DRAFT Bond & Mill Levy Planning. Mill Levy CPAC Kick-off. Denver Public Schools. February 29, 2012

Transcription

1 2012 Bond & Mill Levy Planning Mill Levy CPAC Kick-off Denver Public Schools February 29, 2012

2 Table of Contents I. Update on DPS Academic Progress I. Enrollment II. Graduation rate III. Dropout rate IV. Median academic growth II. III. IV. Magnitude of challenge ahead I. Achievement gap: Socioeconomic and ethnic II. Achievement gap of DPS performance vs. Colorado III. Remediation gap Unsustainability of our progress I. State funding cuts II. Colorado state comparison of per pupil funding. III. DPS maximizes funding on the classroom IV. Decline in mill levy purchasing power V. Reliance on private funding DPS programmatic investments to address the achievement gap V. CPAC input on additional areas to investigate - 2 -

3 Graduation rates have increased over 17%-points over the past 5 years 60% 55% 50% 45% Four-year Graduation Rate All Schools 51.8% 46.4% 43.1% 56.1% 40% 38.7% 35%

4 Drop-out rates have steadily declined over the past 6 years 12% 11.1% 10.4% Drop-out Rate 10% 8% 7.5% 7.4% 6% 6.4% 6.4% 4% 2% 0%

5 DPS has the highest median-growth percentage of the 20 largest Colorado districts for FRL-eligible students Scores

6 DPS also has the highest median-growth percentage of the 20 largest Colorado districts for non-frl students Scores

7 DPS still has a sizable performance gap between socioeconomic groups 90% Reading Socioeconomic Status Gap % Proficient or Above 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 57% 43% 27% 67% 63% 47% 47% 31% 30% 67% 70% 49% 50% 33% 34% 77% 75% Paid 53% 52% Reduced 37% 36% Free 20% 10% 0%

8 DPS still has a sizable performance gap between socioeconomic groups % Proficient or Above 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 56% 48% 21% 21% 19% Math Race & Ethnicity Gap 67% 60% 61% 62% 63% 63% White 57% 58% 55% 56% 56% 56% Asian / Pacific Islander 33% American Indian / Alaskan 30% 31% 31% 34% 32% Hispanic 26% 26% 30% 26% 27% Black 24% 28% 28% 22% 23% 24% 25% 0%

9 DPS is closing the achievement gap vs. the state, but has a long way to go 80% CSAP Reading & Writing: All Grades 70% 66% 68% 67% 68% 68% 68% 68% State Reading 60% 50% 40% 30% 54% 54% 54% 55% 53% 53% 46% 47% 50% 44% 43% 40% 36% 35% 33% 30% 31% 31% 55% 49% 39% State Writing DPS Reading DPS Writing 20% 10% 2005 Gap: Reading: 26%-pt. Writing: 24%-pt Gap: Reading: 19%-pt. Writing: 16%-pt. 0%

10 While DPS graduation rates and college enrollment rates have increased, remediation rates are well above the state average 70% Percentage of Students Assigned to Remedial Courses upon Public University Enrollment 60% 50% 55% 59% 59% DPS 40% 30% 20% 29% 29% State of Colorado 32% 10% 0% Source: Colorado Department of Higher Education

11 State Funding Cuts: Impact to DPS on Per Pupil Funding The state has decreased per pupil funding more than 12% since The January 2012 proposed budget shows a decrease of nearly 2% versus last year. $7,800 $7,600 $7,400 $7,200 $7,672 DPS Per Pupil Funding $7,232* $7,000 $6,800 $6,600 $6,400 $6,847** $6,733 $6, Jan 2012 proposed state budget * funding is prior to the federal adjustment of $21M. Funding would have been $6,941 without this adjustment ** funding would increase to $6,873 if state supplemental funds are released

12 State per pupil spending on elementary-secondary education: This snapshot is before the state funding cuts shown on the previous slide

13 DPS Maximizes Spending Directly in the Classroom DPS continues to reduce centrally budgeted services and remains among comparative urban districts with the lowest percentage of central funding in order to maximize funding in our classrooms. % of K12 Operating Budget for Central Overhead 8% DPS % of Budget on Central Overhead 7% 16% 14% Comparison of DPS against other districts: FY10 15% 6% 6% 5% 12% 10% 12% 11% 10% 4% 8% 6% 8% 8% 7% 6% 2% 4% 0% FY09 FY10 FY11 Source: DPS Source: Education Resource Strategies: FY

14 Per pupil funding from the 1988, 1998, and 2003 MLO 1988 MLO: $12.1M 1998 MLO: $17M 2003 MLO: $20M $350 $300 $250 $200 $223 61% decline $350 $300 $250 $200 $266 37% decline $168 $350 $300 $250 $200 $297 25% decline $224 $150 $150 $150 $100 $86 $100 $100 $50 $50 $50 $ $ $ * Using 1988 dollars * Using 1998 dollars * Using 2003 dollars Key Observations The 1988, 1998, and 2003 MLO are constant revenue sources Both inflation and increases in student enrollment have eroded the purchasing power associated with each MLO In total, purchasing power has eroded 39% from the respective per pupil levels in the years of approval

15 2003 Mill Levy Override: $20M revenue Increasing operating costs against flat revenue will deplete our reserves and force continued student cuts Revenue and Annual Operating Costs (Based on Actual Expenses) Operating Surplus/ Fund Reserve Balance $26,000,000 $24,000,000 Operating Costs $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $22,000,000 $15,000,000 Fund Balance $20,000,000 Revenue $10,000,000 $18,000,000 $5,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 $0 -$5,000,000 Operating Surplus/Deficit '09 17 '10 18 '11 19 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 The 2003 MLO provides $20M annual revenue. Key Observations Purchasing power is continually eroded due to both inflation and enrollment increases. Annual expenses exceeded revenue in 2011, and are projected to continue to outpace revenues from 2012 forward, creating an operating deficit until current reserves are exhausted. Once reserves are exhausted, costs must be cut or subsidized from other revenue sources

16 The Denver Plan

17 FY12 and FY13 Programmatic Investments and Funding Sources Investments & Other Fund Uses Increase per student funding through SBB, with emphasis on highest needs students Increase funding for highest priorities (such as multiple-pathways schools) $10.5 million $8.0 million Funding Sources Cuts to centrally budgeted services $10.0 million Budgeted use of fund balance $20.0 million $40M of fund balance reserves are budgeted to be allocated to programmatic investments. These reserves are forecasted to be $52M in June Proposed Investments & Other Fund Uses Proposed Funding Sources Backfill loss of state per pupil funding $10.0 million SBB base alignment $4.0 million Add weight for ELL students in SBB $6.7 million Reduction in operating costs $1.5 million Increase ELA support model & additional funds for secondary students $3.2 million Use of fund balance $20.0 million Provide extended learning opportunities $2.5 million Instructional support service priorities $1.7 million

18 DPS Areas of Interest for MLO Fund Investment Early Childhood Education Close funding gap Provide full-day kinder to all students Expand ECE offerings Extended Learning Time Longer school day Longer school year Expanded Academic Programs Arts / music / enrichment Tutoring Acceleration Additional course offerings Curriculum Support Restore Classroom Cuts Technology New textbooks Common Core materials Smaller class sizes More interventions Modern libraries Device replacement Technology support