Monitoring Report R: Providing Secure and Stable Resources February 2013

Similar documents
Telling Our Story. Celebrations, Challenges, and Choices

Financing Education In Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department

Understanding the K-12 General Education Funding Program

The District s mission statement, which reflects the highest aspirations of the St. Cloud Area School District, states:

Financing Education In Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department

ADOPTED BUDGET

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 273 Edina, Minnesota June 30, 2012

St. Francis Area Schools

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 281 Robbinsdale, Minnesota June 30, 2007

Minneapolis Public Schools Special School District No. 1 Minneapolis, Minnesota. Financial Statements. June 30, 2017

School Finance 101. Independent School District 882 Monticello Public Schools. December 2017

Management Report. for. Cyber Village Academy St. Paul, Minnesota June 30, 2010

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 273 Edina, Minnesota June 30, 2014

Demystifying the Chapter 70 Formula: How the Massachusetts Education Funding System Works

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 281 Robbinsdale, Minnesota June 30, 2006

LaCrescent-Hokah School District

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 622 North St. Paul Maplewood Oakdale, Minnesota June 30, 2015

ACTION TRANSMITTAL No

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 199 Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota June 30, 2012

Chatfield Public School

SWAN RIVER MONTESSORI CHARTER SCHOOL CHARTER SCHOOL NO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

ROSEVILLE AREA SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 623 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017

Chatfield Public School

CITIZEN S GUIDE TO SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCES. Osseo Area Schools FISCAL YEAR 2010 ( School Year)

ROCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 535 EXECUTIVE AUDIT SUMMARY (EAS) JUNE 30, 2014

Citizen s Guide. to School District Finances. Osseo Area Schools Fiscal Year 2013 ( School Year)

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 624 White Bear Lake, Minnesota June 30, 2016

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 624 White Bear Lake, Minnesota. June 30, 2017

School Finance Update

Minneapolis Public Schools Special District No. 1 Minneapolis, Minnesota. Financial Statements. June 30, 2016

Executive Audit Summary for Lakeville Area Public Schools (ISD 194)

Financial Readiness for Leaders

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO Atwater/Cosmos/Grove City, Minnesota AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. For the Year Ended June 30, 2015

Region V Hot Topics March 29-30, 2012

SCHOOL FACILITIES FINANCING WORKING GROUP

2013 Mill Levy FACTS

Paint Valley Local School District

FY 2018 CITIZEN S GUIDE

Hopkins Public Schools #270. December 5, 2017 Presented by John Toop Director of Business Services

FY 2017 CITIZEN S GUIDE

Understanding Evidence Based Funding

How Schools are Funded in the State of Iowa

PRELIMINARY BUDGET PRESENTATION

VISION 2020 The School District of Lee County s Strategic Plan for achieving our Vision: To Be a World Class School System

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System

Budget Update. originally presented at the 2016 School Planning Retreat on Feb. 20, 2016

Fund Revenue Expenditure Fund Balance. General $ 127,122,457 $ 128,759,941 $ (1,637,484) Food Service 5,910,702 6,117,537 (206,835)

ADVANTAGE ACADEMY OF MATH AND SCIENCE AT SUMMERVILLE (A CHARTER SCHOOL UNDER ADVANTAGE ACADEMY OF MIAMI, INC.)

Initiative #93 Funding for Public Schools. Amendment? proposes amending the Colorado Constitution and Colorado statutes to:

CliftonLarsonAllen LLP

Percent of Total General Fund Additional Revenue

ADVANTAGE ACADEMY OF MATH AND SCIENCE AT WATERSTONE. A Charter School and Component Unit of the District School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida

Statute Requires Development Guide

Paint Valley Local School District

AMENDMENT 23 ECONOMIC MODELING FOR DECISION MAKERS FEBRUARY 2001

ANNUAL FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY MANAGEMENT REPORT

Levies. School Board Work Session May 3, 2018

AUBURN CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2017

Fridley Public Schools, ISD 14

School Finance Update

Financing Adequate Resources for New York Public Schools. Jon Sonstelie* University of California, Santa Barbara, and

Process. Board of County Commissioners. March 27, 2012

SCHOOL FACILITIES FINANCING WORKING GROUP

DETROIT SERVICE LEARNING ACADEMY Financial Report with Supplemental Information and Single Audit Report June 30, 2015

Operating Referendum: Background Information and Trends Round Lake-Brewster Public Schools

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 194 Lakeville, Minnesota June 30, 2007

Our Mission. To inspire every student to think, to learn, to achieve, to care


ATLANTIC MONTESSORI CHARTER SCHOOL (A CHARTER SCHOOL UNDER ATLANTIC MONTESSORI CHARTER SCHOOL, INC.)

