Plan

Transcription

Plan

FY 2013-14 Budget Development
Notes and Clarifications
1. MTSS: (a) Commissioners need to see an updated summary of allocations. (b)
Are County Community / Court Schools receiving enough support? (c) Among
large “Challenge” middle schools, why is the allocation for Giannini higher than
the allocation for Presidio and Roosevelt?
a. An updated summary of MTSS allocations, from June 24, 2013, is included in
Attachment 1.
b. Budgets and staffing plans for county community and court programs are
developed each year based on detailed analysis of student populations and
student needs at each site/program. Centrally budgeted MTSS allocations are
intended to complement site-based resources. In contrast, all budgets for county
community and court programs are designed with an MTSS-oriented approach.
By design, these schools have the greatest concentrations of funding on a perstudent basis within SFUSD including the highest ratios of adults to students.
i. Attachment 2 provides a matrix of ADA and FTEs for county community
and court programs to help frame these program allocations
ii. PCC is closed. Why is it still listed here?
1. The first version the board reviewed hadn’t been updated since
PCC’s closure was announced. The resources allocated to PCC
were reallocated to Civic Center, and the court system has agreed
to provide additional resources.
iii. YGC/ Log Cabin doesn’t have additional resources assigned through
MTSS, but it serves a very needy student population. Please explain.
1. The juvenile court system provides the student support resources
for Log Cabin. Given this, there were not additional resources
allocated to YGC/ Log Cabin.
c. Hoover is a Title I school, and Giannini has 100 more students than the other
sites. To meet the needs of these schools, additional resources were allocated.
Also, an additional 0.50 FTE nurse was allocated to Giannini MS based on
the presence of one or more medically fragile students.
2. LEAD: How many of the positions are new (vs. shifted from other departments’
budgets)?
When LEAD was initially designed, each Assistant Superintendent was allocated a team
of TSAs and an Executive Director to supervise and support their cohort of schools. Due
to budget cuts as a result of the recession, this design was scaled back. In our Elementary
Cohorts, it was eliminated completely. The upcoming year presents an opportunity for
the District to rebuild capacity in LEAD teams, adding a Director to coach and build
professional development structures for site leaders, a team of TSAs to accelerate
instructional improvement, and a Family & Community-focused role to engage parents
6/25/2013
Page 1 of 27
and families in our schools and coach sites and parent leaders to implement our Family
Engagement Plan. The work in the Superintendent’s Zone and the initial design were
the backdrop for the amendments to the newly proposed design.
3. Special Education and SpEd Transportation: (a) Do we expect costs to change
over time? Which of the increasing costs are one-time and which are ongoing?
(b) How will centralization of budgets affect site-based staffing? (c) Please
provide more information about changes in WSF special education allocations.
a. SFUSD’s recent redesign efforts in special education have required additional
investments, and we believe this will continue to be true over the next 2-3 years.
In the intermediate to long-term, we believe costs will be reduced (or at a
minimum, costs will increase more slowly), as investments in systems,
professional development, programs, and capacity at all levels yield
programmatic and financial benefits.
As noted in several external and internal reviews, areas of significant concern
have included:
- Timeline and other compliance findings
- Gaps in data systems and data management
- Discontinuity in program pathways
- Significant disproportionality
- Students receiving services in overly restrictive environments
- Understaffed and overwhelmed Special Education department
- Lack of training and capacity among general educators re. special education
- Weak policies and procedures
To address these and other concerns, significant investments have been made
over the past two years including in professional development (e.g., inclusive
practices, behavioral Response to Intervention), data systems, and building
capacity in the Special Education department. These have led to concrete
improvements in addressing the long-standing challenges listed above.
Areas of focus in the next two to three years will include Coordinated Early
Intervention Services (to reduce significant disproportionality in identification of
African-American students for Emotional Disturbance), strategic program
development, and developing a strong instructional core in all classrooms, all of
which should reduce referrals for special education and strengthen inclusive
practices for students with disabilities. We believe these costs are roughly evenly
divided between one-time and ongoing expenditures.
6/25/2013
Page 2 of 27
Over time, we expect to see cost reductions in several areas, such as non-public
schools, legal settlements, and over-identification of students in specific
categories of disability. Our overarching goals are to achieve better outcomes for
students with disabilities while spending resources more effectively thereby
reducing the Unrestricted General Fund contribution. We believe it is possible to
accomplish both of these goals but it will require dedicated effort over several
years.
