FUTURE RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS: IX

March 27, 2013February 13, 2013January 23, 2013January 9, 2013

November 28, 2012November 13, 2012October 10, 2012

September 12, 2012June 20, 2012

1

Purpose• Identify a Prioritized List of Future

Resource Requirements (for use when we receive additional revenue, including return of Heavy Impact funding)

• Continue to review and discuss long range student learning plans and fiscal related requirements so that we can:– Continue to increase student achievement

by prioritizing limited resources– Communicate student learning priorities in a

clear and timely fashion to all stakeholders

26‐20‐12,  updated 8‐22‐12

Decision Making Process Part 1:Review and Seek Guidance

(9-12-22)

• Facts• Assumptions• Considerations• Key Questions

• Board Guidance– Board Criteria– Other

• September 12, 2012

38‐22‐12, updated 9‐12‐12

Agenda

• Review Key Questions (New)• Values, Goals, Criteria and Fiscal

Strategy Alignment• Review Estimated Costs For Items• Begin Development of Pros and Cons• Return on Investment• Return of Heavy Impact Funding• Way Ahead

410‐10‐12

1. 2007-08 Budget2. Long Range 5 year Plan3. 2008-09 Budget4. Prepare for School Support Levy5. Maintain Heavy Impact6. 2009-10 Budget7. Legislative Action 2010-118. Successful Passage of School Support Levy9. 2010-11 Budget10. Successful Passage of Capital Projects11. 2011-12 Budget12. Review/Revise Long Range Plan 2012-201713. 2012-13 Budget SY 11-12

Bridge to 2012 “Phases”Past Five Years August 13, 2008

6‐20‐12 55

CKSD “Goals”: Planning Ahead

• Student achievement maximized for all students

• A well developed, highly skilled and effective staff

• A community that supports and promotes its schools

• Fiscally responsible decisions align resources and goals

66‐20‐12

Facts• 4 half day furloughs (total 2 days

instructional loss)• 3 Learning Improvement Days for

instructional staff were eliminated• School Support Supplemental Levies were

approved for 2013 and 2014• February 2014 – School Support Levy• February 2016 – Capital Projects Measure• As the state continues to reduce revenue for

school districts there is a greater reliance on local levy dollars to fund basic education

76‐20‐12

Facts• 6 of 12 schools have free all day kindergarten• Curriculum budget cut 75% in the last seven

years – several textbooks are outdated• Literacy adoption (K-3) postponed for five

years• Interventions for Summer Academy

eliminated for 2012• Technology improvements have been

postponed for several years• The recommended 2014 SSL amount will

come to the Board in June 2013

89‐12‐12

Assumptions• Student achievement needs exceed resources• Reliance on local levy dollars to support basic

education will continue • Economic recovery will remain stagnant• An integrated strategy will provide better

results for students, staff and the community• Completion of a long range fiscal recovery

plan, including a prioritized funding list, prior to the 2014 election is critical

99‐12‐12

Considerations

• Elections completed in 2010, 2011and 2012

• Reductions in curriculum, technology, and maintenance and grounds must be reversed

• Return of Heavy Impact funding 2014-15

109‐12‐12

Key Questions• Which priorities will provide the greatest student learning

improvement?• Which priorities will best support the district goals?• Will school configuration impact these issues? Possibly,

depending on the final configuration.• Is there a way to continue to advance student learning while

maintaining or reducing local taxes? Potentially, yes. If the state acts on HB 2776 and fully funds education in 2018 and the district is not penalized by losing other funding, along with the return of Heavy Impact funds could place the district in a position to improve learning and maintain or reduce taxes.

• Can we stay qualified for Heavy Impact funding (potential increased SSL) and still maintain or reduce taxes? If regulations stay as they are, one option is to increase the SSL amount and place all or almost all the Heavy Impact funds into Capital Projects this could position the district in a better “levy rate” position.

119‐12‐12, Updated 1‐17‐13

Additional Key Questions• Are the Board Values, Goals, Criteria and Fiscal

Strategies aligned? Yes, very close. Do they need to be updated? Fiscal Strategies were updated by the Community Finance Committee and edited/approved by Board.

