ramirez, Sunnyside School District
                                                     Barbara Lomas, ESD 112
District/ESD Administrator
                                                     Douglas Poole, ESD 171
                                                     Kathy Ehman, Sedro Woolley School District
                                                     Don Lloyd, Tacoma School District
         State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program 2010
                                   Technical Work Group


PURPOSE:

The State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program (STBIP) Technical Work Group was created in response to the
Quality Education Council’s (QEC) desire to tie the new funding formula for the STBIP to best practice for the
instruction and support of low-achieving students. The purpose of the STBIP Technical Working Group is to
establish recommendations for a funding model linked to effective programs that support the academic needs of
the English Language Learners (ELL) in our State.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:

The working group's objectives are to prepare recommendations that identify:

    •    Research based programs and services that effectively support the language acquisition and academic
         needs of ELLs in districts where there is one dominant non-English language spoken and those where
         multiple non-English language are spoken.
    •    Identify appropriate outcomes and measures of program effectiveness
    •    An appropriate state-level funding structure.
    •    Barriers or capacity issues that hinder implementation of programs for English language learners.
    •    Other topics deemed to be relevant by the working group

STATUS:

MEETINGS

                                                                      rd          th
Meetings of the STBIP Technical Work Group are scheduled for July 23 , August 2 , and September 30. Meeting
materials and logistical information can be found at http://www.k12.wa.us/QEC/AdHocWorkGroups.aspx.

July 23 Meeting Summary:

OSPI staff provided background information on:

    •    QEC and new prototypical funding model identified in SHB 2776
    •    Laws that govern the STBIP and the latest available data on students served by the program
    •    Research being conducted by the Washington Institute of Public Policy and Education Northwest on the
         STBIP over the last 5 years.
    •    Past programmatic and funding formula recommendations

Members of the STBIP Technical Working Group discussed the following questions:

   •    What is the State Transitional Bilingual Instructional Program (STBIP) Intended to accomplish? What is the
        purpose of the program?
   •    What are the desired outcomes for the STBIP program?
   •    What should be the relationship between STBIP and other academic support programs such as the
        Learning Assistance Program?
   •     What language acquisition programs or models does the group want to begin discussing as options?
         State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program 2010
                                   Technical Work Group

August 2 Meeting Summary:

In an effort to ground the discussion of best practices and funding recommendations in research, the subgroup
heard from the following two researchers on the studies they have been doing related to ELLs:

    •   Annie Pennucci from the Institute for Public Policy shared the report they presented to the QEC on the
        analysis of research that shows what general programs and strategies are effective in getting students to
        English proficiency.

    •   Theresa Duessen from Education Northwest provided members with an overview of the educator survey
        and research studies they conducted of districts with TBIP programs in Washington.

The STBIP Technical Working Group then began discussion on the following two topics:

    •   Best Practices: The group discussion focused on resources and best practices that should be present
        regardless if the school is providing a bilingual program or an English only immersion program. For
        example, making sure that both the ELL specialist and the general education teacher have the
        professional development they need to provide quality education to ELLs in their classrooms.
    •   Funding Formula: The group discussed the structure of the current funding model, how that model might
        be more aligned with the needs of students, and what resources teachers need to be successful.

The Working Group identified the following next step:

    •   Break-up into two subgroups: Best Practices and Funding Formula. The subgroups will work on
        developing specific recommendations and options for the larger group to adopt.
    •   Review funding formula recommendations with members of the Funding Formula Technical Working
        Group.

WORK PLAN

The outcomes of each STBIP Technical Working Group meeting and the work of OSPI staff in the interim will be
consolidated into a report to be presented to the Funding Formula Technical Working Group in early September.
                          st
The QEC on September 21 will review the draft recommendation and provide feedback to the STBIP Technical
Working Group.
                                                                                                            th
Once any revisions have been made, the final recommendations will then be presented at the November 17 QEC
meeting.

WORKGROUP MEMBERS:

                               Name & Title                                               Affiliation

Mary Jo Buckingham, Director for Title I and Special Programs              Central Valley School District

Vickie Damon, Director of Categorical Programs                             Renton School District
         State Transitional Bilingual Instruction Program 2010
                                   Technical Work Group

                               Name & Title                                               Affiliation

Leonor De Maldonado, Director of ELL and Student Services                  Wahluke School District

Theresa Duessen, Unit Director of Language and Literacy Evaluations        Education Northwest

Elizabeth Flynn, Executive Director of Student Achievement                 Pasco School District

Lynne Gadbury, ELL Director                                                Vancouver School District

Veronica Maria Gallardo, Bilingual Education Program Manager               Seattle School District

Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent of Special Programs and Federal
                                                                           OSPI
Accountability

Sergio Hernandez, Superintendent                                           Freeman School District

Minh-Ahn Hodge, Director                                                   Tacoma School District

Erin Jones, Assistant Superintendent of Student Achievement                OSPI

Bernard Koontz, ELL Coordinator                                            Highline School District

Helen Malagon, Interim Director of STBIP                                   OSPI

CeCe Mahre, Associate Superintendent of Student Achievement                Yakima School District

Minerva Morales, Superintendent                                            Mabton School District

Isabel Muñoz-Colón, Director of Financial Policy and Research              OSPI

Steve Myers, Superintendent of ESD 105                                     Yakima Region

Susan Peterson, Administrator on Special Assignment                        Bellingham School District

Kenn Robinson, ELL Director                                                Bellingham School District

Adie Simmons, Governor’s Education Ombudsman                               Office of the Education Ombudsman

Raul Sita, Pasco High School Principal                                     Pasco School District

Sheila Valencia, Professor Language, Literacy, Culture/ Chair of Curriculum
                                                                            University of Washington
and Instruction

Israel Vela, Student Services Director                                     Kent School District

Steve Warner, Principal of Evergreen Elementary                            Shelton School District

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:2/1/2012
language:English
pages:186