Regarding transportation of students with disabilities, a cross-functional staff
working group will be launched in August 2013 to review our systems and
practices in this area. The Special Education department has recently improved
procedures and data protocols regarding transportation services. As a result, the
number of students receiving special education transportation services has been
reduced by 260, or 14%. Still, costs continue to grow due to a complex set of
inter-related issues such as program placement, student assignment and legal
responsibilities. The working group will undertake a detailed assessment of our
current systems and identify recommendations for improvement.
b. Site-based positions will be budgeted and assigned centrally in order to provide
more flexibility and responsiveness to fluctuations to the population of students
with disabilities across school sites. The Special Education department has
noticed that the previous arrangement of teacher and paraprofessional positions
being budgeted at each school site led to overstaffing at some school sites and
difficulty in adding staff at others based on student need. The new approach
should be more conducive to providing appropriate services and staffing in a
timely manner at all school sites.
c. Attachment 3 includes a comparison of WSF Special Education allocations for
each school site. Please keep in mind that these allocations are intended to cover
costs of instructional materials and site-based professional development, not
staff. Changes in the categories of students may have contributed to changes in
some sites’ allocations. For eleven years, student counts were based on two
categories of students assigned to Special Day Classes: Severe and Non-Severe.
These categories were replaced this year by Mild-to-Moderate and Moderate-toSevere.
6/25/2013
Page 3 of 27
4. Common Core State Standards: What is the spending plan for the $6.5 million in
the new state resource?
Of the $6.5 million, about $4.6 million have already been outlined in the District’s
spending plan. This includes shifts of about $2.5 million to support Common Core State
Standards curriculum transition and assessment capacity building (located in the
Curriculum & Instruction and Research, Planning & Accountability divisions) and
approximately an additional $2 million to support the design, management, facilitation
and implementation of CCSS assessments and technology (equipment and platforms).
Staff will meet to plan the allocation of remaining funds, which can be used to provide
additional professional development relating to CCSS, including the potential for
restoring the 18 hours of professional development and added support for common
planning time. For more on common planning time, please see question 8.
5. Rainy Day Reserve: Are we still eligible to receive support from the RDR even
though unrestricted revenues are increasing?
Yes, based on the formula used by the Controller’s Office, SFUSD is still eligible for
Rainy Day Reserve funding, and draws have been assumed in the Mayor’s
recommended budget for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15. Our multi-year projections
assume draws of $5.8 million, $4.4 million and $3.3 million in FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15
and FY 2015-16, respectively.
6. Priorities: Please provide more details on what has been budgeted for each of
the funding priorities.
African-American
Achievement
 New Access and Equity unit being established within C&I
with a total budget of $1.8 million including $200k new
funding from state Common Core resource and $175k new
DCYF funding
A-G / Credit Recovery
 PEEF spending plan includes $2.4 million
CEIS Plan/Significant
Disproportionality
 $2.4 million set aside within IDEA entitlement
 Focus on positive behavioral intervention, behavioral RtI,
cultural competency
 Includes three Restorative Practices coaches
6/25/2013
Page 4 of 27
Common Core
 Includes $6.5 million of dedicated resources included in
State budget
 Targeted investments will include curriculum, assessment,
professional development
Community Schools
 DCYF funds will at least double to $0.2 million
 Priority for external fundraising
Lau Plan
 Ongoing funding from multiple sources
 PEEF and WSF funds identified to provide targeted
support for language pathways in several schools
 C&I budget includes $200k of additional new funding for
instructional materials and world language support
MTSS: School Site
Staffing Supports
 Budget includes $2.3 million in centrally budgeted
unrestricted resources
 Reflects efforts to transition off of federal School
Improvement Grants while maintaining essential supports
to broader groups of schools
LEAD Cohort / Area
Teams
 Budget includes $4.2 million in centrally budgeted
unrestricted resources
 Separate budgets have been established for each Cohort
Peer Resources
 PEEF spending plan includes $0.7 million (increasing by
more than 40%)
Professional Learning
and Leadership
Development
 Budget includes $0.4 million total ($0.1 million from new
Common Core state resource and $0.3 million from DCYF)
Restorative Practices
 CEIS plan includes $0.3 million
 100+% increase in number of RP coaches
Salary Scale Increases
 To be determined based on collective bargaining
 Negotiations in process for SEIU, crafts, stationary
engineers
 Current contract with UESF and UASF extends through
FY 2013-14; priority for UESF is restoration of professional
development hours
6/25/2013
Page 5 of 27
Seven-Period Day
 PEEF spending plan provides support for additional
sections at several high schools
 More comprehensive effort to establish a 7-period day at
all high schools will require significant resources; efforts
could be phased in over time.
