July 2026 - Draft
DeKalb County Schools
Central Office
Organizational
Assessment
000-000-000000
Prepared by
RTI International
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary v
Purpose and Scope............................................................................................................. v
Approach and Insights ........................................................................................................ v
Comparative Analysis Synopsis ................................................................................ v
Staff Engagement Synopsis ......................................................................................vi
Considerations Overview ................................................................................................... vii
1. Overview 1
Introduction to the Study ..................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................... 1
Scope and Qualifications .......................................................................................... 2
Strategic Plan Alignment ........................................................................................... 2
DCSD Current Organization and Context ........................................................................... 3
DCSD Current Organization...................................................................................... 3
DCSD Context ........................................................................................................... 5
Evidence-Informed Practices for Effective Central Office Organization ............................. 5
2. Comparative Organizational Analysis 8
District Selection ................................................................................................................. 8
Georgia Comparison Districts ................................................................................... 9
National Comparison Districts ................................................................................. 10
Comparison District Enrollment............................................................................... 11
School Finance Context .......................................................................................... 13
Student Outcomes Comparison .............................................................................. 14
Analytical Framework and Organization of Findings ........................................................ 17
Overall Central Office Staffing Size ........................................................................ 17
How Staffing Levels Are Measured ......................................................................... 18
Where DCSD Stands .............................................................................................. 18
What the Comparison Does and Does Not Show ................................................... 19
Distribution of Central Office Staff by Functional Area ..................................................... 19
How Functional Areas were Defined ....................................................................... 19
Functional Area Staffing Relative to District Size ............................................................. 20
Cabinet Composition and Division Structure .................................................................... 24
DCSD’s Cabinet ...................................................................................................... 25
Cabinet Size in Comparative Context ..................................................................... 25
How Peer Districts Structure Their Cabinets .......................................................... 26
Division Structures .................................................................................................. 27
ii
Department Analysis ......................................................................................................... 28
Principal Supervision and School Support .............................................................. 28
Information Technology ........................................................................................... 32
Student Services ..................................................................................................... 33
Operations and Auxiliary Services .......................................................................... 34
Professional Development and Leadership Development ...................................... 36
Early Learning and Pre-K ........................................................................................ 38
Role Distribution and Management Structure ................................................................... 38
District-Level Role Distribution ................................................................................ 39
3. Staff Engagement 40
Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 41
Executive Interviews ............................................................................................... 41
Central Office Division Focus Groups ..................................................................... 41
Principal Groups ...................................................................................................... 42
Central Office Questionnaire ................................................................................... 42
Staff Engagement Themes ............................................................................................... 43
4. Considerations 52
End Notes 65
Appendix A: Coding and Analysis Methodology 66
Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 66
Coding Approach .............................................................................................................. 66
School-Based Positions .................................................................................................... 67
Full-Time Equivalent ......................................................................................................... 67
Vacant Positions ............................................................................................................... 67
Distribution of Central Office Staff by Functional Area ..................................................... 68
Department-Level Organization and Staffing .................................................................... 68
Role Distribution and Management Structure ................................................................... 69
Appendix B: Sample Organizational Charts for Consideration 71
Appendix C: Select Recommendation Analysis of Advantages and Risks 73
Appendix D: Data Sources by Figure 77
iii
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Comparison-District Student Demographics, 2024–25 ...............................................12
Figure 2: Average School Size by Georgia Comparison District, 2025-26 .................................12
Figure 3: District General Fund Revenue by Source and Expenditures, 2024–25 .....................14
Figure 4: Georgia Grade-Level Proficiency, 2024–25 ................................................................15
Figure 5: National Student Outcomes Comparison, 2024–25 ....................................................16
Figure 6: Central Office Staffing Levels .....................................................................................18
Figure 7: Central Office Staffing Levels by Functional Area.......................................................21
Figure 8: Student and School Support and Internal Support Comparison, 2025–26 ..................23
Figure 9: Cabinet Size Comparison, 2025–26 ...........................................................................25
Figure 10: Principal Supervision Comparison, 2025–26 ............................................................30
Figure 11: Embedded Staff by Area Superintendent Office, 2025–26 .......................................31
Figure 12: Professional Development and Leadership Development by District ........................36
Figure 13: Role Distribution by District ......................................................................................39
iv
Executive Summary
Purpose and Scope
In spring 2026, RTI International conducted a Central Office Organizational Assessment of
DeKalb County School District (DCSD). The assessment examined how the district’s central
office is organized to support its most fundamental work: ensuring that students learn and that
schools have the resources and assistance they need. It was guided by three questions:
whether the central office is structured for efficiency and effectiveness; where redundancies,
gaps, or unclear responsibilities exist; and how well the structure and its practices align to
DCSD’s strategic priorities and the needs of schools.
The assessment offers a structural and organizational perspective. It is intended as one input
among several and should not serve as the sole or definitive basis for structural or
organizational decisions. Importantly, it was conducted without insight into individual staff
performance; its observations concern roles, structures, and functions rather than the people
who occupy them, and it should not be used to evaluate specific employees. Findings are best
weighed alongside other data sources and leadership’s own knowledge of the district.
The work took place during a period of transition. Following a change in leadership and the
appointment of an interim superintendent, and amid budget pressures and heightened public
attention to district operations, the timing gives questions of structure, efficiency, and strategic
alignment particular relevance.
Approach and Insights
The assessment drew on two complementary bodies of evidence. A comparative organizational
analysis examined DCSD’s staffing, structure, and role composition against 10 peer districts in
Georgia and nationally, using position files, organizational charts, and job descriptions, with
staffing expressed in full-time equivalent units (FTE) per 1,000 students to control for
differences in size. A stakeholder engagement process then captured how the organization
functions in practice, through executive interviews, eight central office focus groups, five
principal focus groups, and a questionnaire completed by 226 central office staff. The two are
designed to be read together.
Comparative Analysis Synopsis
DCSD’s central office footprint is larger than most peers. Its budgeted staffing of 29.9 FTE per
1,000 students is the third highest in the sample; on a filled-positions basis it is 26.22, still above
v
most comparable districts. A higher ratio is not, by itself, evidence of overstaffing—service
delivery choices, student needs, and external requirements all shape it—but the size of the
footprint warrants examination of how staff are distributed and whether the organizational
design supporting that investment is working as intended.
Two structural features stand out. DCSD’s cabinet of fifteen division chiefs is the largest in the
comparison group; districts of similar or greater enrollment operate with six to twelve members.
Related functions—academics, school leadership, and student support—sit in separate cabinet
verticals with no integrating position below the superintendent, leaving the superintendent as the
primary coordination point across all divisions. Student support in particular is spread across
three cabinet leaders.
DCSD’s Schools and Leadership division also differs from peers. Each of its seven area offices
carries embedded coordinators organized by content and support domain—literacy,
mathematics, English language learners, special education, and behavioral and mental health—
mirroring expertise that also exists in central departments. No peer district organizes its area
offices this way, and the design creates two sets of staff, central and area-based, whose work
touches the same schools and principals.
Other areas were found broadly consistent with peers once context is applied. Operations
staffing, although the highest in the sample, is driven largely by in-sourced transportation and
tracks comparable Georgia districts. Overall management density—the share of positions
classified as managers—sits near the middle of the sample and is not an outlier in either
direction.
Staff Engagement Synopsis
Across every stakeholder group, participants distinguished the district’s people from its systems.
They described colleagues as knowledgeable, responsive, and committed, and noted that work
often succeeds because staff go beyond their formal responsibilities. Against that backdrop, five
organizational themes emerged consistently across interviews, focus groups, and the
questionnaire:
• Roles are clear within divisions but become less clear when work crosses divisional
boundaries.
• Cross-divisional collaboration depends more on personal relationships than on consistent
structures.
• Decision-making and communication follow hierarchical pathways that slow coordination
and implementation.
vi
• Operational systems, workflows, and approval processes create inefficiencies that reduce
responsiveness.
• Access to central office expertise is inconsistent under the current school support model.
These themes describe organizational patterns rather than individual shortcomings. Read
together with the structural findings, they point to coordination, role clarity, and coherence as the
district’s central organizational opportunities.
Considerations Overview
The considerations below are not recommendations. They are an evidence-based framing of
the organizational design choices available to DCSD, with options identified where the data and
peer district models suggest meaningful alternatives. Each names a pattern the analysis
identified and points toward how the district might respond.
1. Cabinet Structure and the Coordination of Related Functions. DCSD’s 15 division
chiefs constitute the largest cabinet within the sample, and related functions report
separately to the superintendent. The district might create an integrating executive such as
a deputy superintendent, consolidate into fewer and broader cabinet portfolios, or retain the
current size while formalizing cross-cabinet coordination structures.
2. Division and Department Alignment. Several divisions hold portfolios structured
differently from peers, most notably student support split across three cabinet verticals and
the Access and Opportunity division’s mix of functions. Options include consolidating
student support under one leader, redistributing the Access and Opportunity functions to
more natural homes while preserving access as a districtwide priority, and revisiting how
communications sits within community engagement.
3. Coordination Between Area Offices and Central Departments. Area offices and central
departments carry parallel domain expertise with informal coordination between them. The
district might shift some coordinators’ reporting lines to central departments, create domain-
based coordination structures, and standardize expectations across area offices.
4. Professional Learning and Talent Development as a Coherent Strategy. The IGNITE
Teacher Residency, professional development, and leadership development sit in different
cabinet areas without a defined connecting strategy. The district could establish a unified
talent-development strategy and consolidate these functions under a single leader.
5. Clarity in Cross-Divisional Roles, Ownership, and Accountability. The most consistent
finding was uncertainty about ownership when work crosses divisions. The district might
map decision rights for recurring cross-cutting work, develop a navigation resource so
vii
schools know whom to contact, and define ownership at the outset of cross-divisional
initiatives.
6. Durable Structures for Cross-Divisional Collaboration. Collaboration currently depends
on relationships more than on structures. Options include standing cross-divisional teams,
early-involvement protocols for shared decisions, a strengthened coordinated
communication model for schools, and mechanisms to sustain effective collaborative
practices over time.
7. Streamlined Decision-Making and Reduced Unnecessary Approval Layers. Decisions
move through multiple approval layers and parallel positions. The district could clarify
decision tiers and delegation of authority, reduce approval steps for routine transactions,
enable more direct communication across levels and divisions, and assign a single
accountable owner for implementation.
8. Operational Systems and Workflows. Outdated systems, manual workflows, and
duplicate data entry slow work and reduce responsiveness. Options include mapping and
streamlining high-burden workflows, reducing duplicate entry across disconnected
systems, establishing consistent standard operating procedures, and aligning approval
requirements to risk and value.
9. School Support Model and Access to Expertise. Staff and principals support
coordinated service but describe uncertainty about when functional experts may work
directly with schools. The district might clarify communication protocols, preserve direct
access to specialized expertise, define shared roles between functional divisions and
Schools and Leadership, and establish a feedback loop with principals on responsiveness.
The considerations vary in scope. The first four concern structure and would involve
organizational change; the remaining five concern process and culture and can advance
regardless of whether structural changes are made.
viii
1. Overview
Introduction to the Study
In spring 2026, RTI International conducted a Central Office Organizational Assessment of
DeKalb County School District (DCSD). The data, findings, and considerations in this report are
intended to give DCSD leadership insight into the central office's organization and practices that
can inform planning going forward. In RTI’s discussions with DCSD staff, RTI was charged with
focusing on investigating how the district central office is arranged to support the most
fundamental work of any school district: ensuring that students learn and that schools and
buildings have the assistance and resources they need to support student learning.
Background
The data collected and used in this report came from district data including position files,
organizational charts, and job descriptions, as well as interviews, focus groups and staff
reflections. A key aspect of the report includes a comparative analysis of the organization of
DCSD’s central office with other districts in the state of Georgia and around the country.
The study was guided by three focus questions:
• Alignment to Schools, Teachers, and Student Outcomes | To what extent are the
current central office structure and practices aligned to DCSD's strategic priorities and
the needs of schools?
• Organizational Structure | Are the structure and membership of the DCSD central
office organized for efficiency and effectiveness?
• Redundancies and Gaps | Where do redundancies, gaps, or challenges exist across
divisions and departments?
The report is organized into four key sections:
• Section 1: An overview of the study including national, local, and strategic contexts
• Section 2: An analysis of central office structure as compared with other districts
• Section 3: An analysis from staff listening sessions, including interviews with district
leaders, staff, and principals
• Section 4: A summation of findings and considerations to guide leadership
1
Scope and Qualifications
A few qualifications should frame how this report is used. The assessment offers a structural
and organizational perspective on the central office—how it is designed, where responsibilities
align or overlap, and how well it supports the district's priorities. It is intended as one input
among several and should not serve as the sole or definitive basis for structural or
organizational decisions, which are best made by weighing these findings alongside other data
sources and leadership's own knowledge of the district. Importantly, this assessment was
conducted without insight into individual staff performance; its observations concern roles,
structures, challenges and functions rather than the people occupying them, and it should not
be used to evaluate or reflect the performance of any specific employees.
Beyond these focus questions, our work surfaced notable insights around the district's day-to-
day practices that we believe are relevant to providing the best possible service to schools. In
particular, two themes emerged: systems, processes, and practices—where inefficiencies
may limit effective, school-focused work—and culture and trust—the extent to which the
central office supports collaboration, accountability, and a shared orientation toward student
outcomes, and where the most significant gaps appear. We did not study these areas
systematically, and they fall outside the formal scope of this assessment; we include them
because they recurred consistently enough that we consider them relevant to DCSD's continued
improvement. This is supported by our undergirding research base, highlighted in the section
below titled Evidence-Informed Practices for Effective Central Office Organization.
Strategic Plan Alignment
DCSD's current strategic plan gives this assessment a clear anchor. The 2024–2029 plan was
built to guide every administrator, teacher, and staff member toward a shared teaching and
learning mission and was shaped by input from thousands of stakeholders during its
development. The DeKalb County School District Strategic Plan for 2024-2029 sets a course for
improved student success and is meant to ensure that every district administrator, teacher, and
staff member is clear about and aligned with the core teaching and learning mission. Because
the central office exists to enable that mission at the school level, an assessment of how the
office is structured and how well it serves schools speaks directly to the plan's central purpose.
The study's first focus question—How well is the central office aligned to DCSD's strategic
priorities and the needs of schools?—maps most directly onto the plan's student achievement
goals, which include raising literacy and numeracy proficiency, improving academic growth as
measured by College and Career Readiness Performance Index (CCRPI), increasing
graduation rates, and ensuring equitable access to programs and pathways. The plan calls for
increasing proficiency rates in numeracy, raising the 4- and 5-year cohort graduation rates,
2
ensuring equitable access to academic programs and career pathways, and improving student
academic growth as measured by the CCRPI. A central office organized around these priorities
is a precondition for achieving them, so examining that alignment is a natural complement to the
plan's outcome targets.
The other two focus questions—whether the office is structured for efficiency and effectiveness,
and where redundancies, gaps, or unclear responsibilities exist—align with the plan's workforce
and stewardship goals. The plan aims to retain highly effective staff in critical-needs positions to
ensure the sustainability and efficiency of integral district programs and services, and to develop
employee pathways for key positions to ensure the long-term viability of essential programs.
Questions about organizational efficiency, role clarity, and the systems and processes that may
slow school-focused work bear directly on whether the district can sustain and efficiently deliver
those services—the same efficiency and sustainability the plan names as priorities.
DCSD Current Organization and Context
DCSD Current Organization
At the top of the structure sits the Board of Education, to which the Superintendent of Schools
reports. The Superintendent's Office anchors the district and houses a small set of direct reports
while overseeing 15 chief- and officer-level leaders who each head a division. These include the
Chief of Staff, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Human
Resources Officer, Chief Information Officer, Chief Academic Officer, Chief of Accountability
and Research, Chief of Access and Opportunity, Chief of Schools and Leadership, Chief of
Student Services, Chief of Wrap Around Support and Intervention, Chief of Capital
Improvement, Chief of Police and Public Safety, and Chief of Community Engagement and
Innovative Partnerships. Several of these roles are currently held in an interim or acting
capacity.
The Division of the Chief of Staff functions as a governance and oversight hub. It contains the
Executive Director of Audits and Compliance (with financial, compliance, and internal audit
functions), a Director of Organizational Effectiveness, and the Executive Director to the Board of
Education and associated board logistics support. The Division of Accountability and Research
is organized around Research, Data and Evaluation; Assessment Administration; and Federal
Programs, the last of which encompasses Title I, Title II, and Equitable Services along with
parent center and budget support.
Academic work is concentrated in the Division of Teaching and Learning, led by the Chief
Academic Officer. It splits into a K–5 and a 6–12 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and
Instruction and includes directors for Literacy, MTSS, FLEX, Educational Media and
3
Instructional Materials, CTAE, and the Fernbank Science Center, supported by senior
coordinators across content areas (mathematics, English language arts [ELA], social studies,
science, world languages, health/PE, visual arts, and music) and Early Intervention. The closely
related Division of Schools and Leadership manages site supervision through Area
Superintendents organized by level and type—Elementary Areas 1–4, Secondary 5 and 6, and
Specialty/Theme schools—each staffed with a parallel set of coordinators (ELA, math, English
language learners [ELLs], exceptional education, mental health, and culture and climate), a
Facilities Maintenance Manager, a Regional Transportation Manager, and Executive
Administrators. This division also holds Professional Development and Leadership
Development.
Student supports are divided across three divisions. The Division of Student Services covers
Exceptional Education and Special Education, GNETS, ELLs, Early Learning and Pre-K, GLRS,
gifted education, 504/Homebound services, and a block of related-service providers (speech-
language pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, nurses, interpreters, audiologists,
and psychologists). The Division of Wrap Around Services handles counseling, student health
services, social work, PBIS, student relations and hearings, homeless services, Safe Centers,
and Title IV prevention work. The Division of Access and Opportunity oversees school choice
and assignment, charter schools and school governance, school innovation, athletics, FACE
advocates, student mentorships and partnerships, and special education for charter schools.
The district's business and infrastructure functions are spread across four divisions. The
Division of Finance manages budget, allotments, the comptroller and accounting/financial
reporting, payroll, procurement, treasury, vendor services, local school accounting, position
control, and School Nutrition Services. The Division of Human Resources runs talent
acquisition, certification, retirement, HRIS, benefits and total rewards, compensation,
substitutes, employee relations and investigations, evaluations, Americans with Disabilities Act
compliance, employee experience, and the IGNITE Teacher Residency. The Division of
Information and Instructional Technology, under the Chief Information Officer, contains
Information and Innovation, Enterprise Applications and Data Services, instructional technology,
student information systems, state reporting, information and network security, technology
support services, and physical security. The Division of Legal Services covers employee and
student relations, Title IX, risk management and workers' compensation, contract administration,
exceptional education legal counsel, and open records.
The Division of Operations, led by the Chief Operating Officer, includes an executive team with
distinct departments for Student Transportation (regional managers, district and assistant
supervisors, routing, dispatch, and safety/training), Fleet Transportation, Business Services
(supply chain, warehousing, printing, and sustainability), and Planning and SPLOST. It also
houses managers for employee engagement, board governance, and talent acquisition specific
4
to operations. Recently, Capital Improvements, formally in Operations, was moved into a Chief
position reporting to the superintendent.
Finally, Public Safety operates as a law-enforcement structure under a newly named Chief of
Police and Public Safety, with a major and lieutenants commanding detectives and school
resource officers, a criminal investigations unit, an internal affairs/professional standards office,
campus supervisors, security associates, and school crossing guards.
The current organizational chart is available publicly on the district website and can be found
here.
DCSD Context
The assessment takes place during a significant leadership transition. Dr. Devon Horton, who
had led DCSD since 2023, resigned in late 2025. The board subsequently appointed Dr.
Norman Sauce as Interim Superintendent and authorized an audit of district contracts and
spending.
This transition follows a longer period of leadership turnover and public scrutiny of district
governance and accountability. Combined with a new interim superintendent, an ongoing audit,
and heightened attention to how the district operates, this context makes an assessment of the
central office's structure, efficiency, and alignment to strategic priorities timely.
