Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation April 12, 2011.

Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation

Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation

April 12, 2011April 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 312,839,101$ State 650,447,670 Federal/Other Grants 140,812,296 Other and Special Revenue 13,402,000

Total Operating Budget 1,117,501,067$

Capital Replacement 4,960,000 Child Nutrition 66,499,202 After School Enrichment Program 13,962,253

Total Proposed Budget 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 (32,684,978)$

% Change (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

$650.5M - 58% $140.8M - 13%

$312.8M - 28%

$13.4M - (1%)

State Federal and Other Grants

County Other and Special Revenue


6


USES

$704.5M - 63% $221.1M -

20%

$124.7M - 11%

$48.4M - 4%

$1.8M - (<1%)

$17.0M - 2%Chart Title

Salaries Benefits Purchased Services Supplies and Materials

Furniture and Equipment Other


7


$99.5M – 9%

$915.9M - 82%

$102.0M - 9%

Central Office Schools Support - Schools

8


Staff Prioritized Budget Reduction Recommendations included in 2011-12 Proposed Budget

OperationalizedComprehensive review - School Closures (5,210,576)$

Subtotal - Operationalized (5,210,576)$

EfficienciesAverage salary adjustment (2,176,485)$ Midwood relocation (969,617) Redirect contracted services to state technology funds (651,321) Eliminate annual maintenance fee for AAL NC WISE (245,000) Utilities (reducing consumption) (1,903,552) Eliminate prior year extended employment (79,713) Transportation - Bell schedule and 7 hour instructional day for all students (4,009,059)

Subtotal - Efficiencies (10,034,747)$

SUB-TOTAL (15,245,323)$

9

Factors Increasing the 2011-12 Proposed Budget

10

Sustaining OperationsSalaries and Benefits County TotalHealth Insurance Increase - 7.1% ($4,929 to $5,279) 836,448$ 4,919,083$

1,909,667 6,934,799

Program ContinuationCharlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department SRO Contract Increase 958,426 958,426 Utilities Rate Increase 915,790 915,790 Charter Schools Enrollment Increase (pre Senate Bill 8)** 2,165,318 2,165,318 Mileage Reimbursement Rate Increase (.50 to .51 cents) 16,282 16,282 Lease Payment Increases 93,696 93,696 Intervention Team Specialists Cost Share Increase*** 258,867 258,867

Total Sustaining Operations 7,154,494 16,262,261

Student GrowthEnrollment - Staffing and Non-Personnel 3,434,607 11,880,177

Total Sustaining Operations & Student Growth 10,589,101$ 28,142,438$

Retirement Rate Increase - 10.51% to 11.62% ($4,741 to $5,241*)

* 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.

Superintendent’s Recommendation for 2011-12 County Budget Request

2010-11 Adopted Budget 302,250,000$ Replacement of ARRA Cliff Funding 14,781,272

2010-11 Base Budget 317,031,272

Redirections/Reductions (14,781,272)

Sustaining Operations 7,154,494 Student Growth 3,434,607 Program Expansion and New Initiatives -

2011-12 County Budget Request $ 312,839,101

Increase Requested from County $ 10,589,101

11

Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget(Does not include reductions in Tiers 1-4 totaling $86.8M)

State County

2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 634,731,052$ 302,250,000$ 185,891,151$ 27,313,842$ 1,150,186,045

REVISIONS TO 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGETA. Revisions to Base Budget* (1,836,719) - (66,333,454) (13,926,364) (82,096,537)

B. Replacement of ARRA Cliff** - 14,781,272 20,874,378 - 35,655,650

Sub-Total (1,836,719) 14,781,272 (45,459,076) (13,926,364) (46,440,887)

2010-2011 BASE BUDGET 632,894,333 317,031,272 140,432,075 13,387,478 1,103,745,158

I. REDIRECTIONS/REDUCTIONS (14,781,272) (464,051) - (15,245,323)

II. SUSTAINING OPERATIONS

A. Salaries and Benefits 9,107,767 2,746,115 844,272 14,522 12,712,676 B. Program Continuation - 4,408,379 - - 4,408,379

Sub-Total 9,107,767 7,154,494 844,272 14,522 17,121,055

III. STUDENT GROWTHA. Enrollment Increases 8,445,570 3,434,607 - - 11,880,177

Sub-Total 8,445,570 3,434,607 - - 11,880,177

TOTAL 2011-2012 PROPOSEDCURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET 650,447,670$ 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.

