I think having additional school counselors and coaches for teachers can be helpful to schools, but it really depends on what a given school’s challenges are. I would think school communities would appreciate — and students would benefit from — schools analyzing their strengths and weaknesses and spending extra money to address those weaknesses.
If you look at students per teacher and the average class size, schools with low performing students have more resources. The formula seems to be working.
What if there were a few struggling student sin one of the schools with larger class sizes at schools with high performing students. They would not get extra help?
Thank you for all your in-depth analyses of SFUSD, very insightful.
You are missing the other component of SFUSD site finding which is WSF (Weighted Student Formula). WSF does provide more LCFF funding to schools with higher populations of English learners and duplicated/unduplicated poverty.
"Additional funds added to or held back from a site’s calculated amount (based on weights), to meet baseline staffing requirements or phase in new components of WSF, minimizing the amount of change a site experiences in a year."
In the case of Lau, part of the funds held back may be caused by their duplicated student count (805) vs actual headcount (644).
I think having additional school counselors and coaches for teachers can be helpful to schools, but it really depends on what a given school’s challenges are. I would think school communities would appreciate — and students would benefit from — schools analyzing their strengths and weaknesses and spending extra money to address those weaknesses.
If you look at students per teacher and the average class size, schools with low performing students have more resources. The formula seems to be working.
What if there were a few struggling student sin one of the schools with larger class sizes at schools with high performing students. They would not get extra help?
Thank you for all your in-depth analyses of SFUSD, very insightful.
You are missing the other component of SFUSD site finding which is WSF (Weighted Student Formula). WSF does provide more LCFF funding to schools with higher populations of English learners and duplicated/unduplicated poverty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example: Gordon Lau ES (2022-23 644 student pop)
Duplicated Poverty +$833,094
English Learners +$213,707
UPP Concentration (>55%) +$390,882
Transition Policy/Baseline Supplement** -$595,601
total : +$842,082 in LCFF funds over baseline from socio-economic student demographics
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lilienthal K-8 ( 2022-23 660 Student pop)
Duplicated Poverty +$147,991
English Learners +$38,291
UPP Concentration (>55%) +$0
Transition Policy/Baseline Supplement** -$0
total : +$186,282 in LCFF funds over baseline from socio-economic student demographics
----------------------------------------
MTSS seems to be extra support on top of what WSF provides.
-------------------------------------------------------
**Transition Policy/Baseline Supplement
"Additional funds added to or held back from a site’s calculated amount (based on weights), to meet baseline staffing requirements or phase in new components of WSF, minimizing the amount of change a site experiences in a year."
In the case of Lau, part of the funds held back may be caused by their duplicated student count (805) vs actual headcount (644).
SFUSD 2022-23 WSF and MTSS documents:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jNGg9D2b3Rrf_9ialHeimMwgspFW1cPt