Presentation Transcript

1. Student-Based BudgetingPresentation by Poudre School District

   Jerry Wilson, Superintendent Dave Montoya, Budget Manager October 11, 2011

2. Student-Based Budgeting

   … a more equitable, transparent, flexible, student-centered model
3. District Characteristics Poudre School District Serving ~26,500 K-12 students Located in northern Colorado covering 1,856 square miles Serving a population of approximately 190,000 3,800 employees (2,300 FTE) 70% Certified 26% Classified 4% Administrators
4. District Characteristics PSD Schools PSD Schools 30 Elementary Schools 9 Middle Schools 4 Comprehensive High Schools 3 Specialized Program Schools 1 K-12 Online School 2 Charter Schools
5. District Characteristics PSD Student Population Student Enrollment (Excl Charters) ~ 24,800 Charter Enrollment ~ 1,700 Preschool Enrollment ~ 900 Students Participating in: Free Lunch – 23% Reduced Lunch – 6% Students Served by Special Ed Program - 9% English Language Learners - 8%
6. District Characteristics Funding Facts PSD’s General Fund Revenue $203 million State Formula – 78% 32% Local and 46% State State Categorical – 3% Voter Authorized Overrides – 16% Recent Bond Authorization - $120 million Improving, equipping and furnishing district buildings over the next 8-10 years
7. Why Change? Budget/Enrollment Realities Increasing populations have additional education requirements At-risk students English language learners Increased competition for students Neighborhood and charter schools School choice Need for site-based management of resources Grade reconfiguration aligned with school choice
8. Why Change? Budget/Enrollment Realities ~Continued Former budgeting formula could no longer be sustained Required an additional 10-15 staffing units annually Former formula treated schools inconsistently
9. Why Change?Budget/Enrollment Realities ~Continued Historically, decisions were made to “fix” problems Solutions often targeted sites instead of students “Small schools” addressed inconsistently Schools with similar characteristics were not allocated resources in similar manner Programs often funded instead of students Staffing allocation unable to adjust to changes in student populations
10. Steps to Implementation February 2006 - Board of Education initiative to examine SBB Appointed two teams Design Team Implementation Team
11. Steps to Implementation Design Team Comprised primarily of central administration Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Business Services Human Resources Executive Director Controller Budget Manager Student Information Systems Student Services
12. Steps to Implementation Design Team Gathered and evaluated information from other districts and sources using a student weighted methodology Site visit to Edmonton, Canada “Pioneer of SBB Approach” Urban districts across the US Seattle, Houston, Cincinnati, Oakland ~Continued
13. Steps to Implementation Design Team Compiled and evaluated: District expenditures and spending patterns What commonalities and differences currently existed between schools? What was the distribution between levels? District student characteristics Current level of school budget vs. central budget ~Continued
14. Steps to Implementation Design Team Created a Pilot Model using key concepts District-wide resources allocated remain the same, while individual sites may experience increases or decreases Any number of factors (student weights) can be added, but must be funded by reducing the base funding to all students ~Continued
15. Steps to Implementation Implementation Team Committee comprised primarily of district stakeholders All members from the Design Team School principals and assistant principals Teachers Community members
16. Steps to Implementation Implementation Team Worked with “pilot model” to fine-tune and make recommendations Actual resources to be allocated Weights to be used Magnitude of weights Developed a step-by-step methodology for schools to follow Communicated with peers on progress of SBB discussions Identified items needed to support SBB implementation ~Continued
17. Steps to Implementation Implementation Team Concerns noted by team Some schools will receive increases or decreases as PSD transitioned between models One-time resources to soften the initial impact Factors may need to change as PSD’s environment changes over time Timing of SBB implementation Preparing for a reconfiguration of grades Alternative programs may not fit within a student weighted model ~Continued
18. Steps to Implementation Implementation Team Expected Results and Student Improvement Improved student achievement with SBB Resources are targeted to students with additional educational needs Principals and site-teams can make site-specific decisions to best serve students Accountability for student performance ~Continued