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 834 Stillwater, Minnesota. June 30, 2018

FY16 BUDGET BASICS. Minneapolis Public Schools Finance Office Community Presentation

ADVANTAGE ACADEMY OF MATH AND SCIENCE AT SUMMERVILLE. A Charter School and Component Unit of the District School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida

Kent C. Dickey Assistant Superintendent for Finance. July 22,

DISTRICT STATUS DETAIL

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO Levy Certification

Budget General Information (characteristics of district) Supplemental Information for Tables in Summary of Expenditures

20 Years of School Funding Post-DeRolph Ohio Education Policy Institute August 2018

Family and Community Guide to the DC Public Schools Budget

School District Revenue History

ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS BUDGET

ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF MINNEAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012

LSF CHARTER SCHOOLS, LLC. d/b/a BELLE GLADE EXCEL CHARTER SCHOOL

BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SYRACUSE, NEW YORK JUNE 30, 2013

SUPERINTENDENT S BUDGET RECOMMENDATION

TAMPA SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a TRINITY SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN. Financial Statements and Supplementary Information Year Ended June 30, 2017

Independent School District No. 271 Bloomington, Minnesota. Financial Statements. June 30, 2018

PENNSYLVANIA DISTANCE LEARNING CHARTER SCHOOL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. June 30, 2017

VALRICO LAKE ADVANTAGE ACADEMY

Issue Paper: Equalization

Financial Statements June 30, Aberdeen School District 6-1

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 199 Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota June 30, 2011

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING UPDATE Senate Committee on E-12 Policy

SCHOOLCRAFT LEARNING COMMUNITY MINNESOTA CHARTER SCHOOL NO BEMIDJI, MINNESOTA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT JUNE 30,

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 31 BEMIDJI, MINNESOTA FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT JUNE 30, 2017

Recommended Budget for School Year. School Board Meeting August 10, 2011

PENNSYLVANIA DISTANCE LEARNING CHARTER SCHOOL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. June 30, 2016

COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 COLES-CUMBERLAND COUNTIES. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS For the Year Ended June 30, 2018

This summary is provided to answer some

FY15 Budget. Budgeting Definitions

Mansfield Independent School District

Transcription:

Monitoring Report R: Providing Secure and Stable Resources February 2013 The Resource strategic direction has six assessments. Each of them measures in some way the district s ability to use it resources effectively and efficiently. 1. Annual Variation from Established Budgets This is a measure of the percentage that the final General budget approved by the School Board varied from the final revenues and expenses recorded for the year. It excludes fundraising revenues and related expenses for student activities recorded in the General, and also excludes revenue one component not available at the time the revised budget was approved. 2011-2012 General revenues exceeded the final budgeted amount by $4,393,20, or.87%. Special Education aid for 2010-11 was not finalized by MDE until March 2012, after the revised budget was approved by the school board. This Special Education aid increased 2011-2012 revenue by $1,700,000. The revenue variance, after adjustment for the Special Education aid and for unbudgeted student activities and fundraisers of $29,026, resulted in an excess of revenue over the budgeted amount of $2,164,224, or 2.89% Expenditures exceeded the amount of the final approved budgeted amount by $1,017,190 or 1.3%. After excluding the $29,026 in student activities and fundraisers, the expenditures in excess of budget were $478,282, or.62% of expenditures. The net variance, which is calculated by subtracting the variance in expenses from those of the revenue, results in a positive net variance of 2.27%. Insight Statements The positive variance of the revenue budget is an indication of the use of conservative revenue projection models that protect the district should enrollment and revenue projections fall short of predictions. The modest variation in expenses (after factoring out the student activity fundraising expenses) from established budgets is an indication of the careful monitoring of financial data and the prudent use of available funding to best educate the community s children. The net variation from established budget at the progressing level gives evidence of competent management of funds in a district that had a negative fund balance only four years ago. A positive net variance is an indication that the ending fund balance is greater than what was projected. This will provide the district with additional resources to face the next several years of uncertain revenue.

2. General Unreserved, Unrestricted Balance The General unassigned balance at June 30, 2012 is $,423,036 or 8.86% as measured by the Minnesota Department of Education. This measures at level vision. Insight Statements Our general fund balance at vision level provides the district with financial resources for the 2012-2013 school year to fund inflationary increases in expenses without additional revenue.. Given that the Legislature has increased funding of the basic formula only $100, or 2% over the last six years, a larger fund balance allows Roseville Area Schools to maintain programs and better control class size in the short term while faced with uncertain funding sources. 3. Overall Return on Spending Index This index is a measure of the return, in terms of student proficiency, based on 2012 MDE MMR (Multiple Measurement Ratings) results, compared to the money spent as reported in MDE Profiles for 2011 of average pupil operating expenditures for ten comparative districts. With the new Multiple Measurement Ratings, results are no longer available for Math and Reading on a district-wide average. The MMR is a score based on the combined ratings of test proficiency, growth in test performance, achievement gap reduction, and graduation rate. MMR results are posted by individual schools rather than by districts, so individual high schools were used for comparison. In the case of districts with more than one high school, the school with the higher rating was used. The index was computed by dividing the MMR results for each high school as reported by MDE in 2012 by the per-pupil operating expenditures in 2011 as reported by MDE multiplied by 1000. Example: Roseville School District. MDE reported MMR results of 84.43% for Roseville Area High School. Roseville s MDE reported per pupil Operating Expenditure for 2011 was $10,78. 2012 MMR results / Spending per ADM x 1000 = Return on Spending Index 8.43 / 10,78 x 1,000 = 8.08 Ranking District Name MMR Results Spending per ADM Index 1 Roseville (RAHS) 8.43% $ 10,78 8.08 2 Shakopee 63.94% $ 8,136 7.86 3 South St. Paul 79.71% $ 10,18 7.83