STEM Plan
Synergy
 Supported by QTEA (non-teacher compensation portion)
budget of $2.3 million
WSF / School Site
Allocations
 Increasing by $2.9 million to a total of $225.6 million
7. Variances: Please include the Multi-year Projections and summarize any major
variances between the first reading and second reading of the recommended
budget.
See Attachment 4 & 5.
8. Common planning time: Is funding identified for common planning time as
outlined in Board resolution?
Given our current transportation plan and variety of start and end times for all schools
across SFUSD, the proposal as it is stated in the Board resolution was not funded. (The
proposal asked for a one-hour early release Wednesday, district-wide each week.) Staff
looked at a variety of ways to support additional common planning time for schools and
focused on the most underserved schools in the Superintendent’s Zone and Intensive
performance tier. All Middle Schools, High Schools and Superintendent’s Zone Schools
have a weekly early release day. PEEF-funded VAPA and PE specialists are aligning
their time to ensure additional grade levels release time each week. They are making
their best attempt to provide similar coordination at our Intensive sites. (Note: An
earlier version of this content stated that El Dorado would not have an early release day
in SY 13-14, that has since changed, and El Dorado will have early release beginning in
SY 13-14.)
As shared at an earlier board meeting, in a survey of the 60 site leaders in Cohorts 1-3,
91% of respondents reported having common planning time at their sites. To both
support the use of this time and provide additional coaching and professional
development, the network of IRFs and Literacy Coaches exist at sites beyond the
Superintendent’s Zone and Intensive performance tiers. Additionally, as noted in the
6/25/2013
Page 6 of 27
response to question #4, we will explore the potential use of the new Common Core state
resource to establish common planning time across all our schools.
9. Ethnic studies: What resources have been budgeted and what is the process for
exploring additional funding?
The District reviewed the original Ethnic Studies proposal and adapted it to the needs of
the school sites which have chosen to participate in the Ethnic Studies program. Based
on Attachment 6, the District has identified a total of about $150,000 to support Ethnic
Studies, with additional pro-bono support from Stanford for evaluation of the program.
Four of the five schools which were offered this program have opted to participate,
including ISA, Washington, Balboa, Mission. These schools can serve as a pilot for
Ethnic Studies and the District plans to evaluate and incorporate their feedback for
future growth plans for Ethnic Studies at SFUSD.
At this time we have presented at a principal's meeting and had conversations with
schools individually. We are not able to find a 5th pilot that we have allocated funding
for in the proposed budget. It is difficult for schools to add singleton classes, especially
an elective class, into a master schedule and offer the class to students, after student
course requests have already been completed, master schedules have initially set, etc.
10. CAHSEE: Have enough resources been budgeted considering we are falling short
of our targets?
In general, student results on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) have
been consistent over the past several years, with students passing by about 75%, 85%,
and 95% through 10th, 11th, and 12th grades, respectively.
Interventions for students who do not pass the exam are provided through summer
school and site-based programs, with support materials provided through the Research,
Planning, and Accountability department. Funding for the Tier 3 resource originally
associated with CAHSEE currently supports staff and functions in the RPA department
associated with administering the exam and analyzing student performance.
The Superintendent and staff are analyzing patterns of CAHSEE results and reviewing
whether sufficient intervention supports are available to students who do not pass. The
importance of this review is underscored by CAHSEE results being included among the
indicators the Superintendent’s evaluation. Staff review will include the possibility of
including CAHSEE support within the portfolio of credit recovery supports, as both are
related to the goal of increasing high school graduation. If it is determined that
6/25/2013
Page 7 of 27
additional financial investments are needed, the Superintendent will bring forward
recommendations as appropriate.
11. Student Nutrition: Please summarize the fiscal impact of the new contract with
the new meals provider (Revolution Foods) and provide an update on cash
shortages and food waste / discarded meals.
The four major cost drivers for Student Nutrition Services include:
 Participation Rates
 The Price of Food
 Order vs Claim
 Unpaid Meal Charges
Participation Rates: The number of children participating in our school meals programs
(breakfast, lunch, and snacks) has increased 10-12% since we transitioned to a new meal
provider, Revolution Foods, in January 2013. In November 2012, our average daily
participation was 26,739 and our State and Federal reimbursement claim was $1.3
million, and by April 2013 our average daily participation was 28,712 and our
reimbursement claim was $1.7 million.
