Superintendent s Proposed Budget Recommendation

Transcription

1 Superintendent s Proposed Budget Recommendation March 13, 2012

2 Budget Reflections 2

3 Budget Timeline Nov 19 Board of Education Budget kick-off worksession Jan 11 Budget reduction recommendation presented to Board of Education Jan 19 Budget reduction recommendation presented to BOCC Feb 17 Governors Budget proposed a 4.4% net reduction in Public Schools budget (not including cost transfer for tort claims, replacement buses, and workers comp) Mar 8 Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Education prepared a 19.3% worst case reduction scenario Mar 22 Board of Education Budget worksession Apr 12 Superintendent s Budget Recommendation presentation May 1 Deadline for notifying administrators of superintendent s intent to non-renew contracts May 4 House Budget proposed a 9.6% net reduction in Public Schools budget May 10 BOE's proposed budget approved with $101 million total reductions including an 11% state cut May 15 Deadline for notifying teachers of superintendent s intent to non-renew May 15 Deadline for Board of Education to submit budget request to county May 17 County Manager s Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets presented to BOCC May 24 Board of Education presented budget proposal to BOCC May 31 Senate Budget proposed a 5.8% net reduction in Public Schools budget June 1 Deadline for notifying administrators of non-renewal June 7 FY County Operating Budget and 3-year CIP adopted June 15 Deadline for notifying teachers of non-renewal June 15 State budget finalized including a 5.8% net reduction in public schools budget July 5 DPI to provided allotments to LEA's - CMS now able to compute exact impact 3

4 Positive Impacts of State and County Funding (as approved June 2011) Final approved budgets from our two primary funding sources had a positive impact on our budget plan. As a result, we are making several adjustments to our proposed budget including Reinstate Tier 4 reductions from the Proposed Budget as well as a few items in Tier 3 Reinstate Tier 5 reductions from the Budget as well as some critical items in Tier 3 Permanently fund the ARRA cliff and use one time funding for critical projects Prepare for projected increase in the discretionary reduction in next year s budget 4

5 Preparation for the EduJobs Funding Cliff Spring 2011: Proposed Budget: Plan was to use the EduJobs funding to delay the remainder of Federal ARRA cliff until *Federal ARRA (expired) Custodial and Clerical Positions Federal EduJobs Custodial and Clerical Positions Summer 2011: Adopted Budget: State funding was higher than anticipated prepared p to permanently fund EduJobs cliff Local Custodial and Clerical Positions Created local funding for one year to use for one-time projects State Custodial and Clerical Positions Federal EduJobs Custodial and Clerical Positions Local Technology Deferred maintenance Move management Spring 2012: Proposed Budget: Proposed budget without Edu Jobs funding State Custodial and Clerical Positions * Federal ARRA Stabilization funds Federal EduJobs (expired) Custodial and Clerical Positions 5 Local Custodial and Clerical Positions Permanently funds EduJobs cliff

6 Superintendent s Proposed Budget 6

7 Key Highlights After four consecutive years of multimillion-dollar cuts and redirections within our budget (more than $212 million since FY 2009), CMS is at a critical juncture. We do not want to lose ground we have worked so hard to gain so we must begin rebuilding in core areas to prevent declines in our academic progress CMS continues to absorb increases in operating costs such as utilities and employee benefits costs we do not control but must pay which reduces the amount we can spend on each student CMS is continuing to optimize resources and identify efficiency savings as well as budget cuts and redirections ($23.3 million for ) to help cover rising costs and anticipated state cuts Strategically planning ahead for the EduJobs funding cliff coming in prevented the need for a reduction in force or other unplanned cuts 7

8 Key Highlights (cont) Recruitment and retention of highly effective staff is critical to help us move academic achievement forward, thus this budget includes a 3% cost of living increase for our staff who have continued to deliver strong results while not receiving a salary adjustment in nearly four years (seeking increased funding from the county for 2% of that cost less any amount the state may provide) CMS is also seeking money from the county to help us pay for some of the costs of sustaining operations, including a cost of living increase, as well as growth increases consistent with those areas the county is planning to fund in their budget If the county fully funds our request of $355.9 million, CMS would receive only $4.5 million more than the highest ever county funding level reached in , but would be almost $400 per pupil less than the per pupil county funding level due to enrollment growth The budget proposal is based on the best information we have at this time and is subject to change based on final approved funding from all sources 8

