Docstoc

23 August 2010

Document Sample
23 August 2010 Powered By Docstoc
					     Classified Adequacy
      Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction




     Staffing Reports
      Facilities Maintenance
      Parent (Family) Involvement Coordinator
      Paraeducators
      School Office Aides
      Student & Staff Safety




December 2010
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction


Facilities
Maintenance &
Operations
Classified Adequacy Staffing Report




December 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION TO FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS .............................................................. 5

   Definition .................................................................................................................................................. 5

   Why maintenance matters ....................................................................................................................... 5

   What staff are involved, and what do they do? ....................................................................................... 6

HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 7

   2006: Washington Learns ........................................................................................................................ 7

   2009: Basic Education Finance Task Force ............................................................................................... 7

   2009: ESHB 2261 ...................................................................................................................................... 7

   2010: Quality Education Council .............................................................................................................. 7

   2010: SHB 2776 ........................................................................................................................................ 8

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE? ....... 9

   Inventory ................................................................................................................................................... 9

   Current State and Local Funding for Facilities Maintenance and Operations .......................................... 9

   Evidence of the Current Under-Investment in Facilities Maintenance and Operations .......................... 9

   Staff time required for adequate maintenance ...................................................................................... 10

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERNINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY ....................................................... 10

   Challenges with comparing state funding with industry standards ....................................................... 10

   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 11

   Work Plan................................................................................................................................................ 11

KEY FINDINGS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 19

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 25

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION, FUNDING AND OTHER
IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A – Supplemental Data Tables .................................................................................................... 27
                                                                                                                                            2


                                                                               2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The OSPI staff, acting as a Work Group for Facilities Maintenance and Operations convened three expert
groups to analyze the staffing needs of schools and districts. Expert groups included:

        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 crews include skilled craftsmen and women who conduct scheduled
inspections and services, and who repair and replace building system components. Operations staff
members include 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
and supervision staff required to facilitate and monitor the work of maintenance and grounds crews.
These staff types 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
                                                                                                           3


                                                     3
        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:

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

Funding formula Technical Working Group Response
The Funding Formula Technical Working group (FFTWG) had an opportunity to review the findings in this
report and upon doing so made two recommendations. First, the FFTWG recommended that the
custodial staffing recommendation at the prototypical elementary school should also be calculated to
reflect the increased need for staff that will occur once class sizes in grades K-3 are reduced to 17
students in accordance with SHB 2776 Chapters 236, laws of 2010. The Work Group for facilities
maintenance determined that if class sizes are reduced the custodial staff requirement will increase
from 3.189 to 3.524 staff per prototypical elementary school.

Additionally, the FFTWG recommended that districts should receive funding for districtwide facilities
security staff as part of their allocation for warehouse, laborers and mechanics. The classified staff
adequacy work group for student and staff safety has since identified a need for .15 FTE facility security
staff per 1000 students to ensure that school facilities are patrolled and monitored after hours,
weekends and holidays—times when school building staff are off duty.




                                                                                                             4


                                                     4
INTRODUCTION TO FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS

Definition
Facility maintenance and operations is the continuous process of service provision required to maintain
a facility and its campus over the course of its useful life. These services include daily cleaning; routine
maintenance; and preventive and emergent maintenance of major building systems (i.e. heating,
ventilation and air conditioning, electrical, plumbing, etc.) Facilities maintenance also includes the
upkeep of school grounds. 1

The goals of facility maintenance and operations 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 investments.

Why does maintenance matter?
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 salaryi.
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, lowering student
performance. 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 were invested in capital projects in the same period.

In the past, there has not been a link between what the State and districts invest in school facilities, and
the operational investments they make to maintain those facilities. However, 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



1
 State support for grounds maintenance 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 district resources,
and are therefore not included in this analysis.

                                                                                                               5


                                                       5
        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. These rules will require most districts in the stat to invest
significantly more staff time and material into facilities maintenance, and therefore, 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 rulesvi.



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 non-cleaning 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 (i.e. cleaning and routine
maintenance) are relatively stable from year to year, but the annual cost of infrastructure maintenance
can vary widely depending on the age and condition of a building and its component systems.
                                                                                                              6


                                                      6
HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
In the past five years, various commissions, task forces, and new legislative acts have made
recommendations about funding for facilities maintenance and operations. However, recommendations
have differed as to whether allocations for maintenance, grounds and custodial staff should be provided
for each prototypical school or for school districts as a whole.

2006: Washington Learns
The K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns recommended that each prototypical school
receive a per pupil allocation for custodial staff, and that school districts receive a per pupil allocation
for grounds and maintenance staff. The suggested allocations were:

        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.



                                                                                                               7


                                                       7
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 facilities maintenance related 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.




                                                                                                                     8


                                                         8
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 in the process of developing a building condition inventory system that will do so with
funds appropriated by the legislature in the 2010 supplemental capital budget.

Current State and Local Funding for Facilities Maintenance and Operations
Funding for facilities maintenance and operations is 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 and custodians staff per
1,000 students – the equivalent 37 % of the total 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 districts received allocations in the amount of $517.91 per-pupil for NERC. Of
that total allocation, $73.27 was provided for facilities maintenance and operations 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.



                                                                                                                9


                                                      9
Staff Time Required for Adequate Maintenance
The U.S. Department of Education establishes benchmarks for how many building square feet can be
assigned to one properly supplied custodian in an 8 hour shift in order 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, and custodial staff responsibilities ranged from a high of 76,948 sq. ft. to a
low of 17,197 sq. ft. per shift in 2007. ix 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 environment. 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 OSPI staff 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
State funding for maintenance and operations is generated differently than the expected cost of annual
maintenance is calculated in industry settings. In addition, the OSPI staff could not identify the standard
of maintenance of school facilities that should be expected, given current funding for maintenance and
operations, in the absence of state level facility inventory data. 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.
                                                                                                           10


                                                     10
        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 groups of technical experts. Expert groups consisted of architects who
design schools; maintenance and grounds professionals; and operations/custodial professionals. The
Work Group provided each expert group 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 (2010);



                                                                                                        11


                                                    11
           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 fundingx            
                          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                                                                        
                                                                                                         12


                                                       12
                       Scope of Work                          Architects Maintenance Grounds Operations
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
                                                                    Architects were asked to design
   expertise in designing schools for local districts. The Work
   Group provided the architects with a list of specific              prototypical schools, central
   assumptions to use regarding the type of educational             administration and district-wide
   program to be delivered, and the number of students and                 support facilities.
   staff to consider in the process of 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 total number of basic and specialty
   classrooms needed in each school.




                                                                                                              13


                                                        13
Table 4. Methodology for Calculating Total 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%              18
Middle                436          divided by        28.530           divided by     80.0%              19
High                  642          divided by        28.740           divided by     80.0%               30
* 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
Facilities maintenance and grounds professionals were
                                                                     Maintenance and grounds
asked to identify the staff required to adequately
maintain the prototypical schools and central                       professionals were asked to
administration and district-wide support facilities                 identify the staff required to
designed by the architects.                                           maintain the prototypical
The first step in the process of identifying maintenance                schools and central
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 1xi.




                                                                                                               14


                                                       14
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 Statisticsxii 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 using one participating district as an example.



                                                                                                            15


                                                      15
Table 5. Methodology for Calculating Facilities Maintenance FTEs
                               Prototypical District                   Participating
                                  Total Square                        District Square     Prototype to
 Participating School District      Footage                              Footage*         District Ratio
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

                                                                                                           16


                                                   16
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 perspective, taking in to account the guiding assumptions, materials, spaces, and
their associated sites. In addition, the professionals
were asked to estimate the time it would take for
properly equipped custodial staff to complete the tasks     Operations professionals were
that they identified.                                       asked to identify the cleaning
Although custodians are solely identified at the school      and non-cleaning tasks required
level in the new prototype, the Work Group asked the         in order to adequately maintain
operations professionals to identify the operations
                                                               the prototypical schools from
staff that would be required in order to maintain the
defined central administration and district-wide                 an operations perspective
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

                                                                                                          17


                                                     17
 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                                                                                  
                                                                  

                                                                                                           18


                                                     18
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 6.510 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.

                                                                                                          19


                                                     19
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 crews
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.



                                                                                                          20


                                                     20
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 6.510 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 6.510 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
                                                                                                            21


                                                    21
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

                                                                                                          22


                                                    22
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.




                                                                                                             23


                                                      23
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.




                                                                                                         24


                                                    24
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:

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




FUNDING FORMULA TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP RESPONSE
The FFTWG had an opportunity to review and make comment about the work of the facility
maintenance and operations Expert Groups. Upon review, the FFTWG made the following
recommendations.

    1. Given that the Legislature has expressed intent to begin lower class size in grades K-3 to 17
       students in the 2011-13 biennium, adequate custodial staffing at the elementary school
       should be calculated to reflect not only the current funded class size but also those that will
       be funded in the 2011-13 biennium.

The Work Group determined that if class sizes were reduced to 17 in grades K-3 the custodial staff
requirement in elementary schools will increase from 3.186 to 3.524 staff per prototypical school.

    2. Funding for distictwide facilities security staff should be provided for as part of districts
       allocation for warehouse, laborers, mechanics, and facilities security.

The Classified Staff Adequacy work group for student and staff security identified a need for .15 FTE
districtwide facilities security staff per 1000 students to provide central office security and to ensure
                                                                                                            25


                                                     25
that all school facilities are patrolled and monitored after hours, weekends and holidays. Assumptions
about these staff are not included in calculations for school level security staff as those assumptions are
driven by the student and staff security needs associated with the school year and day. This addition
makes the total recommended allocation for warehouse, laborers, mechanics, and facility security .721
FTE staff 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 repeated to gauge the adequacy of
the recommended staffing levels in the context of districts’ actual inventories.

Districtwide support facilities operations/custodial staff
There are custodial requirements for districtwide support and central administration buildings. The
classified staff 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.




                                                                                                           26


                                                     26
Appendix A – Supplemental Data Tables
Expert Recommendation for Facilities Maintenance Adequate Classified Staffing
Trade/Staffing Category                                         Annual FTE                     %
Carpenter                                                          1.150                      18%
Plumber                                                            0.480                      7%
Electrician                                                        0.860                      13%
Painter                                                            0.480                      7%
HVAC Technician                                                    0.950                      15%
Locksmith                                                          0.240                      4%
Glazier                                                            0.110                      1%
Roofer                                                             0.100                      1%
General Maintenance                                                0.570                      9%
Resource Conservation Managers                                     0.240                      4%
Warehouse Worker                                                   0.570                      9%
Foreman/Lead                                                       0.380                      6%
Supervision                                                        0.190                      3%
Support Staff                                                      0.190                      3%
Total Facilities Maintenance FTE (District-Wide Support)           6.510                     100%
Staff per 1000 Students                                            4.543


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

                                                                                                             27


                                                    27
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
                                                                                                               28


                                                     28
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.




                                                                                                        29


                                                    29
Parent (Family)
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction




Involvement
Coordinator
Classified Adequacy Staffing Report




December 2010



                          30
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3

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

   Washington Learns: .................................................................................................................................. 4

   Basic Education Finance Task Force:......................................................................................................... 4

   ESHB 2261: ................................................................................................................................................ 5

   Quality Education Council: ........................................................................................................................ 5

   SHB 2776: .................................................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION TO FAMILY INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................. 6

   What is Family Involvement...................................................................................................................... 6

   What the Research Says............................................................................................................................ 6

   Why is Family Involvement Important? .................................................................................................... 7

   What Role Do Family Involvement Coordinators (FIC) Play?.................................................................... 8

   What are the Tasks that Drive the Work of the Family Involvement Coordinator? ................................. 9

   What do we know about Family Involvement? ...................................................................................... 11

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY ...................................................... 13

   Challenges with Determining the Adequacy of FIC Staff ........................................................................ 13

   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 13

   Work Plan................................................................................................................................................ 14

   Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 14

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 15

RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................... 15

PARTICIPANT LIST........................................................................................................................................ 16




                                                                              31
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.

Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response
The funding formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) had an opportunity to review and respond to
the recommendations of the FIC work group. The FFTWG recommended that the base for this staff
should be lower to .676 FTE in each prototypical school, and should be increased to up to 1.0 FTE in
response to student needs that require a greater degree of parent involvement in order to help ensure
student’s success (i.e. concentrated poverty, and or high concentrations of ELL’s). In addition the group
recommended that if funding for this staff must be phased-in priority should be given to those districts
with the highest percentages of students in grades K-12 that are eligible for free or reduced price lunch.




                                                     32
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
associates. The allocation would provide 1.5 FTE per 432 students in middle school and 1.5 FTE per 600




                                                    33
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




                                                       34
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:

    •   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




                                                    35
        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. Communicate 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,

    •   Improved behavior at home and at school, and

    •   Better social skills and adaptation to school.4




                                                     36
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.

    •   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




                                                    37
        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
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:




                                                      38
•   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).

•   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).




                                                 39
    •   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)).

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




                                                     40
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.




                                                   41
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?




                                                     42
    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 8 and 9 of this report. A description of how this role relates to those of
other school staff is also summarized on these pages.




                                                   43
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.

Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response
The funding formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) had an opportunity to review and respond to
the recommendations of the FIC work group. The FFTWG recommended that the base for this staff
should be lower to .676 FTE in each prototypical school, and should be increased to up to 1.0 FTE in
response to student needs that require a greater degree of parent involvement in order to help ensure
student’s success (i.e. concentrated poverty, and or high concentrations of ELL’s). In addition the group
recommended that if funding for this staff must be phased-in priority should be based on those districts
with the highest percentages of students in grades K-12 that are eligible for free or reduced price lunch.




                                                    44
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).




                                                          45
 Paraeducators
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction




 Classified Adequacy Staffing Report




December 2010

                         46
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 4

INTRODUCTION TO PARAEDUCATORS ................................................................................. 6

   Definition..................................................................................................................................... 6

   Paraeducators Could Help Many Students at Risk of Not Meeting Academic Standards and in
   Need of Supplemental Services ................................................................................................... 7

   Research Demonstrates Effectiveness of Paraeducators in Small Group Settings ...................... 8

   2009 Review of Studies on Impact of Paraeducators Yields Promising Results in Small Group,
   Targeted Settings ......................................................................................................................... 8

HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 11

   2006: Washington Learns recommendations ........................................................................... 11

   2009: Basic Education Funding Task Force ............................................................................. 12

   2010 SHB 2776 ......................................................................................................................... 12

   What staff are involved, and what do they do? ......................................................................... 12

   What do we know about Paraeducators? ................................................................................... 14

PARAEDUCATOR WORK GROUP PLAN................................................................................ 16

   Goal ........................................................................................................................................... 16

   Work Group Members............................................................................................................... 16

   Work Group Tasks .................................................................................................................... 16

EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS INVOLVING PARAEDUCATORS ................................................ 17

   Supplementing the Instruction of Struggling Students .............................................................. 17

   “Success Coordinators” for Students At-Risk of Dropping Out ............................................... 18

CHANGES NEEDED TO MAKE PROGRAMS INVOLVING PARAEDUCATORS MORE
SUCCESSFUL .............................................................................................................................. 19

   Recommendations for Staffing Paraeducators for the Prototype Schools ................................. 20

   Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 21

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 24

   Funding Formula Work Group Response.................................................................................. 24

Appendix 1. Paraeducators Work Group...................................................................................... 27



                                                                        47
Appendix 2. Discussion of Paraeducator Studies ....................................................................... 28

Appendix 3. Summary of Supplemental Instruction Programs Involving Work Group Members
....................................................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix 4. Calculating the number of at-risk students for each prototype. .............................. 37




                                                                          48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To help the QEC meet the requirements of SHB 2776, OSPI has developed recommendations on
staffing allocations for paraeducators for prototypical elementary, middle and high schools. 1
OSPI reviewed the available research on the impact of paraeducators on student learning, and the
most effective staffing model for paraeducators. OSPI also convened a Work Group that
included experienced paraeducators, a school principal, program administrators from a school
district, an Educational Service District (ESD), and the state, and analysts from the unions
representing teachers and classified staff. The Work Group helped identify the core duties, work
load drivers and time requirements for an effective staffing model for paraeducators.

 Since the 1950s, paraeducators, or classroom aides as they were termed, are classified employees
who have assisted classroom teachers by recording grades and performing other clerical duties,
monitoring students in the absence of teachers, and facilitating student engagement in learning
and social activities. Since the 1990s, paraeducators have become more involved in directly
teaching students. Trained paraeducators provide targeted instruction to small groups of students
who are struggling with certain skills or concepts.        Paraeducators also serve as success
coordinators who help mentor students at risk of failing, and help them access the academic and
nonacademic resources needed to ensure their success in school.

In 2008, a British research center conducted an extensive literature review and found surprisingly
few studies that actually quantified the impact of paraeducators on academic achievement.
However, the studies were robust enough for the research center to conclude that paraeducators
who are well trained and supported can have a positive impact on the academic progress of
individuals or small groups of children, particularly in reading.

Paraeducators Work Group

Based on its review of the research and their knowledge of successful programs, the Work Group
developed a staffing model for paraeducators for each prototype school, based on the need for
trained paraeducators to supplement the instruction of struggling students who don’t receive
support from other programs. Also, the Work Group proposed using paraeducators at the middle
and high school levels as success coordinator to help students stay on track towards graduation.

As a result, the Work Group recommended 1.195, 1.295 and 1.121 FTEs for paraeducators at the


1
  In this report, the term paraeducators is used in place of other job titles that have been used to identify
these employees such as instructional aides or assistants, teacher aides or assistants, classroom aides, and
paraprofessionals. The Work Group recommends using this term because it better conveys the
professional nature of their jobs in that paraeducators perform skilled work which requires training. Also,
this term is consistent with RCW 28A.630.400, where the state recognizes an associates of arts degree for
paraeducators. The law states that paraeducators may be hired by a school district to assist certificated
instructional staff in the direct instruction of children in small and large groups, individualized instruction,
testing of children, recordkeeping, and preparation of materials. The paraeducator shall work under the
direction of instructional certificated staff.




                                                      49
prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools, respectively.

Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response

The Funding Formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) agreed with the Paraeducators Work
Group’s recommendations. The FFTWG recommends treating these staffing levels as fixed
allocations. However, if policy changes significantly increase funding for the LAP, the FFTWG
recommends reviewing and possibly rebasing the formulas recommended here. At the same
time, the FFTWG recommends that schools should always have some minimal level of
paraeducator staffing to ensure that a minimum level of supplemental instruction and success
coordination services are available in all schools.




                                               50
INTRODUCTION TO PARAEDUCATORS

Definition
As in the rest of the U. S., the role of paraeducators in Washington has evolved from being
strictly clerical to include actual instruction.

Starting in the early 1950s, the first of three studies on the experimental use of nonprofessional
classroom aides began in American education. Because of a severe shortage of professional
personnel, rising education costs and large class sizes, the experiments sought to increase teacher
effectiveness by freeing them from nonprofessional clerical work. Classroom aides corrected
papers and mimeographed handouts, leaving the instructional tasks to teachers.2

Although the experimental results were promising, the use of classroom aides remained limited
until the 1960s, when a series of federal laws prompted an expansion in their number and roles.
For example, the Bilingual Education Act of 1968 encouraged schools to hire bilingual
paraeducators to counter the shortage of bilingual teachers. Further, in 1975, the Education for
All Handicapped Act dramatically increased the need for paraeducators to help provide
individualized assistance and instruction to students with learning disabilities.3

With the advent of inclusion in 1990, students who had special education needs moved – along
with their paraeducators – into mainstream classes.4 Since then, paraeducators have played a
larger role in educating all students and, simultaneously, have become better trained and educated
than was the case in earlier decades.5



Today in Washington schools, as elsewhere in the nation, paraeducators are classified employees
who perform clerical duties, but also play an important role in teaching all students in mainstream


2
 Bowman, G. W., & Klopf, G. J. (1968). New careers and roles in the American school: A study of
auxiliary personnel in education. New York: Bank Street College of Education.
3
  Also, Title I of PL 89-10, the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 encouraged the use of aides in low-
income areas. The Nelson–Scheuer Amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1966 provided
funding to support new careers for economically disadvantaged individuals. One consequence of these two
laws was that many cities used the Nelson-Scheuer funding to hire community members, many not
educated beyond high school, to become classroom aids in schools.
4
 In 1990, Congress reformed the Education for All Handicapped Act and renamed it the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. This change and the ensuing amendments of 1997 required including students
with disabilities in mainstream classes as much as appropriate.
5
   In 2002, Title I required paraeducators working in its programs to be qualified by the year 2005.
Qualified means a paraeducator has an Associates or Bachelor’s Degree, or has passed a test. When OSPI
first made districts aware of this requirement, it encouraged districts to take steps to ensure all
paraeducators, not just Title I paraeducators, were qualified. Based on documentation it received from
school districts, OSPI reported that it was in 99% compliance with the Title I provision for school year
2005-06.



                                                   51
classes. Paraeducators in mainstream classes typically help students struggling with material
previously taught by the classroom teacher. How this assistance is provided varies greatly.
Variations include the number of students helped at any one time, whether the paraeducator has
received any training, follows a particular program in providing the assistance, and whether
students are pulled out of or remain in the classroom for the extra help.

Paraeducators Could Help Many Students at Risk of Not Meeting
Academic Standards and in Need of Supplemental Services
Experts agree that not all students meet academic standards with just the first exposure to new
material received in their core instructional programs.          For example, experts who have
implemented one of the respected “Response to Intervention” models 6 report that up to 20 percent
of all students will need a second dose of instruction in a small group setting, and that as many as
5 percent will need an intensive tertiary intervention before mastering a particular skill or
subject. 7

The state recognizes and funds additional educational services needed by struggling students
through its Learning Assistance Program (LAP) and the Transitional/Bilingual Instruction
Program for English Language Learners. However, in the case of LAP, not all struggling students
who are eligible for help actually receive supplemental instructional services. This is so because
although LAP eligibility is based on whether a student meets academic standards on state and
local assessments, LAP funding is based on the number of students who qualify for Free or
Reduced Price Lunch.

Despite the fact that there is a correlation between incidence of poverty and incidence of students
failing to meet standard, not all low-income students struggle and not all struggling students are
low-income. Struggling students also include those whose families are financially self-sufficient,
but these students do not count in the student totals that generate funding for supplemental
services. District have the flexibility to serve all struggling students regardless of income status,
but the mismatch between the funding mechanism for LAP and the eligibility criteria for the
program presents a challenge as in total, there are currently more students in our system who are
struggling academically then the number of students who qualify for free or reduced priced lunch.

The total number of students who have recognized learning needs but do not receive
supplemental services is difficult to quantify. However, based on rates of students who do not
meet proficiency levels on statewide assessments, and on the state’s dropout rate, most would
agree that the number is large, and that this gap needs to be closed to ensure that all students meet
high academic standards. 8 Paraeducators, appropriately trained and supervised, can play an


6
 Effective Behavioral and Instructional Support in Oregon http://www.rti4success.org and other cites from
OSPI’s RTI website.
7
  Numbers of students needing supplemental help vary for many reasons, with some related to factors
intrinsic to students such as the quality of their home life, the presence of learning disabilities, cultural
differences, or students’ day-to-day readiness to learn. Other reasons are school-related and deal with the
quality of the teaching, the curriculum or the educational setting.



8
    One indication of the number of at-risk students who may need - but aren’t receiving - supplemental


                                                     52
important role in helping struggling students reach these standards by providing the extra
instruction they need.

Adequate funding for paraeducators is important to ensuring that more students finish each grade
on target with the state’s academic standards, because we know that once students fall behind, it
is extremely difficult for them to catch up and keep up with their peers.

Research Demonstrates Effectiveness of Paraeducators in Small Group
Settings
Several Washington school districts have successfully used paraeducators to improve student
learning in small, well-defined settings at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Studies
have documented the successes of the state’s Reading First Program, 9 primarily used in Title I
schools with large concentrations of students from low-income families. There are also promising
early results from the Response to Intervention programs now underway in many school districts
across the state. 10

Considering the entire body of research, the studies on the impact of paraeducators on student
participation, attitudes and behavior are generally positive. However, the research on
paraeducators’ impact on learning is limited and some what mixed. Even so, the emerging
consensus is that trained and supported paraeducators can have a positive impact on the academic
progress of individuals or small groups of children, particularly in reading. Below is a brief
synopsis of the latest review that supports this conclusion.

