PUBLIC HEARING2016-17

LCAP & BUDGET

BOARD OF EDUCATIONPITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

J U N E 1 5 , 2 0 1 61

Presented by:Enrique E PalaciosDeputy Superintendent,Anthony MolinaExecutive Director & Eileen Chen Director

About LCFF and LCAP• How the Local Control Funding Formula Works• Local Control & Accountability Plans• LCAP Timeline

The Big Picture • Overview of our District• Our District’s Student Achievement • Our District’s Plans for Success

Budget Development• District Fiscal Trends – General Fund Revenue• New Revenue• Increase in District Financial Commitments• New Investments Being Considered• Proposed Supplemental & Concentration

Reflections & Feedback

OV E RV I E W O F P R E S E N TAT I O N

2

ABOUT LCFF AND LCAP

3

In 2013, California dramatically reformed the way it funds our public schools. LCFF established a funding system that provides school districts with base funding and additional funds based on how many low-income students, English learners, and foster youth they serve.

H O W T H E L O C A L C O N T R O L F U N D I N G F O R M U L A ( L C F F ) W O R K S

B A S EG R A N T S

Every student generates a base grant, which funds basic educational costs, such as teacher salaries, retirement costs, instructional materials, etc.

S U P P L E M E N TA L G R A N T S

Every student who is low-income, learning English, or in foster care generates 20% more funding above the base grant.

These funds must be spent on increasing and improving services for these high-need student groups in order to improve their achievement.

C O N C E N T R AT I O N G R A N T S

In districts where at least 55% of students are high-need, those high-need students above the 55% enrollment threshold generate an extra 50% of the base grant.

These funds must also be spent to increase or improve services for high-need students in order to improve their achievement.

4

All school districts must adopt a Local Control & Accountability Plan (LCAP), a 3-year plan for how districts will use state funds to serve all students.

T H E L O C A L C O N T R O L & A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y P L A N ( L C A P S )

Each district’s LCAP must include the following:

Goals

Actions

Related expenditures

LCAPs must include services that target each major student subgroup, including:

Racial/ethnic subgroups

Low-income students

English learners

Students with disabilities

Foster youth

Homeless youth

LCAPs must address the 8 State Priorities*:

1. Basic Services

2. Implementation of standards

3. Parental engagement

4. Student achievement

5. Student engagement

6. School climate

7. Access to courses

8. Other student outcomes

5* For county offices of education there are 2 additional priorities: (9) Instruction for Expelled Youth and (10) Foster Youth Services

T H E T I M E F R A M E T O D E V E L O P T H E L C A P

District engaged the community to solicit input on the LCAP.District and community assessed student needs.

District presented main new activities to the Board and Community at Board Workshop in May.

District presented main new activities to parent groups and student groups.

School board adopts plan by July 1st in a public hearing.

Required by Statute

County office of education must approve district LCAPs by October 8th.

Required by Statute

Winter 2016 Spring 2016 Spring 2016 July 1, 2016 October 8, 2016

6

THE BIG PICTURE

7

Elementary: 8

Junior: 3

High School: 1

Alternative: 1

Pre-school: 8

Adult Education

OV E RV I E W O F O U R D I S T R I C T

TK-5: 5,010

6-8: 2,533

9-12: 3,110

Pre-school: 479

Support Staff: 353

Teachers: 565

Administrators:79

Latino: 7,413 (63.61%)

African America: 1,973 (16.93%)

Asian: 953 (8.18%)

White: 639 (5.34%)

Other: 676 (5.79%)

Low-Income: 8,423English Learners: 3,642Foster Youth: 53Homeless Youth:71% Students with Disabilities 9.8%

% Unduplicated or High Need: 83.29%

# of Schools # of Students # of StaffFTE’s

# of Students by Race/Ethnicity

# of Students by group

8

Data LessonsOur students have made consistent growth in graduation completion & college-readiness indicators

Our students have made consistent growth in increasing time in-class (reductions in truancy, suspensions)

Most of our students are close or at the achievement level in comparison to like-student groups in the State and County

Our Opportunity Gap Areas: Overall Literacy and Math

Opportunity Gap Targeted Student Groups* English language learners * African American students* Students with disabilities