9 Key Highlights (cont) CMS will continue to align our resources with the BOE s Theory of Action, Core Beliefs, and SP2014 goals including those strategies that have helped us increase academic achievement, close the gap, and improve the graduation rate CMS hopes the citizens of Mecklenburg County will recognize the value of an outstanding school district and the importance of that on the economic development in our area and will actively support our funding request 9

10 What is the financial investment needed for next year? 10

11 Superintendent s Proposed Budget County $ 355,862,561 State 673,508,028 Federal/Other Grants 137,121, Other and Special Revenue 29,377,331 Total Operating Budget $ 1,195,869,126 Capital Replacement $ 4,960,000 Child Nutrition 64,211,098 After School Enrichment Program 13,927,596, Total Proposed Budget $ 1,278,967,820 11

12 Comparison to Prior Year Proposed Operating Budget* $ 1,195,869, Adopted Operating Budget* $ 1,169,398,626 Increase $ 26,470,500 %Change 23% 2.3% * Operating Budget only does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 12

13 Superintendent s Proposed Budget* SOURCES $355.9 (30%) $29.4M - (2%) $137.1M - 12% $673.5M - 56% State County Federal and Other Grants Other and Special Revenue *O Operating Budget only does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 13

14 Superintendent s Proposed Budget* USES $58.6M - 5% $1.6M - (<1%) $20.3M - 2% $120.2M 2M - 10% $251.8M - 21% $743.4M - 62% Salaries Benefits Purchased Services Supplies and Materials Furniture and Equipment Other * Operating Budget only does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 14

15 Superintendent s Proposed Budget* $113.9M - 10% $98.5M 8% $983.5M - 82% Central Office Schools Support - Schools * Operating Budget only does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 15

16 Proposed Budget Reductions and Redirections County Reductions and Redirections Adjust bell schedules $ 624,150 Reduce utilities consumption 1,143,758 Reduce Central Office - salary and benefits 937,523 Reduce Central Office - contracted services 248,623 Reduce Central Office - supplies 195,735 Reduce contracted legal fees 163,424 Eliminate leased space cost 518,650 Eliminate contracted staff for opening schools info lines 150,000 Transportation efficiency savings 1,545,300 Adjust budgeted average age salarya 3,891,984,98 SUBTOTAL $ 9,419,147 16

17 Proposed Budget Reductions and Redirections County Reductions and Redirections (cont) Reduce extended day allotment to schools $ 257,188 Eliminate DIBELS and utilize RTI universal screening tool 651,321 Eliminate TIF-LEAP local funding match 2,896,641 Reduce New Leaders for New Schools program contribution 999,335 Reduce funding for magnet expansion - p/y needs 93, Eliminate teachers for Zones - 25 teachers 1,237,658 Reduce local Exceptional Children funding 862,699 TOTAL COUNTY $ 16,417,334 State Reductions - anticipated at this time* Eliminate 115 positions allocated to Zones for one year 6,877,309 TOTAL STATE $ 6,877,309 * Based on 2nd year of the state biennial budget approved June

18 Proposed Budget Reductions and Redirections % of Area State & Local State & Local Budget Budgeted Total Budget Total (State & Positions* Positions Area FY Reductions Local) FY Reduced % of Area Budget (State & Local) Central Office 83,250,446 (2,289,434) (2.8%) 854 (12) (1.4%) Support 91,416,047 (3,118,954) (3.4%) 1, % Schools 816,004,011 (17,886,255) (2.2%) 13,013 (148) (1.1%) Total 990,670,504 (23,294,643) (2.4%) 15,320 (160) (1.0%) County Total $ 16,417,334 State Total 6,877,309 TOTAL REDUCTIONS AND REDIRECTIONS $ 23,294,643 *Totals do not include Federal, Other, Child Nutrition, or ASEP positions 18

