shelton board of education budget presentation

8/2/2019 Shelton Board of Education Budget Presentation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shelton-board-of-education-budget-presentation 1/47

Shelton Board of Education2012-13 Proposed Budget

BUDGET PRESENTATION TO THE SHELTONDEMOCRATIC TOWN COMMITTEE

February 27, 2012



SPS STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT2010-2011

PART I



• The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)is a US Act of Congress

regarding the education of children in public schools.

• No Child Left Behind requires all government-run schools receiving federal

funding to administer a state-wide, standardized tests annually to all

students.• Schools are required through Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965 to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores.

◦ Safe Harbor = alternative way to meet AYP through significant progress

with identified student populations and sub-groups of 40 or more

students (i.e. increase 10% of students below proficiency , annually)

◦ Elizabeth Shelton (Significant Progress w/ Students with Disabilities

(SWDs) and Shelton Intermediate School (AYP w/ Economically

Disadvantaged & Significant Progress w/SWDs and Hispanic sub-groups )

SCHOOL DISTRICT PERFORMANCEAdequate Yearly Progress (AYP) No Child Left

Behind (NCLB)



Adequate Yearly Progress2010-11 Benchmarks

CMT CAPT

Reading Math Reading Math

2007-10

79% 82% 81% 80%



2010 SPS DISTRICT AYP PROFILESPS SHS SIS BHS ESS LHS MO SS LAF

Sub

Grp

M RD

G

M R

D

G

M RD

G

M RD

G

M RD

G

M R

D

G

M RD

G

M RD

G

M RD

G

Over Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

Asian Y Y Y Y

Black Y Y

H/L Y Y Y Y

Wh Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N

ELL S

H

SH

SwD Y SH SH SH SH SH

EcDis Y SH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N



Adequate Yearly Progress2011-12 Benchmarks

CMT CAPT

Reading Math Reading Math

2009-1079% 82% 81% 80%

2010-11 89% 91% 91% 90%

2011-1289% 91% 91% 90%



2011 SPS DISTRICT AYP PROFILE

SPS SHS SIS PH BHS ESS LHS MO SS Sub

Grp M R

D

G M R

D

G M R

D

G M RD M RDG M RDG M R

D

G M R

D

G M RDG

Over

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Asian Y Y Y Y Y Y Black Y N H/L Y N Y N Y Y Wh

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

ELL N N SwD N N N N N N EcDis N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N



Table 4. Interventions for Title I SchoolsIdentified as In Need of Improvement

Not making

AYP In Need of Improvement

Status Phase Consequence(s) First year Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable

Second year In Need of Improvement Year

1

First Year of School

Improvement

Public School Choice

School Improvement Plan

Parent/Guardian Notification

Third year In Need of Improvement Year

2

Second Year of School

Improvement


Supplemental Educational Services


Parent/Guardian NotificationFourth year In Need of Improvement Year

3

Corrective Action Public School Choice



Corrective Action Measures


Fifth year In Need of Improvement Year

4

Planning for Restructuring/

Second Year of Corrective

Action



“Significant Intervention” by theDistrict


Develop Alternative Governance

(Restructuring) Plan




CSDE NEWS RELEASE

September 19, 2011

2011 Annual Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)Reports B

(HARTFORD, CONN.) — While students aregenerally performing slightly better than last yearon the statewide tests (CMT and CAPT), moreschools and districts than last year are now failingto meet the federal NCLB standards of ‘Adequate

Yearly Progress.’ …

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/AYP2011/ayp_2011_newsrelease.pdf







CT SCHOOLS & DISTRICTS

NOT MEETING AYP2010 & 2011

YEAR # ES & MSNOT MTG AYP

# HSNOT MTG

AYP

# OFDISTRICTS

NOT MTGAYP

2010 220 61 37

2011 373 86 54



2012 SPS DIP GOALS

Reading: 1. Increase the total number of students achieving goal by

a minimum of 3% as measured by the CMT and CAPTReading Assessments.

2. Increase the number of Economically Disadvantaged(Free & Reduced Lunch) student achieving proficiency by10% as measured by the CMT and CAPT ReadingAssessments.

Mathematics: 1. Increase the total number of students achieving goal by

a minimum of 3% as measured by the CMT and CAPTMathematics Assessments.

