Transcript Developing A Staffing Formula

Developing A
Staffing Formula
SASBO
APRIL 2008
Presentation Objectives:
 Illustrate the development of a practical
teachers staffing formula.
 Demonstrate the financial impact of using the
formula.
 Discuss the pros & cons of implementing the
formula.
The Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
has enjoyed some success over the last
thirteen years. Student achievement
ranks high as do average teacher
salaries, and the General Fund balance
has grown substantially. Of all the
reasons for that that success, and there
are many, perhaps the most important
contributing factor is the development of
the Teachers Staffing Formula in the
1994-1995 school year.
Case Study:
Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
Development of the
Staffing Formula for Teachers
The Situation


The Jefferson Davis Parish School
Board General Fund recorded an
operating deficit for four consecutive
years (FY 1991-1994).
As a result, the General Fund Balance
dropped to about $4 million and was
considered dangerously low.
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND OPERATING RESULTS
FYE JUNE 30, 1991 THROUGH FYE JUNE 30, 1994
Fiscal
General Fund
General Fund
Surplus
Beginning
Ending Fund
Year
Revenues
Expenditures
(Deficit)
Fund Balance
Balance
1990-91
$22,734,705
$23,509,556
(774,851)
$ 5,742,511
$ 4,967,660
1991-92
23,368,369
23,488,955
(120,586)
4,967,660
4,847,074
1992-93
23,388,292
23,594,235
(205,943)
4,847,074
4,641,131
1993-94
23,512,047
24,113,594
(601,547)
4,641,131
4,039,584
$
Net Decline in General Fund Balance over the period shown:
($1,702,927)
The Situation, cont’d . . .


The incoming Superintendent, Cleve Beard,
the Assistant Superintendent, Cliff
Friedman, and the Finance Director, Karl
Bruchhaus analyzed the operating budget
for potential savings.
Their review of the General Fund budget
showed that the largest potential for
savings lay with the cost of salaries and
benefits, which comprised about 90% of
the total budget.
The Situation, cont’d . . .


The School Board had experienced a
slow but steady decline in the
student population due to the
migration of families to better
paying jobs elsewhere.
However, as the number of students
declined, the number of teaching
positions remained unchanged.
The Situation, cont’d . . .

Faced with declining MFP funding due
to the drop in student population
coupled with no corresponding
reduction in the number of teaching
positions, the General Fund was
destined to go broke within a few
years.
The Old Teacher
Staffing Formula
E=
2
mc
where . . .
# of employees = mass confusion2
The New Staffing Formula

Mr. Friedman created a mathematical
process to rationally allocate teaching
positions to the parish schools based on a
function of the MFP student count (referred
to as the “Staffing Formula”).

The crux of the Staffing Formula became
the state-recommended student-to-teacher
ratio of 20 students per teacher in grades K
to 3 and 25 students per teacher in grades 4
though 12.
The Staffing Formula, cont’d:

Staffing decisions for the next school year
are made by the School Board
administrative staff during the 5th six weeks
of the current year.

As a result, student count data from the
current 4th six weeks period and the three
previous years are used to calculate
teaching staff requirements for the next
school year.
The Staffing Formula, cont’d:

In essence, the Staffing Formula takes the
MFP student enrollment per school at the
fourth 6 weeks period, adjusts the total for
the average student loss for the last three
years (no credit is given for average
student gain), and divides the result by the
appropriate state student-teacher ratio to
get the number of teachers to be allocated
to that school - with certain allowed
adjustments made.
The Staffing Formula, cont’d:
Step # 1 - Obtain the 4th six weeks MFP
student count broken out by grade for a
given school (the “Projected” Student
Count for the next school year).
 Step # 2 - Calculate the average student
gain or loss for the previous three years.
For each year, compare the previous year’s
4th six weeks MFP count with that year’s
actual October 1 MFP count. Average the
student gain/loss for the previous three
years combined.

