GDRSD Needs Assessment 2015 Presented by Dr. Kristan Rodriguez

Transcription

1 GDRSD Needs Assessment 2015 Presented by Dr. Kristan Rodriguez

2 Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment District Data Analysis Analysis of Instructional Materials, Equipment, and Technology School Spending Levels (Supplies) Substitute Cost Review

3 Design Data Analysis Analysis of 5 Year Trends in MCAS, SAT, and AP scores. Comparison to local, DART, and Best in Class Districts Examined MCAS to PARCC transitions Focus on State Comparability in Transition Instructional Materials Comparison to state and Best in Class School Spending Historical Spending Review (FY10, FY11, and FY16) Substitute Cost Review Comparison to MASPA database and local districts

4 Findings We need to have a continued focus on ELA scores and achievement of students with disabilities. PARCC is more rigorous and has implications to curriculum alignment and PD needs. We will need to keep an eye on grade 5 (not a trend but an identified area for 2015 results). Supply lines are $48,805 less than FY10 (and even then we were below state average). For the first 30 days of subbing, our substitutes receive $10/less per day than surrounding districts.

5 Implications We have an overt need to address ELA curriculum materials, coordination, and professional development. We must utilize research based practices (UDL and coteaching) to meet the needs of all learners. We need to devise a specific plan for our Level 2 school (MS). We should refine PARCC preparation needs. We need to review school supply needs as part of future budget cycles. We will work with the Personnel and Negotiations subcommittee to define recommendations regarding sub pay.

6 Management and Operations Variability in State Aid Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Municipal Spending Comparisons

7 Design Variability in State Aid Review of state aid going back to 2005 Define % of changes year to year Review of E & D going back to 2004 Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Review of 2012 and 2014 Actuarials Municipal Spending Comparisons Review of Town Comparisons (EQV etc.) Trend Analysis for Net School Spending (2000, 2005, 2010, 2015)

8 Findings There was more Chapter 70 money coming to districts in 2003 than today. The district has never received the 100% chapter 71 transportation reimbursement promised when we regionalized. The timing of state aid (it gets solidified after our town budget cycle) and the unpredictability of the percentages we receive from one year to the next, make it difficult for precise budgeting or accurate long range planning. The District s Net OPEB obligation increased from $10,171,249 as of 6/30/13 to $13,934,666 at the end of FY16. EQV per capita in both towns is nearly equal but the FY16 operating budgets for Groton and Dunstable are not equal. The differential is based on the size of the town population that is taxed.

9 Implications We cannot rely on state aid for district solvency. It is fluid and comes out after the town budget cycles. Current foundation formula (Ch.70) is under review and may have positive or negative implications to the district (too early to know). We need to consider OPEB liability in future budget cycles as well as the consideration for an OPEB trust. One town s tax base is much smaller than the other and this impacts our regional district funding.

10 Family and Community Engagement School Committee Communication District Communication

11 Design PCCE Formed-committee reviewed best practices and conducted committee surveys District Online survey sent to all families Satisfaction scale (1 to 10) Open Ended Prompts for Suggested Areas for Improvement

12 Findings Recommendations for enhanced school committee communication include focusing on big picture issues communicating regularly and purposefully, engaging with key stakeholders and enhancing communication methods. Spring 2015 data had an overall percentage of communication satisfaction for the district increase to an average rating of 8.7 (from 7.3 in the fall of 2014). Areas for recommended improvements that began this fall include updating the district website.

13 Implications/Discussion Increased communication with the community is needed to provide a framework for district needs, goal areas, and community support to meet those goals.

14 Human Resources/Professional Culture Professional Development Staffing

15 Design Professional Development Researched components of high-quality/effective PD plans Analysis of our existing PD model in terms of staff satisfaction, scheduling, and funding Comparative analysis of PD schedules among Best In Class districts Comparison of PD spending against state average and BIC districts. Staffing To define the challenges, we analyzed current district data (e.g. achievement data, class size data), reviewed past staffing cuts and administrative staffing requests, analyzed ongoing district initiatives, and reviewed staffing levels against local, state, and best in class districts. We also facilitated open forums at all schools and conducted an online survey with staff to gather staffing needs input. To define responses to our challenges, we reviewed related research, and defined best practices.

16 Professional Development Findings When examining the Best in Class (BIC) districts, our funding for professional development is significantly lower and is not a sustainable model moving forward. According to the most up to date statewide comparison document (the FY13 Per Pupil Expenditures Report for the Professional Development Function), we spent $172 per pupil on professional development (one of the highest amounts we spent in recent years) which was below the state average of $225 per pupil.

17 Priority Level 1 includes areas related to high class sizes, achievement gaps, and the most needed area for social/emotional support. Priority Area 2 focuses primarily on direct services to students in non-core subject areas, additional social/emotional supports, and nursing. Priority Level 3 is focused primarily on an updated elementary schedule, and nondirect service to student needs such as clerical supports, network technicians, curriculum stipends, maintenance, and custodians. Priority Level 4 are positions that require additional research and time. Staffing Findings

18 Implications We need to provide elementary teachers with additional PD to ensure consistent and collaborative understanding of the MA Frameworks, PARCC requirements and implementation of best practices. We need to consider actual PD cost needs in future budget cycles. There are a number of staffing needs outlined in the four priority areas that impact students and district functions in significant ways.

19 Additional Next Steps Sharing the Plan Making this User Friendly Planning for All Stakeholder Groups

20 Next Steps Natural Rollover Costs from FY16 to FY17 Do You Want us to Address Any of These Needs in the FY17 Budget Proposal? If so, which needs do you want included? If not, do you have a recommended fiscal year for when these needs will be addressed in a budget request?