fy16 budget recommendation update - boston public schools...mar 09, 2015 · – straight-line...

FY16 Budget Recommendation Update

1

Lilla Frederick Pilot Middle School March 9, 2015

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FY16 BPS Preliminary Budget Recommendation

  The FY16 Preliminary Budget Recommendation presented tonight consists of a general fund appropriation of $1,013.5M

  This amount represents an increase of $38.5M or 4.0% over the FY15 general fund appropriation

  External funding totals $119.7M, which represents a decrease of $15.1M or 11.2% over the FY15 external funds total

2


Agenda

3

  Review of Budget Context

  Key investments

  How we are addressing the challenge

  Funding schools equitably and transparently

  Enrollment Projections

  Budget timeline/More Information


Review of Budget Context - Challenge

  Costs are rising faster than expected revenue each year, creating a structural imbalance that will continue without a change in our business model.

  A level service BPS budget based on FY15 increased our general fund budget requirements by $58 million

  In addition, BPS projected grant losses of more than $14 million and the cost of valuable new initiatives totaled nearly $8 million

  These issues combine to increase the gap to approximately $80 million

4


Review of Budget Context - Solutions   We are grateful to Mayor Walsh for an increase in our annual

appropriation

  The FY16 Boston Public Schools budget is based on a general fund appropriation increase from the City of 4.0% or $38 million

  Identified budget reductions of $30 million in total

  $10.6 million in Central Services

  $9.5 million in Transportation

  $4.0 million in Food Services

  $3.4 million in School Budgets, including closures

  $2.8 million in School Services Budgeted Centrally

  Another $12 million in identified FTE reductions and adjustments to previous estimates

  $6 million in Central Office FTE reductions   $6 million in adjustments to estimates

  Together, these solutions balance the budget for FY16 5


6

Despite a healthy 4.0% increase in the General Fund appropriation, the FY16 “structural imbalance” was $34M

$M

$10M

$20M

$30M

$40M

$50M

$60M

$70M

$80M

$90M

Increased cost of levelservice

Grant reductions Cost for new initiatives Appropriation increase Cost reductions

~$58M

~$8M ~$38M

~$42M

~$14M

Structural Imbalance


What contributes to this structural imbalance?

7

  A compensation system where the cost of salaries and benefits for employees exceeds any expectation of revenue growth.

  A transportation system that is the most costly model in the nation. We spend $100 million, or 10% of our entire budget on transportation.

  Our food service system for students should be self-sustaining. We end up subsidizing this program each year from our general fund.

  We have too many schools where there are consistently under-enrolled classrooms and underutilized space.


The result of this impact is that we spread our resources too thin

8

  We need to invest in strengthening our schools to make BPS stronger.

  If we do not take action we risk harming every school in

every corner of this city and we place all students at risk.

  This will require a long-term discussion. It will require very difficult decisions.

  We do not have the luxury to wait. We need to begin to address these issues now.


Agenda

9


  Key investments






10

  Ensure a strong educator in every classroom, every day through early hiring initiative

  Build a diverse workforce reflective of the cultural, racial, and linguistic diversity of our students

  Extend learning time for current and former turnaround schools

  Continue strategies that increase graduation rates and reduce drop-out rates

  Build cultural competency   Prepare students for success in the 21st century, including

implementation of the Common Core through Expeditionary Learning curriculum in grades 3-5

  Increase support and accountability for all schools through the network model

  Increase the district’s capacity to intervene in underperforming schools

Through this budget, we aim to preserve current investments consistent with the vision of the Mayor and School Committee…


11

  Increase resources going directly to schools through Weighted Student Funding: +$21.1M

  Implement Extended Learning Time agreement: +$5M

  Expand access to K1 seats: +$1M

  Increase access to inclusive opportunities: +$620K

  Digital Academy pilot expansion: +$500K

  Human capital strategy; school leadership, compensation reform: +$340K

…and to build upon them through new investments that address opportunity and achievement gaps


Agenda

12


  Key investments






In summary, we are recommending strategies that begin to address our imbalance and establish a foundation for future planning

13

  We will make significant reductions in our central

administration FTE count and in non-salary spending.

  We will make recommendations for significant efficiencies in transportation.

  We will take a first step in what ultimately will be a major alignment of our enrollment, our programs, and our school facilities. This conversation will soon involve all schools.

  We will insist on a food service delivery system that provides high quality offerings and operates within the revenue that it generates.


Central services

14

•  We have engaged in a value-driven process to rethink central by defining what are compliance needs, core services, or “value-added” services that can be reduced.