19. Steps to Implementation Implementation Support and Tools Planning tools were provided to schools Principals and school support staff were introduced to new tools and workshops that were designed for additional group help as needed Allowed schools to develop staffing plans in early spring Minimized calculations needed to develop budgets Members of the Implementation Team were available as peer coaches ~Continued
20. Steps to Implementation Implementation Support and Tools Reporting Processes were developed to charge schools for staffing based on average cost (not actual) Reports developed to summarize all site-budget activity Reports also provide forward projected staffing charges for the remainder of the year ~Continued
21. PSD’s Student-Based Budgeting (SBB) Weighted model that distributes $ to schools for staffing and school operations Resources are allocated to schools based on enrollment Resources are targeted to students with additional educational needs
22. Base Student Funding Gifted & Talented ELL At-Risk ELL & At-Risk Grade K-3 $ 3,372 10% $ 337 20% $ 674 20% $ 674 25% $ 843 14% $ 472 SBB Formula Student-Specific Components
23. SBB Formula School Components School Size 0 to 20% $0 - $674 Geographic 80.5% $ 2,714 (Mountain Schools)
24. SBB Formula Resources Allocated Using SBB Certified Staffing Instructional Classified Staffing PARA Professionals Office Managers Office Support Staff School Media Staff School Operating Budget SBB charges all school on average cost (not actual)
25. SBB Formula Resources Currently Not Allocated Using SBB Charter Schools Special Education Grants Administrative Staffing Textbooks Staff Development Transportation Athletics Facilities Other Central Support and Budgets
26. Implementation Year One - Successes Schools reported having Greater understanding on how resources are allocated More flexibility of the staffing process Ability to effectively communicate multiple staffing options with site-teams
27. Modifications Subsequent to Year One Projections vs. actual October count – to match School Finance Formula Schools receive additional dollars if actual is more than projections Schools refund dollars if actual is less than projections Schools are encouraged to maintain a minimum budget reserve of 3% Increased school ownership in student count process Inspires conservative budget planning at the school level
28. Modifications Subsequent to Year One PSD is at the bottom of the State’s J-curve, but the district has it’s own internal “J-curve” Small School Study Contracted with Augenblick, Palaich & Assoc. Conducted a study to understand the incremental increases in costs, on a per pupil basis, as school site enrollment decreases Implemented a size adjustment curve for elementary and middle schools that compensate for size Due to budgetary constrains further limited the adjustment available to schools
29. Continued Challenges Site-based decision making Perceptions may not align with community expectations Inconsistent class sizes from school to school Site decisions can be below district expectations i.e. Specials – further exacerbated with budget ongoing budget reductions Level of input into the site-based decision making process varies between schools
30. Continued Challenges Resources Included Some resources may have federal or state requirements that are not easily applied to a weighted formula Perception of alignment of resources Use of resources may not align with actual allocation i.e. G&T used on staffing is easily quantifiable G&T integrated overall instructional design may not be easy to quantify
31. Continued Challenges Weighted Formula State At-risk & ELL may not align to PSD’s formula Total program at-risk $4,176,000 (net of charters) ELPA categorical $ 250,000 $4,426,000 SBB At-risk $3,413,000 SBB ELL $ 268,000 SBB At-risk & ELL $1,033,000 $4,714,000 * * Does not include district central programs supporting at-risk and ELL Amounts are estimates only and rounded to the nearest thousand
32. Continued Challenges Weighted Formula State G&T Categorical $ 240,000 SBB G&T $ 750,000 * * Does not include district central programs supporting G&T Small Attendance Categorical $ 70,000 SBB Geographic Factor $ 318,000 Unaligned weights: SBB Primary K-3 $3,244,000 SBB size adjustment $2,371,000 Amounts are estimates only and rounded to the nearest thousand
33. Continued Challenges State timing of October 1 count Revenue provided to districts by state formula is revised mid-year SBB – October true-up Flow between traditional schools and alternative schools may fluctuate during the year State funding is not based on the costs necessary to produce instructional adequacy, instead is based on revenue available