TO: FROM:
Board Of Education Maurice O. Green, Superintendent Sharon S. Ozment, CFO May 12, 2009 2009-10 Budget
DATE: RE:
This document contains responses to budget questions raised by Board members during the 2009-10 Budget Line-Item Review meeting of April 29, 2009. 1. QUESTION: Provide calculations supporting savings to be realized from reducing the number of copies per student in 2009-10 from 1,712 to the national average of 1,500 (which represents a 12.38% reduction) and reducing the number of administrative copies by 12.38% (which equates to about 606,580 copies) ANSWER: Staff met with an IKON representative and revisited the proposed cost-per-copy program savings calculations. As a result of that exercise, the projected savings for 2009-10 increased from $78,021.50 to $135,630.90, an increase in savings of $57,609.40 (see calculations below). Staff recommends that the increase in savings be added to the approximately $1.1M in funds in the Superintendent’s Budget Request earmarked to restore Weighted Student Formula dollars to schools if actual budget reductions are less than anticipated reductions or offset any additional budget reductions. Cost per copy/impression = .0062 Annual allowable number of copies per student in 2008-09 = 1,712 Annual allowable number of copies per student in 2009-10 = 1,500 Percentage difference = (1,712 -1,500)/1,712 = 12.38% Estimated 2009-10 cost for school/student copies = (71,079 * 1,500) * .0062 = 106,618,500 * .0062 = $661,034.70 Number of administrative copies in 2008-09 = 4,899,677 Estimated 2009-10 cost for administrative copies = 4,899,677 * (1-.1238) = 4,899,677 * .8762 = 4,293,097 * .0062 = 26,617.20
Page | 1
$ 1,134,411.00 = 2009-10 cost-per-copy program dollars for school-based copiers $ 51,828.00 = 2009-10 cost-per-copy program dollars for administrative copiers $ 1,186,239.00 = total 2009-10 cost-per-copy program budget ($ 661,034.70) = estimated 2009-10 cost for school-based/student copies ($ 26,617.20) = estimated 2009-10 cost for administrative copies ($ 362,956.20) = equipment lease cost $ 135,630.90 = projected 2009-10 savings $ $ $ 135,630.90 = projected 2009-10 savings based on 5/11 meeting with IKON representative 78,021.50 = projected 2009-10 savings per initial calculation 57,609.40 = difference (increase in projected savings)
2. QUESTION: Provide the breakdown of students attending Early College Academies ANSWER: There are 236 students at Dudley, 98 at Andrews, and 14 at Southwest for 2008-09. Enrollment is still underway for 2009-10 but numbers are approximately +55-60 students at Dudley and +20 students at Andrews (numbers are subject to change as recruiting efforts are not complete). This is the last year of the academy at SWHS.
School Name
Thematic Emphases
# of freshmen
# of sophomores
# of Juniors
# of Seniors
Totals
Education Engineering
18 18
14 25
15 22
13 18
60 83
Health Sciences Dudley Total Andrews Academy @ Central Southwest Academy @ Smith Health Sciences Medical Careers, Culinary Arts, Business Technology & Public Safety Education Construction Technology & Medical Careers
22
19
28
24
93
58 27 48
58 30 24
65 26 10
55 15 20 (including 5 currently @ GTCC) 14 47 (including 18 @ GTCC part-time)
236 98 102
60
73
22
Page | 2
3. QUESTION: Provide cost breakdown for McRel, Read 180, Plato and Advanced Academics ANSWER: McRel - $91,000 (see ATTACHMENT A - 2009 McRel Budget for NEHS WORD document and ATTACHMENT B -2009 McRel Scope of Work Details WORD document) Read 180 – Year #1 (2008-09) = $ 534,925 Year #2 (2009-10) = $ 529,900 Year #3 (2010-11) = $ 22,150 $1,086,975 (see ATTACHMENT C - Read 180 budget document and ATTACHMENT D - agreement between Scholastic, Inc. and Guilford County Schools (GCS)) Plato – see ATTACHMENT E - Guilford PWLN Renewal PDF document staff is proposing changing to Odyssey- CompassLearning) – the first year cost of $117K for CompassLearning is comparable to Plato’s $117,371.60; however, the cost will drop to $50K for 2010-11, and then to $16K in the following year because we will own the product – see ATTACHMENT F Compass Learning PDF document Advanced Academics – cost for 146 students from 7/29/08 to 4/30/09 = $24,075
4. QUESTION: Provide breakdown of 2009-10 International Baccalaureate (IB) budget per school ANSWER: Exam Fees: $188,400 Grimsley HS = $95,850 High Point Central HS = $30,850 Page HS = $45,850 Smith HS = $15,850 IB Membership Dues (4 @ $9,150) = Instructional Supplies: Grimsley HS = High Point Central HS = Page HS = Smith HS = Postage: Grimsley HS = High Point Central HS = Page HS = Smith HS = Staff Development: Grimsley HS = High Point Central HS = Page HS = Smith HS = Substitute Pay (4 @ $2,800) TOTAL Page | 3 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $25,000 $ 40,000 $12,500 $10,000 $10,000 $ 7,500 $ 39,600 $15,400 $ 0 $11,000 $13,200 $ 11,200 $455,800 $ 36,600 $140,000