Price of Food: Food is expensive, and while we went with the lowest bidder when
awarding the contract to Revolution Foods in December 2012, per meal costs are higher
than they were with our old vendor. For example, an elementary school lunch costs
$1.95 compared with $1.79 during the first semester of the 2012-13 school year. Taking
all meal prices into consideration, and using the cost of meals during the first semester
compared with the second semester of the 2012-13 school year, the annual costs of meals
has grown 17% / $1.4 million a year.
Order v Claim: While SNS tries to predict with accuracy the number of reimbursable
meals to order each day for each school, discrepancies are hard to avoid since the
number of children who participate in lunch varies from day to day. For the 2012-13
school year, meal orders were approximately $463,530 more than claimed. Next year the
goal is to reduce the order versus claim for breakfast and lunch to approximately
$374,000. This will be accomplished by increased oversight from the Supervisors and a
review of the administrative regulations and protocols for field trips and classroom
parties.
Unpaid Meal Charges: Students who do not qualify for FRPL do not always pay for
their meals. Between 2009 and 2011 the unpaid meal charges decreased from $652,330 a
year to $364,009. This year, as participation increased so did the amount of unpaid meal
6/25/2013
Page 8 of 27
charges. At the end of April the amount of unpaid meal charges was $416,304. 71% of
these fees are for families who are ineligible for FRPL, and the other 29% are from
families who were identified as eligible after the school year started.
The threshold for FRPL does not reflect the cost of living in San Francisco; the Federal
guideline for a family of two to receive reduced lunch is $28,694 a year. As a result, we
plan to look at the policies and administrative regulations surrounding school meals to
determine whether any changes are necessary.
We are also hoping to implement new strategies for following up with families. For
example, the 2013-14 school year budget includes funds to mail invoices to families
instead of asking schools to distribute invoices to families via their students.
The assumptions behind the SNS budget proposal for Revolution Foods for the 2013-14
school year are:
 6,200 breakfasts, 21,000 lunches, and 6,200 snacks each school day;
 2,100 breakfasts and 3,200 lunches during summer school;
 $200,000 Offer v Serve credits on Revolution Foods invoices;
 $135,366 Commodity credits on Revolution Foods invoices; and
 $234,000 grant from DCYF.
In the event any of these assumptions change, the cost of providing meals to students
will change accordingly.
12. Topics for future discussion: LCFF transition, centralized vs. site-based
decisions, 7-period day
The District recognizes that discussion on these topics will provide the opportunities to
share in dialogue on these important subjects. The Superintendent and staff will work
with Board leadership to schedule future discussions on all of these important topics to
ensure that appropriate and adequate time is dedicated for these discussions.
6/25/2013
Page 9 of 27
Attachment 1
6/25/2013
Page 10 of 27
Updated: June 24, 2013
Tier
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
1. Intensive
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
Assistant
Superintendent
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Dee Dee Desmond
Dee Dee Desmond
Dee Dee Desmond
Dee Dee Desmond
Dee Dee Desmond
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Karling Aguilera-Fort
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Dee Dee Desmond
Dee Dee Desmond
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Margaret Chiu
6/25/2013
Centrally Funded Staffing Allocations for Schools: 2013-14 SY
School Name
Fairmount
MEC
Webster
Drew
El Dorado
Harte
Malcolm X
Revere
Civic Center 6-12
ISA 6-12
Downtown
Hilltop
Independence
Jordan
SF International
Wells
YGC/LogC/EarlyAM
King MS
Vis Valley MS
Bryant
Chavez
Muir
Sanchez
BV/Mann
Everett
Mission
CEC
Cleveland
SF Community
Serra
Sheridan
Tenderloin
King ES
Marshall ES
Monroe
Parker
Sunnyside
Carver
Marshall HS
AAS @ SOTA
Burton
Denman
Francisco
Lick
Flynn
O'Connell
Glen Park
grade/tier/school
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14 2013-14 2013-14
2013-14 Literacy 2013-14 Mandarin
Social
Nurse OR 2013-14