Last, DCSD faces some looming budget constraints including laws that cap how much revenue
districts can raise locally and state decisions that shift more fixed costs onto districts.
Additionally, there is federal funding uncertainty layered on top of the budget outlook. Given
these realities, there are strong incentives for districts to find operational efficiencies.
Evidence-Informed Practices for Effective Central Office Organization
This section provides a brief synopsis of what is known about effective central office operations
generally and can ground the assessment's findings in established research and best practice,
giving DCSD leadership a benchmark against which to interpret the report's observations and
prioritize improvements.
The design of a district's central office has important implications for how effectively it supports
schools, implements strategic priorities, and coordinates work across the organization. While
school districts organize their central offices in a variety of ways, reflecting differences in size,
governance, community context, and local priorities, a growing body of empirical research and
5
evidence-informed practice has identified several characteristics that consistently contribute to
effective central office organizations.
Over the past two decades, the role of the district central office has evolved from primarily
overseeing compliance and business operations to serving as a strategic partner in improving
teaching and learning. As a result, both empirical research and evidence-informed practice
increasingly emphasize that effective central office organizations are defined not only by how
they are structured, but also by how they operate, collaborate, and support schools.1,2
The principles that follow are not drawn from a single study or framework. Rather, they
represent a synthesis of recurring concepts that emerge across empirical research and
evidence-informed practice related to central office transformation, organizational coherence,
and continuous improvement. While they do not represent a prescriptive model for
organizational design, they reflect common characteristics of central offices that effectively
support teaching, learning, and school improvement. Collectively, these principles provide an
evidence-informed framework for interpreting the organizational analyses, stakeholder
perspectives, and comparison district findings presented throughout this report.
Principle 1: Organizational effectiveness extends beyond structure.
Evidence consistently emphasizes that improving central office effectiveness requires more than
reorganizing departments or redefining reporting relationships. Meaningful transformation
occurs when districts intentionally redesign how the entire central office works in partnership
with schools through aligned governance, coordinated operating practices, shared ownership,
and a common focus on service. Honig and colleagues (2010) explain:
"School district central offices routinely attempt to reform themselves by restructuring
formal reporting relationships within central office hierarchies, adding or removing units,
or revising their standard operating procedures. While structural changes can be helpful,
a transformation strategy is fundamentally about remaking what the people in central
offices do—their daily work and relationships with schools."3
This perspective has become a foundational principle of central office improvement efforts,
emphasizing that organizational effectiveness is shaped as much by governance,
communication, collaboration, and decision-making as by formal organizational structure.2,4
Principle 2: Effective central offices build the capacity of schools through coordinated
support.
Evidence consistently emphasizes that the primary role of the central office is to strengthen the
capacity of schools to improve teaching and learning. This includes developing the instructional
6
leadership of principals and school leadership teams while ensuring that schools receive
coordinated instructional, operational, and administrative support aligned to district priorities.
Rather than operating as independent departments that provide isolated services or primarily
ensure compliance, effective central offices intentionally organize their expertise and resources
around helping schools solve problems, implement improvement efforts, and achieve stronger
outcomes for students. This service orientation requires shared responsibility across divisions
so that schools experience the central office as a coordinated system of support rather than a
collection of independent departments.2,4
Principle 3: Effective organizations intentionally design governance and operating
practices.
An organizational chart establishes reporting relationships, but effective organizations also
intentionally define how work moves across the system. High-functioning central offices
establish governance structures that clarify roles, decision rights, ownership, accountability,
communication pathways, and expectations for cross-functional collaboration. These operating
practices reduce duplication, improve coordination, and enable staff to respond more efficiently
and consistently to school needs. As districts become increasingly complex, organizational
effectiveness depends not only on the expertise of individual departments but also on the
organization's ability to create coherence across functions through shared expectations, aligned
processes, and coordinated implementation.2,4,5
Principle 4: Continuous improvement includes the work of the central office.
Evidence-informed practice also emphasizes that effective central offices continuously examine
and refine how they organize and deliver services to schools. High-performing organizations
regularly use stakeholder feedback, organizational data, and continuous improvement
processes to evaluate the effectiveness of their structures, systems, and operating practices.
This ongoing reflection enables districts to strengthen collaboration, improve organizational
coherence, adapt to changing school needs, and better align organizational practices with
district priorities over time. 1,4
While districts may organize their central offices differently to reflect local priorities and strategic
goals, the evidence consistently suggests that effective organizations share several common
characteristics. Effective central offices are distinguished not only by their organizational
structure, but by the degree to which their governance, operating practices, and service delivery
models work together to support schools and advance district priorities. These evidence-
informed principles provide the conceptual framework for the analyses that follow and serve as
a lens for examining how DCSD's organizational structure and operating practices support the
district's strategic priorities and the needs of its schools.
7
2. Comparative Organizational Analysis
To assess the structure and staffing of DCSD’s central office, the RTI team worked with DCSD
staff to identify a group of peer districts based on their enrollment size, demographic profile,
geographic context, and organizational complexity.
The analysis is organized around four levels of examination: overall staffing size, distribution of
staff across functional areas, cabinet and division structure, and department-level organization
and role composition. Together, these levels of analysis provide a layered picture of how DCSD
has organized its central office relative to comparable districts, including where its investments
and organizational choices are consistent with peer practice, and where they differ in ways that
are relevant to the study's focus questions. The comparative analysis does not, on its own,
explain why those differences exist or whether they are appropriate for DCSD's context.
District Selection
Comparison districts were identified based on similarities in (1) demographics, (2) context,
and/or (3) size. Comparison districts located in Georgia were selected to prioritize large districts
in the Atlanta metro area, as well as two districts with much smaller enrollment situated outside
the region. Nationally, districts were selected both for their comparability to DCSD and to
identify organizational structures that could inform DCSD decision-making and potential
alignment.
In total, 14 districts were invited to participate in this analysis, with 10 districts providing data.
Among them, eight provided both an organization chart and position data, including individual
staff members’ titles, departments, and full-time equivalent units (FTE). These data form the
basis for this section of the study. Some districts provided limited data in the form of org charts
or budgetary documents. These differences are outlined below.
An analysis that features 10 districts across multiple states presents unique contextual
challenge when engaging in a comparison. Namely, each of the respondents, within and outside
of Georgia, collect, categorize, and report these data differently. These differences are outlined
throughout our analysis and both shape the interpretation of findings and provide opportunities
for additional study. Regardless of the variability in the data and information provided, each
district willingly provided information to assist with the assessment for DCSD.
8
Georgia Comparison Districts
Five Georgia school districts were selected, representing districts similar in size and proximity to
Atlanta, as well as contrast districts that are smaller and serve different regions of the state. The
descriptions below provide a brief summary of the districts and rationale for their selection.
Cobb County School District (Cobb), Georgia—The Cobb County School District is
the second largest school system in Georgia and the 23rd largest in the nation, serving
over 105,000 students across 112 schools. Located immediately northwest of Atlanta,
Cobb serves a diverse suburban community and consistently outperforms its peers on
Georgia Milestones assessments and leads the state and national averages on both the
SAT and ACT.
Cobb provided organizational chart data but did not provide a personnel file in a format
suitable for staffing comparison. Cobb is therefore included in the cabinet structure
analysis where organizational chart data were available but is excluded from all staffing
comparisons.
Fulton County Schools (Fulton), Georgia—The Fulton County School System is one
of the oldest and largest school districts in Georgia, serving over 86,000 students across
102 schools. Fulton spans both urban and suburban communities across the length of
Fulton County, from the city of Atlanta northward through Sandy Springs and southward
through communities including Union City and Palmetto. The district was selected for its
comparable enrollment to DCSD and its position as a neighboring metro Atlanta district
operating in a similar policy and labor market environment.
Griffin-Spalding County School System (Griffin-Spalding), Georgia—Griffin-Spalding
County School System serves just over 9,000 students across 18 schools in Griffin,
Georgia, with a student population that is 70 percent minority and 63.9 percent
economically disadvantaged. As the smallest district in this comparison group by a
substantial margin, Griffin-Spalding is included not as a direct organizational peer but as
a regional Georgia district that shares a similar student demographic profile with DCSD.
Its inclusion provides a reference point for how a smaller urban-adjacent Georgia district
with comparable student need organizes its central office functions. Where Griffin-
Spalding's scale makes direct comparison less meaningful, that is noted in the analysis.
Gwinnett County Public Schools (Gwinnett), Georgia—Gwinnett County Public
Schools is Georgia's largest school district, serving more than 182,000 students across
142 schools. It is also the largest district in this study. The district's student body is
characterized by high diversity, with no single student group constituting more than
9
37 percent of the student population. Gwinnett was selected as the largest district in
Georgia and a metro Atlanta peer operating at substantially greater scale than DCSD,
providing a comparative reference for how organizational structures and staffing ratios
shift at higher enrollment levels.
Muscogee County School District (Muscogee), Georgia—Muscogee County School
District serves nearly 30,000 students across 53 schools in Columbus, Georgia.
Columbus is Georgia's second largest city, and the district serves one of the most
economically diverse urban communities in the state. The district serves as the
designated school district for all parts of Muscogee County and operates across a fully
consolidated city-county government structure. Muscogee was selected for its similar
student demographic profile to DCSD and its status as a midsized Georgia urban district.
Muscogee's personnel file includes staff from the Columbus Public Library and
Columbus Museum, both of which operate under a joint funding arrangement with the
district and Columbus city government. Because these institutions serve the broader
public rather than functioning as district-operated educational facilities, their staff were
excluded from the central office count for purposes of this analysis.
National Comparison Districts
National comparison districts were selected based on similar student enrollment, urbanicity, and
student demographics. These large urban and suburban school districts were included across
four states to provide a wide range of organizational approaches. The descriptions below
provide a brief summary of the districts and rationale for their selection.
Baltimore City Public Schools (Baltimore), Maryland— Baltimore City Public Schools
is the fifth largest school district in Maryland, serving more than 76,000 students across
150 schools and nine programs. It was selected due to its similar student demographic
makeup, and because the district was recently listed as a “District on the Rise in Math
and Reading” by the Education Scorecard, a collaboration of Harvard, Stanford, and
Dartmouth researchers tracking academic performance at the district level nationwide.6
Baltimore provided an org chart but did not provide a personnel file. Instead, the district’s
adopted budget was provided, which reports staffing levels by office rather than by
individual position. Baltimore is therefore included in functional area comparisons but
excluded from department-level and role-level analysis that requires position counts.
10
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (Charlotte-Mecklenburg), North Carolina—
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools serves over 141,000 students across 185 schools and is
the second largest district in North Carolina. It serves a diverse, urban and suburban
community and in the 2024–25 school year reported historical academic gains.7
Dallas Independent School District (Dallas), Texas—Dallas Independent School
District (ISD) is the second largest school district in Texas and serves nearly 140,000
students across 228 schools. Its enrollment is about 90 percent minority and 71 percent
Hispanic/Latino, with roughly 20 percent Black students, and it serves a heavily low-
income population—state data put it above 80 percent economically disadvantaged.
Denver Public Schools (Denver), Colorado—Denver Public Schools is a large, urban
district serving the capital city of Colorado. It is one of the closest districts in size to
DCSD, serving over 85,000 students in 198 schools. Denver reorganized their central
office in 2022.
Wake County Public School System (Wake), North Carolina—Wake County Public
School System is the largest school district in North Carolina and sixteenth largest in the
nation, with an enrollment of over 161,000 students across 203 schools. Its geography
encompasses both rural and urban areas within the county, including the capital city of
Raleigh, and it is one of the highest performing school districts in North Carolina.
Comparison District Enrollment
Many comparison districts were selected based on comparable enrollment or student
demographics. Figure 1 summarizes total enrollment alongside key demographic indicators,
including race/ethnicity, students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), English
Learner (EL) status, and economically disadvantaged status. While districts use varying
terminology and reporting conventions for these categories, data were standardized to align
with DCSD definitions to support consistent comparison across districts.
11
Figure 1: Comparison-District Student Demographics, 2024–25
% Two or More Races % English Learners
% Native/American
% Hispanic /Latino
% Black or African
Total Enrollment
%Asian/Pacific % Economically % Students with
District Indian Islander American % White Disadvantaged an IEP
DCSD 91,638 0.5% 6.8% 55.8% 23.2% 3.2% 10.5% 53.6% 24.6% 12.2%
Baltimore 76,807 0.2% 1.1% 70.9% 20.1% 2.0% 7.0% 69.7% 15.2% 14.9%
Charlotte- 141,480 0.1% 7.0% 33.9% 31.4% 3.8% 23.6% 45.3% 20.7% 12.3%
Mecklenburg
Cobb 105,213 0.2% 6.0% 30.3% 27.1% 5.6% 30.8% 32.6% 17.8% 14.4%
Dallas 139,776 0.6% 1.5% 19.0% 71.3% 1.5% 6.2% 89.3% 50.4% 12.1%
Denver 85,315 0.5% 3.2% 12.9% 52.4% 5% 24.9% 62.8% 36.4% 13.9%
Fulton 86,839 0.3% 13.3% 42.9% 16.4% 4.2% 22.9% 34.7% 13.0% 11.9%
Griffin-Spalding 9,175 0.3% 0.9% 53.6% 13.3% 5.7% 26.2% 69.7% 6.5% 15.1%
Gwinnett 182,688 0.2% 12.2% 32.0% 37.0% 4.3% 14.3% 39.6% 28.3% 14.7%
Muscogee 29,073 0.3% 2.9% 58.1% 13.6% 7.4% 17.8% 60.8% 6.3% 16.9%
Wake 161,027 0.2% 13.0% 21.0% 20.0% 4.2% 41.0% 35.0% 13.0% 11.5%
Source data for this figure can be found in Appendix D.
In addition to overall enrollment, average school size shapes central office staffing demands.
School size determines how many separate campuses a district operates for a given student
population, and each campus carries fixed administrative, facility, and support requirements.
Figure 2 compares the number of K-12 schools, excluding centers and other non-traditional
program sites, for Georga districts in the sample.
Figure 2: Average School Size by Georgia Comparison District, 2025-26
Avg. Enrollment Per
District Enrollment Number of Schools
School
DCSD 91,638 129 710
Cobb 105,213 110 957
Fulton 86,839 106 819
Gwinnett 182,688 141 1,296
Muscogee 29,073 52 559
Griffin-Spalding 9,175 18 510
12
DCSD enrolls approximately 91,600 students, placing it between Fulton (86,839) and Cobb
(105,213) in the sample. DCSD operates 129 schools and averages 710 students per school.
Among the large metropolitan districts in the sample, this is the smallest average school size.
Fulton averages 819 students per school, Cobb 957, and Gwinnett 1,296. The two smaller
districts, Muscogee (559) and Griffin-Spalding (510), operate smaller schools than DCSD,
consistent with their smaller total enrollment.
This pattern appears at the elementary and high school levels.8 At the elementary level, DCSD
averages 547 students per school, below Fulton (615), Cobb (691), and Gwinnett (960). At the
high school level, where the gap is largest, DCSD averages 1,223 students per school, below
Fulton (1,425), Cobb (2,199), and Gwinnett (2,472). At the middle school level, DCSD averages
930 students per school, comparable to Cobb (921) and Fulton (950).
For a district of DCSD's enrollment, this structure produces more schools per student than the
large metropolitan districts closest to it in size. Each additional campus adds fixed
administrative, facility, and support costs that do not scale down with school size. Distributing
students, staff, and services across more sites increases the district's facility, administrative,
and on-site support obligations.
School Finance Context
Alongside enrollment and demographic context, differences in district resources provide
additional perspective on how systems are structured and operate. School funding levels and
structures vary significantly across states, reflecting differences in policy, governance, and the
balance of state and local revenue sources. To provide context for the comparison districts,
Figure 3 includes a summary of total per-pupil funding by source (state, local, and federal) as
well as overall per-pupil expenditure levels for each district. It is important to note that these
figures are not directly comparable without considering differences in state funding models. In
some states, a larger share of district funding is provided at the state level through standardized
position allotments, resulting in comparatively lower reliance on local funding. In contrast,
districts in other states often depend more heavily on local revenue sources, which can lead to
greater variation in funding levels across districts.
As a result, this analysis is intended to provide context for understanding resource
environments, rather than a direct comparison of funding adequacy or efficiency. Differences in
funding levels and sources reflect broader state and local policy decisions and should be
interpreted alongside the organizational and staffing patterns described throughout this report.
13
Figure 3: District General Fund Revenue by Source and Expenditures, 2024–25
Per-Pupil Revenue
by Source
Per-Pupil
District Federal State Local Other Total Expenditures
DCSD $2,732 $6,648 $10,425 $550 $20,356 $20,219
Baltimore $4,612 $16,612 $6,081 $246 $27,551 $25,871
Charlotte- $1,272 $7,612 $4,339 -- $13,224 $13,288
Mecklenburg
Cobb $1,021 $7,323 $8,080 $951 $17,375 $17,675
Dallas $2,039 $1,489 $9,466 $536 $13,530 $23,271
Denver $2,174 $3,312 $15,574 -- $25,489 $25,526
Fulton $1,400 $5,513 $9,930 $882 $17,725 $18,312
Griffin-Spalding $2,454 $8,082 $5,536 $166 $16,238 $16,529
Gwinnett $757 $8,010 $6,940 -- $15,707 $15,117
Muscogee $807 $8,477 $5,026 $593 $14,903 $14,432
Wake $750 $7,441 $4,296 -- $12,487 $12,529
Source data for this figure can be found in Appendix D.
On a per-pupil basis, DCSD's total general fund revenue of $20,356 ranks third among all
comparison districts, behind Baltimore ($27,551) and Denver ($25,489), and highest among the
Georgia districts in the comparison group. DCSD's per-pupil local revenue of $10,425 ranks
second overall, behind only Denver ($15,574), and is also the highest among Georgia districts,
ahead of Fulton ($9,930), Cobb ($8,080), Gwinnett ($6,490), Griffin-Spalding ($5,536), and
Muscogee ($5,026). At $20,219, DCSD's per-pupil expenditure is the third highest in the
comparison group, exceeded only by Baltimore ($25,871) and Denver ($25,526), and sits well
above the per-pupil expenditures of similarly sized districts such as Cobb ($17,675), Fulton
($18,312), and Charlotte-Mecklenburg ($13,288).
Student Outcomes Comparison
To provide further context for the comparison districts, student outcome data were analyzed
using a set of common indicators of academic performance and attainment. Figure 4
14
summarizes Georgia grade-level proficiency in Grades 3–8 in ELA and Math for the 2024–25
school year. These scores represent the percentage of students meeting grade-level proficiency
expectations and offer a common statewide benchmark across the Georgia comparison
districts. Because all districts are measured under the same accountability system, these results
provide a more directly comparable view of academic outcomes than cross-state measures.
In 2024–25 Georgia Grade-Level Proficiency assessments, DCSD's ELA and Math proficiency
rates rank the lowest among all comparison districts at nearly every grade level. Across both
ELA and Math, Cobb and Fulton consistently post the highest proficiency rates among the
comparison group, with Fulton reaching as high as 62.2 percent in Grade 4 Math compared to
DCSD's 34.5 percent in the same grade.
Figure 4: Georgia Grade-Level Proficiency, 2024–25
District Grade 3 ELA Grade 4 ELA Grade 5 ELA Grade 6 ELA Grade 7 ELA Grade 8 ELA Grade 3 Math Grade 4 Math Grade 5 Math Grade 6 Math Grade 7 Math Grade 8 Math
DCSD 29.5% 30.1% 35.2% 30.5% 29.6% 32.2% 34.4% 34.5% 31.9% 22.8% 26.0% 34.4%
Cobb 43.2% 48.9% 49.0% 50.6% 50.7% 48.0% 50.2% 56.8% 48.7% 45.3% 49.8% 55.0%
Fulton 49.9% 54.0% 59.0% 54.4% 56.4% 52.7% 58.0% 62.2% 53.7% 47.0% 51.6% 55.0%
Griffin- 18.9% 20.2% 29.7% 23.5% 23.3% 25.0% 22.9% 30.1% 26.4% 21.3% 18.8% 35.3%
Spalding
Gwinnett 38.8% 43.3% 48.9% 49.4% 48.7% 47.0% 49.3% 55.4% 49.5% 46.8% 49.5% 57.6%
Muscogee 25.0% 27.1% 32.4% 30.5% 29.7% 29.8% 27.3% 30.1% 26.3% 19.0% 22.4% 30.3%
Source data for this figure can be found in Appendix D.