5. QUESTION: Provide information regarding a 50/50 proposal for IB fees ANSWER: See chart below based on 2008-09 student enrollment and accompanying narrative
Registration fee $129.00 Per Exam fee $88.00 Exam cost - Total Exam cost District 100% 50/50 model
School Juniors Seniors Grimsley 120 70 (number of exams) 1 6
Sub-total $24,510.00 $47,520.00
$72,030.00 High Point Central (number of exams) 50 1 50 6 $129.00 $88.00 $12,900.00 $30,800.00 $43,700.00 Page (number of exams) 45 1 10 6 $129.00 $88.00 $7,095.00 $9,240.00 $16,335.00 Smith (number of exams) 10 1 10 6 $129.00 $88.00 $2,580.00 $6,160.00 $8,740.00
$36,015.00
$21,850.00
$8,167.50
$4,370.00
GCS total
225
140
$140,805.00
$140,805.00 50/50 Model District savings
$70,402.50
$70,402.50
International Baccalaureate (IB) has two elements to the pay structure and two grade levels where assessment occurs. The payments are a registration fee ($129) which is paid by each student one time in each of their junior and senior years in the program. There is also an exam fee ($88) per test, per student. A student in IB takes one assessment during their junior year ($129 registration fee plus an $88 exam fee). To be in the IB program, the cost per junior is $217. A student in IB takes six assessments during their senior year ($129 registration fee plus an $88 exam fee times six exams). The cost per each senior in IB is $657. In the 50/50 model of IB payment, every junior participating in the program would be responsible for $108.50 ($217/2). Every senior participating would be responsible for $328.50 ($657/2). Staff has concerns related to the impact this model will have on students pursuing IB. School staff have expressed that a 50/50 model favors Advanced Placement (AP). Since the AP students are able to selectively pursue the courses they take, and the exam costs are less expensive, a model along these lines would make it more likely that a student would choose the AP track. IB, by design, is a more immersive model, where once students choose to participate, they are obliged to take the whole curriculum to complete the program. It also places the costs of participation in IB to the junior and senior years, rather than AP exams which can be spread over all four years of the high school experience. Page | 4
As with AP, students eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) do not pay anything for their exams. The total cost (registration fee and exam cost for each exam) is paid for by NCDPI. As with the 50/50 model in AP, a list of participating students is presented to the School Nutrition Services (SNS) department and SNS then identifies the students eligible for FRL and the appropriate paperwork is processed to claim the waiver.
6. QUESTION: Provide alternatives to School Resource Officers (SROs) ANSWER: Based on information provided by Tony Scales, GCS Program Administrator III-Safety, we could explore any of the options listed below. Tony recommends determining cost(s) by issuing request(s) for proposals and receiving bids. When GCS solicited bids in 2006 for the security guard service for Eugene and Franklin facilities, we received a wide range of cost estimates and the deliverable services also varied. Tony believes that any of the options listed below would likely cost less than our current SRO arrangement with the three law enforcement agencies: Unarmed Uniformed Security Guards Armed Uniformed Security Guards Company Police with Powers of Arrest on District Property Unarmed Non-Uniformed Security Personnel (i.e., Behavior Support/Intervention Specialists which could be district employees) Principals may seek an additional assistant principal to handle security issues No security (zero cost) The positive side of hiring security guards is that the district would have greater control in what duties the security guards perform because they do not operate under the same rules and regulations as law enforcement agencies. The positive side of using law enforcement officers is the level of training and experience the officers generally possess as well as their established support systems which consist of but are not limited to supervision, communications systems, evidence collection and retention, crime reporting capabilities and general support. Tony secured a copy of the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools (WSFCS) Request for Proposal (RFP) document for School Resource Officers or, Alternatively, Campus Police Officers. A copy of the document is attached for information/reference purposes (see ATTACHMENT G). WSFCS has not released any additional information on number of bidding firms or costs because their decision is pending.