Federal and Other Grants

Other and Special Revenue

Total

12

2011-12 Proposed Budget with Potential Budget Reductions(Tiers1-4)

13

Budget Request Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 42010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET 1,150,186,045$ 1,150,186,045$ 1,150,186,045$ 1,150,186,045$ 1,150,186,045$

REVISIONS TO 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET (46,440,887) (46,440,887) (46,440,887) (46,440,887) (46,440,887)

2010-2011 BASE BUDGET 1,103,745,158 1,103,745,158 1,103,745,158 1,103,745,158 1,103,745,158

I. REDIRECTIONS/REDUCTIONS

A. Redirection of Funds to Alternative Uses (15,245,323) (15,245,323) (15,245,323) (15,245,323) (15,245,323) Tier 1 - (15,067,577) (15,067,577) (15,067,577) (15,067,577) Tier 2 - - (6,808,552) (6,808,552) (6,808,552) Tier 3 - - - (28,718,723) (28,718,723) Tier 4 - - - - (35,202,222)

Total Redirections/Reductions (15,245,323) (30,312,900) (37,121,452) (65,840,175) (101,042,397) REDUCTIONS AS A % OF CURRENT BASE BUDGET -1.38% -2.75% -3.36% -5.97% -9.15%

II. SUSTAINING OPERATIONS

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

Total Sustaining Operations 17,121,055 17,121,055 17,121,055 17,121,055 17,121,055

III. STUDENT GROWTH

A. Enrollment Increases

1. Enrollment - Staffing and Non-Personnel 11,880,177 11,880,177 11,880,177 11,880,177 11,880,177

Total Student Growth 11,880,177 11,880,177 11,880,177 11,880,177 11,880,177

2011-2012 PROPOSED BUDGET 1,117,501,067$ 1,102,433,490$ 1,095,624,938$ 1,066,906,215$ 1,031,703,993$

CHANGE FROM 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET (32,684,978)$ (47,752,555)$ (54,561,107)$ (83,279,830)$ (118,482,052)$ NET CHANGE AS A % OF 2010-2011 ADOPTED BUDGET -2.84% -4.15% -4.74% -7.24% -10.30%

Capital Replacement 2011-12 Proposed Budget

• 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

Revenues 4,960,000$

Expenditures:Building and Sites 4,209,616 Furniture and Equipment 750,384

Total Expenditures 4,960,000$

14

Child Nutrition 2011-12 Proposed Budget

• 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

Operating Revenues 19,675,799$ Operating Expenses 66,499,202

Operating Income (Loss) (46,823,403) Non-operating RevenuesU.S. Government Subsidy and Commodities 46,101,756 Interest Revenue and Other Misc. Revenue 204,832 Transfer from General Fund 516,815

Net Income -$

15

After School Enrichment Program 2011-12 Proposed Budget

Operating Revenues 13,930,253$ Operating Expenses 13,962,253

Operating Income (Loss) (32,000) Non-operating Revenues 32,000

Net Income -$

16

• 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

What has been the return on past investments?

17

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

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

Math Proficiency (without retests)

18

African-American vs.

White

Hispanic vs.

White

Economically Disadvantaged vs.

Not Economically Disadvantaged Students

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.

Math Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests)

19

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

Reading Proficiency (without retests)

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


White

Hispanic vs.

White

Economically Disadvantaged vs.

Not Economically Disadvantaged Students


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.

Reading Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests)

21

2006-07 2007-08 2008-092009-10(without retests)

2009-10(with

retests)

Change(withoutretests)

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 2007-08Note: Chemistry and Physics were discontinued at the start of the 2009-10 school year

End-of-Course Proficiency

22

Algebra I


White

Hispanic vs.

