Wake County Public School System Superintendent s Proposed Budget Board of Education Work Session Q&A April 21, 2015

Transcription

1 Wake County Public School System Superintendent s Proposed Budget Board of Education Work Session Q&A April 21, ) Please provide background and explain reason to convert $4.45 million from Teaching Assistants to Certified Teachers. (Page 5) Principals converted teaching assistants to certified teachers in accordance with General Statute 115C (Budget Flexibility). According to the statute, schools are allowed maximum flexibility in the use of funds to accomplish their goals. NCDPI approves transfers on a year-by-year basis. 2) Please clarify or confirm changes in CMS per pupil funding, seeming drop between and (perhaps nutrition is included in one but not the other). Could it reflect the impact of charter schools in that County? (Page 12) Please address (potentially by describing what is different in the summations) the apparent discrepancies between the two tables. Charlotte-Meck going from 10,141 in 2010/11 to $7609 in 2013/14 seems more like a different summation rather than a declining numbers situation. Didn t in years past we have graphs of funding over the last 5-10 years? That would at least ensure all numbers come from a common set of sources. (Page 12) The data regarding per pupil funding on page 12 came from two sources which use different criteria in calculating the per pupil expenditures. 1. Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking Comparison of Per Pupil Spending with National Districts as of The source used for the Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking table compares public schools in North Carolina. It is computed only for current expense expenditures (excluding community services, Head Start, adult education, and inter/intra fund transfers) by using final Average Daily Membership (ADM). Other publications, especially those from national sources, use Average Daily Attendance (ADA) in computing this statistic. Since ADM is greater than ADA, the ADA method yields a higher figure for the per pupil expenditures. The source used for the Comparison of Per Pupil Spending with National Districts as of is from a national source; therefore, it is yielding a higher per pupil expenditure than the North Carolina comparison. In years past, prior to , the budget document provided a multiple year comparison of WCPSS per pupil expenditures, but not a multiple year comparison of other school districts. 1

2 3) I would recommend noting (second sentence) that we have less per capita state and federal funding since because of growth the total $ have been increasing. (Page 12) School districts are funded at different levels by the state and for federal funding passing through the state. Here are two charts with data for Year LEA LEA Name State PPE State Rank Year LEA LEA Name State PPE State Rank Hyde County 12, Surry 5, Tyrrell 12, Rockingham 5, Jones 8, Franklin 5, Northampton 8, Watauga 5, Pamlico 7, Granville 5, Gates 7, Jackson 5, Bertie 7, Alexander 5, Washington 7, Asheboro 5, Graham 7, Clinton City 5, Clay County 7, Nash-Rocky 5, Mitchell 7, Beaufort 5, Hertford 7, Transylvania 5, Weldon City 7, Wayne 5, Warren 7, Wilkes 5, Greene 7, Burke 5, Avery 7, Dare County 5, Martin 7, Harnett 5, Alleghany 7, Carteret 5, Anson 7, Hickory City 5, Swain 6, Haywood 5, Perquimans 6, Wilson 5, Madison 6, Davie 5, Caswell 6, Asheville 5, Halifax 6, Rowan- 5, Camden 6, Randolph 5, Polk County 6, Currituck 5, Edenton- 6, Durham 5, Vance 6, Orange 5, Yancey 6, Chatham 5, Edgecombe 6, Kannapolis 5, Ashe County 6, Henderson 5, Scotland 6, Lee County 5, Elkin City 6, Buncombe 5, Whiteville 6, Brunswick 5, Robeson 6, Pitt County 5, Bladen 6, Johnston 5, Columbus 6, Forsyth 5, Stokes 6, Lincoln 5, Montgomery 6, Catawba 5, Lexington 6, Pender 5, Yadkin 6, Craven 5, Mount Airy 5, Guilford 5, Richmond 5, Newton- 5, Caldwell 5, Alamance- 5, Sampson 5, Davidson 5, Macon 5, New Hanover 5, Cherokee 5, Moore 5, Pasquotank 5, Cumberland 5, Hoke County 5, Wake 5, Thomasville 5, Onslow 5, McDowell 5, Gaston 4, Duplin 5, Cabarrus 4, Person 5, Iredell- 4, Roanoke 5, Charlotte- 4, Rutherford 5, Mooresville 4, Cleveland 5, Union 4, Stanly 5, Chapel- 4, Lenoir 5,