7. QUESTION: Can GCS use state 069 At-Risk funds for something other than SROs? ANSWER: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) allotment staff indicate that we can use 069 funds for other at-risk items, but we would have to explain why we do not need SROs in our school(s). The details/requirements of such an explanation were not specified.
Page | 5
8. QUESTION: In what ways might we reduce athletics costs and what savings would such reductions provide? ANSWER: The following information was provided by Leigh Hebbard, GCS Director-Student Activities/Athletics/Driver Education Athletic Supplies Both high schools and middle schools are allotted funding to supplement their gate receipts and booster club funding. High schools, with the exception of Andrews and High Point Central (Central) receive $21,000. Andrews and Central receive reduced amounts because they utilize Simeon Stadium. Middle schools receive $10,600. Schools use this money in many diverse ways depending on the needs at their respective schools. The gap in gate receipts among schools can be significant and any reduction could have a very significant effect on several schools. If athletic supplies funding is reduced, the following cost reduction/avoidance suggestions are provided for board consideration: Reduce the number of non-conference JV games Reduce the number of non-conference contests for non-revenue sports Schedule non-conference games in Guilford County or adjacent counties only Require teams to travel on the same bus whenever possible Schedule doubleheaders whenever possible Forego purchasing any replacement sets of uniforms for 2009-10 Ask schools to work together to purchase certain items in bulk to get better pricing Require coaches to have a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) so schools don’t have to pay drivers to drive team activity buses Reducing the overall funding in this area by 10% will generate a savings of $50, 620. Most high schools will still have $18,900 and middle schools will have $9,540. Reducing the overall funding in this area by 15% will generate a savings of $75, 930. Most high schools will still have $17,850 and middle schools will have $9,010. Each 5% reduction in athletic supplies could reduce the budget by about $25,000. Co-Curricular Supplements (Activities and Athletics) Each position has an established minimum and maximum. These positions are currently funded at the minimum plus 85% of the difference between the minimum and maximum. It is important to note that schools are only permitted to use co-curricular supplement funding for the activities/athletics they actually have at their schools. Dropping back to the 2007-08 funding level of 80% for both middle and high schools would reduce the total supplement budget by $47,737. Dropping back to the 2006-07 funding level of 75% for both middle and high schools would reduce the total supplement budget by $95,475. Each 5% reduction in co-curricular supplements could reduce the budget by around $47,737.
Page | 6
Leigh recommends providing schools flexibility in deciding where to make cuts within their respective programs rather than eliminating specific programs across the district. This would allow schools to decide whether or not to keep sport programs, reduce coaching staff, or limit purchases based on any reductions that are made and the value of various programs at their respective schools. If athletic cuts are to be made, Leigh suggests reducing funding for supplies first, then if necessary looking at co-curricular supplement funding. Middle School Boys Volleyball We allot the funding for all schools, but all do not field a team. During the 2008-09 year, 20 schools were allotted $1,255 for boy’s volleyball. This is a total of $25,100 allotted for boys’ volleyball. Schools have access to the allotment if they field a team.
9. QUESTION: Provide a breakdown of the items included in the athletics contract services line-item of $144,660. ANSWER: Most of the funding in this account is transferred from supplement dollars allotted to schools that don’t have athletic trainers or first responders. Schools are allotted $11,455 for these supplements. If they do not have a trainer, we contract with several sports medicine facilities to provide the services for the schools and pay the service providers $11,455 for each school they cover. Funds are transferred from the respective schools’ individual supplement accounts to this account. Examples of expenditures paid from this account include: $ 91,460 = Athletic Training Services for 8 schools @ $11,455 $ 7,200 = Field Marking Simeon Stadium $ 2,000 = Custodial Services Simeon Stadium (estimate using $20/hr; 8 hours per week during football season) $ 1,242 = Student Athlete and College Recruiting Online Service (6 month subscription)
10. QUESTION: How often is the Driver’s Education contract bid? What evaluation is done to determine if we will extend the contract each year? ANSWER: The current contract with NC Driving School was initiated in July of 2007 and runs through June 2010 with an option to extend for an additional 24 months if both parties agree. The contract includes an automatic 2% annual increase. Current evaluation has been very informal based primarily on the number of concerns expressed by school administration and parents of students. There have been very few complaints expressed to Leigh Hebbard since assuming the GCS Director-Student Activities/Athletics/Driver Education position in November of 2008. Leigh indicated that NC Driving School has responded in a timely manner in addressing any concerns he has brought to their attention. Formal evaluation will take place during first semester of 2009-10 in which Leigh will ask for feedback from school administrators as well as visiting classrooms to observe instruction.