Given the variation in state assessments, standards, and accountability systems, direct
comparisons of proficiency or growth rates across states are not meaningful. Instead, measures
like graduation rate and average composite ACT scores (Figure 5) can provide a more common
benchmark against which to compare all eleven districts in this sample. It is important to note
that while these are common figures, nuance still exists in how they are captured—graduation
requirements may differ across states, and since the ACT is not a universal requirement, ACT
participation can vary widely at the state and district levels.
15
Figure 5: National Student Outcomes Comparison, 2024–25
Average ACT Composite
District State 4-year Graduation Rate
Score
DCSD GA 81.6% 21
Baltimore MD 71.7% --*
Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC 84.6% --*
Cobb GA 89.2% 23
Dallas TX 85.5% 23.9
Denver CO 81.9% --*
Fulton GA 91.9% 24
Griffin-Spalding GA 90.9% 18.3
Gwinnett GA 85.4% 22.8
Muscogee GA 96.1% 19.8
Wake NC 90.7% --*
Source data for this figure can be found in Appendix D.
* Colorado does not uniformly administer the ACT to all high school students; district-level ACT averages reflect self-
selected, college-bound test takers rather than a universal testing population. Maryland does not administer the ACT
as a state assessment and thus Baltimore is omitted from this figure. North Carolina administers the ACT to all 11th
graders as a statewide assessment, but district-level results are reported as the percentage of students meeting the
college readiness benchmark composite score of 17 or higher, not as average scores.
In 2024–25, DCSD's 4-year graduation rate of 81.6 percent is the second lowest among all
comparison districts, and lowest among Georgia districts. Similarly, DCSD’s average ACT
Composite Score of 21 is the third lowest among all comparison districts for which data are
available, above only Muscogee (19.8) and Griffin-Spalding (18.3).
These data are intended to provide contextual information for organizational comparison, rather
than a comprehensive evaluation of district effectiveness. Differences in student outcomes may
reflect a wide range of factors beyond central office structure, including community context,
funding levels, student needs, and state policy environments. As such, these data should be
interpreted as one of several lenses used to understand similarities and differences across
districts.
16
Analytical Framework and Organization of Findings
The sections that follow present findings from the comparative analysis across these districts,
though the scope of available data varies by district and is noted where relevant. For each
district, the study team collected and analyzed personnel file data, organizational charts, and
publicly available documentation to enable consistent cross-district comparison. Positions were
classified using a common framework anchored to the nature of the work rather than job title or
organizational placement, and staffing levels are expressed in full-time equivalent units per
1,000 students to control for differences in district size.
The analysis is organized around four levels of examination: overall staffing size, distribution of
staff across functional areas, cabinet and division structure, and department-level organization
and role composition. Together, these levels provide a layered picture of how DCSD has
organized its central office relative to comparable districts, including where its investments and
organizational choices are consistent with peer practice, and where they differ in ways that are
relevant to the study's focus questions.
The comparisons in this report depend on personnel data provided directly by each district, and
no uniform standard governs how school systems categorize, title, or report central office
positions. The RTI team applied a common coding framework to all 10 districts, drawing on
position titles, department designations, and FTE counts, to make the data as comparable as
possible across systems that organize similar work in meaningfully different ways. Where the
data required interpretive judgment, the team defaulted to DCSD's organizational structure as
the reference point, given that the study's primary purpose is to understand how DCSD's central
office compares to peer practice. Several districts presented data gaps or structural anomalies
that are noted where relevant throughout the analysis. The full methodology, including coding
rules, classification decisions, and known data limitations by district, is documented in
Appendix A.
Overall Central Office Staffing Size
Central office staffing levels vary considerably across the comparison districts in this study,
reflecting differences in enrollment, local policy context, service delivery models, and
organizational design. This section examines how DCSD's overall staffing footprint compares to
peer districts and situates the district within the full range of the sample. It is intended as context
for the more detailed comparisons that follow, not as a judgment about appropriate staffing
levels. The factors that shape central office size are numerous and not fully captured in any
staffing ratio, and differences between districts should be read as the beginning of an analytical
conversation rather than the end of one.
17
How Staffing Levels Are Measured
Staffing levels throughout this report are expressed in FTE per 1,000 students. This metric
converts part-time positions to a common scale and normalizes for district size, allowing
comparison across districts that range from approximately 9,000 to nearly 183,000 students.
Districts vary in whether their personnel files include vacant positions. DCSD, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg, and Griffin-Spalding are the only three districts in this sample that provided data
that included vacancies. The remaining six districts provided data for filled positions only, which
reflects how each district filtered its export rather than an absence of open positions. Because
DCSD's file includes 361 vacant positions (approximately 14% of its total entries) direct
comparisons of raw FTE counts will overstate DCSD's deployed capacity relative to peer
districts. This report addresses that gap by presenting both DCSD's budgeted FTE (which
includes vacancies) and its filled FTE where the distinction is material.
Where DCSD Stands
Figure 6 captures the overall staffing level of the districts in this study. Across the ten districts in
this comparison, central office staffing ranges from 9.6 FTE per 1,000 students (Muscogee) to
31.6 per 1,000 students (Denver). The median for the sample is 19.2 per 1,000 students.
DCSD's budgeted central office staffing stands at 29.9 FTE per 1,000 students, the third highest
in the sample behind Denver (31.6) and Dallas (30.0). On a filled-positions basis, which
provides a more direct comparison to peer districts that did not include vacancies in their data,
DCSD's figure decreases to 26.2 FTE per 1,000 students.
Figure 6: Central Office Staffing Levels
Total Enrollment Reported Central FTE per 1,000
District State
(2024–25) Office FTE Students
Denver CO 85,315 2,698 31.6
Dallas TX 139,776 4,187.9 30.0
DCSD GA 91,638 2,742 29.9
Muskogee GA 29,073 767 26.4
Fulton GA 86,839 1,945.5 22.4
Gwinnett GA 182,688 3,655.4 20.0
Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC 141,480 2,608.9 18.4
Wake NC 161,027 2,718 16.9
Griffin-Spalding GA 9,175 145.3 15.8
Baltimore MD 76,807 1,052 13.7
18
The districts most comparable to DCSD by enrollment are Baltimore (76,807 students), Denver
(85,315), and Fulton (86,839). Among that group, DCSD's budgeted staffing ratio and filled-
positions ratios are the second highest after Denver. Fulton, which operates in the same
metropolitan region, runs its central office at 22.4 FTE per 1,000 students, approximately
25 percent fewer staff per student than DCSD on a filled-positions basis.
What the Comparison Does and Does Not Show
A higher staffing ratio does not, on its own, indicate that a district is overstaffed or operating
inefficiently. Districts that provide more services internally, including transportation, nutrition,
therapeutic services, and safety, will carry higher central office counts than districts that contract
those functions externally. Districts serving student populations with higher concentrations of
students with disabilities, English learners, or students experiencing housing instability may
require more central support capacity to meet compliance and service obligations. And districts
operating under consent decrees, corrective action plans, or other external accountability
requirements may carry additional administrative capacity that reflects legal obligations rather
than organizational preference.
This analysis does not account for those contextual factors in a way that would allow a
conclusion that DCSD is or is not appropriately staffed in aggregate. What the data do support
is the observation that DCSD's overall central office footprint is larger than most peers in this
sample, and that the size of that footprint warrants examination of how staff are distributed
across functions and whether the organizational design supporting that investment is working as
intended. Those questions are taken up in the sections that follow.
Distribution of Central Office Staff by Functional Area
While overall staffing levels provide a broad indicator of central office scale, understanding how
staff are distributed across functions reveals how districts allocate their administrative capacity.
To support that comparison, each position in this study was assigned to one of thirteen
functional areas reflecting the major domains most commonly represented within superintendent
leadership teams.
How Functional Areas were Defined
Functional area categories were constructed to accommodate the variation in how districts
name and structure their work. No two districts in this sample use identical organizational
structures or job title conventions, and functional area categories broad enough to hold that
variation provide the most reliable unit of cross-district comparison. Individual positions were
mapped to categories based on primary functional responsibility rather than title or native
19
placement in the organizational chart. Where a position's home department and its actual
function pointed in different directions, additional sources, including organizational charts, public
district websites, and posted job descriptions, were used to resolve the placement.
These functional areas differ intentionally from DCSD's own cabinet structure. DCSD organizes
its central office across 15 division chiefs. In some cases, those divisions align closely with how
peer districts group related functions. For example, Nutrition Services sits under DCSD's Chief
Financial Officer, which is consistent with how most peer districts organize and report that
function.
Until recently, Safety and Security sat under DCSD's Chief of Staff, while in most peer districts it
sits under an operations structure. As of May, Safety and Security in DCSD moved under the
superintendent. Community engagement, communications, grants, and partnership functions
are consolidated into a single DCSD cabinet division, but peer districts typically treat at least
some of those as distinct organizational homes.
The functional area framework used here is designed to hold that variation, creating categories
that are broad enough that each district's positions can be placed based on their actual work,
independent of where it sits in any particular cabinet structure. This allows a comparison that
asks not just how many staff DCSD dedicates to a given function, but whether how DCSD
organizes that function is consistent with, or a departure from, how peer districts approach the
same work. The 13 functional areas used throughout this analysis reflect common practice
across the comparison group, shaped in part by DCSD's own organizational logic. These
include Academic and Instructional Services; Access, Equity, and Opportunity; Administration;
Communications; Community Engagement; Finance; Human Resources; Information
Technology; Operations and Auxiliary Services; Safety and Security; School Leadership and
Principal Supervision; Specialized Student Services; Strategy, Planning, and Accountability; and
Wraparound and Student Support.
Functional Area Staffing Relative to District Size
Figure 7 presents Central Office FTE per 1,000 students for each functional area across all
10 comparison districts. This metric controls for district size and allows direct comparison of how
much capacity each district devotes to each function, independent of overall enrollment
differences.
20
Figure 7: Central Office Staffing Levels by Functional Area
Operations and Auxiliary Wrap Around and Student
Community Engagement Information Technology
Academic and School Leadership and Strategy, Planning, and
Access, Equity, and Specialized Student
Administration Communications Human Resources Safety and Security Support
District Instructional Services Opportunity Finance Services Principal Supervision Services Accountability
DCSD 1.15 0.97 0.47 0.15 0.26 1.31 1.06 2.27 14.33 1.32 1.93 2.70 0.84 1.17
Baltimore 3.87 - 0.98 0.69 - 1.47 1.12 0.94 3.15 - 1.48 - - -
Charlotte-
0.31 0.29 0.25 0.12 0.13 1.05 0.85 0.61 9.48 0.52 1.14 2.37 0.32 0.87
Mecklenburg
Dallas 0.92 0.69 0.47 0.31 0.21 2.21 1.12 1.49 12.61 2.69 1.22 3.37 0.61 2.04
Denver 2.96 1.26 0.50 0.25 0.72 2.60 1.15 1.88 7.75 1.50 0.74 6.02 0.60 3.69
Fulton 0.74 0.17 0.25 0.16 0.07 1.02 0.88 2.57 13.20 1.22 0.31 1.09 0.38 0.32
Griffin-Spalding 1.23 0.82 0.54 0.22 0.11 1.53 1.09 1.90 1.85 0.11 0.64 3.45 0.86 1.49
Gwinnett 0.63 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.04 1.03 0.57 1.72 12.03 0.80 0.29 1.70 0.29 0.65
Muskogee 0.57 0.14 0.45 0.09 - 1.12 1.14 2.37 12.74 1.51 0.34 3.71 0.45 1.74
Wake 0.42 0.29 0.13 0.09 0.27 0.83 0.68 0.83 7.33 0.07 0.73 3.92 0.24 1.06
21
Within the functional area data, Operations and Auxiliary Services dominates every district's
count. DCSD's operations staffing is the highest in the sample at 14.33 FTE per 1,000 students.
Fulton, which has a similar enrollment, operates at 13.2 per 1,000. Gwinnett, a district twice
DCSD's size, operates at 12.03. Denver and Wake operate significantly lower at 7.8 and 7.3
FTE, respectively, although Denver's figure reflects a partially contracted transportation model
rather than a fully in-sourced one. The variation in operations ratios across districts reflects
differences in which services districts deliver directly versus contract externally, as well as
differences in the physical footprint each central office must support. DCSD operates smaller
schools across Elementary and High School grade bands. Smaller average school size means
more campuses per student, which in turn drives increased transportation routes, more facilities
to maintain, and higher staffing requirements across operations functions. DCSD's elevated
operations ratio is in part a consequence of this more distributed school model rather than a
reflection of operational inefficiency relative to peers.
School Leadership and Principal Supervision is the functional area where DCSD staffing is
farthest above the sample. At 1.93 FTE per 1,000 students, the closest comparison district is
Baltimore (1.48), whose figure reflects budget document data and should be interpreted
cautiously. Among districts with full personnel file data, Dallas (1.22) and Charlotte-Mecklenburg
(1.13) are the closest peers. Gwinnett (0.29) and Fulton (0.31) operate this function at roughly
one-quarter of DCSD's per-student level, though their area superintendent models differ
structurally from DCSD's in ways that affect how the comparison should be read. The
composition of DCSD's school leadership staffing is examined in depth in the division-level
analysis.
The Access, Equity, and Opportunity area includes 0.97 FTE per 1,000 students, placing
DCSD second in sample behind Denver (1.26) and just ahead of Griffin-Spalding (0.82). This is
well above the median figure of 0.29 staff per 1,000 students across the sample. The division's
89 FTE encompass several distinct functions: charter school oversight and governance
(16 FTE), athletics administration (16 FTE), student assignment and enrollment (15 FTE),
division administration (9 FTE), and a set of direct-service student-support roles. Peer districts
carry similar functions but typically distribute them across student services or wraparound
structures rather than consolidating them with charter governance, athletics, and enrollment
under a single cabinet leader.
In Information Technology (IT) DCSD ranks third in the sample at 2.27 FTE per 1,000
students, behind Fulton (2.57) and Muscogee (2.37). The sample median is 1.72. IT is one of
the few functional areas where DCSD's elevated position holds even after accounting for the
vacancy adjustment, since the IT function carries a lower vacancy rate than several other
divisions.
Safety and Security ranks fourth at 1.32 FTE per 1,000 students in DCSD, behind Dallas
(2.69), Muscogee (1.51) and Denver (1.50). Six districts in the sample carry meaningful safety
22
and security staffing; the remaining four carry little or none in central office counts, suggesting
they deliver this function through a different organizational model.
Specialized Student Services ranks sixth at 2.70 FTE per 1,000 students, but even with the
sample median. Several comparison districts invest considerably more in this function: Wake
(3.92), Muscogee (3.71), Griffin-Spalding (3.45), and Dallas (3.37) all exceed DCSD
substantially. Denver (6.03) is a significant outlier driven by a different service delivery model.
Strategy, Planning, and Accountability ranks second at 0.84 FTE per 1,000 students, above
Dallas (0.61) and Denver (0.60). That position is driven almost entirely by the Federal Programs
department, which carries 41 FTE, including Title I coordinators, parent center facilitators,
specialists, and associated administrative and leadership staff. The remaining Strategy,
Planning, and Accountability departments (Research, Data, and Evaluation, Assessment, and
their administrative functions) total 28 FTE, which places DCSD below the sample median in
those functions specifically. The functional area label in this case does not reflect where the
majority of its FTE are concentrated, and the elevated ranking should not be read as an
indicator of investment in research, accountability, or planning capacity.
How DCSD Prioritizes Across Functions Relative to Peers
The per-student ratios above describe the scale of each function in absolute terms.
Understanding how DCSD distributes its non-operations central office capacity, and how that
distribution compares to peer priorities, provides a second layer of analytical insight, one more
directly relevant to the question of organizational orientation.
To examine this, the analysis below sets aside Operations and Auxiliary Services and Safety
and Security, which span both orientations and are outliers across the functional areas, and
examines how districts allocate the remainder of their central office capacity between school
and student-support functions and internal and organizational support functions. In this case,
school and student-support functions include Academic and Instructional Services; Access,
Equity, and Opportunity; Community Engagement; School Leadership and Principal
Supervision; Specialized Student Services; and Wrap Around and Student Support. Conversely,
internal and organizational support functions include Finance; HR; IT; Administration; Strategy,
Planning, and Accountability; and Communications (Figure 8).
This grouping is not a judgment about which functions matter more. HR, Finance, and IT are
essential to a functioning district, and underinvestment in any of them creates its own
organizational risk. The grouping is an analytical lens that provides an avenue to explore
whether the balance of DCSD's central office investment is oriented toward the schools and
students it exists to serve, and whether that orientation is consistent with, or a departure from,
how peer districts allocate their capacity.
Figure 8: Student and School Support and Internal Support Comparison, 2025–26
23
School- Internal- School-
School- Supporting Internal- Supporting Supporting
Supporting FTE/1,000 Supporting FTE/1,000 as % of
District FTE Students FTE Students Ratio Combined
DCSD 749 8.17 559 6.10 1.34 57.3%
Baltimore 411 5.35 399 5.19 1.03 50.7%
Charlotte-
721.1 5.10 453 3.20 1.59 61.4%
Mecklenburg
Dallas 1,180.6 8.45 868 6.21 1.36 57.6%
Denver 1,314 15.40 594.5 6.97 2.21 68.8%
Fulton 235.5 2.71 457 5.26 0.52 34.0%
Griffin-
70.9 7.73 56.4 6.14 1.26 55.7%
Spalding
Gwinnett 619.5 3.39 690.6 3.78 0.90 47.3%
Muskogee 189 6.5 163 5.61 1.16 53.7%
Wake 1,077 6.69 449 2.79 2.40 70.6%
Across the sample, the ratio of school- and student-supporting FTE to internal and
organizational support FTE ranges from 0.52 (Fulton) to 2.4 (Wake). This pattern is not simply a
function of district size, as large and small districts appear at both ends of the distribution. It
reflects organizational design choices about where central office capacity is concentrated.
DCSD's ratio of 1.34 school-facing FTE per internal-facing FTE places it fifth in the sample,
between Dallas (1.36) and Griffen Spalding (1.26). On a per-student basis, DCSD's school-
facing investment of 8.17 FTE per 1,000 students is the third highest in the sample behind
Denver (15.40) and Dallas (8.45), and its internal-facing investment of 6.1 per 1,000 students is
the fourth highest behind Denver, Dallas, and Griffin-Spalding. The pattern suggests DCSD's
central office capacity is weighted toward school and student-facing functions at roughly the
same proportion as Dallas and above Baltimore, Fulton, and Gwinnett, though below Wake and
Denver.
Cabinet Composition and Division Structure
The superintendent's cabinet is the senior leadership body through which a district's chief
executive coordinates strategy, allocates resources, and drives organizational priorities. Cabinet
members typically hold responsibility for major divisions of the central office and serve as the
superintendent's primary advisors on both operational and strategic matters. How a
superintendent structures cabinet—how many members it includes, which functions receive
direct representation, and how related functions are grouped or separated—reflects
organizational design choices with consequences for coordination, decision-making, and
strategic coherence. As the Wallace Foundation has documented, central office structures are
24
most effective when they follow strategy, reflecting deliberate choices about how a district
intends to pursue its priorities rather than historical accumulation or convention. The
comparisons in this section describe structural patterns across the sample. They do not explain
why any district made the choices it did, and they are not intended as assessments of individual
leader or leadership team effectiveness.
DCSD’s Cabinet
As of May 2026, DCSD's cabinet includes 15 division chiefs. These positions span academic
leadership, school supervision, student support, operations, finance, technology, human
resources, legal services, community engagement, accountability, and public safety.
Cabinet Size in Comparative Context
Across the 11 districts examined in this study's cabinet analysis, cabinet size ranges from six
members (Fulton) to 15 (DCSD). Figure 9 presents cabinet membership counts alongside
reported Central Office FTE for each district.