Academic
Elem 2013-14 Instruct
K-5 AP Content 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14
2013-14 Worker/ 2013-14
Social Wellness 2013-14 Family
Coach
Coord
Liaison Acceleration Advisor
Coach
New
Counselor
LSP
Nurse
Worker
CHOW
IRF
New
Sp New
ROP
VTEA
Ethnic Total
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
3.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
3.75
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.25
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
5.25
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.75
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
5.75
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.25
0.50
2.00
1.00
3.50
0.50
0.60
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.20
5.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
0.50
1.50
0.50
1.00
1.50
0.50
0.40
1.00
1.00
2.90
0.50
0.40
1.00
1.00
2.90
0.50
0.40
1.00
1.00
0.40
3.30
0.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
3.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
3.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
0.50
6.25
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.75
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
5.75
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
0.50
6.25
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
0.60
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.20
0.20
0.20
5.70
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
3.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
4.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
3.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
3.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
1.00
4.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.50
3.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
2.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.75
1.00
0.60
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
0.20
5.30
1.00
1.00
1.50
0.60
1.00
1.00
0.88
3.60
0.40
8.98
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
3.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
6.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
1.60
6.60
1.00
0.50
1.50
Page 11 of 27
1 of 3
Tier
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
2. Strategic
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
3. Benchmark
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
Assistant
Superintendent
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Brent Stephens
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Jeannie Pon
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
6/25/2013
School Name
Guadalupe
Lau
McCoppin
Vis Valley ES
Cobb
Hillcrest
Lakeshore
Moscone
Redding
Alvarado
Longfellow
Peabody
Sutro
Balboa
Galileo
Wallenberg
Aptos
Hoover
Marina
Carmichael
Lilienthal
Rooftop
ER Taylor
Parks
Spring Valley
Clarendon
Jefferson
Key
Ortega
Sherman
Sloat
Stevenson
West Portal
Asawa SOTA
Lincoln
Lowell
Washington
Giannini
Presidio
Roosevelt
Argonne
CIS @ DeAvila
Garfield
Grattan
Milk
New Traditions
Sunset
grade/tier/school
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14 2013-14 2013-14
Social
Nurse OR 2013-14
Academic
K-5 AP Content 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14
2013-14 Worker/ 2013-14
Coach
Coord
Coach
New
Counselor
LSP
Nurse
Worker
CHOW
IRF
New
Sp New
ROP
VTEA
Ethnic Total
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.50
3.75
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.20
1.50
0.50
0.80
1.00
1.00
2.00
0.20
5.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.80
3.80
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
3.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
0.50
1.00
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.60
1.00
1.00
3.10
0.50
0.80
1.00
1.00
2.40
0.20
5.90
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.20
3.00
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.40
0.20
5.40
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.50
1.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Page 12 of 27
2 of 3
Tier
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
4. Challenge
Assistant
Superintendent
Margaret Chiu
Margaret Chiu
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
NurJehan Khalique
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
Janet Schulze
6/25/2013
grade/tier/school
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14