19 County Budget Update Growth Revenue projected at $35 million Some of the areas the county is planning to fund in their budget: Debt service fund Salary increases 2% for and annualizing % increase Medical and Dental increases up to 100% Restoring 5% employer match for employee 401k/457b retirement accounts Utilities, fuel and fleet maintenance cost increases Call Center upgrade Medicaid Utilization Mgmt Services Health Dept start up costs Additional HR staffing Various other cost increases economic development, ADA compliance, NACO conference costs, etc 19

20 Factors Increasing the Proposed Budget SUSTAINING OPERATIONS Salaries and Benefits County Total 1% Cost of Living Increase (funded from redirections) $ 7,480,112 $ 8,169,884 Additional 2% Cost of Living Increase and Market Adjustment 18,555,613 19,935,157 Estimated Health Insurance Increase - 5.3% ($4,931 to $5,192) 720,477 4,309,739 Estimated Retirement Rate Increase - (13.12% to 14.31%) 2,053,116 8,204,920 Program Continuation CMPD School Resource Officer Contract Increase $ 2,078,728 $ 2,078,728 Utilities Rate Increase 1,838,100 1,838,100 Charter School Rate Adjustment 1,121,122 1,121,122 Response to Intervention (RTI) - Universal Screening Tool 645, ,362 Communities in Schools - Cost Model Adjustment 71,669 71,669 Project L.I.F.T. Support 205,364 4,255,383 Insurance Increase 108, ,771 Deferred Maintenance - 9,000,000 Mobile Unit Movement - 1,800,000 Common Core Support - 3,722,104 Total Sustaining Operations $ 34,878,434 $ 65,260,939 Shaded areas represent items consistent with those areas the county is planning to fund in their budget 20

21 Factors Increasing the Proposed Budget STUDENT GROWTH Enrollment Increases County Total CMS Enrollment - Staffing and Non-Personnel (1,998 students) $ 2,110,291 $ 10,402,200 Charter School Enrollment- per student passthrough (995 students) 2,191,139 $ 2,191,139 Total Student Growth $ 4,301,430 $ 12,593,339 TOTAL FOR SUSTAINING OPERATIONS AND GROWTH $ 39,179,864 $ 77,854,278 NEW INITIATIVES Attracting/Retaining High Performers $ 125,000 $ 125,000 Truancy Court Expansion 75,000 $ 75,000 High School Class Size Adjustment- 9th Grade 3,023,430 $ 3,023,430 Instructional ti Technology Facilitator t Positions for High Schools 1,322,500 $ ,322,500 Multimedia Support 215,000 $ 215,000 Total New Initiatives $ 4,760,930 $ 4,760,930 TOTAL FOR SUSTAINING OPERATIONS, GROWTH AND NEW INITIATIVES $ 43,940,794 $ 82,615, Shaded areas represent items consistent with those areas the county is planning to fund in their budget 21

22 Superintendent s Recommendation for County Budget Request Base Budget $ 328,339,101 Redirections/Reductions (16,417,334) Sustaining Operations 34,878,434 Student Growth 4,301,430 Program Expansion and New Initiatives 4,760,930 Total Needed for Sustaining, Growth, and New Initiatives 43,940,794 Increase Requested from County $ 27,523, County Budget Request $ 355,862,561 22