2009 Review of Studies on Impact of Paraeducators Yields Promising
Results in Small Group, Targeted Settings
Only recently has any entity undertaken a large, systematic review of the impact of paraeducators.
This 2009 review occurred in Great Britain following a dramatic increase in the number of adult



services, is that, in 2008-09, the state’s Learning Assistance Program only served about 100,000 of the
400,000 students who come from a background of poverty. In a later section we explain how we estimated
the number of students at risk of failing and not receiving supplemental services to help determine the
number of paraeducator FTEs that is recommended.
9
 The Reading First program is a structured program where trained paraeducators lead small groups through
particular lessons. Paraeducators help reinforce skills and knowledge previously taught by the teacher.
Paraeducators are trained to use formative assessments to diagnose the student’s readiness to proceed to the
next level or to return to the regular classrooms. The paraeducators also document student progress and
consult with teachers regarding the next steps to be taken to help the students in their groups. For research
and evidence on Reading First, see McCardle, P., Chhabra V., and Kapinus B., Reading Research in
Action: A Teacher’s Guide for Student Success. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc., 2008.
http://www.k12.wa.us/Reading/ReadingFirst/default.aspx
10
   With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide
evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a
student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities. Evaluation of early RTI efforts
can be found in Evaluation Research Services Washington: Response to Intervention, Report of Activities
and Findings, 2008-09 School Year, January 2010. http://www.k12.wa.us/RTI/pubdocs/WA-RTI-
FinalReport.pdf



                                                     53
paraeducators in mainstream schools after England and Wales adopted a national policy in 2003
favoring their use. The policy, known as the National Agreement, was designed to raise the
academic performance of students and, at the same time, reduce teachers’ workload. As a result
of the National Agreement, paraeducator roles in instruction expanded significantly.

Recognizing the huge impact – for better or for worse – that greater reliance on paraeducators
could have in the classroom, the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating
Centre (EPPI-Centre) undertook an extensive review of national and international literature on
this topic. 11 12 Reviewers initially screened the abstracts of 3,574 publications. Using strict
criteria to judge the quality and relevance of the publications, they winnowed the number down to
39 studies. These 39 studies were characterized as follows:

     •   The studies came from five countries; most were English/Welsh or U. S.-based studies.

     •   Most focused on paraeducators in primary schools (students’ ages ranged from 5-10
         years).

     •   Most studied paraeducators for students with additional needs; comparatively few
         focused on general support to students in the classroom.

     •   Methods for measuring outcomes varied. Most, but not all, measured impacts on
         academic attainment using test scores. Those addressing other impacts largely used
         qualitative or mixed methods: that is, they reported the perceptions of teachers,
         paraeducators, and infrequently, the students themselves.

Of the 39 studies identified, the Work Group focused only on the 14 studies where researchers
quantified the impact of paraeducators on academic achievement. The Work Group classified
these 14 studies into two groups:

1. Ten studies of targeted interventions: paraeducators were selected to work with a specific
  group of students (1 to 33) with an identified problem in learning, and the impact on their
  academic attainment was measured, usually through a test before and after the para-
  educator’s involvement. A description of the studies and their citations are in Appendix 2.



11
  The EPPI- Centre is a part of the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of
London. Since 1993, the EPPI-Centre has carried out systematic reviews and developed review methods in
social science and public policy. The EPPI-Centre is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council,
the British government, charities and national and international partners. The EPPI-Centre is “dedicated to
making reliable research findings accessible to the people who need them, whether they are making policy,
practice or personal decisions.”
12
  Alborz A, Pearson D, Farrell P, Howes A (2009) The impact of adult support staff on students and
mainstream schools. Technical Report. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=YDADM%2fjcE2E%3d&tabid=2439&mid=4547&lan
guage=en-US




                                                     54
     •    Of the 10 studies in this group, 8 had positive results, 1 mixed and 1 negative. Results
          are summarized in Appendix 2, Table 1.

     •    The overriding conclusion from 8 of the 9 studies that had positive or mixed results is
          that trained and supported paraeducators, either working one-to-one or in a small group
          of students, can help primary aged children with literacy and language problems make
          significant gains in learning compared (in all but two of the studies), with similar children
          who do not receive supplemental instructional support.

2. Four studies of nontargeted interventions: Studies in which the presence of paraeducator in
   the classroom is linked to the measured academic achievements of all children in a class,
   school or group of schools. A description of the studies and their citations are in Appendix 2.

     •    Of the four studies in this group, 2 had positive results, 1 mixed and 1 negative. Results
          are summarized in Appendix 2, Table 2.

     •    The two positive studies, Frelow et al. (1974) and Loos et al. (1977), indicate that the
          presence of paraeducators in one school resulted in the students making more progress in
          literacy and numeracy than they had done in previous years when paraeducators were not
          present. However, design weaknesses occurred in both studies. In Loos et al. (1977),
          the researchers did not acknowledge that the presence of classroom observers collecting
          data may have contributed to the positive effect. In Frelow et al. (1974), no control
          group was used.

     •    The other two studies (Blatchford et al. 2001 and Gerber et al. 2001) are large scale
          studies that focus on the academic achievement of all children in a number of primary
          schools. The Blatchford et al. 2001 study analyzed paraeducators in British schools.13
          The Gerber et al. 2001 study is based on the Tennessee STAR study 14. The main finding
          of these studies is that the presence of paraeducators in a classroom has no clear and
          consistent effect on average class (not individual) test scores.

     •    Design weaknesses that may affect the results from both studies include not
          distinguishing clearly enough the instructional duties of paraeducators from the more
          clerical or administrative duties, and not examining the impact on particular individuals
          or small groups within a class that may be the focus of paraeducator support. Also,
          Blatchford et al. does not explain why teachers perceived that paraeducators helped
          increase the learning of students even though class test results did not show this.




13
   The Blatchford study used multiple methods to obtain student and teacher data from two large cohorts of students
totaling 11,386 British students across reception (kindergarten), year one and year two. The study was not restricted to
students with special education needs, but covered all students who received support from a paraeducator.

14
   In the original Tennessee STAR (The Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) experiment, researchers tracked a cohort
of nearly 12,000 students who entered kindergarten in 1985 and were randomly assigned to one of three class types:
small classes of 13 to 17 students; regular classes with 22-26 students, and regular classes with full-time teaching aides.
With few exceptions, the students remained in these class types for four years. Researchers found that the presence of
Teacher Aides did not have a significant impact on math or reading test scores; only smaller class sizes did.




                                                           55
HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS

2006: Washington Learns recommendations
The Washington Learns school finance consultants argued that, based on research at the time, the
most powerful and effective strategy to help struggling students meet state standards is individual
one-to-one tutoring provided by certificated teachers. Drawing from the findings of several
studies 15, the experts concluded that the most effective tutors:

     •   Are professional teachers,

     •   Initially tutor students one-to-one,

     •   Are trained in specific tutoring strategies,

     •   Align their tutoring with the regular curriculum and to the student’s specific learning
         challenges,

     •   Have sufficient time for the tutoring, (at least 20 minutes per day for an individual
         student, and 30 to 45 minutes for small groups of students), and

     •   Use highly structured programs that logically sequence discrete lessons tied to specific
         learning objectives.

Based on the studies’ findings, the experts recommended that each prototypical school should
have one certificated teacher as a tutor for every 100 students eligible for free and reduced price
lunch, with a minimum of one in every prototypical school. This amounts to 1.52, 1.64, and 2.28
FTE tutor-teachers at the prototypical elementary, middle and high schools respectively,
assuming a free and reduced-price lunch participation rate of 38 percent.

The K-12 Education Advisory Committee, however, suggested that tutoring could also be
provided by trained, supervised paraeducators, as is the case in some of the state’s highly
successful Reading First programs. 16 To support this view, the Committee also cited two studies
that show how paraeducators can have a significant impact on the reading attainment of young
students if the paraeducators themselves are highly skilled in reading and writing, are trained in a




15
  Researchers (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982; Wasik & Slavin, 1993; Mathes & Fuchs, 1994; Shanahan &
Barr, 1995; Shanahan, 1998; Farkas, 1998; Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes & Moody, 1999; and Torgeson,
2004)


16
   Data shows that during a three-year period (2003-05) in which 51 Washington State elementary schools
used Reading First programs, improvements in students’ reading proficiency matched what had previously
taken six years to accomplish. As reported in An Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance Adequacy
in Washington, prepared for the K-12 Advisory Committee of Washington Learns.




                                                  56
specific reading tutoring program, provide individual tutoring, and are supervised.17

Although the K-12 Education Advisory Committee disagreed on the need for certificated teachers
to serve as tutors, it did not recommend an alternative proposal using classified employees as
paraeducators or tutors.

2009: Basic Education Funding Task Force
This Task Force did not designate a category for paraeducators in any of the prototypical school
funding models it developed. However, the Task Force explicitly stated that school districts can
use allocated funds to hire a combination of classroom teachers and instructional aides
(paraeducators) to provide instruction and services, even though the allocation model is based on
teachers’ salaries and benefits.

A related concern of the task force was to encourage the Legislature to enact policies that would
enable school districts to maintain the classified staffing levels in the 2007-08 school year.

2010 SHB 2776
In SHB 2776, the Legislature specifically identified ”teaching assistance, including any aspect of
educational instructional services provided by classified employees” as a discrete classified
staffing category for prototypical schools, and directed the QEC to recommend staffing levels for
all classified staff to the Governor and Legislature in December 2010.

What staff are involved, and what do they do?
Paraeducators are classified employees who work in all grade levels in Washington schools. The
activities of paraeducators fall into four areas: clerical, student management, instruction, and
success coordinator.

By performing clerical duties, paraeducators free teachers to spend more time in contact with
students. Such activities include:

       •   Preparing students’ materials, such as gathering supplies and equipment, or
           photocopying, printing, assembling, cutting and stapling paper or other materials;

       •   Routine tasks such as taking attendance,

       •   Distributing, collecting and correcting student papers,

       •   Recording grades, and

       •   Decorating student bulletin boards and displaying student work.

Student-management activities help to create a supportive learning environment for students, but
do not involve direct teaching. Such activities include:

       •   Managing a class in the temporary absence of a teacher,

       •   Helping to maintain order in a classroom, computer room or library, and


17
     Farkas, 1998 and Miller, 2003.



                                                   57
    •   Facilitating student engagement in learning and social activities.

Instructional activities include:

    •   Work with small groups of students in the classroom or in pull-out groups outside the
        classroom.

    •   Tutor or assist an individual student, and

    •   Review or reinforce lessons the teacher already introduced, help students complete
        assignments, or teach new material.

Instructional activities vary from those that are unstructured – such as roving around the class to
help students as they work on assignments – to more structured activities such as those that
require the paraeducator to present and teach a particular skill in a particular manner.

In fact, research says the most effective approach is to teach small groups of struggling students
in a highly structured program that addresses particular learning deficiencies with particular
instructional strategies.

At the middle and high school level, paraeducators also serve as success coordinators who help
students stay engaged in school, improve their academic standing, and increase parent
involvement.

Middle school success coordinators work with school counselors and other specialists to better
prepare at-risk students for high school by arranging for:

•       Extra academic support to deal with problems in reading or math,

•       Counseling to deal with behavioral issues,

•       Opportunities for the student to acquire the necessary study and social skills to be an
        organized, proactive learner, and

•       Information for parents and students about the time and energy commitment for high
        school, and the importance of a supportive learning environment in the student’s home.

High school success coordinators work with school counselors and other specialists to help
students, their teachers and parents develop strategies for the students to earn credits. success
coordinators

•       Help mentor students at-risk of dropping out, or engaging in substance abuse or other
        self-destructive behaviors,

•       Help students become aware of the schools resource personnel, such as career center
        specialists, intervention specialists and other health professionals,

•       Help students access school or other local resources for non academic problems
        interfering with students’ success, and

•       Work with students and their families to help identify the student’s goals for education or



                                                58
        jobs, plan the student’s course work to ensure eligibility in higher education or work
        programs, and help the student and family apply to these programs.

What do we know about Paraeducators?
In school year 2009-10, Washington schools employed about 12,000 FTEs of paraeducators, of
whom 45 percent worked in special education programs, and 23 percent (2,800 FTEs) in basic
education programs exclusive of transitional bilingual, LAP, and Federal Title I programs. State,
local, and federal funding contributed toward the employment of the 12,000 paraeducator FTEs.

Over a ten-year period ending in 2008, paraeducators FTEs in Washington increased by 13
percent. Paraeducators FTEs rose from 10,868 to 12,277, an increase of 1,409 FTEs. As Table 3
shows, this increase was in large part due to the increase in the FTEs of paraeducators in Special
Education programs, while the number declined in Basic Education, Title I and LAP.

Nationally, there was a 22 percent increase in paraeducators FTEs in all elementary and
secondary programs over the same ten-year period.

                   Table 3 Ten-Year Change in Paraeducators FTEs for Key Programs

                   Total             Spec ed            Transitional                               Learning
                                                                                     Fed Title 1
                Paraeducator       Programs              Bilingual      Basic ed*     Program       Assist
                 FTEs in all                             Programs       Program                    Program
                 Programs         21, 24, 26, 29           64, 65          01            51           55

   1998-99         10,868             4,026                 501           3,202        1,074           801

   2007-08         12,277             5,724                 548           3,029         993            542

  % Change          13%               42%                   9%            -5%           -8%            -32%

  Difference        1,409             1,698                 47            (173)         (81)           (259)

*Program 94 instruction support was eliminated in 2000-01. Depending on how many FTEs in this
category were reallocated to Program 01 Basic Ed, the percent change could be as much as -6 percent.
Source for Table: School District Personnel Summary Reports, Table 12: All School Personnel by Duty
and Program Code http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/PER/9900/ps.asp


Since 2005-06, the total (state and local) amount of funding for paraeducators steadily increased,
peaking in 2008-09 at about $101,860,000 (See Table 4.). The state share varied little over this
time period, averaging about 83 percent, indicating that both the state and local school districts
were uniformly increasing funds for paraeducators. In 2009-10, however, total funding declined
to about $97,220,000 as school districts reduced local funding even though the state funding
increased and the state share rose to about 90 percent of the total.

                     Table 4. State and Total Funding for Paraeducators, 2005-2010

                                       2009-10             2008-09        2007-08       2006-07         2005-06

               State Allocation   $87,345,243           $83,873,595    $81,495,704   $77,254,183   $73,633,271




                                                   59
   Total (State & Local)
                Funding    $97,221,119    $101,859,732   $97,202,347   $93,519,854   $88,736,861

% State of Total Funding       89.84%          82.34%        83.84%        82.61%        82.98%




                                         60
PARAEDUCATOR WORK GROUP PLAN
Goal
To help the QEC meet its requirements under SHB 2776, OSPI developed a staffing allocation for
paraeducators in each of the three prototypical models. OSPI reviewed the available research on
the impact of paraeducators on student learning, and the most effective staffing model for
paraeducators. OSPI also convened a Work Group of experienced paraeducators and other
education professionals to help identify core duties, identify specific workload drivers, and
quantify time required to accomplish the core work duties of paraeducators in a prototypical
school.

Work Group Members
The Work Group consisted of experienced paraeducators, a principal, school district and ESD
administrators experienced in personnel or budgeting matters, a superintendent who is also the
Director of the Rural Education Center, and a state Title I/LAP Program Supervisor. The group
also included representatives from the Washington Association of School Principals, the
Washington Education Association, and the Public School Employees of Washington/Service
Employees International Union.

Work Group Tasks
The group first reviewed research about the impact of paraeducators on student achievement, and
about staffing models for the effective use of paraeducators in general education classrooms.

The paraeducators in the group then provided specific details about their programs, such as the
program’s purpose, the type of student served, the instructional program used, the amount of
contact time with students, and the indicators of success. The group discussed this information to
identify best practices in the use of paraeducators.

Finally, the group designed a staff allocation for paraeducators for the prototypical elementary,
middle and high schools.




                                               61
EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS INVOLVING PARAEDUCATORS
The paraeducators from the Work Group described two basic types of programs that were
successful in improving student learning. In the first type, the paraeducator supplements the
learning of academically struggling students in small group sessions. In the second, the
paraeducator serves as a “success coordinator” or mentor to students at risk of dropping out of
high school or middle school.

 At the high school level, the paraeducator and the success coordinator were part of a larger
school program model called the “Pyramid of Intervention.”18 This program is designed to
intervene early with academically struggling students and help them obtain the appropriate
instructional, emotional, social or medical assistance they need.

Below is a summary of the best practices that the Work Group identified for each of the two
effective types of programs involving paraeducators.      Appendix 3 contains more detailed
descriptions of the programs described by the Work Group.

Supplementing the Instruction of Struggling Students
1. Paraeducators should target struggling students who need help in specific areas.

•    At the elementary and middle school levels, the Work Group concluded that paraeducators
     are most effective when they are routinely assigned to work in a particular subject or with
     students from the same grade.

•    At the high school level, the Work Group concluded that paraeducators should help students
     in grades 9 to 12 make up missing assignments. The Work Group viewed the use of
     paraeducators as part of a larger program whose purpose is to intervene early with struggling
     students and help them pass their classes the first time they are taken, so they can graduate on
     time with their peers. Paraeducators also helped students who were behind in their credit
     total earn the additional credits as soon as possible.

2. Paraeducators should receive training in the content and instructional strategies appropriate to
the grade level of the student and the subject. The Work Group emphasized the need to meet at
least weekly with a subject matter specialist to discuss students’ progress and receive advice
regarding next steps.

3. Classroom teachers need to be trained to refer students at risk of failing to paraeducators for
help.    The Work Group cited Response-to-Intervention as an effective school-wide program
suitable for all grade levels that could help teachers identify and refer struggling students to
paraeducators for help.

4. At the elementary and middle school level, paraeducators should ideally teach small groups of
3 to 6 students for at least 30 minutes a day for four to five days a week. At the high school


18
   The High School’s Pyramid of Intervention identifies the teachers, counselors, specialists, and
paraeducators who can help academically struggling students, the times these individuals are available, and
any structured programs that may also help. Some opportunities for help are voluntary, and some are
required if, for example, the student is failing a course or not passing a section of the state’s HSPE.



                                                    62
level, paraeducators should remove 6 to 8 students from their regular class session once a week
for a 50-minute session in a quiet setting to help them complete or make up assignments.

5. At the elementary and middle school level, paraeducators are more effective if they use
specific supplemental instructional programs, such as Read Well, Read Well Plus, Read
Naturally, and Soar to Success, to help improve math and reading scores. At the high school
level, paraeducators should communicate with students’ teachers to learn exactly which
assignments need to be made up to earn a passing grade.

6. Paraeducators should track the progress of their elementary and middle school students by
using formative assessments or timed student readings, among other measures. At the high
school level, paraeducators need to track the students’ progress in completing assignments. All
schools should track how paraeducator services affect the students’ in-class progress and the need
to be referred to special education or other specialized services.

7. Paraeducators need time to prepare their lessons and review student work each day that they
meet with student groups.

“Success Coordinators” for Students At-Risk of Dropping Out
Seventh and Eighth Grade Program
The Work Group had actual practice with success coordinators only in grades 9 – 12. However,
after learning of the success coordinators’ role in the 9th and 10th grade, the Work Group
concluded that they could make a difference for 7th and 8th graders as well. Paraeducators could
target 7th and 8th graders at risk of dropping out from middle school, help them stay on track to
successfully pass 8th grade, and help prepare them for the academic rigors of high school. This
advice came from those who had experience working with students in these grades.

Ninth and Tenth Grade Program
This program targets 9th and 10th graders at risk of dropping out of school. The ninth graders
were identified by their eighth grade counselors as high risk for dropping-out, drug or alcohol
use, or other unhealthy high-risk behaviors.

The success coordinator meets periodically with small groups of students throughout the year to:

    •   Introduce the group to in-school specialists, such as the career center specialist, the
        intervention specialist, counselors and other staff who can help them,

    •   Make the group aware of the help available for academically struggling students,

    •   Teach social and learning skills to be successful in high school, focusing on acceptance,
        tolerance, safety, and inclusion, and

    •   Assign group members to volunteer student mentors.

Eleventh and Twelfth Grade Programs
The eleventh and twelfth grade success coordinator works with two groups of students:

    •   One coordinator works with students whose accumulated credit totals are not on track to
        graduate with their peers. For 11th graders, this includes students who have 10 credits or



                                               63
         less, and for 12th graders, 16 credits or less.

     •   A second coordinator works with 11th and 12th graders who have not passed all required
         portions of the HSPE.

According to the school principal, these Coordinators serve an important role in working with the
students, their parents, teachers, and counselors to make sure everyone understands what the
requirements are to graduate, and to help plan how the student might best achieve them.

The success coordinators use a case management approach to serving their students. They
frequently check on the students’ progress, and spend time with the individual students as needed
to keep the students on track. Estimated amount of time spent with each student in a year ranged
from 4 to 8 hours.        However, success coordinators say the actual amount of time varies
significantly. They prefer meeting with students when it does not interfere with the students’
class time. Sometimes the Coordinator can accomplish what’s needed with just a quick check on
the student in the hallway prior to a class.

The success coordinator reported that she concentrated on helping the student earn a quick
success, such as completing an assignment for a class. Many of the students have difficult home
life issues, and require more long term planning and resources. The goals are to make the
students feel good about coming to school by helping them feel safe and cared for, and to instill
the belief that they have the ability to succeed.

The Work Group said it was very important to track the academic progress of the students served
by the success coordinator program.      They suggested tracking credits earned and recovered;
grade point averages, passage rates on HSPE, and graduation and dropout rates.

In the high school where success coordinators and paraeducators worked to supplement
instruction, both the number of students with credit deficiencies and the average size of the
deficiencies declined in the first two years of the program’s existence. The overall number and
percentage of 11th and 12th graders who were 2.5 credits or more behind their grade’s standard fell
from 224 (25 percent of all 11th and 12th graders) in 2006 to 137 (18 percent) in 2007. 19 The same
pattern was evident among 9th and 10th graders.




CHANGES  NEEDED    TO   MAKE                                  PROGRAMS               INVOLVING
PARAEDUCATORS MORE SUCCESSFUL
In discussing their experiences and thinking about the implications for a staffing model, the
paraeducators observed the following:

     •   They would like more time to collaborate with classroom teachers to review the needs
         and progress of individual students. The high school paraeducator also said she would


19
  Edwards, Terry, “Managing the New Graduation Requirements: Barriers to On Time Graduation,”
Everett Public Schools presentation at the Washington Education Research Association Spring Conference,
March 26-28, 2008.



                                                    64
        like to collaborate with the students’ counselor and the school’s administrators.

    •   The high school paraeducator said she needed more time to spend one-on-one with at-risk
        students.

    •   To be more effective, all the paraeducators also said they needed more ongoing training
        on the supplemental instructional programs, course subject matter, mentoring and helping
        at-risk students, and on the laws and regulations related to at-risk students. The
        elementary paraeducator who did not report using a particular instructional program said
        her school needed to purchase better supplemental instructional programs.

    •   All paraeducators said that struggling students in all grades could benefit from
        supplemental instruction provided by well-trained paraeducators in small group settings.
        Paraeducators familiar with elementary and middle schools said that budget cuts had
        forced administrators to direct most paraeducator resources to the lower grades, at the
        expense of helping students in grades 4 through 8.

    •   The high school paraeducator said she would like more success coordinators’ time to
        serve the 10th and 11th graders at risk of failing. Recent budget cuts had minimized or
        eliminated the paraeducator time in these grades. Paraeducators who had experience
        working in middle schools believed that a success coordinator in middle schools could
        help at-risk students better prepare for the rigors of high school.

Recommendations for Staffing Paraeducators for the Prototype Schools
Based on the research and the group’s experiences, the Work Group recommended the following
components for the prototypes.

Supplement Instruction
Each prototype should have paraeducators to supplement the learning of struggling students who
don’t already receive such assistance in other categorical programs. The staffing should allow a
short period each day for paraeducators to prepare lessons, review student work and collaborate
with teachers and specialists when needed. The specific parameters are:

    •   Elementary: A small group of 5 academically struggling students meets for 45 minutes 4
        times a week with a paraeducator who is using a specific supplemental instructional
        program. The paraeducator works with 6 groups, and has a 45-minute planning period
        each day.

    •   Middle school: A small group of 6 at-risk students meets 4 times a week for 45 minutes
        with a paraeducator who uses a supplemental instructional program. The paraeducator
        works with 6 groups, and has a 45-minute planning period each day.

    •   High School: A small group of 9 at-risk students meets once a week for 50 minutes with
        a paraeducator who helps them make up missing assignments. The paraeducator sees 5
        groups, and has a 50-minute planning period each day.

