Docstoc

Budget_Presentation_0910

Document Sample
Budget_Presentation_0910 Powered By Docstoc
					       2009-2010

Superintendent’s
Proposed Budget
     Jean-Claude Brizard
   Superintendent of Schools
      Board of Education
        March 30, 2009
 It Is About Every Child




“Ensuring that every child in Rochester has access to world
class content taught by world class teachers in schools led by
world class leaders.”
Three Core Values:

Achievement – Improving student achievement
through a laser-like focus on teaching and learning
with an emphasis on results.

Equity - Equitable distribution of resources based
on the needs of schools and students.

Accountability – Use of data to ensure that we
hold adults accountable for the success of all
students.
Achievement
 The “What”
                             Grade 3 ELA Projections

                              100
performance levels 3 and 4




                               90
                               80
                               70
% of students at




                               60
                               50
                               40
                               30
                               20
                               10
                                0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
                             Grade 3     48        43        44        54                                               100

All figures are percents
                         Grade 4 ELA Projections

                               100
% of students at performance




                                 90
                                 80
                                 70
levels 3 and 4




                                 60
                                 50
                                 40
                                 30
                                 20
                                 10
                                  0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
                               Grade 4     50        48        52        60                                               100
                         Grade 5 ELA Projections

                               100
% of students at performance




                                 90
                                 80
                                 70
levels 3 and 4




                                 60
                                 50
                                 40
                                 30
                                 20
                                 10
                                  0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
                               Grade 5     42        45        59        66                                               100
              Grade 6 ELA Projections

                               100
% of students at performance




                               90
                               80
                               70
levels 3 and 4




                               60
                               50
                               40
                               30
                               20
                               10
                                0    2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
                        Continuous     42        42        57        67                                               100
                         Grade 7 ELA Projections

                               100
% of students at performance




                                 90
                                 80
                                 70
                                 60
levels 3 and 4




                                 50
                                 40
                                 30
                                 20
                                 10
                                  0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
                               Grade 7     28        29        40        50                                               100
                                Grade 8 ELA Projections

                               100
% of students at performance




                                 90
                                 80
                                 70
levels 3 and 4




                                 60
                                 50
                                 40
                                 30
                                 20
                                 10
                                  0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
                               Grade 8     27        28        32        42                                               100
Grade 3 Math Projections

 100
  90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
   0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
Grade 3     56        62        71        76                                               100
Grade 4 Math Projections

 100
  90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
   0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
Grade 4     54        52        62        68                                               100
Grade 5 Math Projections

 100
  90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
   0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
Grade 5     31        47        58        65                                               100
Grade 6 Math Projections

 100
  90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
   0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
Grade 6     31        41        56        63                                               100
Grade 7 Math Projections

 100
  90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
   0      2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
Grade 7     13        22        48        57                                               100
Grade 8 Math Projections

100
 90
 80
 70
 60
 50
 40
 30
 20
 10
   0     2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10   2010-11   2011-12   2012-13   2013-14
Grade8     20        18        32        40                                               100
                       Superintendent's Academic and Graduation Goals 2008-09
80.0


70.0


60.0


50.0


40.0


30.0
                    Grad Rate

20.0                Comp Eng Score 3 &
                    4
                    Math Score 3 & 4
10.0                                                                 Current
                    Global Score 3 & 4                                                                      Future
                                                                      Year                                  Targets
                                                                     Target
 0.0
             2005-06             2006-07            2007-08          2008-09            2009-10            2010-11            2011-12



       Graduation Rate:                                           Regents Examinations:
       Increase the graduation rate to 75% by 2012. In schools    In each of the five required Regents subject areas, increase the percent of
       with a graduation rate at or above 75%, the target is to   students who score at Levels 3 and 4 to 75% by 2012. In Regent subject areas
       have 100% of students graduate by 2012.                    where 75% of students have currently scored at or above 75%, the target is to
                                                                  have 100% of students score at Levels 3 and 4 by 2012.