Figure 9: Cabinet Size Comparison, 2025–26
District Cabinet Size Reported Central Office FTE
DCSD 15 2,742
Baltimore 10 1,052
Charlotte-Mecklenburg 12 2,608.9
Cobb 7 --
Dallas 10 4,187.9
Denver 8 2,698
Fulton 6 1,945.5
Griffin-Spalding 7 145.3
Gwinnett 10 3,655.4
Muskogee 9 766.5
Wake 7 2,718
DCSD's 15 division chiefs is the largest in the sample. The districts with the next largest
cabinets (Charlotte-Mecklenburg at 12, Baltimore at 10, Dallas at 10, and Gwinnett at 10) each
serve more students than DCSD, with Dallas and Gwinnett serving populations roughly 50
percent and 100 percent larger, respectively. Among districts with enrollment comparable to
DCSD, Fulton operates with six cabinet members over 1,946 total FTE, and Denver operates
with eight cabinet members over 2,698 total FTE.
25
Within DCSD's cabinet, the distribution of organizational mass across divisions is uneven. The
Chief Operating Officer's division accounts for 1,313 of DCSD's 2,742 total FTE. The remaining
14 chiefs collectively oversee 1,429 FTE, with individual division sizes ranging from 22 FTE
(Chief Legal Officer) to 247 FTE (Interim Chief of Student Services). Eight of the 14 non-
operations cabinet divisions carry fewer than 130 FTE each.
How Peer Districts Structure Their Cabinets
Cabinet size alone does not capture the more consequential structural question: how districts
group related functions under senior leadership. Two broad patterns emerge from the
comparison group, and DCSD's current structure differs from both of these patterns in notable
ways.
The first pattern is consolidation through an integrating executive. Several districts in the sample
place related functions under a deputy superintendent or equivalent senior leader who sits
between the superintendent and individual chiefs. This creates a reporting layer that integrates
functions the superintendent would otherwise coordinate directly.
• Denver's Deputy Superintendent oversees academics, school supervision, school
transformation, and innovation. In DCSD, these functions sit under four separate cabinet
members.
• Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Deputy Superintendent spans academic performance, school
leadership and principal supervision, and student services. Similarly, these functions sit
under four separate division chiefs in DCSD.
In each case, the cabinet structure places academic, school leadership, and student-support
functions within a common reporting relationship below the superintendent. This consolidation is
not unique to the Deputy Superintendent role. The second pattern is consolidation through
fewer, broader cabinet portfolios.
• Wake's Chief Academic Advancement Officer holds academics, student-support
services, and special education under a single executive, with assistant superintendents
overseeing each area.
• Gwinnett's Interim Chief of Schools oversees cluster superintendents who supervise
principals, as well as student-support services—a partial integration of supervision and
student support at the chief level that is distinct from the fully separated structures most
other districts maintain.
• Fulton operates with six cabinet members, each holding a wider span of responsibility
than their DCSD counterparts. The Chief Academic Officer at Fulton holds curriculum,
instruction, and school leadership. The Chief Operations Officer holds facilities,
transportation, nutrition, and technology. The Chief Financial Officer holds finance and
26
HR. Notably, Fulton also lacks a Chief of Schools position, and the seven Zone
Superintendents who supervise principals report directly to the Superintendent.
In DCSD's current structure, 15 division chiefs report directly to the superintendent, each
holding a relatively narrow portfolio. In a cabinet that size, the superintendent serves as the
primary coordination point across all divisions. Several functions that peer districts consolidate
are separated in DCSD's cabinet: academics and school leadership report through different
chiefs; wraparound support, student services, and access and opportunity each have their own
cabinet leader despite serving overlapping student populations; and communications/community
engagement and legal services each hold cabinet seats with division sizes of 38 and 22 FTE,
respectively.
Division Structures
Beyond cabinet size, the composition and internal structure of each cabinet division offers
additional context for understanding how DCSD organizes its central office relative to peers.
DCSD has several functions that are structurally distinct from comparison districts.
Chief of Access and Opportunity Portfolio
The Chief of Access and Opportunity oversees a portfolio that includes charter school oversight
and governance, student assignment and enrollment, athletics, and student mentorship. Across
the comparison group, these functions do not share a common organizational home. Charter
school oversight sits within academic or superintendent's office structures in the districts that
carry it, with Denver placing it in the superintendent's office and Fulton housing under the Chief
Academic Officer. Student assignment sits under operations in Denver, under academic
services in Dallas, and within school performance structures in Charlotte-Mecklenburg and
Wake. Athletics sits under academic services in Dallas and Fulton, Operations in Griffin-
Spalding, Chief of Schools in Gwinnett, and as a stand-alone function in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
Mentorship and student engagement functions appear in only two other districts in the sample
and in both cases sit within community engagement or engagement officer structures. No peer
district consolidates this particular combination of functions under a single cabinet leader, and
while Gwinnett has a director of Access and Opportunity, it is housed within its Chief of Staff
division.
Chief of Staff Scope
Across the comparison group, Chief of Staff divisions consistently hold board relations, internal
audit, and administrative coordination, in addition to some district specific responsibilities. Dallas
adds communications. Denver adds accountability, assessment, and school support functions.
Wake carries a notably broad Chief of Staff portfolio that includes accountability, assessment,
grants, equity, professional development, and information security alongside the standard
administrative functions.
27
Communications and Community Engagement Organization
Among the comparison districts, most organize communications and community engagement
under a cabinet title that leads with communications. Baltimore, Denver, and Dallas each name
their combined function around communications, with community engagement as a subordinate
or parallel function within that division. Charlotte-Mecklenburg maintains communications as a
stand-alone cabinet function and distributes community engagement across other divisions.
Fulton similarly leads with a Chief Communications Officer title.
Two districts organize these functions differently. Gwinnett combines communications and
community engagement under a Chief Engagement Officer, foregrounding engagement over
communications in the cabinet title. DCSD combines the two under the Chief of Community
Engagement and Innovative Partnerships, similarly placing communications as a subordinate
function within a broader engagement and partnership portfolio. DCSD's division also carries a
grants and partnerships function, including dedicated grants strategy staff. Wake is the only
other district that carries a grants function within a structure adjacent to the Chief of Staff,
though Wake places it there rather than within a communications or engagement division. No
other district in the sample houses grants management as a component of a communications or
community engagement cabinet division.
Student-Support Distribution
A distinction between specialized student services and wraparound student support exists in
every district in this sample, and their separation within the organizational structure is not unique
to DCSD. What varies is where each function reports. In six of the 10 peer districts with
personnel file data, both specialized services and wraparound support report through the same
cabinet leader despite their functional differences. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg, the two functions
report through separate cabinet areas but both sit within the span of the Deputy Superintendent.
In DCSD, specialized student services and wraparound support report through separate cabinet
verticals with no integrating position between them and the superintendent. A third cabinet
position also carries student-facing functions, bringing the total number of cabinet verticals with
responsibility for student support to three.
Department Analysis
Principal Supervision and School Support
Over the last decade, many large school districts have restructured central office organizations
to include and elevate the role of principal supervisors as a key lever for improving school
leadership. Historically, these roles were often focused on administrative oversight and
compliance; however, research—particularly from the Wallace Foundation Principal Supervisor
Initiative—has documented a shift toward redefining principal supervisors as coaches and
developers of principals’ instructional leadership. As expectations for principals have expanded,
28
districts have increasingly recognized that supporting principal effectiveness is critical to
improving teaching and learning, leading to changes such as reduced supervisor spans of
control, targeted training, and reallocation of central office responsibilities. This evolution reflects
a broader trend in central office design toward more direct, school-facing support structures
intended to strengthen leadership practice and, ultimately, student outcomes.
Districts face several choices when implementing principal supervision roles.
1. Structure | Principal supervision is most often organized in two ways: through feeder
patterns in a geographic region, which can strengthen vertical alignment and coherence,
or by grade level, which allows for more targeted coaching and collaboration.
2. Caseload | The caseload of a principal supervisor, or how many principals they oversee,
is another important factor with direct implications for how much support any individual
principal receives.
3. Additional Support | Districts often include additional FTE to support both principal
supervisors as well as the principals they serve.
All three are important organizational choices with consequences for coordination, role clarity,
and the consistency of support schools receive.
Principal Supervision Across the Comparison Group
Principal Supervision in DCSD is housed under the Schools and Leadership division and
consists of seven Assistant Superintendents that oversee schools based on grade-level spans.
In June 2026, these spans were updated to include four elementary areas, two secondary
areas, and a specialty and theme schools area for the 2026–27 school year. Figure 10 presents
the principal supervision structure across all eleven districts in this study's cabinet analysis.
29
Figure 10: Principal Supervision Comparison, 2025–26
Organization Principal Schools per
District Supervisor Title Schools Reports to
Model Supervisors Supervisor
DCSD Grade Level Area 138 7 20
Chief of Schools
Superintendent
Baltimore Grade Level Instructional 159 10 16
Leadership
Chief of Schools
Executive
Director
Charlotte- Grade Level Assistant 185 11 17 Chief Academic
Mecklenburg Superintendent Performance
of School Officer (reports
Performance to Deputy
Superintendent.)
Cobb Grade Level Assistant 112 7 16 Chief School
Superintendent Leadership
Officer
Dallas Feeder Executive 228 23 10 Regional
Pattern Director, Vertical Superintendent
(reports to Chief
Schools Officer)
Denver Grade Level Executive 198 13 15
Deputy
Director of
Superintendent
Schools
Fulton Feeder Zone 102 7 15 Superintendent
Pattern Superintendent (direct report)
Griffin- Grade Level Executive Officer 18 3 6 Superintendent
Spalding of Schools (direct report)
Gwinnett Feeder Cluster 142 10 14 Interim Chief of
Pattern Superintendent Schools
Muscogee Feeder Chief Regional 56 3 19 Superintendent
Pattern Officer (direct report)
Wake Feeder Area 203 9 23 Interim Chief of
Pattern Superintendent Schools
Across the sample, caseloads range from six schools per supervisor (Griffin-Spalding, a district
of 18 schools) to 23 (Wake). Among the larger districts, caseloads typically cluster between
14 and 17 schools per supervisor. DCSD's ratio of 20 falls in the higher end of the distribution
beyond Fulton (15), Denver (15), Baltimore (16), Cobb (16), and Charlotte-Mecklenburg (17). As
Figure 9 illustrates, both feeder pattern and grade-level approaches to organizing principal
supervision are represented across the comparison group, with no single model predominating.
The column showing to whom principal supervisors report reflects the cabinet structure
discussion in the prior section. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Denver, supervisors report
through a deputy superintendent who also holds academic and student services functions. In
Gwinnett, they report through a chief who holds student support alongside supervision. In
30
DCSD, Baltimore, and Cobb, supervisors report through a stand-alone chief of schools whose
division does not hold academic or student services functions. In Fulton, Muscogee, and Griffin-
Spalding, zone or area superintendents report directly to the superintendent with no
intermediate chief.
How DCSD Organizes Its Schools and Leadership Division
While DCSD's seven area superintendents oversee a larger number of schools, they do with a
much larger support structure than principal supervisors in the comparison districts. Each of
DCSD's seven area offices carries a set of embedded administrators, coordinators, and
specialists organized around specific content domains and student-support functions. Figure 11
outlines this distribution reflective of the structure in place for the 2025–26 school year and
reflects the staffing when the data were pulled for this report. As of June 2026, areas have
been slightly restructured to include four elementary areas, two secondary areas and a
specialty and theme schools area ahead of the 2026–27 school year. Across the seven
areas, those positions total 108 FTE and break down as follows:
Figure 11: Embedded Staff by Area Superintendent Office, 2025–26
Role Elem. Elem. Elem. Middle High Specialty Horizon Total
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Schools Schools /Theme Schools
Area Superintendent 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Executive 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14
Administrator
Culture & Climate 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 17
Coordinator
ELA Coordinator 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 13
Math Coordinator 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 10
ELL Coordinator 2 1 1 1 1 — 1 7
Exceptional Ed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8
Coordinator
Mental Health 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Coordinator
Exec. Admin. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Assistant
Postsecondary — — — — 1 — 2 3
Transition Specialist
Teacher Quality — — — — — — 1 1
Facilitator
Facilities 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Maintenance
Manager
Regional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Transportation
Manager
Total 15 14 14 16 17 12 20 108
31
Each area office therefore carries dedicated expertise in literacy, math, ELLs, special education,
and behavioral and mental health support, alongside the supervisory function. Parallel expertise
exists centrally as well. DCSD's Teaching and Learning division holds senior coordinators for
Math, Science, ELA, Social Studies, Health/PE, and World Languages. Its Student Services
division holds 20 FTE in English Learner services and 104 FTE in Special Education roles. Its
Wraparound division holds counseling and mental health capacity. Each of these content and
support domains is represented both in a central department and within each area office.
Among peer districts with embedded school support staff, the structure differs in important
ways. Charlotte-Mecklenburg and Wake each carry meaningful school support FTE within their
area structures, 109 and 82 respectively. In both cases those staff are organized primarily as
instructional specialists or coordinating teachers, roles that are teacher-classified rather than
coordinator-classified. That distinction affects accountability structure: teacher-classified roles
carry different supervisory chains than coordinator-classified positions. Neither Charlotte-
Mecklenburg nor Wake organizes its area-embedded staff around parallel domain-specific
functions that mirror central department categories. Dallas carries 92 school support FTE
organized as instructional facilitators within its feeder pattern structure, similarly without domain-
specific coordinator designations that duplicate central functions.
DCSD's model is the only one in this sample where area-embedded staff are organized by
content and support domain in a way that mirrors the structure of central departments. That
design reflects a deliberate organizational orientation toward direct, domain-specific support for
schools through the area office. It also means that for each domain—literacy, math, ELL, special
education, mental health—there is both a central team and an area-based team whose work
touches the same schools and principals. How the relationship between those two sets of staff
is defined and coordinated is a question the qualitative section of this report examines directly.
Information Technology
DCSD's Information Technology division carries 208 FTE, placing it third in the sample on a per-
student basis at 2.27 per 1,000 students, behind only Fulton County (2.57 per 1,000) and
Muscogee (2.37 per 1,000). The sample median is 1.72 per 1,000 students. Among districts of
comparable enrollment, Denver operates at 1.88 per 1,000 and Baltimore at 0.94.
The division’s largest department by far is the IT Support Services department, which provide
first-level IT assistance for students, parents, and staff across the district and carries 123 FTE.
This is the second largest IT Support department in the sample after Gwinnett (164 FTE),
though Gwinnett serves twice DCSD's enrollment. Most of those positions are technicians
responsible for device support and classroom technology at the school level. How districts staff
this function varies considerably and is directly shaped by service delivery decisions. Districts
that contract device refresh and end-user support externally will carry fewer technician positions
internally, while districts that deliver those services through employed staff will show a higher
32
count. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, for example, uses contracted lease agreements to refresh
student devices rather than staffing that function internally, which is consistent with its
significantly lower IT Services head count of 34 FTE.9 Whether DCSD's technician staffing
reflects a deliberate in-sourcing strategy, a difference in the scope of services provided, or some
combination is a question the staffing data alone cannot answer.
Two structural features of DCSD's IT division are notable in comparison to peers. The first is a
dedicated Project Management Office (PMO) carrying seven FTE. Only Fulton (7 FTE) and
Gwinnett (3 FTE) similarly carry a named PMO within their IT structure. The remaining seven
districts either embed project management within other IT departments or do not carry it as a
distinct function.
The second is how DCSD organizes its network and infrastructure functions. Districts such as
Dallas and Denver consolidate network engineering, systems engineering, telecommunications,
and related roles under a named Infrastructure Services department (with 33 and 65 FTE,
respectively). DCSD carries comparable roles (network engineers, systems engineers, and
enterprise telecommunications staff) but distributes them across multiple senior manager
branches within the division rather than under a unified infrastructure leadership structure. That
is an organizational design choice rather than a gap in capacity, and it shapes how
infrastructure work is coordinated and prioritized within the division.
Student Services
DCSD's Student Services division carries 247 FTE, placing it seventh in the sample at 2.70 per
1,000 students. The sample median is 3.37 per 1,000 students. Wake (3.92), Muscogee (3.71),
Dallas (3.37), and Griffin-Spalding (3.45) all invest substantially more per student in this
function.
Before drawing conclusions from those figures, a methodological point applies. Districts make
different decisions about whether to classify itinerant and therapeutic service providers,
including speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, school
psychologists, and nurses, as central office staff or as school-based staff, and those decisions
directly affect how a district's count compares to peers. Denver's position as the highest in the
sample at 6.03 per 1,000 students is driven primarily by 176 school psychologists classified
centrally. Wake's elevated ratio similarly reflects 160 centrally classified school psychologists.
DCSD classifies 21 school psychologists, 14 speech-language pathologists, six occupational
therapists, 4 physical therapists, and three nurses as central office staff—a deliberate
organizational choice to fund and deploy those positions through the central office rather than at
the school site level. That choice is visible in the staffing count and reflects a service delivery
model rather than a judgment about investment level.
33
Within the division, the two departments with the most distinctive structural profiles relative to
peers are Special Education and Translation and Interpretation.
Special Education is the largest department at 139 FTE. The variation in Special Education
counts across the sample is substantial: Charlotte-Mecklenburg carries 277 FTE, Wake 283
FTE, and Dallas 326 FTE. This is explained primarily by how districts classify and deploy
therapeutic service providers rather than by differences in administrative investment. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg's 277 FTE includes 66 occupational therapists, 33 speech-language pathologists,
18 physical therapists, and 10 audiologists, all classified as central office staff alongside 70
coordinating teachers who support school-based exceptional children programs. Wake’s count
is similarly driven by 82 occupational therapists, 28 physical therapists, and 22 speech-
language pathologists classified centrally. Dallas's elevated count reflects a different model, with
101 educational diagnosticians responsible for evaluation and eligibility determination sit within
the central Special Education department. DCSD classifies 14 speech-language pathologists, 6
occupational therapists, and four physical therapists centrally, a smaller therapeutic footprint
than Charlotte-Mecklenburg or Wake but consistent with a service delivery model that
concentrates those roles differently across the district. The 139 FTE also includes 12 lead
teachers (who carry coordination and program support responsibilities rather than direct student
instruction), 21 coordinators and senior coordinators, nine liaisons, and four directors and an
executive director, reflecting a central office structure that carries both administrative and direct-
service functions within the same department.
Translation and Interpretation carries 43 FTE, consisting of 15 ten-month English for
Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) interpreters, 25 twelve-month ESOL interpreters, and
three interpreters for the deaf. Among large districts in the sample, DCSD's per-student
investment in this function at 0.469 per 1,000 students is the highest. Dallas carries 27 FTE at
0.193 per 1,000 students and Denver carries 21 FTE at 0.246 per 1,000 students. The 10- and
12-month contract structure and school-based assignment of these staff is consistent with the
methodology section's treatment of itinerant service providers. These are central-office–funded
positions delivering direct services at the school level, and their inclusion reflects a service
delivery model rather than an administrative function. The structural feature that distinguishes
DCSD's approach from peers is departmental organization. Dallas organizes its translation and
interpretation staff under a director, two coordinators, and three supervisors. Wake's 58 staff sit
under a director and senior coordinator. Denver carries two supervisors and two coordinators
above its interpreter-level positions. DCSD's 43 interpreters operate within a department that
carries no named coordinator, supervisor, or director at the department level, with oversight
provided through the Executive Director of English Language Learners in the division above.
Operations and Auxiliary Services
Operations and Auxiliary Services is the largest functional area in every district in this sample,
and DCSD is no exception. DCSD's 1,313 Operations FTE represent 50 percent of its total
34
central office count. At 14.33 FTE per 1,000 students, DCSD carries the highest operations ratio
in the sample among districts with complete personnel data. The next closest are Fulton
(13.20), Muscogee (12.74), and Gwinnett (12.03), two of which have comparable or
substantially larger enrollment (Fulton and Gwinnett). However, DCSD's smaller average school
size may explain these differences: serving a larger number of smaller buildings requires
baseline staffing at each facility regardless of enrollment, which can produce higher per-student
ratios even where per-building investment is comparable to peers.