Training for Paraeducators
Consistent with research and actual experience, paraeducators should have training directly
related to the content and skills in the subjects they are teaching. To encourage an instructional



                                                65
         team approach, and to be consistent with students’ core curricula, paraeducators should have the
         same number of days in training as teachers and, where appropriate, attend the same training
         sessions as teachers.

         Success Coordinators
         To help reduce the drop out rates in 7th through 12th grades, middle schools and high schools
         should use paraeducators as success coordinators who work one-to-one with at-risk students.
         The recommendation is for success coordinators at both the middle and high schools to have, on
         average, 8 hours per year to support an at-risk student.

         Table 5 below summarizes the recommended FTEs and compares them to benchmark values.



                                             Table 5. Paraeducator FTEs

  Prototype     Supplement      Training      Success          Total         SHB 2776      State & Locally   QEC Provisional
                Instruction      FTEs*       Coordinator   Recommended       Staff Level   Funded 2008-09       Values
                  FTEs*                        FTEs*          FTEs*            FTEs*            FTEs*
                                                                                                                 FTEs*

 Elementary        1.117         0.078           0               1.195            0.936        1.123             1.384

Middle School      0.893         0.062         0.340             1.295            0.700        0.774             0.692

High School        0.309         0.017         0.795             1.121            0.652        0.655             0.692

         *One FTE is 8 hours for 260 days. (So, 0.692 is 8 hours for 180 days).

         Considerations
         Estimating the Number of Students At-Risk for Not Meeting Standard is Challenging,
         But Doable
         This staffing model uses an estimate of the percentage of students who are at risk of not meeting
         state academic standards or dropping out, and who are not already receiving supplemental
         services. This factor is important to calculating the number of paraeducator FTEs needed to
         provide supplemental services.

         Using the elementary prototype (Grades K-6) as an example, the Work Group recommends the
         following calculations of need:

         1. Students at risk of not meeting a Measurement of Student Progress (MSP) standard for
         proficiency =

         The total head count (grades K-6) * (Largest percentage of students who did not pass any one
         section on the MSP).

         2. Total number of students at risk of not meeting MSP academic standards exclusive of
         those students already receiving special ed or transitional bilingual and/or LAP =

         (Students at risk of not meeting MSP standard) * (Percentage of students who did not pass MSP
         and who already receive Special Ed, Bilingual Transitional, and/or LAP resources).



                                                            66
The Work Group calculated the “Percentage of students who did not pass MSP who already
receive Special Ed, Bilingual Transitional, and/or LAP resources” by using the “did not meet
standard” rates for these subgroups in the most recent MSP test. The Work Group also took into
account the most recently reported overlap between students receiving Bilingual and LAP
services, Special Ed and LAP services, and Special Ed and Bilingual services.

So, for example, in the elementary prototype school, 46.4% of the 400 students – 186 students –
did not meet standard on the MSP test.         Of these 186 students, 105 are already receiving
services from Special Ed, Transitional Bilingual, or LAP.       But that doesn’t mean only 81
students (186 – 105) still need supplemental services, because the 105 students include 12
students who are receiving supplemental services from more than one program. To avoid double
counting these 12 students, the Work Group added 12 students back into the group still needing
supplemental instructional services.    So the real number of students who need but aren’t
receiving supplemental services is 93 or (81 + 12).        See Appendix 4 for more detail on
calculating the numbers of at risk students in need of supplemental instructional services for all
three prototype schools.

By accounting for the overlap between these three groups (English Language Learners, Special
Education, and LAP) in this way, the Work Group avoids underestimating the number of students
who need supplemental instructional services from paraeducators. Table 6 below summarizes
risk percentages and counts for prototypes.




Table 6. Number of At-Risk Students Needing Supplemental Instructional Services by
Prototype

                  Enrollment Largest % Not       % of Students At Risk    Total Number of At-
                             Meeting             of Not Passing State     Risk Students in Need
                             MSP/HSPE            Assessment & Not         of         Supplemental
                             section             Served    by   Other     Instructional Services
                                                 Programs

Elementary           400           46.40%                49.68%                       93

Middle School        432           48.50%                42.21%                       88

High School          600           58.60%                58.89%                      207




                                               67
Paraeducators Need to be Well-Trained to be Effective; Evidence Suggests Districts
are Training More Paraeducators
Using paraeducators to supplement instruction requires that they are well-trained in specific
supplemental instruction programs. Although no statewide data exists on the kinds of training
paraeducators receive, there is reason to believe that paraeducators are receiving training. Some
of the additional training has been required by federal law.

No Child Left Behind requires that paraeducators hired after January 9, 2002 who work in Title I-
supported programs must have at least one of the following to be considered qualified:

     •   Two years of study at an institution of higher education,

     •   An Associate degree or higher, or

     •   A passing score on a formal state or local academic assessment of ability to assist in
         instructing reading, writing and mathematics.

When the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction first informed school districts of
this requirement, it encouraged districts to qualify all their paraeducators working in all programs
– not just the Title I programs. Two paraeducators in the Work Group reported that their districts
did require all paraeducators to become qualified. For the year 2005-06, Washington State
reported that 99 percent of its Title I program paraeducators met the No Child Left Behind
requirements. 20




20
   U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and
Program Studies Service, State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume VIII—
Teacher Quality Under NCLB: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2009. Exhibit 56.



                                                 68
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Work Group recommendations for paraeducators for each prototype school are
shown in Table 7.

        Table 7. Work Group Recommendations for Paraeducators Staffing Allocations

                                         Work Group Recommendation for Prototypes*

School Based                      Elementary            Middle School              High School

Students per Prototype                400                     432                      600

Paraeducators                        1.195                   1.295                    1.121

*One FTE is 8 hours for 260 days. (Thus, 0.692 FTE is 8 hours for 180 days.)

The Work Group recognizes that the number of students at risk of failing and not already
receiving supplemental services is expected to change over time as the state increases its funding
for the LAP and the Bilingual Transitional Program. The additional resources for these programs
should help reduce the overall number of students at risk of failing, as well as the number of still-
failing students who are NOT receiving supplemental services. Increases on either measure (the
number of students who passed all sections of the state test, and the number of students who did
not pass but are already receiving supplemental services) would reduce the need for
paraeducators.

The Work Group recognizes that the current LAP and the Transitional Bilingual Programs are
underfunded, and that the number of students who do not pass the state’s math assessment has
been persistently low. Under these conditions, the Work Group expects that the number of
students who are failing and not being served by a supplemental program would remain
substantial for quite sometime. The Work Group, therefore, believes this type of paraeducator
program could help close the gap until there is more progress in all students’ academic
achievement.

The Paraeducator Work Group and the Building Bridges Work Group share a number of
recommendations. These include:

    •    Providing graduation coaches, mentors, certified school counselors, and/or case managers
         for vulnerable students who need a more intensive one-on-one adult relationship.

    •    Intervene early with students struggling academically, and provide them with
         supplemental instruction,

    •    Quickly identify and connect with students at risk of dropping out each school year, and

    •    Ensure that students are referred to appropriate in-school specialists.

Funding Formula Work Group Response
The Funding Formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) agreed with the Paraeducators Work
Group’s recommendations for staffing in the prototype schools. For the time being, the FFTWG



                                                  69
recommends treating these staffing levels as fixed allocations. However, as policy changes are
developed and implemented, (as for example, the funding for LAP increases so that it serves at
least 50 percent of those eligible), the FFWTG recommends reviewing and possibly rebasing the
formulas that underlie the paraeducators’ allocation. Finally, the FFTWG recommends that the
prototype schools should always have some minimal level of paraeducator staffing to ensure a
minimum level of supplemental instruction and success coordination services are provided in all
schools.




                                              70
                                        REFERENCES

Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-analysis of
Findings. American Educational Research Journal. 19(2), 237-248.

Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M.T., & Moody, S.W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading
outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65: 399-415.

Farkas, George. (1998). Reading one-to-one: An intensive program serving a great many

students while still achieving. In Jonathan Crane (Ed.), Social programs that work. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Mathes, P.G., & Fuchs, L.S. (1994). The efficacy of peer tutoring in reading for students with
mild disabilities: A best-evidence synthesis. School Psychology Review, 23, 59-80.

Miller, Samuel D. (2003). Partners in reading: Using classroom assistants to provide tutorial
assistance to struggling first-grade readers. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk,
8(3), 333-349.

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. Review of
Research in Education, 23, 217-234. Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.

Shanahan, T, & Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an
early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly,30(4), 958-997.

Torgeson, J. K. (2004). Avoiding the Devastating Downward Spiral. American Educator, 28(3),
6-19, 45-47.




                                               71
         Appendix 1. Paraeducators Work Group
                      Name & Title                                                Affiliation

Jerry Bender, Director of Governmental Relations         Association of Washington School Principals

Barbara Billinghurst, Research Analyst                   OSPI
Colleen Bradley, Paraeducator                            Marysville School District

Patty Dean, Paraeducator                                 Roosevelt Elementary, Port Angeles School District

Reen Doser, Paraeducator                                 Skyline Elementary, Lake Stevens School District

Barbara Gapper, Paraeducator                             Port Angeles High School, Port Angeles School
                                                         District
Maria Heikkila, Paraeducator                             Franklin Elementary, Port Angeles School District

Ken Hermanson, Principal                                 Northlake High School, Longview School District

Lori Johnson,                                            Richland School District

Margarite Jones, Paraeducator                            Seattle School District

Betty Kelley, Paraeducator                               Peninsula School District

Jim Kowalkowski, School District Superintendent and
                                                    Davenport School District, Rural Education Center
Rural Education Center Director

Isabel Muñoz-Colón, Director of Financial Policy and
                                                     OSPI
Research
Mary Mosely, Paraeducator                                Hamilton Elementary, Port Angeles
Doug Nelson, Director of Governmental Relations          Public School Employees of Washington/ Service
                                                         Employees International Union 1948
Jan Olmstead, Paraeducator                               Aylen Junior High, Puyallup School District
Randy Parr, Budget Analyst and Lobbyist                  Washington Education Association
Yvonne Ryans, Title I, LAP Supervisor,                   OSPI

Jean Sarcletti, Paraeducator                             H. M. Jackson High School, Everett School District
Sonia Schei, Paraeducator                                Marysville School District

Bev Sevigny, Paraeducator                                Zillah School District

John Steach, Deputy Superintendent of Human Resources    Richland School District
Matt Wood, Organizer Representative                      Service Employees International Union 925




                                                    72
Appendix 2. Discussion of Paraeducator Studies
Ten Studies on Targeted Paraeducator Intervention for Struggling
Students
Table 1 summarizes key features of the ten studies reviewed by the Evidence for Policy and
Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) where paraeducators where used
in a targeted intervention to improve the academic achievement of struggling students. The
paraeducator intervention targeted students primarily in grades one and two who had an
identified problem in basic skill attainment in early literacy or numeracy skills.

The EPPI-Centre considered the methodology of all ten studies to be of “high” quality for the
following reasons:

   •   The academic levels of the students were tested before and after the introduction of
       paraeducators.

   •   All studies except for Grek et al. (2003) compared the results of the treated group to a
       comparison or control group that was well matched to the experimental group.

   •   The control group did not receive paraeducator support, and

   •   Fidelity checks were done to ensure the paraeducator was using the proper instructional
       strategies.

All the paraeducators received training in how to deliver the specific intervention and were
supported throughout the process. The impact on students’ academic attainment was
measured, usually through a test of some kind, before and after the paraeducator’s
involvement.

Of the ten studies on this group, eight had positive results, one mixed and one negative.
Notably, all seven studies using pull-out groups had positive results.

The overriding conclusion from eight of the nine studies (that had positive or mixed results) is
that trained and supported paraeducators, either working on a one-to-one basis or in a small
group, can help primary aged children with literacy and language problems to make significant
gains in learning when compared, in all but two of the studies, with similar children who do not
receive paraeducator support.




                                              73
Table 1. Studies of the Impact of Paraeducators on Academic Achievement: Use of Paraeducators is Targeted to Low-Achieving Students and Impact is Quantified
Study                 Grade        Pull-     Group Size     Length        of Length of Education        of Focus of Support/                   Impact                          of
                      Level        out vs.                  Intervention     Treatment Paraeducators 21 Area Tested or Measured                Paraeducators
                                   stay in                  session
                                   class
Boyle et al. (2007)   Grades 1- Pull out 1 to 1 & 30-40-min                  15 weeks   High                 Specific language difficulties/   Positive
                      6                      Group (31- sessions, 3 days                                     Language Skills tests
                                             33)            per week
Grek et al. (2003)    Grades 1 - Unclear Group (size 40-min sessions, 22 weeks          Medium               Literacy difficulties/            Positive
                      2                      unknown)       5 days per week                                  Achievement tests
Miller (2003)          Grade 1      Pull out   1 to 1           30-40-min          One year     Medium              Literacy difficulties/                   Positive
                                                                sessions, 4 days                                    Literacy tests & Grade retention
                                                                per week
Muijs and Reynolds     Grades 1 -   In class   Group (size      Ave. 10 hours      One year     Don’t know          Numeracy difficulties/                   Negative
(2003)                 2                       unknown)         per student in                                      Mathematics test
                                                                one year
O’Shaughnessy and      Grade 2      Pull out   Group (15)       30-min sessions,   6 weeks      Low                 Literacy difficulties                    Positive
Swanson (2000)                                                  5 days per week                                     Literacy tests
Savage et al. (2003,   Grade 2      Pull out   Group     (13-   20-min sessions,   9 weeks      Don’t know          Literacy difficulties/                   Positive
2005, 2008)                                    14)              4 days per week                                     Literacy tests
Vadasy     et    al.   Grades 2 -   Pull out   1 to 1           30-min sessions;   20 weeks     Medium              Literacy                 difficulties/   Positive
(2006)                 3                                        4 days per week                                     Literacy tests
Vadasy     et    al.   Grades 2 -   Pull out   1 to 1           30-min sessions;   20 weeks     Low                 Literacy difficulties/                   Positive
(2007)                 3                                        4 days per week                                     Literacy tests
Wang           and     Grade 1      Pull out   Unknown          10 to 15 min       110          Don’t know          Literacy difficulties/                   Positive
Algozzine (2008)                                                sessions           sessions                         Literacy tests
Welch et al. (1995)    Grades 1 -   In class   Group (size      ‘Every day’ for    One or two   Don’t know          Literacy & numeracy difficulties/        Mixed – only the
                       5                       unknown)         one year           years                            Literacy & mathematics tests; &          two-year       group
                                                                                                                    referrals to special ed                  students made gains
21
  Paraeducator education: In this column, the rating of ‘high’ is given when all the paraeducators in the sample had a university degree; a ‘medium’ rating is given when the
majority of the paraeducators had completed a college course of some kind; and a ‘low’ rating is given when the majority of the paraeducators did not undertake further training
having left high school. The rating ‘don’t know’ is given when the authors did not provide information about the qualifications of the paraeducators.




                                                                                        74
                                    Table 1 Study References

Boyle J, McCartney E, Forbes J, O’Hare A (2007) A randomized controlled trial and economic
evaluation of direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of speech and language
therapy for children with primary language impairment. Health Technology Assessment 11.

Grek ML, Mathes PG, Torgesen JK (2003) Similarities and differences between experience
teachers and trained paraprofessionals: an observational analysis. In: Vaughn S, Briggs KL (eds)
Reading in the classroom: systems for the observation of teaching and learning. Baltimore: Paul
H Brooks.

Miller SD (2003) Partners-in-reading: using classroom assistants to provide tutorial assistance to
struggling first-grade readers. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk 8: 333-349.

Muijs D, Reynolds D (2003) The effectiveness of the use of learning support assistants in
improving the mathematics achievement of low achieving pupils in primary school. Educational
Research 45: 219-230.

O’Shaughnessy TE, Swanson HL (2000) A comparison of two reading interventions for children
with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 33: 257-277.

Savage R, Carless, S, Stuart M (2003) The effects of rime- and phoneme-based teaching
delivered by learning support assistants. Journal of Research in Reading 26: 211–233.

Vadasy P, Sanders E, Peyton J (2006) Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in structural
analysis with test reading practice for second and third graders at risk for reading problems.
Remedial and Special Education 27: 365-378.

Vadasy PF, Sanders EA, Tudor S (2007) Effectiveness of paraeducator-supplemented individual
instruction: beyond basic decoding skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities 40: 508(18).

Welch M, Richards G, Okada T, Richards J, Prescott S (1995) A consultation and
paraprofessional pull-in system of service delivery: a report on student outcomes and teacher
satisfaction. Remedial and Special Education (RASE) 16: 16-28.




                                               75
Four Studies on Non-Targeted Paraeducator Intervention for All
Students
Table 2 summarizes key features of the four studies reviewed by the Evidence for Policy and
Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) where the impact of paraeducators
on the academic achievement of all students in the class was measured, but the role of the
paraeducators was not known to the researchers. In these studies of nontargeted intervention,
the presence of paraeducator in the classroom is linked to the measured academic
achievements of all children in a class, school or group of schools.

     •   Of the four studies in this group, 2 had positive results, 1 mixed and 1 negative.

     •   The two positive studies, Frelow et al. (1974) and Loos et al. (1977), indicate that the
         presence of paraeducators in one school resulted in the students making more progress in
         literacy and numeracy than they had done in previous years when paraeducators were not
         present. However, design weaknesses occurred in both studies. In Loos et al. (1977), the
         researchers did not acknowledge that the presence of classroom observers collecting data
         may have contributed to the positive effect. In Frelow et al. (1974), no control group was
         used.

     •   The other two studies (Blatchford et al. 2001 and Gerber et al. 2001) are large scale studies
         that focus on the academic achievement of all children in a number of primary schools.
         The Blatchford et al. 2001 study analyzed paraeducators in British schools.22 The Gerber et
         al. 2001 study is based on the Tennessee STAR study 23. The main finding of these studies
         is that the presence of paraeducators in a classroom has no clear and consistent effect on
         average class (not individual) test scores.

     •   Design weaknesses that may affect the results from both studies include not distinguishing
         clearly enough the instructional duties of paraeducators from the more clerical or
         administrative duties, and not examining the impact on particular individuals or small
         groups within a class that may be the focus of paraeducator support. Also, Blatchford et
         al. does not explain why teachers perceived that paraeducators helped increase the learning
         of students even though class test results did not show this.




22
   The Blatchford study used multiple methods to obtain student and teacher data from two large cohorts of students
totaling 11,386 British students across reception (kindergarten), year one and year two. The study was not restricted to
students with special education needs, but covered all students who received support from a paraeducator.

23
   In the original Tennessee STAR (The Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio) experiment, researchers tracked a cohort
of nearly 12,000 students who entered kindergarten in 1985 and were randomly assigned to one of three class types:
small classes of 13 to 17 students; regular classes with 22-26 students, and regular classes with full-time teaching aides.
With few exceptions, the students remained in these class types for four years. Researchers found that the presence of
Teacher Aides did not have a significant impact on math or reading test scores; only smaller class sizes did.




                                                           76
Table 2 Studies of the Impact of Paraeducators on Academic Achievement: Use of Paraeducators in General, Non-Targeted Settings and Impact is Quantified
           Study                 Age of      Control   Length of        Education of          Training for            Focus of Support/                      Impact of
                                children     Group     Treatment       Paraeducators         Paraeducators         Area Tested or Measured                  Paraeducator
                                                                              24

Blatchford         et     al.   4-7 years      No        3 years           Medium                 No           General/                                        Negative
(2001)                                                                                                         Assessments in Mathematics and
                                                                                                               literacy
     Frelow et al. (1974)       7-9 years      No        Over 1         Not reported             Yes           Literacy and Numeracy/                           Positive
                                                          year                                                 School Tests
     Gerber et al. (2001)       5-9 years     Yes       1-4 years            Low                  No           Mathematics, Reading, Word                        Mixed
                                                                                                               study skills/ Academic grades
     Loos et al. (1977)         7-10 years    Yes        8 weeks         Psychology              Yes           Literacy and Mathematics/                        Positive
                                                                           student                             correctly completed work
                                                                         volunteers




24
  Paraeducators education: In this column, the rating of ‘high’ is given when all the paraeducators in the sample had a university degree; a ‘medium’ rating is given when the
majority of the paraeducators had completed a college course of some kind; and a ‘low’ rating is given when the majority of the paraeducators did not undertake further training
having left high school. The rating ‘don’t know’ is given when the authors did not provide information about the qualifications of the paraeducators.




                                                                                        77
                                   Table 2 Study References

Blatchford P, Martin C, Moriarty V, Bassett P, Goldstein H (2001) Pupil adult ratio differences
and educational progress over reception and key stage 1. London: Institute of Education,
University of London.

Frelow RD, Charry J, Freilich B (1974) Academic progress and behavioral changes in low
achieving pupils. Journal of Educational Research 67: 263-266.

Gerber SB, Finn JD, Achilles CM, Boyd-Zaharias J (2001) Teacher aides and students’ academic
achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23: 123-143.

Loos FM, Williams KP, Bailey JS (1977) A multi-element analysis of the effect of teacher aides
in an ‘open’-style classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10: 437-448.




                                              78
Appendix 3. Summary of Supplemental Instruction Programs
Involving Work Group Members

1. Overall Structure of Paraeducator Program

       Elementary

   •   The three elementary paraeducators worked in pull-out programs that instructed small
       groups of low-performing students. Some but not all students were in Title I Programs or
       had Individual Education Plans (IEPs).

   •   Only one of the elementary paraeducator was assigned to a particular grade level (2nd)
       and a particular subject (reading); the other two served students from different grades
       (kindergarten – 6th grade) in math or reading as needed.

       High School

   •   The one high school paraeducator worked in a pull-out program that instructed small
       groups of low performing students. This program was one component of the school’s
       “Pyramid of Intervention” (POI), an approach designed to intervene early with struggling
       students and help them earn enough credits each year to be able to graduate on time or
       retrieve credits.

   •   Due to limited funds, the high school prioritized helping 9th and 12th graders, although
       10th an 11th graders were served as spaced allowed.

2. Focus of Supplemental Instruction Session

   •   Paraeducators instructed students who were identified by their teachers as needing extra
       help in reading or math. One paraeducator reported that some of her students were
       identified as needing help through the Response to Intervention program that her school
       uses.

   •   The high school paraeducator served mostly 9th and 12th grade students who had been
       identified as being at risk of failing by their teacher, or had already received a failing
       grade in one or two of their courses. The school had trained the teachers to identify and
       report such students to the paraeducator. Students who had received more than two
       failures were referred to a different, more intensive in-school program where certified
       specialists could help them with the full range of social and health issues, and not just
       their academic difficulties.

3. The Amount of Time Spent in Supplemental Instruction Group Sessions and the Size of
Groups

       Elementary

   •   The groups met between 30 to 60 minutes a day for four or five days a week.

   •   Group sizes varied from 3 to 6, and some paraeducators met one-on-one with students


                                               79
        who needed extra help.

   •    More time is spent with students who are further below standard than others.



        High School

   •    The paraeducator pulls up to eight students from their regular class once a week for a 50-
        minute session in a quiet setting to help them complete or make up assignments. The
        usual group size is 6.

   •    The paraeducator meets with 4 or 5 groups per day.



4. Supplemental Instructional Programs, if any, Used by the Paraeducator

    •   Two elementary paraeducators reported using specific instructional programs, such as
        Read Well, Read Well Plus, Read Naturally, and Soar to Success.

    •   High school paraeducators worked with any subject in which the student needed help.

5. Success of Supplemental Instruction Group Sessions

        Elementary

    •   Paraeducators track progress by recording scores on formative assessments, by timed
        student readings, and by documenting their observations. All three paraeducators
        reported that students made substantial progress in their skills. Upon reaching their
        goals, students stop attending the group sessions and stay in their class.

    •   One paraeducator had end-of-the-year program data showing that the improvement in
        her groups’ average reading scores ranged from 120 percent to 204 percent.

    •   Another paraeducator reported that since the school began its RTI program, it made
        fewer referrals to special education.

        High School

   •    The paraeducator tracks the progress students make in completing assignments and
        passing courses.

   •    Students are released from the program with teacher approval, or when they have earned
        a passing grade in the course.

   •    The paraeducator reported that the average increase in grade point average was 22
        percent in the 2009-10 school year.



6. Amount of Training Received by Paraeducator



                                               80
       Elementary

   •   All three paraeducators reported that, over the years, they have received training in
       applying their particular supplemental instructional program from a classroom teacher or
       from a reading specialist at the school or district level.

   •   The paraeducators have designated time with a reading specialist or a teacher at most
       once a week throughout the school year.

