The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
An Analysis of
Advantages and
Disadvantages of
Several Options
for Producing
Excellence in Education
in Williamsburg
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Introduction
Steve Harrison
Teacher Costs/Retention
Tim Harwood
Other Staffing Costs
Tim Harwood
Operational Costs
Stephanie Bush
New Opportunities
Steve Harrison
Conclusion/Questions
Stephanie Bush
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
INTRODUCTION
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
State of the System
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
WJCC did not meet “adequate yearly progress
standards” in the 08-09 VDOE Report Card.
 All 14 schools are accredited
 Community grew by 44% from 1995-2006
 2008-2009 Budget: $115,169,610
 Williamsburg Pays Approximately $7 Million
 VDOE’s Local Composite Index:

 Williamsburg
would pay 80% of its own costs
 James City County would only pay 53%
The Contract . . .
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Contract was last amended in 2007
 Cost Sharing Calculation is determined by looking
at average school division daily membership on
September 30
 City or County may Terminate Contract at any time


Officially ends after next full school year
Williamsburg would retain 100% equity in Matthew
Whaley, James Blair, and Berkeley
 Williamsburg would lose equity acquired in schools
built since 2006 (i.e. Warhill High School)

Diversity: Problems & Promises
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

2008-2009 Ethnic Breakdown:


Virginia Assessment Ratings for African Americans in
WJCC as compared to State Percentages:




WJCC: 68.6% White / Williamsburg : 51.3% White
5th Grade = Behind in Writing & Science
8th Grade = Behind in Reading, Writing, & Science
High School = Behind in Reading, Writing, Science, and History
2007-2008 African American Dropout Rate
Dropout Rates
State
WJCC
All Students
1.89%
2.03%
African Americans
2.86%
4.25%
Case Studies . . .
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Small School Systems
Norton, Virginia
 Covington, Virginia


School System Splits: Proposed & Actual




Bridgewater-Raynham, Massachusetts
Jordan-Canyon, Utah
Middleton-Cross Plains, Wisconsin
School District-Collegiate Partnerships



Harvard University -Cambridge, MA
Harvard University -Boston, MA
Trinity College – Hartford, CT
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
TEACHER
COSTS/
RETENTION
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Cost Modeling
Williamsburg Education Review Committee



WJC Staff allocations applied to student population in the
city (750 students)
 Core and Resource Teacher – WJC student teacher ratios
 Other instructional staff – WJC minimums
 Administrative staff – WJC minimums and student ratios
WJC average teacher and staff salaries
Cost of WJC employee benefits
 VRS, FICA, average WJC health plan
Elementary School Instructional Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
382 students
 Teaching staff:


Administrative staff:



19 core classroom teachers, 5.5 resource teachers, 5.5
specialized teachers, and 12 other instructional staff.
2.5 clerical staff
1 principal and 1 assistant principal
Total cost:


$2,888,125 (low)
$3,099,437 (high)
Middle School Instructional Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee


172 students
Teaching staff:


Administrative staff:



10.5 core & resource teachers, 3.5 specialized teachers,
and 5 other instructional staff.
1 clerical staff
1 principal and 1 assistant principal
Total cost:


$1,505,664 (low)
$1,594,369 (high)
High School Instructional Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee


240 students
Teaching staff:


Administrative staff:



15 core & resource teachers, 2 specialized teachers,
and 5 other instructional staff.
2.5 clerical staff
1 principal and 1 assistant principal
Total cost:


$1,857,463 (low)
$1,947,390 (high)
Baseline Instructional Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
(Low)
(High)
Elementary school
$2,888,125
$3,099,437
Middle school
$1,505,664
$1,594,369
High School
$1,857,463
$1,947,390
Total
$6,251,252
$6,641,196
Kindergarten: teachers needed per year
(20 students per teacher)
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
100
4
90
4
# of students
80
70
60
50
3
3
3
3
3
40
30
20
10
0
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Note: Each bar represents the student population for that year, and the number above
each bar represents the number of teachers needed for that year.
Changes in Teacher Needs
(WJC Student Teacher Ratios)
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Note: Asterisks denote when two additional teachers are needed.
Year
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
Kindergarten
1
1
Grade 1
1
1
Grade 2
1
Grade 3
1
2008-09
1
# changes
by grade
3
2
1
1
Grade 4
1
Grade 5
1
Grade 6
2007-08
1
Grade 7
1
3
1
1
2
2
1*
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
Grade 8
1
1
2
Grade 9
1
1
2
Grade 10
Grade 11
1
1
Grade 12
Changes/year
1
1*
1
6
3
6
5
1
3
1
1
3
6
3
WJCC/Williamsburg Student Teacher Ratios
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
WJC Targeted Ratios
Wmsbg Proposed Ratios
Grades K-2
20 : 1
12 : 1
Grades 3-5
25 : 1
15 : 1
23.25 : 1
18 : 1
23.5 : 1
20 : 1
Elementary
School
Middle School
Grades 6-8
High School
Grades 9-12
Note: The Williamsburg student teacher ratio is for 3rd grade is 12:1
Changes in Teacher Needs
(Williamsburg Student Teacher Ratios]
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Year
2003-04
2004-05
Kindergarten
1
1
Grade 1
1
Grade 2
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
1**
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
1
4
1*
1
Grade 4
1
1**
1
1
Grade 5
1
1*
1**
1
Grade 6
1
Grade 7
1
Grade 8
1
Grade 9
1
Grade 10
1
1
1*
1**
1
1
Grade 11
1
1
Grade 12
1
1
7
7
9
1
6
1*
# changes
by grade
1
Grade 3
Changes/Year
2008-09
1*
6
5
4
3
1
1
6
1
2
1
1*
3
1
1
3
1
1
5
1
1**
4
10
7
Note: One asterisk denotes when two additional teachers are needed. Two asterisks denote when two fewer teachers are needed .
Problems with Changes in Teacher Need
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Problems
 Teachers
cannot easily be moved to balance needs
 Lack of job security may reduce the quality of
teachers in a city school system

Possible solution
 Retain
teachers that have been hired
Kindergarten: Teachers Retained
(Williamsburg ratio: 12 students per teacher)
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
100
7
90
6
# of students
80
70
60
5
5
5
6
6
4
5
50
40
30
5
4
5
6
7
20
10
0
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Note: Each bar represents the student population for that year. The bold number above each bar represents the number
of teachers needed for that year if teachers are retained. The number within each bar represents the number of
teachers needed for that year if teachers are not retained.
Quality Costs: Elementary School
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Student teacher ratio
scenarios
# core teachers
needed
Cost (low)
Cost (high)
(1)
# Teachers for WJC
ratio
19
$2,888,125
$3,099,437
(2)
# Teachers for
Williamsburg ratio
(teachers not retained)
30
$3,624,259
$3,881,295
(3)
# Teachers Williamsburg
ratio
(teachers retained)
35
$3,958,865
$4,236,685
(4)
Cost of quality: (row 3) - (row 1)
$1,070,740
$1,137,248
* Student populations based on September 20, 2008 enrollment count.
Quality Costs: Middle School
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Student teacher ratio
scenarios
# core teachers
needed
Cost (low)
Cost (high)
(1)
# Teachers for WJC
ratio
10.35
$1,505,664
$1,594,369
(2)
# Teachers for
Williamsburg ratio
(teachers not retained)
13.38
$1,708,286
$1,809,577
(3)
# Teachers Williamsburg
ratio
(teachers retained)
17
$1,950,690
$2,067,038
(4)
Cost of quality: (row 3) - (row 1)
$445,026
$472,669
* Student populations based on September 20, 2008 enrollment count.
Quality Costs: High School
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Student teacher ratio
scenarios
Cost (low)
Cost (high)
15.07
$1,857,463
$1,947,390
# core teachers
needed
(1)
# Teachers for WJC
ratio
(2)
# Teachers for
Williamsburg ratio
(teachers not retained)
16
$1,923,091
$2,016,703
(3)
# Teachers Williamsburg
ratio
(teachers retained)
18
$2,064,228
$2,165,763
(4)
Cost of quality: (row 3) - (row 1)
$206,765
$218,373
* Student populations based on September 20, 2008 enrollment count.
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
Central Office &
Non-Instructional
Staff Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Central Office Staff Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Staff Position
Allocation
TOTAL (low)
TOTAL (high)
Superintendent
1
234383
229603
Finance Director
1
151993
151610
Accounting and Budgeting
1
83226
86513
Purchasing
1
74732
78472
Payroll
1
83226
86513
Human Resources
1
96440
99022
Director of Operations
1
152859
152430
Director of Technology
1
107623
109607
Director of Transportation
1
95108
97761
Director of Child Nutrition
Services
1
115204
116784
Director of Facilities
1
115204
116784
Supervisor of Special Education
1
113613
115279
Director of Multicultural Affairs
1
91247
94106
$1,514,856
$1,534,484
Note: Central Office staff allocations are based on the assumption that only one employee is needed for each position.
Not all WJC Central Office staff positions are accounted for.
Non-instructional Staff Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Staff Position
Allocation
TOTAL (low)
TOTAL (high)
School Nurses
2
120318
129354
Security Guards
1
54871
59671
Social Workers
0.5
35914
37862
Psychologists
0.5
35030
37024
Speech and Language Pathologist
2
160475
167369
Technology Instructional Support
2
93341
103817
7.31
192066
238312
2
38521
51921
0.5
28236
30593
1
63966
68281
11.68
405242
473876
$1,227,980
$1,398,080
Bus Drivers
Bus Aides
Vehicle Maintenance
Trades
Service Workers
Note: Non-instructional staff allocations are based on WJC student to staff ratios. The allocations also assume that the
Williamsburg school system will operate in two buildings.
Cost Saving Measures
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Reducing the number of school administrators
needed by combining grade levels.
 Loan excess teachers to JCC or York County
 Reduce the size of the Central Office