The size of any district's operations function reflects service delivery decisions as much as
organizational design. Districts that staff transportation, custodial services, and facilities
maintenance internally will carry higher operations counts than districts that contract any of
those functions externally. The variation across this sample, from Denver's 7.75 per 1,000
students to DCSD's 14.33, reflects differences in those choices rather than differences in
operational philosophy alone. Denver's transportation ratio of 2.99 per 1,000 students, for
example, is roughly one-third of DCSD's (10.62), reflecting a partially contracted transportation
model rather than a fully in-sourced one.
DCSD's operations function is organized across four primary areas: Transportation, Facilities
and Maintenance, Logistics and Warehousing, Capital Projects. The staffing profile of each
differs meaningfully from peers.
Transportation is the largest department at 973 FTE and 10.62 per 1,000 students. Among
districts that staff transportation internally, DCSD's ratio is consistent with Fulton County (10.78)
and Gwinnett County (10.38), the two most comparable peers by enrollment and service model.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg (7.49) and Dallas (8.24) operate at lower per-student ratios, which may
reflect differences in route density, geographic service area, or staffing model. Transportation is
the primary driver of DCSD's elevated overall operations count, and its staffing level relative to
comparable peers does not represent a significant outlier.
Facilities and Maintenance carries 228 FTE at 2.49 per 1,000 students, the third highest in the
sample behind Dallas (2.94) and Denver (2.78). On a per-school basis, DCSD carries
1.6 facilities staff per school—above Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1.0), Gwinnett (1.2), Fulton (1.3),
and Wake (1.1), although below Dallas (1.8) and Denver (2.6). Several other factors shape
facilities staffing levels, including building age, square footage per school, the extent to which
major maintenance work is contracted, and whether deferred maintenance has increased the
demands on internal staff.
Business Services carries 70 FTE at 0.764 per 1,000 students, the highest in the sample on a
per-student basis. Dallas (0.608) is the next closest, followed by a significant drop to Fulton
(0.138) and Charlotte-Mecklenburg (0.106). Business Services in DCSD encompasses
warehouse operations, printing, supply chain, sustainability, and payroll support functions. The
35
elevated ratio relative to peers is worth noting, though the range of functions included in this
department varies across districts and direct comparison is limited by those differences.
Custodial Services carries 20 FTE at 0.218 per 1,000 students. This is one of the lowest ratios
in the sample among districts that carry custodial staff centrally — Wake (0.484), Dallas (0.419),
Gwinnett (0.268), and Charlotte-Mecklenburg (0.198) all carry comparable or higher counts. The
low custodial count likely reflects a partial or full contracting model for school custodial services
at DCSD, which would be consistent with several peer districts that similarly contract this
function rather than staffing it internally.
Capital Projects carried 7 FTE at 0.076 per 1,000 students, the lowest in the sample. Wake
(0.329), Denver (0.340), and Dallas (0.250) carry substantially more capacity in this function.
Recently, a Chief of Capital Improvement position was added to the cabinet. DCSD outsources
portions of planning and program management for the capital improvement program to a
contracted partner.
Professional Development and Leadership Development
Districts typically organize professional learning across two related functions: ongoing
professional development for teachers and instructional staff, and leadership development for
aspiring and current administrators. How those functions are organized, including whether they
sit together, where they report in the cabinet structure, and whether they connect to instructional
strategy, reflects a district's stance on how it builds and sustains educator capacity over time.
Figure 12 presents each district's FTE investment in professional development and leadership
development, excluding teacher pipeline and residency programs, which are addressed
separately below.
Figure 12: Professional Development and Leadership Development by District
Professional FTE per Leadership FTE per
Development 1,000 Cabinet Development 1,000
District FTE Students Home FTE Students Cabinet Home
DCSD 39 0.426 Chief of 10 0.109 Chief of
Schools and Schools and
Leadership Leadership
Charlotte- 18 0.127 Chief 9.8 0.069 Deputy
Mecklenburg Recruitment, Superintendent
Retention,
and Talent
Development
Officer
Dallas 9 0.064 Chief of 7 0.05
Academic
Services
36
Professional FTE per Leadership FTE per
Development 1,000 Cabinet Development 1,000
District FTE Students Home FTE Students Cabinet Home
Denver 26 0.305 Chief of --* -- --
Talent
Fulton 15 0.173 Human 1 0.012 Human
Resources Resources
Griffin- 2 0.218 Human
Spalding Resources
Gwinnett 17 0.093 Chief 18.4 0.101 Chief Human
Learning Resources
Officer Officer
Muscogee 6 0.206 Chief -- -- --
Academic
Officer
Wake 13 0.081 Chief of Staff --* -- --
and Strategic
Planning
*Denver and Wake do not carry a named Leadership Development department. Leadership development functions may be
embedded within professional development or academic structures.
Across the sample, combined investment in professional development and leadership
development ranges from 0.081 FTE per 1,000 students (Wake) to 0.535 per 1,000 students
(DCSD). DCSD's 49 FTE across Professional Development and Leadership Development,
including 39 in Professional Development and 10 in Leadership Development (producing per-
student ratios of 0.426 and 0.109 respectively) places it first in the sample, above Denver
(0.305), the next closest district. The remaining districts cluster between 0.081 and 0.218 per
1,000 students.
The more meaningful comparison is organizational rather than quantitative. Most peer districts
that carry both functions place them under a single cabinet leader. Denver and Fulton places
professional development under the Chief of Academics, suggesting a view that professional
learning should be driven by instructional priorities. Denver consolidates its professional
development function within its Office of the Chief of Talent alongside recruitment, retention,
and HR operations, treating professional learning as a talent management function rather than
an academic one. Gwinnett and Dallas place professional development under academics, but
include leadership development functions under HR, a split that assigns teacher learning to
academic leadership and administrator development to talent management.
DCSD is unique in that maintains both professional development and leadership development
within the Chief of Schools and Leaders Division. This suggests the view that professional
learning is most impactful when connected to school practice, and the people closest to that are
in the schools division. An important consideration of this placement is the coordination required
between the Teaching and Learning Division, which holds instructional strategy and curriculum
priorities. In the current structure, the people designing professional development experiences
37
for teachers and the people setting the instructional agenda operate in separate cabinet
verticals, suggesting limited shared accountability for alignment between them.
Wake’s placement of professional development under the Chief of Staff and Strategic Planning
is the most unusual in the sample and serves as a useful contrast. It frames professional
learning as a districtwide strategic function rather than an academic or school-facing one. No
other district in the sample takes that approach.
Early Learning and Pre-K
Despite being home to one of the largest pre-K programs in Georgia, DCSD carries just six FTE
in Early Learning and Pre-K at 0.07 per 1,000 students, the second lowest in the sample
(DeKalb County School District, 2025).10 The more instructive comparison is not the raw count
but what peer districts are doing with their early learning investment. Wake‘s 105 FTE in this
function reflects a comprehensive system that includes 29 speech-language pathologists,
10 case managers, and 29 coordinating teachers all dedicated to the pre-K level. This model
concentrates therapeutic and instructional support around early childhood as a distinct
organizational priority. Gwinnett's 43 FTE similarly combines speech-language pathologists,
occupational therapists, psychologists, and social workers organized specifically around early
learning and school readiness. Dallas's 51 FTE centers on home instruction and school
readiness specialists, extending the district's early learning reach into the home environment.
Denver's 30 FTE are oriented primarily around Head Start program management and
compliance.
DCSD's six FTE consists of an Executive Director, a Budget Specialist, a Data Technician, and
three Early Childhood Coordinators. This structure reflects central coordination and
administrative function rather than a comprehensive early learning support model. The
therapeutic services, instructional coaching, and family engagement functions that peer districts
organize within their early learning departments are not a feature of DCSD's current central
office structure in this area, though some of those functions may exist elsewhere in other
divisions, particularly within Special Education and Wraparound Services, rather than being
concentrated around early childhood as a distinct organizational unit.
Role Distribution and Management Structure
Understanding how central office positions are distributed across role types offers a lens into
how districts organize decision-making authority and management capacity. For this analysis,
each position was assigned one of three role classifications: Executive and Cabinet-Level
Leadership, People Manager, or Individual Contributor.
Executive and Cabinet-Level Leadership includes superintendents, chiefs, deputy
superintendents, and area or assistant superintendents. People Manager includes executive
38
directors, directors, managers, supervisors, and senior-level positions where the role typically
carries supervisory responsibility over other staff. Individual Contributor includes all other
positions, such as coordinators, specialists, analysts, technicians, and administrative support
staff. Buyers, recruiters, project managers, and hearing officers are classified as Individual
Contributors regardless of title seniority.
Role classifications were applied consistently across all districts based on title and, where
possible, verified against publicly posted job descriptions. Where the same title is used
differently across districts, the classification reflects the supervisory responsibilities of that title in
DCSD. This approach supports cross-district comparison of management structure while
acknowledging that title conventions are not uniform. Some noise in the data is likely: districts
vary in how they assign supervisory responsibilities within a title band, and positions classified
as People Managers in one district may function as Individual Contributors in another. Findings
in this section should be read as structural indicators rather than precise counts.
One functional area warrants a specific note before the district-level comparison. Safety and
Security in DCSD carries a People Manager rate of 43 percent, driven by the rank structure of a
sworn officer department in which sergeants, lieutenants, and a major are classified as
managers. This reflects the command hierarchy of a public safety organization rather than a
conventional management density finding, and should not be interpreted as evidence of
administrative overhead within that function.
District-Level Role Distribution
Figure 13 presents role distribution across the nine districts included in this analysis. Baltimore
City and Cobb County are excluded due to a lack of detail related to individual personnel titles.
Figure 13: Role Distribution by District
District Executive % People Manager % Individual Contributor %
DCSD 1.1% 12.1% 86.8%
Charlotte-Mecklenburg 1.3% 14.3% 84.5%
Dallas 0.9% 12.3% 86.8%
Denver 0.4% 20.6% 78.9%
Fulton 1.5% 7.8% 90.7%
Griffin-Spalding 3.4% 18.4% 78.1%
Gwinnett 0.5% 7.1% 92.3%
Muscogee 1.7% 9.1% 89.2%
Wake 1.5% 19.0% 79.4%
39
Across the nine districts, the share of staff classified as People Managers ranges from
7.1 percent (Gwinnett) to 20.6 percent (Denver). The individual contributor-to-manager ratio
spans from 3.83 in Denver to 12.96 in Gwinnett. This range reflects genuinely different
organizational design philosophies rather than differences in efficiency—a district with broader
management spans may concentrate decision-making authority differently than one with
narrower spans, and neither approach is inherently preferable.
The sample divides into three rough groupings. Gwinnett (7.1%) and Fulton (7.8%) operate with
notably lean management structures and high individual contributor-to-manager ratios above
11, suggesting broader spans of control and fewer management layers relative to their total
headcount. Denver (20.6%) and Wake (19.0%) carry the most management-intensive structures
in the sample with individual contributor-to-manager ratios below 4.5. The remaining five
districts, Muscogee (9.1%), Dallas (12.3%), DCSD (12.1%), Charlotte-Mecklenburg (14.3%),
and Griffin-Spalding (18.4%), cluster in the middle range.
DCSD's manager percentage of 12.1 percent and individual contributor-to-manager ratio of 7.14
place it near the center of the sample and are nearly identical to Dallas (12.3%, 7.06). At the
aggregate level, DCSD's management structure does not represent an outlier in either direction
relative to peer districts.
3. Staff Engagement
Understanding how a central office functions requires more than examining organizational
charts, reporting relationships, and staffing allocations. It also requires understanding how the
organization is experienced by the people who lead, work within, and are supported by it. For
this reason, stakeholder engagement was a central component of the organizational
assessment. While the themes that emerged from our staff engagement process do not map
neatly onto the structural findings in a one-to-one way, they are not independent of them either.
Both Section 2 (comparative analysis) and Section 3 (staff engagement) have to be taken
together to guide planning.
RTI conducted a stakeholder engagement process to better understand how the current central
office structure and operating practices support the district's strategic priorities and service to
schools. Engagement activities were designed to capture perspectives from multiple levels of
the organization, including executive leadership, central office staff, and principals. Collectively,
these perspectives provided insight into organizational strengths, areas of alignment,
operational challenges, and opportunities to improve how the central office is organized and
delivers services.
The stakeholder engagement process was designed to complement the organizational and
comparison district analyses by examining how the current structure functions in practice.
Evidence gathered through interviews, focus groups, and the central office staff survey was
40
synthesized to help answer the study's essential questions regarding the efficiency and
effectiveness of the current organizational structure, potential areas of redundancy, and the
extent to which central office structures and practices support high-quality service delivery to
schools. The section reflects organizational themes that emerged consistently across multiple
stakeholder groups and data sources.
Methodology
To capture perspectives from across the organization, RTI employed a multi-method
stakeholder engagement approach that included executive interviews, central office division
focus groups, principal focus groups, and a survey of central office staff. In collaboration with
district leadership, the RTI project team identified participants representing key stakeholder
groups. The district coordinated scheduling and distributed invitations directly to participants.
Whenever feasible, interviews and central office focus groups were conducted in person to
encourage discussion and support deeper exploration of organizational experiences. Virtual
formats were used for principal focus groups and for one central office focus group when
scheduling constraints precluded an in-person session.
Executive Interviews
Individual interviews were conducted with the chief officer representing each central office
division or, when appropriate, the next senior leader within the division (typically a deputy chief)
to ensure that each division's leadership perspective was represented. Interviews were
conducted in person during the week of May 11–14, 2026, using a semi structured protocol that
provided consistency across interviews while allowing participants to elaborate on issues
specific to their divisions.
Interview questions explored each division's purpose and alignment to district priorities;
organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities; cross-divisional coordination; decision-
making authority and escalation processes; staffing capacity and workload; and perceived
barriers, strengths, and opportunities to improve organizational effectiveness.
Central Office Division Focus Groups
Division-level focus groups were conducted with staff from eight central office divisions selected
because of their direct connection to the study's essential questions and their role in supporting
schools. Participating divisions included Teaching and Learning, Access and Opportunity,
Student Services, Accountability and Research, Wraparound Services, Community Engagement
and Innovative Partnerships, Finance, and Human Resources. Focus groups ranged in size
from 8 to 12 participants and were scheduled for approximately 90 minutes, providing
opportunities for staff to discuss both division-specific experiences and cross-divisional
41
organizational issues. Focus groups were conducted in person during the week of May 11–14,
2026, with the exception of the Human Resources division, which participated virtually on
May 27, 2026.
Discussion protocols explored participants' understanding of their division's purpose, role clarity,
coordination across divisions, decision-making processes, operational challenges, staffing and
workload, and recommendations for improving how the central office functions and supports
schools. Conducting division-level focus groups allowed the RTI team to examine both division-
specific experiences and cross-functional organizational issues in greater depth while capturing
perspectives from the divisions most directly involved in supporting the district's instructional,
operational, and organizational priorities.
Principal Groups
Virtual focus groups were conducted between April 16 and April 30, 2026, with principals
representing a cross section of schools across the district. A total of five principal focus groups
were held, each organized by school level or type: elementary schools, middle schools, high
schools, Specialty schools, and Horizon schools.
Discussion protocols explored participants' experiences with central office services and
supports, including organizational strengths, communication and coordination, responsiveness
to school needs, implementation supports, and opportunities to strengthen the partnership
between central office and schools.
Central Office Questionnaire
To broaden participation beyond the divisions represented in the focus groups, RTI
administered an electronic questionnaire to all central office employees. The questionnaire was
designed to ensure that staff from every central office division had the opportunity to contribute
their perspectives to the organizational assessment, regardless of whether their division
participated in a focus group. The questionnaire was distributed on April 28, 2026, and
remained open through May 22, 2026, following an extension of the administration window to
encourage additional participation. A total of 226 central office employees submitted complete
responses, providing broad representation across the organization.
The questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions aligned directly to the central office focus
group protocol, allowing themes to be examined consistently across both engagement methods.
Questions explored participants' perspectives on division purpose, role clarity, cross-divisional
coordination, decision-making processes, operational challenges, workload and capacity, and
opportunities to improve how the central office functions and supports schools. Respondents
also identified their organizational role (Individual Contributor, People Manager, or
42
Executive/Cabinet Leadership), enabling the RTI team to examine how experiences and
perceptions varied across levels of the organization.
The questionnaire served two complementary purposes within the study. First, it broadened
participation by capturing perspectives from employees across all central office divisions.
Second, it provided an additional source of qualitative evidence that was used to validate,
refine, and strengthen themes emerging from the executive interviews and division-level focus
groups while allowing the team to identify areas where perspectives differed across
organizational roles.
Staff Engagement Themes
Across all stakeholder groups, participants consistently distinguished between the district's
people and its organizational systems. While stakeholders identified several opportunities to
strengthen the central office's organizational structure and operating practices, they also
emphasized the expertise, commitment, and collaborative spirit of district staff. Participants
frequently described colleagues as knowledgeable, responsive, and deeply committed to
supporting schools, often noting that work continues because employees are willing to go
beyond their formal responsibilities to solve problems and meet school needs.
This perspective emerged consistently across executive interviews, central office focus groups,
the central office questionnaire, and principal focus groups. Participants regularly cited strong
interpersonal relationships, a shared commitment to students, and a willingness to collaborate
as important organizational strengths. Across stakeholder groups, participants consistently
described strong relationships and individual commitment as enabling work to move forward
despite organizational barriers. As one executive interview participant observed, "We've got
really talented people doing really good work." A central office focus group participant similarly
reflected, "People always figure it out. We make it work." A questionnaire participant noted,
"Everyone is committed to supporting schools. We just need clearer processes to help us do it
more efficiently."
These perspectives provide important context for the following organizational themes presented.
Rather than identifying shortcomings in individual performance, the themes describe recurring
organizational patterns that were consistently observed across stakeholder groups and data
sources.
Theme 1: Organizational roles and responsibilities are generally understood within
divisions but become less clear when work crosses divisional boundaries.
Across stakeholder groups, participants generally described a clear understanding of their
division's purpose and their individual responsibilities in supporting district priorities. However,
this understanding became less consistent when work required coordination across divisions.
While this was the most consistent pattern across the data, it was not universal within divisions.
43
Some central office staff described inconsistent expectations for similar positions,
responsibilities that had expanded beyond formal job descriptions, or variation in how
comparable roles functioned across the organization.
The clearest evidence of this theme emerged from the central office focus groups. Across all
eight focus groups, participants described uncertainty regarding which division owned particular
work, where decision-making authority resided, and who was ultimately accountable when
multiple divisions shared responsibility. As one central office focus group participant explained,
"Very clear within the scope of our office. It gets muddy the bigger the scope." Another
participant described the experience of navigating cross-divisional work by stating, "You're kind
of going around in circles trying to figure out, well, who does that?"
Executive interviews reinforced this perspective. In 10 of 12 interviews, executive leaders
acknowledged overlapping responsibilities, duplicated functions, and uncertainty regarding
ownership across divisions. One executive interview participant observed, "Across the
organization, we've got redundancies ... multiple positions doing the same work." Another
emphasized the need to "clarify ownership versus support roles and eliminate duplication."
Questionnaire responses further reinforced this pattern. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (143
of 226; 63%) identified unclear cross-divisional roles and responsibilities as contributing to
overlap, duplication, and inefficiencies. Many respondents distinguished between understanding
their own responsibilities and understanding how work is connected across divisions. As one
questionnaire participant noted, "Roles are clear within our department, but ownership becomes
unclear when projects involve multiple divisions."
Principals experienced these organizational challenges from the perspective of service
recipients. Across all five principal focus groups, participants consistently described uncertainty
regarding whom to contact when issues involved multiple departments or operational functions.
As one principal focus group participant stated, "I have no idea who to call in operations."
Others suggested that clearer documentation of central office roles and responsibilities would
make it easier to access timely support and navigate the organization.
One key illuminating activity was mentioned by many stakeholders. District leaders described an
interim-superintendent-directed effort to examine the full scope of demands placed on schools,
resulting in a comprehensive document approximately 88–91 pages in length with more than
150 requests. This activity was referenced by at least four division chiefs, underscoring its
significance as a systemwide diagnostic.
