1 / 32

The CMS Proposed Budget 2006-07

The CMS Proposed Budget 2006-07. Dr. Frances Haithcock Interim Superintendent. Prepare for greatness. www.cms.k12.nc.us. Framework for decision-making. Board’s Theory of Action Vision/Mission/Core Beliefs CMS Goals & Balanced Scorecard Equity Committee Recommendations

csilla
Télécharger la présentation

The CMS Proposed Budget 2006-07

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. The CMS Proposed Budget 2006-07 Dr. Frances Haithcock Interim Superintendent Prepare for greatness www.cms.k12.nc.us

  2. Framework for decision-making • Board’s Theory of Action • Vision/Mission/Core Beliefs • CMS Goals & Balanced Scorecard • Equity Committee Recommendations • CMS Task Force Recommendations • Major Challenges: • Growth • Quality Teachers • Equity • Student Performance • Achievement Gap • High School Reform

  3. Big rocks = Priorities • Growth/Maintenance • Maintenance = Sustain current service levels • Teacher Quality • Attract/retain • Consolidate • Focus – external, internal • Pay for Performance • Strong leaders recruit strong teachers

  4. Big rocks (continued) • Equity • Sustain equity funding • Expand equity positions via Weighted Student Staffing model • Focus recruiting – teachers and principals • Strengthen magnets • PBIS • Alternative to suspension/truancy • High School Reform

  5. Big rocks (continued) • Safety • Alternative to suspension/truancy • PBIS • High School Reform • Small schools • Virtual High School • Decentralization

  6. Proposed 2006-07 comparison withAdopted 2005-2006 2006-2007 Proposed Budget 2005-2006 Adopted Budget % Change

  7. 2006-07ProposedBudget for CMS

  8. 2006-07ProposedBudget for CMS

  9. Is CMS bloated? • 85% of CMS’ budget goes to personnel • 86% of CMS personnel is school based • CMS central office administrative and professional staffserves more pupils per position than comparable size districts in a recent benchmark study • CMS school based administrationserves fewer pupils per position than comparable size districts = better instructional leadership and school safety • CMS teachers and school based support staff serve fewer pupils per position than comparable size districts (except for one) = better classroom instruction

  10. Brutalfacts – 3 “hits”Hit #1 = State funding for CMS Although the total appropriations for Public Schools continue to increase, Public Schools are receiving less of the General Fund appropriations. Since 1970, the Public School’s share of the General Fund has decreased by 12.6%. If our Public Schools were still funded at the same percentage as in FY 1969-70, we would have an additional $2.16 billion for our students. Percent of the General Fund Public Schools Appropriations

  11. Brutal facts – Hit #2 = County funding for CMS • Although County funding for CMS has increased since 2000-01, the Schools’ Operating share of the County General Fund Revenues has decreased by 4.7% whichequates to $41.2 million

  12. A smaller piece of the pie 2000-01 2005-06 Note: Does not include $2.31 million in fines and forfeitures in 2000-01 or $3.59 million in fines and forfeitures in 2005-06

  13. Chronic under-funding • Flat funding from County – 4 of the last 5 years despite increase of 17,597+ new students • Received $26.4 million 2005-06 – only covered growth this year – does not catch up for 4 years flat funding • Since 2002-2003 $111.7 million in cuts/redirectionsto cover growth and maintenance $87 millionin County cuts/redirections =30% of the County funded portion of our budget

  14. Brutal facts – Hit #3 = Federal funding for CMS • Proposed federal allocation = -1% • How can we say public education is really a priority if the percentage of funding is decreasing at the local, state and federal levels?

  15. Brutal facts – Cuts have already been made to vital programs and services $111 million in cuts, redirections • $20.3 million in central office personnel, supplies, contracted services, equipment • $16.6 million in staffing allocation formulas for schools (teacher assistants, assistant principals, media staff, teachers) • $8.6 million in classroom materialsand textbooks • $3.9 million in school based programs such as elementary band, orchestra, foreign language, secondary vocational education and ISS programs

  16. $111 million in cuts, redirections • $3.6 million from school consolidations and closures (restructuring alternative education, various elementary sites and Marie G. Davis) • $2.2 million in transportationcosts (adjusted bell schedule, after school services, supplies, equip. etc) • $1.7 million for Bright Beginnings expansion • $1.6 million in Exceptional Children staffing and contracted transportation • $.8 million in Child Nutrition costs