2013-14 2013-14 2013-14
Social
Nurse OR 2013-14
Academic
K-5 AP Content 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14
2013-14 Worker/ 2013-14
Coach
Coord
Coach
New
Counselor
LSP
Nurse
Worker
CHOW
IRF
New
Sp New
ROP
VTEA
Ethnic Total
School Name
AF Yu
0.50
0.50
Lawton
0.50
0.50
Alamo
0.50
0.50
Chin
0.50
0.50
Feinstein
0.50
0.50
Lafayette
0.50
0.50
McKinley
0.50
0.50
Miraloma
0.50
0.50
SF Montessori
0.50
0.50
Ulloa
0.50
0.50
Wo
0.50
0.50
Build SF
0.2
0.20
Gateway City College
1.00
0.00
1.00
TARC
1.00
1.00
Page 13 of 27
3 of 3
Attachment 2
6/25/2013
Page 14 of 27
Fall 2012 CBED Enrollment
FTEs
Classroom Teachers
Counselors
Nurse
Wellness Coordinator
Comm Health Outreach Worker
Social Worker
Family Liaison/Child Welfare Attendance Liaison (R10/R11)
Paraprofessionals
Principal/AP
Secretary/Clerk
Total FTE
Blue Italicized Positions are MTSS centrally-funded
6/25/2013
Page 15 of 27
County Community Woodside/PCC
129
126
6
2
0.5
1
0
0
1
0
2
1
13.5
9
1
0.5
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
16.5
Hilltop
54
4
1
1
0.5
0
1
0
0
0
1
8.5
Attachment 3
6/25/2013
Page 16 of 27
FY 2013-14 FY 2012-13 Variance
School
Special Ed- Special Ed- Special EdWSF Site
WSF Site
WSF Site
Allocation Allocation Allocation
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------ALAMO ES
2,506
1,438
ALVARADO ES
2,709
3,288
(578)
ARGONNE ES
815
1,525
(711)
BRYANT ES
927
1,507
(580)
CARMICHAEL ES
1,068
1,320
918
402
CARVER ES
365
718
(353)
CHAVEZ ES
2,779
2,773
6
309
249
60
0
0
0
1,236
2,498
(1,262)
927
1,347
(420)
(639)
CHIN ES
CHINESE ED-CTR
CLARENDON ES
CLEVELAND ES
COBB ES
1,396
2,035
DE AVILA CHINESE IMMERSION
253
55
DREW ES
955
905
50
EL DORADO ES
778
975
(197)
FAIRMOUNT ES
2,499
2,503
FLYNN ES
2,386
1,973
413
GARFIELD ES
1,705
1,244
461
GLEN PARK ES
2,358
1,727
631
GRATTAN ES
2,758
1,745
1,013
983
1,945
HARTE ES
1,137
1,186
(49)
HILLCREST ES
2,096
2,871
(775)
JEFFERSON ES
1,541
1,780
(240)
KEY ES
3,347
3,682
(336)
KING ES
2,912
2,480
LAFAYETTE ES
2,597
3,978
(1,381)
LAKESHORE ES
2,146
3,627
(1,481)
759
912
(153)
(228)
GUADALUPE ES
LAU ES
LONGFELLOW ES
198
(4)
(961)
432
1,828
2,056
MALCOLM X ES
337
193
144
MARSHALL ES
983
497
486
MCCOPPIN ES
674
442
232
MCKINLEY ES
864
890
(27)
506
1,456
(950)
1,707
1,807
(100)
MILK ES
MIRALOMA ES
MISSION ED-CTR ES
56
0
1,124
1,539
MOSCONE ES
730
663
67
MUIR ES
955
974
(18)
MONROE ES
6/25/2013
Page 17 of 27
56
(416)
School
WSF Site
WSF Site
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------NEW TRADITIONS ES
730
1,189
(459)
ORTEGA ES
843
1,587
(745)
PARKER ES
1,137
886
PARKS ES
1,908
2,062
(154)
PEABODY ES
1,619
1,837
(219)
REDDING ES
251
506
718
(212)
REVERE ES
2,060
2,070
(9)
SANCHEZ ES
2,300
2,988
(688)
674
812
(137)
(148)
SERRA ES
SHERIDAN ES
309
457
SHERMAN ES
1,973
2,904
(931)
843
1,910
(1,067)
SLOAT ES
SPRING VALLEY ES
590
829
(239)
STEVENSON ES
2,273
2,418
(145)
SUNNYSIDE ES
1,860
1,435
425
SUNSET ES
2,351
2,234
117
SUTRO ES
702
1,272
(570)
TAYLOR ES
2,513
2,552
(39)
TENDERLOIN ES
2,779
3,136
(357)
ULLOA ES
1,039
1,995
(956)
VIS VALLEY ES
871
967
(96)
WEBSTER ES
674
677
(2)
WEST PORTAL ES
1,124
2,408
(1,284)
YICK WO ES
2,014
1,254
BROWN, WILLIE 4-6 -- PLACEHOLDER
760
0
0
0
LAWTON K-8
2,925
1,933
991
LILIENTHAL K-8
2,388
4,770
ROOFTOP K-8
3,167
2,753
414
S.F. COMMUNITY K-8
843
1,005
(162)
YU, ALICE FONG K-8
365
442
(77)
APTOS MS
7,518
4,842
2,676
DENMAN MS
4,319
3,329
990
EVERETT MS
3,285
3,189
96
FRANCISCO MS
1,591
2,356
(765)
GIANNINI MS
4,202
6,627
(2,425)
HOOVER MS
3,351
5,565
(2,214)
KING, M. L. MS
3,452
3,988
(535)
LICK MS
2,693
3,171
(478)
BUENA MANN MS
2,673
3,124
(451)
MARINA MS
4,877
4,888
(11)
PRESIDIO MS
4,567
4,514
53
ROOSEVELT MS
2,613
3,629
(1,016)
VIS VALLEY MS
2,335
3,087
(753)
6/25/2013
Page 18 of 27
(2,382)
School
WSF Site
WSF Site
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------BALBOA HS
6,844
7,838
(994)
BURTON HS
3,682
4,344
DOWNTOWN HS
3,134
1,931
1,203
GALILEO HS
1,405
(662)
8,715
7,310
INDEPENDENCE HS
740
855
INTL STUD ACAD HS
1,569
2,316
(747)
LINCOLN HS
9,476
10,490
(1,015)
LOWELL HS
5,532
4,419
1,113
MARSHALL HS
2,474
4,052
(1,579)
MISSION HS
6,670
5,933
O'CONNELL HS
2,332
3,419
(1,087)
SCH OF THE ARTS HS
2,313
3,508
(1,195)
SOTA ACADEMY
(115)
736
955
1,143
(188)
WALLENBERG HS
1,995
3,359
(1,364)
WASHINGTON HS
8,744
10,098
(1,354)
WELLS
1,831
2,170
(339)
JUNE JORDAN
2,722
1,914
808
FEINSTEIN ES
2,099
2,881
(782)