23 Superintendent s Proposed Budget State County Federal and Other Grants Other and Special Revenue Total ADOPTED BUDGET $ 662,331,403 $ 328,339,101 $ 160,473,882 $ 18,254,240 $ 1,169,398,626 REVISIONS TO ADOPTED BUDGET A. Revisions to Base Budget* 1,143,323 - (30,562,299) (3,431,089) (32,850,065) Sub-Total 1,143,323 - (30,562,299) (3,431,089) (32,850,065) BASE BUDGET 663,474, ,339, ,911, ,823, ,136,548, I. REDIRECTIONS/REDUCTIONS A. Redirection of Funds to Alternative Uses (6,877,309) (16,417,334) - - (23,294,643) Sub-Total (6,877,309) (16,417,334) - (23,294,643) II. SUSTAINING OPERATIONS A. Salaries and Benefits 8,618,702 28,809,318 3,159,604 32,076 40,619,700 B. Program Continuation - 6,069,116 4,050,019 A 14,522,104 B 24,641,239 Sub-Total 8,618,702 34,878,434 7,209,623 14,554,180 65,260,939 III. STUDENT GROWTH A. Enrollment Increases 8,291,909 4,301, ,593,339 Sub-Total 8,291,909 4,301, ,593,339 IV. PROGRAM EXPANSION AND NEW INITIATIVES A. Attracting/Retaining High Performers - 125, ,000 B. Truancy Court Expansion - 75, ,000 C. High School Class Size Adjustment - 9th Grade - 3,023, ,023,430 D. Instructional Technology Positions for High Schools - 1,322, ,322,500 E. Multimedia Support - 215, ,000 Sub-Total - 4,760, ,760,930 TOTAL PROPOSED CURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET $ 673,508,028 $ 355,862,561 $ 137,121,206 $ 29,377,331 $ 1,195,869,126 * Includes state revisions, reduction for prior year one-time fund balance appropriation and anticipated revenue adjustments to Adopted Budget. A Includes funding from Project L.I.F.T. that will pass through CMS in , primarily as reimbursement for staff salaries, bonuses and stipends as part of the Project L.I.F.T. initiatives. B Includes a one-time increase in fund balance appropriation of $14.5 million for movement of mobile units ($1.8m), deferred maintenance projects ($9.0m) and Common Core support ($3.7m). 23

24 Capital Replacement Proposed Budget Revenues $ 4,960,000 Expenditures: Building and Sites 4,209,616 Furniture and Equipment 750,384 Total Expenditures $ 4,960,000 Historically funded from state s Public School Capital Building Fund but since has been funded with County revenues Provides pay-as-you-go funding for systematic and scheduled major repair and replacement of assets 24

25 Child Nutrition Proposed Budget Operating Revenues $ 18,324,519 Operating Expenses 64,211,098 Operating Income (Loss) $ (45,886,579) Non-operating Revenues U.S. Government Subsidy and Commodities $ 45,210,311 Interest Revenue and Other Misc. Revenue 159,453 Transfer from General Fund 516,815 Net Income $ - Child Nutrition serves more than 30,000 breakfasts and 80,000 lunches per day The lunch price will increase by 5 cents per meal in to comply with federal law 25

26 After School Enrichment Program Proposed Budget Operating Revenues $ 13,901,796 Operating Expenses 13,927,596 Operating Income (Loss) $ (25,800) Non-operating Revenues 25,800 Net Income $ - No program fee changes for ASEP programs for

27 What factors and data did we consider? 27

28 Framework for Budget Development Align resources to support Strategic t Plan 2014 Keep strong academic focus coupled with data driven decision making Recognize and plan for the impact of the economic environment and employ sound fiscal management Acknowledge uncertainty t regarding expected funding levels l from all sources, but use best information available to prepare plan Identify efficiency savings as well as reductions and resource redirections to offset rising i costs Request funding from County for some sustaining operations cost increases (including cost of living increase and to cover student growth costs) Establish flexibility in the budget to allow for various reduction levels 28

29 Per Pupil Expenditure Ranking Per Pupil Expenditures (per student in fall enrollment) Rank State Per Pupil Rank State Per Pupil 1New York 17, Texas 8,751 2New Jersey 17, Mississipi 8,713 3 Vermont 17, North Dakota 8,631 4 Alaska 16, North Carolina 8,572 5 Wyoming 15, Tennessee ,213 6 Rhode Island 15, Idaho 8,101 7 Maryland 15, Nevada 8,089 8 Maine 15, Oklahoma 8,058 9 Connecticut 14, Utah 6, Massachussets 14, Arizona 6,448 National Average = $10,770 Source: National Education Association Research December