•  Reductions in Central Services are proposed in the following areas: –  Department-proposed reductions of $5.2M

•  Consolidated central service functions to generate efficiencies, including human capital information management and payroll

•  A new model for alternative education that maintains quality service through a more holistic approach to support student

–  Reduce Stipends and Vacancies for $4.4M •  Pooling resources for stipends and vacancies and establishing tighter

controls for approval to reduce overall spending –  Reduce One School Network for $950K

•  A streamlined network model that reduces our K-8 networks from six to five

Proposed Savings: $10.6M


Transportation

15

•  With Transportation such a large portion of the BPS budget, continual efforts must be made to find the correct balance of services offered and costs incurred.

•  Reductions in Transportation proposed in the following areas: –  Transition 7th Graders fully to the MBTA for $6.0M

•  Proposed but informed by the Mayor’s Middle School Transportation Task Force

–  Route efficiencies for $2.0M •  fuel savings, stop consolidations, parent opt-out

–  Straight-line calculation of transportation eligibility for $900K •  Impacts ~2,400 students who previously received transportation but were

not eligible because they reside within 1 mile of the school

–  Reduction in donated services for $600K



School Budgets

16

•  These proposals begin to address the structural imbalance across school sites and will result in more investment in all remaining schools. With the changes being proposed, BPS estimates that resources totaling more than $11 million* would be available to be reinvested in other schools.

•  Reductions in School Budgets are proposed in the following areas: –  School closures for $2.2M

•  West Roxbury Academy, Rogers Middle, Elihu Greenwood Leadership Academy, Community and Middle School Academies

–  Restructuring Alternative Education for $840K –  Classroom consolidations: Transition grades for $300K

•  More than 50% of K2-5 classrooms are less than 87.5% full


*Includes WSF allocation, other allocations (nurse, COSESS, entitlement grants), OIIT Capital


School closures and classroom consolidations

17

Approach taken:

  School closures: criteria used (enrollment trends, student and family demand, academic performance) to identify initial list for consideration, and district leadership engaged to inform context and evaluate student impact

  Classroom consolidations: consideration of whether the number of students projected are able to afford the associated staffing

Next steps and desired outcome:

  Engage school communities and all affected groups to ensure decisions and roll-out are done responsibly and effectively, including any implications for student assignment overlays

  A limited set of closures and consolidations that result in ability to focus resources in fewer schools and classrooms to best serve students


School Services

18

•  These proposals reflect responsible reductions in program areas and staffing related to Special Education and other services to schools.

•  Reductions in School Services are proposed in the following

areas: –  Special Education: Change in ESY for $400K

•  Adjusting from five days/week to four days/week and tailoring programs to specific student needs

–  Reduction in Substitute Usage for $900K •  Implementing new protocols for substitute management and monitoring

–  Other Central Program Reductions of $1.5M •  Reduction in contracted services •  Use of revolving account funds to support students learning devices



Food & Nutrition Services

19

  Proposed reductions are designed to avoid a general fund subsidy of the program by making key realignments that keep expenses within the revenue received through Federal reimbursements

  Realign staffing model by ensuring equitable and efficient allocation of food service workers across all sites for $2.1M

  Increase use of food commodities (maximize the use of state-subsidized USDA food) for $1.0M

  Additional changes for $900K

  Reduce meal waste by reducing the number of food offerings

  Changes to contracted services - uniforms, menu posting, supplies, cell phones

Proposed Savings: $ 4.0M


Agenda

20


  Key investments




  Budget timeline


Sources of school funding

1.  Weighted Student Funding $474M

2.  Special programs (non-WSF) $26M

3.  Title I funding/IDEA $17M

4.  Standard allocations built into school budgets $18M (nurses, special education coordinators, and food services staff)

5.  Rules-based soft landings $2M

6.  Buybacks for Autonomous Schools $2M

7.  Additional adjustments1 $10M Total: $549M

21

1Additional adjustments include EEC/ELC supplements and other non-rules-based allocations

Notes: These figures do not include the school services that are budgeted centrally. All figures are current as of January 31st and may change as the budgeting process continues.

Weighted Student Funding (WSF) reflects our principles as a district


Principle Description

Student focus Provides resources based on students, not on buildings, adults, or programs

Equity Allocate similar funding levels to students with similar characteristics, regardless of which school they attend

Transparency Easily understood by all stakeholders

Differentiation based on need

Allocate resources through a comprehensive framework that is based on student needs

Predictability School allocation process is predictable and is structured to minimize school-level disruption

School empowerment

Empowers school-based decision-making to effectively use resources

Alignment with district strategy

Supports the Acceleration Agenda, our five-year strategic plan

22

Example

1.3

3rd Grade General Education Student

Weight (varies slightly based on grade)

For every 1.0 equalized student, the school receives $4,028 (“base”).