       Source: Office of Accountability - Superintendent’s Accountability Goals 2008-09 – December 2008
The “How”
               The Themes




What school
                       Avoidable
systems practice         GAP
influences student
learning.
What school systems practice
influences student learning.

                                              Avoidable
      Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment
                                                 Gap
                                             Avoidable
                                             Avoidable
                                                GAP
Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data
                                              Avoidable
                                                GAP
                                                 GAP
Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements

Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building

         Curriculum and Academic Goals
Who’s Responsible for What?
                       Curriculum and Academic Goals

               Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building

           Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements

               Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data

                   Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment

    District              School               Classroom
Plan the flight,
Fly the plan,
But don’t fall in love
with the plan.

-Laurence Gonzales,
Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why
Be open to a changing world and make
corrections when necessary.

We often fall in love with our plans and have
great difficulties deviating even when the
winds and data tell us otherwise.

In education, we are famous for keeping on the
same course even though we know better.
2009-2010 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget:
           The “FLIGHT PLAN”
   Well defined curriculum and clear academic goals
   The “What’s”
       - ELA
       - Math
       - Graduation
       - School Safety
   Early and continuous assessments of students and
    programs
       - Proper planning and oversight
   Continue to address challenges with Federal and
    State mandates
 2009-2010 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget:

           The “CREW”
 Building a highly competent crew

 Training for administrators and
 teachers to increase student learning

 Reviews of instructional programs,
 practices and arrangements
   2009-2010 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget
      Navigational Instruments
Dashboard
   Monitor and check performances
   Easy access for the public
   Increase monitoring by public
Assessing Performance Data
   More timely analysis
   More timely academic intervention and adjustment for
     student learning
Accountable Budget Book
   Alignment of mission and goals
   Fiduciary responsibility
       Budget
Aligning Resources to the “What”
        RCSD's funding system must support and
        advance these core values
 Funding Principle          Description

                                 Core Value: Achievement
Alignment with Strategy     ► Supports the district’s and school’s academic strategy, including aligning
                            the budget and academic planning process and spending priorities.
School Empowerment          ► Schools have greater control over resources in their schools and the
                            capacity to make decisions on effective resource use.

                                      Core Value: Equity
Vertical Equity (student)   ► Allocates resources equitably across students, based on student need.

Horizontal Equity           ► Allocates resources equitably across schools, based on student and
(school)                    school need.

                                Core Value: Accountability
Transparency                ► The system and process for funding schools is easily understood by all
                            stakeholders.
Predictability              ► School allocation processes are structured to minimize disruption of
                            educational process from year to year.
Reflective                  ► Integrates lessons learned from prior year budget process.
        Funding Principle: Horizontal Equity: Resource
        allocation varies widely across schools with 24 or
        40% of schools more than 10% above or below the
        median

                                                                                                $17.7K per pupil




                  $9.6K per pupil   Highest school is $8.1K (84%)
                                     higher than lowest school

                                                                                                                 +10%
                                                                                                               Median=$12.5k
                                                                                                                 -10%




                                       Sources: RCSD budget 2008-09, Interviews, ERS analysis
                                       Note: School #57 Early Childhood has been excluded from charts because pre-
Education Resource Strategies          Kindergarten students make up one-third of school ‘s enrollment.
“Extreme Budget Makeover”
      (City Newspaper headline, March 18, 2009)

► School centered, not department driven

► Dollars: Aligned directly to schools

► Equity: Based on student needs

► Budget and performance snapshot of each school:
    • Student demographics
    • Staffing ratios
    • Key academic indicators
    • Top-level budget data

► Transparency: Easier to understand
In a "Weighted Student Funding" based system, schools are
predominantly given $s based on student enrollment and need.

                                    USE: School Leaders must decide
     SCHOOL BUDGET
                                       how to spend the money.