Leaders emphasized that the exercise surfaced expectations that were previously invisible, with
one division chief reflecting that the document only emerged because leadership intentionally
asked to see the full scope of work being directed to principals. The superintendent is now
using this analysis to push departments to reduce and better align their requests, signaling a
shift from diagnosis to action. Taken together, these findings highlight a core system challenge:
44
central office divisions operate with relative autonomy in generating school-facing work, but
without consistent coordination, resulting in layered and duplicative demands on principals that
require more deliberate alignment and prioritization.
Collectively, stakeholder perspectives indicate that the primary challenge is less about
understanding individual responsibilities than understanding how responsibilities connect across
the organization. While participants generally understood their own roles and the purpose of
their divisions, they consistently described uncertainty regarding ownership, decision-making
authority, and accountability when work crossed divisional boundaries. These patterns suggest
opportunities to strengthen organizational clarity by more clearly defining cross-divisional
ownership, governance, and decision rights.
Theme 2: Cross-divisional collaboration relies more on informal relationships than on
consistent organizational structures.
Across stakeholder groups, participants consistently described a strong willingness to
collaborate in support of schools. However, collaboration was often described as depending
more on personal relationships, individual initiative, and informal communication than on clearly
established structures or processes. Participants frequently distinguished between the quality of
working relationships, which were generally viewed as a strength, and the absence of formal
mechanisms to consistently support cross-divisional coordination.
This theme emerged most clearly in the central office focus groups. Across all eight focus
groups, participants described communication processes that created bottlenecks, slowed work,
and required staff to rely on existing relationships to navigate organizational barriers.
Participants also reflected on previous cross-functional work, where staff spent significant time
working on a cross-functional project in a co-located space, that strengthened collaboration but
noted that those collaborative practices were not sustained once staff returned to their
respective divisions. As one central office focus group participant reflected, "Once we got
back ... those relationships just fell apart." Another summarized the experience by stating,
"There was no more 'we' anymore."
Executive interviews reinforced this pattern. Leaders consistently described collaboration as an
organizational expectation, while acknowledging that divisions do not always coordinate
effectively in practice. In several interviews, participants described work occurring in
organizational silos, resulting in fragmented implementation, duplicated effort, and inconsistent
communication to schools. One executive interview participant observed, "Everybody works in
their own little lane." Another noted, "When folks work in silos ... we're in a reactive position
versus a proactive position."
Questionnaire responses further validated this finding. Nearly three-quarters of respondents
(168 of 226; 74%) identified inconsistent communication and cross-divisional collaboration as
creating inefficiencies, making this the most frequently cited organizational theme in the
45
questionnaire. Rather than requesting more communication, respondents consistently
emphasized the need for earlier involvement of key stakeholders, intentional collaboration
across divisions, and more structured opportunities to coordinate work before decisions were
finalized. As one questionnaire participant stated, “Work most often slows down or gets
duplicated due to communication gaps … changes and additional events are not always
communicated in a timely or consistent way.” Another recommended, “Include all stakeholders
early on, before decisions are made, so there is alignment and fewer revisions later.”
Principals experienced the downstream effects of these organizational challenges through
fragmented and inconsistent communication from the central office. While some principals
indicated that the proximity of Schools and Leaders staff made developing relationships easier
and helped them know who to communicate with, across all five principal focus groups,
participants also described receiving information through multiple channels, encountering
conflicting guidance from different departments, and struggling to prioritize competing requests.
As one principal focus group participant explained, "We have a lot of communication; it's just all
over the place." Another described information from different departments as "a little
convoluted." Principals consistently emphasized that the challenge was not the amount of
communication, but the lack of coordination and coherence across divisions.
Collectively, stakeholder perspectives suggest that the district benefits from strong interpersonal
relationships and a workforce committed to collaboration. However, those relationships often
compensate for the absence of consistent organizational structures that support communication
and coordination across divisions. As a result, collaboration depends heavily on knowing the
right people rather than on predictable organizational processes. These patterns suggest
opportunities to strengthen cross-divisional coordination by establishing more consistent
structures, routines, and communication processes that enable collaboration regardless of
individual relationships.
Theme 3: Decision-making and communication follow hierarchical pathways that slow
coordination and implementation.
Across stakeholder groups, participants consistently described decision-making and
communication as occurring through hierarchical pathways, with authority, information, and
requests often expected to move through formal reporting structures or parallel organizational
roles. While participants generally understood where major organizational decisions were made,
they frequently described uncertainty regarding who had the authority to make operational
decisions, how decisions should be implemented, and how information should flow across
divisions. Collectively, these experiences contributed to the perception that work often moved
more slowly than necessary and that communication became increasingly difficult as it crossed
organizational boundaries.
46
This theme emerged most clearly in the central office focus groups. Across all eight focus
groups, participants described decision-making processes that relied on multiple layers of
approval and communication pathways that often required information to move through
corresponding leadership levels rather than directly to the individual responsible for the work.
Participants reported that this structure created delays, limited collaboration across divisions,
and sometimes resulted in inconsistent implementation of decisions. As one central office focus
group participant explained, "It was a yes at the top ... once it got down lower, it was like, no."
Another participant described the communication process by noting that staff often had to
communicate "through like positions" rather than directly with colleagues across divisions, even
when doing so would have resolved issues more efficiently.
Executive interviews reinforced this perspective while providing additional context regarding
organizational governance. In 10 of the 12 interviews, executive leaders acknowledged that
decision-making processes and communication structures could create unnecessary delays in
implementation, particularly when multiple divisions were involved. Several leaders emphasized
that decisions often required numerous approvals or collaborative structures that, while intended
to increase alignment, sometimes slowed action and reduced organizational agility. One
executive interview participant noted, "Everything goes to the quad ... it stalls." Another
observed that "there's got to be a person who is responsible ... who is seeing it through,"
emphasizing the importance of clear ownership throughout implementation. The quad
referenced above is a structure introduced to strengthen communication and collaboration in
which the Chief of Schools and Leadership, Chief Academic Officer, Chief of Accountability and
Research and Chief of Student Services meet to align on the most important academic and
student-support practices across the district.
Questionnaire responses further reinforced this finding. Almost two-thirds of respondents
(142 of 226; 62.8%) described uncertainty regarding decision authority, ownership, or
accountability and recommended clearer decision pathways across the organization. Many
respondents also called for fewer approval layers, more timely communication, and greater
empowerment of staff to make decisions within their areas of responsibility. As one
questionnaire participant stated, "Reduce unnecessary layers of approval." Another
recommended that the district "trust the expertise of staff" by allowing employees to make
decisions appropriate to their roles.
Principals described these organizational dynamics most clearly through inconsistent
implementation and communication across central office divisions. Across all five principal focus
groups, participants reported receiving different guidance from multiple departments, along with
delays in accessing critical information that affected their ability to act. As one principal noted, “I
think it’s hit or miss. Some things are aligned really well and some things you can tell that the
communication just was not there.” This inconsistency was compounded by delays in
responsiveness, with another principal explaining, “Sometimes getting a response from central
office departments… that lags, and you’re waiting on information that impacts your ability to
47
move forward.” While principals generally accepted that decision-making authority resides
centrally, they expressed a consistent need for clearer, more coordinated communication and
more consistent implementation across departments to support timely and effective school-level
work.
Collectively, stakeholder perspectives suggest that the district's governance structures are
intended to promote coordination and consistency; however, participants frequently described
communication and decision-making processes that become increasingly layered as work
moves across divisions and organizational levels. These patterns suggest opportunities to
clarify decision rights, streamline communication pathways, and establish more direct
mechanisms for cross-divisional coordination while maintaining appropriate organizational
oversight.
Theme 4: Operational systems, workflows, and approval processes create inefficiencies
that slow work and reduce responsiveness.
Across stakeholder groups, participants consistently described operational systems and
administrative processes as barriers to efficient work. Rather than identifying isolated issues
with individual departments or technologies, participants described a broader pattern in which
outdated systems, manual workflows, multiple approval layers, and inconsistent standard
operating procedures created unnecessary complexity and delayed the district's ability to
respond to schools. These operational challenges were frequently described as compounding
one another, increasing workload while reducing organizational efficiency.
The central office focus groups provided the strongest evidence of this theme. Across all eight
focus groups, participants described system limitations, inefficient workflows, and administrative
processes that required unnecessary manual effort or repeated work across multiple platforms.
Participants frequently cited finance, procurement, payroll, and enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems as examples where processes and approvals, many of which are required by
policy, were cumbersome and time-consuming. One staff members described the duplication
created by disconnected systems, stating, "You have to enter something in one module ... then
enter it again in another ... that's duplication of work."
Executive interviews reinforced these concerns while placing them within a broader
organizational context. In eight of the 12 interviews, executive leaders described administrative
processes, system limitations, and workflow inefficiencies as barriers to timely implementation
and service delivery. Several leaders noted that excessive approval requirements and
inconsistent operating procedures slowed organizational responsiveness even when staff were
prepared to act. As one executive interview participant observed, "For me to do a simple
purchase order takes 11 people." Another emphasized the need to establish "clear standard
operating procedures across divisions" to improve consistency and reduce unnecessary
complexity.
48
Questionnaire responses reflected similar experiences. Nearly two-thirds respondents (63%)
identified operational processes, approval requirements, or administrative workflows as
significant barriers to completing work efficiently. Participants frequently recommended
simplifying approval processes, streamlining hiring and procurement, modernizing systems, and
reducing unnecessary administrative steps. As one questionnaire participant stated, "Reduce
unnecessary layers of approval." Another recommended the district "simplify district processes."
While principals generally did not identify specific internal systems, they consistently
experienced the downstream effects of these operational inefficiencies. Across all five principal
focus groups, participants described delays in receiving information, inconsistent timelines,
redundant requests from multiple departments, and administrative processes that reduced time
available to focus on instructional leadership. Many principals emphasized the need for central
office processes to be more coordinated, streamlined, and responsive to the operational
realities of schools.
Collectively, stakeholder perspectives suggest that operational challenges are driven less by
individual systems than by the interaction of systems, workflows, approval processes, and
organizational routines. Participants consistently described staff developing workarounds to
navigate these barriers, allowing work to continue despite inefficiencies. While these
workarounds often reflect staff commitment and adaptability, they also indicate opportunities to
modernize operational processes, simplify workflows, and establish more consistent procedures
that enable staff to focus more directly on supporting schools.
Theme 5: Stakeholders described inconsistent access to central office expertise through
the current school support model.
Across stakeholder groups, participants supported providing schools with coordinated, high-
quality services but described inconsistent access to central office expertise under the current
school support model. Although they valued the intent to coordinate support more effectively,
many were unsure whom to contact, how communication should flow, and when functional
divisions could work directly with school leaders. These uncertainties contributed to delayed
communication, reduced access to specialized expertise, and uneven support across schools.
This theme emerged most strongly in the central office focus groups. Across all eight focus
groups, participants described uncertainty regarding how functional divisions and Schools &
Leadership should work together to support schools. Many participants expressed concern that
requiring communication to flow through intermediary roles limited opportunities for direct
collaboration between subject matter experts and school leaders. As one central office focus
group participant explained, "We've been discouraged from communicating with school
leadership." Another participant observed, "The people doing the work aren't always the people
talking to the schools."
49
Executive interviews reflected greater variation in perspective. While several executive leaders
acknowledged that the current model requires additional clarification regarding roles,
communication pathways, and shared ownership, many also emphasized that the intent of the
structure was to provide schools with more coordinated support and reduce competing requests
from multiple divisions. The current design of the Schools and Leaders division is intended to
streamline support to schools by dedicating staff to directly addressing student achievement and
strengthening relationships with school-based staff and families. As a result, central office staff
are in schools with more regularity than they were under previous structures. One executive
interview participant described the model as an effort to "create one point of coordination for
schools," while another acknowledged that "we're still defining how those relationships should
work."
Principals generally supported having coordinated points of contact and described positive
relationships with schools and leadership. Several participants emphasized that the current
structure provides support tailored to the unique needs of their schools and grade levels. As one
principal focus group participant noted, "The support that we have is tailored to our needs ...
very specific to the grade levels, to the teachers." Another observed that "the structure creates
coherence ... it allows for better coherence and consistency with the individuals who support our
schools." At the same time, principals consistently emphasized the importance of timely access
to expertise and clear communication. Across all five principal focus groups, participants
expressed a desire for more direct access to functional experts when addressing specialized
instructional, operational, or student-support needs, noting that responsiveness was most
effective when coordination did not delay access to the individual best positioned to provide
assistance. As one principal explained, "Departments work in silos ... that's how we end up
getting redundancy or conflicting messages." Another emphasized that "there should be more
coherence and alignment at central office prior to it coming down to the school level." Together,
these perspectives suggest that while the school-facing support model is highly valued, stronger
integration and coordination across central office functions are necessary to provide schools
with a more seamless and coherent experience.
Questionnaire responses similarly reflected mixed perspectives. Many respondents described
uncertainty regarding communication expectations between functional divisions and schools,
while others emphasized the importance of preserving direct access to specialized expertise.
Respondents frequently recommended clearer guidance regarding communication protocols,
responsibilities, and expectations for collaboration across divisions. As one questionnaire
participant stated, “Allow subject matter experts to communicate directly with schools when
appropriate.” Another noted that “we have a lot of communication, it’s just all over the place,”
while others emphasized that “communication gaps often cause delays, repeated work, or
incomplete information,” underscoring the need for clearer communication protocols and
expectations across divisions.
50
Collectively, stakeholder perspectives suggest broad agreement regarding the importance of
coordinated support for schools, but less consistency regarding how the current operating
model should function in practice. Participants frequently described uncertainty about
communication pathways, shared responsibilities, and the balance between centralized
coordination and direct access to expertise. These patterns suggest opportunities to further
clarify the roles, responsibilities, and operating expectations that define how central office
divisions collectively support schools.
51
4. Considerations
The findings in this report, drawn from comparative staffing data, organizational chart analysis,
and qualitative focus groups, surface a set of structural, procedural, and cultural questions that
DCSD may wish to examine as it considers how to organize its central office for greater
effectiveness and coherence. The considerations below are not recommendations are an
evidence-based framing of the organizational design choices available to the district, with
options identified where the data and peer district models suggest meaningful alternatives. Each
consideration names a pattern the analysis identified, describes what the evidence shows, and
presents options for how the district might respond.
Consideration 1: Cabinet Structure and the Coordination of Related Functions (Structure)
What the evidence shows
DCSD's cabinet of 15 division chiefs is the largest in the comparison group. Among districts of
comparable enrollment, Fulton County operates with six cabinet members, Denver with eight,
and Baltimore with 10. More significantly, the distribution of organizational mass across DCSD's
15 divisions is uneven: the Chief Operating Officer's division accounts for 1,313 of DCSD's
2,742 total FTE. The remaining 14 cabinet positions collectively oversee 1,429 FTE, with eight
of those divisions carrying fewer than 130 FTE each.
The size of the cabinet creates a coordination challenge that is structural rather than personal.
With 15 divisions reporting directly to the superintendent, the superintendent serves as the
primary integration point across all functions. Related functions, like academics and school
leadership, student-support services, professional learning, sit in separate cabinet verticals with
no common reporting structure below the superintendent level.
Peer districts address this in two ways. Several use an integrating executive, most often a
deputy superintendent, who holds related functions within a common reporting structure below
the superintendent. Charlotte-Mecklenburg's Deputy Superintendent spans academic
performance, school leadership and principal supervision, and student services. Denver's
Deputy Superintendent spans academics, school supervision, and school transformation.
Others use broader cabinet portfolios. Fulton's six cabinet members each hold wider spans of
responsibility, reducing the number of coordination dependencies the superintendent must
manage directly, a critical design choice with the district’s seven Zone superintendents also
reporting directly to the Superintendent.
Options for the district's consideration
• Create an integrating executive position, such as a Deputy Superintendent or Chief
Academic and School Excellence Officer, to hold academics, school leadership, and
student support under a common reporting structure. This position would create the
52
coordination layer that currently does not exist between those functions and the
superintendent. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Denver, and Gwinnett each demonstrate a
version of this model at comparable or larger scale.
o At a minimum, this integration would span the current teaching and learning,
schools and leaders, and student support divisions, including student services
and wraparound services. In the new orientation, each area would be led by an
associate superintendent (or similar role) that reports directly to the integrating
executive. At full scope, it could also include Professional Development and
Leadership Development, creating stronger coherence across academics, school
support, and talent development.
o This approach requires a leader with the breadth, credibility, and relationships to
hold these functions together. The Wallace Foundation's research on central
office transformation consistently notes that an integrating position is only as
effective as the person who occupies it and the authority that accompanies the
role.
• Consolidate cabinet portfolios rather than adding an integrating layer. This would
reduce the number of cabinet seats by broadening the reporting span of remaining
chiefs: fewer cabinet members, each holding more responsibility. This approach reduces
the number of coordination dependencies at the superintendent level without adding a
new executive position but requires each remaining cabinet member to lead across a
wider set of functions. Potential consolidation opportunities are outlined in
Consideration 2.
• Maintain the current cabinet size but formalize cross-cabinet coordination
structures. This can include cabinet-level working groups, shared accountability
mechanisms, and defined protocols for how related divisions coordinate on shared
priorities. This is the least structurally disruptive option but also the most dependent on
sustained leadership attention to make it work without structural reinforcement.
Consideration 2: Division and Department Alignment (Structure)
What the evidence shows
Several of DCSD's current cabinet divisions hold portfolios that are structurally distinct from how
peer districts organize comparable functions, in ways that have implications for coordination,
accountability, and service delivery.
The most significant is the distribution of student-support functions across three separate
cabinet verticals. The Interim Chief of Student Services (247 FTE) and the Chief of Wraparound
Support and Intervention (107 FTE) hold the district's primary specialized and wraparound
53
student-support functions. The Chief of Access and Opportunity (89 FTE) leads a broader
portfolio that includes school choice and enrollment, charter governance, and athletics
alongside direct-service student-support staff—a combined 443 FTE across the three verticals,
with no integrating position between them and the superintendent. Among the comparison
districts, six of nine consolidate specialized student services and wraparound support under a
single cabinet leader. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Dallas, and Wake each consolidate comparable
functions under one or two leaders within a common reporting structure.
The Chief of Access and Opportunity's portfolio spans athletics, charter school oversight,
student assignment and enrollment, and student mentorship, a grouping that is not mirrored in
any peer district's organizational structure and that participants in this study's focus groups
described as lacking a clear unifying theme. That said, the original intention of Access and
Opportunity—to ensure that all students, no matter their background, have the supports they
need to achieve at high levels—continues to be front and center in the district’s strategic plan.
Access and opportunity appear to be a districtwide strategic priority, intended as a shared focus
across all divisions.
Options for the district's consideration
• Consolidate student support under a single cabinet leader. Combining the Interim
Chief of Student Services and Chief of Wraparound Support and Intervention under one
cabinet member would bring 251 FTE of directly student-facing support services under a
coherent leadership structure. This would eliminate one cabinet seat and create a single
point of accountability for the coordination between specialized services and wraparound
support that currently requires cross-cabinet negotiation.
• Disburse the Access and Opportunity portfolio to more logically aligned divisions,
rather than maintaining it as a stand-alone cabinet area. Each function currently in the
division has a more natural organizational home:
o Athletics under the Chief Operating Officer or a consolidated student services
structure.
o Charter School Oversight and Governance under the Chief Legal Officer or the
Chief of Staff as a regulatory and accountability function.
o Student Assignment and Enrollment under the Chief Operating Officer if oriented
around enrollment and assignment as a facilities related function, or under
Academics if its intent is to align assignment with a student programs and
placement purpose.
o Student Mentorship and Partnerships under a consolidated student-support
function alongside wraparound services.
54
Importantly, the core function of focusing on Access and Opportunity for DCSD, can
continue to be a focus and roles currently dedicated for that purpose might logically be
housed in academics or chief-of-staff areas, for example, and—in order to align with the
strategic plan—could be a lens through which all work in DCSD is viewed and executed.
