2015 - 2016 Budget Presentation to Boards
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
2 j'aime•2,472 vues
Presentation of the Board of Education's Adopted Budget for the 2015 - 2016 school Year.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (17)
Similaire à 2015 - 2016 Budget Presentation to Boards
Similaire à 2015 - 2016 Budget Presentation to Boards (20)
Plus de Litchfield Public Schools
Dernier
Dernier (20)
2015 - 2016 Budget Presentation to Boards
- 1. Litchfield Public Schools: 2015 – 2016 Education Budget “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” Benjamin Franklin
- 2. Table of Contents Table of Contents
- 3. Board of Education Frank Simone, Chair Wayne Shuhi, Vice Chair Donald Falcetti, Secretary John Bongiorno Gayle Carr Daniel Clock Elizabeth Fabbri Amy Rosser Gary Waugh
- 4. Administrative Team Jamie Terry, Director of Technology Sherri Turner, Principal, Center School Art Poole, Interim Business Administrator Lynn McMullin, Superintendent of Schools Michele Mongeau, Director of Special Services Jennifer Murphy, Principal, Litchfield Intermediate School Kristen Della Volpe, Principal, Litchfield Middle High School Stephanie Kubisek, Assistant Principal, Litchfield Middle High School
- 5. Superintendent’s Letter of Transmittal Dear Members of the Litchfield Community, What follows is a celebration of our schools and the Board of Education’s request for the financial resources to continue that success in the 2015 – 2016 school year. It represents a $419,359 increase, or 2.53%. Education is a ‘people business;’ thus 77% of the budget represents salaries and benefits. Fixed costs such as utilities and transportation make up another 13%. The remaining 10% is for the curriculum, supplies, and programming needed in our classrooms and activities, from sheet music to software, from butterfly larvae to baseballs. The budget builds on what the Litchfield community values – opportunities for individualized programming and the advantages of small class sizes. Additions to the staff, such as a guidance counselor for Center School and a Special-Ed teacher for the Intermediate School, occurred over the past summer and reflect both the educational and contemporary social needs of students and their families. Cafeteria aides, a crossing guard, and an assistant librarian at the high school meet additional student safety or supervision needs. Two notable increases are for the purchase of a much-needed math curriculum and the technology required to support it. Litchfield’s current math program is aligned to the standards of the CMT, with 26 different content strands each year. We’ve come to call that approach ‘a mile wide and an inch deep.’ The new Common Core State Standards require far fewer concepts per year and a much deeper level of understanding. The new requirements also add ‘math practices’ to the core content expecting teachers and students to change their old methods and incorporate more hands-on problem-solving, more conversation about how and why an answer is right, and greater fluency and facility with number sense.
- 6. Any math program worth our investment will support this new CCSS content and approach. Any worthwhile program will also offer rich technology supports such as pre- and post- assessments, online skills work with opportunities for immediate feedback, teacher resources for differentiation at all levels, SmartBoard-ready lessons, and online teacher and parent supports. This budget is a responsible budget, based on the needs of the schools. It is as clear and forthright as possible and includes line items and expenses not recognized in the previous budget. The ‘student activities’ line includes increases for the PSAT test to be given to sophomores and juniors at LHS on a Wednesday in October (a College Board mandated change), as well as for transportation for all the athletic contests, without banking on canceled games or lost tournament bids. It includes $20,000 for our anticipated loss in the cafeteria (a $46,000 deficit last year, but improvement is expected next year); $40,000 for Kelley Services to achieve 90% substitute coverage; and a $110,000 loan repayment to the town for computer leases. Some increases occur in lines which were under-budgeted for the previous two years: ATT, water, and sewer. The Board of Education budget is understandably a collection of static numbers with a bottom line. But, more accurately it is the foundation on which we are building our future through the education of our children. So this year, you’ll see slides which illustrate our district-wide accomplishments and celebrate our children and teachers at work. Ours IS a people business, and this budget continues Litchfield’s tradition of supporting the individual growth and development of every child. Simply put, it’s what’s best for kids. Respectfully submitted, Lynn K. McMullin Superintendent of Schools “Education is more than a luxury; it is a responsibility a society owes to itself.”