  $ per pupil based on need                   Teachers
              ELL                             Principals
     Academic Intervention
                                              Librarians
        Gifted/Talented
            Poverty
                                        Guidance Counselors
       Special Education                       Coaches
                                         Assistant Principals
 School or Program Weights             After-School Programs
        ($ per pupil)                        Enrichment
                                      Professional Development
      Foundation Grant                  Curriculum Materials
        ($ per pupil)                            etc.

Non-formula resources ($ per
                                          As determined by
pupil, services, equipment or
                                          the Central Office
     materials, or FTES)
However, WITHOUT accountability, capacity and
flexibility, WSF is just another way to calculate school
budgets.

   Accountability:
      School leaders are held accountable for       Strategic Use of
      student-outcomes and fiscal responsibility     School-Level
      in return for increased control                  Resources

   Support that builds capacity:
      Central office will provide support to
      schools in the form of: budget and




                                                           Capacity
      academic planning assistance, training to
      help with strategic resource allocation and
      managing resources, and support
      services.
   Flexibility:
      District-wide policies and practices are
      changed to permit school leaders to use
      resources strategically
School:                   No. 7 Virgil I. Grissom                                                                             2008-09 Accountability Status: GS
                                                                                                (School 7 is in good standing for the 2008-09 Accountability Year)
Address:                  31 Bryan St.                                14613              Wakili Moore, Principal                                  Phone:    254-3110


Mission: Motivate, celebrate, and practice collegiality with every child every day.


                Position Information (FTEs)                                                                      Student Demographic Data
                                              2009            2010                                                                 2008-09                 2009-10 (est.)
Teachers                                     48.70           41.50                       Total Enrollment                                 528                       541
Principals/AP/AD                              2.00            2.00                       African American                             62.7%                      62.7%
Other Instructional                           6.00            6.00                       Asian                                          0.4%                      0.4%
Non-instructional                            12.00           12.00                       Hispanic                                     16.5%                      16.5%
Total                                       68.70           61.50                        Native American                                0.6%                      0.6%
                                                                                         White                                        19.5%                      19.5%
Teacher-Pupil Ratio                       10.8 : 1           13 : 1                      Free & Reduced Lunch                         85.2%                      85.2%
Other-Staff-Pupil Ratio                    26.4 : 1        27.1 : 1                      Special Education                            14.2%                      14.2%
Total-Staff-Pupil Ratio                    7.7 : 1         8.8 : 1                       English Language Learners                      2.8%                      2.8%
                                                                                         Attendance (2007-08)                         93.0%
Proposed 2009-10 Funding                                              Allocation         Grades Served                             PreK-6                     PreK-6
0000: General Fund - No Project                                   $     2,090,233
0200: Title IIA - Tchr & Prin Tr/Rec                                          -                               Budget Allocations by Account
0206: Title I - Kindergarten                                               68,824        Major Object                              2008-09                   2009-10
0243: Title I - Eng 4 Spkrs Ot Lang                                        35,492        Salary Compensation                       3,526,039                 3,294,555
0250: Title I - Parent Component                                           32,104        Other Compensation                           75,280                     5,000
0268: Title I - AIS Services                                              185,800        Fixed Obligation/Variability                    -                         -
0305: IDEA Support Serv & Sec 611                                         199,686        Cash Capital Outlays                         29,930                    15,000
1020: Foundation Aid IPP                                                  122,924        Facilities and Related                       37,743                    32,795
1038: Foundation Aid MA                                                   232,441        Technology                                      170                       -
1045: Foundation Aid CR                                                    43,228        Miscellaneous Services                          -                         -
4020: Green Schools Program                                                   -          Other Variable Expenses                       1,500                     1,500
4501: C4E - Class Size                                                    228,965        Total, All Objects                        3,670,662                 3,348,850
4515: C4E - Extended Day Program                                           18,903
4517: C4E - Great Beginnings                                               45,316                 Fiscal Year 2010-11 Allocation Weighting Factors
4528: C4E - In-School Suspension                                           44,934        Average Daily Attendance                                   pct:
                                                                                         Special Population Units                        Count      wt.            Units
                                                                                         Mobility (applies over 40%)
                                                                                         Free/Reduced Lunch
                                                                                         At Risk
                                                                                         Special Education
                                                                                         Gifted &Talented
                                                                                         Career & Technical Education
                                                                                         English Language Learners
                                                                                         Total, Special Population Units
                                                                                         Total, Refined Units
                                                Total             $ 3,348,850            Basic Allocation

