2009-2010 superintendent’s proposed budget jean-claude brizard superintendent of schools
DESCRIPTION
2009-2010 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Jean-Claude Brizard Superintendent of Schools Board of Education March 30, 2009. “Ensuring that every child in Rochester has access to world class content taught by world class teachers in schools led by world class leaders.”. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
2009-2010
Superintendent’s Proposed Budget
Jean-Claude BrizardSuperintendent of Schools
Board of EducationMarch 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”
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 3 48 43 44 54 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 3 ELA Projections%
of
stud
ent
s at
pe
rfor
man
ce le
vels
3 a
nd 4
All figures are percents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 4 50 48 52 60 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 4 ELA Projections%
of
stud
ent
s at
pe
rfor
man
ce le
vels
3 a
nd 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 5 42 45 59 66 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 5 ELA Projections%
of
stud
ent
s at
pe
rfor
man
ce le
vels
3 a
nd 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Continuous 42 42 57 67 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 6 ELA Projections%
of
stud
ent
s at
per
form
anc
e le
vels
3 a
nd 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 7 28 29 40 50 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 7 ELA Projections%
of
stud
ent
s at
per
form
anc
e le
vels
3 a
nd 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 8 27 28 32 42 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 8 ELA Projections%
of
stud
ent
s at
pe
rfor
man
ce le
vels
3 a
nd 4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 3 56 62 71 76 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 3 Math Projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 4 54 52 62 68 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 4 Math Projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 5 31 47 58 65 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 5 Math Projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 6 31 41 56 63 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 6 Math Projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade 7 13 22 48 57 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 7 Math Projections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Grade8 20 18 32 40 100
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Grade 8 Math Projections
Graduation Rate: Increase the graduation rate to 75% by 2012. In schools with a graduation rate at or above 75%, the target is to have 100% of students graduate by 2012.
Regents Examinations: In each of the five required Regents subject areas, increase the percent of students who score at Levels 3 and 4 to 75% by 2012. In Regent subject areas 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”
What school systems practice influences student learning.
AvoidableGAP
The Themes
What school systems practice influences student learning.
AvoidableGAPAvoidableGAP
Curriculum and Academic Goals
Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building
Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements
AvoidableGAP
AvoidableGap
Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data
Recognition, Intervention, and Adjustment
Who’s Responsible for What?
Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity Building
Monitoring: Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data
Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements
Curriculum and Academic Goals
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 goalsThe “What’s”
- ELA- Math- Graduation- School Safety
Early and continuous assessments of students and programs
- Proper planning and oversightContinue 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
DashboardMonitor and check performancesEasy access for the publicIncrease monitoring by public
Assessing Performance DataMore timely analysis More timely academic intervention and adjustment for
student learning
Accountable Budget BookAlignment of mission and goalsFiduciary responsibility
BudgetAligning Resources to the “What”
RCSD's funding system must support and advance these core values
Funding Principle Description
Core Value: AchievementAlignment 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: EquityVertical Equity (student)
► Allocates resources equitably across students, based on student need.
Horizontal Equity (school)
► Allocates resources equitably across schools, based on student and school need.
Core Value: AccountabilityTransparency ► 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
Median=$12.5k
+10%
-10%
$9.6K per pupil$9.6K per pupilHighest school is $8.1K
(84%) higher than lowest school
Highest school is $8.1K (84%) higher than lowest
school
Sources: RCSD budget 2008-09, Interviews, ERS analysis Note: School #57 Early Childhood has been excluded from charts because pre-Kindergarten students make up one-third of school ‘s enrollment.
$17.7K per pupil
$17.7K per pupil
Education Resource Strategies
“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.
SCHOOL BUDGET USE: School Leaders must decide how to spend the money.