3 Year LEA LEA Name Federal PPE Federal Rank Year LEA LEA Name Federal PPE Federal Rank Halifax 2, Polk County Washington 1, Stokes Warren 1, Mitchell Northampton 1, Cleveland Robeson 1, Jackson Thomasville 1, Brunswick Whiteville 1, Wilkes Anson 1, Surry Bertie 1, Alamance Weldon City 1, New Hanover Tyrrell 1, Alexander Greene 1, Rockingham Graham 1, Henderson Bladen 1, Clay County Hyde County 1, Stanly Vance 1, Person Asheville Macon Avery Nash-Rocky Pamlico Johnston Edgecombe Pasquotank Mount Airy Hoke County Jones Carteret Scotland Gaston Edenton Elkin City Rutherford Charlotte Asheboro Catawba Hertford Roanoke Craven Moore Beaufort Harnett McDowell Haywood Columbus Wilson Martin Caldwell Lexington Chatham Alleghany Newton Yancey Gates Swain Onslow Cherokee Buncombe Richmond Pender Caswell Yadkin Cumberland Lee County Lenoir Davie Montgomery Randolph Burke Watauga Kannapolis Orange Rowan Franklin Hickory City Lincoln Transylvania Dare County Perquimans Iredell Wayne Davidson Sampson Wake Durham Granville Clinton City Currituck Forsyth Union Pitt County Cabarrus Madison Chapel Ashe County Mooresville Guilford Camden Duplin ) Page 13 was a bit confusing to understand, particularly thinking about separating the MOE from the total $. I believe MOE are figured into $, but this is not clear. Based on that assumption the growth section must largely be salaries, since the total $ divided by MOE (assuming 10 MOE per person) would be a salary and benefits of $54K. But the same logic means the new program must cover much more than MOE. I think there would be room on this table to have the MOE $ equivalence noted (maybe in italics) below each $ total. The total dollar value represents personnel and non-personnel adjustments for each category. The MOE shown is the total months of employment added or removed for each category. The business cases provide dollar amounts for MOE adjustments. We will remove the months of employment from page 13 and only show changes in dollar values in the Board of Education s Proposed Budget document. 3

4 5) Please explain current fund balance status. (Page 40) The unassigned fund balance as of July 1, 2014 was $20.2 million. Other fund balance categories such as inventories, restricted by state statute, and insurance reserves are committed for a specific purpose. These categories are equal to 78% of the total fund balance in the general fund. At this time, the only known fund balance transaction for the end of the 2015 fiscal year would be the recommended reserve of $20 million assigned to balance the budget. All other categories fluctuate annually based on the levels of required commitments. The net savings identified in the local budget at the end of the third quarter are $4 million. As the school system completes the annual financial close out, additional savings or potentially additional costs will occur. Our goal, per board policy, is to maintain unassigned fund balance of 6% of the subsequent year s county appropriation. Our current estimate of unassigned fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year aligns with this goal. Final unassigned fund balance will not be determined until all fiscal year-end transactions and audit adjustments have been made. WCPSS Fund Balance June 30, 2014 Non-Spendable Inventories 2,966,259 Prepaid Expenditures 4,543,602 Restricted Stabilization by state statute 5,542,274 Assigned Special Projects 19,427,037 Self Insurance 9,909,912 Flexible Benefit Plan 1,225,223 Subsequent years expenditures 26,075,734 Unassigned 20,215,744 Total 89,905,785 Non-Spendable means Non-Spendable 4

5 Restricted means Restricted Assigned means already allocated 5

6 6

7 Unassigned means available for use 6) On Page 46 of the budget, I see that the operating budget is only increasing $6,959,218. How can that be if the superintendent is recommending an increase of $48,346,830 from Wake County commissioners? Other revenue sources are decreasing. Following is a summary chart: State - $9.8 m Increase due to growth Decreases in carryover balances for school technology fund and textbooks Decrease due to removal of funding for Drivers Education, Indian Gaming Funds, Panic Alarms, and Digital Learning Federal ($19.5) m Decreases due to grants ending (i.e. Race to the Top, Governor s Teachers Network) Decreases due to fluctuations in carryover balances between fiscal years (i.e. Medicaid reimbursements, Title I, VIB) County Appropriation $48.3 m Fund Balance Appropriation ($30) m Fund Balance Appropriation Decrease in fund balance applied to the beginning budget Removal of one-time fund balance appropriation for special projects Removal of appropriation for carryover purchase orders Removal of appropriation for incentive bonus for difficult to fill positions Removal of appropriation for salary audit, startup dollars for new schools, municipal collaboration funds, reserved gift purchase, preparing and archiving student records, and computer insurance funds Other Local ($1.7) m Decrease in child nutrition revenues Decrease in donations (recorded when received) Decrease in interest earned 7