                                          Student Achievement (percentage of students attaining proficiency)*
                                  ELA                           Math                                    Science                              Social Studies
       GRADE                 2007     2008*                2007     2008*                      2007          2008*                         2007        2008*
         1                    75.6%    74.1%               76.5%      77.8%
         2                    54.8%    58.9%               54.8%      58.9%
         3                    72.1%    61.6%               90.6%      83.5%
         4                    76.3%    75.3%               80.0%      73.0%                   93.6%            87.7%
         5                    44.8%    81.3%               41.9%      89.3%                                                             82.6%              97.3%
         6                    43.4%    59.3%               52.7%      53.8%
Students at Risk*             38.7%         31.9%           33.8%            27.6%       (Percentages of students in all grades not meeting proficiency)
*Official New York State Education Department statistics for 2007-08 have not yet been released. T hese numbers are the best District estimate.
2009-2010 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget
The “PERFECT STORM”
Decline of Wall Street
  Less interest income
Decline in the Economy
  Loss of jobs, declining City housing market
  Decrease tax base
Substantial Reduction in educational aid in Governor’s
Proposed Budget
  Unsure of impact on programs and personnel
RCSD Growing Structural Deficit
  Gap of approximately $50 million
                      RCSD Enrollment Trends 2003-2013
                             Elementary School


             40,000

             35,000
                                                                          17,271
             30,000
                        18,587                                          (2008-2009)
ENROLLMENT




                      (2003-2004)                             17,130                                    17,039
             25,000                                                                                (2012-2013)
                                                          (2007-2008)              17,321
             20,000                                                              (2010-2011)

             15,000                                                                            17,150
                                                                                            (2011-2012)
             10,000

              5,000

                 0
                      2003-   2004-   2005-   2006-   2007-    2008-     2009-     2010-       2011-      2012-
                      2004    2005    2006    2007    2008     2009      2010      2011        2012       2013
                                                      SCHOOL YEAR
                                 RCSD Enrollment Trends 2003-2013
                                        Secondary School

             40,000

             35,000

             30,000
ENROLLMENT




                        15,245                                                                                          14,036
             25,000   (2003-2004)                              15,587                       14,482                    (2011-2012)    13,638
                                                              (2007-2008)
                                                                             14,861
             20,000                                                                       (2009-2010)     13,344                    (2012-2013)
                                                                            (2008-2009)
                                                                                                        (2010-2011)
             15,000

             10,000

              5,000

                 0
                      2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
                                                                 SCHOOL YEAR
Baseline Planning Assumptions
  Decrease State funding will be at the level of the
   Governor’s proposed level – approximately $13.4M
  Use of Federal Stimulus package in Title I and
   IDEA funds – approximately $17.2M for one-time or
   temporary issues
  Flat revenues in other Federal grants
  Decrease in interest income
  Structural deficit reduced over 3 year period
  Reduction in staffing to reduce structural deficit
  Reduction of 10% or more in operational lines
  Use of unappropriated fund balance only for EPE
   reimbursement - $2.1M
   2009-2010 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget
          Budget Overview
  (Based on the Governor’s December Proposal)
Balanced Budget
   Proposed budget revenue of $686.9 Million
   Decrease from 2008-09 amended budget of $4.5M
   Gap caused by Governor’s Proposed Revenue
    Reduction $13.4M based on amended budget
   Use of Federal Stimulus Package to cover gap -
    $17.2M
Controlled expenditures to close $50M
Structural Deficit Gap projected for 2009-10
                      2009-2010 Superintendent’s
                           Proposed Budget

