Many educators know that schools with the design features described in this publication are likely to result in greater student success, yet they ask, quite reasonably, “Can we really do this within existing budgets?” This section includes sample budgets and schedules, which show that the effective school structures previously described are indeed possible to implement with existing resources. The examples also illustrate the trade-offs involved.
This appendix shows budgets and staffing models for two high schools: a large, traditional school with 1,600 students and a high school with the same number of students that has redesigned itself into four small learning communities of 400 students each. At $14,000 per pupil, both spent close to the national average per pupil in 2020–21, the year these data were collected. The contrasts between the two illustrate how the redesigned school has reallocated resources to provide smaller classes and lower pupil loads for teachers, as well as significant time for teacher collaborative planning and professional development.
The staffing model for the large, traditional school is based on an analysis we conducted using data for traditional high schools in California in a large urban district, many of which employ only about 50% to 60% of their staff in classroom teaching positions. By contrast, the redesigned school, also based on existing school models, allocates over 75% of its staff to classroom teaching. Both school models have a principal, four assistant principals, and a librarian. Both budgets allocate just over $4,000 per student for expenses pertaining to facilities, food services, and the like. Beyond that, the staffing models and budget allocations differ.
The redesigned school is subdivided into four small learning communities, each with 400 students, 24 teachers, 1 counselor, 1 resource teacher, 2 paraeducators, and 1 assistant principal. Most adults in the school serve as advisors, who take on frontline academic counseling and direct student support responsibilities with support from their small learning community team, including the counselor assigned to the small learning community. This extends the capacity of the counseling staff to reach all students on a more regular basis. Advisories have between 13 and 17 students each, depending on whether only teachers or other professional adults in the redesigned school serve as advisors. Because these students are seen daily, their needs can be readily identified and addressed, eliminating many dysfunctions that occur in depersonalized settings. When students need additional support, advisors refer them to the counselor or the community school coordinator, who makes connections to wraparound services provided by community partners.
In the redesigned school, special education services are provided through a coteaching inclusion model. Classroom teachers work with the resource teachers and their colleagues to design lessons to support students with Individualized Education Plans. The resource teacher and paraeducators provide push-in services. There is one high-need Special Day Class whose students integrate into general education for part of the day with paraprofessional support.
As a result of these design decisions, the redesigned school has fewer security guards, disciplinary deans, counselors, and pull-out staff engaged in programs designed to address the student failures that more frequently occur in the traditional factory-model school. This allows significantly more resources to be allocated to classroom teaching. With the same number of students (1,600) and the same overall budget ($22.4 million), the traditional school has 72 classroom teachers (55.8% of the total staff of 129), while the redesigned school has 96 classroom teachers (76.2% of the total staff of 126). This reallocation reduces the overall student-to-teacher ratio from 22.2:1 to 16.7:1, which allows for reduced class sizes and significantly increased time for educator collaboration and professional development.
Sample Budget
In Table A1, cost estimates are based on average California 2020–21 spending.
Fund type | Cost per position | Traditional school | Redesigned school with small learning communities | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
REVENUE | $ | # | $ | # | $ |
Students | - | 1,600 | - | 1,600 | - |
Per-student revenue | - | - | $14,000 | - | $14,000 |
Total revenue | - | - | $22,400,000 | - | $22,400,000 |
COSTS | $ | # | $ | # | $ |
Principal | $150,000 | 1 | $150,000 | 1 | $150,000 |
Assistant principals | $125,000 | 4 | $500,000 | 4 | $500,000 |
Deans | $105,000 | 2 | $210,000 | 0 | $0 |
Restorative practices deans | $105,000 | 0 | $0 | 1 | $105,000 |
Counselors | $95,000 | 8 | $760,000 | 4 | $380,000 |
College advisor | $95,000 | 0 | $0 | 1 | $95,000 |
Community school coordinator | $95,000 | 0 | $0 | 1 | $95,000 |
Department heads (full-time equivalent) | $95,000 | 2 | $190,000 | 0 | $0 |
Resource and Special Day Class teachers | $85,000 | 10 | $850,000 | 5 | $425,000 |
Paraeducators | $45,000 | 8 | $360,000 | 8 | $360,000 |
Librarian | $85,000 | 1 | $85,000 | 1 | $85,000 |
Other certificated staff (program administrators) | $85,000 | 3 | $255,000 | 0 | $0 |
Dropout prevention and other classified staff | $75,000 | 8 | $600,000 | 0 | $0 |
Clerks | $55,000 | 5 | $275,000 | 4 | $220,000 |
Security guards | $35,000 | 5 | $175,000 | 0 | $0 |
Classroom teachers | $85,000 | 72 | $6,120,000 | 96 | $8,160,000 |
Benefits | 45% | - | $4,738,500 | - | $4,758,750 |
Other costs (non-personnel, district expenses, etc.) | $4,400 | per student | $7,040,000 | per student | $7,040,000 |
Discretionary fund | - | - | $91,500 | - | $26,250 |
TOTAL COSTS | - | - | $22,400,000 | - | $22,400,000 |