 WJC
has 40 Central Office positions
 Millis, MA K-12 school system serves 1,400
students and has 9 Central Office positions
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
Operational
Costs
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Formulas
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Per Student

Per Full Time Employee (FTE)

Per Building

Per Bus
Per Student
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

WJCamt/WJCstudents * WMBGstudents
 Ex:
Textbooks and Workbooks
 Ex: Technology Hardware
 *WJC
students = 10,360, pg 364 WJCC budget
 *Williamsburg students = 794, pg. 13 2008
Student Enrollment Report
Per FTE
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

WJCamt/WJCftes * WMBGftes
 Ex:
Compensated Travel
 Ex: Dues and Memberships
 Ex: Staff Development
 Number
of employees vary with function
Per Building
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

WJCamt/WJCbldgs * WMBGbldgs
 Ex:
Leases and Rentals
 Ex: Electricity
 Ex: Refuse Removal
 *WJC
buildings = 14, pg 364 WJCC budget
 *Wmbg buildings = 2 (would only utilize 2 of 3)
Per Bus
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

WJCamt/WJCbuses * WMBGbuses
 Ex:
Vehicle Fuels
 Ex: Vehicle Supplies
 *WJC
school buses = 116 buses and 3 automobiles
 *Williamsburg school buses = 9 buses
Staff Allocations
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Bus Drivers/ Bus Aides
 WJCbuses/WJCstudents
 1 bus/ 87 students
 WMBGstudents/87  Wmbg needs 9 buses
 WJCbuses/WJCdrivers
 1 driver/ 1.23 buses
  Wmbg needs 7.31 drivers
 WJCbuses/WJCaides  1 aide/4.58 school buses
  Wmbg needs 2 aides
Baseline Williamsburg K-12 Totals
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Instruction & School Admin Staffing -

Central Office Staffing –

Other Staffing –

Operational Costs –

Total:
$6.2-$6.6 million
$1.5 million
$1.2 -$1.4 million
$1.7 million
At least $10.6 million
JCC Impact
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Would lose 100% equity in 3 buildings






Would become whiter/ less diverse
Slightly higher per student cost
Would lose Williamsburg’s $7 million contribution
Would lose approximately 8% of its student base




Would constrict their ability to effectively house students
Would lose three of the most valuable pieces of property
Elementary School – 382 Students
Middle School – 172 Students
High School – 240 Students
Would receive more state aid
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
NEW
OPPORTUNITIES
FOR EXCELLENCE
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
William & Mary Partnership
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

School of Education
Dr. Steve Staples enthusiastically believes that the
School of Education would work with Williamsburg
 Often wanted to work with WJCC but no offer made
 Would work on curriculum, offer advice from research
on new ways to educate
 Greater Student Teacher Involvement


Project Civic Engagement 360
Provide academic resources from the College to civic
entrepreneurs and public officials
 Helps the community while students and faculty receive
practical experience from seasoned practitioners

