Transcript CMS TV Services

Superintendent’s
2011-12 Proposed Budget
Recommendation
April 12, 2011
Framework for Budget Development
•
Align resources to support Strategic 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 – respond to signals from state and
local sources that funding may be limited
•
Acknowledge uncertainty regarding expected funding levels from all
sources, but be prepared for the worst
•
Request funding from County for growth and sustaining operations
•
Pay for Strategic Plan 2014 initiatives through budget reductions or
redirections
•
Establish flexibility in the budget to allow for various reduction levels
2
What is the financial
investment required?
3
Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget
County
State
Federal/Other Grants
Other and Special Revenue
Total Operating Budget
$
312,839,101
650,447,670
140,812,296
13,402,000
$ 1,117,501,067
Capital Replacement
Child Nutrition
After School Enrichment Program
Total Proposed Budget
4,960,000
66,499,202
13,962,253
$ 1,202,922,522
4
Comparison to Prior Year
2011-12 Proposed Operating Budget*
$ 1,117,501,067
2010-11 Adopted Operating Budget*
$ 1,150,186,045
Decrease
$
% Change
(32,684,978)
(2.8%)
Note: Proposed Budget does not include potential reductions in Tiers 1-4
totaling $86.8 million.
* Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds
5
Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget*
SOURCES
$13.4M - (1%)
$312.8M - 28%
$650.5M - 58%
$140.8M - 13%
State
Federal and Other Grants
County
Other and Special Revenue
* Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds
6
Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget*
USES
$1.8M - (<1%)
$48.4M - 4%
$17.0M - 2%
$124.7M - 11%
$704.5M - 63%
$221.1M - 20%
Salaries
Benefits
Purchased Services
Supplies and Materials
Furniture and Equipment
Other
* Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds
7
Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget*
$99.5M – 9%
$102.0M - 9%
$915.9M - 82%
Central Office
Schools
Support - Schools
* Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds
8
Staff Prioritized Budget Reduction Recommendations
included in 2011-12 Proposed Budget
Operationalized
Comprehensive review - School Closures
Subtotal - Operationalized
$ (5,210,576)
$ (5,210,576)
Efficiencies
Average salary adjustment
Midwood relocation
Redirect contracted services to state technology funds
Eliminate annual maintenance fee for AAL NC WISE
Utilities (reducing consumption)
Eliminate prior year extended employment
Transportation - Bell schedule and 7 hour instructional day for all students
Subtotal - Efficiencies
$ (2,176,485)
(969,617)
(651,321)
(245,000)
(1,903,552)
(79,713)
(4,009,059)
$ (10,034,747)
SUB-TOTAL
$ (15,245,323)
9
Factors Increasing the 2011-12 Proposed Budget
Sustaining Operations
Salaries and Benefits
Health Insurance Increase - 7.1% ($4,929 to $5,279)
$
Retirement Rate Increase - 10.51% to 11.62% ($4,741 to $5,241*)
Program Continuation
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department SRO Contract Increase
Utilities Rate Increase
Charter Schools Enrollment Increase (pre Senate Bill 8)**
Mileage Reimbursement Rate Increase (.50 to .51 cents)
Lease Payment Increases
Intervention Team Specialists Cost Share Increase***
County
836,448
1,909,667
$
Total
4,919,083
6,934,799
958,426
915,790
2,165,318
16,282
93,696
258,867
958,426
915,790
2,165,318
16,282
93,696
258,867
Total Sustaining Operations
7,154,494
16,262,261
Student Growth
Enrollment - Staffing and Non-Personnel
3,434,607
11,880,177
Total Sustaining Operations & Student Growth
$
10,589,101
$
28,142,438
* Estimate based on an average teacher salary. Exact amount varies based on individual position salary.
