zero-based budgeting for urban...

10/31/15

1

Columbus City Schools��

Zero-Based Budgeting for Urban Schools ��

��

OSBA Capital Conference��November 10, 2015

Introductions•  Mary Jo Hudson – Board Member, Columbus CSD

–  [email protected]

•  Stan Bahorek - Treasurer/CFO, Columbus CSD–  [email protected]

•  Scott Gooding - Executive Director, Business & Financial Management, Columbus CSD–  [email protected]

Columbus City Schools•  116 square miles•  City of Columbus

– Population of 802,912•  Student Enrollment Data

–  CCS ADM – 48,488–  Edchoice – 3,943–  Jon Peterson Scholarship – 80–  Autism Scholarship - 187–  Community School – 17,846–  Total – 70,545

10/31/15

2

Questions to Answer•  Board of Education expectations•  Media criticisms•  Why change?•  Old Process•  New process•  What’s next?

Board of Education Expectations•  Increased transparency•  “Bringing more detail and life to expenditures”•  More board and public scrutiny of the budget by

making more information available•  Detailed spending plans•  Having the public better understand the finances of

the district and what the district’s plan are for the future

Media Criticism•  June 18, 2014 – “Columbus schools’ 1-page, $1.3

billion budget OK’d with few words”–  “And, oh, yeah, they approved a $1.3 billion

spending appropriation to run Ohio’s largest school district next school year. But the budget’s passage was easy to miss: There was almost zero discussion about it.”

•  Restoring financial transparency•  Public debate of budget priorities

10/31/15

3

Media Criticism•  “Columbus schools’ 1-page budget is legal, but is it enough?”•  “Columbus schools one-page budget likely a thing of the past”•  “District spending details needed”•  “Columbus school board learning how to give budget greater

scrutiny”•  “Public budget talk was long overdue”•  “Columbus school board passes $1.26 billion budget”•  “Light shines on spending”

Why Change?•  The entire budget needs to be justified and approved,

rather than just making incremental changes from the previous year.

•  Detailed description and evaluation of all activities of each department, including alternatives to current delivery methods and spending plans necessary to achieve district goals.

In Good TimesThe typical annual budget discussion goes something like this: “We need funds for math coaches to help implement the new math program, and grant dollars to expand professional development in reading, and resources to start a dropout prevention program, and more staff to add paraprofessionals to help struggling students.” In each case, the asker is certain these efforts will raise student achievement.

Smarter Budgets, Smarter Schools: How to Survive and Thrive in Tight Times by Nathan Levenson (Harvard Education Press, 2012)

10/31/15

4

In Bad TimesThe conversation sounds more like this: “Don’t cut the math coaches,” says the math director, “they are crucial to our efforts to raise scores in math. “Don’t cut professional development; it’s the lifeblood of improvement,” says the director of curriculum and instruction, “and clearly, taking money from students at risk of dropping out would be cruel.” And on it goes.


DataThis isn’t just administrators protecting their staff – it also reflects a deep-seated belief that these efforts are important and effective. In the end, whoever can tell the most persuasive story will carry the day. Imagine, however, if before the budget conversation began …


DataStudents of teachers receiving support from math coaches gained three and a half months of more learning than students of teachers who did not get coaching. Additionally, 87 percent of unannounced observations, teachers who received math coaching were observed implementing the program with fidelity.


10/31/15

5

QuestionDo you reduce funds for math coaches that help to implement the new math program?

Old Process•  The budget was developed with no reference to

the strategic plan or goals of the district. •  Lacked involvement of all levels of management.•  Lacked communication and understanding, by all,

of the total district financial picture.•  Lacked consistent budget monitoring that was

shared with all budget managers.•  Resulted in a one-page Appropriations Resolution

(by fund) that was approved by the Board of Education.

New Process

•  To ensure the District is maximizing its revenues and resources optimally, a new process has been implemented; a hybrid zero-based budget. Each department must identify and prioritize what they believe to be their needs in conjunction with being aligned to one of the District’s three goals.

•  Budget driven by district’s strategic plan and focusing on student achievement rather than limited resources.

10/31/15

6

Budget PlanningFactors to Consider:

•  Review of current programs/services•  Identification of program enhancements•  Identification of program adjustments/reductions•  Alignment to district goals•  Prioritization of programs/services•  Evaluation of return on investment, impact, scalability and

sustainability•  State of Ohio biennial budget (FY16 – FY17)•  Additional fiscal impacts on district finances

District Goals

•  Goal 1. Each and every child reaches her/his full potential: Prepared to go to college, secure a job, serve in the military, or start a business.