SF INTERNATIONAL HS
309
176
133
SAN FRANCISCO MONTESSORI
309
228
81
----------------- ----------------- ----------------Total
6/25/2013
219,561
244,593
Page 19 of 27
(27,945)
Attachment 4
6/25/2013
Page 20 of 27
Multi Year Projections, UGF: FY 2012-13 Estimated Actuals & FY 2013-14 Recommended Budget
(Based on the Legislature’s Compromise Proposal on the LCFF
FY 12-13
FY 13-14
FY 14-15
FY 15-16
Beginning
Balance
$50.768
$34.102
$16.258
$10.039
Revenues
$341.486
$360.580
$381.437
$404.200
Expenditures
$358.152
$378.424
$387.657
$399.414
Revs. Less
Expenses
($16.666)
($17.844)
($6.219)
$4.786
Ending Balance
$34.102
$16.258
$10.039
$14.825
Designated
Balance
$15.450
$15.566
$15.416
$15.416
Undesignated
Balance
$18.652
$0.693
($5.376)
($0.590)
6/25/2013
Page 21 of 27
1
1
Assumptions for the FY 2013-14 Recommended
Budget and Multi-Year Projections
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FY 12-13 reflects higher than projected ending balance than at 2nd Interim due to higher projected
Tier III balances.
FY 2013-14, FY 2014-15, and FY 2015-16 revenue projections reflect the implementation of the
Legislature’s compromise proposal of the Local Control Funding Formula in FY 2013-14 with per
ADA funded growth estimated at $395 for FY 13-14, $431 for FY 14-15 and $463 for FY 15-16.
Revenue projections include continued support from the city’s Rainy Day Fund Reserve.
Projected salary and benefits costs for FY 13-14, FY 14-15 & FY 15-16 include increases for step &
column and potential negotiated settlements.
Assumes $4 mm of ongoing common core expenditures funded in FY 13-14 & FY 14-15 with state
funding for CCSS will revert to the UGF in FY 15-16 when state funding expires.
UGF contribution to Special Education & Special Education Transportation is projected to increase
by $6.1mm in FY 13-14 compared to FY 12-13 adopted budget amounts, and by $1 mm in FY 14-15
UGF contribution to Student Nutrition is projected to increase by $385K in FY 13-14 and is
projected to remain unchanged in FY 14-15 and FY 15-16.
UGF contribution to the Early Ed program is projected to be lower by $1.9 mm compared to FY 1213 adopted budget amounts.
$10.5 mm of restricted state revenues are assumed to be received in FY 2013-14 for the
implementation of the common core state standards and need to be spent by the end of FY 201415. Expenditures previously incorporated in the UGF budget in FY 2013-14 to support CCSS
implementation will now be paid out of this new state source of funds.
6/25/2013
Page 22 of 27
Attachment 5
6/25/2013
Page 23 of 27
Changes from 1st Reading to 2nd Reading
Narrative
1. Added link to other budget resources available on district website, Page X
2. Overview of SFUSD – updated list of schools to include 8 TK, Page
3. SFUSD employees – updated FTE count, also included central office certificated and
central office classified. Numbers are now expressed in FTEs as opposed to head count
4. Fund Structure – updated pie charts and corrected the spelling of Tier
5. Updated all charts to reflect changes in Exhibits
6. Base grant amounts under LCFF still show Governor’s proposal and are not updated for
the higher amounts under the Legislature’s compromise proposal. Generally, LCFF
narrative has not been updated to reflect the Legislature’s proposal
7. Added brief description of Proposition 30 on Page X
8. Added brief description of Proposition 39 on Page X
9. Updated table for QEIA amounts for 2013-14, Page X
10. Added description for Common Core state funding
11. PEEF narrative updated?
Exhibits
1. Exhibit 2 - updated Expenditure numbers from details on Exhibit 6. Ending Fund Balance
increased from $15,770,440 to $16,258,392, an increase of $487,952 resulting in an
increase In the undesignated fund balance from $204,940 to $692,892
2. Exhibit 6
a. Under “Instructional Support for Schools” reduced budget for Org 179 by
$269,952 to reflect reduction in FTEs that were duplicated in another funding
source
b. Under “Instructional Support for Schools” replaced the word “area” with
“cohort” for description of Orgs 131, 132 and 132
c. Under “Other Outgo” – reduced district UGF contribution to Special Education
Transportation by $2 mm (from $8,705,534 to $6,705,534). This was needed in
order to offset the loss of additional contributions from restricted resources as
well as loss of state backfill of sequestration cuts to Special Ed IDEA programs.