• Focus on the communication function in the Community Engagement and
Innovative Partnerships portfolio by separating communications from community
engagement and grants functions. Among peer districts, six of nine lead this function
with a communications-forward title and structure. DCSD's arrangement, where a
Deputy Chief Communications Officer leads communications within a broader
engagement and partnerships division, places communications in a subordinate
organizational position relative to how peer districts structure it. Prioritizing
communication functions may be especially important given the imperative to build trust
across the community.
• Consider consolidating potentially similar roles. In coordination with potential
reorganization and in light of growing financial pressures faced by DCSD and other
school districts across the state and country, DCSD might consider consolidating similar
roles. As noted throughout this document, individual performance is not assessed in this
report; the roles below are highlighted because they serve important functions within the
district and they have commonalities in their function. Consolidation of role may lead to
great efficiency and clarification of responsibility. This consideration suggest a close look
in these areas for potential consolidation by district leadership. Areas for consideration
include the following:
o Coordinators. The Division of Teaching and Learning has central senior
coordinators for K–12 ELA, math, science, social studies, and other content
areas. Each area office in Schools and Leadership also has its own ELA, math,
exceptional education, ELL, climate and culture, and mental health coordinators,
and Student Services has its own EL and exceptional education staff.
o Nonacademic student supports broadly. Wraparound Services contains
counseling, social work, PBIS, and student health. Student Services contains
psychologists, additional social workers, GNETS and a PBIS coach. Attendance
lives with the Title IV attendance specialists and prevention liaisons inside Wrap
Around Services, while behavior and climate support is also held by the Culture
and Climate Coordinators and Mental Health Coordinators embedded in each
Schools and Leadership area office. Family support is dispersed as well and
cannot be easily separated from student support as a function. FACE advocates
and student-mentorship staff sit under Access and Opportunity, Family
Engagement Liaisons and a Senior Coordinator for Family and Community
Engagement sit under Community Engagement and Innovative Partnerships,
55
Parent Center Facilitators sit under Federal Programs, and Student Services
adds its own Parent Mentors and Parent Transition Liaisons.
o Area superintendents and executive administrator. In some other systems,
these roles are not separated out, especially in districts wherein the reporting line
is smaller than that of the current reporting line of Schools and Leaders.
o School and Central Office roles. As it was designed, schools and leadership
support is intended to provide intensive support within schools. While this
proximity to schools can provide opportunities for deeply context-informed
support, it also may cloud roles and responsibilities between school
responsibilities and district responsibilities. As an example, exploring the role of
climate and culture coordinators with the day-to-day, school-based climate and
culture work of principals, APs, deans, counselors and other staff.
o District and community roles. Finally, the district can look outside its
organizational structure to determine whether internal roles and the roles of other
county and community agencies present opportunities for better alignment or
duplicative responsibility while ensuring that DCSD has important staffing to
manage coordination, especially in the broad categories of health care, mental
health, housing and other agency provided supports for students and families.
Consideration 3: Coordination Between Area Offices and Central Departments in Schools
and Leadership (Structure + Process)
What the evidence shows
DCSD's Division of Schools and Leadership deploys nine area superintendents across seven
area offices, each carrying embedded coordinator staff organized around specific content and
support domains: ELA, math, ELL, special education, mental health, and culture and climate.
Across the seven areas, 63 FTE of embedded coordinators provide domain-specific support to
schools through the area office structure.
Parallel expertise exists centrally in Teaching and Learning, Student Services, and Wraparound,
each of which holds staff with the same content or support domain focus as the area-embedded
coordinators. For every domain in which an embedded coordinator works, there is a central
department with equivalent expertise reporting through a different cabinet vertical.
No peer district in this sample structures its area offices in this way. Charlotte-Mecklenburg and
Wake carry embedded school support staff, but those positions are teacher-classified
instructional specialists rather than coordinator-classified domain experts, and they do not
create a parallel expertise structure that mirrors central department categories. The DCSD
model reflects a deliberate organizational choice to provide maximum direct, domain-specific
support to schools through the area office. Focus group participants from multiple stakeholder
56
groups identified the resulting coordination challenge, including tension over role clarity,
inconsistent support experiences across areas, and competition for principal attention, as a
significant operational concern.
The current structure creates solid lines where dotted lines may be more appropriate, and
dotted lines where solid lines may produce better outcomes. Area superintendents currently
supervise embedded coordinators directly, creating a management relationship that competes
with the content accountability those coordinators should have to their central department
counterparts. The relationship between embedded coordinators and central department staff
who set curriculum, instructional, and student-support priorities districtwide is informal and
depends on voluntary coordination rather than structural accountability.
Options for the district's consideration
• Shift reporting lines for embedded coordinators from area offices to central
departments, with area superintendents retaining a collaborative rather than
supervisory relationship with those staff.
o Under this model, ELA coordinators would report to Teaching and Learning, ELL
coordinators to the ELL Director, SPED coordinators to the Special Education
structure, and mental health coordinators to the Wraparound division. Area
superintendents would work with those coordinators as partners rather than
supervisors, ensuring school-specific context informs the work without creating a
parallel management hierarchy. This potential change would not preclude the
current practice under Schools and Leaders of assigning coordinators to a
portfolio of schools (a case management structure as outlined in the literature
review) and could potentially preserve the intention of giving school leaders a
clear point of contact in focus areas while allowing stronger coherence for ELA,
Math, Special Education, EL and other supports by organizing them under one
subject specific structure.
o This would require a redesign of how coordinators are accountable to both the
area they serve and the central department that sets their professional direction.
A defined liaison structure, including regular touchpoints between area
superintendents and central department directors, would need to accompany the
reporting line change to ensure area-specific needs remain visible to central
leadership. Were the district to make this shift, it might potentially put at risk the
accountability to the Area Superintendent that comes with having coordinators in
their reporting structure. The underlying logic being that the area superintendent
is deeply accountable for school results and therefore should have the ability to
guide responsive support decisions for schools. For that reason, the district may
want to consider keeping some coordinators in the area superintendent reporting
structure and moving some back to a central reporting structure (for instance,
57
Exceptional Education coordinators given the complexity of special education
policy and practice). In either case, the need for attending to cross-functional
teaming will continue to be deeply important to aligned, coherent support.
• Refine districtwide coordination structures for each domain where embedded
coordinators, central department staff, and area superintendents meet regularly within a
structured accountability framework. Examples could include a Math Council, an ELL
Leadership Team, or a Behavioral Health Community of Practice. This option preserves
the current reporting relationships while creating the coordination mechanisms that are
currently absent. It is the least structurally disruptive option but requires the most
sustained leadership attention to maintain.
• Standardize area office structures and expectations regardless of which coordination
model is adopted. Focus group findings indicate that each area superintendent currently
runs their office differently, producing inconsistent experiences for principals, teachers,
and families across the district. Establishing common expectations for how area offices
operate, from what services they provide, to how they communicate with schools, and
how they coordinate with central departments, would reduce inconsistency independent
of any structural change.
Consideration 4: Professional Learning and Talent Development as a Coherent District
Strategy (Structure)
What the evidence shows
DCSD's investment in professional learning and talent development is distributed across three
cabinet areas without a defined integrating strategy. The IGNITE DeKalb Teacher Residency
program (6 FTE) sits under the Chief Human Resources Officer. Professional Development
(10 FTE) and Leadership Development (8 FTE) sit under the Chief of Schools and Leadership.
Instructional strategy, which should inform what professional learning prioritizes, sits under the
Chief Academic Officer.
IGNITE mirrors comparable programs in Charlotte-Mecklenburg (4 FTE) and Gwinnett (8 FTE),
reflecting a commitment to home-grown teacher development. What is less visible in the current
structure is how IGNITE connects to the functions that determine its impact: the instructional
priorities set by Teaching and Learning, the school placement and support structures owned by
Schools and Leadership, and the professional development and mentoring support that new
teachers need in their first years of practice.
Among peer districts that carry meaningful investment across the professional learning
continuum, the most common approach is to consolidate these functions under a single cabinet
leader, whether an academic officer, a chief learning officer, or a talent officer, so that teacher
preparation, professional development, and leadership development operate within a shared
58
strategic framework. Gwinnett's Chief Learning Officer holds both its comparable teacher
pipeline program (Teach Gwinnett) and professional development functions. Dallas's academic
leadership holds professional development. Denver's Chief of Academics holds professional
development and connects it directly to instructional priorities.
Options for the district's consideration
• Establish a unified talent-development strategy that explicitly connects IGNITE,
Professional Development, Leadership Development, and new teacher induction into a
coherent continuum, regardless of where each function organizationally sits. This would
require a designated owner for the strategy—a person or structure accountable for
ensuring the pieces connect—and defined coordination protocols between HR, Schools
and Leadership, and Academic Leadership.
• Consolidate the professional learning continuum under a single cabinet area. Two
options exist depending on where the district believes professional learning most
naturally belongs:
o Under the Chief Academic Officer, aligning professional learning with
instructional strategy. This is the most common model among peer districts and
ensures that what teachers learn is driven by what students need academically.
IGNITE would move from HR to Academics, with HR retaining responsibility for
recruitment, hiring, and benefits administration of residents.
o Under the Chief of Schools and Leadership, connecting professional learning to
school practice. Professional Development and Leadership Development already
sit here. Adding IGNITE would complete the continuum under the division closest
to principals and schools. The risk is that instructional alignment requires
sustained coordination with Academics that is not currently structured.
Consideration 5: Clarity in Cross-Divisional Roles, Ownership, and Accountability
(Process)
What the evidence shows
Across all stakeholder groups, participants described a clear understanding of their own
responsibilities and their division's purpose, but that clarity diminished consistently when work
crossed divisional boundaries. This was the single most consistent pattern in the data: across all
eight central office focus groups, participants described uncertainty about which division owned
particular work, where decision-making authority resided, and who was ultimately accountable
when responsibilities were shared. Executive interviews reinforced this, with leaders in 10 of 12
interviews acknowledging overlapping responsibilities, duplicated functions, and unclear
ownership, and nearly two-thirds of questionnaire respondents (143 of 226; 63%) identifying
unclear cross-divisional roles as a source of overlap and inefficiency. Principals experienced the
59
same pattern as service recipients, frequently describing uncertainty about whom to contact
when an issue spanned multiple departments. Collectively, the evidence suggests the core
challenge is less about understanding individual roles than about understanding how
responsibilities connect across the organization.
Options for the district's consideration
• Map ownership and decision rights for recurring cross-divisional work. The district
may wish to document, for its most common cross-cutting processes, who owns the
work, who plays a supporting role, and who holds final accountability. A simple, shared
decision rights framework would give staff a consistent reference point when work spans
divisions and would reduce the time spent determining "who does that."
• Develop a central office navigation resource for schools. Create and maintain a
user-friendly resource that clearly identifies the appropriate point of contact, functional
responsibilities, and ownership for common areas of district support. This
recommendation directly responds to concerns raised by principals and central office
staff regarding uncertainty about whom to contact when work spans multiple divisions. A
centralized resource would improve organizational transparency, reduce reliance on
informal relationships or institutional knowledge, and make it easier for schools to
access timely and appropriate support.
• Define ownership at the outset of cross-divisional initiatives. For any project
involving multiple divisions, the district could adopt a practice of naming the owner,
supporting roles, and decision-maker before work begins. Establishing this clarity up
front would reduce ambiguity about accountability as the work progresses.
Consideration 6: Durable Structures for Cross-Divisional Collaboration (Culture +
Process)
What the evidence shows
Participants across every stakeholder group described a strong willingness to collaborate, but
they consistently characterized collaboration as depending on personal relationships, individual
initiative, and informal communication rather than on established structures. This was the most
frequently cited theme in the questionnaire: nearly three-quarters of respondents (168 of 226;
74%) identified inconsistent communication and cross-divisional collaboration as a source of
inefficiency. Staff described how cross-functional efforts that strengthened collaboration were
not sustained once participants returned to their divisions, with one participant noting that the
sense of "we" did not persist. Executives reinforced this pattern, describing work occurring in
silos and a resulting tendency toward reactive rather than proactive coordination, while
principals described receiving fragmented and sometimes conflicting communication from
different departments. The evidence suggests that strong relationships are currently
compensating for the absence of consistent structures, leaving collaboration dependent on
knowing the right people.
60
Options for the district's consideration
• Create standing cross-divisional structures for recurring work. Rather than
convening collaboration on an ad hoc basis, the district could establish durable teams or
routines tied to the work that regularly crosses divisions. Structures that persist
regardless of individual participants would help ensure collaboration does not dissolve
when staff return to their respective divisions.
• Adopt early-involvement protocols for shared decisions. Respondents repeatedly
emphasized the value of involving relevant divisions before decisions are finalized. A
practice of bringing key stakeholders in early would promote alignment and reduce the
revisions and rework that follow when divisions are engaged too late.
• Refine the district's coordinated communication model for schools. Build on the
existing centralized communication process by establishing clearer governance for how
information is prioritized, reviewed, and communicated to schools. This recommendation
directly responds to concerns raised by both principals and central office staff regarding
inconsistent communication, uncertainty about what information is most critical, and
limitations within the current process. Strengthening the implementation of the existing
model would promote more coherent, transparent, and actionable communication while
preserving the benefits of coordinated messaging.
• Sustain collaborative practices beyond temporary initiatives. Given that prior cross-
functional efforts faded once they ended, the district could build mechanisms to retain
effective collaborative practices over time. Capturing and institutionalizing what worked
would help preserve gains rather than rebuilding relationships with each new effort.
Consideration 7: Streamlined Decision-Making and Reduced Unnecessary Approval
Layers (Process + Culture)
What the evidence shows
Stakeholders consistently described decision-making and communication as moving through
hierarchical pathways, with authority, information, and requests expected to travel through
formal reporting structures or parallel roles. Across all eight central office focus groups,
participants described decisions requiring multiple layers of approval and communication that
had to move through corresponding leadership levels rather than directly to the responsible
individual, contributing to delays and inconsistent implementation. Executives echoed this in 10
of 12 interviews, noting that approval-heavy or highly collaborative structures, while intended to
build alignment, sometimes slowed action and reduced agility. Nearly two-thirds of
questionnaire respondents (142 of 226; 62.8%) described uncertainty about decision authority
and called for clearer pathways, fewer approval layers, and greater empowerment of staff.
Principals described the downstream effect as inconsistent implementation and delayed
responsiveness that affected their ability to act.
61
Options for the district's consideration
• Clarify decision tiers and delegation of authority. The district could define which
types of decisions can be made at which organizational levels, with an emphasis on
enabling operational decisions to be made closer to the work. Clear delegation would
reduce the uncertainty staff described about who is authorized to act.
• Reduce approval steps for routine transactions. Reviewing high-frequency
processes to identify and remove low-value approval layers could meaningfully improve
responsiveness. Aligning the number of approvals to the actual risk or significance of a
decision would allow routine work to move more quickly.
• Enable more direct communication across levels and divisions. Staff described
having to route communication through parallel positions even when speaking directly to
a colleague would resolve an issue faster. Permitting direct communication with the
responsible individual, where appropriate, could reduce delays without sacrificing
oversight.
• Assign a single accountable owner for implementation. Executives emphasized the
importance of having one person responsible for seeing work through. Designating a
clear implementation owner for significant decisions would help ensure that approvals
translate into consistent follow-through.
Consideration 8: Operational Systems and Workflows (Process)
What the evidence shows
Participants consistently described operational systems and administrative processes as
barriers to efficient work, pointing not to isolated problems but to a compounding pattern of
manual workflows, multiple approval layers, inconsistent procedures, and systems that require
significant staff effort to complete routine tasks. The central office focus groups provided the
strongest evidence, with participants citing finance, procurement, payroll, and ERP processes
as time consuming and often requiring duplicate data entry across modules or workarounds to
move work forward. Executives reinforced these concerns in eight of 12 interviews and
emphasized the importance of clear, consistent standard operating procedures.
At the same time, many of these processes reflect district policies, state procurement
requirements, and transparency measures that appropriately govern financial stewardship and
public accountability. The findings suggest that opportunities for improvement lie not in reducing
necessary controls, but in modernizing tools, streamlining workflows, eliminating unnecessary
manual effort, and ensuring that administrative processes are designed to support both
efficiency and accountability.
Options for the district's consideration
62
• Map and streamline high-burden workflows. The district could prioritize process
mapping for frequently cited processes such as procurement, hiring, and payroll to
identify redundant steps, manual workarounds, and opportunities to simplify internal
procedures. Divisions should be encouraged to periodically review and refine workflows
within their areas of responsibility while maintaining consistency for processes that span
multiple departments.
• Modernize tools and reduce duplicate data entry across systems. Because staff
described entering the same information across multiple systems or modules, the district
could examine opportunities for greater system integration, automation, or
reconfiguration that reduce manual effort while preserving required controls and
reporting requirements. Reducing repetitive data entry would improve efficiency,
decrease the likelihood of errors, and allow staff to focus more time on higher-value
work.
• Establish consistent standard operating procedures. Both staff and executives
identified inconsistent procedures as a source of complexity. Developing and
maintaining shared standard operating procedures for common administrative processes
would reduce variation, clarify expectations, and ensure that cross-divisional work is
executed consistently regardless of where responsibilities reside.
• Align approval requirements to risk and value. The district could review approval
pathways to ensure that routine, low-risk actions are governed by the least restrictive
processes necessary to satisfy district policy, state law, and transparency requirements.
Proportioning approvals to the significance and risk of a decision would preserve
appropriate oversight while reducing unnecessary administrative burden and improving
responsiveness.
Consideration 9: School Support Model and Access to Expertise (Process + Culture)
What the evidence shows
Stakeholders broadly supported the goal of providing schools with coordinated, high-quality
services, but they described inconsistent access to central office expertise under the current
support model. Across all eight central office focus groups, participants expressed uncertainty
about how functional divisions and Schools & Leadership should work together, with some
describing being discouraged from communicating directly with school leaders and others noting
that the staff doing the work were not always the ones communicating with schools. Executive
perspectives varied: several described the model's intent as creating a single point of
coordination to reduce competing requests, while acknowledging that roles and communication
pathways still required definition. Questionnaire responses were similarly mixed, balancing
support for coordination against a desire to preserve direct access to specialized expertise.
Principals valued their relationships with Schools & Leadership but consistently emphasized the
importance of timely, direct access to functional experts for specialized needs. The evidence
63
suggests broad agreement on the goal of coordinated support, but less consistency about how
the model should function in practice.
Options for the district's consideration
• Clarify communication protocols within the support model. The district could define
when coordination should flow through Schools & Leadership and when functional
experts may engage schools directly. Clear protocols would reduce the uncertainty staff
described while preserving the model's coordinating intent.
• Preserve direct access to specialized expertise. Given that both staff and principals
valued direct access to subject matter experts, the district could ensure the model allows
experts to work directly with schools for specialized instructional, operational, or student-
support needs. Maintaining this access while coordinating overall support would help
balance responsiveness with coherence.
• Define shared roles between functional divisions and Schools & Leadership.
Because participants described uncertainty about ownership and handoffs, the district
could more clearly articulate the respective responsibilities of functional divisions and
Schools & Leadership. Defining how these roles intersect would clarify expectations for
collaboration and reduce confusion about who engages schools and when.
• Establish a feedback loop with principals on responsiveness. Since principals are
best positioned to judge whether the model delivers timely support, the district could
gather their input regularly to refine how it operates. A consistent feedback mechanism
would allow the model to be adjusted based on whether schools are actually receiving
timely access to expertise.
64
End Notes
1
Anthony S. Bryk, Louis M. Gomez, Alicia Grunow, and Paul G. LeMahieu, Learning to Improve:
How America's Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press, 2015).
2
Meredith I. Honig, Michael A. Copland, Lydia Rainey, Julie Anne Lorton, and Morena Newton,
Central Office Transformation for District-Wide Teaching and Learning Improvement (New York:
Wallace Foundation, 2010).
3
Honig et al., Central Office Transformation, IV.
4
Meredith I. Honig, "From Tinkering to Transformation: Strengthening School District Central
Office Performance," American Enterprise Institute, June 5, 2013, https://www.aei.org/research-
products/report/from-tinkering-to-transformation-strengthening-school-district-central-office-
performance/.
5
Michael Fullan and Joanne Quinn, Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools,
Districts, and Systems (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2016)
6
Education Scorecard, "Baltimore City Public Schools, MD," Districts on the Rise, 2026,
https://educationscorecard.org/districts-on-the-rise/.
