1 / 52

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.

annona
Télécharger la présentation

Developing A Staffing Formula

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Developing A Staffing Formula SASBO APRIL 2008

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Case Study: Jefferson Davis Parish School Board Development of the Staffing Formula for Teachers

  5. 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.

  6. Net Decline in General Fund Balance over the period shown: ($1,702,927)

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. The Old Teacher Staffing Formula E = mc2 where . . . # of employees = mass confusion2

  11. 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.

  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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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 state-recommended student/teacher ratio to get the Allocated Teaching Staff for the school. (Round up to a whole number if calculation is above .5)

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.)

  19. 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.

  20. 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:

  21. 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

  22. Example # 1, cont’d: • Calculate the Final Projected Student Count for 2008-2009: 07-08 4th Six Weeks Enrollment 947 Subtract Average Student Loss (no credit for Average Student Gain) 0 Final Projected Student Count 947

  23. 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 947 Divided By 25 Allocated Teaching Staff 37.88

  24. Example # 1, cont’d: • Adjust the Allocated Teaching Staff for the following: Allocated Teaching Staff 37.88 teachers Add: • 2 vocational teachers 2.00 • 1 teacher for full block of 350 students after the 1st 350 1.00 Total Allocated Teachers 40.88 Rounded to 41 teachers

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. 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:

  28. 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)

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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)

  32. Case Study: Jefferson Davis Parish School Board Financial Impact of the Staffing Formula

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. Net Increase in General Fund Balance over the period shown: $10,067,731

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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 student-to-computer ratio is at or below 3 students per classroom computer.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. Case Study: Jefferson Davis Parish School Board Problems to Anticipate When Implementing the Staffing Formula

  43. Implementation Problems • You can realistically expect to incur resistance from implementing the Staffing Formula from three main interest groups (in order of importance): • School Board Members • Principals • Teachers and Teacher Unions

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

More Related