1. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 Costs, Money, and Resources in Pathways W. Norton Grubb U.C. Berkeley and Principal Leadership Institute Drawn from Grubb, “Sunup to Sundown and Beyond: Leadership Challenges in High School and in Multiple Pathways”, and from Grubb, The Money Myth. Quality criteria 3.6, Funding

2. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 Additional counselors A coordinator for work-based learning An individual monitoring connections to postsecondary institutions The costs of small size: fixed costs spread over a small student population Costs of additional time? Some complaints about higher teacher turnover. Characterizing extra costs: Costs per student? Costs per graduate? Costs per students entering postsecondary education? Extra costs in pathways

3. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 Sources of outside funding Foundation funding: Gates Foundation funding for small schools? Federal (Perkins) funding for CTE Federal Small Schools Grants State funds for Career Academies Use of Regional Occupational Centers and Programs Employers and employer associations What stable funding comes from districts? The politics of resentment and the challenges of showing improvement. Challenge: What is the opportunity cost of a principal spending time on writing grant proposals?

4. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 The conundrums of funding versus (effective) resources The Money Myth: 19th century view that more money is necessary for improved outcomes: “the question of sufficient revenue lies back of most every educational problem” (Cubberly, 1905). Shifting the argument: money doesn’t education children; effective school resources do. Types of resources: –Simple, related to spending per student Examples: Adult/student ratio; experience in high schools, average salaries to increase the applicant pool –Compound: tracking; not class size reduction but lower class size and adequate teacher qualifications and professional development and adequate facilities. –Complex: resources difficult to put in place, like changes in instruction –Abstract: school climate; trust; curricular coherence; stability.

5. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 Why consider resources other than simple resources? Money is necessary for simple resources, but many complex and abstract resources require very little money and vision, leadership, cooperation — they must be constructed at the school level, not bought. Compound, complex, and abstract resources are more unequally distributed than are simple resources

6. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 Why is the relationship between money and outcomes so weak? Waste: spending on ineffective resources, or without changing practices, or piecemeal; instability; misunderstanding of compound resources. Expensive but ineffective or counter-productive programs: traditional voc ed; other tracking; remedial pedagogy; many ineffective interventions. Failure to understand the power of complex resources related to instruction: teacher use of time, teacher control; encouraging innovation; use of innovative or “balanced” pedagogy.

7. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 Failure to recognize abstract resources: school climate, student commitment; trust; coherence of the curriculum; stability. The Great Silence: Failure to address achievement gaps affecting students of color; the multiple dimensions of mistreatment and the multiple solutions. The big question: How do you use the resources available in your pathway (money, but also other resources) to enhance student success?

8. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 A budgeting process focused on instruction 1. Examine the waste in your school. What possibilities do these sources of waste suggest for re-allocating resources within the school? 2. Carry out a comprehensive survey of the school ’ s existing resources — a “ resource audit ” rather than a fiscal audit. 3. Identify the current patterns of educational outcomes among students — not limited to standardized tests, but incorporating other measures of learning, of progress through high schools and student attitudes like educational ambitions. The school should identify particular needs, and rank them in some way, to get a sense of priorities. 4. Identify what reforms would help address each of these education needs. Because the needs have been prioritized, the reforms should already be prioritized.

9. Center for Urban School Leadership University of California, Berkeley  Graduate School of Education  © 2009 5. Identify what resources are necessary for each of the reforms. Include not only money for specific activities but also administrative attention and leadership, teacher cooperation, district support, instructional improvement, and other complex and abstract resources. (Note that the wasted resources identified in stage #1 should be available to be reallocated.) The fiscal resources necessary for these reforms then are included in fiscal budgets; the non-monetary resources clarify where the time and attention of teachers and leaders should be concentrated.