   •   The paraeducator whose school reading specialist supervised her work reported more
       time in training, preparation and debriefing overall than the other two – usually occurring
       on Friday mornings when no group sessions were scheduled.

       High School

   •   An administrative intern initially mentored the paraeducator when the program first
       began.

7. Amount of Preparation Time and Time to Review Student Work

       Elementary

   •   Two paraeducators reported having about two hours per week of compensated time to
       prepare for their sessions; one paraeducator reported having two-and-half hours every
       third week.

   •   None of the elementary paraeducator said their allotted preparation time was sufficient
       for reviewing students’ work and preparing for future sessions.

       High School

   •   The paraeducator said that she used too much time (about 1 to 2 hours per day)
       contacting teachers through email to determine who needed extra help and the type of
       assignments that needed to be done.




                                               81
Appendix 4.           Calculating the number of at-risk students for each
prototype.

Elementary Level

            Calculating State's At-Risk K-6 Students not Receiving Supplemental Services
                                                           Did not Pass     Did not
                                                             Students        Pass
                                             Did not Pass       who        Students          At Risk of
                                               Students      received        who            Failure and
             Largest % of                   who received     Bilingual     received             NOT
Total K-6th  MSP test not       Total At        SPED           Trans         LAP             receiving
 graders        passed            Risk         services       services     services          services

537,444                46.40%    249,374               48,721   34,883           57,595     108,175


                Add back in:
                Intersection Bilingual and Lap = 16.4% of Bilingual                                  5,721
                Intersection Special Ed and Lap = 11.8% of special ed                                5,749
                Intersection of Bilingual and Special ed = 8.7% of special ed
                                                                                                     4,239
                                                   Adjusted Count of At Risk                       123,883

                                 Percent of At-Risk Count not Receiving
                                 Services                                                          49.68%



    Calculating Elementary Prototype's At-Risk K-6 Students not Receiving Supplemental Services
                                                          Did not Pass
                                           Did not Pass     Students     Did not Pass
                                             Students          who         Students      At Risk of
                                                who         received         who        Failure and
Elementary     Largest % of                  received       Bilingual      received         Not
Prototype      MSP test not    Total At        SPED           Trans          LAP         receiving
Enrollment        passed         Risk         services       services      services      services

          400          46.40%          185.6   36.26            25.96            42.87      80.51


                 Add back in:

                 Intersection Bilingual and Lap = 16.4% of Bilingual                        4.26

                 Intersection Special Ed and Lap = 11.8% of special ed                      4.28

                 Intersection of Bilingual and Special ed = 8.7% of special ed              3.15

                                                                Adjusted Count of At Risk   92.20




                                                 82
Middle School Level

            Calculating State's At-Risk 7-8 Students not Receiving Supplemental Services
                                                           Did not Pass
                                             Did not Pass    Students    Did not Pass
                                               Students         who        Students       At Risk of
                                                 who         received        who         Failure and
              Largest % of                     received      Bilingual     received          NOT
Total 7th & MSP test not        Total At        SPED           Trans         LAP          receiving
8th Graders      passed           Risk         services      services      services       services

154,226               48.50%   74,799.61     16,071.15       10,929.52               21,310   26,489.28


                Add back in:

                Intersection Bilingual and Lap = 16.4% of Bilingual                           1,792.44

                Intersection Special Ed and Lap = 11.8% of special ed                         1,896.40
                Intersection of Bilingual and Special ed = 8.7% of special
                ed                                                                            1,398.19

                                                             Adjusted Count of At Risk        31,576.30

                               Percent of At-Risk Count not Receiving Services                       42.21%



   Calculating Middle School Prototype’s At-Risk 7-8 Students not Receiving Supplemental Services
                                                           Did not Pass
                                            Did not Pass     Students     Did not Pass
                                              Students         who          Students      At Risk of
                                                who          received         who        Failure and
Middle         Largest % of                   received       Bilingual      received         NOT
School         MSP test not    Total At        SPED           Trans           LAP         receiving
Enrollment        passed         Risk         services       services       services      services

          432         48.50%   209.52        45.02           30.61           59.69            74.20


                Add back in:

                Intersection Bilingual and Lap = 16.4% of Bilingual                           5.02

                Intersection Special Ed and Lap = 11.8% of special ed                         5.31
                Intersection of Bilingual and Special ed = 8.7% of special
                ed                                                                            3.92

                                                             Adjusted Count of At Risk        88.45




                                               83
High School Level

          Calculating State's At-Risk 9-12 Students not Receiving Supplemental Services
                                                         Did not Pass
                                           Did not Pass    Students     Did not Pass
                                             Students         who         Students      At Risk of
                                               who         received         who        Failure and
Total 9th - Largest % of                     received      Bilingual      received         NOT
12th          HSPE test        Total At       SPED           Trans          LAP         receiving
Graders       not passed         Risk        services      services       services      services

327,772              58.60%    192,074.39    36,122.70       23,934.40               30238   101,779.11


                Add back in:

                Intersection Bilingual and Lap = 16.4% of Bilingual                          3,925.24

                Intersection Special Ed and Lap = 11.8% of special ed                        4,262.48
                Intersection of Bilingual and Special ed = 8.7% of special
                ed                                                                           3,142.68

                                                             Adjusted Count of At Risk       113,109.51

                               Percent of At-Risk Count not Receiving Services                      58.89%




   Calculating High School Prototype's At-Risk 9-12 Students not Receiving Supplemental Services
                                                          Did not Pass
                                           Did not Pass     Students     Did not Pass
                                             Students          who         Students      At Risk of
                                                who         received          who       Failure and
High School Largest % of                      received      Bilingual       received        NOT
Prototype       HSPE test      Total At        SPED           Trans           LAP        receiving
Enrollment     not passed        Risk         services       services       services     services

          600        58.60%    351.60        66.12           43.81           55.35           186.31


                Add back in:

                Intersection Bilingual and Lap = 16.4% of Bilingual                          7.19

                Intersection Special Ed and Lap = 11.8% of special ed                        7.80
                Intersection of Bilingual and Special ed = 8.7% of special
                ed                                                                           5.75

                                                             Adjusted Count of At Risk       207.05




                                               84
School Office Aides
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction




Classified Adequacy Staffing Report




December 2010



                          85
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 4

   Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response ............................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION: What are School Office Staff and Non-instructional Aides? ............................................ 6

   School Office Staff and Non-instructional Aides Are Critical to Accountability, Student Achievement,
   Community Relations, Operating Efficiency and Student Health & Safety .............................................. 6

   What we know about trends in employment of School Office Staff and Non-instructional Aides .......... 8

HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMEMDATIONS ............................................................................................ 10

   2006: Washington Learns ...................................................................................................................... 10

   2009: Basic Education Finance Task Force ............................................................................................. 10

   2010: SHB 2776 ...................................................................................................................................... 10

DETERMINING ADEQUATE STAFFING LEVELS for SCHOOL OFFICE STAFF and NON-INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES
.................................................................................................................................................................... 11

   Research Challenges and Limitations ..................................................................................................... 11

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

   Work Group Members ............................................................................................................................ 12

TO DEVELOP STAFFING ALLOCATION FORMULAS, the WORK GROUP MEMBERS: .................................... 13

   1. Work group members first identified and then categorized the work of school office staff into five
   large groups: ........................................................................................................................................... 13

   2. Next, the work group reviewed and revised the job category descriptions to ensure the
   descriptions were exclusive to the staffing category for school office & non-instructional aides serving
   in a general Basic Education program. ................................................................................................... 13

   3. The work group then discussed the need for additional staff time to meet the current demand for
   student, employee and financial data, and the implications of future growth in demand for data. ..... 17

   4. The work group divided the FTEs for each office staff member and non-instructional aide in their
   school office team into each of the five main work categories.............................................................. 21




                                                                                 86
   5. The work group considered current job demands and estimated how much additional time, if any,
   their office team needed to promptly and fully complete their work assignments. ............................. 24

   6. Based on job descriptions and estimated FTEs, the work group developed a formula for allocating
   school office staff & non-instructional aides in each of the three prototypical schools. ....................... 27

MATTERS for CONSIDERATION ................................................................................................................... 33

   Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response ........................................................................... 34

APPENDIX 1. School Office Staff and Non-instructional Aides Work Group.............................................. 35




                                                                      87
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To help the QEC meet its requirements under SHB 2776, OSPI convened a work group to develop
staffing allocation recommendations for school office staff and non-instructional aides. The work group
included experienced school office managers, non-instructional aides and other education professionals
who helped identify core duties, work load drivers and time requirements for school office staff and
non-instructional aides. The work group also reviewed research on recommended staffing ratios for
administrative staff in schools and businesses.

School office staff include administrative assistants, office managers, data entry specialists,
receptionists, health aides and others who perform a variety of jobs. School office staff assist principals,
counselors and librarians; maintain databases for attendance, course schedules, grades and test scores;
and field inquiries from parents, students, teachers and community members. Non-instructional aides
are responsible for the welfare of students during breaks, lunchtime and outside school hours. School
office aides and non-instructional aides often work together as a team, managed by a school office
manager.

In its review of research on recommended administrative staffing levels, the work group did not find any
study or guidelines that could be used to help determine an optimal level of administrative support staff
for a school of any particular size, grade level or type of student demographic.

The work group first categorized the work of school office staff and non-instructional aides into five
large groups:

    •   customer service,
    •   student data management,
    •   office services,
    •   student supervision, and
    •   health.

The work group singled out growth in required student data collection and management as the leading
cause for school office staff overtime and staff shortages. The work group noted that many school office
staff struggle to enter new and update existing data close to the time that it is generated, while at the
same time, continuing to respond to numerous requests from parents, teachers, administrators,
students and others.

Using their professional judgment and considering their current job demands, the work group estimated
how much additional time their office teams needed to fully and promptly complete their work. Based
on these estimates and a work group discussion of essential positions by school prototypes for
elementary, middle and high schools, the work group developed recommendations for optimal staffing
levels.




                                                    88
The work group recommends 3.220, 3.029 and 3.382 FTEs for school office staff and non-instructional
aides at the prototypical elementary, middle, and high schools, respectively.

Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response
The Funding Formula Technical Working Group approved the School Office Staff and Non-Instructional
Aides Working Group’s recommendations for staffing allocations in the prototype schools. The FFTWG
also made two other recommendations. First, the staffing allocations should be adjusted by a
‘complexity’ factor that represents a school district’s share of students who required additional
resources to serve, including students in poverty, English Language Learners, and students who are
highly mobile. Second, given the critical nature of the work that school office staff performed, the
allocation formula should also include a factor for substitutes.




                                                 89
INTRODUCTION: What are School Office Staff and Non-instructional
Aides?
School Office Staff include administrative assistants, office managers, secretaries, registrars, data
processors, data entry specialists, receptionists and clerks who work in the offices of the principal,
assistant principals, or counselors. School office staff may also work in offices dedicated to a special
purpose such as attendance, course scheduling or transcripts.

The school office manager helps manage all aspects of the school’s systems for finances, employees and
student services. The office manager helps the school principal make strategic decisions to ensure the
best possible use of resources.

To be successful, the office team must stay informed about changing requirements affecting the school’s
operations, and develop expertise in the many automated systems that schools use.

 A school office team also includes non-instructional aides who may be responsible for the welfare of
pupils during break, lunchtime and outside school hours, or for the care of students seeking medical
assistance in the absence of an on-site nurse. Non-instructional aides also include staff who provide
clerical assistance to counselors and librarians.

Non-instructional aides assist certificated instructional staff by helping to supervise students outside the
classroom, or by performing clerical tasks in school offices as needed. Non-instructional aides serve as
playground aides, lunchroom aides, recess aides, community service aides or bus monitors. They may
also monitor the students’ pick-up or drop off zone outside schools or supervise students who must
walk a significant distance to a class in another building.



School Office Staff and Non-instructional Aides Are Critical to Accountability,
Student Achievement, Community Relations, Operating Efficiency and Student
Health & Safety
Schools operate in an environment where policy makers, parents and taxpayers demand data-driven
accountability. For example, the accountability provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act and other
laws 1 significantly increased the requirements for the state, school districts and schools to produce
accurate, reliable, high-quality educational data. A school district’s share of federal funding is



1
  For example, the Becca Bill, RCW 13.32A, requires schools to collect attendance data. Also, several state laws,
RCW 28A.300.041, RCW 28A.300.1361 and RSW 28A.655 among others, direct the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to collect data on students’ academic achievement and to monitor progress in closing the achievement
gap.




                                                       90
dependent on the accurate reporting of school attendance rates, graduation rates and Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) status.

Ultimately, most of the required data elements in any education data report “belong” to schools. Given
that the most effective method of improving data quality is to prevent errors from occurring, staff
organization and training at the school level are critical to producing reliable reports. School staff have a
strong interest in producing accurate data, and should be given the responsibility – and time – for
developing a proprietary interest in maintaining the quality of data they collect, report, and use. 2

High quality data are needed for effective data-driven decision making in schools. Experts believe that
data-driven decision making serves “as a powerful process for districts to facilitate more informed
decision making, boost overall school performance and improve student achievement.” 3

Advocates of data-driven decision making at the school level envision a user-friendly database system
that enables teachers, administrators and parents to routinely assess student learning, pinpoint
problems, and make appropriate changes in curriculum or instruction so as to improve student
achievement. “At its best, data-driven decision-making is much more than an accountability tool; it is a
diagnostic tool that permits - nay, encourages - teachers to tailor instruction to student needs.” 4

Where schools have successfully achieved some measure of data-driven decision making, school office
staff have been involved in entering data, ensuring its accuracy and producing easily-understood reports
for teachers and administrators in a timely manner. Ease of use, timeliness, relevance, and accuracy are
essential system traits that require investment in appropriate staff and resources. Schools need to
ensure that staff who enter, manipulate and use the data are appropriately trained in administrative
software that meets their needs.

Customer Relations
For schools to survive and thrive in their local communities, they must show their parents and local
taxpayers that they provide a high quality education to students and that they are good stewards of
public resources. School office staff are often the first to make an impression on parents, students, and
community members. School office staff need to be cognizant of this role and offer friendly,
professional services to all visitors.

Operational Efficiency


2
 Improving Data Quality from Title I Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Reporting Guidelines For States,
LEAs, and Schools [Non-Regulatory Guidance] April 2006 U.S. Dept. of Ed., Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education
3
Messelt, John, Data-Driven Decision Making: A Powerful Tool for School Improvement, Sagebrush Corporation,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2004. https://www.erdc.k12.mn.us/promo/sage/images/Analytics_WhitePaper.pdf
4
 Doyle, Denis P., Data-Driven Decision Making: Is It the Mantra of the Month or Does It Have Staying Power? The
Journal, 05/01/2003. http://thejournal.com/articles/2003/05/01/datadriven-decisionmaking.aspx




                                                        91
A school office is the main point in the school through which most information flows through to staff
and students in the school and to parents, district, state and federal officials, and community members
beyond the school. The transmission of this information must be prompt and accurate for the school to
operate efficiently.

Health & Safety Services
School nurses or other health care professionals must develop, implement and manage health care
plans for students who have chronic medical conditions and require care during school hours. School
nurses, however, often are not available on a daily basis to provide the needed care. Subject to limits of
state law, the nurses may train certain school office staff to provide care in their absence. 5 School
office staff serving as health aides assist students with daily health needs, such as providing medications
or helping students use inhalers for asthma. Health aides are trained in providing first aid and in the use
of defibrillators and EpiPens.

Non-instructional aides monitor students before and after the school day, and during breaks on the
playground or in the lunch room. It is important to have aides present, especially at the elementary
level, to stop unruly or unsafe student behavior and help students avoid injuries. Non-instructional
aides at the elementary level also are trained to keep students safe from outsiders who may pose a
threat.

What we know about trends in employment of School Office Staff and Non-
instructional Aides
The number of school office staff and non-instructional aides employed by districts in the last ten years
has increased at a faster rate than student enrollment. And over the last five years, school districts
have consistently spent more on these staff than allocated by the state.

Over the ten years ending in 2009-10, school office staff increased by 9 percent from 4,171 to 4,529, and
non-instructional aides increased by 4 percent from 987 to 1,022. During the same time, the state’s K-
12 enrollment increased by almost 3 percent, from 997,580 to 1,024,721. 6

Over the last five years, state funding for school office staff and non-instructional aides has increased by
about 19 percent, from about $206,000,000 to $244,000,000. The state’s share of the total (state and




5
 The following sections in Chapter 28A.210 RCW regulate the training and involvement of nonmedical school staff
related to administering oral medications (260); the catheterization of students (280); and the care of students
with diabetes (330-340); asthma (370); or anaphylaxis (380).



6
 For each year, the total number of FTEs for School Office Staff and Non Instructional Aides is based on a count of
the FTEs for relevant assignment codes as reported by school districts in the S275 Personnel Report managed by
OSPI.




                                                        92
  local) funding that school districts spent on this category of staff has averaged about 80 percent, and
  varied by at most 2.5 percent from average. See Table 1.



       Table 1. State and Total Funding for School Office Staff & Non-instructional Aides, 2005-2010

                                    2009-10          2008-09           2007-08          2006-07           2005-06
      State allocation           $244,472,417 $234,757,816 $228,100,965 $216,229,087 $206,094,406
Total (State & Local) Funding $298,567,791 $303,102,508 $284,902,674 $270,849,110 $252,202,272
 % State of Total Funding           81.88%            77.45%           80.06%            79.83%           81.72%
  Source: Based on an analysis of employee FTEs and salary data from S-275 Personnel Reports for each of the listed
  years.




                                                         93
HISTORY OF FUNDING RECOMMEMDATIONS

2006: Washington Learns
Washington Learns researchers concluded that each elementary and middle prototypical school would
need two school office staff, and that the prototypical high school would need three. To supervise
students in lunchrooms and other places outside the classroom, the researchers recommended two
non-instructional aides for each elementary and middle school prototype, and three for the high school
prototype. Table 2 shows the Washington Learns recommendations for staff based on FTEs using 260
days per year, which is used for classified staff, rather than the 180 days used for certificated staff. For
example, a recommendation of 4 staff per school is translated into 2.769 FTEs, or (4*8*180)/ (8*260).

2009: Basic Education Finance Task Force
In its funding proposal for school office staff and non-instructional aides, the 2009 Basic Education
Finance Task Force recommended three staff (2.077 FTEs) for this category in each of the three
prototypical schools. The Task Force’s general concern was to ensure that school districts could at least
employ the same level of staff for this category as in the 2008-09 school year. As Table 2 shows, the
Task Force recommendations slightly exceeded staffing levels for school office staff and non-
instructional aides in the state’s elementary (2.012 FTEs) schools, but was less than the 2.325 FTEs
employed by districts in the middle schools, and the 3.269 FTEs employed by districts in high schools for
that year.

2010: SHB 2776
In SHB 2776, the Legislature concurred with the QEC’s proposed work plan regarding school office staff,
non-instructional aides and other classified staff. Specifically, the legislation directed the QEC to submit
a report to the Governor and the Legislature that includes recommendations for assuring adequate
levels of state-funded classified staff to support essential school and district services.

The legislation also established the 2008-09 state operating budget as the baseline for the prototype
values for school office staff and non-instructional aides as indicated in Table 2 below.



              Table 2. 2017-18 Funding Recommendations
   Students per               Elementary        Middle           High
   Prototype                     (400)           (432)           (600)
1 Washington Learns              2.769           2.769           4.154
2 Finance Task Force             2.077           2.077           2.077
3 SHB 2776                       Did Not Legislate Fully-Funded Values
4 2008-09 State                  2.012           2.325           3.269
   Operating Budget Level
5 District Practice              2.414           2.569           3.287
One FTE is equivalent to an 8 hour work day for 260 days.




                                                     94
DETERMINING ADEQUATE STAFFING LEVELS for SCHOOL OFFICE STAFF
and NON-INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES
To determine adequate levels of school office staff and non-instructional aides, OSPI reviewed the
research on recommended staffing ratios for administrative staff in schools and businesses. OSPI also
convened a work group of experienced school office managers, non-instructional aides and other
education professionals to help identify the core duties, work load drivers and time requirements for an
effective staffing model for school office staff and non-instructional aides.



Research Challenges and Limitations
An extensive search of the research found no study or guidelines for staffing levels for school office staff.
Certainly no guidelines exist that would calibrate staffing levels for schools of varying sizes, grade levels,
and student demographics.

Next, OSPI staff researched staffing patterns for administrative support in business, although it is
questionable how relevant business ratios are to schools since school office staff serve managers, adult
employees and children and teenagers.

A 2009 survey of 3,100 administrative business professionals revealed that wide variances in the
reported ratios do not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding typical staffing ratios of administrative
professionals to managers or administrative support staff to the number of a company’s employees. 7
Specifically,

    •    Most administrative professionals (45 percent) support one to two managers with 28 percent
         supporting three or four managers, 24 percent supporting more than 5 managers, and 3 percent
         supporting none.

    •    Businesses employ five or fewer administrative support staff 35 percent of the time, six to 10
         administrative support staff 17 percent of the time, from 11 to 100 support staff 33 percent of
         the time, and from 101 to over 1,000 support staff 15 percent of the time.

    •    The size of the administrative professional’s parent company ranged from less than 25
         employees to more than 10,000. No information was provided about how many employees
         were actually on site with the administrative professional or how many administrative support
         staff were associated with companies of a particular size.

Similar to staffing decisions of schools, the author of the survey reports, “Decisions on staffing ratios of
management/executive staff in relation to administrative support staff depends on several factors, such


7
 In 2009, members of the International Association of Administrative Professionals were asked to participate in a
benchmarking survey designed to gather current data on job titles, key responsibilities, average salaries, job
satisfaction, technology usage, training needs and other key issues relating to today’s administrative professionals




                                                         95
as work volume and the nature of the tasks and responsibilities delegated to the administrative support
level, how work flows in the organization, and many other varying factors including the economy.” 8



Guiding Questions
1. How does level of service change depending on the grade spans served at the school? The
   demographics and size of the school’s student population?
2. Should different staffing levels be driven by other factors, such as the remoteness/urbanicity of the
   school?
3. How do new data requirements affect workload?
4. What are the best categories for listing and grouping the many responsibilities of administrative
   staff?
5. Should the workgroup assume the school office staff have sufficient computers, software and
   networking capacity to perform their work as efficiently as possible?
6. Does membership in a regional or statewide informational processing cooperative affect the level of
   staffing in the prototype schools?
7. How does the staffing of other positions, such as nurses or technology support staff, affect the need
   for office support staff or non-instructional staff? For example, how are data entry and computer
   maintenance jobs divided between office staff and technology support staff?



Work Group Members
The work group consisted of experienced school office managers, a principal, school district and ESD
administrators experienced in personnel and budgeting matters, a superintendent, and representatives
of the Washington Association of School Principals, the Washington Education Association, and the
Public School Employees of Washington/Service Employees International Union. The group also
included representation from the Rural Education Center, the Washington School Information
Processing Cooperative, the state’s K-12 Data Governance Work Group, and the Washington Association
of School Administrators.




8
 As reported by the International Association of Administrative Professionals on its website. http://www.iaap-
hq.org/newsroom/journalistresources/2009survey.html




                                                       96
TO DEVELOP STAFFING ALLOCATION FORMULAS, the WORK GROUP
MEMBERS:
1. Identified and then categorized the current work of school office staff & non-instructional aides into
   large, mutually exclusive job categories,

2. Reviewed and revised the job category descriptions to ensure the descriptions were exclusive to the
   staffing category for school office & non-instructional aides serving in a general Basic Education
   program,

3. Discussed how the increasing demand for student, employee and financial data affects the current
   work load of school office staff, and how it may affect future workload,

4. Divided the FTEs for each office staff member and non-instructional aide in their school office team
   according to how many of those FTEs were in each of the five main work categories,

5. Used their professional judgment to consider current demands, and to estimate how much
   additional time, if any, their office team needed to fully and promptly complete their work
   assignments, and

6. Based on job descriptions and estimated FTEs, developed a formula for allocating school office staff
   & non-instructional aides in each of the three prototypical schools.



1. Work group members first identified and then categorized the work of
school office staff into five large groups:


        •   customer service,
        •   student data management,
        •   office services,
        •   student supervision, and
        •   health.


2. Next, the work group reviewed and revised the job category descriptions to
ensure the descriptions were exclusive to the staffing category for school
office & non-instructional aides serving in a general Basic Education program.


The work group first eliminated activities that are not a part of Basic Education, such as those related to
athletics, student clubs, Associated Student Body activities and other extracurricular activities.