9

2015 PUSD CAASPP ELA by Student GroupExceeded or Met Standards

Comparison with County and State

30

%

28

%

44

%

29

%

55

%

24

%

36

%

33

%

52

%

31%

78

%

41%

65

%

25

%

68

%

62

%

44

%

32

%

72

%

38

%

35

%

28

%

61%

59

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

All Students Latino Asian Pacific Islander Filipino African American White Two +

PUSD

County

State

All Students Latino AsianPacific

IslanderFilipino

African American

White Two +

PUSD 5,699 3,631 173 96 316 1,051 272 132

County 90,787 30,942 11,174 626 4,041 8,953 30,349 4,048

State 3,204,421 1,719,666 287,182 16,381 85,869 188,871 784,055 86,912

2015 PUSD CAASPP ELA by ProgramExceeded or Met Standards

Comparison with County and State

30

%

12%

4%

27

%

52

%

11%

16%

27

%

44

%

11%

12%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

All Students English Learners Special Education Socio-Economic

PUSD

County

State

All Students English Learners Special Education Socio-Economic

PUSD 5,848 1,830 461 4,787

County 94,772 14,437 9,126 38,538

State 3,336,270 617,537 321,477 1,925,129

2015 PUSD CAASPP Math by Student GroupExceeded or Met Standards

Comparison with County and State

22

%

20

%

43

%

20

%

44

%

14%

23

%

25

%

43

%

21%

73

%

28

%

53

%

15%

57

%

53

%

33

%

21%

69

%

27

%

52

%

16%

49

%

49

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

All Students Latino Asian Pacific Islander Filipino African American White Two +

PUSD

County

State

All Students Latino AsianPacific

IslanderFilipino

African American

White Two +

PUSD 5,702 3,631 175 96 314 1,053 274 134

County 90,867 31,005 11,246 623 4,043 8,915 30,330 4,049

State 3,209,994 1,722,846 289,980 16,392 86,384 188,308 783,703 86,844

2015 PUSD CAASPP Math by ProgramExceeded or Met Standards

Comparison with County and State

22

%

13%

4%

20

%

43

%

11%

12%

18%

33

%

11%

9%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

All Students English Learners Special Education Socio-Economic

PUSD

County

State

All Students English Learners Special Education Socio-Economic

PUSD 5,848 1,835 468 4,788

County 94,772 14,617 9,106 38,562

State 3,336,270 625,489 320,276 1,928,365

2015 PUSD Cohort Grad Rates Comparison with County and State

89

.3

84

.7

95

.9

88

.2 96

.2

77

.7

93

.3

90

.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

AllStudents

Latino Asian PacificIslander

Filipino AfricanAmerican

White Two +

PUSD

County

State

PUSD Cohort Grad Rate 4-year trends by Race/Ethnicity

70

.2 70

81.

5

79 8

4.9

64

.5 69

.6

66

.771.

3

73

.1 75 8

1.8 85

.7

66

64

.4

62

.5

74

.5

74

.5

86

.2

66

.7

82

.9

69

.9

76

75

88.4 89 88.5 86.491.7

85.388.7 87.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Allstudents

Latino Asian PacificIslander

Fiipino AfricanAmerican

White Two +

2012

2013

2014

2015

PUSD Cohort Grad Rate 4-year trends by Program

70.2

58.5

41.7

69.471.3

61.9 60.2

70.274.5

60

49.4

73.6

88.483.9

65.6

87.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All Students EnglishLearners

SpecialEducation

Socio-Economic

2012

2013

2014

2015

PUSD 4-year trend UC/CSU Eligibility by Race/Ethnicity

17

17.2

26

.1

12.5

33

.3

11.3

15.9

0

26

.2

24

48

44

.4

50

18.5

31.

7

16.7

24

.6

24

32

.1

16.7

42

.9

19.7

25

25

34

.3

32

.2

45

.5

42

.1

64

.9

29

.5

34

.7

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All Latino Asian PacificIslander