30 EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. At $8.1K per pupil ( ), CMS spending level is well below other districts studied l ($K) Average K-12 $/pupi $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 $20.0 $15.0 Cross District Comparison of Average K-12 Operating $/pupil SY0910 per pupil $14.6 $14.1 $13.6 $12.0 $11.0 $10.1 $9.3 funding levels were 13% less than the next lowest district studied $8.6 $8.7 $8.1 Rocheste er Bosto on Wash. D.C C. Atlant ta St.Pa ul Philadelph ia Prince George e's Chicag go Duv al CMS SY CMS SY CMS SY NCES- Comparative Wage-Index *Dollars represent K-12 operating budget/expenditure for year studied. Dollars adjusted for geography using the National Center for Education Statistics 2005 School District Comparative Wage Index. Dollars adjusted to (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator Source: ERS analysis of CMS SY0708, SY0809, and SY0910 Expenditures; ERS comparative database EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. PRESENTATION DATE FEBRUARY 23,

31 Public Schools Funding - % of State Budget 42.00% 41.4% 41.5% 41.2% 41.00% $7.5B 40.00% 39.00% 39.6% 39.2% 38.9% 39.2% $7.5B 38.00% 38.0% 37.7% 37.4% 37.9% 37.00% 36.00% 35.00% Source: North Carolina Post-Legislative Budget Summary

32 Public Schools Funding - % of County Revenues 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 8.4% 0.0% 9.0% 00% 0.0% 00% 0.0% 06% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 9.5% 10.0% 9.6% 10.3% 8.7% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 05% 0.5% 11.3% 12.2% 11.8% 30.0% 0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 37.2% 37.1% 35.6% 33.4% 33.2% 34.1% 33.1% 33.6% 31.8% 31.4% 31.8% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Operating Debt Services Capital Replacement Note: Excludes fines and forfeitures Source: Mecklenburg County Adopted Budget Book 32

33 Budgeted Per Pupil Expenditure $ in millions $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 $8,868 $8,912 $8,533 $8,480 $8,148 $7,498 $7,626 $7,149 $7,294 $7,288 $7,149 $7,138 $6,979 $7,114 $7,465 $7,397 $6,970 $6,829 $7,014 $6, Nominal (Actual) Constant (Real) Note: Constant dollars were computed using Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI index 33

34 Total Student Enrollment Number of Students 140, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,010 90,000 80, Projected School Year 34

35 Economically Disadvantaged Students lation 60.0% 50.0% 41.7% 43.7% 47.9% 47.0% 45.5% 47.3% 48.7% 51.6% 53.4% 54.4% %o of Student Popu 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% School Year 35

36 Limited English Proficiency Students Number of Stud dents 20,000 18,407 18,000 17,035 16,631 16,000 14,883 16,220 15,505 14,000 12,493 11,510 12,000 9,885 10,944 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, School Year 36

37 Homeless Students 5,000 4,500 4,000 4,453 4,711 Number of Stude ents 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1,038 1,432 1,841 2,208 2,493 2, School Year 37

38 Employer Benefits Cost Trends Retirement 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% 5.00% 7.83% 8.14% 8.75% 10.51% 13.12% 14.31% Proposed Health $6,000 $4,000 $2,764 $4,097 $4,157 $4,527 $4,929 $4,931 $5,192 $2,000 $ Proposed

39 Historical Salary Increases 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 50% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 00% Central Office and Non-Certified Principal/AP Teachers and Certified Staff 39