2. Increase the number of Economically Disadvantaged(Free & Reduced Lunch) student achieving proficiency by10% as measured by the CMT and CAPT MathematicsAssessments.



SBOE BUDGET DEVELOPMENT

SESSIONS2011

PART II



BUDGET PRESENTATION # 1

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2011



2012-13 Rollover Budget

2012-13 Budget: $ 63,700,000◦ Add: Teacher & Admin Salaries $ 523,805

◦ Add: Non-Certified Salaries $ 241,157◦ Includes cost estimates for Custodial, Secretarial

negotiations, mediation and arbitration.

◦ Add: Benefits (8.03%) $ 644,106◦ Add: Transportation Contract $ 112,559

◦ Less: Early Retirement Incentive($665,888)◦ Includes Accumulated Sick Leave Payouts

Net Rollover Amount: $ 855,739 Rollover %: 1.34%



Principals’/Departments’ Staffing Requests

TEACHERS:

Reduce: 5.0 ElementaryTeachers

Add:

◦ 2.0 Coaches

◦ 5.0 Guidance Counselors

◦ 1.0 Media Specialist

◦ 1.0 PE Teacher

◦ 1.0 TAG Teacher

◦ 2.0 Tech. Ed. Teachers

◦ 0.5 World Language Teacher

◦ 0.2 Social Workers

◦ 1.0 Reading Teacher

◦ 0.2 Psychologist

◦ 3.0 Spec. Ed Teachers

◦ 0.2 Speech Pathologists

OTHER STAFF:

Add:◦ 5.0 Tutors

Reduce:

◦ Technology Interns

Add:

◦ 2.0 Technicians



Principals’/Departments’ Staffing Requests

Principals Recommendation Add:

◦ 2.0 Coaches

- 5.0 Elementary Reductions



◦ 1.0 PE Teacher

◦ 1.0 TAG Teacher

◦ 2.0 Tech. Ed. Teachers◦ 0.5 World Language Teacher





◦ 0.2 Speech Pathologists◦ 5.0 Tutors

◦ Additional Technology staff – 2 Technician Support Positions

COST

◦ $ 8,800

◦ $ 360,000

◦ $ 380,000

◦ $ 70,000

◦ $ 70,000

◦ $ 70,000

◦ $ 140,000

◦ $ 35,000

◦ $ 15,000

◦ $ 70,000

◦ $ 15,000

◦ $ 210,000

◦ $ 15,000◦ $ 125,000

◦ $ 90,000

TOTAL = $ 1,313,800 -$360,000 = $ 945,000



Superintendent’s Program Improvement andStaffing Recommendations

Principals Recommendation Add:◦ 2.0 Coaches

- 5.0 Elementary Reductions



◦ 1.0 PE Teacher

◦ 1.0 TAG Teacher◦ 2.0 Tech. Ed. Teachers







◦ 5.0 Tutors

◦ Additional Technology staff – 2Technician Support Positions

Superintendent Recommendation:◦ Reallocate within Athletic

Budget

◦ Fund 2.5 from GB

◦ Fund 1.0 from GB

◦ Reallocate/Fund from GB

◦ Fund 1.0 from GB◦ Funding through Title 2A

◦ Revisit in 2013-14/GB

◦ Fund from GB

◦ Title 1

◦ IDEA

◦ Reallocate/funding though IDEA


◦ (2) Title 1

◦ Eliminate Interns

◦ Fund from GB



Principals’ Departments’ Additional, non staff requests

Early Dismissal PD TIME forteacher collaboration

Replacement furniture (GBEquip)◦ Students and teachers◦ Library furniture◦ Perry Hill

Additional classroom technologyGB - Equipment◦ Document cameras◦ Increase Smart boards for

classrooms

Reduce amount for “Pay-to-Participate”

Create a health classroom inaux. gym @ SIS (GBMaintenance & Operations)