The Staffing Formula, cont’d:

Step # 3 - Subtract the average student
loss for the last three years from the
Projected Student Count for next year to get
the Final Projected Student Count for the
next school year. Remember - Average
student gains calculated in Step # 2 are not
added.
 Step # 4 – Divide the Final Projected
Student Count by the appropriate staterecommended student/teacher ratio to get
the Allocated Teaching Staff for the school.
(Round up to a whole number if calculation
is above .5)
The Staffing Formula, cont’d:
Step # 5 – Compare the calculated
Allocated Teaching Staff number with the
current teaching staff to determine the
number of positions that must be added
or cut with the following adjustments and
considerations:
a. Each high school gets an additional two
teachers for vocational education.
b. High schools that include grades 9-12 get
an additional teacher for each full 350
block of students after the first 350 block
of students.

The Staffing Formula, cont’d
c. Principals, assistant principals, guidance
counselors, librarians, special education
teachers, magnet teachers, CSR
(classroom-size reduction) teachers, Title I
teachers, pupil appraisal staff, Pre-K
teachers, and French teachers for grades
4 - 8 are exempt from staffing cuts. The
need for these positions is evaluated
outside of the formula.
The Staffing Formula, cont’d:

Each principal meets individually with the
Assistant Superintendent to discuss which
positions are cut, if any, or where to best
utilize any new positions added as a result
of the application of the Staffing Formula.
(Note: The Assistant Superintendent
reserves the right to adjust the teaching
staff as needed should school open in the
fall with a large difference in actual vs.
projected student count.)
Numerical Examples
Example # 1 - Calculate the number of teachers to
add or cut for the 2008-2009 school year for a high
school that includes grades 7 through 12 and the
following enrollment data as of the 4th six weeks
for the 07-08 year:
Grade 7: 154
Grade 10: 191
Grade 8: 138
Grade 11: 140
Grade 9: 180*
Grade 12: 144
*Includes projected students from parochial
schools that will enroll for 9th grade.
Example # 1, cont’d:
• Total 07-08 4th six weeks enrollment = 947
students. This becomes the “Projected
Student Count” for 08-09.
• Comparative Student Gain/Loss for the three
previous years:
06-07
05-06
04-05
958
941
922
October 1 MFP
Student Count
927
999
918
Difference
Gain (Loss)
(31)
58
(4)
Projected
Student Count
(4th Six Weeks)
Example # 1, cont’d:
• Average student gain (loss) for the three
previous years:
06-07
(31)
05-06
58
04-05
( 4)
Net Gain
23
Average Student Gain (=23/3) 7.67
Rounded to
8
Example # 1, cont’d:
• Calculate the Final Projected Student Count for
2008-2009:
07-08 4th Six Weeks
Enrollment
Subtract Average Student Loss
(no credit for Average Student Gain)
Final Projected Student Count
947
0
947
Example # 1, cont’d:
• Calculate the Allocated Teaching Staff using
the appropriate student/teacher ratio.
Student/Teacher ratio for grades 4 – 12:
25 to 1
Final Projected Student Count
Divided By
Allocated Teaching Staff
947
25
37.88
Example # 1, cont’d:
• Adjust the Allocated Teaching Staff for the
following:
Allocated Teaching Staff
Add:
• 2 vocational teachers
• 1 teacher for full block of
350 students after the
1st 350
Total Allocated Teachers
Rounded to
37.88 teachers
2.00
1.00
40.88
41 teachers
Example # 1, cont’d:
• Compare the Allocated Teaching Staff figure
with the current staff amount to determine
the addition or loss of staff for next year:
Current teaching staff,
excluding exemptions
40
Allocated Teaching Staff
41
Difference
1
RESULT:
ADD 1 TEACHER
Example # 2
Calculate the number of teachers to add or cut for
the 2008-2009 school year for an elementary school
that includes grades K through 6 and the following
enrollment data as of the 4th six weeks for the 07-08
year:
Grade K: 170*
Grade 4: 168
Grade 1: 173
Grade 5: 150
Grade 2: 165
Grade 6: 147
Grade 3: 162
4 – 6 Total 465
K – 3 Total
670
*This is a fixed projection of kindergarten students
used each year.
Example # 2, cont’d:
• Total 07-08 4th six weeks enrollment = 1,135
students. This becomes the “Projected
Student Count” for 08-09.
• Comparative Student Gain/Loss for the three
previous years:
06-07
05-06
04-05
1,154
1,145
1,134
October 1 MFP
Student Count
1,123
1,151
1,098
Difference
Gain (Loss)
(31)
6
(35)
Projected
Student Count
(4th Six Weeks)
Example # 2, cont’d:
• Average student gain (loss) for the three
previous years:
06-07
(31)
05-06
6
04-05
(35)
Net Gain
(60)
Average Student (Loss)
= (60)/3
(20)
Example # 2, cont’d:
• Calculate the Final Projected Student Count
for 2008-2009:
07-08 4th Six Weeks Enrollment
1,135
Subtract Average Student Loss
(no credit for Average Student Gain)
(20)
Final Projected Student Count
1,115
Example # 2, cont’d:
• Calculate the Allocated Teaching Staff using the appropriate
student/teacher ratio.
Student/Teacher ratio for grades K - 3:
20 to 1
Student/Teacher ratio for grades 4 – 6:
25 to 1
Note: subtract Average Student Loss from higher grade range.
Grades K-3
Final Projected Student Count
670 students divided by 20 students per teacher = 33.5
Grades 4-6
Final Projected Student Count
445 students (465 – 20 avg. loss) divided by
25 students per teacher
= 17.8
Total Allocated Teaching Staff
51.3
Example # 2, cont’d:
• Compare the Allocated Teaching Staff figure
with the current staff amount to determine
the addition or loss of staff for next year:
Current teaching staff,
excluding exemptions
53.0
Allocated Teaching Staff
51.3
Difference
1.7
RESULT: LOSE 1 TEACHER (maybe 2)
Case Study:
Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
Financial Impact of the
Staffing Formula
Financial Impact