4 Spring Lake Park 66.21% $ 9,019 7.34 Osseo (Maple Grove High School) 62.97% $ 11,104.67 6 Bloomington (Jefferson) 60.18% $ 10,63.66 7 West St. Paul 42.19% $ 10,064 4.19 8 North St. Paul/Maplewood/Oakdale (Tartan) 42.64% $ 10,440 4.08 9 Burnsville 43.3% $ 11,311 3.8 10 Robbinsdale (Cooper) 38.2% $ 10,89 3.1 While Roseville ranks th of the 10 comparative school districts in spending per ADM, Roseville Area High School ranks highest in both MMR results and in the Return on Spending index, which is in the highest quintile at level vision. Insight Statement Roseville Area High School s ranking in the highest quintile (or vision) of the indicates that the District is using its resources efficiently in achieving measurable results at the high school level.

4. Adjusted Return on Spending Index This index is a measure of the return, in terms of MMR results, on the money spent by school districts on core activities, adjusted for the differences in student needs, that is, the percentage of students eligible to receive free and reduced lunches. The index was computed by multiplying the Return on Spending Index by the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced meal prices. Roseville Area Schools ranks fifth overall among the for the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced meal prices. Other districts with a lower percentage of eligible students could be expected to achieve higher MMR results. However, Roseville Area High School students were able to achieve higher results than all of the comparable districts despite higher eligibility for free and reduced meals. While we rank in the third quintile on per pupil expenditures, and also in the third quintile on eligibility for free and reduced meals prices, we rank in the highest quintile for the adjusted index. Insight Statement: Our ranking in the highest quintile on the adjusted return on spending index is an indication that the results of RAHS students in the MMR are higher than expected, and that the District is employing its resources effectively in improving proficiency, growth, achievement gap reduction and graduation rate. Index Ranking District Name Index 1 Roseville 2.89 2 South St. Paul 2.86 3 Spring Lake Park 2.66 4 Shakopee 2.37 Robbinsdale (Cooper) 1.98 6 West St. Paul (Sibley) 1.48 7 North St. Paul/Maplewood/Oakdale (Tartan) 1.48 8 Burnsville 1.11 9 Bloomington (Jefferson) 1.07 10 Osseo (Maple Grove) 0.

. Percentage of Approved Projects in the 10 Year Plan: Completed On-Time and Within Budget Completion of 100% of approved prior to the start of the school year and all completed within budgeted amounts places the district s actions at the vision level. Insight Statements These results indicate the ability of the District to manage resources and implement plans to maintain a comfortable, effective and safe learning environment for students and staff. Annually providing the public with an updated Ten Year Plan is an indication of foresight in maintaining the district s facilities. 6. Teacher Employment Stability Teacher turnover was at 1.8%, placing this measurement at the vision level. Insight Statements: A turnover rate at this level is a strong indication that the district has created a working environment that is desired by our educators. Keeping the turnover rate low helps maintain a highly qualified instructional staff and instructional leaders who will be dedicated to continually improving student learning and closing the achievement gap. As strategies and interventions are implemented the efforts are more likely to be maintained and improved in that less training is required to bring new staff up to standard. Weighted Score The weighted score 4.72 for Vision Card R: Providing secure and stable resources indicates performance at vision, but shows room for improvement in the category of variation from established budgets.

Measures R 1: Annual Variation from established budgets: Net General revenues and expenses VisionCard R: Providing secure and stable resources (2012-2013 Data) WT (%) Level 01 Intervene (1.0 1.9) 20% - 1.% or greater or +% or greater Level 02 High Concern (2.0 2.9) - 1.2% or greater or +4% or greater Level 03 Baseline (3.0 3.9) - 1.0% or greater or +3% or greater Level 04 Progressing (4.0-4.9) -.7% or greater or +2% or greater Level 0 Vision (.0) -.% or greater or +1% variation Score 3 Trend line R 2: General Balance 1% Negative General Balance 0% + of General 1% + of General 2% + of General 3% + of General R 3: Overall Return on Spending Index (RaMP/MDE Profiles Spending). Under redevelopment 20 % Lowest quintile of Fourth quintile Third quintile of Second quintile regional Highest quintile regional R 4:Adjusted for Student Needs Return on Spending Index (RaMP/MDE Profiles Spending). Under redevelopment 1 % Lowest quintile of Fourth quintile of Third quintile of Second quintile regional Highest quintile regional R : % of approved in the 10 Year Plan: completed on- time and within budget 1 % 8% or less of 86-88% of 89-91% of 92-94% of 9% + of R 6:Teacher Employment Stability 1% 2 29.99% 20 24.99% 1 19.99% Teacher Turnover 10 14.99% Less than 10% Weighted Score TBD