• What are the costs for priorities on the achievement draft list? See draft costs

• What are the factors that affect our outcome measures? (Third grade reading, 8th grade math, graduation rate) All day Kindergarten for all students, updated curriculum, professional development and interventions for students not meeting the standard

• How do we quantify the return on our investment? Current board goals

126‐20‐12, updated 9‐12‐12, 1‐4‐13

Values, Goals, Criteria and Fiscal Strategy Alignment

• Aligned?– Values, Goals, Criteria - Yes

• Need to be modified?– Add Return on Investment to Criteria - Yes– Update Fiscal Strategies - Yes

1310‐10‐12, updated 1‐4‐13

• Implement Free All Day Kindergarten $750,000 Across the District

• Increase/Reinstall Interventions for $650,000 - $1.5 MStudents Not Meeting the Standard

Reading, Writing, Math and ScienceSummer Academy

• Curriculum and Instructional $500,000 - $2.0 MMaterials Replacement

K-3 Literacy, Social Studies

• Restore Student Instructional Time $1.1 M(Furlough)

Total This Page $3.0 M - $5.35 M

Improve and Maximize Student Achievement Draft List: Estimated Costs

1410‐10‐12, Updated 1‐4‐13,  1‐13‐13 HB 2776 $$

• Improve Science, Technology, Engineering $500,000 - $1.0Mand Mathematics (STEM) Focus

• Sustain and Return Professional $850,000-$3.0MDevelopment (LID Days)

• Elementary Class Size $500,000-$1.8M

• Sustain District Wide MAP or MAP $150,000-200,000like Assessment

• Leverage Future Technologies $500,000 - $2.0 MTotal This Page $2.5 M - $8.0 M

Improve and Maximize Student Achievement Draft List: Estimated Costs

1510‐10‐12, Updated 1‐4‐13,  1‐13‐13 HB 2776 $$

Fiscal StabilityDraft List: Estimated Costs

• Adjust Part or All of the Supplemental $1.0-3.8MLevy

• Fully Fund Capital Projects Levy $2.5 M-10.0 MRequirements

• Restore Federal Contingency $750,000Reserve (FCR)

• Increase Committed Minimum $1.0 M = 1%Fund Balance

Total This Page $5.25 M - $15.55 M

Grand Total (3) $10.75 M – $28.9 M10‐10‐12, Updated 1‐4‐13, 3‐22‐13

Pros and Cons: Implement All Day Kindergarten Across the District

Pros• Student achievement• Provides equity across the

district• Reduce transportation costs• Builds solid foundation• Closes the achievement gap -

potentially• Starts all first graders on a level

playing field• Early intervention opportunity• Reduce need for intervention in

upper grades• Increase graduation rates• Foreign (world) language• Draw additional student FTE

Cons• Need more classroom space• Curricular needs (more

classroom teacher materials)

• Need more staff/training• FTE cost potential• Bilingual educators• State ADK assessment

costs (WA Kids)

1710‐10‐12

Interventions for Students Not Meeting the Standard

Pros• Provides additional time

for students• Reduces need for Special

Education referrals• Increase students

meeting the standards and Board goals

• Able to split into needs for elementary and secondary

• Additional options for newer researched based interventions

Cons• Costs

181‐9‐13

Pros and Cons: K-3 Reading Curriculum

Pros• Builds the foundation• Align to Common Core• Decrease future intervention costs• Integrate reading and writing into

English/LA• Exploits technology – better access for

students to support learning• Standardize instruction across the district• Builds in ProDev goals• Focuses district on student achievement• Reduce need to supplement due to

increased alignment• Reduction in workload with CCSS alignment• Reduction in workload based on provided

differentiation• Newer staff provided with the materials

they need• Enables district to better support staff

Cons• Cost of materials and

Prof Dev• Temporary workload

increase (time)• Displaces other needs

(we may not be able to do something else)

1910‐10‐12

Pros and Cons: Reduce or Eliminate Furlough Days

Pros• Returns/restores

instructional time• Improves learning

performance• Improves employee

morale• Restores a more

regular schedule

Cons• Cost• Displaces other needs

(we may not be able to do something else

2010‐10‐12

Integrate/Sustain STEM focus

Pros• Increase opportunities

for 21st century preparation

• Support college readiness

• Professional Development around New Science Standards

Cons• Costly equipment• Perception of too much

focus on STEM vsother areas

211/9/13, updated 1/23/13

Professional Development: Cost Estimates

• Reinstall Learning Improvement Days (3 + some classified) $850,000

• Provide PD for New Teacher Evaluation Implementation (3 cert days) $750,000

• Reinstall Instructional Coaches or a Model that Provides On-going Support for 5D and Content at the Building Level (0.5 FTE/Bldg) $1.2 M

• Increase PD for Classified Staff:Instructional and Operational $125,000-$200,000