Equipment (GB) Replace Potters wheels @SHS

Replace Ice Machine Walkie-talkies @ PHS Floor scrubber & vacuum gym @

MoheganB & G/Maintenance/Operations (GB) Repair tennis courts @ SHS Replace fencing on baseball and

softball fields Revamp main entrance @ SHS Repair stairwell treads @ SHS Resurface SHS and BHS parking

lots (BOE – B + G)PIBC Replace turf field and track @ Finn

Stadium Replacement of windows anddoors – ESS –

Chiller



Preliminary Recommended Budget

2011-12 Budget $63,700,000◦ Add: Rollover Amount $ 855,739

◦ Add: Program Improvement $ 129,001

REC-2012-13 Budget $64,684,740

Increase %: 1.55%

New Dollars Needed: $ 984,740




WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2012



2012-13 Rollover Budget2012-13 Budget: $ 63,700,000◦ Add: Teacher & Admin Salaries $ 523,805◦ Add: Non-Certified Salaries $ 241,157

◦ Includes cost estimates for Custodial, Secretarialnegotiations, mediation and arbitration.

◦ Add: Benefits(6 %) $ 481,275◦ Add: Transportation Contract $ 112,559◦ Less: Early Retirement Incentive($ 922,384)

◦ Includes Accumulated Sick Leave Payouts ($ 665,888)◦ Potential Savings for 8 retirements ($ 256,496)

Net Rollover Amount: $ 436,129 Rollover %: .85%



POTENTIAL SAVINGS - BENEFIT PERCENTAGEREDUCTION

•

5-YEAR HISTORY OF SAVINGS• Range = $ 250-400 K

•5 year average = $ 350K• Reduce % from 8.03 to 6 %

• $ 644,106 to $ 481,275NOTE:1. POTENTIAL SAVINGS COULD BE

APPLIED TO OTHER LINE ITEMS;

( APPROXIMATELY $ 80K – P2P)2. DO NOT RECOMMEND REDUCING

MORE THAN 2%



POTENTIAL SAVINGS TEACHER RETIREMENT/REPLACEMENT

PROJECTION = 8 TEACHER RETIREMENTS

•Differential savings between teacherretirement/replacement = $ 32 K

• 8 X $32 K = $ 256 K

NOTE:1. THIS REMOVES MARGIN OF RELIEF FOR SALARY

OVERAGES2. BASED ON 8 – DOESN’T ACCOUNT FOR

OVER/UNDER



Superintendent’s Program Improvement andStaffing Recommendations

Principals Recommendation Add:◦ 2.0 Coaches

- 5.0 Elementary Reductions =



◦ 1.0 TAG Teacher


Add Tech Positions◦ 2.0 Technician Support Positions

◦ 2.0 Tech. Ed. Teachers





◦ 5.0 Tutors

◦ 1.0 PE Teacher


Superintendent Recommendation:◦ Reallocate within Athletic Budget

$ 360,000

◦ Fund 2.5 from GB = $ 190 K

◦ Fund 1.0 from GB = $ 70 K



◦ Eliminate Interns = $ 45 K◦ $ 130 K – $ 60 K = $ 70 K

◦ Funding through Title 2A

◦ Title 1

◦ IDEA

◦ Funding though IDEA


◦ Funding through IDEA

◦ (2.0) Title 1/(3.0) GB= $ 75K

◦ Reallocate/Fund GB= $ 70K

◦ Revisit 2013-14/Fund GB=$ 70K

TOTAL $ 70 K – 285 K



Preliminary Recommended Budget

2011-12 Budget $63,700,000◦ Add: Rollover Amount $ 436,129

◦ Add: Program Improvement $ 200,000

+ $ 70 K 0F $ 285 K

REC-2012-13 Budget = $ 64,336,129

Increase %: = 1.0%

New Dollars Needed: $ 636,129




WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2012



OTHER POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS

Reduce Instructional Suppliesper enrollment (-122)◦ 7.5 – 2.5 = 5.0

Reduce Administrative Costs

Reduce Guidance Allocation by

1.5

Eliminate Cluster @ SIS

TOTALS

$ 30 K

$ 25 K $ 114 K

$ 280 K

$ 449 K



IMPACT OF REDUCING SCHOOLCOUNSELOR ALLOCATION

Counseling – Individual/Small Group StudentCounseling

Developmental Guidance Lessons (e.g.Personal/Social, Academic & Career)

School 504 Coordinator - IDEA 504 is enforcedby the USDE, OCR

School PBS Chairperson - Establish behavioralsupports and proactive procedures in relation to