This cost has been transferred to the county UGF which is increased by $2 mm
(reflected in Exhibit 11)
d. Under “Contributions” – increased contribution from PEEF Third Third by
$218,000 (from 7,591,650 to $7,809,650)
e. Under “Additional Contributions from Tier III State & Restricted Fund Balance” –
reduced contribution by $2mm (from $3,970,404 to $1,970,404)
6/25/2013
Page 24 of 27
Summary of Fiscal Impact
Change
Reduced Org 179 budget
Reduced District Contribution to Sp Ed
Transportation
Increase Contribution form PEEF
Reduce Additional Contribution from
Tier III and Other Restricted
Net Change to Fund Balance
Fund Bal Incr/(Dcr)
$269,952
$2,000,000
$218,000
($2,000,000)
$487,952
3. Exhibit 7 – moved $4.6 mm of the state funding for CCSS from locally defined
resource 90190 to state resource 71802. Total expenditure under Locally-Funded
Restricted Programs is reduced by $4.6 mm, and total expenditures under StateFunded Restricted Programs is increased by $4.6 mm.
4. Exhibit 9 – Unrestricted GF column updated to reflect revised total expenditure of
$384,436,834 in line with amount reflected in detailed expenditure summary in
Exhibit 6, and ending fund balance of $16,258,392 compared to total expenditure of
$386,706,787 and ending fund balance of $15,770,440 in First Reading.
5. Exhibit 11
a. updated county UGF revenue numbers (total county UGF revenue increased by
$753,680 due to revised higher RL calculations and $85K interest revenue under
local revenue).
b. Increased county UGF contribution for Special Ed Transportation by $2mm, from
$845,412 to $2,845,412
c. Updated RL pass through amounts from district and county to Sp Ed, County
Community & JUV/Court (minor adjustments)
6. Exhibit 13
a. updated to reflect $2mm reduction in district UGF contribution and $2mm
increase in county UGF contribution to Special Ed Transportation
b. Added FY 2012-13 Adopted Budget for Transportation for 2-year comparison
6/25/2013
Page 25 of 27
Attachment 6
6/25/2013
Page 26 of 27
Ethnic Studies
BOARD Proposal
Description
Revised Proposal
Amount
Classroom Teachers:
0.2 FTE Each at ISA, Washington, Balboa,
Mission, TBD
0.4 FTE at 6 school sited*
Subtotal
Substitutes
Curriculum Release Days
Program Expansion Release Days
Subtotal
Extended Calendar
Weekly After School PD
Summer PD Program
Summer Ethnic Studies Institute
Subtotal
Content Support Specialist (0.3 FTE)
Specialist (0.5 FTE)
Program Evaluation/Data Management
Subtotal
Consultant Support
SF State- School year advisor
SF State - Summer advisor
SF State - Grad students
Subtotal
Materials/Supplies
Classroom Supplies
Technology Lab @ each site
Speaker Stipends
Field Trips
Course Reader
Book Binding/Launch Party
End of Year Exhibition
Subtotal
TOTAL
DISTRICT Corrections of
BOARD Proposal
Projected Cost
w/adj
185,280
185,280
4,320
2,880
7,200
3,708
2,472
6,180
12,960
14,400
10,800
38,160
16,046
17,829
13,371
47,246
36,000
10,000
46,000
38,601
10,000
48,601
20,000
25,000
60,000
105,000
20,000
25,000
60,000
105,000
12,000
54,000
3,000
24,000
6,000
6,000
12,000
117,000
12,000
54,000
3,000
24,000
6,000
6,000
12,000
117,000
485,360
509,307
Current Proposed Budget
Object
Amount
1100
81,869
(103,411)
00000
1102
15,000
8,820
00000
1105
20,000
(27,246)
00000
1901
23,160
5803
Stanford (Pro-bono)
(25,441)
0
(105,000)
0
00000
* Although budgeted, only four of five schools have decided to participate
6/25/2013
Resource
07290
172,000
172,000
Variance (Boardproposed and
Actualproposed)
Proposed Actual Funding
Page 27 of 27
4313
8,065
(108,935)
148,094
(361,213)

Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Chris Schulze Bio

Waddies

EC London Arrival and First Day - Voyage

With Love... from the age of reason

On weekends year-round, the Franklin family repairs to their

PremierCollect®

Learn Spanish - Talk Corporate Language Training

April 5 - Polaris K

ORION FOXWOOD