Filipino AA White Two +

2012

2013

2014

2015

PUSD 4-year trend UC/CSU Eligibility by Program

17

10.7

3.6

15.4

26.2

7.8

3.3

25.424.6

1.2 3.8

22.9

34.3

4.8

0

32.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

All English Learners Special Education Socio-Eco

2012

2013

2014

2015

PUSD Writing Benchmark% of Student Groups in Mastery Band Levels

Latino AsianAfrican

AmericanFilipino

PacificIslander

WhiteTwo ormoreRaces

All Grp

Elementary 26% 32% 21% 40% 28% 25% 25% 23%

Junior 32% 70% 27% 60% 27% 30% 24% 33%

Senior 30% 23% 27% 48% 44% 41% 34% 32%

All Lvl 29% 42% 25% 49% 33% 32% 28% 29%

26

%

32

%

21%

40

%

28

%

25

%

25

%

23

%

32

%

70

%

27

%

60

%

27

% 30

%

24

%

33

%

30

%

23

%

27

%

48

%

44

%

41%

34

%

32

%

29

%

42

%

25

%

49

%

33

%

32

%

28

% 29

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No. in Mastery/Total Tested

1822/7732

645/1910

372/1396

2839/11038

PUSD Writing Benchmark% of Student Groups in Mastery Band Levels

English Learner Special Education Socio-Economic

Elementary 17% 7% 18%

Junior 11% 7% 28%

Senior 19% 12% 28%

All Lvl 16% 9% 25%

17%

7%

18%

11%

7%

28

%

19%

12%

28

%

16%

9%

25

%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

No. in Mastery/Total Tested

1822/7732

645/1910

372/1396

2839/11038

Answer the following questions for your stakeholders:

• Which LCAP goals are the district prioritizing to improve student achievement?

• How will our LCFF investments support meeting our district’s goals for improved student achievement?

• How does the LCAP reflect the district’s commitment to closing opportunity and achievement gaps?

OUR DISTRICT’S PLANS FOR SUCCESS

21

2014-2015

• Class size reduction

• Professional Development Time for Teachers

• Full time College & Career Technician

• Technology & data support-

• Extended learning- evening school, K-8th summer school, online learning

• Restorative Practices

• Vision 2027

2015-2016

• Kept Main Actions from 2014-15

• Early Literacy

• Increased Extended learning

• Increased Restorative Practices

• Added Black Diamond to Vision 2027

• Expanded CTE, LMC class

• Identified Counselor Support for students who are English language learners

• Fulltime Assistant Principals at Elementary Schools

• Implemented Garden Program

• Ed Tech Cadre

• 8th grade College and Career awareness

22

UPDATEGoal 1: Full implementation of the Pittsburg Learning Model

Keep Main Activities from 2015-2016

• Expand Early Literacy coaches to 1.0 FTE at elementary

• Continue Expanded Learning- increase participation, focus on ELLs

• Determine plan of ELD & Dual Immersion

• Expand CTE classes/pathways, AP classes, LMC classes

• Expand Ed Tech opportunities, including Coding, Mentor Teacher

• Focus on targeted student groups• Newcomer students & Foster Students & African American Male

• Relevant Learning: Financial Literacy; Pittsburg Historical Society (3rd Grade); College Visit (Jr Highs)

• Comprehensive Counseling Plan; EAOP support

• Secondary Teaching and Learning support

• Initial work increasing access to Athletics and Arts

LCAP UPDATES & REVISIONS 2016 - 17Goal 1: Full implementation of the Pittsburg Learning Model

23

2014-2015

• Instructional Coaches- 12 FTE

• Full release BTSA Coaches

• Extensive PD for certificated and classified staff

• Release time for PD (2 days)

• Student assessment systems

• Administrator mentoring

•

2015-2016

Kept Main Activities from 2014-15• District wide Professional Development;

in partnership with PEA/CTA: Focus on Opportunity Gap

• 2 days of PD for our classified staff• Professional Development for Project

Based Learning & Tech Integration: Vision 2027

• Identified mentor teachers to support intern and temp teachers

• Developed a marketing plan for the District

• Reviewed our services to students with disabilities

• Revised of Reclassification Criteria for ELLs

• Marketing materials and social media, website updates

24

UPDATE Goal 2: High quality professional development and coaching

Keep Main Activities from 2015-2016

• Expand Professional Development for Teachers

• Special Education Services (Stetson) and Compliance Issues

• Expand opportunities for DI teachers

• Advanced Placement & AVID for teachers

• New Teachers Support

• Math adoption and ELA/ELD pilot

• Coding lessons – Code.org

• Science – expansion of Stanford partnership

• Mentor Teacher

• Administrator PD: Equity Focused groups, expand to Assistant Principals

• Professional Development for Classified: including math, students with disabilities