                                                   Rochester City School District
                                      Twelve Year Comparison of State, City, and Other Revenue                        State

100%                                                                                                                  City
90%                                                                                                                   Other
80%
70%
60%                                                                                                                           64%
           49%                                                50%
50%
40%
30%         28%                                               23%
                                                                                                                             20%
20%        24%                                                27%
10%                                                                                                                   17%
 0%
       1998-99    1999-00   2000-01   2001-02   2002-03   2003-04   2004-05   2005-06   2006-07   2007-08   2008-09   2009-10
   2009-2010 Revenue Summary


                         2009-10 Proposed Budget
                               $686,869,423

  State Aid                                               City Aid
$432,060,188                                           $119,100,000
    63%                                                    17%




                                                           Grants
                                                        $105,367,810
  Fund Balance
                                                            15%
   $2,128,941
       1%                               Food Service
                    Other
                 $11,423,484            $16,789,000
                     2%                     2%
2009-2010 Expenditure Summary


                    2009-10 Proposed Budget
                          $686,869,423


Salary & Benefits
  $483,158,303                                         Facilities
      70%                                            $40,792,648
                                                         6%


                                                  Cash Capital
                                                  $10,756,238
Variable Expenses                                     2%
  $40,929,124
                     Fixed Obligations        Debt Service
        6%
                        $85,844,018           $25,389,093
                           12%                    4%
              Alignment with Budget
Direct Impact on Students
• Individual School Operations
• Academic Support
• Students with Special Needs
• Special Education
• English Language Learners
• Youth Development & Family Services
• Central Office Driven Programs
• School Safety, Food Service, Transportation   88%
• Other School programs and support
  Total: $604,253,214
Indirect Support to Students
• Administration
• Accountability
• Human Capital Initiatives
• Legal
• Communication
• Board Of Education
  Total: $82,616,209                      12%
             ELA and Math
Major Programs: $6.1 M – General Fund and Grants
   Dream Schools
   Extended Day/Time on Task
   Literacy
   Rochester Curriculum
   Benchmark Assessments

Improvement and enhancement in areas supporting
ELA and Math development

Major Initiatives: $2 M – General Fund
   School Restructuring
   Math Textbook Adoption
              Graduation
Major Programs: $10.6M – General Fund and Grants
    Summer School Programs
    School Without Walls Center for Youth Services
    Charlotte HS Urban League
    Young Adult Evening HS
    Gateway to College MCC
    Franklin RIT Middle College
    Bryant & Stratton
    AVID
    ArtPeace
    Incarcerated Youth Program
Major Initiatives: $1.7M – General Fund
    Hillside
    Data Dashboard and Scorecards
    Datacation
           School Safety
Major Programs: $8 M - General Fund
   OCIP – On Campus Intervention Program
   In School Suspension
   I’M Ready
   Positive Behavior Systems
   Olweus Bullying Program

Major Initiatives: $2.2M – General Fund and Grants
   District-wide Disciplinary Code for Students
   Safety audits
   Increased screening–training and equipment-Xray
     scanners
   Enhancement of Sentry Force
  Long-Term Fiscal Issues
 Possible continuing decline in future Funding from
  State and Federal sources
 Optimize and balance class size but within
  contractual limits
 Enhancements and growth of Special Education
  within District
 Rising education related costs higher than inflation
 Double digit increases in employee benefits and the
  rising costs of state retirement fund
  UPCOMING BUDGET DATES

April 6    Public Hearing, 6-7 p.m.
           Budget Contract for Excellence

April 7    Finance Committee of the Whole
           Review Section 1 of Draft Budget

April 21   Finance Committee of the Whole
           Review of Section 2 of Draft Budget

April 23   Finance Committee Meeting

April 27   Public Hearing, 6-7 p.m.
           Budget Contract for Excellence

April 28   Finance Committee of the Whole
           Final Budget Deliberations

April 30   Board of Education Business Meeting

May 7      BOE Budget Adoption Vote

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:9/4/2011
language:English
pages:47