San Bernardino County Office of Education Making Money Matter

1. San Bernardino County Office of Education Making MoneyMatter November 2012 Presented by: JannelleKubinec jkubinec@wested.org

2. About Today • Budget and program updates • Models for operating differently • Avoiding supplanting • Allocations • Learn from others and evaluate scenarios • Operations checklist 1

3. Making Money Matter • Valuing resources a means to support student achievement • Making every dollar count • Aligning resources to needs • Planning for improvement with resources in mind 2

4. San Bernardino County Revenues per Average Daily Attendance Source: California Department of Education 3

5. San Bernardino County Revenues and Expenditures per Average Daily Attendance Source: California Department of Education 4

6. San Bernardino County Funding and Academic Performance Source: California Department of Education, 2006-07 and 2009-10 5

7. Another Year, Another Dollar? • Looks like another year with the threat of trigger cuts • Other areas without change: • Federal funding uncertainty • Same accountability requirements • Weighted Student Formula conversations continue 6

8. Waiting for the Vote • Outcome of Proposition 30 and/or 38 will determine what happens next • Both measures would raise revenue • Voter favorability is waning • Trigger cuts automatic if Proposition 30 fails 7

9. But, Some Changes Ahead • Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are moving ahead • Further adjustments in programs • Due to CCSS • Limited funding 8

10. Approaching this year & beyond

11. What if…Mid-Year Cuts? • Answer and discuss the following questions: • How does your district plan to respond to trigger cuts in 2012-13? • What will be the impact on 2013-14? • How will categorical funding be affected? 9

12. Trigger Cut Reactions • Shorter year • Recover days with categoricals – limited option • Transportation • Fees • Categorical options • Redefining core program • Long-term focus 10

13. Risks and Reality of Supplanting • Increasing pressure to “creatively” use categorical funding • Extremely important to ensure categorical funding is used for supplemental and allowed uses 11

14. Rules are Clear, but Reality is Messy • In the simplest terms, supplement-not-supplant rules require that funds be used to provide services and support that meet the following criteria: • Are above and beyond the “core” program • Were not previously funded with a state or local resource 12

15. Rules are Clear, but Reality is Messy • But, in reality, there are lots of questions: • How does one determine what would have been in the absence of available funds? • What happens if cuts are made because of budget reductions? • If there are multiple funds that have supplement, not supplant restrictions, is there an order to correctly use the funding? 13

16. Facts about Supplement, not Supplant • Supplement, not supplant is: • Specific on how money is used • Tested year-to-year • Possible to vary district to district (or region to region), but not site to site within a single district • Expected that LEAs can demonstrate compliance • Presumed guilty until proven innocent • A costly area of noncompliance 14

17. 15

18. The Hierarchy of Supplementing Supplement3 Supplement2 Supplement 16

19. How to Approach Supplement,Not Supplant • There are many approaches to ensure that supplement-not-supplant requirements are met • Here are a few examples: • Build from the ground up – start with “core” and add supplements to this • Relative to what’s in place – start with last year and build forward to next year • Revisions based on budget cuts – adjust “core” and then supplement 17

20. Start with Core: What is It? • A major starting point for determining what is supplemental is knowing what is “core” • For the purposes of determining categorical compliance, core is anything that is required to meet the basic instructional and support requirements for instructional delivery 18

21. Start with Core: What is It? • With this in mind, for California, core includes: • School facilities maintained to meet state and local health and safety requirements • Classroom teachers • School site and district administrators • Instructional materials for core subject areas • Instructional materials for English Language Development (ELD) • Instructional day and year that meet minimum state requirements • Standardized assessments required for state and federal accountability 19

22. Start with Core: What is Supplemental? • If we start with core, anything that is provided above the core is potentially supplemental • That is, if it is not part of the support that was present the year before • Considerations: • How many teachers, administrators, counselors, and other staff are provided to all schools – without special consideration for additional needs of students at the site? • What materials and assessments are provided to meet state requirements? • What supplies and resources does a site need in order to support the basic educational needs of students? 20