** Estimated increase does not include any impact for changes that may occur with passing of Senate Bill 8.
*** Previously shared cost with DSS.
10
Superintendent’s Recommendation for 2011-12
County Budget Request
2010-11 Adopted Budget
Replacement of ARRA Cliff Funding
$
302,250,000
14,781,272
2010-11 Base Budget
317,031,272
Redirections/Reductions
(14,781,272)
Sustaining Operations
Student Growth
Program Expansion and New Initiatives
7,154,494
3,434,607
-
2011-12 County Budget Request
$
Increase Requested from County
$ 10,589,101
11
312,839,101
Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget
(Does not include reductions in Tiers 1-4 totaling $86.8M)
State
2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
$
REVISIONS TO 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
A. Revisions to Base Budget*
B. Replacement of ARRA Cliff**
Sub-Total
2010-2011 BASE BUDGET
634,731,052
County
$
302,250,000
$
27,313,842
14,781,272
(66,333,454)
20,874,378
(13,926,364)
-
(1,836,719)
14,781,272
(45,459,076)
(13,926,364)
317,031,272
140,432,075
13,387,478
632,894,333
(82,096,537)
35,655,650
(46,440,887)
1,103,745,158
-
(15,245,323)
844,272
844,272
14,522
14,522
12,712,676
4,408,379
17,121,055
-
11,880,177
11,880,177
2,746,115
4,408,379
7,154,494
III. STUDENT GROWTH
A. Enrollment Increases
Sub-Total
8,445,570
8,445,570
3,434,607
3,434,607
$
1,150,186,045
(464,051)
9,107,767
9,107,767
650,447,670
Total
(14,781,272)
II. SUSTAINING OPERATIONS
A. Salaries and Benefits
B. Program Continuation
Sub-Total
$
$ 185,891,151
Other and
Special Revenue
(1,836,719)
-
I. REDIRECTIONS/REDUCTIONS
TOTAL 2011-2012 PROPOSED
CURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET
Federal and
Other Grants
312,839,101
-
$ 140,812,296
$
13,402,000
$ 1,117,501,067
* Includes state revisions, anticipated federal revenue adjustments, and reduction of one-time fund balance appropriation included in the 2010-11
Adopted Budget.
** Includes funds to replace a portion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding expiring in 2011. This funding will be for
school based-clerical and custodial positions, a portion of the Bright Beginnings program, teacher-level positions for the Midwood
program at Hawthorne High School and school based Exceptional Children positions.
12
2011-12 Proposed Budget with Potential Budget Reductions
(Tiers1-4)
2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
$
REVISIONS TO 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
Budget Request
1,150,186,045
$
Tier 1
1,150,186,045
$
Tier 2
1,150,186,045
$
Tier 3
1,150,186,045
$
Tier 4
1,150,186,045
(46,440,887)
(46,440,887)
(46,440,887)
(46,440,887)
(46,440,887)
1,103,745,158
1,103,745,158
1,103,745,158
1,103,745,158
1,103,745,158
A. Redirection of Funds to Alternative Uses
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
(15,245,323)
-
(15,245,323)
(15,067,577)
-
(15,245,323)
(15,067,577)
(6,808,552)
-
(15,245,323)
(15,067,577)
(6,808,552)
(28,718,723)
-
(15,245,323)
(15,067,577)
(6,808,552)
(28,718,723)
(35,202,222)
Total Redirections/Reductions
REDUCTIONS AS A % OF CURRENT BASE BUDGET
(15,245,323)
-1.38%
(30,312,900)
-2.75%
(37,121,452)
-3.36%
(65,840,175)
-5.97%
(101,042,397)
-9.15%
A. Salaries and Benefits
12,712,676
12,712,676
12,712,676
12,712,676
12,712,676
B. Program Continuation
4,408,379
4,408,379
4,408,379
4,408,379
4,408,379
17,121,055
17,121,055
17,121,055
17,121,055
17,121,055
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
11,880,177
2010-2011 BASE BUDGET
I. REDIRECTIONS/REDUCTIONS
II. SUSTAINING OPERATIONS
Total Sustaining Operations
III. STUDENT GROWTH
A. Enrollment Increases
1. Enrollment - Staffing and Non-Personnel