Total This Page $2.925 M - $3.0 M

221‐9‐13

Professional Development

Pros• Training to ensure

consistency• Training to ensure

maximum benefit from any purchase of materials

• Provides systematic focus across buildings, departments and the district

Cons• Costs• Delivery model

(Outside the 180 day schedule vs. substitute use)

231‐23‐13

Sustain District Wide MAP or MAP like Assessments

Pros• Provide access to

teachers for multiple measures for student achievement

• Allow monitoring for District level student achievement progress and board goals

Cons• Costs• Challenge with access

to computer assessment and continued access to computer based resources

• Support for network that can handle the traffic level

241‐23‐13

Leverage Future Technologies

Pros• Leverage technologies

for learning• Increase access during

class and outside the classroom

• Increase access for instructional materials for teachers

• Increase flexibility for the future

Cons• Costs• Policy for “Bring Your

Own Device”• Digital Content and

“Access” for All Students

251‐23‐13

Pros and Cons: Adjust Part or All of Supplemental Levy

Pros• Great PR and help with

future levy support– Reduce taxpayer burden

• Consistent with rationale for levy request

Cons• If revenue neutral,

what do we reduce?– What impact to student

achievement

2610‐10‐12, 3‐22‐13

Fully Fund Capital Projects Levy Requirements

Pros• Ensure that all

projects are completed and restore schedule

• Restore confidence with stakeholders

Cons• Large dollar

requirement• Setting up Capital

Projects vs Reading, academics

• Restoring original schedule could require added staffing

271‐9‐13

Restore Federal Contingency Reserve (FCR)

Pros• Provides stability for

Regular Impact Aid• Improves Cash Flow• Could be used in

conjunction with increase of Minimum Fund Balance

Cons• Takes funds from other

potential expenditures• Impact aid is not

guaranteed money

281‐9‐13

Pros and Cons: Increase Committed Minimum Fund Balance

Pros• Improve Financial

position – State indicator– Bond rating– Greater flexibility to

weather revenue fluctuations

Cons• If revenue neutral what

do we give up?• If revenue increases,

what don’t we restore?

2910‐10‐12

Factors Affecting Achievement Outcome Measures

• Third Grade Reading– K-3 Updated Curriculum– Required Professional Development to Implement– All Day Kindergarten Across the District– Increased Access to Research Based Interventions

• 8th Grade Math– Increased Access to Researched Based 4-8 Math Interventions– Summer Academy for Students Needing Additional time– Curriculum Resources to Support Math Interventions

• Graduation Rate– Increased Access to Research Based Interventions in Reading,

Writing, Math and Science

3010‐10‐12, Updated 1‐23‐13

Heavy Impact Discussion

• What distribution of Heavy Impact will help CKSD reach its goals?

• General Fund or Capital Projects?• If Capital Projects, then

– SSL could increase while CPL could decrease = zero net change to taxpayer

– Technology return to General Fund– Stay closer to or at the Levy Lid – Improve Heavy Impact Qualification Status

3110‐10‐12, updated 1‐4‐13

Key Events Impacting Resources

Supplemental Levy Certification 2013 Nov 2012 Jackson Park Construction Bid Jan 2013• 2013-15 Legislative Biennium Apr 2013• 2013-14 SY Budget May 2013• School Configuration Decision June 2013• 2014 School Support Levy Level June 2013• Resume Qualification for Heavy

Impact Funds 2014-15• 2016 Capital Projects Measure Feb 2016

326‐20‐12, Updated 2‐6‐13

Additional Considerations

• Impact Aid – Reduced military– Shipyard Hiring Freeze– % of Federally Impacted Students– Federal Reductions

• Security Needs

331‐23‐13

Additional School BoardGuidance and Priorities

• Focus on Early Learning in order to:– Improve long-term options for students– Increase % of third graders reading on

grade level

349‐12‐12, Updated 1‐23‐13, 2‐13‐13 and 3‐22‐13

Superintendent’s Recommendation: Future Resource Priorities

• Increase Focus (Resources) on Early Intervention– Increase Tuition Free All Day Kindergarten– Secure K-2(or K-5)_ Reading Curriculum– Increase Interventions for Students Not

Meeting the Standard– Increased Intervention Focus at Elementary

• Reduce Furlough Impact on Students• Adjust Part or All of the 2014

Supplemental Levy

359‐12‐12, Updated 3‐8‐13, 3‐22‐13

Way Ahead Decision Making Process

• Finalize Board PrioritiesMar 27

• Integrate into Budget and LevyOption Process May/June

36Updated 3‐22‐13