SRBI tiered interventions Consultation/Collaboration w/ Staff and Parents

regarding academic, developmental, andbehavioral concerns



IMPACT OF REDUCING SCHOOLCOUNSELOR ALLOCATION

Liaison for community agencies (i.e. YouthService, DCF, B & G Club)

Participate/Chair 504 Meetings, Crisis Teams,PPTs as needed and Data Teams (i.e. Data

Collection and analysis to inform and guidepractices that result in increase opportunitiesfor student success)

Assist in Transition of new students; Pre-

truancy/ truancy procedures & Investigation/Resolution of behavioral issues as needed



IMPACT OF ELIMINATING A CLUSTER @ SIS

Class sizes in Grade 7 will rise from 22.5 to 25.6

students per class Reducing 1 cluster in grade 7; school-wide program

effect

◦ Elimination of elective program(s) and STEM pathwaycourses in Unified Arts.

◦ Elimination of our looping teams.

◦ Despite the low projected enrollment; SIS had 41student registrations since July 1, 2011

Effective scheduling practices are based on symmetry;

Elimination of a team creates deficits and holes in astudent’s schedule.

◦ Damages scheduling process; limits school resources,

◦ Creates inequities for students and affects schoolpopulations (i.e. SwDs, Economically disadvantaged,ELL, and higher level math students)



IMPACT OF ELIMINATING A CLUSTER @ SIS

Reduction would damage the middle-school model anddilute its strengths.

Effects on accelerated math program:

◦ All sections will be at or over 30; would be forced toeliminate qualified students from the acceleratedmath and Algebra programs.

Identified as being a school identified for improvementin year 2.

Cannot allow or recommend further loss to basicinstructional core.

Recommend elimination of curriculum areas outside of the core subjects and enrichment programs.



Superintendent’s RecommendedBudget

2011-12 Budget $ 63,700,000◦ Add: Rollover Amount $ 436,129◦ Add: Program Improvement $ 200,000

+ $ 70 K 0F $ 285 K

REC-2012-13 Budget $64,336,129Increase %: 1.0%New Dollars Needed: $ 636,129

IDEAL REQUEST 1.275% = $ 64,512,175New Dollars = $ 812,175



ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONOF IMPORTANCE

PART III



WHAT IS A DISTRICT REFERENCE GROUP (DRG)

1. Nine groups, labeled A through I, were recently reclassified

District Reference Groups (DRGs) using updated data butthe same formula

2. Seven data indicators used to classify similar districts intoa DRG: three indicators of socioeconomic status• median family income, parental education and parental

occupation1;3. Three indicators of need• percentage of children living in families with a single

parent, percentage of public school children eligible toreceive free orreduced-price meals and percentage of children whosefamilies speak a language other than English at homeand

4. Enrollment (the number of students attending schools inthat district



DISTRICT REFERENCE GROUP (DRG)Group D

BERLIN

BETHEL

BRANFORD

CLINTON

COLCHESTER

CROMWELL

EAST GRANBY

EAST HAMPTON

EAST LYMELEDYARD

MILFORD

NEW MILFORD

NEWINGTON

NORTH HAVEN

OLD SAYBROOK

ROCKY HILLSHELTON

SOUTHINGTON

STONINGTON

WALLINGFORD

WATERFORD

WATERTOWN

WETHERSFIELD

WINDSOR



Per Pupil (vs) WealthDistrict Attendance Expenditures (NCE) NCEP NCEP NCEP Rank

Name 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 Rank Rank (ANGLEC)