                                                    97
The work group discussed the initial results to ensure that little or no overlap occurred between the
school office staff & non-instructional aides’ category and other staff categories in the prototypical
schools. So, for example, the work group



•   Eliminated activities covered by other staffing formulas in the prototypical schools, such as assisting
    students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs), which falls under the allocation for special
    education, and

•   Clarified that office staff do not provide technical service such as repairing hardware or inventorying
    the schools computers. This type of technical support is included in the staffing estimates for
    technology support personnel, a different classified staffing category under districtwide support.

The work group chose to put only database management activities related to students in the first job
category of student database management, and employee and financial database activities in the Office
Service job category. The distinctions between categories were not easy to draw – especially between
the first three job categories: customer service, student database management, and office services. At
the high school level, these three job categories were grouped in one block of activities.

As a result, the work group characterized the five main job categories as follows:

Customer Service
• Customer service is the primary concern for school office staff and non-instructional aides. The
   work group established an order of priority for customer service: students, parents, community and
   staff.

•   Some schools designate one staff member to primarily serve as a receptionist in the main school
    office and to handle most visitors and inquiries throughout the day. However, all office staff and
    non-instructional aides receive requests and questions from school staff, students and parents as
    well as from individuals with the school district and state. The frequency of these queries varies; the
    beginning and end of the school year are busiest.

•   Some work of assistants to librarians and counselors also fall into this category, since they help
    students find needed resources and sometimes deal with parents.

Student Data Management
• Schools maintain student databases to track many Basic Education-related functions: attendance
   (including BECCA tracking 9), discipline, course scheduling, course grades, school-wide test scores,



9
 The “Becca Bill” (SB 5439) is our state’s truancy law. It is intended to stop truancy before it becomes a problem.
Depending on the number of accumulated unexcused absences, the law requires that schools and school districts
to take certain actions including notifying parents, holding family conferences, counseling and in final steps, filing a
court petition with a judge to demand the student’s attendance and to request a fine of the parents. An



                                                          98
     state test scores, transcripts, graduation requirements, scholarships, students’ use of planners,
     counseling services, library use, transportation services, student health, and other activities.

•    Maintaining a student database for some office staff may involve a simple task such as tracking the
     scholarship offers that the school receives using Excel spreadsheets.

•    For other school office staff, maintaining a student database is their primary duty and requires
     training in sophisticated software and data management procedures. Examples of staff falling in
     this latter category are those in charge of attendance, discipline, course scheduling, grade tracking
     and transcripts. Office staff who compile data to be forwarded to their district or ESD for CEDARS 10
     require high-level skills.

•    The activities associated with database management include:

     o   Requesting and tracking down various kinds of data, (For instance, staff report that obtaining
         students’ complete immunization records is very time-consuming. In addition, obtaining student
         address information can be very difficult for a few students who don’t live with their family or
         whose families move frequently in the area.)

     o   Verifying the accuracy of data,

     o   Inputting the data on a timely basis, (For instance, high school office staff must record
         attendance for each period of a 6-to-7 period day.)

     o   Analyzing data, or "data mining", and

     o   Running reports on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis,

     o   Answering “how do I” questions related to software use, and,

     o   Troubleshooting technical problems with software when IT staff are unavailable.

Office Services




unexcused absence is when a student is absent for the majority of a day, which requires high schools, in particular,
to document attendance for each new class period.



10
  The state’s Comprehensive Education Data and Research System (CEDARS), is a longitudinal data warehouse of
educational data. Districts report data on courses, students, and teachers. Course data includes standardized state
course codes. Student data includes demographics, enrollment information, schedules, grades, and program
participation. Teacher data includes demographics, certifications, and schedules.




                                                        99
•   School office staff and non-instructional aides provide office services to principals, assistant
    principals, counselors, librarians, nurses and teachers. These services vary, and include managing
    employee and fiscal databases, general clerical work and project-based work.

•   Office staff maintain employee databases for payroll, tracking employee time and attendance and
    professional development, managing substitutes, and recording teacher evaluations.

•   Office staff maintain financial databases to track and manage budgets for Basic Education programs
    for the entire school building (sometimes termed the principal’s budget), and the Career and
    Technical Education program, among others. Staff use spreadsheets to track the request, approval,
    ordering, purchasing and receipt of supplies, and the payment of student fees and fines.

•   Office Staff also perform the following services:

       o   Find substitutes for absent teachers.

       o   Schedule appointments for principals, vice principals and counselors.

       o   Contact appropriate district resource person or vendors for policy guidance or service as
           needed.

       o   Make copies and assemble packets of materials for teachers, substitutes, students,
           administrators, parents, auditors or accreditation teams. For example, this is done in
           preparation for MSP and HSPE test days.

       o   Prepare mailings and accept and deliver mailed packages to appropriate persons.

       o   File automated and written communications and reports; archive or destroy records.

       o   Set up parent/teacher/principal conferences, and arrange for a meeting space & any
           supplies or equipment.

       o   Document discussions at staff meetings or parent/teacher/principal conferences.

       o   Maintain school websites; prepare a daily school bulletin or a cyclical newsletter.

       o   Act as a liaison to parent groups who need help with school/community projects.

       o   Collect permission slips and other forms.

       o   Monitor walkie-talkie requests for help with disturbances and notify appropriate
           administrators that they are needed.

       o   Ensure office equipment, such as copiers and computers, is properly maintained.

       o   Manage requests for building-use permits.

Student Supervision



                                                    100
•    Some school office staff supervise and direct student assistants; some may also evaluate and grade
     the student assistant’s performance.

•    Non-instructional aides routinely supervise students outside of classrooms in common areas, such as
     the cafeteria, the playground and the school parking lot. Non-instructional aides whose primary
     responsibility is to supervise are more common at the elementary level than at higher grade levels.

Health Services
• Office staff provide more health services to students than ever before, and providing these services
   is a significant time demand. Most schools do not have a full-time nurse on campus. Many school
   office teams include a health aide who is designated and trained by the school nurse to provide
   certain kinds of health care to students when the school nurse is not available. Work group
   members said their school nurses were at their schools anywhere from 3 days- to only ½ day a
   week.

 Although state law limits the kinds of health services that health aides may provide to students, there is
still a great need for health aides to provide what services they can to students. 11 Daily health services
include providing assistance to students who need medicine or treatment for diabetes, attention deficit
disorders, asthma and other medical conditions. As a part of their training, health aides learn how to
provide first aid, use defibrillators and EpiPens, and assess the need to call for emergency aid.



3. The work group then discussed the need for additional staff time to meet
the current demand for student, employee and financial data, and the
implications of future growth in demand for data.


Schools today routinely produce and report large volumes of data for many reasons. Almost every K-12
education-related law that is enacted ultimately requires some new administrative step involving the
entry and reporting of school-level data. Such laws now require schools to report on nearly every
aspect of their operations, employees, and facilities. Some of this reported data is used to drive funding
decisions. Some of the demand for data also comes from teachers, school leaders and parents.
Teachers and administrators use students’ test scores to assess their academic progress and to
determine the appropriate next steps. Parents also want to view their children’s grades throughout the
school year.



11
  The following sections in Chapter 28A.210 RCW regulate the training and involvement of nonmedical school staff
related to administering oral medications (260); the catheterization of students (280); and the care of students
with diabetes (330-340); asthma (370); or anaphylaxis (380).




                                                      101
Because school-level data are often used in high-stakes decisions, the need for the data to be accurate is
critical. In an environment where data errors could have widespread and long-lasting significance,
school office staff must continually update and revise data to ensure its accuracy, and enter data close
to the time it is generated.

The work group reported three trends that drive the need for more staff time. Further, the workgroup
believes that, based on past experience, it is unlikely that new technology or software programs will
result in more efficiencies that would alleviate the need for more staff time.

    1. Office staff report working an increasing amount of overtime that is not reported beyond the
       building level. Although office staff have been and are paid for overtime or are given comp
       time, this extra time is not captured in FTE reports to OSPI. Therefore, data is not available at
       the state level regarding overtime.

        •   All schools have experienced large increases in data demands, particularly at the high school
            level, where the volume of data transactions related to attendance, registrations &
            withdrawals, course-scheduling, and transcripts is particularly heavy. Since customer
            service is the first priority, office staff performing data entry must set aside their work to
            respond to requests. Many interruptions can interfere with the accuracy of data entry and
            slow the process. This is especially problematic in high schools where attendance data
            must be updated and finalized by the end of each day. The work group said that data entry
            jobs often get put off until the end of the day or even the weekends, when interruptions are
            few. This practice causes school office support staff to accumulate overtime which school
            districts have found increasingly difficult to compensate.

    2. School office staff must now continually post-adjust data to ensure their accuracy. Data
       elements historically used for local purposes (i.e. race/ethnicity, unexcused absences) must now
       be reported to CEDARS. In turn, the state must now report much of CEDARS data to the federal
       government, where it is used in high-stakes decisions involving program funding and grants.
       Unfortunately, the snapshots of data that are sent to CEDARS or other systems are accurate only
       at the very second those snapshots are taken. Two examples of the need to update data
       follow:

        •   Students who are absent for 20 consecutive days are required to be marked as withdrawn
            from school. If a student has their 20th absence right before a count day or a CEDARS
            transmission, the student will appear active at the moment of the transmission. Once
            realizing the 20th absence, school office staff will update the data to show the student as
            withdrawn as of the final absence date.



        •   Students assigned to juvenile detention are processed as an out-of-district transfer, but the
            school doesn’t know about the transfer until the juvenile detention staff informs the school.
            This communication often occurs after the student has completed their detention and



                                                   102
             returned to school. An attendance report sent to the state during this process will show the
             student as simply absent, when in fact the student should be counted as withdrawn and an
             out-of-district transfer.

     3. Acceptable lag time in data entry is decreasing; school office staff must enter data closer to the
        time they were originally collected. Two examples illustrate this:

         •   To protect the health of the public, the state requires (RCW 28A.210.080) the attendance of
             every child at public schools to be conditioned upon the presentation before or on each
             child's first day of attendance proof of either (a) full immunization, (b) the initiation of and
             compliance with a schedule of immunization, or (c) a certificate of exemption. Schools used
             to be able to delay compiling this information for each child until the state Department of
             Health required it in early November, but some school districts are now seeking to better
             enforce the law by requiring schools to report the immunization status of their students in
             September. School office staff must now collect and enter immunization data for each
             student early in the school year and if possible, before the year begins.

         •   The state truancy law (RCW 28A.225.020 and RCW 28A.225.030) says that if a student has
             two unexcused absences in a month, the school must schedule a conference with the parent
             or guardian and the student. An unexcused absence occurs when a student is absent for the
             majority of the school day without a valid excuse from a parent or legal guardian. Because
             high school students take anywhere from 4 to 7 classes a day with different instructors, the
             school must keep track of the student’s attendance in each of these classes to determine
             whether the student is present or absent for a majority of the day. A school attendance
             officer reports that students who are initially marked absent may later provide a note to
             show that their absence was excused. However, if a delay occurs in receiving the note, or in
             changing the unexcused absence to an excused one, a letter may be sent home to the
             parents erroneously reporting the unexcused absences. Such letters create more time and
             work for office staff as parents and students seek to resolve the situation.

     4. Finally, contrary to what some may believe, the increase in the use of computer software to
        record and manage data has not necessarily saved time for the office staff. With the new
        technology come new and more data requests. For example, a WSIPC representative said that,
        CEDARS has increased the number of data elements from 67 to over 200. 12 Also, the state has
        increased the frequency of some state submissions from yearly to monthly. Some schools are
        in the process of changing from one education administrative software, Skyward, to a web-
        based software but the office staff report that it takes longer to enter data on the new system.



12
  CEDARS began replacing CSRS (Core Student Record System) in 2009. CSRS primarily collected ten data elements
on each student (such as a state student identifier, name, birth date, gender, date enrolled in district, date
enrolled in school) and matched the student to school and district profiles.




                                                     103
The continuing growth in data collection and analysis will continue and is likely accelerate in the future.
The workgroup believes that the impact will be felt in at least four areas:

    1. All classified office staff will need fundamental technology skills in data entry and analysis to
       meet the demands of their jobs. Some school office staff have already had to quickly learn new
       skills. They have gone from manually typing out address labels to running mailing labels
       through a printer to electronically merging and e-mailing documents. Although it is a sensitive
       subject for some employees who have so far avoided becoming computer literate, all school
       office employees will need to become proficient in:

        •   Data entry, such as enrolling a new student, which requires knowledge of the appropriate
            fields and codes in the system.

        •   Ensuring accurate data, which requires monitoring input from other sources and having an
            understanding of the processes staff use. At a school level, office staff need to be aware of
            how teachers enter attendance or grades; and

        •   Analyzing data, which requires running reports (i.e. monthly P223 reporting), correlating
            various data sources and researching anomalies. Most often, troubleshooting is handled at
            the school level since school staff have the most familiarity with the student data elements.
            If no obvious solution is found, escalation to district or ESD staff is required.

    2. School office staff will need training in new systems. Consideration needs to be given to
       training models and individual needs. Individualized, just-in-time training balanced with
       consistent, centralized training (information everyone needs to hear) will increase personal
       productivity and provide consistent data input and reporting.

    3. Staff will need to adapt to changes as the areas of data entry and analysis continue to grow. It is
       critical to face the steep curve of data needs we have now, and to plan for the future. For
       example, a recent federal mandate for race/ethnicity codes required hundreds of additional
       staff hours to define data elements as clearly as possible given the subjective nature of race and
       ethnicity. Systems will continue to upgrade and change, requiring ongoing change and
       adaptability by those who use and manage them.

    4. Beyond school office staff, a district-level employee is needed to provide centralized support.
       Based on conversations with ESD officials, districts with more than ~7,000 student FTEs typically
       employ a full-time student-records coordinator. For Skyward districts, this person serves as a
       district liaison with the ESD’s regional data center (RDC). The role of the student-records
       coordinator is to:



        •   Develop and promulgate standards and processes for accurate data entry and reporting,
        •   Communicate with and support school office staff,




                                                    104
                  •     Manage the centralized processing to ensure consistency among schools (i.e. student
                        rollup), and
                  •     Provide district oversight of CEDARS reporting and other extracts.


          4. The work group divided the FTEs for each office staff member and non-
         instructional aide in their school office team into each of the five main work
         categories.


             Dividing each staff person’s FTEs into each of the five categories proved to be a relatively difficult
             task for the work group members, particularly for those classifying the time of high school staff.
             Table 3 shows the results for the elementary and middle schools, and Table 4 shows how the time
             for high school office staff FTEs was classified.

             The work group considered the three job categories of Office Services, Student Data Management,
             and Customer Service as encompassing essential job services that largely occurred in the office areas
             and did not require most work time to be spent directly engaged with students. Together these
             three categories are termed Office-Centered activities. Work group members were able to divide
             FTE-time among these three activities for elementary and middle school staff, but not for high
             school staff.

             As Table 3 shows, this block of office-centered activities accounted for about 60 percent of the two
             elementary schools’ staff time, and about 88 percent of the two middle schools’ time. However,
             the amount of time devoted to each individual job category in this block varied for all four schools.



Table 3. Breakdown of Time by Major Job Categories in Elementary & Middle Schools; Estimated by Work Group
                                          for School Year 2009-10
                                            School                                             Sum of
                                          Office Staff               Student                  "Office-
                                          & Non Inst.     Office       Data     Customer     Centered"
                                                                 1          2            3                             4        5
                                             Aides       Services    Mgmt        Service      Previous   Supervision       Health
    School            Enrollment FRPL %   Total FTEs      %Time       %Time       %Time         Three      %Time           %Time
 Elementary A            538     21.9%       3.527       16.16%      26.94%      17.32%       60.43%       20.54%          19.03%
 Elementary B            346     62.7%       3.049       25.80%      17.27%      15.97%       59.05%       29.58%          11.37%
Middle School C          728     63.9%       4.073       29.83%      27.59%      30.36%       87.78%       1.70%           10.52%
 Junior High D           669     23.6%       3.307       15.54%      56.35%      16.73%       88.62%          0            11.38%
     1
       Office Services: These services vary and include managing employee and fiscal databases, general
     clerical work and project-based work.
     2
       Student Data Management: Maintaining student databases for attendance, course-scheduling, course
     grades, school-wide test scores, state test scores, transcripts, graduation requirements, and other Basic-
     Education programs and activities.




                                                                  105
3
  Customer Service: Time spent by receptionist and all other office staff responding to questions and
requests from school visitors, school staff, students and parents as well as officials with the school district
and state.
4
  Student Supervision: Supervising students outside of classrooms in common areas, such as the
cafeteria, the playground and the school parking lot
5
  Health: Assisting students with daily health needs, such as providing medications or helping students
use inhalers for asthma or providing first-aid in emergency situations.




                                                      106
        At the high school level, in Table 4, this block of office-centered activities accounted for 62 percent
        to 84 percent of the total FTE-time in the four high schools.



     Table 4. Breakdown of Time by Major Job Categories in High Schools; As Estimated by Work Group Members for
                                                School Year 2009-10
                                                        Office-     Counseling                                Student
                                                                1                   Library    Health
                             Enrollment     % FRPL     Centered       Office                                Supervision
                                                                                    %Time      %Time
                                                        %Time         %Time                                    %Time

         High School E         2,254         24%        77.73%         8.89%        7.93%       5.45%           0

         High School F         1,662         23%        82.33%        11.86%          0         5.81%           0

        High School G          1,569         62%        84.28%         7.56%        3.62%       4.54%           0

         High School H           2,290          26%        61.97%        13.32%      5.83%     5.89%         12.98%
1
    Office- Centered services include office services, student database management, and customer service.

    More time is generally devoted to student supervision and health activities at the elementary level, as
    compared to the middle school and high school levels.

    In both elementary schools, local decision-making placed a priority on having non-instructional aides on
    the playground. For example, the school district for Elementary A has made it a priority for all
    elementary schools to have at least two part-time non-instructional aides supervise the cafeteria and
    the playground during lunchtime and recesses.

    At the high school level, only one of the four schools employed two part-time aides to provide
    supervision of the school buildings and parking lot during the day. With an enrollment of 2,290, this
    was also the largest high school in the group.

    At the elementary and middle school levels, health activities consumed 11 to 19 percent of the job time.
    At the high school levels, the amount consumed was 4 to 6 percent. As Table 5 shows, schools had
    nurses on site no more than 3 days a week and as little as a half day a week.




                                                          107
  Table 5. Schools Health Assistants Meet Students Health Needs In Absence of Full-Time School Nurses at
                                       Schools, School Year 2009-10

                                                                      Health Asst.               School Nurse
                                                          Health       FTEs per                     On Site
                                                         Assistant       1000         Health       days per
                                                                1
                               Enrollment     % FRPL      FTEs         Students       % Time         week

        Elementary A                 538        22%         0.490         0.911        19.0%          0.5
        Elementary B                 346        63%         0.382         1.104        11.4%           1
       Middle School C               728        64%         0.490         0.672        10.5%           2
         Junior High D               669        24%         0.212         0.317        11.4%           3
        High School E               2,254       24%         0.260         0.115         5.5%           3
        High School F               1,662       23%         0.490         0.295         5.8%           2
                                                                                                            2
        High School G               1,569       62%         0.485         0.309         4.5%       see note
        High School H               2,290       26%         0.744         0.325         5.9%           3
 1
  Health Assistants are classified employees who help students with identified health care needs, provide first
 aide, and request nurse appointments for students.
 2
  Three nurses share responsibility for two high schools (including High School G) and three elementary
 schools. Nurses do not have an office at High School G, but do spend time there each week to help the
 approximately 120 students who have health care plans and other students who request to see the nurse.



5. The work group considered current job demands and estimated how much
additional time, if any, their office team needed to promptly and fully
complete their work assignments.
As discussed in more detail below, the work group:

    •   identified Office-Centered job areas (Office Services, Student Data Management, and Customer
        Service) as most in need of additional FTEs,
    •   recommended modest increases in FTEs; and
    •   explained that the increase was mainly for additional time for office staff at the beginning and
        end of the school year to comply with the increasing data reporting requirements and other
        essential activities.


Office-Centered Job Activities Most In Need of Additional FTEs
• At the elementary level, the work group proposed more staff time in each of the three Office-
    Centered job areas (Office Services, Student Data Management, and Customer Service) than in
    student supervision or health. The two job areas given the highest priority were Office Services and
    Student Data Management. Together these two accounted for about 61 percent of the total
    requested increase in FTEs for the two schools. See Table 6.




                                                       108
   Table 6. Requested Increase in FTEs by Major Job Category in Elementary Schools, as Estimated by Work Group
                                                                                                         Total
                                      Office      Student Data      Customer                             Increase
                                      Services    Management        Service      Supervision Health      by          %
             Enrollment % FRPL        FTEs        FTEs              FTEs         FTEs        FTEs        School      Increase1
School A     538           21.90% 0.016           0.023             0.013        0.009          0.005    0.065       1.94%
School B     346           62.67% 0.104           0.099             0.088        0.016          0.022    0.329       10.78%
Total Increase by Job Category        0.119       0.122             0.101        0.025          0.026    0.394       6.15%


      •     At the middle school level, the work group again requested more staff time for the Office-Centered
            activities, with the middle school representative giving first priority to Office Services and the junior
            high representative giving first priority to Student Data Management. Similar to the Elementary
            Schools, these two job areas accounted for about 61 percent of the total requested increase in FTEs
            for the two schools. See Table 7

    Table 7. Requested Increase in FTEs by Major Job Category in Middle Schools, as Estimated by Work Group Members
                                                                                                           Total
                                             Office    Student Data   Customer                           Increase
                                     %      Services   Management      Service    Supervision   Health      by          %
                                                                                                                             1
                     Enrollment     FRPL      FTEs         FTEs         FTEs         FTEs        FTEs     School    Increase

 Middle School C         728        64%       0.116       0.099         0.106            0      0.010     0.331      8.13%


   Junior High D         669        24%       0.171       0.462         0.130            0      0.306     1.069      32.31%

           Total Increase by Job Category     0.287       0.561         0.236            0      0.316     1.400      18.96%



      •     At the high school level, the block of activities included in the Office-Centered job area accounted
            for the majority (76 percent) of the total requested increase in FTEs for the three schools. All three
            gave first priority to this block of activities. A fourth high school, High School G, was not able to
            provide a quantified estimate of the additional time needed, although the school’s representative
            said more school office time was needed to serve this large high school (enrollment 1,569) with a
            high percentage of Free & Reduced Price Lunch (62 percent). See Table 8.




                                                              109
     Table 8. Requested Increase in FTEs by Major Job Category in High Schools, as Estimated by Work Group
                                                                                                Total
                                     Office-   Counseling                         Student
                              %                              Library   Health                 Increase       %
                Enrollment          Centered     Office                         Supervision                       1
                             FRPL                             FTEs      FTEs                     by      Increase
                                      FTEs       FTEs                               FTEs
                                                                                               School

High School E      2,254     24%     1.070       0.408       0.088     0.061        0          1.627      17.74%

High School F      1,662     23%     0.223         0           0         0          0          0.223      2.65%


High School H      2,290     26%     0.515         0           0         0          0          0.515      4.08%

Total Increase by Job Category       1.808       0.408       0.088     0.061        0          2.365      5.78%



 Recommended Increases in FTEs are Modest
 Overall, the requested amount of FTEs for each school was modest, with four schools requesting less
 than 0.5 FTE and the remaining three requesting between 0.5 FTE and 1.6 FTEs. The two schools
 requesting more than 1.0 FTEs were Junior High D and High School E. See Tables 6, 7, and 8.

 Both Junior High D and High School E, however, began with a base of FTEs in the school office staff &
 non-instructional aides staffing category that was much less than average. For example, in 2008-09, the
 average staffing for school office staff and non-instructional aides for the prototypical middle school was
 2.569 FTEs for 432 students; Junior High D’s staffing, standardized to the prototype, was 2.135 FTEs.
 The average staffing for school office staff and non-instructional aides in the prototypical high school
 was 3.287 FTEs for 600 students; High School E’s staffing (standardized to the prototype) was 2.441
 FTEs.

 Rationale for Increasing Staff at the Beginning and End of School Year
 Work group members were unanimous in voicing a need to extend the days for school office staff prior
 to the beginning of the school year and after the end of the regular school year. This is the work
 group’s first priority. In a nutshell, the work group said that without these extra staff days, customer
 relations suffer and data entry needs are not met in a timely matter without an extraordinary effort.