  17. Three main reasons we need additional money for 2006-07 • 4,442 new students are coming - more of those students will have complex learning needs • Opening 5 new facilities and rising fixed costs • Rising personnel costs

  18. Reason #1: Growth and complexity Between 1998-99 and 2005-06 • 25,247 new students • FRL increased from 38.9% to *48.1% of the total population • LEP increased from 4339 students to 12,493 students - up 188% • EC increased from 10,748 students to 14,404 students - up 34% Mecklenburg County DSS Mirrors Same Trends • 50% of black newborns and 80% of Hispanic newborns receive Medicaid • 1/3 of area’s homeless are children • 33.4% of children and 6.4% of adults in Mecklenburg County receive Public Assistance • Poverty rates are highest in households with children from birth to 17 years old * as of the 20th day of school

  19. Reason #2: 5 new facilities • 1.25 million square feet • Increased fixed operating costs • Utilities • Custodial service • Maintenance and preventive maintenance

  20. Reason #3: Rising personnel costs • Teacher salaries are keeping pace with inflation but not improving in a highly competitive national market • Non-licensed employees’ salaries are not keeping pace with inflation, having increased by only 6.5% since 2000-01, an average annual increase of 1.3% District paid health insurance costs alone have increased 66% from $2256 per employee in 2000-01 • Employee paid family coverage cost increased 67% • Since 2000-01 the cumulative CPI has increased by 12.7%

  21. Reason #3: Rising personnel costs

  22. County Budget Request Growth and Maintenance $29,330,238 New Initiatives $11,572,431 -Redirections/efficiency savings ($9,021,709) Net needed for new initiatives $2,550,722 Total request from County $31,880,960

  23. Other budget concerns State ADM Funds Available $9,646,427 CMS Requested Capital Replacement Budget $9,500,000 Budgeted County “drawdown” of ADM funds for Debt Service $8,750,000 County Mgr. Proposed Capital Replacement Budget $5,200,000 State ADM funds have previously been used to fund the CMS Capital Replacement Budget. The budget amount varied each year based upon availability of State ADM funds. Due to a regulatory change, ADM funds will now be used for debt service as opposed to capital replacement – however, this should free up county revenues that are currently being used to pay that debt service. CMS should continue to receive the amount of the funds available and ultimately “withdrawn” by the county from the State ADM Fund for this critical need.

  24. Other budget concerns • Why is the County proposing $5.2 million in capital replacement when the state has $9.65 million available? • CMS is requesting $9.5 million, primarily for HVAC needs and to improve indoor air quality for students • Budgeted County “draw down” of ADM funds for debt service is $8.75 million • If these funds are now being used for debt service, doesn’t this free up other revenues? • CMS should continue to receive the amount of funds available and ultimately withdrawn by the County from the State ADM Fund

  25. 2006-07 Proposed Capital Replacement Budget FY 2006-07 CMS Requested Funding $9,500,000 FY 2006-07 County Proposed Funding $5,200,000

  26. High school challenge budget FY 2005-06 Projected Carryover $1,100,000 FY 2006-07 HSC Budget $4,900,000 TOTAL FY 2006-07 HSC BUDGET $6,000,000 Notes: • The High School Challenge grant is not included in the Operating Budget, as this is a separate grant from the BOCC reported under separate cover • Performance results will be provided in late summer 2006.

  27. Brutal facts Student Enrollment 98,542 123,789 26% increase Per pupil cost $5988 $7626 27% increase

  28. County funding • Since 1998-99, the County portion of the Budget has increased by $104.9 million (36%) while enrollment has increased by 25,247 (26%) over the same period. • However, excluding salary/benefits increases and new facility costs, (i.e. utilities and maintenance), the percentage increase is only 18.5% -much lower than the enrollment increase of 26%. • This increase of $34.5 million (18.5%) covered growth in enrollment (26% increase), sustaining operating costs (i.e. rising utility and insurance costs) and all new initiatives introduced since 1998-99.

  29. Brutal facts • Since 1998-99, the Total CMS Operating Budget has increased by $353.9 (60%),while student enrollment has increased by 25,247 (26%) over the same period. • However, excluding salary/benefits increases and new facility costs, (i.e. utilities and maintenance), the percentage increase is only 24% - lower than the enrollment increase of 26% . • The remainder of $141 million (24%) covered growth in enrollment (26% increase), sustaining operating costs (i.e. rising utility and insurance costs) and all new initiatives introduced since 1998-99.

More Related