Total Student Growth
2011-2012 PROPOSED BUDGET
$
CHANGE FROM 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
$
NET CHANGE AS A % OF 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET
1,117,501,067
(32,684,978)
-2.84%
$
$
1,102,433,490
(47,752,555)
-4.15%
13
$
$
1,095,624,938
(54,561,107)
-4.74%
$
$
1,066,906,215
(83,279,830)
-7.24%
$
$
1,031,703,993
(118,482,052)
-10.30%
Capital Replacement 2011-12 Proposed Budget
Revenues
$ 4,960,000
Expenditures:
Building and Sites
Furniture and Equipment
Total Expenditures
4,209,616
750,384
$ 4,960,000
• Historically funded from state’s Public School Capital Building Fund but since 2006-07 has been
funded with County revenues
• Provides pay-as-you-go funding for systematic and scheduled major repair and replacement of major
assets
14
Child Nutrition 2011-12 Proposed Budget
Operating Revenues
$ 19,675,799
Operating Expenses
66,499,202
Operating Income (Loss)
(46,823,403)
Non-operating Revenues
U.S. Government Subsidy and Commodities 46,101,756
Interest Revenue and Other Misc. Revenue
204,832
Transfer from General Fund
516,815
Net Income
$
-
• Child Nutrition serves more than 30,000 breakfasts and 80,000 lunches per day
• Meal costs have not increased since 2001-02, but the lunch price will increase by 5 cents per meal
in 2011-12 due to a Federal requirement
15
After School Enrichment Program
2011-12 Proposed Budget
Operating Revenues
Operating Expenses
Operating Income (Loss)
Non-operating Revenues
Net Income
$ 13,930,253
13,962,253
(32,000)
32,000
$
-
• Total program fee for Before School and After School programs will increase $5 from $81 to $86 per week for
participation both the before school and after school programs.
• Fees will vary based on end of the day bell schedule:
• 2:45-3:15: After School $56 and Before School increase from $25 to $30 per week
• 3:30-3:45: After School decrease from $56 to $45 and Before School increase from $25 to $41 per week
• 4:15: After School decrease from $56 to $30 and Before School increase from $25 to $56 per week
16
What has been the return
on past investments?
17
Math Proficiency (without retests)
Math
Proficiency*
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Change
Grade 3
70
70
70
72
75
+5
Grade 4
67
69
71
74
76
+9
Grade 5
68
69
72
74
76
+8
Grade 6
62
62
65
68
72
+10
Grade 7
58
60
64
68
71
+13
Grade 8
62
63
65
72
78
+16
Composite
64
65
68
72
75
+11
Over the past 4 years, CMS has increased proficiency at each grade level by between 5 and 16
percentage points.
*Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV
18
Math Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests)
African-American
vs.
White
Economically Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2005-06*
39
n/a
30
n/a
34
n/a
2009-10
30
-9
21
-9
25
-9
CMS gaps have narrowed consistently.
*Mathematics for 2005-06 reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards.
19
Reading Proficiency (without retests)
Reading
Proficiency*
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Change
Grade 3
56
58
59
+3
Grade 4
60
62
63
+3
Grade 5
57
60
63
+6
Grade 6
58
62
66
+8
Grade 7
49
54
57
+8
Grade 8
51
57
61
+10
Composite
55
59
62
+7
Since the test standards were raised in 2007-08, CMS has increased proficiency at each grade level by
between 3 and 10 percentage points.
*Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV
20
Reading Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests)
African-American
vs.
White
Economically Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2007-08*
41
n/a
39
n/a
37
n/a
2009-10
38
-3
37
-2
35
-2
CMS gaps have narrowed consistently.
*Reading for 2007-08 reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards.