•  Goal 2. Learning environments are student-centered, efficient, and stable.

•  Goal 3. The District is accountable to the community; the community’s confidence in the District is restored.

Finance & Appropriations Committee

•  The FAC is comprised of seven members; three Board of Education (BOE) members, and four community members with business or finance expertise, who are; parents or legal guardians of current CCS students, members of the central Ohio business community, or employees of a central Ohio local government, higher education, or non-profit organization. No member is a current employee of the District.

•  The FAC serves at the discretion of the BOE, and shall have no power to expend public funds, enter into contracts, or otherwise place obligation or liability upon the District.

10/31/15

7

Budget Timeline

October 2014 Presentation and approval of FY 2015 Five Year Forecast

December 2014 Initial Finance & Appropriations Committee meeting. Committee meetings will be held monthly. Distribution of building and departmental (non-personnel) general fund budget worksheets.

January 2015 FY 2016 general fund (non-personnel) budget process is conducted.

February 2015 FY 2016 general fund (non-personnel) budget hearings conducted.

March 2015 FY 2016 general fund (non-personnel) budget revisions are made

April 2015 FY 2016 general fund budget presentation (personnel and non-personnel) to the Finance & Appropriations Committee

May 2015 Presentation FY 2016 general fund budget and updated FY 2015 Five Year Forecast

June 2015 FY 2016 Appropriations Resolution (Fund Level) approval by the Board of Education.

Budget Flowchart

Introduc)on

21

FYF •  October 31st

Budget Prep •  January -‐ April

FYF Update • May 31st

Adopt Appropria>ons

• June 30th

Align FYF with Appropria>ons

10/31/15

8

FY16 Budget & FYF Prepara)on Process

22

FY16 Budget & FYF Prepara)on Process

23

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

Revenues $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx

Expenditures $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx $x,xxx,xxx

FIVE YEAR FORECAST

General Fund $x,xxx,xxx

All Other Funds $x,xxx,xxx

APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION

Expenditures $x,xxx,xxx

FY16 GF BUDGET

Staffing

10/31/15

9

Staffing Overview•  The process of acquiring, deploying, and retaining a workforce of sufficient

quantity and quality to support the District’s mission statement and goals.

•  Staffing needs are continuously evolving based on factors such as student/course enrollment, defined student needs, special education mandates and attrition.

•  Staffing will reflect enrollment efficiency consistent with available resources given the budget parameters.

•  Provide adequate staff training, curriculum development and resources to improve student learning.

•  We are in the process of designing a research-based, data driven staffing allocation model for implementation in FY 2017.

Staffing Process

Staffing Patterns

10/31/15

10

Staffing Ratios•  Contractual

–  Class size ratios are defined in the CEA contract. Variations will be necessary because of different grade level enrollment totals.

•  Elementary school classes will be organized on the basis of approximately 25 pupils per classroom teacher, with a maximum of 30 (grades K-3 at 29, grades 4-5 at 30).

•  Middle school classes will be organized on the basis of approximately 30 pupils per classroom teacher, with a maximum of 35.

•  High school classes will be organized on the basis of approximately 28 pupils per classroom teacher, with a maximum of 36.

•  State Mandates–  Ensuring that special education students have the required staffing ratios

pursuant to the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) from the Ohio Department of Education.

•  Strategic Plan–  Focus staffing priorities to ensure that each student is highly educated, prepared for leadership and service, and empowered for success as a citizen in a global community.

FY2010 - $10.8 million–  Staff reductions in central office–  Staff reductions for student losses–  Reductions in overtime and extended time–  Reductions in contracted transportation, bus parts and repairs–  Combination of schools

FY2011 - $29.2 million–  Reductions in High School bus stops–  Reductions in Buildings and Grounds contracted services–  Staff reductions for alignment to enrollment in special programs–  Reductions due to school closings–  Staff reductions in Treasurer’s Division restructure

Budget (Staffing) Reductions

FY2012 - $25.1 million–  Reductions in contractor bus routes–  Reductions in custodial substitute hours–  Elimination of Transition Support Coordinators–  Reductions in Central Office Administrators–  Wage concessions at all staffing levels

FY2013 - $2.0 million–  Reconfiguration of Gifted and Talented program–  Continued restructuring of the Treasurer’s Division–  Building closures