$ per pupil based on needELL
Academic InterventionGifted/Talented
PovertySpecial Education
$ per pupil based on needELL
Academic InterventionGifted/Talented
PovertySpecial Education
School or Program Weights ($ per pupil)
School or Program Weights ($ per pupil)
Foundation Grant ($ per pupil)
Foundation Grant ($ per pupil)
Non-formula resources ($ per pupil, services,
equipment or materials, or FTES)
Non-formula resources ($ per pupil, services,
equipment or materials, or FTES)
TeachersPrincipalsLibrarians
Guidance CounselorsCoaches
Assistant PrincipalsAfter-School Programs
EnrichmentProfessional Development
Curriculum Materialsetc.
TeachersPrincipalsLibrarians
Guidance CounselorsCoaches
Assistant PrincipalsAfter-School Programs
EnrichmentProfessional Development
Curriculum Materialsetc.
As determined by the Central OfficeAs determined by the Central Office
However, WITHOUT accountability, capacity and flexibility, WSF is just another way to calculate school budgets.
Fle
xib
ilit
y
Fle
xib
ilit
y
Acco
unta
bility
Acco
unta
bility
Cap
acit
yC
ap
acit
y
Strategic Use of School-
Level Resources
Accountability:School leaders are held accountable for student-outcomes and fiscal responsibility in return for increased control
Support that builds capacity:Central office will provide support to schools in the form of: budget and 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
2009 2010 2008-09 2009-10 (est.)Teachers 48.70 41.50 Total Enrollment 528 541Principals/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-60000: General Fund - No Project $ 2,090,233
0200: Title IIA - Tchr & Prin Tr/Rec - 0206: Title I - Kindergarten 68,824 Major Object 2008-09 2009-100243: 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 4528: C4E - In-School Suspension 44,934 Average Daily Attendance pct:
Special Population Units Count wt. UnitsMobility (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
Science Social StudiesGRADE 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. These numbers are the best District estimate.
Mission: Motivate, celebrate, and practice collegiality with every child every day.
Fiscal Year 2010-11 Allocation Weighting Factors
Budget Allocations by Account
ELA Math
Student Achievement (percentage of students attaining proficiency)*
Student Demographic DataPosition Information (FTEs)
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
17,321(2010-2011)
17,150(2011-2012)
17,039(2012-2013)
17,271(2008-2009)
17,130(2007-2008)
18,587(2003-2004)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
SCHOOL YEAR
EN
RO
LLM
EN
T
RCSD Enrollment Trends 2003-2013Elementary School
13,344(2010-2011)
14,036(2011-2012) 13,638
(2012-2013)14,861
(2008-2009)
15,587(2007-2008)
14,482(2009-2010)
15,245(2003-2004)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
SCHOOL YEAR
ENRO
LLM
ENT
RCSD Enrollment Trends 2003-2013Secondary School
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 BudgetProposed budget revenue of $686.9 MillionDecrease from 2008-09 amended budget of $4.5MGap caused by Governor’s Proposed Revenue
Reduction $13.4M based on amended budgetUse 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 DistrictTwelve Year Comparison of State, City, and Other Revenue
49% 50% 64%
28% 23%
17%24%
20%27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
State
City
Other
2009-2010 Revenue Summary
2009-10 Proposed Budget $686,869,423
Food Service$16,789,000
2%
Fund Balance$2,128,941
1%Other
$11,423,484 2%
Grants$105,367,810
15%
City Aid $119,100,000
17%
State Aid $432,060,188
63%
2009-2010 Expenditure Summary
2009-10 Proposed Budget $686,869,423
Cash Capital$10,756,238
2%
Debt Service$25,389,093
4%
Facilities $40,792,648
6%
Fixed Obligations $85,844,018
12%
Variable Expenses $40,929,124
6%
Salary & Benefits $483,158,303
70%
Alignment with BudgetDirect 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• Other School programs and support
Indirect Support to Students• Administration• Accountability• Human Capital Initiatives• Legal• Communication• Board Of Education
Total: $604,253,214
Total: $82,616,209
88%
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
GraduationMajor 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
U P C O M I N G B U D G E T D A T E S
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 WholeReview 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