 For example, at the end of the year, staff do not have adequate time to perform all duties: clean and
 store equipment, finish data entry for the school year just ending, and complete registration data entry
 and set student schedules for the coming school year. School office staff are mindful of meeting
 deadlines and avoiding a rolling delay in processing critical student data. To deal with the problem,
 office managers said that customer relations suffer as their staff races to keep up, sacrificing lunch time,
 break time, and working extra hours.



 The pressure of inadequate FTEs for school office staff is evident in small schools as well. For example,
 one group member requested additional FTEs for a school secretary and the only office employee of a




                                                       110
small elementary school (27 students) in his district. At the secretary’s current level of 0.79 FTEs, she is
theoretically working 8 hours a day for 205 days or 1,640 hours (8*205) per year. However, the extra
hours she works on many days during the school year and on the days before and after the school year
are more than the 1,640 hours her current FTE provides. The school secretary works longer than 8-hour
days during the school year to be both responsive to the questions and requests of her customers and to
complete the school’s data management requirements. The secretary reported that despite the small
school environment, she needs additional FTEs to keep up with the increasing demand for data.

Beyond the area of Office-Centered services, five of the seven schools requested additional time for
their health assistant. None of the schools has a full-time nurse on site, leaving the office staff to
provide both the prescribed assistance to students with medical conditions, and emergency first-aid. In
school A, where the school nurse is on-site only for 0.5 day a week, the group member said that nurses
needed to be at the school before the school year began to process students’ health care plans and
ensure the plans are completed before the student arrives to school on the first day.

Finally, in the high school with a particularly low staffing ratio, the office staff manager requested
additional time for office staff serving as assistants or aides in the counseling office and library. Also,
both elementary schools requested additional time for non-instructional aides to serve as playground
monitors during lunchtime and recesses.

6. Based on job descriptions and estimated FTEs, the work group developed a
formula for allocating school office staff & non-instructional aides in each of
the three prototypical schools.


The work group used two approaches for developing the formulas: a generalist approach for
elementary and middle schools, and a specialized one for high schools.

Elementary and Middle Schools Staffing Formula Based on a Generalist Approach
The work group judged the school office staff and non-instructional aides in elementary and middle
schools to be less specialized in their duties than staff in high schools. Office staff at the elementary
and middle school level tend to be cross-trained in various job duties, and perform a variety of duties
that fall into more than one of the five major job categories. Therefore, the workgroup used different
models for middle and elementary schools than for high schools, where, for example, one person is the
attendance specialist and another person is the receptionist.

Instead, the work group was confident that the elementary and middle school prototypes would each
need three types of positions (office manager, assistant office manager, and office assistant/clerk) to
perform the work that would be included in the customer services, student database management, and
office services categories.

Of these three positions, the work group judged that the office manager and the assistant office
manager work years needed to extend at least 15 days before and after the 180-day school year. This




                                                     111
translates into a minimum requirement of an 8-hour work day for a 210 day work year or 0.808 FTEs for
each position.

At the elementary level, the work group also recommended one position for the student supervisory
duties, and one for the health assistant duties. At the middle school, the work group recommended
one position for the health assistant duties, but consistent with their experience, did not recommend
one for student supervision. The resulting staff positions for each prototype are summarized in Table 9:



  Table 9. Recommended School Office & Non-instructional Aides Staff Positions for the
                         Elementary and Middle School Prototypes
          Elementary Prototype                        Middle School Prototype
              Office Manager                                Office Manager
         Assistant Office Manager                      Assistant Office Manager
           Office Assistant/Clerk                       Office Assistant/Clerk
              Health Assistant                              Health Assistant
Non-instructional Aide (student supervision)


Next, the workgroup developed recommendations for each of these prototypical positions based on
analysis of the experience of the sample schools.

For example, to determine the FTEs for the Office Manager position in the Elementary Prototype, the
work group averaged the total needed FTEs for this position in Elementary School A and Elementary
School B after standardizing them to the prototype enrollment. The work group was willing to accept
the average as the recommended FTE for each position provided that the Office Manager and Assistant
Office Manager must each have at least 0.808 FTEs.

As Table 10 shows, the recommended FTEs for each position in the prototype elementary school is the
average of the two schools’ total needed FTEs standardized to the prototype enrollment of 400. The
average of the FTEs for each of the two key positions, office manager and assistant office manager, was
0.889 FTEs, which was maintained in the recommendation since it exceeded the 0.808 criterion. The
bottom line is that the work group recommends 3.220 FTEs for school office staff & non-instructional
aides in the elementary prototype.




 Table 10. Recommended FTEs for Prototypical Elementary School Based on Current Need
                                      Elementary A         Elementary B            Prototype




                                                  112
                       Enrollment            538                    346                      400
                           FRPL %           21.90%                 62.67%                    39%
                                         Current Total          Current Total         Recommended*
          Key Positions                  Needed FTEs            Needed FTEs                FTEs
         Office Manager                      0.648                  1.131                 0.889
    Assistant Office Manager                 0.648                  1.131                 0.889
     Office Assistant/Clerk                  0.393                  0.275                 0.334
     Non Instructional Aide                  0.483                  0.926                 0.705
         Health Assistant                    0.364                  0.442                 0.403
                           Total             2.536                  3.905                 3.220
*For each key position, the Recommended FTEs are a simple average of the Total Needed FTEs for the positions in
Elementary Schools A and B.

In calculating recommended FTEs for the middle school prototype, the work group found that the
resulting average FTEs for the two key positions, office manager and assistant office manager, were each
less than 0.808. As a result, as Table 11 shows, the recommended FTEs for each of these positions is
0.808 and not the average, as it is for the remaining positions in the middle school prototypical model.
The bottom line is that the work group recommends 3.029 FTEs for school office staff & non-
instructional aides in the middle school prototype.



    Table 11. Recommended FTEs for Prototypical Middle School Based on Current Need
                                       Middle School C          Junior High D             Prototype
                      Enrollment            728                      669                     432
                          FRPL %          63.87%                   23.60%                    39%
                                         Current Total          Current Total         Recommended*
          Key Positions                  Needed FTEs            Needed FTEs                FTEs
         Office Manager                      0.668                  0.839                 0.808
    Assistant Office Manager                 0.530                  0.576                 0.808
     Office Assistant/Clerk                  1.125                  1.102                 1.114
     Non Instructional Aide                  0.000                  0.000                 0.000
         Health Assistant                    0.291                  0.308                 0.300
                           Total             2.613                  2.825                 3.029
*For the Office Manager and Assistant Office Manager positions, the Recommended FTEs are based on the
minimum acceptable level, 0.808, identified by the workgroup. For the other three key positions, the
Recommended FTEs are a simple average of the Total Needed FTEs for the positions in Schools C and D.




High School Staffing Formula Based on a Specialist Approach




                                                      113
The work group noted that the school office staff and non-instructional aides in high schools are more
specialized. Because the volume and complexity of high school data requirements are greater, more
high school office staff with sophisticated software skills are needed than in elementary and middle
schools.

For example, attendance must be taken and entered into the database every period; the job of
scheduling courses is an ongoing effort to ensure all students are appropriately placed in the subject,
level, and program that best fits their needs throughout the year; recording course grades and test
scores is an ongoing effort if schools seek to intervene before a student fails a course or does not pass
the HSPE; and maintaining up-to-date transcripts is essential to accommodate students transferring
between schools and students seeking college admittance and scholarships.

As it happened, all four high schools represented by the work group members are large schools, with
enrollments ranging from 1,600 to 2,300. The work group believed it would possible to develop a
recommendation for the prototype high school of 600 by scaling back from the current total needed
FTEs in the larger schools.

First the work group identified all necessary staff positions in their large high schools. (See Table 12 for
these positions.) Then, using the total needed FTEs for each of these positions, the work group prorated
them to the enrollment of the prototype high school. One exception should be noted. The
representative for High School G was unable to provide the total needed increases in FTEs for each
position, although she said increases were needed.

High School G is a relatively large school (1,569 enrollment) with a relatively high percentage of students
in poverty (62% FRPL). Its actual level of FTEs, standardized to the prototype enrollment of 600, is
4.088 FTEs. High School G’s actual standardized FTEs are greater than any of the other High Schools’
total needed standardized FTEs. (See the individual school totals in Table 12.)

The work group chose to use High School G’s actual FTEs in this analysis because, even though they were
not viewed by the school as sufficient, the FTEs still represented the district’s best effort to recognize
the additional office staff needs at this challenging school. High School G’s data were important to
include to ensure that the additional weight of serving a challenging student population was included in
the final recommendation.

So, finally, the recommended FTEs for each position in the prototype school is the average of the
position’s total needed FTEs in the four individual schools. (See the last column of Table 12.) The work
group recommends 3.382 FTEs for school office staff & non-instructional aides in the high school
prototype.




              Table 12. Recommended FTEs for Prototypical High School Based on Current Need
    Enrollment                2,254              1,662              1,569              2,290                600




                                                    114
             FRPL %                    24%                 23%                62%                 26%                 39%
                                                                                                                  High School
          Main Positions          High School E       High School F       High School G      High School H
                                                                                                                   Prototype
                                  Current Total       Current Total                           Current Total     Recommended*
                                                                        Actual        FTEs
                                  Needed FTEs         Needed FTEs                             Needed FTEs            FTEs
1        Office Manager               0.266               0.361               0.382              0.262               0.318
2    Assistant Office Manager         0.326               0.000               0.382              0.246               0.238
3    Attendance Specialist (1)        0.326               0.315               0.309              0.206               0.289
4    Attendance Specialist (2)        0.190               0.435               0.309              0.223               0.289
5        Data Processor               0.266               0.394               0.320              0.262               0.311
6           Registrar                 0.266               0.406               0.382              0.262               0.329
7          Receptionist               0.217               0.361               0.309              0.242               0.282
8    Office Assistant or Clerk        0.326               0.315               1.051              0.483               0.543
9      Student Supervision            0.000               0.000               0.000              0.429               0.107
10       Library Assistant            0.217               0.000               0.148              0.193               0.139
11     Counseling Assistant           0.326               0.361               0.309              0.440               0.359
12       Health Assistant             0.149               0.177               0.185              0.195               0.177
              Total                    2.874             3.124               4.088              3.442                 3.382
       *For each key position, the Recommended FTEs are a simple average of the Total Needed FTEs for the positions in
       High Schools E, F, G and H.




                                                            115
Recommendations are Close to Actual and Other Proposed Funding Levels

The work group checked the validity of their recommendations by comparing them to the average FTEs
for this staffing category that were (1) funded only by the state in 2008-09, (2) funded by both local and
state sources in 2008-09, (3) recommended by the Washington Learns experts in 2006, and (4)
provisionally recommended by the Quality Education Council in 2009.

As Table 13 shows, the workgroup’s recommendations are more than the state funded levels (SHB 2776)
and more than state and local funding (Actual Staffing) for each prototypical school. The work group
expected this result since, in their experience, the current staffing level is inadequate. Also as expected,
the work group’s recommendation is greater than the Basic Education Task Force’s level, which was
based on the Task Force’s best estimate of what was needed to preserve current staff levels. Finally,
the work group’s recommendations are slightly greater than the Washington Learns experts’ for
elementary and middle school, but slightly less for high school. Still, the work group believes their
recommendations are reasonable, because they are based on actual practice, experience, and
professional judgment.

     Table 13. Comparison of FTEs for School Office Staff & Non-
                        instructional Aides
 School Based                     Elem.        Mid.          High
 Students per Prototype            400          432           600
 Washington Learns                2.769        2.469         4.154
 Finance Taskforce                2.077        2.077         2.077
 SHB 2776                         2.012        2.325         3.269
 Actual Staffing                  2.414        2.569         3.287
 Recommended                      3.220        3.029         3.382




                                                    116
MATTERS for CONSIDERATION
In addition to the recommended FTEs for each of the prototypical school, the work group recommends
that the QEC adopt the practice of regularly reviewing the formulas for this and all staffing categories.
The work group is particularly concerned that growing data demands could well justify increasing office
staff time beyond the work group’s recommendations by the year 2018, when the state expects to fully
fund basic education. Also, the work group specifically recommends the following to the QEC:

 1. Small schools employing only one classified employee to perform all the job activities involved in
office services, database management, customer relations, student supervision, and health should be
funded for a longer school year than is currently the case. The school secretary at one small school said
her 0.79 FTEs were insufficient to comply with growing data reporting requirements. Although the
work group did not determine what a reasonable level of FTEs would be for a single office worker in a
small school, it believes the QEC should find a way to determine the adequate level of funding for this
position in small schools.

2. The work group saw evidence that the incidence of poverty in a school has a direct bearing on the
workload of office staff & non-instructional aides. For example, among the four high schools, High
School G had the highest actual ratio of staffing, along with the highest incidence of poverty. Poverty’s
harmful effects on students’ educational, health and social development are well known, and schools do
their best to provide the assistance and additional resources needed to ameliorate this harm. The
many services provided to such students translate into additional reporting requirements for the schools
and, consequently, a need for additional office staff to collect, enter, analyze and report the data. It is
possible that, to better reflect the need for office staff, schools with above average rates of poverty
should receive additional FTEs for office staff. The work group does not have a recommendation for
how this need could be calibrated to the level of poverty other than to suggest weighting students in
poverty by a certain factor before calculating the school’s FTEs for office staff and non-instructional
aides. The work group encourages the Quality Education Council to pursue this issue.

3. While it was not in the scope of its charge, the work group would like to recommend that QEC
consider, as a part of its funding for Basic Education, a district-level data coordinator for districts whose
enrollments are 7,000 or more. As described earlier, the district-level coordinator would help ensure
that all data reports submitted to the state and federal governments are standardized, accurate and
timely.

4. Finally, the work group recommends that nurses need to be on-site at schools more frequently than
is the current practice. Nurses are needed every day on campus at some schools, especially at large high
schools and some lower-level schools with a high incidence of students who require health care plans.
The work group observed that the need for health services has dramatically increased at the high school
level where mental health, pregnancy, and drug abuse issues are common concerns.




                                                     117
Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response
The Funding Formula Technical Working Group approved the School Office Staff and Non-Instructional
Aides Work Group’s recommendations for staffing allocations in the prototype schools. The FFTWG
also made two other recommendations. First, the staffing allocations should be adjusted by a
‘complexity’ factor that represented a school district’s share of students who required additional
resources to serve, including students in poverty, English Language Learners, and students who were
highly mobile. Second, given the critical nature of the work that school office staff performed, the
allocation formula should also include a factor for substitutes.




                                                 118
APPENDIX 1. School Office Staff and Non-instructional Aides Work
Group
                      Name & Title                                       Affiliation
                                                            Association of Washington School
Jerry Bender, Director of Governmental Relations
                                                            Principals
Barbara Billinghurst, Research Analyst                      OSPI
Penny Brown, Fiscal Systems Manager,                        NorthEast Washington
Northeast Regional Data Center                              Educational Service District 101
Carey Ensign, Office Coordinator, Mullenix Ridge
                                                            South Kitsap School District
Elementary School
Jill Freeze, Principal, Davenport Elementary School         Davenport School District
Mary Anne Garvich, Head Administrative Assistant,
                                                            Kent School District
Kentridge High School
Carol Kohler, Administrative Secretary, Camas High
                                                            Camas School District
School
Jim Kowalkowski, School District Superintendent and         Davenport School District, Rural
Rural Education Center Director                             Education Center
Derry Lyons, Director of Information Technology             South Kitsap School District
Colleen Magarrell, Office Manager, Brigadoon Elementary
                                                            Federal Way School District
School
Isabel Muñoz-Colón, Director of Financial Policy and
                                                            OSPI
Research
                                                            Public School Employees of
Doug Nelson, Director of Governmental Relations
                                                            Washington/ Service Employees
                                                            International Union 1948
Randy Parr, Budget Analyst and Lobbyist                     Washington Education Association
Linda Patterson, Secretary, Davenport High School           Davenport School District
                                                            NorthEast Washington
Cory Plager, Director of School Financial Services
                                                            Educational Service District 101
Richard Puryear, Executive Director of Financial Services   Richland School District
Stacy Roberts, Office Manager, Emerald Heights
                                                            Central Kitsap School District
Elementary School
Freddie Soine, Office Manager, Kalles Junior High           Puyallup School District
Debbie Strand, Administrative Assistant to Assistant
                                                            Auburn School District
Superintendent for Human Resources
Pam Torngren, Library Clerk, Rogers High School and
                                                            Spokane School District
Havermale High School
Marie Wienker, Head Secretary, Kentlake High School         Kent School District




                                                      119
Student & Staff Safety
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction




Classified Adequacy Staffing Report




December 2010


                          120
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 4
   Funding Recommendation History ........................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION TO STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY........................................................................................ 7
   Why is Student and Staff Safety Important? ............................................................................................ 7
   Definition of Student and Staff Safety Personnel ..................................................................................... 9
   The Roles of School Security Officers...................................................................................................... 10
   History of Student and Staff Safety Personnel & Safety Funding ........................................................... 11
DETERMINING STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY PERSONNEL STAFFING ADEQUACY ..................................... 14
   Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 14
   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 14
   Method for Determining Recommendations ......................................................................................... 14
   Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 15
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 17
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 18
PARTICIPANT LIST........................................................................................................................................ 19




                                                                             121
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: urban schools report higher numbers of violent incidents than suburban schools
or rural schools. 2

As costs to maintain safe schools increase, funding for new requirements has been limited, and mostly
supported by 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 an allocation of $6.36 per student for
student safety programs. 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.

Recommendation #1

The following table identifies the SSSP Working Groups recommendations for the level of staffing
required to perform the safety-related basic education duties. The table shows the staffing level for the
both the full 260 classified staffing days in the new model and the staffing for 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       .099       .100     .506 .700            .723      1.00


Recommendation #2




                                                   122
The Working Group also recommended including a staffing recommendation for district-wide safety
personnel. These staff would provide for the safety needs of central office personnel during the day. At
night and during the summers, the staff would monitor security cameras and ensure that buildings on
campuses are secure. The group recommended .15FTE for every 1000 students in a district.

Recommendation #3

Additional factors should be identified to quantify needed enhancements for school districts that have
additional safety needs because of the poverty level and/or the level of crime within the surrounding
community. The subgroup recommends that the Funding Formula Technical Working Group should
analyze how enhancements may be determined.

Recommendation #4

The Work Group 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 #5

The Work Group 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 evaluation of what is required to support safety MSOC. The
subgroup recommends that a gap analysis be conducted to determine the actual costs of safety related
MSOC.

Funding Formula Technical Work Group Response


The Funding Formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) agreed with the level of staffing recommended
by the Student and Staff Safety Work Group. In addition, they concurred with the need to include
districtwide safety staffing support at .15 FTE and recommend that this staffing be included in the
Warehouse, Laborer, and Mechanics staffing category identified in the prototypical school funding
model.

The FFTWG also agreed that districts with higher safety risks should receive enhanced funding. The
FFTWG recommended that initially, free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) percentages should be used to
drive out additional student and staff safety personnel to the districts. However, the FFTWG
recommended that a model be developed that predicts a district’s need for additional preventive and
intervention safety services based on multiple factors including FRPL.




                                                  123
BACKGROUND

Funding Recommendation History
Washington Learns: Drs. 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 suggested 1 FTE per school.

ESHB 2261: This legislation called for a minimum allocation for each school district that would
include allocations per annual average FTE 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
safety costs are included as part of the Security and Central Office category ($3.58 out of the total
$50.76 per student is for safety related expenses). The QEC also recommended that the 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




                                                      124
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.




                                                     125
INTRODUCTION TO STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY

Why is Student and Staff Safety Important?

Children do not progress academically or socially if they do not feel safe. 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 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 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. 6 The percentage of schools that report violent crime varies by
school: a larger percentage of urban schools report high numbers of violent incidents than do suburban
or rural schools. 7

The increasing use of technology and online social networks has also raised concerns about school
safety. Schools are seeing a growing number of 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 is complicated by
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.
The public expects schools 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. An increased concern about student and staff safety has led to
mandates for the K-12 public school system to improve school safety and security programs. Passage of
SSB 5097 by the 2007 Washington Legislature is just one example of rising expectations for school
safety.

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-
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




                                                   126
have safety plans in place 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. Experience shows that schools need expert 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 terrorist 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 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.

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




                                                  127
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
has gradually increased over the past decade.

Washington schools must prepare for a number of natural and man-made hazards, including
earthquakes, tsunamis, 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 includes 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 abuse prevention, suicide
        prevention; anti-bullying programs, hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette training, universal
        precautions
Preparedness, including training and resources
    •   Pandemic disease
    •   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




                                                   128
Response
    •   Incident command drills and simulation, and 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 primarily 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 focus on pbrevention, intervention, response and
recovery, with specific emphasis on prevention of human-caused emergencies that 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 reduce the probability of undetected problems, 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. A 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 or city
employees and their assignment to a school is largely dependent on the available resources at the local
level, the subgroup decided not to include their specific duties in 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 are the duties performed under each of the major roles at elementary,
middle and high school.



Prevention:

    •   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.
    •   Provides 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.




                                                     129
    •   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.
    •   Assists in school and district-wide safety-related drills.
    •   Assists 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.
    •   Intervenes and helps 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 by district policy.
    •   Provides gang liaison and identifies students who need support to gain/maintain pro-social
        behaviors

Enforcement:

    •   Facilitates the registration of vehicles and enforcement of parking rules.
    •   Responds to incidents involving alcohol, drugs, fights, and threatening situations, 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
School safety expenditures are increasing, but funding to cover new requirements has been limited, and
mostly derived from one-time grants. The gang and drug problems affecting schools in the late 1980s
and 1990s prompted a series of state grants and a short-term increase following 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.

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.




                                                   130
Due to cuts in funding, 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 it is estimated that only 20 percent of
Washington schools now have security or law enforcement officers.

Schools are also challenged by the need to work with community agencies that have access to federal
grants from 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. But these funds have been reduced by 29% over the last 15 years, from a high
of $13.8 million in the 1997-99 biennium to $9.8 million 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.

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




                                                   131
Currently, districts are expending more on student and staff safety personnel than what is provided in
the state’s 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 the staffing level for a 180-day year.

                                   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




                                                   132
DETERMINING STUDENT AND STAFF SAFETY PERSONNEL STAFFING
ADEQUACY
Challenges
The Work Group identified several challenges when it tried to determine an 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 useful. A secondary
challenge is that there is very little research about what constitutes an adequate level of security staffing
for elementary, middle and high schools.

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

Guiding Questions
To guide the SSSP Work Group, 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 do schools and districts need to ensure the safety and
               security of their students and staff?

Method for Determining Recommendations
OSPI used a professional judgment panel (the Work Group) 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 of SSSP staff, their duties at each prototypical school
level, and the level of FTE to assign to each grade span.




                                                     133
Findings
Finding #1: More SSSP staff is needed but how much varies among elementary, middle and high
schools.

Elementary

At the elementary level, the need for services provided by an SSSP is low. The students’ day typically
involves staying in one classroom 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 administrators
to intervene without assistance. Student and staff safety personnel typically focus on prevention
support, such as general patrolling of the campus. There is less need for intervention and enforcement
duties than in middle and high schools. However, because of 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 provides 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 on school 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 on prevention and intervention at the middle school grades, and this
requires an approximately full time person.

High

At the high school level, the need for SSSP is only slightly more than at middle schools. Though students
tend to be developmentally more mature, the level of violence, when it does occur, is more serious. 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 duties such as ensuring the security
of parking 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, 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.

Finding #2: Enhancements are necessary for some school districts

The Work Group recognized that there are two instances where the safety and security needs of a
school may be greater than the norm. A district may have an alternative school with a high




                                                   134
concentration of students transitioning back to the K-12 system from the juvenile justice system.
Though the school may small, and 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: There is an increasing need for safety and security-related training

To perform prevention, intervention, and enforcement duties, SSSP staff need to be properly trained.
The specific type of training is driven by reality on the ground, and in some cases legislative
requirements. The Work Group 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 respond to
specific safety and security issues. Principals at the elementary level are affected the most, because
they tend to be the first responders to incidences at the school.

Finding #4: Need for materials, supplies and operating costs In addition to training, there are non-
employee related costs necessary to keep students and staff safe and meet state requirements. Security
staff supplies and equipment include, but are not limited to:

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




                                                   135
In addition, there are needs for district-wide facility systems including, but not limited to:

    •   Fast alert systems

    •   Ring tone emergency communication systems

    •   Integrated security systems: intrusion, access, and closed 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 Group’s recommendations for the level of staffing
required to perform basic education-related safety and security duties. The group included in their
recommendations that student and staff safety personnel should be present five days before schools
start when teachers are setting up their classes and three days after to close out any open cases. 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       .099       .100     .506 .700               .723      1.00


Recommendation #2

The Work Group also recommended including a staffing recommendation for districtwide safety
personnel. These staff would provide for the safety of central office personnel during the day. At night
and during the summers, the staff would monitor security cameras and ensure that buildings on
campuses are secure. The group recommended .15FTE for every 1000 students in a district.