10/31/15

11

FY2014 - $15.0 million–  Reductions in Central Office Administrators–  Reductions in Operations staffing and materials–  Reductions in Academic staffing and support–  Reductions in Treasurer’s Division staffing–  Combination of buildings–  Removed 1% cost of living adjustment (COLA) in FY14 district-wide–  Remove additional FY14 supports included in the October forecast but

not implemented


FY2015 - $22.7 million–  Building closures–  Year around to traditional calendar–  Reduction of Peer Assistance Review (PAR) teachers–  Benefit premium holiday–  Student declining enrollment deduct for FY14 spring allocations

(teachers not replaced)–  Reduction of Assistant Treasurer position–  Instructional Assistant realignment per contract–  Reduction of 9th & 10th grade COTA passes–  Reduction in utilities through reorganization/restructure–  Renegotiation of curriculum vendor contracts–  Two phase reduction of DeVry University program–  Elimination of Hanover Research contract–  Remove 1% cost of living adjustment (COLA) in FY15 district-wide


•  Year Annual Reduction Cumulative Reductions

•  FY 2010 $10.8 million $10.8 million



•  FY 2013 $ 2.0 million $65.1 million



•  Future FYs $21.5 million $124.3 million


10/31/15

12

Staffing Snapshot•  As of March 2, 2015

CombinedClassification Min Non-‐Min Min Non-‐Min Min % Non-‐Min % TotalsAdministrator 95 85 50 47 145 1.6% 132 1.5% 277 Classified 1,246 822 689 320 1,935 21.8% 1,142 12.9% 3,077 Full Time Hourly 3 9 2 4 5 0.1% 13 0.1% 18 Part Time Hourly 95 374 9 53 104 1.2% 427 4.8% 531 Teachers 686 2,280 198 649 884 10.0% 2,929 33.0% 3,813 Substitute Administrators 22 15 8 16 30 0.3% 31 0.3% 61 Substitute Classified 230 100 82 19 312 3.5% 119 1.3% 431 Substitute Teachers 234 208 118 96 352 4.0% 304 3.4% 656 Total 2,611 3,893 1,156 1,204 3,767 42.5% 5,097 57.5% 8,864

Female Male Total Total

Staffing Adjustments

DepartmentContractually Required

State Mandate / Compliance Audit Response

Strategic / BOE Intitiative Total

Academic Services 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50Accountability 0.00 0.00 11.00 1.00 12.00Career Tech, Workforce Development and Adult Education 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00External Affairs & Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Gifted & Talented 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 17.00Human Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00Internal Audit 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00Professional Learning 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.00Student Support Services 1.00 43.25 17.00 6.00 67.25Teaching & Learning 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 11.00

19.50 60.25 28.00 22.00 129.75

New certificated positions projected with an "all-‐in" cost of $84,416 per full-‐time position

Staffing Budget

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016General Fund Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Projected (*) Projected (*)

Salaries & Wages 383,103,270$ 380,094,887$ 376,780,334$ 373,375,844$ 376,663,569$ 373,000,000$ 383,769,333$ Fringe Benefits 144,734,021$ 148,020,190$ 149,112,859$ 151,216,766$ 152,534,066$ 158,031,835$ 164,346,402$ Total Personnel 527,837,291$ 528,115,077$ 525,893,193$ 524,592,610$ 529,197,635$ 531,031,835$ 548,115,735$

* Proposed in May 2015 Five Year Forecast update and subject to approval by the Board of Education

10/31/15

13

Staffing Timeline

Jan Oct

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

JanInitiate staffing allocations

MarStaffing postings

and interviews – Round 1

FebHold roster labs

AprStaffing postings

and interviews – Round 2

AugNew SchoolYear Begins

JunBOE to AdoptFY 16 Budget

JulFY 16 Begins

MayStaffing Job Fair

SepAdjustments based

on actual student enrollment

Staffing Summary•  We have continued to plan for a diverse array of course offerings and are

still registering/scheduling students.

•  We are in the process of designing a research-based, data driven staffing allocation model for implementation in FY 2017.

•  Collectively we will continue to review and adjust staffing.

•  Updates will be shared with Board of Education as student results, enrollments and registrations evolve.