21
End-of-Course Proficiency
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
(without
retests)
2009-10
(with
retests)
Change
(without
retests)
Algebra I*
72
71
79
82
87
+10
Algebra II*
62
67
76
78
85
+16
Biology**
63
72
78
78
84
+15
Civics & Economics*
66
71
77
78
83
+12
English I*
71
74
76
80
85
+9
Geometry*
58
65
73
77
83
+19
Physical Science**
n/a
53
61
64
71
+11
US History*
71
74
79
84
89
+13
Composite
67
70
76
79
85
+12
*Test standards were raised in 2006-07
**Test standards were raised in 2007-08
Note: Chemistry and Physics were discontinued at the start of the 2009-10 school year
22
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
Algebra I
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2006-07
35
n/a
27
n/a
24
n/a
2009-10
24
-11
15
-12
18
-6
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
23
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
Algebra II
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2007-08
31
n/a
23
n/a
21
n/a
2009-10
18
-13
9
-14
11
-10
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
24
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
Biology
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2007-08
31
n/a
23
n/a
21
n/a
2009-10
24
-7
21
-2
18
-3
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
25
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
Civics & Economics
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2007-08
31
n/a
23
n/a
21
n/a
2009-10
24
-7
22
-1
20
-1
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
26
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
English I
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2006-07
32
n/a
36
n/a
29
n/a
2009-10
22
-10
22
-14
20
-9
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
27
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
Geometry
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2007-08
31
n/a
23
n/a
21
n/a
2009-10
24
-7
14
-9
16
-5
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
28
Trends within Subgroups (without retests)
US History
African-American
vs.
White
Economically
Disadvantaged
vs.
Not Economically
Disadvantaged Students
Hispanic
vs.
White
Year
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
Gap
Gap Trend
2005-06
39
n/a
27
n/a
31
n/a
2009-10
18
-21
13
-14
13
-18
The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup.
29
SAT
2005-06
2006-07
School System
Total
Total
# Tested
%
Tested
Total
# Tested
%
Tested
Total
# Tested
%
Tested
Total
United States
(All Students)
1518
1511
1,518,859
45.0
1511
1,530,128
46.0
1509
1,547,990
47.0
1509
North Carolina
(All Students)
1493
1486
55,442
63.0
1489
57,147
63.0
1486
57,841
63.0
1485
CharlotteMecklenburg
1476
1476
4,656
68.4
1489
4,450
60.6
1492
5,007
65.7
1497
2007-08
2008-09
30
2009-10
AP Pass Rates
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Global
60
59
58
59
58
NC
55
58
58
59
59
CMS
42
47
48
49
51
31
AP Tests Taken
Number of Exams Taken
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Global
2,105,803
2,533,431
2,736,445
2,929,929
3,213,225
NC
76,578
81,151
85,378
89,344
92,334
CMS
12,903
11,287
12,231
13,293
13,362
32
Strategic Plan 2010: High Academic Achievement
Goal:
“Eighty percent of schools will make expected or high growth on
ABCs.”
Percentage of Schools Making
Expected or High Growth
2005-06
54.3%
2006-07
67.6%
2007-08
78.3%
2008-09
89.6%
2009-10
94.7%
*Metro and Morgan are excluded from these counts because the state identifies them as schools
with no ABC status
33
ABC Results – All Schools
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
ABC Results - All Schools
Number of Schools by Growth Status - 2005-06 through 2009-10
120
108
Number of Schools
100
2005-06
73
80
80
2006-07
72
67
64
60
60
52
50
2007-08
49
2008-09
34
40
30
2009-10
20
17
16
9
0
High Growth
Expected Growth
Less Than Expected
Growth
*Metro and Morgan are excluded from these counts because the state identifies them as schools with no ABC status
34
What is the risk of
further reductions in our
community’s investment?
35
The greatest challenge facing CMS may be this -
If we have to cut an additional $86 million* from the
2011-12 budget, it could jeopardize the strong
academic progress we’ve made since 2006.
*remainder of $101 million in potential cuts previously identified
36
What This Means for CMS (as estimated January 2011)
Reduction
State
%
Reduction
Federal
Funding
Cliff
County
Growth/
Sustaining
Estimate*
Reduction County
Subtotal**
%
Reduction
Total
Reduction
@5%
$32M
$15M
$15M
$62M
@5%
$15M
$77M
@10%
$63M
$15M
$15M
$93M
@10%
$30M
$123M
@15%
$95M
$15M
$15M
$125M
@15%
$45M
$170M
The 2010-11 budgeted per-pupil amount is $8,523***. The per-pupil amount drops to $7,263 under the
worst- case scenario presented above. The $7,263 per-pupil amount is between the 2001-02 and 200203 budgeted per-pupil amounts.