7
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, "CMS Celebrates Historic Gains in Academic Progress,"
September 3, 2025, https://www.cmsk12.org/post-details/~board/academic-
excellence/post/cms-celebrates-historic-gains-in-academic-progress.
8
Governor's Office of Student Achievement, "FTE Enrollment by Grade, Fiscal Year 2025,"
Downloadable Data Repository, 2025, https://gosa.georgia.gov/report-card-dashboards-
data/downloadable-data
9
QCN Digital Staff, "CMS Approves Funding for New Middle School, Student Devices Refresh,"
Queen City News, November 13, 2024, https://www.qcnews.com/news/charlotte-mecklenburg-
schools/cms-approves-funding-for-new-middle-school-refresh-student-devices/.
10
DeKalb County School District, "How We Are Making a Difference in 2025," 2025,
https://www.dekalbschoolsga.org/about-us/how-we-are-making-a-difference-in-2025.
65
Appendix A: Coding and Analysis Methodology
The following outlines the RTI team’s approach to collecting, organizing, and analyzing central
office staffing data. The goal is to provide enough transparency for readers to understand the
basis for the comparisons in this report, while recognizing that no two districts organize or report
their data in identical ways.
Data Collection
Each comparison district was asked to provide a current personnel file for all central office
employees, including position title, department, and full-time-equivalent units (FTE). Most
districts provided this as an exported spreadsheet from their human resources or payroll
system. Where FTE values were not included, they were derived from available data such as
scheduled work hours or contract days or assigned a default value of 1.0 for full-time positions
and 0.5 for part-time positions.
Two districts presented distinct data challenges. Baltimore City Public Schools did not provide a
personnel file and instead directed the study team to their adopted budget document, which
reports staffing levels by office rather than by individual position. Baltimore is therefore included
in functional area comparisons but excluded from department-level and role-level analysis.
Cobb County School District provided division descriptions in lieu of personnel data and was
unable to provide data in a format suitable for staffing comparison. Cobb is included in the
cabinet structure analysis where organizational chart data were available but is excluded from
all staffing comparisons.
Coding Approach
To enable comparison across districts that use different organizational structures and job title
conventions, each position was classified using a common framework anchored to DeKalb
County School District’s (DCSD) organizational structure. Because this study is designed to
inform DCSD's decisions, functional categories reflect how DCSD organizes its central office,
and positions in other districts are mapped to the equivalent DCSD category based on their
function rather than their native title or placement.
Coding decisions relied on the native department assignment and the position title together. The
department established the functional context for each position, and the title was used to
validate that placement, resolve ambiguity where one department contained multiple functional
types, and identify cases where a role's actual function differed from where it sat in the
organizational chart. When those two sources pointed in different directions, the analysis drew
on additional sources in the following order: the district's organizational chart, the district's public
website, and publicly posted job descriptions.
66
Because districts organize themselves differently, not every comparison reflects a direct
equivalence. Where structural differences are meaningful for the analysis, they are noted in the
relevant sections of this report rather than resolved through coding.
School-Based Positions
Positions were classified as school-based and excluded from central office counts when their
primary function involves direct-service delivery to students in a school setting. The determining
factor was the nature of the work, not the administrative arrangement. Under this standard,
classroom teachers, homebound teachers, paraprofessionals, school counselors assigned to a
specific building, and principals were excluded from central office counts regardless of how they
appear in a district's personnel file.
Itinerant therapeutic service providers, including occupational therapists, physical therapists,
speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and school psychologists, are retained in the
central office count even when they travel between schools. These roles represent an active
organizational decision about whether to staff specialized services internally or contract them
externally, and including them allows for a meaningful comparison of how districts approach that
decision.
Transportation, nutrition, and custodial staff are also retained, consistent with how most
comparison districts report these positions as part of their central office operations. They are
identifiable in the underlying data and can be filtered for analyses focused on more narrowly
defined administrative functions.
Full-Time Equivalent
Staffing levels are reported in FTE units rather than simple headcount. FTE converts part-time
and full-time roles to a common scale, providing a more accurate picture of staffing capacity
than a raw count of positions. Vacant positions are counted at 1.0 FTE to reflect budgeted
capacity. Compensation supplements, stipends, and extended employment entries that
represent additional pay rather than distinct positions were identified and excluded from all
counts.
Personnel files varied considerably across districts in structure and completeness, and no
universal standard exists for how districts record or export staffing data. FTE figures in this
report should be understood as well-grounded estimates that allow for meaningful comparison
rather than precise equivalents. Where a district's data required particular assumptions or
presented notable limitations, those are noted in context.
Vacant Positions
Districts varied in whether their personnel files included vacant positions. Three of the nine
districts that provided personnel files included vacancies: DCSD, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and
67
Griffin-Spalding. The remaining six districts provided data for filled positions only, which likely
reflects how each district filtered its export rather than an absence of open positions.
Where vacancies were included, they are retained in the analysis and counted at 1.0 FTE to
reflect budgeted staffing capacity. This approach treats a vacant position as a deliberate
organizational commitment, since the district has chosen to fund the role even if it is not
currently filled. DCSD's file included 339 vacant positions, representing approximately 12
percent of its total entries and spanning all major functional areas. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
included 37 vacancies, and Griffin-Spalding included one.
Because most districts did not include vacancies, comparisons of total FTE between DCSD and
peer districts will reflect this difference. DCSD, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and Griffin-Spalding's
counts include their full budgeted capacity (as indicated by their position files); other peer district
counts reflect filled positions only. This should be kept in mind when interpreting differences in
staffing levels, particularly in functional areas where DCSD shows a notably higher count than
peers.
Distribution of Central Office Staff by Functional Area
While overall staffing levels provide a broad indicator of central office scale, understanding how
staff are distributed across functional areas reveals how districts allocate their administrative
capacity. Central office functions in large school districts typically span instructional support,
student services, operational management, financial administration, human resources,
technology, and strategic leadership. Examining this distribution allows for comparison of
organizational priorities across districts, independent of differences in size or naming
conventions.
For the purposes of this analysis, central office positions were grouped into thirteen functional
areas reflecting the major domains most commonly represented within superintendent
leadership teams. These categories are broad enough to accommodate variation in how
districts name and structure their departments, making them the most reliable unit of cross-
district comparison in this study. Individual positions were mapped to these categories based on
their primary functional responsibilities rather than their exact title or native placement within the
organizational chart.
Functional area comparisons should be interpreted as structural indicators rather than
performance measures. Differences in staffing levels may reflect variations in district
responsibilities, organizational design, service delivery models, or strategic priorities rather than
differences in efficiency or effectiveness.
Department-Level Organization and Staffing
While functional area comparisons provide a consistent framework for examining how districts
allocate resources across major domains, department-level analysis offers a closer look at how
districts operationalize those priorities. Departments are the subunits within each functional
68
area, and examining them reveals differences in how districts structure specific functions, what
roles they include, and how much granularity they bring to particular areas of work.
Department-level comparisons require more interpretive care than functional area comparisons.
Districts vary considerably in how specifically they name and organize their departments. Some
districts maintain distinct departments for each content area in curriculum and instruction, for
example, while others consolidate all curriculum staff under a single teaching and learning
umbrella. These structural differences do not necessarily reflect differences in capacity or
investment; they often reflect organizational design choices. Where those differences are
analytically significant, they are noted in the discussion rather than normalized through coding.
Where peer district personnel files included native department designations, such as a position
listed under "Transportation" or "Federal Programs" in the district's own system, the RTI team
used those designations as the primary basis for department assignment, adjusted where
necessary to align with the common department taxonomy applied across all districts. Where
native department information was absent, ambiguous, or inconsistent with the position's
apparent function, the RTI team assigned departments based on the best available inference
from position title, reporting structure, and functional area placement. In cases where a position
title suggested one department but the native department designation suggested another, the
RTI team defaulted to the native designation unless the title provided clear evidence of a
different function. Positions whose department could not be determined with reasonable
confidence were flagged for review rather than assigned silently. The department taxonomy
used throughout this analysis was developed iteratively, with DCSD's organizational structure
serving as the baseline framework and peer district equivalents mapped to it. In some
instances, peer district functions with no direct DCSD counterpart were assigned to the closest
equivalent department with a notation in the data file.
For example, personnel data from one peer district included a central administrative building
housing staff from Human Resources, Finance, Nutrition Services, Health Services, and several
other functions under a single location code with no native department field. In that case, the
study team used the district's general ledger key description—a budget account code that
identified the functional cost center for each position—as the primary basis for department
assignment, cross-referencing position titles where the account code alone was insufficient to
distinguish between closely related functions.
Role Distribution and Management Structure
Beyond how staff are distributed across functions and departments, understanding how roles
are structured within the central office provides insight into how districts organize decision-
making authority and management capacity. For this analysis, each position was assigned one
of three role classifications: Executive and Cabinet-Level Leadership, People Manager, or
Individual Contributor.
69
Executive and Cabinet-Level Leadership includes superintendents, chiefs, deputy
superintendents, and area or assistant superintendents. People Manager includes executive
directors, directors, managers, supervisors, and senior-level positions where the role could
plausibly carry supervisory responsibility over other staff. Where a title band regularly includes
individuals who manage others, all positions in that band are classified as People Manager to
avoid undercounting management capacity. Individual Contributor includes all other positions,
including coordinators, specialists, analysts, technicians, and administrative support staff.
Buyers, recruiters, project managers, and hearing officers are classified as Individual
Contributors regardless of title seniority, as these roles do not typically carry supervisory
responsibility over other staff.
Role classifications were applied consistently across all districts based on title. Where the same
title is used differently across districts, the classification reflects the most common functional
interpretation of that title. This approach supports cross-district comparison of management
structure while acknowledging that title conventions are not uniform.
70
Appendix B: Sample Organizational Charts for Consideration
Exhibit 1: Illustrative Organization of Academics, School Leadership, and Student
Services
The design intent of this organizational structure is to align academic, school leadership, and
student-support functions through a unified leadership model that promotes coherence,
continuity, and comprehensive support for schools. While specific titles of roles may change, the
organizing principle is the intentional alignment of school-facing functions to strengthen
coordination, clarify decision rights, reduce duplication, and ensure consistent implementation of
district priorities.
71
Exhibit 2: Illustrative Organization of Student Services & Support
This organizational model demonstrates how specialized services and wraparound supports
could be intentionally aligned under a single leadership function to promote comprehensive,
student-centered support. The model brings together services that may currently reside across
multiple divisions, creating clearer ownership, stronger coordination, and more seamless access
to the academic, behavioral, health, and community resources students need to thrive. The
specific titles of the roles may change, but the organizing principle is the intentional alignment of
specialized services and wraparound services under a single leader to ensure comprehensive
and coherent supports for students and schools.
72
Appendix C: Select Recommendation Analysis of Advantages and
Risks
The report identifies a number of considerations drawn from the data gathered this spring. The
tables below outline the advantages and risks of selected options for the district's consideration.
They are offered to help the district weigh trade-offs as it thinks through future central office
structures and strategy in service of students.
Options for the
District's Potential Advantages Potential Risks
Consideration
From Consideration 1: • Creates a coordination layer • Effectiveness depends heavily
that does not currently exist on the individual’s breadth,
Create an integrating between the superintendent credibility, and authority;
executive position, such and related functions, reducing research notes an integrating
as a Deputy the number of divisions role is only as strong as the
Superintendent or Chief (currently 15) the person and the authority
Academic and School superintendent must integrate attached to it.
Excellence Officer, to directly.
hold academics, school • Inserts an additional reporting
leadership, and student • Establishes a single point of layer that, if decision rights are
support under a accountability for alignment unclear, could slow rather than
common reporting across academics, school speed coordination.
structure. leadership, and student
support, which now sit in • May be perceived as reducing
separate cabinet verticals. the standing or autonomy of
chiefs who would report through
• Follows a model used at the new role.
comparable or larger scale by
Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Denver,
and Gwinnett.
• Can be scoped narrowly or
expanded to include
Professional Development and
Leadership Development for a
unified academic and talent
portfolio.
73
Options for the
District's Potential Advantages Potential Risks
Consideration
From Consideration 1: • Reduces the number of direct • Requires chiefs able to lead a
reports to the superintendent wider set of functions; broader
Consolidate cabinet without adding a new executive spans can stretch leadership
portfolios rather than position, avoiding new cost and capacity.
adding an integrating potentially reducing it.
layer. • Merging or eliminating cabinet
• Lowers the number of seats is disruptive and may be
coordination dependencies the especially sensitive given
superintendent manages changes already happening in
directly. DeKalb.
• Gives each remaining chief a • Concentrates more
broader, more strategic span; responsibility in fewer leaders,
Fulton operates with six cabinet increasing key-person risk.
members at comparable
enrollment. • Does not by itself create
academic and school
• Can be paired with the specific leadership integration unless
consolidation opportunities portfolios are drawn deliberately
identified in Consideration 2. and cross-functional
collaboration is strengthened.
From Consideration 2: • Brings specialized and • Produces a large, complex
wraparound student support division and a wider span of
Consolidate student under one accountable leader. control for the single leader.
support under a single
cabinet leader. • Aligns with the majority of • Specialized services (often
peers; six of nine comparison compliance heavy, such as
districts consolidate these special education) and
functions under a single leader. wraparound support have
distinct demands; consolidation
• Eliminates one cabinet seat, must preserve specialized
supporting the broader effort to expertise and legal compliance.
reduce cabinet size.
• Transition could disrupt
• Creates a clearer, single point established routines and
of contact for schools relationships.
navigating student support.
• Does not, on its own, resolve
where the student-facing roles
in Access and Opportunity
belong.
74
Options for the
District's Potential Advantages Potential Risks
Consideration
From Consideration 2: • Moves each function to a more • Without deliberate design,
natural home (e.g., athletics to dispersing functions risks losing
Disburse the Access and Operations or student services; a single, visible champion for
Opportunity. charter oversight to Legal or access and opportunity.
Chief of Staff; student
assignment to Operations or • May be read as deprioritizing
Academics; mentorship to a access work if not carefully
consolidated student-support communicated, with
function), improving role clarity implications for community
that focus groups described as trust.
currently lacking a unifying
theme. • Receiving divisions need the
capacity to absorb new
• Brings DCSD closer to common functions without becoming
practice, as no peer district overloaded.
mirrors the current combination
of functions.
• Allows access and opportunity
to operate as a districtwide lens
and strategic priority rather than
a single division, consistent with
the strategic plan.
From Consideration 2: • May produce efficiency and • Consolidation could reduce the
clearer accountability amid direct, domain-specific support
Consider consolidating budget pressure by reducing to schools that the area-
potentially similar roles. duplication across central and embedded model was designed
area-based coordinators and to provide.
dispersed student- and family-
support roles. • Without care, the exercise may
be perceived as, or drift into,
• Directly addresses the individual performance or
redundancy and unclear- staffing decisions, which is
ownership patterns staff and outside this report’s scope and
executives raised, including could harm trust.
parallel central and area
coordinators for the same • Some apparent overlaps reflect
domains. legitimate specialization or
compliance needs (e.g.,
• Offers a chance to clarify the exceptional education), so
boundary between school- consolidation requires verifying
based and district
75
Options for the
District's Potential Advantages Potential Risks
Consideration
responsibilities (for example, actual job functions rather than
climate and culture coordinators titles.
relative to school staff).
• Reducing coordination roles in
• Looking outward to county and health, mental health, or family
community agencies may support could create service
reveal alignment opportunities gaps if external agencies do not
and reduce duplicative external- fill them.
facing roles.
From Consideration 3: • Aligns each coordinator with the • Weakens the area
central department that sets superintendent’s direct authority
Shift reporting lines for curriculum, instructional, and over staff supporting the
embedded coordinators student-support priorities, schools they are held
from area offices to strengthening districtwide accountable for, potentially
central departments, coherence within each domain reducing responsiveness to
with area (ELA, math, ELL, special school-specific needs.
superintendents education, mental health).
retaining a collaborative • Requires a redesigned dual
rather than supervisory • Resolves the competing- accountability and liaison
relationship with those accountability problem the structure (regular area
staff. analysis identified, in which superintendent and central
area superintendents supervise director touchpoints); without it,
coordinators whose content area-specific needs may
direction could come from become less visible to central
central departments. leadership.
• Can preserve a clear school- • A uniform shift may not fit every
facing point of contact by domain equally; some
keeping the practice of coordinators (e.g., exceptional
assigning coordinators to a education, given compliance
portfolio of schools (a case complexity) may be better kept
management structure). in, or split between, area and
central structures.
• Reduces the parallel central
and area expertise structure • Moving reporting lines alone
that no peer district maintains, does not guarantee aligned,
addressing the redundancy and coherent support; sustained
role-clarity concerns raised in cross-functional teaming
focus groups. remains essential or the change
may trade one coordination
challenge for another.
76
Appendix D: Data Sources by Figure
The following table documents the data sources underlying each figure and table in this report.
Where multiple sources informed a single table, sources are listed by district or data element.
Personnel file dates reflect the fiscal or academic year indicated by each district at the time of
data collection.
Figure District(s) Source
1 DCSD Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia School Grades Report: DeKalb
County." Accessed 2026.
1 Baltimore Maryland State Department of Education. "Maryland School Report Card: Enrollment
Demographics." Accessed 2026.
1 Cobb Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia School Grades Report: Cobb County."
Accessed 2026.
1 Charlotte- North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. "Statistical Profile: Table 10 — Pupils in
Mecklenburg; Wake Membership by Race and Sex, School Year 2024–25." Accessed 2026.
North Carolina State Board of Education. "Headcount of English Learners: Report to the
North Carolina General Assembly." Accessed 2026.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. "Economically Disadvantaged." Accessed
2026.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. "Statistical Profile: Table 9 — Pupils in
Membership Being Served by Exceptional Children Programs." Accessed 2026.
https://apps.schools.nc.gov/public/f?p=145:1.
1 Dallas Texas Education Agency. "Texas School Report Card: District Overview." Accessed 2026.
1 Denver Colorado Department of Education. "District and School Dashboard." Accessed 2026.
1 Fulton Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia School Grades Report: Fulton
County." Accessed 2026.
1 Griffin-Spalding Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia School Grades Report: Griffin-
Spalding County." Accessed 2026.
1 Gwinnett Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia School Grades Report: Gwinnett
County." Accessed 2026.
1 Muscogee Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia School Grades Report: Muscogee
County." Accessed 2026.
3 DCSD, Cobb, Fulton, Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts. "School System Financial Dashboard."
Griffin-Spalding, Accessed 2026.
Gwinnett, Muscogee
3 Baltimore Baltimore City Public School System. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025. Accessed 2026.
3 Charlotte- North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. "Statistical Profile Data Tables: Table A7
Mecklenburg; Wake — Current Expenditures by Source of Funds, School Year 2024–25." Accessed 2026.
3 Dallas Texas Education Agency. "PEIMS District Financial Actual Report: Dallas ISD." Accessed
2026.
77
Figure District(s) Source
3 Denver Denver Public Schools. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2025. Denver: Denver Public Schools, Accessed 2026.
4 DCSD, Cobb, Fulton, Governor's Office of Student Achievement. "Georgia Milestones End of Grade Proficiency
Griffin-Spalding, Data, 2024–25." Downloadable Data Repository, Accessed 2026.
Gwinnett, Muscogee
5 DCSD, Cobb, Fulton, Georgia Department of Education. "College and Career Ready Performance Index
Griffin-Spalding, (CCRPI) Reports." Accessed 2026.
Gwinnett, Muscogee
5 Baltimore Maryland State Department of Education. "Maryland Report Card: Graduation Rate."
Accessed 2026.
5 Charlotte- North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. "North Carolina School Report Cards:
Mecklenburg Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools and Wake County Public School System." Accessed 2026.
5 Dallas Texas Education Agency. "Texas School Report Card: Dallas ISD Performance and
Achievement." Accessed 2026.
5 Denver Colorado Department of Education. "District and School Dashboard: Denver Public
Schools." Accessed 2026.
5 Wake North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. "North Carolina School Report Card:
Wake County Public School System." Accessed 2026.
78