Non-Personnel Budgets

10/31/15

14

Division Name

•  Department Listing

•  Departmental Budget Highlights

•  Departmental Budget Requests

•  Divisional Budget Summary

Academic Services

•  Accountability and Student Support Services•  Exceptional Student Services and Community Engagement•  School Leadership Development•  Teaching and Learning•  Workforce Development, Career/Tech Ed and Adult Ed

Academic Services – Budget Highlights

•  Establish a K-12 formative assessment•  Digitize student records•  Provide professional development•  Individualized Education Program (IEP) Compliance•  75% completion rate of Ohio Department of Education Corrective Action

Plans (CAP) recommendations•  Teacher and Principal evaluation systems (OTES and OPES)•  Alignment of instructional resources to Ohio’s New Learning Standards,

and Ohio’s Next Generation Assessments, including web-based instructional tools and the appropriate professional development

•  Intervention programs, diagnostic tools, and progress monitoring tools•  Strengthening of Unified Arts and Library Media Services•  Expanding Career-Technical opportunities in the Middle Schools

10/31/15

15

Academic Services - Request SummaryFY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2016 ChangeActual Actual Revised Preliminary Proposed Proposed FY 15 -‐ FY 16

Department OPU Spent Spent Budget Requests Adjustments Requests ($)School Buildings Various 3,460,544$ 3,537,181$ 4,052,378$ 4,045,441$ -‐$ 4,045,441$ (6,937)$

International Baccalaureate 045 51,596$ 81,853$ 65,000$ 100,000$ -‐$ 100,000$ 35,000$ Teaching & Learning 904 771,346$ 1,008,095$ 1,555,828$ 1,670,000$ -‐$ 1,670,000$ 114,172$ K-‐12 Curriculum 905 1,333,198$ 764,019$ 949,691$ 1,258,617$ -‐$ 1,258,617$ 308,926$

School Choice / Student Support Services 908 -‐$ 2,317$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ ESL / Exceptional Student Services 909 21,375$ 14,886$ 70,908$ 80,000$ -‐$ 80,000$ 9,092$

Reading/Language Arts 910 57,899$ 62,848$ 380,830$ 530,300$ -‐$ 530,300$ 149,470$ Social Studies 912 6,510$ 6,363$ 10,432$ 157,850$ -‐$ 157,850$ 147,418$

Early Childhood Education 917 251,818$ 241,701$ 263,453$ 253,912$ -‐$ 253,912$ (9,541)$ Staff Development 918 473,699$ 388,781$ 603,750$ 490,445$ -‐$ 490,445$ (113,305)$

Mathematics 919 9,389$ 8,341$ 33,483$ 1,247,105$ (1,166,875)$ 80,230$ 46,747$ Science 920 7,072$ 16,737$ 17,981$ 179,200$ -‐$ 179,200$ 161,219$

Career & Technical Education 921 5,056$ 2,970$ 5,000$ -‐$ 173,550$ 173,550$ 168,550$ Supplemental Curriculum 922 124,416$ 119,972$ 124,895$ 105,435$ -‐$ 105,435$ (19,460)$ Encore / Unified Arts 924 47,309$ 58,476$ 83,518$ 228,500$ -‐$ 228,500$ 144,982$

Academic Services - Request SummaryFY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2016 ChangeActual Actual Revised Preliminary Proposed Proposed FY 15 -‐ FY 16

Department OPU Spent Spent Budget Requests Adjustments Requests ($)Library & Media Services 927 205,789$ 155,934$ 3$ 358,700$ -‐$ 358,700$ 358,697$

Textbooks 928 2,102,243$ 1,407,601$ 2,057,776$ 7,952,000$ (3,500,000)$ 4,452,000$ 2,394,224$ Student Management 929 36,259$ 30,851$ 42,180$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ (42,180)$

Health, Family & Community Services 930 145,328$ 107,543$ 278,359$ 310,750$ -‐$ 310,750$ 32,391$ I Know I Can 931 846,330$ 844,392$ 852,715$ 1,287,500$ -‐$ 1,287,500$ 434,785$

Exceptional Student Services & Community Engagement

9321,296,760$ 1,082,996$ 2,878,272$ 2,839,700$ -‐$ 2,839,700$ (38,572)$

Gifted & Talented 933 238,476$ 112,347$ 337,751$ 703,930$ -‐$ 703,930$ 366,179$ School Leadership Development 934 24,680$ 21,263$ 48,589$ 70,000$ -‐$ 70,000$ 21,411$

Accountability 946 651,037$ 476,043$ 860,772$ 999,885$ -‐$ 999,885$ 139,113$ Student Activities 957 351,413$ 355,790$ 714,828$ 556,453$ -‐$ 556,453$ (158,375)$