Recommendation #3

Additional factors should be identified to drive enhancements to school districts based on additional
safety needs due to either the percent of free and reduced price lunch eligible students and/or the level
of crime within the surrounding community. The subgroup recommends that the Funding Formula
Technical Working Group should do further study on how enhancements may be determined and
calculated.




                                                     136
Recommendation #4

The Work Group 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 #5

The subgroup recommends that funding for materials, supplies and operating costs (MSOC) 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 is not based on a comprehensive evaluation 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.

Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response


The Funding Formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) agreed with the level of staffing recommended
by the Student and Staff Safety Work Group. In addition, they concurred with the need to include
districtwide safety staffing support at .15 FTE and recommend that this staffing be included in the
Warehouse, Laborer, and Mechanics staffing category identified in the prototypical school funding
model.

The FFTWG also agreed that districts with higher safety risks should receive enhanced funding. The
FFTWG recommended that initially, free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) percentages should be used to
drive out additional student and staff safety personnel to the districts. However, the FFTWG
recommended that a model be developed that predicts a district’s need for additional preventive and
intervention safety services based on multiple factors including FRPL.


CONCLUSION
Student and staff safety personnel play an important role in keeping Washington state students safe.
They are among 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 from becoming serious
altercations. To ensure that schools have the staffing they need, the SSSP Work Group recommended a
differentiated level of funding for schools that reflects their average security needs.




                                                  137
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
Centralia High School, Centralia School District         Dr. Frank Hewins, Superintendent
                                                         Franklin Pierce School District
Mary Sue Linville, Director of Risk Management
Washington Schools Risk Management Pool                  Miguel Villahermosa, Director of School Safety
                                                         and Security
Ray Roberts, Loss Control Consultant                     Tacoma Public Schools
Washington Schools Risk Management Pool
                                                         Joe Madsen, Risk and Claims Manager
Deputy Larry Sanchez,                                    NEW ESD 101
Grant County Sheriff’s Office
SRO Wahluke School District
                                                         Joe Pope, Safety Coordinator
Randy Town, School Safety Coordinator                    Association of Washington School Principals
ESD 105 and Criminal Justice Training Center
                                                         Dave Westberg, Buisness Manager/Legislative
Pegi McEvoy, Director of Health and                      Representative
Safety                                                   International Union of Operating Engineers –
Seattle Public Schools                                   Local 609

Orrin Knutson, Operations Manager                        Tony Zeman, Director of Security and Safety
CWI Security                                             Highline Public Schools
Yakima Region




                                                   138
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.




                                                   139
                       Student and Staff Safety Personnel FTE Recommendations by Prototype and by District

                                             Elementary                             Middle                               High
Prototype Building Size                          400                                 432                                 600
SSS Personnel FTE (188 Day)                      0.137                              0.700                                1.000
SSS Personnel FTE (260 Day)                      0.099                              0.506                                0.723
                                                                                                                                                  Total      Total
                                                 Security   Security                Security     Security                Security     Security                         Total Cost
                                                                                                                                                 Security   Security
          District Name             Enrollment     FTE        FTE      Enrollment     FTE          FTE      Enrollment     FTE          FTE                            for School
                                                                                                                                                   FTE        FTE
                                                 (260 D)    (188 D)                 (260 D)      (188 D)                 (260 D)      (188 D)                          Based Staff
                                                                                                                                                 (260 D)    (188 D)
Aberdeen School District                1565.2     0.387      0.536        506.92      0.594       0.821       1026.74     1.237        1.711      2.218       3.068     $106,346
Adna School District                     315.1     0.078      0.108         86.62      0.101        0.14        157.76      0.19        0.263      0.369       0.511      $17,692
Almira School District                   28.33     0.007       0.01         16.56      0.019       0.027         20.33     0.024        0.034       0.05       0.071        $2,397
Anacortes School District              1273.29     0.315      0.436          436       0.511       0.706        876.99     1.057        1.462      1.883       2.604      $90,284
Arlington School District              2597.66     0.643       0.89        824.54      0.966       1.336       1743.12          2.1     2.905      3.709       5.131     $177,835
Asotin-Anatone School District          331.85     0.082      0.114         85.22          0.1     0.138        180.03     0.217           0.3     0.399       0.552        $9,131
Auburn School District                 6699.87     1.658      2.295        2151.4       2.52       3.486       4869.19     5.867        8.115     10.045     13.896      $481,626
Bainbridge Island School District      1749.73     0.433      0.599        607.24      0.711       0.984       1402.73      1.69        2.338      2.834       3.921     $135,881
Battle Ground School District          6451.97     1.597       2.21       2054.47      2.406       3.329       3958.84      4.77        6.598      8.773     12.137      $420,638
Bellevue School District               8298.66     2.054      2.842       2592.39      3.036       4.201        5848.5     7.047        9.748     12.137     16.791      $581,931
Bellingham School District             5147.01     1.274      1.763       1592.32      1.865        2.58       3299.09     3.975        5.498      7.114       9.841     $341,094
Benge School District                     6.78     0.002      0.002             0            0         0             0           0          0      0.002       0.002           $96
Bethel School District                 8508.36     2.106      2.914       2722.59      3.189       4.412       5412.34     6.522        9.021     11.817     16.347      $566,588
Bickleton School District                45.83     0.011      0.016            11      0.013       0.018         30.55     0.037        0.051      0.061       0.085        $2,925
Blaine School District                  1073.7     0.266      0.368        352.16      0.412       0.571        617.38     0.744        1.029      1.422       1.968      $68,180
Boistfort School District                66.12     0.016      0.023         14.89      0.017       0.024             0           0          0      0.033       0.047        $1,582
Bremerton School District              2437.94     0.603      0.835        661.73      0.775       1.072       1734.73      2.09        2.891      3.468       4.798     $166,280
Brewster School District                  471      0.117      0.161        151.67      0.178       0.246        258.88     0.312        0.431      0.607       0.838      $29,104
Bridgeport School District              391.49     0.097      0.134        117.92      0.138       0.191        209.32     0.252        0.349      0.487       0.674      $23,350
Brinnon School District                  22.55     0.006      0.008          7.78      0.009       0.013             0           0          0      0.015       0.021         $719
Burlington-Edison School District      1913.08     0.473      0.655        576.06      0.675       0.933       1194.08     1.439         1.99      2.587       3.578     $124,039
Camas School District                  2867.22      0.71      0.982        944.47      1.106        1.53       1675.66     2.019        2.793      3.835       5.305     $183,876
Cape Flattery School District           229.37     0.057      0.079          77.2       0.09       0.125        125.78     0.152         0.21      0.299       0.414      $14,336
Carbonado School District               130.58     0.032      0.045         41.78      0.049       0.068             0           0          0      0.081       0.113        $3,884
Cascade School District                 592.86     0.147      0.203        196.22      0.23        0.318        355.99     0.429        0.593      0.806       1.114      $38,645
                                                                                    140
Cashmere School District           701.72   0.174    0.24    224.91     0.263   0.364    449.33   0.541   0.749   0.978    1.353    $46,892
Castle Rock School District        640.34   0.158   0.219    222.97     0.261   0.361    449.29   0.541   0.749    0.96    1.329    $46,029
Centerville School District         60.95   0.015   0.021     19.44     0.023   0.032        0       0       0    0.038    0.053     $1,822
Central Kitsap School District    5328.78   1.319   1.825   1825.93     2.139   2.959   3872.52   4.666   6.454   8.124   11.238   $389,520
Central Valley School District     6321.9   1.565   2.165    1897.3     2.222   3.074   3583.56   4.318   5.973   8.105   11.212   $388,609
Centralia School District         1742.64   0.431   0.597     498.8     0.584   0.808     963.8   1.161   1.606   2.176    3.011   $104,332
Chehalis School District          1249.87   0.309   0.428    378.34     0.443   0.613    927.66   1.118   1.546    1.87    2.587    $89,661
Cheney School District            1892.47   0.468   0.648    644.58     0.755   1.044   1125.45   1.356   1.876   2.579    3.568   $123,655
Chewelah School District           393.56   0.097   0.135    143.77     0.168   0.233    401.17   0.483   0.669   0.748    1.037    $35,864
Chimacum School District           555.31   0.137    0.19    159.61     0.187   0.259    369.44   0.445   0.616   0.769    1.065    $36,871
Clarkston School District         1233.73   0.305   0.423    392.64      0.46   0.636    956.37   1.152   1.594   1.917    2.653    $91,914
Cle Elum-Roslyn School District    450.31   0.111   0.154    152.79     0.179   0.248    288.71   0.348   0.481   0.638    0.883    $30,590
Clover Park School District       6645.19   1.645   2.276   1570.37     1.839   2.545   2586.58   3.117   4.311   6.601    9.132   $316,497
Colfax School District             291.44   0.072     0.1    103.25     0.121   0.167    231.47   0.279   0.386   0.472    0.653    $22,631
College Place School District      551.42   0.136   0.189    141.17     0.165   0.229        0       0       0    0.301    0.418    $14,432
Colton School District              71.16   0.018   0.024     36.95     0.043    0.06      64.3   0.077   0.107   0.138    0.191     $6,617
Columbia (Stevens) School
District                            93.17   0.023   0.032     33.78      0.04   0.055     65.67   0.079   0.109   0.142    0.196     $6,808
Columbia (Walla Walla) School
District                           390.66   0.097   0.134    162.78     0.191   0.264    289.77   0.349   0.483   0.637    0.881    $30,542
Colville School District          1269.44   0.314   0.435    456.77     0.535    0.74    938.11    1.13   1.564   1.979    2.739    $94,887
Concrete School District           309.17   0.077   0.106     97.15     0.114   0.157    198.67   0.239   0.331    0.43    0.594    $20,617
Conway School District             315.09   0.078   0.108     82.67     0.097   0.134        0       0       0    0.175    0.242     $8,391
Cosmopolis School District         164.44   0.041   0.056        0          0      0         0       0       0    0.041    0.056     $1,966
Coulee-Hartline School District     77.72   0.019   0.027     17.11      0.02   0.028     77.63   0.094   0.129   0.133    0.184     $6,377
Coupeville School District         494.98   0.123    0.17    165.78     0.194   0.269    345.24   0.416   0.575   0.733    1.014    $35,145
Crescent School District           189.74   0.047   0.065     58.46     0.068   0.095     84.77   0.102   0.141   0.217    0.301    $10,404
Creston School District             55.12   0.014   0.019     10.89     0.013   0.018     37.75   0.045   0.063   0.072      0.1     $3,452
Curlew School District              96.07   0.024   0.033      29.9     0.035   0.048     95.93   0.116    0.16   0.175    0.241     $8,391
Cusick School District              141.5   0.035   0.048       45      0.053   0.073     96.65   0.116   0.161   0.204    0.282     $9,781
Damman School District              36.72   0.009   0.013        0          0      0         0       0       0    0.009    0.013      $432
Darrington School District         215.91   0.053   0.074     84.46     0.099   0.137    149.14    0.18   0.249   0.332     0.46    $15,918
Davenport School District          304.33   0.075   0.104     86.22     0.101    0.14    168.99   0.204   0.282    0.38    0.526    $18,220
Dayton School District             225.98   0.056   0.077     76.78      0.09   0.124    171.26   0.206   0.285   0.352    0.486    $16,877
Deer Park School District          1234.7   0.306   0.423     421.3     0.493   0.683    781.17   0.941   1.302    1.74    2.408    $83,428

                                                                      141
Dieringer School District            1004.74   0.249   0.344    298.68      0.35   0.484        0        0        0     0.599    0.828    $28,720
Dixie School District                  25.61   0.006   0.009        0          0      0         0        0        0     0.006    0.009      $288
East Valley School District
(Spokane)                              2107    0.521   0.722    672.41     0.788    1.09   1380.56    1.664    2.301    2.973    4.113   $142,546
East Valley School District
(Yakima)                             1469.74   0.364   0.503    411.46     0.482   0.667    786.24    0.947     1.31    1.793     2.48    $85,969
Eastmont School District              2667.7    0.66   0.914    817.65     0.958   1.325   1630.09    1.964    2.717    3.582    4.956   $171,746
Easton School District                 50.62   0.013   0.017     11.55     0.014   0.019     32.58    0.039    0.054    0.066     0.09     $3,164
Eatonville School District            952.28   0.236   0.326    328.81     0.385   0.533    668.46    0.805    1.114    1.426    1.973    $68,372
Edmonds School District              9647.36   2.388   3.304   3040.55     3.561   4.927   6538.38    7.879   10.897   13.828   19.128   $663,009
Ellensburg School District           1457.09   0.361   0.499    454.05     0.532   0.736    922.92    1.112    1.538    2.005    2.773    $96,133
Elma School District                  712.56   0.176   0.244    273.51      0.32   0.443    642.35    0.774    1.071     1.27    1.758    $60,892
Endicott School District               28.56   0.007    0.01      8.89      0.01   0.014     28.62    0.034    0.048    0.051    0.072     $2,445
Entiat School District                165.17   0.041   0.057     66.23     0.078   0.107    100.32    0.121    0.167     0.24    0.331    $11,507
Enumclaw School District             2160.02   0.535    0.74    720.67     0.844   1.168   1435.83     1.73    2.393    3.109    4.301   $149,067
Ephrata School District              1062.98   0.263   0.364    369.35     0.433   0.598    732.25    0.882     1.22    1.578    2.182    $75,660
Evaline School District                36.55   0.009   0.013        0          0      0         0        0        0     0.009    0.013      $432
Everett School District               9566.4   2.368   3.276    2796.3     3.275   4.531   5392.38    6.498    8.987   12.141   16.794   $582,123
Evergreen School District (Clark)   12744.97   3.154   4.365   4204.07     4.924   6.812   8333.42   10.042   13.889    18.12   25.066   $868,797
Evergreen School District
(Stevens)                              13.28   0.003   0.005        0          0      0         0        0        0     0.003    0.005      $144
Federal Way School District          10478.7   2.593   3.589   3455.03     4.047   5.598   6670.97    8.039   11.118   14.679   20.305   $703,812
Ferndale School District             2518.53   0.623   0.863    818.89     0.959   1.327   1549.48    1.867    2.582    3.449    4.772   $165,369
Fife School District                  1681.9   0.416   0.576    519.56     0.609   0.842   1086.21    1.309     1.81    2.334    3.228   $111,908
Finley School District                464.66   0.115   0.159    147.15     0.172   0.238     306.4    0.369    0.511    0.656    0.908    $31,453
Franklin Pierce School District       3628.7   0.898   1.243   1143.52     1.339   1.853   2327.46    2.805    3.879    5.042    6.975   $241,748
Freeman School District                416.5   0.103   0.143    167.08     0.196   0.271      306     0.369     0.51    0.668    0.924    $32,028
Garfield School District               36.89   0.009   0.013       16      0.019   0.026      28.8    0.035    0.048    0.063    0.087     $3,021
Glenwood School District               32.19   0.008   0.011      9.11     0.011   0.015     22.36    0.027    0.037    0.046    0.063     $2,206
Goldendale School District            446.93   0.111   0.153    171.55     0.201   0.278    351.64    0.424    0.586    0.736    1.017    $35,289
Grand Coulee Dam School District      296.44   0.073   0.102     100.1     0.117   0.162    249.79    0.301    0.416    0.491     0.68    $23,542
Grandview School District             1798.4   0.445   0.616    508.19     0.595   0.823    968.62    1.167    1.614    2.207    3.053   $105,819
Granger School District               753.38   0.186   0.258    232.23     0.272   0.376    420.67    0.507    0.701    0.965    1.335    $46,269
Granite Falls School District        1024.21   0.253   0.351    372.53     0.436   0.604    741.41    0.893    1.236    1.582    2.191    $75,852
Grapeview School District             158.32   0.039   0.054     44.22     0.052   0.072        0        0        0     0.091    0.126     $4,363

                                                                         142
Great Northern School District          44.4   0.011   0.015        0          0      0         0       0        0     0.011    0.015      $527
Green Mountain School District        105.78   0.026   0.036     18.78     0.022    0.03        0       0        0     0.048    0.066     $2,301
Griffin School District               460.23   0.114   0.158    155.22     0.182   0.252        0       0        0     0.296     0.41    $14,192
Harrington School District             59.39   0.015    0.02     19.18     0.022   0.031     43.74   0.053    0.073     0.09    0.124     $4,315
Highland School District              557.08   0.138   0.191    196.44      0.23   0.318    350.64   0.423    0.584    0.791    1.093    $37,926
Highline School District             8603.04   2.129   2.947   2488.73     2.915   4.033   5865.31   7.068    9.776   12.112   16.756   $580,732
Hockinson School District             928.95    0.23   0.318    317.43     0.372   0.514     631.1    0.76    1.052    1.362    1.884    $65,304
Hood Canal School District            230.29   0.057   0.079     73.56     0.086   0.119        0       0        0     0.143    0.198     $6,856
Hoquiam School District               845.63   0.209    0.29    321.61     0.377   0.521    678.71   0.818    1.131    1.404    1.942    $67,317
Inchelium School District             103.93   0.026   0.036     30.45     0.036   0.049     47.25   0.057    0.079    0.119    0.164     $5,706
Index School District                  25.83   0.006   0.009      1.44     0.002   0.002        0       0        0     0.008    0.011      $384
Issaquah School District             8496.41   2.103    2.91   2551.76     2.989   4.135   4748.29   5.722    7.914   10.814   14.959   $518,497
Kahlotus School District                 31    0.008   0.011     11.77     0.014   0.019     14.55   0.018    0.024     0.04    0.054     $1,918
Kalama School District                501.58   0.124   0.172    159.88     0.187   0.259    310.25   0.374    0.517    0.685    0.948    $32,844
Keller School District                 22.66   0.006   0.008        0          0      0         0       0        0     0.006    0.008      $288
Kelso School District                2351.08   0.582   0.805    742.24     0.869   1.203   1612.76   1.943    2.688    3.394    4.696   $162,732
Kennewick School District            7614.86   1.885   2.608   2271.11      2.66    3.68   4971.54   5.991    8.286   10.536   14.574   $505,168
Kent School District                13062.23   3.233   4.474    4284.4     5.018   6.942    8098.2   9.758   13.497   18.009   24.913   $863,475
Kettle Falls School District          530.59   0.131   0.182    156.63     0.183   0.254    278.65   0.336    0.464     0.65      0.9    $31,165
Kiona-Benton City School District     734.78   0.182   0.252    224.74     0.263   0.364    478.96   0.577    0.798    1.022    1.414    $49,002
Kittitas School District              377.98   0.094   0.129    136.69      0.16   0.221    178.92   0.216    0.298     0.47    0.648    $22,535
Klickitat School District              49.11   0.012   0.017     22.45     0.026   0.036     47.12   0.057    0.079    0.095    0.132     $4,555
La Center School District             781.96   0.194   0.268      246      0.288   0.399    430.84   0.519    0.718    1.001    1.385    $47,995
La Conner School District              302.4   0.075   0.104    103.23     0.121   0.167    211.55   0.255    0.353    0.451    0.624    $21,624
LaCrosse School District               46.07   0.011   0.016     17.45      0.02   0.028     43.44   0.052    0.072    0.083    0.116     $3,980
Lake Chelan School District           655.09   0.162   0.224    201.61     0.236   0.327    448.34    0.54    0.747    0.938    1.298    $44,974
Lake Stevens School District         3940.84   0.975    1.35   1228.88     1.439   1.991   2261.42   2.725    3.769    5.139     7.11   $246,399
Lake Washington School District     12627.64   3.125   4.325     3535      4.141   5.728   6726.59   8.106   11.211   15.372   21.264   $737,039
Lakewood School District             1236.32   0.306   0.423    382.74     0.448    0.62    733.71   0.884    1.223    1.638    2.266    $78,537
Lamont School District                  8.11   0.002   0.003       18      0.021   0.029        0       0        0     0.023    0.032     $1,103
Liberty School District                216.5   0.054   0.074     69.45     0.081   0.113    150.48   0.181    0.251    0.316    0.438    $15,151
Lind School District                   93.46   0.023   0.032     35.67     0.042   0.058     72.85   0.088    0.121    0.153    0.211     $7,336
Longview School District             3379.36   0.836   1.157   1011.22     1.184   1.639   2132.96    2.57    3.555     4.59    6.351   $220,076
Loon Lake School District             264.32   0.065   0.091     26.06     0.031   0.042        0       0        0     0.096    0.133     $4,603