8 7) Some people say WCPSS does not use all of its available funding. Is this true? 8) I need some clarification in reconciling the budget by object code and the changes in staff tables. What caught my eye was the Office Support line which indicated an increase of $1,751,174 and the corresponding increase by 171 MOE of employment. That roughly translates to $100K per person. While this budget line could include more than just personnel costs, it strikes me that Driver and Custodian should be almost largely personnel. Here there are 150 MOE, i.e month persons, and $596,048 translates to $39.7 K/driver and 60 MOE, 6 persons, at $470,954 translates to $78.5 K/custodian. This of course may be flawed logic since there are more than salary and benefits costs. But again I find no way to break out the MOE vs. other costs. Clarification on this will be helpful. The total budget by object code corresponds to the total months of employment on the staff budget pages for budget. The budget by object code data show the revised budget after transfers and conversions have occurred. For example, if a school converted two teaching assistant positions to a teacher, the budget would be on the teacher object code. The months of employment on the staff budget pages show months as they are allotted to schools; prior to conversions. These figures do not correspond since one is prior to conversions and the other is after conversions. 9) An area of concern is that of professional development. Here I see p. 47 that the substitute teacher budget for staff development budget is cut by 24%, similarly teaching assistant substituting for staff development absence is cut 19%. And on p. 48 I see curriculum development pay is cut by 70%, Staff Development instructor by 21%. While I recognize that we are further into development of common core, I don t hear that needs for curriculum development have diminished. And we have much work to do with professional development. So I am concerned about this cut. In both of these areas, staff development and curriculum development, funds are being reduced as a result of the end of the Race to the Top grant. However, we do have a Program Continuity budget case (Page 106) requesting $324,000 to continue funding staff development/curriculum development, essentially backfilling that portion of the reduction due to RttT ending. 8

9 10) Explanation on deficits in School & Office Supplies and Non-Capitalized Equipment when we are adding three new schools? (Page 51) The following transactions that occurred in have been removed from the budget. For example, one-time costs in are non-recurring for School and Office Supplies Non-Capitalized Equipment Schools transfer funds from the supply account to purchased services, stipends, sub pay, tutor pay, and capital costs after the year begins. The beginning budgets are reinstated to instructional supplies at the start of the year. $3.5 m Fluctuation in supply budgets in federal grants $0.7 m ($0.3) m Increase in local funds for professional development Increase in school-based allotments based on growth Fluctuation in supply budgets in tuition programs $0.3 m $0.2 m $0.2 m Removal of the Driver s Ed Budget ($0.1) m ($0.2) m Decrease in textbook carryover ($0.4) m Fluctuation in supply budgets in local grants ($0.5) m ($0.1) m One-time Voice Over IP costs in One-time Technology purchases Changes within Title I Career and Technical Education purchases from conversion of CTE months of employment ($1.7) m ($3.8) m ($0.7) m ($0.5) m ($1.6) m ($1.8) m 11) How much does WCPSS receive from the NC legislative lottery? No actual funding comes directly to WCPSS. Some of the funding underlies resources NC DPI allots to us. Funding for school construction goes directly to Wake County Government. The chart below shows what Wake County has received on behalf of WCPSS. The first two fiscal years proceeds were used towards actual construction projects, and since then, the County has used the proceeds towards debt service. 9

10 12) Please remind us of how schools were selected for the AIG expansion. (Page 74) Schools that will implement/expand the Co-Teaching model have not yet been identified. The criteria are being established and reviewed, and then schools will be able to apply. 13) What would be the projected cost of funding at least one full-time foreign language teacher at every elementary school? There will be 107 elementary schools for Funding a full-time foreign language teacher at every elementary includes 30 year-round at 12 MOE and 77 traditional at 10 MOE for a total of 1,130 MOE, at a cost of $5.9 million. 14) How much would it cost to meet the minimum Occupational Therapist formula as directed by NCDPI? (Page 85) 10 positions (100 MOE) at a cost of $825,000 15) What would be the cost to maintain the formula for Special Education Teachers system-wide? (Page 86) In order to maintain a 1:16 teacher to student ratio, it would require 25 positions (250 MOE) at a cost of $1.3 million. 16) If we are to meet our stated 95% graduation rate goal, then we need to early put resources into alternative education. I proposed the resourcing of ALC s in middle and high schools to make them real centers of education (both academic and behavioral). I am sure there are many other possibilities. But this is an area that is going to need some real intentionality. If we are going to address graduation by 2020 then we must reach out to today s rising 8 th graders. Over the past few months, we have conducted walkthrough observations and conducted meetings to gather information on the current implementation of ALC in middle/high schools. We will use this information to revise and strengthen the ALC program. The board will receive an update on this work, including next steps, during the first quarter of the school year. 17) What are the opportunity costs at the school level of shifting in-system travel expenses from C/S to individual schools Per Pupil local budgets? (Page 123) A review of the per pupil budgets across the schools showed schools could cover these expenditures from their school-based budgets. 18) The Elementary Support model proposes "full complement" of support personnel for the schools. What would cost be to expand to all elementary schools? (Page 136) The estimated costs would run $17.4 million to add positions for the remaining 95 elementary schools. This includes the following four components: Social worker: MOE - $3,785,634 increases schools to a full-time position IRT: MOE - $2,482,390 increase half time to full-time position K-2 Literacy: MOE - $2,549,148 increases half time to full-time position Team of (3) for every (2) schools: + 1,728 MOE - $8,544,960 10