Peer Assistance Review (PAR) 961 16,287$ 32,265$ 35,730$ 103,500$ -‐$ 103,500$ 67,770$ Community Schools 967 122,114,965$ 134,935,587$ 144,352,776$ 144,352,776$ -‐$ 144,352,776$ -‐$ Out of District Tuition 968 9,643,652$ 11,093,492$ 8,796,040$ 10,383,182$ -‐$ 10,383,182$ 1,587,142$

Student Support Services 973 298,874$ 392,266$ 267,344$ 853,242$ -‐$ 853,242$ 585,898$ World Languages 974 2,483$ 1,974$ 9,250$ 13,500$ -‐$ 13,500$ 4,250$

Total 144,595,803$ 157,364,884$ 169,749,532$ 181,131,923$ (4,493,325)$ 176,638,598$ 6,889,066$

Identified Needs Not Being RequestedFY 2016Proposed

Department OPU Description AdjustmentsInformation Technology 945 District Wide Wireless 7,000,000$ Transportation 947 Exhaust Ventilation System at Frebis 250,000$ Transportation 947 ESS computers for Moler Center 5,000$ Transportation 947 Frebis Storage Container 2,000$ Transportation 947 Frebis Blacktop Repair 20,000$

Vehicle Maintenance 948Replace support vehicles 1st yr of 15 point replacement plan 1,500,000$

Vehicle Maintenance 948Replace 71 Buses -‐ 1st Yr of 12 Yr replacement plan 6,745,000$

Vehicle Maintenance 948 Replace Custodial Equipment 250,000$ Vehicle Maintenance 948 Upgrade Bus Lifts and Jacks 250,000$

Vehicle Maintenance 948Improvements upgrade blacktop parking lot at Frebis 2,000,000$

Vehicle Maintenance 948Install electrical outlets for engine heaters in bus parking areas 500,000$

Vehicle Maintenance 948 Install fuel island at Frebis 250,000$ Vehicle Maintenance 948 Install overhead garage doors at Frebis 100,000$ Vehicle Maintenance 948 Upgrade fuel management system 500,000$ Buildings & Grounds 949 Deferred Maint. 8,791,099$ Buildings & Grounds 949 24 Trucks 1,056,000$ Purchasing 953 Two Replacement Computers 1,252$ Printing & Duplicating 954 General Supplies 3,000$ Warehouse 955 Sea Storage Containers 20,000$ Delivery Services 956 Reefered Truck w/ Liftgate 97,000$ Safety & Security 958 Car 50,000$

Total Suggested Adjustments 29,390,351$

10/31/15

16

Request Summary - Departments��(By Department)

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2016 ChangeActual Actual Revised Preliminary Proposed Proposed FY 15 -‐ FY 16

Department Spent Spent Budget Requests Adjustments Requests ($)Superintendent 2,694,505$ 3,039,365$ 5,597,435$ 4,212,743$ -‐$ 4,212,743$ (1,384,692)$

Academic Services 144,595,787$ 157,364,873$ 169,749,523$ 181,131,922$ (4,493,325)$ 176,638,597$ 6,889,075$ Business Operations 47,645,521$ 40,547,627$ 46,658,432$ 79,927,831$ (29,465,351)$ 50,462,480$ 3,804,048$

Treasurer/CFO 16,795,433$ 11,651,124$ 13,764,376$ 14,848,000$ -‐$ 14,848,000$ 1,083,625$ Internal Auditor 33,505$ 111,472$ 127,935$ 118,730$ -‐$ 118,730$ (9,205)$

Total 211,764,751$ 212,714,461$ 235,897,701$ 280,239,226$ (33,958,676)$ 246,280,550$ 10,382,851$

Request Summary - Departments��(By Object)

FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2016 FY 2016 ChangeActual Actual Revised Forecasted Preliminary Proposed Revised Proposed Forecasted -‐ Proposed

Object Spent Spent Budget Budget (1) Requests Adjustments Adjustments Requests (2) FY 16 ($)School Buildings 3,460,544$ 3,537,181$ 4,052,378$ -‐$ 4,045,441$ -‐$ -‐$ 4,045,441$ 4,045,441$

Purchased Services 174,531,831$ 178,760,601$ 194,073,522$ 202,508,465$ 201,241,026$ (20,000)$ (1,100,975)$ 200,120,051$ (2,388,414)$ Supplies/Materials 15,530,933$ 16,776,217$ 16,050,209$ 17,674,289$ 23,795,742$ (3,000)$ (3,504,460)$ 20,288,282$ 2,613,993$ Equipment -‐ New 2,264,929$ 2,296,026$ 2,624,990$ 2,435,854$ 29,513,131$ (29,367,351)$ (61,000)$ 84,780$ (2,351,074)$