White

Economically Disadvantaged

vs. Not Economically

Disadvantaged Students


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.

Trends within Subgroups (without retests)

23

Algebra II


White

Hispanic vs.

White





2007-08 31 n/a 23 n/a 21 n/a

2009-10 18 -13 9 -14 11 -10



24

Biology


White

Hispanic vs.

White





2007-08 31 n/a 23 n/a 21 n/a

2009-10 24 -7 21 -2 18 -3



25

Civics & Economics


White

Hispanic vs.

White





2007-08 31 n/a 23 n/a 21 n/a

2009-10 24 -7 22 -1 20 -1



26

English I


White

Hispanic vs.

White





2006-07 32 n/a 36 n/a 29 n/a

2009-10 22 -10 22 -14 20 -9



27

Geometry


White

Hispanic vs.

White





2007-08 31 n/a 23 n/a 21 n/a

2009-10 24 -7 14 -9 16 -5



28

US History


White

Hispanic vs.

White





2005-06 39 n/a 27 n/a 31 n/a

2009-10 18 -21 13 -14 13 -18



29

SAT

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

School System Total Total # Tested%

TestedTotal # Tested

% Tested

Total # Tested%

TestedTotal

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

Charlotte-Mecklenburg

1476 1476 4,656 68.4 1489 4,450 60.6 1492 5,007 65.7 1497

30

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

High Growth Expected Growth Less Than Expected Growth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

16

60 64

30

72

49

73

50

34

80

67

17

108

52

9

Charlotte-Mecklenburg SchoolsABC Results - All Schools

Number of Schools by Growth Status - 2005-06 through 2009-10

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

ols

*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.

36

*remainder of $101 million in potential cuts previously identified

What This Means for CMS (as estimated January 2011)

Reduction %

State Reduction

Federal Funding

Cliff

County Growth/

Sustaining Estimate* Subtotal**

Reduction %

County 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

** Assumes flat funding from county

*** Adopted budget divided by projected enrollment

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 2002-03 budgeted per-pupil amounts.

insurance and retirement) and costs due to enrollment growth (staffing and instructional materials)

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

37

Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions

Tier 1Central Office Reductions (8,785,421)$ DSSF funding for high school plans (1,229,914) Achievement Zone - school based positions (689,290) Media Specialists - 1 position (69,019) Bonuses- Incentive, Critical Needs, Signing (4,293,933)

Subtotal - Tier 1 (15,067,577)$

Tier 2Reduce funds for equitable supplies and materials (125,000)$ CTE - 38 teachers (2,504,830) Alternative Ed (1,146,108) CSA's - 10 Rapid Response (362,880) SQR training (135,000) Building Services - trade positions (712,422) Custodians (1,734,753) Academic Competitions (87,559)

Subtotal - Tier 2 (6,808,552)$

38

Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions

Tier 3CTE - 10 teachers (659,170)$

Extended Day allotment to schools (1,052,532)

Talent Development - 6 teachers (412,380)

CSA's - 16 positions (543,160)

107 teacher-level positions for Zones and leave (6,338,359)

Bright Beginnings reduction of classes (10,417,921) Teacher Assistants (9,295,201)

Subtotal - Tier 3 (28,718,723)$

Tier 4Eliminate one support position at each school - 164 positions (11,152,000)$

Change WSS weight from 1.3 to 1.25 - 146 teacher positions (8,648,602)

Increase class size +2 for grades 4-12 - 260 teacher positions (15,401,620) Subtotal - Tier 4 (35,202,222)$

Total Potential Budget Reduction - Tiers 1-4 (85,797,074)

GRAND TOTAL (including reductions in 2011-12 Budget Request) (101,042,397)$

39

40

• 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

Key Points

• 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 non-renew 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

Key Dates

41

• Superintendent’s closing remarks• Q & A

Conclusion

42

43

• 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

Key Points

Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation April 12, 2011.

Documents

Transcript of Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation April 12, 2011.