Page | 7
11. QUESTION: How will the $1,500 in account code 2.6200.032.311.000.971 (psychological services, contract services) be spent? ANSWER: The line-item is used when a parent requests an independent evaluation done outside the system, if they disagree with our results. This generally happens no more than once or twice a year, therefore the amount is much smaller than most contracted services.
12. QUESTION: Provide a breakdown of the account code 3.5880.050.311.000.630 (federal and special programs contract service line item, budget $301,000). ANSWER: This line item is for the district initiative for Parent Involvement in all 41 Title I schools for the current school year (2008-09). This is in addition to the required 1% set aside for parent involvement. It consists of the following: Consultant Services ($10,000.00) - Our consultant is Robert (Bob) Witherspoon, Jr. who is the former Executive Director of the National Coalition of ESEA Title 1 Parents. Bob has been guiding us in navigating the needs of our parents as we redefine DPAC (District Parent Advisory Council) for GCS. Please remember that DPAC is not required and is optional for all school districts. Compass Learning ($291,000.00) - Title 1 for two years has been exploring ways to provide schools with additional tools to assist them in involving parents in ways that they can help their children with their academics (the goal of Title 1). CompassLearning was reviewed by principals, parents at DPAC, and Dr. Folger (see QUESTION #3 above for staff recommendation).
13. QUESTION: How many students are being served at the Juvenile Detention Center? ANSWER: The official headcount for JDC is 102. Their budget is $281,096 which is determined by NCDPI and designated as Title 1, Part D.
14. QUESTION: Provide a breakdown of costs in instructional supplies account 1.5120.014.411, $382,966 – what will these funds be used for? ANSWER: These state Career and Technical Education (CTE) program support funds will be used to purchase the following: Microsoft Office 2007 software for business education labs in all high schools necessary to meet SDPI curriculum standards; additional memory for business labs to accommodate the 2007 software; software to upgrade middle and high school technology education labs; printers and printer cartridges for business and other CTE labs; vouchers for industry certification exams for Cisco, ASE, A+, Net+, pharmacy tech, CAN license renewal for self-test and tutorial software for CTE end- of- course exams and for various industry certification exams; consumable instructional supplies for 293 middle and high school CTE teachers including computer parts and wiring materials for networking and computer engineering, medical supplies for medical careers classes, auto parts for auto and diesel Page | 8
technology, replacement parts for middle and high school technology education labs, construction materials for construction and electrical technology, etc.
15. QUESTION: Provide a breakdown of costs in instructional equipment account 1.5120.014.541, $371,916 – what will these funds be used for? ANSWER: These state CTE program support funds will be used to purchase computers for 7 Exploring Technology and 8 Exploring Business & Marketing labs in middle schools that are in dire need of replacement.
16. QUESTION: What is the difference in the two accounts listed above in questions 14 and 15? ANSWER: The account code in question 14 is for CTE instructional supplies from state CTE program support funds. The code in question 15 is for equipment from state CTE program support funds.
17. QUESTION: What will the funds in staff development account 3.5120.017.312, $28,243 be used for? ANSWER: These funds are federal Perkins CTE funds which will be used for registration costs for the annual statewide CTE Summer Conference held in Greensboro in July. This is the main staff development activity for CTE teachers statewide where curriculum updates and new curriculum materials are distributed.
18. QUESTION: What will the funds in staff development account 3.5120.023.312, $9,500 be used for? ANSWER: These are federal College Tech Prep competitive grant funds used to reimburse high schools for the registration costs for teams to attend the annual High Schools That Work summer conference which is included as a part of the College Tech Prep grant objectives.
19. QUESTION: What is the difference in the two accounts listed above in questions 17 and 18? ANSWER: The account code in question 17 indicates federal Perkins funds for staff development for teachers. The account code in question 18 indicates staff development from federal College Tech Prep grant funds.
Page | 9
20. QUESTION: What will the funds in purchase of computer hardware account 3.5120.017.542, $440,186 be used for, specifically? ANSWER: These federal Perkins CTE funds will be used to purchase computers for 10 high school business labs to enable them to use the Microsoft Office 2007 software to meet new SDPI curriculum standards and computers for 8 high school technology education labs that will enable them meet the requirements of the new SDPI curriculum.