Example

1.3



1.3 x $4,028 = $5,236

Funding for one general education child:

Weight Base Total Revenue Per Pupil

For every 1.0 equalized student, the school receives $4,028 (“base”).


Example

1.3



1.3 x $4,028 = $5,236

Funding for one general education child:

For every 1.0 equalized student, the school receives $4028 (“base”).

25 x 1.3 x $4,028 = $130,910

Number of Students

Weight Base Total Revenue Per Class

For a class of 25 general education 3rd graders:


Revenue vs. Costs

Typical 3rd Grade General Education Class: 100% Full Classroom seats with

student weights

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Staff Required

Teacher

WSF: 25 x 1.3 x $4,028 = $130,910 Total: $130,910

Revenue

Cost of Staffing

Teacher: $90,347 .2 Specialist $17,536 Total: $107,883

Balance

+ $23,027

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3 Weights: 3rd grade Gen. Ed: 1.3

Class capacity: 25 students


Revenue vs. Costs


student weights

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Staff Required

Teacher

WSF: 21 x 1.3 x $4,028 = $109,964 Total: $109,964

Revenue

Cost of Staffing

Balance

+ $2,081

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3


Weights: 3rd grade Gen. Ed: 1.3



Revenue vs. Costs


student weights

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3

Staff Required

Teacher

Revenue

Cost of Staffing

Balance

- $45,046

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.3


WSF: 12 x 1.3 x $4,028 = $62,837 Total: $62,837

Weights: 3rd grade Gen. Ed: 1.3




Our starting point is to fund the needs of students through Weighted Student Funding (WSF)

  Students receive a per-pupil allocation that is weighted based on certain characteristics:

  Grade level

  Program (e.g., English Language Learners, Special Education, Vocational Education)

  Student characteristics (e.g., poverty)

  Academic performance (e.g., high risk)

  Schools receive a small foundation budget plus the sum of

the allocation for each student

29

Type Weight FY16 Funding

Base weight 1.0 $4,028

High Risk (Grade 9) 0.2 $806

ELL (Grade K0-5, ELD Level 1-3) 0.24 $967

Student with Disabilities: Low Severity (Resource Room)

1.0 $4,028

Student with Disabilities: Autism

4.3 $17,322

Example weights:


We have reviewed and updated the weights to best reflect student needs

30

Increased weights for students with

Developmental Delays

New weight for Emotional Impairment, Middle and High School students. (A decrease from original

weight)

Decreased weights for ELLs at ELD levels 1-3 in

grades 6-8 and 9-12

Total amount: $473,939,312


Agenda

31


  Key investments




  Budget timeline


FY16 Projected Enrollment has decreased, but Weighted Enrollment has increased

32


We have worked with school leaders to address budget challenges based on lower projections

33

  In January, representatives from multiple departments met with school leaders to review their budgets

  These “budget collaboratives” included representatives from:

  Academics (Network Superintendents)

  Budget

  Office of English Language Learners

  Office of Human Capital

  Office of Special Education and Student Services

  Budget collaboratives helped school leaders meet their students’ needs within their given WSF allocations


What is a soft landing?   In general, we expect schools to meet their needs using their

WSF allocations

  In some cases, however, schools may require additional allocations because of extraordinary circumstances

  In these cases, the district may provide a “soft landing” (one-time funding)

  Guiding principles on soft landings:

  This funding is a temporary measure to address particular challenges, not a permanent allocation

  The situations that may require soft landings change from year to year as the context changes

  All soft landings are rules-based, and rules are applied uniformly across all schools

34


Agenda

35


  Key investments






We look forward to discussing the budget with you in a variety of forums

36

Feb 4 Superintendent’s recommended budget to School Committee

Mar 4 Budget hearing (6 pm) and School Committee meeting

Mar 9 Budget hearing (6 pm) Lilla Frederick Pilot Middle School

Mar 11 Budget hearing (5 pm) and School Committee meeting (6 pm)

Mar 19 Budget Hearing (6 pm)

Mar 25 School Committee votes on BPS budget


For more information:

37

A number of documents are available on our website:

  Budget Presentation

  FY16 Budget Memo

  FY16 Allocations

  FY16 WSF School-by-School comparison

  WSF Templates for all schools

  Preliminary budget by Account Code summary

  Preliminary budget by Program Code summary

  Preliminary budget by Department Code summary

Website: bostonpublicschools.org/budget

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: #bpsbudget

Feedback: [email protected]

fy16 budget recommendation update - boston public schools...mar 09, 2015 · – straight-line...

Documents