As a result of implementing the
Staffing Formula, the Jefferson Davis
Parish School Board cut 88 teaching
positions in the first 3 years of
implementation.
If the average cost of a teacher’s
salary including benefits was $30,000
per year (in 1994-1997 salaries) , then
the total annual savings would be
$2,640,000.
Financial Impact, cont’d:



Teaching positions cut were mostly in
the non-core subject areas, such as
art, music, etc.
Support positions (cafeteria workers,
aides, custodians) were also reviewed
with cuts made in staffing where
appropriate.
Bus driving routes were consolidated
with cuts being made through
retirement and attrition.
Financial Impact, cont’d:

As result of the application of the
Staffing Formula, coupled with cuts in
the support positions, the JDPSB General
Fund reserve balance grew from
$4,039,584 at June 30, 1994 to
$7,836,075 at June 30, 1997 – a net
increase of $3,796,491 in three years
time.
JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD
SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND OPERATING RESULTS
FYE JUNE 30, 1994 THROUGH FYE JUNE 30, 2000
Fiscal
General Fund
General Fund
Surplus
Beginning
Ending Fund
Year
Revenues
Expenditures
(Deficit)
Fund Balance
Balance
1993-94
$23,512,047
$24,113,594
(601,547)
$ 4,641,131
$ 4,039,584
1994-95
24,661,146
23,519,455
1,141,691
4,039,584
5,181,275
1995-96
25,077,340
23,787,251
1,290,089
5,181,275
6,471,364
1996-97
25,972,156
24,607,445
1,364,711
6,471,364
7,836,075
1997-98
28,522,125
25,920,887
2,601,238
7,836,075
10,437,313
1998-99
29,972,025
28,465,492
1,506,533
10,437,313
11,943,846
1999-00
31,263,733
29,100,264
2,163,469
11,943,846
14,107,315
$
Net Increase in General Fund Balance over the period shown:
$10,067,731
Financial Impact, cont’d:

There were other factors that
contributed to the increase in the
General Fund reserve balance, most
notably the increase in MFP funding
received from the state over that time
period. By controlling the cost of
teacher salaries as a function of student
enrollment, the General Fund reserve
balance was able to grow even when
student enrollment dropped from about
6,400 students to a current level of
around 5,600 students.
Financial Impact, cont’d:


The Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
has utilized a good bit of its savings to
enhance the teacher salary schedule,
with the current starting salary for
teachers (BS, 0 yrs) being almost
$39,000.
The average teacher salary for the
parish ranks in the top 8 in Louisiana. It
is currently one the 11 school districts
whose average teacher salary exceeds
the SREB average.
Financial Impact, cont’d:

Also, the School Board was able to
utilize some of the savings to invest
heavily in technology at an average
cost of about $550,000 per year
since 1997. The current studentto-computer ratio is at or below 3
students per classroom computer.
Financial Impact, cont’d:

Student achievement has not suffered
as a result of the Staffing Formula.
Instead, one can argue that student
achievement has improved because of it.
Raising teacher pay significantly has
allowed the School Board to attract
better qualified and motivated
teachers, which has translated into
student achievement scores that
consistently rank in the top 10 school
districts in Louisiana.
Financial Impact, cont’d:

All of this was accomplished to date
within a rural parish without a major
metropolitan center and relatively no tax
base to speak of.
Case Study:
Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
Problems to Anticipate When
Implementing the Staffing
Formula
Implementation Problems

You can realistically expect to incur
resistance from implementing the
Staffing Formula from three main
interest groups (in order of
importance):
1. School Board Members
2. Principals
3. Teachers and Teacher Unions
Implementation Problems:

It is absolutely critical that your School Board
members endorse the implementation of the Staffing
Formula. It will be doomed to failure without their
support.
Note: The Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
members were faced with little choice but to
endorse the Staffing Formula due to the impending
financial crisis the General Fund faced in the early
1990s. The Superintendent at that time, Mr.
Beard, recalls that he met with a lot of resistance –
but the numbers didn’t lie. Given its success, the
current School Board members still support its use.
Implementation Problems:

Principals within your school district will initially
hate the Staffing Formula. They will protest the
elimination of staff at their school using every
possible argument to support their case (drop in
student achievement due to higher student-teacher
ratios, etc). They must be able to see the “big
picture” and agree to it or else they will contact
board members, media, teacher groups, etc to stop
its implementation.

If the Staffing Formula is implemented, then its use
must be fairly and impartially applied to all schools
and demonstrably so – or it will fail.
Implementation Problems:
Note: Principals within the Jefferson Davis Parish
School Board are never happy when teachers are cut
from their school – even to this day. But, they
have seen the results and they cannot deny the
Staffing Formula’s success, particularly since their
salaries as a principal in Jeff Davis Parish are
indexed to the teacher salary schedule.

Teacher unions and teachers in general will also not
like losing jobs. But, if the School Board members
and principals have bought into the plan, then it will
be harder for teacher groups to fight the Staffing
Formula. Please be careful if teacher unions have
collective bargaining agreements in your parish.
Implementation Problems:
Limitations

There are limitations to the extent to
which the Staffing Formula may be
applied. Over its use during the last
13 years, several factors have arisen
that have altered its pure use, as our
School Board has discovered.
Implementation Problems:

Most importantly, there is a “point of
diminishing returns” in the use of the
formula that is reached at the school
level when you can’t cut teaching
positions further without harming
educational opportunities for the
children. Your School Board
administration will have to use its best
judgment to decide when you have
arrived at that point.
Implementation Problems:

The introduction of the required TOPS
curriculum also limits the ability of the
Staffing Formula to trim teaching
positions, particularly at small high
schools with limited curriculum choices
for students. The foreign language
requirements for TOPS is a particular
concern.
Implementation Problems:

Usually, the non-core curriculum bears
the brunt of teacher cuts. Music, art,
drama, and other similar elective
programs have been eliminated in most
of the schools. Cuts in these programs
may be unpopular with the public.
Questions?

Bill Hebert, Director of Finance
Jefferson Davis Parish School Board
P. O. Box 640
Jennings, LA 70546
(337) 824-1834
[email protected]
Thank you for attending!
Please enjoy the rest of the
conference . . .