Smaller Class Sizes
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

U.S. Department of Education
“Class size reduction in the early grades leads to higher
achievement.”
 Class sizes should be under 20; Under 15 preferable


Tennessee S.T.A.R. Project
“Small classes have an advantage over larger classes
in reading and math in early primary grades”
 Advantage even greater among socioeconomically
disadvantaged


WJCC Student/Teacher Ratio 2008-2009:
K-2 = 20:1
 3-5 = 25:1

Green Schools . . .
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Green School Definition:


Value Through Sustainability


Designed and operated to be environmentally sustainable
and to provide a healthier indoor environment for students,
teachers, and others
Green schools save money in the long run due to “reduced
energy consumption and operating costs”
Example: Virginia Beach, Virginia

First LEED Certified Elementary School in Virginia (2005)
Special filters installed in the heating and cooling system
 Building materials that contain a percentage of recyclable elements;
 Structural design that promotes an abundant flow of sunlight


Replaced Theater Lights in Green Run High School
50,000 watts of incandescent lighting replaced with 2,847 watts LED
 Potential Cost Savings of $12,732 per year

Circadian Rhythm . . .
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Current School Day Begins:
 Elementary
= 8:35/9:20 a.m.
 Middle = 7:20/8:05 a.m.
 High = 7:20 a.m.
A Study on the subject found that 40% of U.S.
teens reported being tired in the morning,”
while many other nations found only “15% of
teens reported a tired feeling at day’s start”
 Congressional Resolution “ZZZ’s to A’s”

 Asks
School Systems to push the beginning of the
school day back to 9:00 a.m. or later
Learning with Laptops?
Williamsburg Education Review Committee


Laptops allow students intimate access to technology
Example: Fulletron, California:


Example: Henrico County, VA






Families lease a computer for 3 years @ $1,200. At end of
lease device is theirs to keep.
2009 Budget for Dell Laptops: $12,270,967
All 6-12 grade students given a laptop, middle school
laptops with heavier parental controls
Elementary Schools get 5 laptops in each classroom
Also created a help desk, an e-Learning Program
Costs broken down to per-pupil: $254.47
If a Williamsburg/Dell contract had the same laptop cost
per-pupil, it would cost the City $203,575.
Split Down the Middle?
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Williamsburg would only utilize 2 School Buildings
 Hampton, VA experimenting with two K-8 Schools,
housing 1,300 students each
 Duke University Study:

Sixth Graders who attend Middle School are much
more likely to be cited for discipline problems
 Even occurs when controlling for other demographic
characteristics
 Behavior continues through 9th grade
 Recommends that 6th grade stay in Elementary School

Innovative Curriculum
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Virtual AP Programs



Technical Education



Access to AP & Foreign Language Classes
Developed by WHRO, Owned by VDOE, Free to Use
Possible Partnership with TNCC Workforce Development?
Governor Warner offered to help students post-high school
Apple’s “Challenge Based Learning”



“An engaging multidisciplinary approach to teaching and
learning that encourages students to leverage the
technology they use in their daily lives to solve real world
problems”
Employs team based learning & technology
Solve Interdisciplinary Problems

Example: Determine how your water usage affects the planet and
how we can better employ our community water sources
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
CONCLUSIONS
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Conclusions
Williamsburg Education Review Committee

Greatest Advantage:
 Autonomy
to make educational quality policy
choices

Greatest Disadvantage:
 Cost
is significantly over what Williamsburg
currently contributes to the WJCC school system
The Finished Document
Williamsburg Education Review Committee
Final Length: 170 pages
 Presentation is an
abbreviated overview of the
report
 For easy reference, use the
table of contents
 Appendix divided into three
sections

Special Thanks . . .
Williamsburg Education Review Committee














Amy Farley, W.E.R.C. Chairwoman
Clyde Haulman, Vice Mayor, W&M Professor
David Finifter, W&M Professor
Earl Praeger, Apple Computers of Virginia
Henrico County Public Schools
Jessica Rodgers, Volunteer Research Assistant
Joseph Hayes, Research Assistant
Paul Manna, W&M Professor
Steve Staples, W&M Professor
Scott Burckbuchler, WJCC Chief Financial Officer
The College of William & Mary School of Education
Virginia Beach City Public Schools
York County Public Schools
Williamsburg Education Review Committee (W.E.R.C.)
The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy
QUESTIONS?
Williamsburg Education Review Committee