11 19) What would be the impact on the budget to implement the extra duty pay increase over three years instead of five years? Total cost to implement Extra Duty Salary Schedule is $8,417,015. Implementation over 3 years rather than 5 years would be an additional cost of: Year 3 Year Implementation 5 Year Implementation Difference 1 $ 2,805,672 $ 1,780,000 $ 1,025, ,805,672 1,659,254 1,146, ,805,671 1,659,254 1,146, ,659,254 (1,659,254) 5 1,659,253 (1,659,253) $ 8,417,015 $ 8,417,015 $ 0 20) Please explain changes in Title 1 funding in greater detail. The Budget Presentation stated that it "assumes current federal funding continues" for Title 1 and other federal programs. Can you provide clarity in assumptions of this funding, given budget projects declines in funding? WCPSS anticipates a similar level of funding for Title I, no reduction. However, we anticipate a reduction in the carryover, which is reflected as a reduction in the whole budget because carryover is a part of the budget. The anticipated reduction in carryover is due to larger expected expenditures with budgeted items. 21) Please tell us about declines in Medicaid funding and any possible strategies for boosting such reimbursements. Similar to Title I, we are not projecting a large decrease in funding, but rather a reduction in the carryover. We are implementing strategies to maintain/increase our reimbursement in we have added automated elements in plans of care; implemented auto-text for treatment notes for Speech/OT/PT services; and are targeting billable services for possible adjustments. 22) How does the request for Instructional Supplies compare to in real dollars and percentage of the request? (Page 66) Difference Percent Grades K-3 $83.34 $71.04 ($12.30) (15%) Grades 4-5 $77.04 $71.04 ($6.00) (8%) Grades 6-8 $85.69 $71.04 ($14.65) (17%) Grades 9-12 $89.94 $71.04 ($18.90) (21%) 23) What would be the projected cost of providing a full-time Literacy teacher at every elementary school? (Page 67) There will be 107 elementary schools for Current literacy allotments include 5 MOE for traditional and 6 MOE for year-round; additionally, 10 traditional schools receive 5.5 MOE from Targeted Assistant months to create a full-time literacy position. This leaves 97 schools (30 year-round at 6 MOE and 67 traditional at 5 MOE for a total of 515 MOE) at a cost of $2.7 million. 11

12 24) What would be the projected cost of restoring all Teaching Assistants to 10 MOE? Salary $ 9.4 million Benefits $ 2.1 million Total $11.5 million 25) What would be the projected cost of restoring 12 MOE for all assistant principals? Salary $1.03 m Benefits $0.24 m Total $1.27 m This estimate is based on allotted positions; not including MOE for converted positions. The estimate that includes all MOE for AP including converted MOE is well above $1.85 million for salary and benefits. 26) What would be the projected cost of restoring full custodial services in our classrooms? $7 million to add back two days of cleaning $2 million to add back annual strip/wax and carpet extraction cleaning $9 million total 27) I would encourage tables such as on p. 5, 6, to use <1% instead of 0% to increase clarity. This will be updated in the Board of Education s Proposed Budget document. 28) In the budget development section, I think it s important to note that the listing of board ideas is our raw albeit organized list, not with retreat prioritization. Since these to a large extent did not even make the deferred priorities list, and because I think it s important to show the community what various efforts cost, I recommend adding the estimated cost for each of these items, as it was presented to us at the retreat. This becomes sort of a tier II deferred priorities list. (Page 8) Staff will prepare a schedule for board members to review for inclusion in the Board s Proposed Budget document. 29) By way of overall observation, I only see the changes in staff linked to the budget case pages. It would be very helpful for the budget object code to similarly be linked to the business cases; equally for budget decreases and increases. All increases and decreases on the object code schedule are not tied to specific business cases. Some of the differences are due to transfers and conversions during the year. We have revised business cases for the to be more concise. For example, the total cost for a position is shown on one line, rather than being broken down between base pay, supplement pay, and employer matching benefit accounts. 12