                                                                         143
Lopez School District                100.22   0.025   0.034     37.59     0.044   0.061     75.19   0.091   0.125    0.16     0.22     $7,671
Lyle School District                 158.11   0.039   0.054     53.33     0.062   0.086     85.14   0.103   0.142   0.204    0.282     $9,781
Lynden School District              1311.69   0.325   0.449    437.04     0.512   0.708    875.99   1.056    1.46   1.893    2.617    $90,763
Mabton School District               476.61   0.118   0.163    153.02     0.179   0.248    274.36   0.331   0.457   0.628    0.868    $30,111
Mansfield School District             34.39   0.009   0.012     10.23     0.012   0.017     35.22   0.042   0.059   0.063    0.088     $3,021
Manson School District               297.45   0.074   0.102     88.89     0.104   0.144    185.79   0.224    0.31   0.402    0.556    $19,275
Mary M Knight School District          91.5   0.023   0.031     36.34     0.043   0.059     49.87    0.06   0.083   0.126    0.173     $6,041
Mary Walker School District          240.46    0.06   0.082     86.72     0.102   0.141    224.55   0.271   0.374   0.433    0.597    $20,761
Marysville School District          5747.38   1.422   1.968   1698.42     1.989   2.752   3362.59   4.052   5.604   7.463   10.324   $357,827
McCleary School District             219.91   0.054   0.075     60.79     0.071   0.099        0       0       0    0.125    0.174     $5,993
Mead School District                4332.79   1.072   1.484    1529.1     1.791   2.478   3037.25    3.66   5.062   6.523    9.024   $312,757
Medical Lake School District        1021.27   0.253    0.35    294.78     0.345   0.478    600.19   0.723      1    1.321    1.828    $63,338
Mercer Island School District       1939.14    0.48   0.664    603.68     0.707   0.978   1378.57   1.661   2.298   2.848     3.94   $136,553
Meridian School District            1172.99    0.29   0.402    326.16     0.382   0.529    521.13   0.628   0.869     1.3      1.8    $62,331
Methow Valley School District        249.67   0.062   0.086     95.99     0.112   0.156    158.04    0.19   0.263   0.364    0.505    $17,453
Mill A School District                44.29   0.011   0.015     12.22     0.014    0.02        0       0       0    0.025    0.035     $1,199
Monroe School District              3206.31   0.794   1.098   1021.24     1.196   1.655   3211.52    3.87   5.353    5.86    8.106   $280,969
Montesano School District            609.46   0.151   0.209    192.31     0.225   0.312    395.73   0.477    0.66   0.853    1.181    $40,899
Morton School District               174.17   0.043    0.06     48.74     0.057   0.079     79.39   0.096   0.132   0.196    0.271     $9,398
Moses Lake School District          4012.46   0.993   1.374   1187.11      1.39   1.924   1948.91   2.348   3.248   4.731    6.546   $226,837
Mossyrock School District            271.12   0.067   0.093     98.67     0.116    0.16    196.22   0.236   0.327   0.419     0.58    $20,090
Mount Adams School District          546.62   0.135   0.187    156.75     0.184   0.254    231.01   0.278   0.385   0.597    0.826    $28,624
Mount Baker School District         1000.12   0.248   0.343    340.97     0.399   0.552    637.86   0.769   1.063   1.416    1.958    $67,893
Mount Pleasant School District        44.61   0.011   0.015        0          0      0         0       0       0    0.011    0.015      $527
Mount Vernon School District        3080.28   0.762   1.055    872.89     1.022   1.414   1813.96   2.186   3.023    3.97    5.492   $190,349
Mukilteo School District            7113.39   1.761   2.436   2143.28      2.51   3.473   4695.17   5.658   7.825   9.929   13.734   $476,064
Naches Valley School District        646.23    0.16   0.221    243.01     0.285   0.394    488.93   0.589   0.815   1.034     1.43    $49,577
Napavine School District             384.34   0.095   0.132    126.73     0.148   0.205    228.96   0.276   0.382   0.519    0.719    $24,884
Naselle-Grays River Valley School
District                             149.34   0.037   0.051      49.7     0.058   0.081    107.35   0.129   0.179   0.224    0.311    $10,740
Nespelem School District             112.06   0.028   0.038     22.77     0.027   0.037        0       0       0    0.055    0.075     $2,637
Newport School District              522.72   0.129   0.179    180.76     0.212   0.293    340.85   0.411   0.568   0.752     1.04    $36,056
Nine Mile Falls School District      742.75   0.184   0.254    280.51     0.329   0.455    558.48   0.673   0.931   1.186     1.64    $56,865
Nooksack Valley School District      764.52   0.189   0.262    244.58     0.286   0.396    497.29   0.599   0.829   1.074    1.487    $51,495
North Beach School District          313.05   0.077   0.107    107.41     0.126   0.174    219.66   0.265   0.366   0.468    0.647   $ 22,439
                                                                        144
North Franklin School District     1012.5   0.251   0.347    298.33     0.349   0.483    526.59   0.635    0.878    1.235    1.708    $59,214
North Kitsap School District      3162.69   0.783   1.083   1026.75     1.203   1.664   2136.84   2.575    3.561    4.561    6.308   $218,686
North Mason School District        944.48   0.234   0.323    347.11     0.407   0.562    770.41   0.928    1.284    1.569    2.169    $75,229
North River School District         19.33   0.005   0.007      5.78     0.007   0.009     21.78   0.026    0.036    0.038    0.052     $1,822
North Thurston Public Schools     6899.26   1.708   2.363   2149.21     2.517   3.483   4024.74    4.85    6.708    9.075   12.554   $435,118
Northport School District          203.25    0.05    0.07     56.56     0.066   0.092     94.26   0.114    0.157     0.23    0.319    $11,028
Northshore School District        9119.16   2.257   3.123   2980.93     3.492    4.83   6304.51   7.597   10.508   13.346   18.461   $639,899
Oak Harbor School District        2845.09   0.704   0.974    807.96     0.946   1.309   1639.94   1.976    2.733    3.626    5.016   $173,855
Oakesdale School District           57.86   0.014    0.02     16.89      0.02   0.027     33.56    0.04    0.056    0.074    0.103     $3,548
Oakville School District           131.21   0.032   0.045     46.38     0.054   0.075     93.85   0.113    0.156    0.199    0.276     $9,541
Ocean Beach School District        438.22   0.108    0.15    130.93     0.153   0.212    302.62   0.365    0.504    0.626    0.866    $30,015
Ocosta School District             352.44   0.087   0.121    110.44     0.129   0.179    182.41    0.22    0.304    0.436    0.604    $20,905
Odessa School District             108.11   0.027   0.037     33.25     0.039   0.054     64.97   0.078    0.108    0.144    0.199     $6,904
Okanogan School District           505.34   0.125   0.173    140.41     0.164   0.228    349.66   0.421    0.583     0.71    0.984    $34,042
Olympia School District           4279.96   1.059   1.466   1297.42      1.52   2.102   3105.62   3.742    5.176    6.321    8.744   $303,072
Omak School District               849.75    0.21   0.291    235.52     0.276   0.382    527.46   0.636    0.879    1.122    1.552    $53,796
Onalaska School District           367.17   0.091   0.126    148.88     0.174   0.241      345    0.416    0.575    0.681    0.942    $32,652
Onion Creek School District         32.55   0.008   0.011      9.89     0.012   0.016        0       0        0      0.02    0.027      $959
Orcas Island School District       281.25    0.07   0.096     65.88     0.077   0.107    169.25   0.204    0.282    0.351    0.485    $16,829
Orchard Prairie School District     66.05   0.016   0.023        6      0.007    0.01        0       0        0     0.023    0.033     $1,103
Orient School District             179.19   0.044   0.061      31.6     0.037   0.051        0       0        0     0.081    0.112     $3,884
Orondo School District             151.92   0.038   0.052     25.56      0.03   0.041        0       0        0     0.068    0.093     $3,260
Oroville School District           293.05   0.073     0.1     95.77     0.112   0.155    196.61   0.237    0.328    0.422    0.583    $20,234
Orting School District            1130.12    0.28   0.387    347.91     0.408   0.564    689.91   0.831     1.15    1.519    2.101    $72,831
Othello School District           1905.41   0.472   0.653     538.2      0.63   0.872    977.39   1.178    1.629     2.28    3.154   $109,319
Palisades School District           18.33   0.005   0.006        0          0      0         0       0        0     0.005    0.006      $240
Palouse School District             89.11   0.022   0.031     32.54     0.038   0.053     72.13   0.087     0.12    0.147    0.204     $7,048
Pasco School District             7850.63   1.943   2.689   2039.38     2.389   3.305   3489.54   4.205    5.816    8.537    11.81   $409,322
Pateros School District            139.14   0.034   0.048     57.07     0.067   0.092     91.66    0.11    0.153    0.211    0.293    $10,117
Paterson School District            77.94   0.019   0.027       19      0.022   0.031        0       0        0     0.041    0.058    $ 1,966
Pe Ell School District             134.62   0.033   0.046     55.12     0.065   0.089    100.44   0.121    0.167    0.219    0.302    $10,500
Peninsula School District         4209.52   1.042   1.442   1482.38     1.736   2.402   3001.51   3.617    5.003    6.395    8.847   $306,620
Pioneer School District            543.72   0.135   0.186    143.55     0.168   0.233        0       0        0     0.303    0.419    $14,528
Pomeroy School District            141.12   0.035   0.048     56.33     0.066   0.091    121.01   0.146    0.202    0.247    0.341    $11,843

                                                                      145
Port Angeles School District         1867.02   0.462   0.639    605.51     0.709   0.981   1414.57   1.705    2.358    2.876    3.978    $137,895
Port Townsend School District         612.83   0.152    0.21    212.31     0.249   0.344    485.96   0.586     0.81    0.987    1.364     $47,324
Prescott School District              106.27   0.026   0.036     47.01     0.055   0.076      71.7   0.086     0.12    0.167    0.232      $8,007
Prosser School District              1417.01   0.351   0.485    424.26     0.497   0.687    905.04   1.091    1.508    1.939     2.68     $92,969
Pullman School District              1232.32   0.305   0.422    327.44     0.384   0.531    641.75   0.773     1.07    1.462    2.023     $70,098
Puyallup School District            10318.71   2.554   3.534   3406.02     3.989   5.519   6743.18   8.126   11.239   14.669   20.292    $703,332
Queets-Clearwater School District      16.56   0.004   0.006      2.66     0.003   0.004        0       0        0     0.007     0.01        $336
Quilcene School District              140.67   0.035   0.048     50.01     0.059   0.081     95.89   0.116     0.16     0.21    0.289     $10,069
Quillayute Valley School District     577.15   0.143   0.198     193.4     0.227   0.313   2512.26   3.027    4.187    3.397    4.698    $162,875
Lake Quinault School District          88.46   0.022    0.03     37.44     0.044   0.061     79.76   0.096    0.133    0.162    0.224      $7,767
Quincy School District               1303.98   0.323   0.447    421.02     0.493   0.682    677.75   0.817     1.13    1.633    2.259     $78,297
Rainier School District               412.89   0.102   0.141      128       0.15   0.207    324.14   0.391     0.54    0.643    0.888     $30,830
Raymond School District                374.5   0.093   0.128     116.8     0.137   0.189     182.7    0.22    0.305     0.45    0.622     $21,576
Reardan-Edwall School District        305.01   0.075   0.104      100      0.117   0.162    233.92   0.282     0.39    0.474    0.656     $22,727
Renton School District               7243.62   1.793   2.481   2088.79     2.447   3.385   4012.62   4.835    6.688    9.075   12.554    $435,118
Republic School District              187.59   0.046   0.064     60.06      0.07   0.097     131.3   0.158    0.219    0.274     0.38     $13,137
Richland School District             5235.53   1.296   1.793   1679.81     1.968   2.722   3275.96   3.948     5.46    7.212    9.975    $345,793
Ridgefield School District            1079.2   0.267    0.37    327.04     0.383    0.53    615.93   0.742    1.027    1.392    1.927     $66,742
Ritzville School District             152.44   0.038   0.052     52.34     0.061   0.085    124.35    0.15    0.207    0.249    0.344     $11,939
Riverside School District             770.78   0.191   0.264    270.23     0.317   0.438    552.98   0.666    0.922    1.174    1.624     $56,290
Riverview School District            1682.71   0.416   0.576    445.69     0.522   0.722    891.63   1.074    1.486    2.012    2.784     $96,469
Rochester School District             1095.3   0.271   0.375    352.13     0.412   0.571    513.13   0.618    0.855    1.301    1.801     $62,379
Roosevelt School District              23.38   0.006   0.008        0          0      0         0       0        0     0.006    0.008        $288
Rosalia School District                96.91   0.024   0.033     38.22     0.045   0.062     73.21   0.088    0.122    0.157    0.217      $7,528
Royal School District                 788.78   0.195    0.27    218.59     0.256   0.354    382.35   0.461    0.637    0.912    1.261     $43,728
San Juan Island School District       397.32   0.098   0.136    150.87     0.177   0.244    298.96    0.36    0.498    0.635    0.878     $30,446
Satsop School District                 55.05   0.014   0.019        0          0      0         0       0        0     0.014    0.019        $671
Seattle Public Schools              24366.71   6.031   8.346   6100.14     7.145   9.884   12547.9   15.12   20.913   28.296   39.143   $1,356,704
Sedro-Woolley School District        1962.54   0.486   0.672    634.09     0.743   1.027   1423.09   1.715    2.372    2.944    4.071    $141,156
Selah School District                1703.77   0.422   0.584     490.2     0.574   0.794   1038.16   1.251     1.73    2.247    3.108    $107,737
Selkirk School District               124.84   0.031   0.043     34.44      0.04   0.056    102.33   0.123    0.171    0.194     0.27      $9,302
Sequim School District               1333.85    0.33   0.457    479.42     0.562   0.777     912.2   1.099     1.52    1.991    2.754     $95,462
Shaw Island School District            12.02   0.003   0.004        4      0.005   0.006        0       0        0     0.008     0.01        $384
Shelton School District              1768.47   0.438   0.606     565.4     0.662   0.916   1623.73   1.957    2.706    3.057    4.228    $146,574

                                                                         146
Shoreline School District            4124.38   1.021   1.413   1304.22     1.528   2.113   3068.22    3.697    5.114    6.246     8.64   $299,476
Skamania School District               52.33   0.013   0.018      2.89     0.003   0.005        0        0        0     0.016    0.023       $767
Skykomish School District              27.11   0.007   0.009      7.67     0.009   0.012       19     0.023    0.032    0.039    0.053     $1,870
Snohomish School District            4577.09   1.133   1.568   1566.54     1.835   2.538   3257.12    3.925    5.429    6.893    9.535   $330,498
Snoqualmie Valley School District    3190.53    0.79   1.093    840.73     0.985   1.362   1604.24    1.933    2.674    3.708    5.129   $177,787
Soap Lake School District             213.39   0.053   0.073     60.67     0.071   0.098    171.47    0.207    0.286    0.331    0.457    $15,870
South Bend School District             252.5   0.062   0.086     72.78     0.085   0.118    170.88    0.206    0.285    0.353    0.489    $16,925
Tukwila School District              1440.25   0.356   0.493    445.01     0.521   0.721    835.91    1.007    1.393    1.884    2.607    $90,332
South Kitsap School District         4859.94   1.203   1.665   1566.56     1.835   2.538   3174.09    3.825     5.29    6.863    9.493   $ 329,059
South Whidbey School District          707.4   0.175   0.242    273.73     0.321   0.444    614.95    0.741    1.025    1.237    1.711    $59,310
Southside School District             180.66   0.045   0.062     31.33     0.037   0.051        0        0        0     0.082    0.113     $3,932
Spokane School District             14746.07    3.65   5.051   4291.49     5.027   6.954   8727.79   10.517   14.546   19.194   26.551   $920,292
Sprague School District                42.03    0.01   0.014        0          0      0        40     0.048    0.067    0.058    0.081     $2,781
St. John School District                 74    0.018   0.025       31      0.036    0.05     65.78    0.079     0.11    0.133    0.185     $6,377
Stanwood-Camano School
District                             2332.12   0.577   0.799    821.85     0.963   1.332   1699.51    2.048    2.833    3.588    4.964   $172,033
Star School District                   10.56   0.003   0.004        0          0      0         0        0        0     0.003    0.004       $144
Starbuck School District               19.73   0.005   0.007      4.56     0.005   0.007        0        0        0      0.01    0.014       $479
Stehekin School District               16.44   0.004   0.006      4.44     0.005   0.007        0        0        0     0.009    0.013       $432
Steilacoom Hist. School District     3149.19   0.779   1.079   1230.13     1.441   1.993    788.82    0.951    1.315    3.171    4.387   $152,039
Steptoe School District                  32    0.008   0.011        4      0.005   0.006        0        0        0     0.013    0.017       $623
Stevenson-Carson School District      431.32   0.107   0.148    220.77     0.259   0.358    630.64     0.76    1.051    1.126    1.557    $53,988
Sultan School District               1049.19    0.26   0.359    348.61     0.408   0.565    684.35    0.825    1.141    1.493    2.065    $71,585
Summit Valley School District          72.78   0.018   0.025     23.33     0.027   0.038        0        0        0     0.045    0.063     $2,158
Sumner School District               3876.49   0.959   1.328    1213.1     1.421   1.966   2546.66    3.069    4.244    5.449    7.538   $261,262
Sunnyside School District            3188.86   0.789   1.092     933.4     1.093   1.512   1513.76    1.824    2.523    3.706    5.127   $177,691
Tacoma School District              14758.42   3.653   5.055   4081.54     4.781   6.614   8054.33    9.705   13.424   18.139   25.093   $869,708
Taholah School District               100.45   0.025   0.034       19      0.022   0.031      62.6    0.075    0.104    0.122    0.169     $5,850
Tahoma School District               3564.75   0.882   1.221   1187.76     1.391   1.925   2182.14    2.629    3.637    4.902    6.783   $235,035
Tekoa School District                  97.47   0.024   0.033     26.78     0.031   0.043     76.13    0.092    0.127    0.147    0.203     $7,048
Tenino School District                609.95   0.151   0.209    189.11     0.222   0.306    379.29    0.457    0.632     0.83    1.147    $39,796
Thorp School District                  91.83   0.023   0.031     24.12     0.028   0.039      38.1    0.046    0.064    0.097    0.134     $4,651
Toledo School District                395.43   0.098   0.135    135.76     0.159    0.22    304.65    0.367    0.508    0.624    0.863    $29,919
Tonasket School District              480.19   0.119   0.164    183.52     0.215   0.297    330.26    0.398     0.55    0.732    1.011    $35,097
Toppenish School District            1859.13    0.46   0.637    532.93     0.624   0.864    986.07    1.188    1.643    2.272    3.144   $108,935
                                                                         147
Touchet School District              127.83   0.032   0.044       49      0.057   0.079    113.48   0.137    0.189    0.226    0.312    $10,836
Toutle Lake School District          292.19   0.072     0.1    105.89     0.124   0.172    191.77   0.231     0.32    0.427    0.592    $20,473
Trout Lake School District              89    0.022    0.03     29.77     0.035   0.048     52.65   0.063    0.088     0.12    0.166     $5,754
Tumwater School District            2811.82   0.696   0.963    928.35     1.087   1.504   2597.18    3.13    4.329    4.913    6.796   $235,563
Union Gap School District            438.38   0.108    0.15    139.77     0.164   0.226        0       0        0     0.272    0.376    $13,042
University Place School District    2502.51   0.619   0.857    952.66     1.116   1.544   1823.57   2.197    3.039    3.932     5.44   $188,527
Valley School District                766.2    0.19   0.262    216.47     0.254   0.351        0       0        0     0.444    0.613    $21,288
Vancouver School District          11196.48   2.771   3.835   3379.42     3.958   5.476   6494.85   7.826   10.825   14.555   20.136   $697,866
Vashon Island School District        662.03   0.164   0.227    252.78     0.296    0.41      536    0.646    0.893    1.106     1.53    $53,029
Wahkiakum School District            205.75   0.051    0.07     89.33     0.105   0.145    149.46    0.18    0.249    0.336    0.464    $16,110
Wahluke School District               1092     0.27   0.374    242.24     0.284   0.393    495.28   0.597    0.825    1.151    1.592    $55,187
Waitsburg School District            135.83   0.034   0.047     55.73     0.065    0.09    135.57   0.163    0.226    0.262    0.363    $12,562
Walla Walla Public Schools           2873.3   0.711   0.984    839.05     0.983    1.36   2111.25   2.544    3.519    4.238    5.863   $203,199
Wapato School District              1686.01   0.417   0.577     503.8      0.59   0.816    921.41    1.11    1.536    2.117    2.929   $101,503
Warden School District               500.32   0.124   0.171    140.48     0.165   0.228    264.41   0.319    0.441    0.608     0.84    $29,152
Washougal School District           1462.84   0.362   0.501    468.91     0.549    0.76    882.68   1.064    1.471    1.975    2.732    $94,695
Washtucna School District             32.12   0.008   0.011        5      0.006   0.008     21.44   0.026    0.036     0.04    0.055     $1,918
Waterville School District           112.03   0.028   0.038      58.1     0.068   0.094       99    0.119    0.165    0.215    0.297    $10,309
Wellpinit School District            181.45   0.045   0.062     61.34     0.072   0.099    356.41   0.429    0.594    0.546    0.755    $26,179
Wenatchee School District           3794.45   0.939     1.3   1115.25     1.306   1.807   2448.93   2.951    4.082    5.196    7.189   $249,132
West Valley School District
(Spokane)                           1568.84   0.388   0.537     530.4     0.621   0.859   1578.52   1.902    2.631    2.911    4.027   $139,573
West Valley School District
(Yakima)                            2528.33   0.626   0.866    765.71     0.897   1.241   1400.75   1.688    2.335    3.211    4.442   $153,957
White Pass School District             205    0.051    0.07     51.43      0.06   0.083    125.58   0.151    0.209    0.262    0.362    $12,562
White River School District         1841.67   0.456   0.631    619.58     0.726   1.004   1477.77   1.781    2.463    2.963    4.098   $142,067
White Salmon Valley School
District                              600.7   0.149   0.206    183.87     0.215   0.298    342.86   0.413    0.571    0.777    1.075    $37,255
Wilbur School District               113.44   0.028   0.039     48.94     0.057   0.079     78.28   0.094     0.13    0.179    0.248     $8,582
Willapa Valley School District       151.27   0.037   0.052     51.78     0.061   0.084     99.08   0.119    0.165    0.217    0.301    $10,404
Wilson Creek School District           65.9   0.016   0.023     14.45     0.017   0.023     35.75   0.043     0.06    0.076    0.106     $3,644
Winlock School District               361.5   0.089   0.124    118.11     0.138   0.191    252.98   0.305    0.422    0.532    0.737    $25,508
Wishkah Valley School District        46.89   0.012   0.016     23.77     0.028   0.039      54.4   0.066    0.091    0.106    0.146     $5,082
Wishram School District                36.5   0.009   0.013     11.34     0.013   0.018     19.91   0.024    0.033    0.046    0.064     $2,206
Woodland School District             989.09   0.245   0.339    349.28     0.409   0.566    666.83   0.804    1.111    1.458    2.016    $69,907

                                                                        148
Yakima School District         7409.74     1.834     2.538     2047.69      2.398     3.318     4849.17      5.843     8.082    10.075    13.938     $483,065
Yelm School District           2633.38     0.652     0.902      827.86       0.97     1.341      1690.8      2.037     2.818     3.659     5.061     $175,438
Zillah School District          685.78      0.17     0.235      213.29       0.25     0.346        394.8     0.476     0.658     0.896     1.239      $42,960
Total                       505,208.01   125.039   173.034   155,224.35   181.814   251.521   313,617.68   377.909   522.696   684.762   947.251   $32,831,653

Source: June 2010 Enrollment data for 2009-10 School Year.




                                                                          149
 Technology Staff
 Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction




 Classified Adequacy Staffing Report




December 2010



                           150
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 3

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 4

   Funding Recommendation History ........................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 6

   What is Technology Support? ................................................................................................................... 6

   IT Support Staff Are Critical to K-12 Education ......................................................................................... 6

   Four Main Roles for Classified IT Support Professionals........................................................................... 7

   Current Funding Environment for IT Staff ................................................................................................ 8

METHODOLOGY USED TO DETERMINE CLASSIFIED STAFF ADEQUACY ...................................................... 10

   Challenges ............................................................................................................................................... 10

   Guiding Questions ................................................................................................................................... 11

   The Technology Working Group ............................................................................................................. 11

   Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 12

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADEQUATE LEVELS OF IT SUPPORT ................................................................. 14

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX A: SYSTEMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE IT DEPARTMENT .................................................. 16

APPENDIX B: LIST OF TECHNOLOGY WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS ............................................................ 19




                                                                             151
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 2.01 IT staff FTE per 1000 students, which includes:
    •  0.23 FTE for director/manager/supervisor activities.
    •  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 2.01 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.


Funding Formula Technical Working Group Response
The Funding Formula Technical Working Group (FFTWG) is concerned that the technology support staff
recommendation is too low. The FFTWG expects to see changes to the accounting system in the next
couple years that will allow IT support staff to be identified in OSPI’s data. This will provide better
information regarding district actual staffing practices and allow for better decision making regarding
the adequacy of staffing patterns. In addition, as the level of technology increases and becomes more




                                                    152
complex, this recommended funding level will need to be adjusted. The FFTWG recommends a biennial
review of the funded technology support staff level.

The FFTWG also recommends that the state funded salary for technology support staff be adjusted to
reflect actual compensation levels. The current funding amount is a barrier to school districts as they
search to fill these positions. The state funded salary allocation for all classified staff is $32,295, and the
average salary for staff reported in Activity 72 (Information Services reported on the S-275 for the 2008-
09 school year), was $60,079. This changes the ratio significantly. Based on this salary difference,
Washington is set to fund only 0.338 classified staff for IT support per 1000 students.




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.



                                                     153
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
(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.




                                                      154
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.




                                                    155
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
with the functions of the IT director position, network size and complexity determine how districts staff
these positions.
Duties include:



                                                    156
    •   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.




                                                   157
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.




                                                     158
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.




                                                    159
    •   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.




                                                   160
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)




                                                  161
    •   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,
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.

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




                                                      162
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 four primary categories of IT staff, 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    Adequate Staff Level
                                        per 1000 students        per 1000 Students       per 1000 Students
IT director, manager or supervisor             N/A                     0.16                    0.23
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            1.45                 2.01
The Technology Working Group recommends 2.01 IT staff FTE per 1000 students, which includes:
    •    0.23 FTE for director/manager/supervisor activities.
    •    0.75 FTE for classified staff with specialized IT skills.
    •    0.87 FTE for network and desktop support positions.



                                                    163
    •   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 for the 2008-09 school year), 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—2.01 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.




                                                     164
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




                                                    165
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




Miscellaneous Systems
72   Textbook Inventory           76   School Board Management     80   Instructional Resources




                                                 166
                                                                               (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.




                                                    167
APPENDIX B: List of Technology Workgroup Participants


Name                      Title                                         Affiliation
Neil Vien                 Executive Director, Information Technology    Auburn School District
Vicki Alonzo              Client Services Manager                       Auburn School District
Nancy Larson              Manager of Facilities, Information            Bellevue School District
                          Technology and Maintenance
Cynthia Nelson            Technology Director                           Edmonds School District
Mark Finstrom             Director of Technology                        Highline School District
Thuan Nguyen              Chief Information and Automated Operations    Kent School District
                          Officer
Gregory Whiteman          Executive Director, Information Technology    Kent School District
Allen Miedema             Information Systems Manager                   Northshore School District
JB Fitzpatrick            Director of Technology                        Peninsula School District
Jim Ratchford             Chief Information Officer                     Seattle School District
Jim Golubich              Director of Information Technology            Shoreline School District
Sandy (Nelson) Maynard    Chief Technology Officer                      Sumner School District
Shaun Taylor              Chief Information Officer                     Tacoma School District
Mike Cullum               Director of Information Technology            Tukwila School District
Dana Anderson             Assistant Superintendant                      ESD 113


OSPI would like to acknowledge Allen Miedema and Northshore School District for organizing and
hosting the Technology Work Group.




                                                168

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:2/13/2012
language:
pages:169