LCAP UPDATES & REVISIONS 2016 - 17Goal 2: High quality professional development and coaching

25

2014-2015

• Parent Volunteer Coordinators (at some schools)

• Parent education and ESL class

• Training for parents, site and district staff on Restorative Justice

• Additional translator

• Additional School Welfare & Attendance worker

• Full Service Community Schools Coordinator

• Additional counselor support at all levels

2015-2016Kept Main Activities from 2014-2015

• Parent and Community Engagement• Parent & Family Coordinator

(District)• Parent & Family Liaisons at each

school site• Parent Workshops: Early

Literacy, Restorative Justice, Truancy, CAASPP

• Restorative Practices in Junior High and High School

• Expanded mental health services to serve all students• Increased Lincoln Center on-site

support• Increased Nursing services for schools• Community Schools (Hillview)

26

UPDATE onGoal 3: Supportive environments conducive to learning

Keep Main Activities from 2015-2016

• Increase Parent & Family classes; family engagement plans

• Expand Community Schools (Highlands)

• Expand Restorative Practices: Elementary

• Expand translation services

• Establish Parent Advisory Group for Students with Disabilities (CAC)

• Dual Immersion Community Advisory Group

• Coordination of Mental Health and Behavior Support

• 27

LCAP UPDATES & REVISIONS 2016 - 17Goal 3: Supportive environments conducive to learning

BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

28

D I S T R I C T F I S C A L T R E N D S – G E N E R A L F U N D R E V E N U E

Total General Fund Revenue, 2013-20172016-17 General Fund Revenue

29

$13,710,842

$16,239,287

$4,688,033

$2,189,089 $2,304,702

-

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

82,422,39421,828,706

10,974,350

5,548,875 3,966,468

BASE GRANTS

SUPPLEMENTAL & CONCENTRATION

OTHER STATE

FEDERAL

LOCAL MISCELLANEOUS

BREAKDOWN OF SOURCES

Revenue Sources in %

30

66.07%

17.50%

8.80%

4.45%3.18%

BASE GRANTS SUPPLEMENTAL & CONCENTRATION OTHER STATE FEDERAL LOCAL MISCELLANEOUS

L C F F 2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 9

31

$0

$74,932,318$79,194,920

$82,422,394$84,774,700 $86,410,483

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

BASE GRANTS

L C F F 2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 9

32

$0

$7,763,749

$17,948,372

$21,828,706

$24,339,425 $25,008,344

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

SUPPLEMENTAL & CONCENTRATION

L C F F 2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 9

33

86.54%

84.27%

83.29%

81.62%81.41% 81.41%

78.00%

79.00%

80.00%

81.00%

82.00%

83.00%

84.00%

85.00%

86.00%

87.00%

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

UNDUPLICATED COUNT

L C F F 2 0 1 3 - 2 0 1 9

34

0.00%

10.36%

22.66%

26.48%

28.71% 28.94%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

PROPORTIONALITY

L C F F F LO O R & TA R G E T

35

$-

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019

FLOOR TARGET Linear (FLOOR) Linear (TARGET)

FLOOR TARGET

2013-2014 $ 66,842,771 $ 106,874,364

2014-2015 $ 72,491,409 $ 107,992,666

2015-2016 $ 84,175,949 $ 109,980,398

2016-2017 $ 98,418,518 $ 109,970,598

2017-2018 $ 104,930,184 $ 111,266,744

2018-2019 $ 110,105,319 $ 114,511,159

36

Year 1: 2013-14 Year 2: 2014-15 Year 3: 2015-16 Year 4: 2016-17

Year 5: 2017-18 Year 6: 2018-19 Year 7: 2019-20 Year 8: 2020-21

Floor Gap Remaining Need after Gap

PUSD Progress Towards Full LCFF Implementation

REFLECTIONS & FEEDBACK

37

Questions for discussion:

• What questions do you have about the information we presented? Is there anything we need to clarify?

• In what ways do these spending priorities resonate with you? In what ways do they not resonate with you?

• Which investments might we increase or add, and why? Which investments might we decrease or eliminate, and why?

• In what ways is this spending plan helping to close opportunity and achievement gaps within our district?

R E F L E C T I O N S & F E E D B A C K

38

THANK YOU!

39