40 Historical Budget Reductions by Area % of Area State & Local % of Area State & Local Budget Budgeted Total Budget Budget Total (State & Positions* Positions (State & Area FY Reductions Local) FY Reduced Local) Central Office 85,662,147 (6,613,642) (7.7%) 893 (60) (6.7%) Support 82,232,185 (10,161,756) (12.4%) 1,573 (235) (14.9%) Schools 769,086, (31,084,995) (4.0%) 11,809 (212) (1.8%) Total 936,981,052 (47,860,393) (5.1%) 14,275 (506) (3.5%) % of Area State & Local % of Area State & Local Budget Budgeted Total Budget Budget Total (State & Positions* Positions (State & Area FY Reductions Local) FY Reduced Local) Central Office 97,464,429 (9,405,886) (9.7%) 920 (61) (6.6%) Support 99,080,367 (9,601,118) (9.7%) 1,631 (80) (4.9%) Schools 756,478,796 (39,739,730) (5.3%) 11,957 (675) (5.6%) Total 953,023,592, (58,746,734), (6.2%) 14,508 (816) (5.6%) % of Area State & Local % of Area State & Local Budget Budgeted Total Budget Budget Total (State & Positions* Positions (State & Area FY Reductions Local) FY Reduced Local) Central Office 103,776,661 (9,380,942) (9.0%) 999 (98) (9.8%) Support 128,229,321 (11,217,486) (8.7%) 2,206 (133) (6.0%) Schools 837,951,318 (66,304,143) (7.9%) 13,367 (736) (5.5%) Total 1,069,957,300 (86,902,571) (8.1%) 16,572 (967) (5.8%) *Totals do not include Federal, Other, Child Nutrition, or ASEP positions 40

41 How does the proposed investment compare to prior investment trends? 41

42 Sources of Revenue Trend 100% 90% 1.1% 1.9% 2.4% 2.8% 1.9% 1.9% 2.4% 1.6% 2.4% 5.0% 7.9% 7.7% 8.2% 8.5% 14.6% 16.1% 13.7% 11.5% 80% 70% 60% 50% 58.9% 58.3% 59.0% 59.9% 60.2% 55.7% 55.2% 56.6% 56.3% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 35.0% 31.9% 30.9% 29.1% 29.4% 27.8% 26.3% 28.1% 29.8% Proposed Historical Trend Recent Trend County State Federal and Other Grants Other and Special Revenue 42

43 Per Pupil Expenditure Trend 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 $80 $116 $137 $358 $503 $574 $141 $186 $651 $586 $258 $604 $247 $173 $726 $758 $162 $202 $132 $210 $1,241 $1,370 $1,163 $979 6,000 5,000 4,000 $4,207 $4,257 $4,250 $4,472 $4,500 $4,835 $5,314 $5,360 $4,756 $4,680 $4,799 $4,810 3,000 2,000 1,000 - $2,504 $2,418 $2,327 $2,234 $2,354 $2,451 $2,581 $2,621 $2,374 $2,228 $2,379 $2, Proposed Total Per Pupil: $ 7,149 $ 7,294 $ 7,288 $ 7,498 $ 7,626 $ 8,148 $ 8,868 $ 8,912 $ 8,533 $ 8,480 $ 8,473 $ 8,541 County State Federal and Other Grants Other and Special Revenue Note: Reflects budgeted per pupil expenditure 43

44 What has been the return on past investments? Are we at a critical juncture academically? 44

45 Math Proficiency (with retests) Math Proficiency* Change to Change to Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Composite The change between and indicates that all comparisons except 3 rd grade increased proficiency between 2 5 percentage points. The change between and indicates only 2 positive increases between 1 to 2 percentage points. *Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV 45

46 Math Trends Between Subgroups- Grades 3-8 (with retests) Subgroups African American vs. White Change to Change to Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged *Mathematics for reflects the first year the state began reporting EOG scores with retests. 46

47 Reading Proficiency (with retests) Reading Proficiency* Change to Change to Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Grade Composite The change between and indicates that at all grade levels increased proficiency between 1 4 percentage points. The change between and indicates only 2 positive increases at 1 percentage point. *Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV 47

48 Reading Trends Between Subgroups- Grades 3-8 (with retests) Subgroups Change Change to to African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged *Reading for reflects the first year the state began reporting EOG scores with retests. 48

49 End-of-Course Proficiency (with retests) * Change Algebra I Algebra II Biology Civics & Economics English I Physical Science US History Composite * was the first year that EOC scores were reported with retests. *Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV 49

50 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) Algebra I African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 19 n/a 12 n/a 14 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests. 50

51 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) Algebra II African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 13 n/a 7 n/a 8 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests 51

52 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) Biology African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 18 n/a 15 n/a 14 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests. 52

53 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) Civics & Economics African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 19 n/a 18 n/a 17 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests. 53