The estimates above do not include any additional amounts required to cover discretionary reductions from
the prior year nor do they assume the non-recurring cuts will be reinstated.
* Estimate based on historical trend average which includes estimated increases for items such as benefits (health
insurance and retirement) and costs due to enrollment growth (staffing and instructional materials)
** Assumes flat funding from county
*** Adopted budget divided by projected enrollment
37
Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions
Tier 1
Central Office Reductions
DSSF funding for high school plans
Achievement Zone - school based positions
Media Specialists - 1 position
Bonuses- Incentive, Critical Needs, Signing
$ (8,785,421)
(1,229,914)
(689,290)
(69,019)
(4,293,933)
Subtotal - Tier 1
$
(15,067,577)
$
(6,808,552)
Tier 2
Reduce funds for equitable supplies and materials
CTE - 38 teachers
Alternative Ed
CSA's - 10 Rapid Response
SQR training
Building Services - trade positions
Custodians
Academic Competitions
Subtotal - Tier 2
38
$ (125,000)
(2,504,830)
(1,146,108)
(362,880)
(135,000)
(712,422)
(1,734,753)
(87,559)
Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions
Tier 3
CTE - 10 teachers
Extended Day allotment to schools
$
(659,170)
(1,052,532)
Talent Development - 6 teachers
(412,380)
CSA's - 16 positions
107 teacher-level positions for Zones and leave
(543,160)
(6,338,359)
Bright Beginnings reduction of classes
Teacher Assistants
(10,417,921)
(9,295,201)
Subtotal - Tier 3
$ (28,718,723)
Tier 4
Eliminate one support position at each school - 164 positions
Change WSS weight from 1.3 to 1.25 - 146 teacher positions
Increase class size +2 for grades 4-12 - 260 teacher positions
Subtotal - Tier 4
$ (11,152,000)
(8,648,602)
(15,401,620)
Total Potential Budget Reduction - Tiers 1-4
$ (35,202,222)
(85,797,074)
GRAND TOTAL (including reductions in 2011-12 Budget Request)
39
$ (101,042,397)
Key Points
• We do not want to lose ground we have fought so hard
to gain
• We will continue to put resources into the initiatives and
strategies that have helped us increase academic
achievement
• We are making progress – but it’s critical that resources
do not shrink to the point we stop making progress
• We have much more work to do – but continued
reductions in funding will affect our ability to move
students forward and reach SP2014 goals
40
Key Dates
•
April/May – Begin notifying at-will employees affected by RIF
•
April 26 – Public hearing on Superintendent’s Budget Recommendation
•
April 27 – Board work session
•
May 1 – Deadline for notifying administrators of superintendent’s intent to nonrenew contracts
•
May 10 – Board of Education's 2011-12 proposed budget approved
•
May 13 – Board of Education's 2011-12 proposed budget delivered to County
Manager
•
May 15 – Deadline for notifying teachers of superintendent’s intent to non-renew
•
May 17 – County Manager’s Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets
presented to Board of County Commissioners
•
May 24 – Board of County Commissioners 2011-12 Budget Workshop
•
May 26 – Public hearing on Board of County Commissioners’ 2011-12 Budget
•
June 1 – Deadline for notifying administrators of non-renewal
•
June 15 – Deadline for notifying teachers of non-renewal
•
June 21 – FY2011-12 County Operating Budget and 3-year CIP adopted
41
Conclusion
• Superintendent’s closing remarks
• Q&A
42
Key Points
• We do not want to lose ground we have fought so hard
to gain
• We will continue to put resources into the initiatives and
strategies that have helped us increase academic
achievement
• We are making progress – but it’s critical that resources
do not shrink to the point we stop making progress
• We have much more work to do – but continued
reductions in funding will affect our ability to move
students forward and reach SP2014 goals
43