21. QUESTION: What will the funds in purchase of computer hardware account 3.6120.017.542, $30,785 be used for, specifically? ANSWER: These federal Perkins CTE funds will be used to purchase laptop computers and a printer for a mobile testing center to allow for on-site testing for IT (Instructional Technology) certification exams rather than sending students to a testing center. This will also allow us to track the results of these exams as required as a part of the new Perkins legislation.
22. QUESTION: What is the difference in the two accounts listed above in questions 20 and 21? ANSWER: The code in question 20 is for computer equipment used for CTE instructional or curricular services purchased from CTE federal Perkins funds. The code in question 21 indicates computer equipment for CTE systemwide curricular support purchased from CTE Perkins funds.
23. QUESTION: Account code 2.6552.061.311.000.921 indicates a description on the administrative budget worksheets as this line item is for Transportation – Enrichment Activities, then in the line-item detail column, reads “funding for transporting athletes”, budget total is $50,419. What is this account used for? ANSWER: GCS Transportation Director Jeff Harris advised that the account was originally established to reimburse for transporting athletes home after games and practices a service that is no longer provided but the probable source of the erroneous descriptor. The account is utilized by Nathan Street, Curriculum Specialist-Art/Music, to provide student transportation to events such as the symphony in October and April for seventh grade students; the symphony in April for third and fourth grade students; the opera in February for fifth grade students; and Carousel theatre performances for elementary students.
Page | 10
24. QUESTION: Provide descriptors for program report codes 535-595 (unable to do so during close of lineitem review meeting because general ledger system was unavailable) ANSWER: 535 – RESPONSIBLE DISCIPLINE 536 – PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT 543 – FLANC CONFERENCE (Foreign Language Association of NC) 580 – ACADEMIC ALL-STAR CAMP 581 – JUVENILE JUSTICE FUNDING 584 – COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE 587 – GRAND PALS 589 – THE BROTHERHOOD 594 – MANDARIN CHINESE PROGRAM 595 – MASTER TEACHER IN RESIDENCE PROGRAM 706 – LOCAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS 25. QUESTION: What is the funding source for Montessori teacher assistants? ANSWER: Montessori teacher assistants are funded with state teacher assistant dollars. In FY08 teacher assistants were allotted @ 1 per Kindergarten class and grades 1-3 were based on ADM (Average Daily Membership) with a minimum of 1 teacher assistant per grade level with calculations rounded to the nearest whole position. In FY09 teacher assistants were allotted @ 1 per Kindergarten class and grades 1-3 were based on ADM with calculations rounded to the nearest whole position. The formula was changed based on input received from principals. In using the FY09 formula and holding schools harmless (no schools were to have a lesser number of teacher assistants in FY09 than in FY08) we needed 16 additional teacher assistant positions. The Equity +2 and Equity +3 pupil to teacher allotment ratio/formula was changed from 15.5:1 to 15.75:1. This resulted in 8 less teachers which funded 16 additional teacher assistants.
26. QUESTION: How many teacher assistant positions are available after the Equity +2 and Equity +3 teacher allotments are computed. ANSWER: 547
27. QUESTION: Are Mission Possible recruitment/retention incentives subject to salary increase percentages? ANSWER: Based on discussions with Peggy Thompson, Chief Human Resources Officer, such incentives are not subject to salary increase percentages. The 2009-10 line-item spreadsheet erroneously included salary increases for these incentives. The adjustment/correction to reverse the salary increases will reduce the projected 2009-10 local current expense budget by $38,242.
Page | 11
Staff recommends that the increase in savings be added to the approximately $1.1M in funds in the Superintendent’s Budget Request earmarked to restore Weighted Student Formula dollars to schools if actual budget reductions are less than anticipated reductions or offset any additional budget reductions.
Other suggestions: Board of Education (BOE) – review/reduce number of subscriptions Board of Education – reduce/eliminate memberships (explore possibility of organizations willingness to reduce membership fees/dues due to economic environment) Board of Education – review BOE member compensation Financial Services - Harris Teeter TIE (Together in Education) program – should we continue to purchase a car for the Teacher of the Year? Accountability and Research - Review of benchmark assessments requested for future BOE meeting Organizational Development - Explore alternatives to DIBELS Regional Superintendents - Review travel to determine if regional structure will result in less principal travel expense for meetings Federal Programs – review of CTE classes/student enrollment/course descriptions requested for future BOE meeting Human Resources – review of Mission Possible (MP) performance incentives earned and MP student performance requested for future BOE meeting
Page | 12