BERLIN 3,167 $ 40,887,033 $ 12,909 115 14 76BETHEL 2,953 41,141,576 13,931 68 7 61

BRANFORD 3,488 48,874,127 14,011 63 5 49

CLINTON 2,083 30,219,550 14,506 54 4 74

COLCHESTER 3,135 36,145,869 11,529 158 23 118

CROMWELL 2,020 25,825,371 12,784 118 15 83

EAST GRANBY 924 13,759,193 14,894 44 2 63

EAST HAMPTON 2,004 27,172,579 13,559 87 9 125

EAST LYME 2,879 38,022,106 13,209 101 12 64

LEDYARD 2,536 31,546,324 12,438 133 20 129

MILFORD 7,027 104,002,503 14,800 46 3 99

NEW MILFORD 4,649 57,182,416 12,300 135 21 68

NEWINGTON 4,501 62,811,217 13,955 65 6 100

NORTH HAVEN 3,634 45,970,734 12,649 123 17 53

OLD SAYBROOK 1,572 21,846,373 13,898 70 8 22

ROCKY HILL 2,626 33,238,211 12,656 122 16 59

SHELTON 5,396 64,154,287 11,890 151 22 56

SOUTHINGTON 6,843 85,553,376 12,502 129 19 98STONINGTON 2,543 31,853,567 12,524 128 18 43

WALLINGFORD 6,588 88,353,743 13,411 97 11 87

WATERFORD 3,164 42,756,539 13,514 88 10 37

WATERTOWN 3,182 35,983,226 11,307 160 24 108

WETHERSFIELD 3,929 51,306,182 13,057 107 13 92

WINDSOR 4,152 61,972,967 14,925 41 1 84

DRG D AVERAGES 84,998 $ 1,120,579,069 $ 13,184



$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

BOE Tuition ExpenseFive Year History

Series1



SBOE TUITION 5-YEAR HISTORY

YEAR COST % +/-

2005-06 $ 1,284,436 0%

2006-07 $ 1,521,866 15.6 %2007-08 $ 1,629,206 7.1 %

2008-09 $ 1,767,694 8.5 %

2009-10 $ 2,275,169 28.7 %

2010-11 $ 2,126,696 - 6.5 %



Cost of Students – Out of DistrictDescription 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Tuition:

Spec. Ed. Tuition $ 1,032,402 $ 1,173,028 $ 1,269,067 $ 1,439,615 $ 1,865,462 1701916.26

TAG Tuition 3,900 38,122 63,686 54,730 40,235 28,360

Six - to Six Magnet - - - - 36,000 51,547

Trumbull Vo. Ag 183,794 200,627 228,903 207,840 267,750 275,400

Bpt. Aquaculture 58,350 58,350 61,950 63,808 65,722 67,693

Detention Centers 9,890 15,330 5,600 1,800 - -

$ 1,288,336 1,485,457 1,629,206 1,767,793 2,275,169 2,124,916

Transportation:

Spec. Ed. Trans. 492,700 761,714 743,889 1,024,252 869,477 951,885

TAG - (Paid by Magnet School Trans. Grant)

Other Magnets - - - - - -

Vo. Ag. & Vo. Tech 125,417 130,383 149,072 126,919 171,166 138,481

St. Joseph & St. Lawrence 256,160 255,766 272,675 249,900 261,659 245,565874,277 1,147,863 1,165,636 1,401,071 1,302,302 1,335,931

Nurses & Supplies:

St. Joseph & St. Lawrence 100,994 101,631 111,815 114,801 133,089 135,197

100,994 101,631 111,815 114,801 133,089 135,197

Total Cost of Student's Placed Outside: $2,263,607 $2,734,951 $2,906,657 $3,283,665 $3,710,560 $3,596,044



$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

$14,000

$15,000

$16,000

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Growth In Per Pupil ExpendituresFive Year View

State of CT.

DRG D AVERAGES

SHELTON



$-

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

1997 -1998

1998 -1999

1999 -2000

2000 -2001

2001 -2002

2002 -2003

2003 -2004

2004 -2005

2005 -2006

2006 -2007

2007 -2008

2008 -2009

2009 -2010

2010 -2011

Total BOE Budget

Budget



0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

1997-

1998

1998-

1999

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

2009-

2010

2010-

2011

BOE Budget$ Increase

$ Increase

Linear ($ Increase)



-2.00%

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

Six Year Comparison of Shelton Budget %Increases

Combined Budget

BOE Budget

City Budget



60.2%

60.5%

59.7%

59.1%

57.6%

57.1%

57.3%

0.55

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.59

0.6

0.61

Year 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

BOE % OF CITY BUDGET

BOE %



$3,800,000

$4,000,000

$4,200,000

$4,400,000

$4,600,000

$4,800,000

$5,000,000

ECS Amount

ECS Amount



-

1,000.0

2,000.0

3,000.0

4,000.0

5,000.0

6,000.0

7,000.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

416.1 410.5 425.5 426.6 421.9 416.4 380.5 383.7

5791 5767 5690 5648 5616 54595289 5237

Staffing & Enrollment EnrollmentStaffing & Enrollment Teachers

shelton board of education budget presentation

Documents