23. 21

24. Preparing for Common Core State Standards • College and career focused academic standards • California is among 45 states that have adopted standards • Inform instruction • Learning measured through assessments • Resources required 22

25. Program Expectations Grounded in Reality Oriented to Results 23

26. What’s Involved? • Academic standards are not new • Common Core State Standards encourage a new approach to instruction • Overlap with prior standards • However, unique characteristics 24

27. Where Was the Money?Now Staff Development Buy Back Days SB 472/AB 430 IMRF Instructional Materials Professional Development Education Technology School Improvement Program STAR Assessments Classroom Resources 27

28. Local Budget Considerations 28

29. Summary of LEA Costs 29

30. A Worthwhile Investment • Redirect time, energy, and funding to meet Common Core needs • Treat every activity as an investment • Spending alone insufficient to successfully implement • Efficiencies are possible with smart planning 30

31. Strategic Allocations

32. Funding Allocation • Getting the right dollar to the right place is the first step in aligning funding • What’s needed • Who will implement • How much funding • Decision points: • Site versus district allocations • People versus dollars 31

33. Fine Tuning 2012-13 Allocations • Now’s the time to fine tune 2012-13 • Carryover • Reservations • Finalizing preliminary allocations • It’s also time to be thinking about 2013-14 allocations, especially if changes are planned 32

34. How Does Your District Allocate Title I and Economic Impact Aid Funding? • Answer and discuss the following questions: • How does your district allocate Title I and EIA funding? • Why is the allocation made this way? • What is the impact on site and program behavior? • Are changes being considered? 33

35. Ideals for Allocations • Priorities drive allocation decisions • Strong communication exist between central offices and sites • Sites and programs are accountable for effective funding use • Carryover is strategically directed 34

36. Allocating Title I and EIA Title I EIA EIA-SCE EIA-LEP Set-Aside/Reservations Sites (School Plan, Site Council, ELAC, etc.) 35

37. Centralized Services • A centralized service refers to services or support organized centrally on behalf of sites • Centralized services can include administrative and direct service functions • To fully comply with the 85-15 rule, if centralized services are received by a site, they must be involved in the process of selection 36

38. Steps to Centralized Services • Identify possible services • Consult with sites • Provide sites with documentation for plans • Form B • List of items with contribution amount for site • Approval by site council and Board 37

39. Centralized Services: Form B • Same as CDE’s Form A with Centralized Services listed 38

40. Centralized Services: Listing in Plan 39

41. Centralized Services: Advice • Sites need to be involved • The amount of the service plus the site directed allocation should match the total in the budget and CARS • Be sure to keep plans up to date, especially if changes are made after the approval of the SPSA 40

42. Using Categorical Funds Effectively

43. Doing More is Nearly Impossible • There’s not enough time, energy, or money to realistically expect more • However, it’s reasonable to expect better results from a different approach 41

44. Example: English Learners • Performance of English Learners (ELs) has improved, but gap significant 42

45. Students Meeting State ELA Performance Standards(CA 2011 CST-ELA Results) True Gap Long-Term ELs clustered here Source: CDE 2011 43

46. Example: English Learners • Funding for ELs and students with disabilities have remained relatively untouched by budget reductions • Significant carryover in EIA and Title III attracting attention • Most districts have sufficient funding, but lack effective ideas for ELs 44

47. Example: English Learners • What’s needed? • Language development and acquisition • Rigorous, differentiated content instruction • What works? • Sustained, focused Professional development • Academic language development • Instructional programs that accelerate progress • How to fund? • Title I, IIA, III • Economic Impact Aid 45

48. Title III LEAs Meeting Two or More AMAOs: 2006–2010 CELDT & academic test CELDT Source: California Department of Education, March 7, 2012 update 46

49. Title III AMAOs 1 & 2 Percent of LEAs/Consortia Meeting AMAOs(Note: AMAO 3 results pending] Source: CDE June 2012 update 47

50. AMAO 1 Results: EL Student Level % of ELs meeting progress expectations on CELDT Source: CDE June 2012 update 48