54 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) English I African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 16 n/a 17 n/a 16 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests. 54

55 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) Physical Science African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 18 n/a 15 n/a 12 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests 55

56 Trends Between Subgroups (with retests) US History African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Year Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend Gap Gap Trend * 13 n/a 10 n/a 10 n/a * was the first year the state reported EOCs with retests 56

57 SAT Tests Taken School System # Tested % Tested Total* # Tested % Tested Total* # Tested % Tested Total* # Tested % Tested Total* United States (All Students) 1,518, ,530, ,547, ,647, North Carolina (All Students) 55, , , , Charlotte- Mecklenburg 4, , , , * The combined Math, Critical Reading and Writing sub-scores Please note: In 2010, the College Board began including students in its annual cohort for test administrations through March as well as through June, but only reported scores through March. In previous years, the cohort only included students who were tested through March. Scores reported by the College Board in 2011 included d all test-takers through hjune, and are therefore not comparable with released district and schools' scores from previous years. 57

58 AP Pass Rates (%) Global NC CMS

59 AP Tests Taken Number of Exams Taken Global 2,533,431 2,736,445 2,929,929 3,213,225 3,365,617 NC 81,151 85,378 89,344 92,334 94,061 CMS 11,287 12, ,293 13, ,520 59

60 Strategic Plan 2014: High Academic Achievement Goal: Eighty percent of schools will make expected or high growth on ABCs. Percentage of Schools Making Expected or High Growth* % % % % % *Schools identified by the state as No Status are excluded from these counts 60

61 ABC Results All Schools* *Schools identified by the state as No Status are excluded from these counts 61

62 Key Highlights After four consecutive years of multimillion-dollar cuts and redirections within our budget (more than $212 million since FY 2009), CMS is at a critical juncture. We do not want to lose ground we have worked so hard to gain so we must begin rebuilding in core areas to prevent declines in our academic progress CMS continues to absorb increases in operating costs such as utilities and employee benefits costs we do not control but must pay which reduces the amount we can spend on each student CMS is continuing to optimize resources and identify efficiency savings as well as budget cuts and redirections ($23.3 million for ) to help cover rising costs and anticipated state cuts Strategically planning ahead for the EduJobs funding cliff coming in prevented the need for a reduction in force or other unplanned cuts 62

63 Key Highlights (cont) Recruitment and retention of highly effective staff is critical to help us move academic achievement forward, thus this budget includes a 3% cost of living increase for our staff who have continued to deliver strong results while not receiving a salary adjustment in nearly four years (seeking increased funding from the county for 2% of that cost less any amount the state may provide) CMS is also seeking money from the county to help us pay for some of the costs of sustaining operations, including a cost of living increase, as well as growth increases consistent with those areas the county is planning to fund in their budget If the county fully funds our request of $355.9 million, CMS would receive only $4.5 million more than the highest ever county funding level reached in , but would be almost $400 per pupil less than the per pupil county funding level due to enrollment growth The budget proposal is based on the best information we have at this time and is subject to change based on final approved funding from all sources 63

64 Key Highlights (cont) CMS will continue to align our resources with the BOE s Theory of Action, Core Beliefs, and SP2014 goals including those strategies that have helped us increase academic achievement, close the gap, and improve the graduation rate CMS hopes the citizens of Mecklenburg County will recognize the value of an outstanding school district and the importance of that on the economic development in our area and will actively support our funding request 64

65 Key Dates Date Activity March 19 Board of Education budget work session March 27 * Board of County Commissioners Workshop on CMS Budget March 27 * Public hearing on Superintendent's Budget Recommendation March 28 Board of Education budget work session April 10 * Board of Education's Proposed Budget including county request approved May 09 May 15 May 24 Board of County Commissioners' Budget Workshop for CMS Budget County Manager's Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets presented to Board of County Commissioners i Public Hearing on Mecklenburg County's Budget June 05 FY County Operating Budget and 3-year CIP adopted at regular meeting of Board of County Commissioners *Board meeting dates 65

66 Conclusion Superintendent s closing remarks Q & A 66