Equipment -‐ Replacement -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ -‐$ 6,750,000$ -‐$ -‐$ 6,750,000$ 6,750,000$ Other 19,371,329$ 14,492,713$ 8,292,830$ 19,504,208$ 9,710,346$ -‐$ 17,650$ 9,727,996$ (9,776,212)$

Transfers/Advances 7,902,964$ -‐$ 7,036,825$ -‐$ 5,264,000$ -‐$ -‐$ 5,264,000$ 5,264,000$ Sub-‐Total 223,062,530$ 215,862,738$ 232,130,754$ 242,122,816$ 280,319,686$ (29,390,351)$ (4,648,785)$ 246,280,550$ 4,157,734$

Community School Adjustment 18,758,786$ 18,758,786$ Grand Total 223,062,530$ 215,862,738$ 232,130,754$ 242,122,816$ 280,319,686$ (29,390,351)$ 14,110,001$ 265,039,336$ 22,916,520$

(1) FY 2016 Forecasted Budget as included in Board approved October 2014 Five Year Forecast(2) FY 2016 Proposed Budget will remain in preliminary/revised form until officially approved by the Board of Education in June 2015

Request Summary – Departments��(By Goal)

•  Goal 1. Each and every child reaches her/his full potential: Prepared to go to college, secure a job, serve in the military, or start a business.–  $168,377,183

•  Goal 2. Learning environments are student-centered, efficient, and stable.–  $34,366,658

•  Goal 3. The District is accountable to the community; the community’s confidence in the District is restored.–  $62,295,495

10/31/15

17

What were the results?Board member Mary Jo Hudson promised to enable more board and public scrutiny of the budget by making more information available. She further stated that, “The administration has presented an extremely detailed academic spending plan that looks forward as we work to improve student achievement. The committee reviewed and debated budget proposals and priorities. They were focused on district goals with the mission that each student is highly educated, prepared for leadership and service, and empowered for success as a citizen in a global community.”

What’s Next?

GFOA is establishing the Alliance for Excellence in School Budgeting to recruit innovative school districts to implement the new Best Practices in School Budgeting and work towards the Award for Best Practices in School Budgeting.

This is a group of 35 school districts from across the country who will work together as a cohort to implement the Best Practices in School District Budgeting.

51

Why We Are Here Smarter School Spending is a strategic way for districts to think about resource allocation

Introduction to Smarter School Spending

Why are we here? Smarter School Spending is a new way of aligning

resources (people, time, and money) with our student achievement goals. The process will allow our district

to re-‐think how we spend resources to maximize student achievement

What will we do? Over the next 6 – 12 months, our district will work

through a process including robust analysis of district data and deep stakeholder engagement, all to help the district be more strategic with our resources in order

to improve student achievement

10/31/15

18

52

Best Practices in School Budgeting


!  Focus on 5 major areas:•  Plan and Prepare•  Set Instructional Priorities•  Pay for Priorities•  Implement Plan•  Ensure Sustainability

53

The process brings together strategic academic planning and the budget process


…strategic planning and the budgeting process are merged to create a process for strategic use

of resources in the district:

Budget Process

In Smarter School Spending…

Merging these processes allows for greater alignment of district strategy and finances, and allows the district to balance financial

decisions as tradeoffs for increasing strategic investments in students

Academic Strategic Planning

1. Strategic Plan

2. Strategic Finance Plan

3. Strategic Annual Budget

…strategic planning and budget processes happen in parallel tracks that don’t intersect:

Academic Strategic Planning

Budget Process 2.

District Budget

In many districts…

1. Strategic

Plan

When these processes happen in isolation, a district is at risk for creating a strategic plan that cannot be funded and a budget that has

no strategic basis

54


Why We Are Here By the end of the process, our district will have produced three key results

A 3-‐5 year strategic finance plan that outlines our district’s plan to invest strategically to improve

student outcomes and to pay for those investments with savings

opportunities

An annual budget document that explains in detail the financial

decisions made by the district and the connection to our instructional priorities

Systems and processes in the district to sustain the ongoing efforts of strategic spending, resource analysis, and tradeoffs

decisions

Strategic Finance Plan Annual Budget Sustainable Process

1 2 3

zero-based budgeting for urban...

Documents