- 7. Our MISSION
- 8. A Core Belief … in Presenting this budget The Litchfield school system is a community jewel. It draws families to the community and makes them want to stay. Students succeed here; and, in return, their success brings both pride to Litchfield and measurable advancements to a wider world which builds its future on the potential contributions of its youngest citizens. The Litchfield community has dedicated itself to meeting the needs of all its children through rich and diverse academic programming and a commitment to 21st Century knowledge and skills, world language, athletic competition, music, and the visual arts. Children also benefit from programs in which they are provided an opportunity to say ‘thank you’ and give back to their town through performances, Veteran’s Day programs, community service projects, food drives, and benefits.
- 9. BUDGET Process Information o January 7 – Pre-Budget Discussions o February 10 – Finance Sub-Committee – Superintendent’s Budget Presentation o February 18 – Board of Ed – Superintendent’s Budget Presentation o March 4 -- Board of Ed – Approval of Superintendent’s Budget o March 11-- Board of Education Special Meeting (if needed for approval) o March – April – Budget available on webpage o March 16 – Superintendent’s Presentation to the Board of Finance o April 13 – Newspaper submission to Town of Litchfield o April 29 -- Budget Hearing o May 13 – Town Meeting
- 10. A glimpse from the past…. April 14, 1928 … the 60¢ purchase of formaldehyde for HS Science from the drugstore 10 gallons of gas - $2.10 2 quarts of oil -- .50 Red ink -- $1.15 Victrola needles -- .25 Total bill -- $4.00
- 11. From the past…. Athletics Expenses for December 1927 Stamps, cardboard, telephone calls, and possibly the cleaning of the basketball uniforms total … $2.78
- 12. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 3 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 3 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 3 at GOAL or above MATH 55 69 79 READING 67 65 75 WRITING 64 67 73 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Grade 3 at Goal
- 13. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 4 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 4 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 4 at GOAL or above MATH 71 80 74 READING 80 78 75 WRITING 81 75 75 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Grade 4 at Goal
- 14. What is DRG? DRG, or District Reference Group, is a grouping of Connecticut school districts based on the demographics they share. Seven key variables were considered: income, education, occupation, family structure, poverty, home language, and district enrollment. Litchfield was placed in DRG E. The 35 small districts in this group are ranked 5th in median family income, education level, and percentage in managerial or professional occupations. They have significantly lower percentage of children from single-parent families and lower percentage of children in poverty than DRG F, and both of these figures are similar to those of DRG D. The percentage of families who do not speak English at home is the lowest of all groups and the average enrollment of 766 is the smallest of any group. DRG E has 26 elementary districts and 14 high school districts. Grouping like districts together is useful in order to make legitimate comparisons of data for everything from testing to budgeting.
- 15. 2006 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS MATHEMATICS DRG E Rank READING DRG E Rank WRITING DRG E Rank At Goal or above 14th 74% 9th 75% 10th 75% At Advanced 9th 33% 10th 18% 6th 37% Grade 4 CMT Comparison Among 26 DRG E Districts for 2013
- 16. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 5 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 5 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 5 at GOAL or above MATH 72 82 83 READING 77 71 81 WRITING 81 76 82 SCIENCE -- 67 79 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Grade 5 at Goal
- 17. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 6 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 6 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 6 at GOAL or above MATH 86 84 89 READING 88 83 90 WRITING 93 70 87 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Grade 6 at Goal
- 18. 2006 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS MATHEMATICS DRG E Rank READING DRG E Rank WRITING DRG E Rank At Goal or above 6th 89% 7th 90% 4th 87% At Advanced 8th 45% 6th 36% 14th 36% Grade 6 CMT Comparison Among 26 DRG E Districts for 2013
- 19. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 7 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 7 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 7 at GOAL or above MATH 75 85 77 READING 85 84 84 WRITING 72 74 72 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Grade 7 at Goal
- 20. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 8 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 8 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 8 at GOAL or above MATH 79 79 82 READING 74 83 65 WRITING 82 81 76 SCIENCE -- 81 79 Grade 8 at Goal 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS
- 21. 2006 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS MATHEMATICS DRG E Rank READING DRG E Rank WRITING DRG E Rank SCIENCE DRG E Rank At Goal or above 8th 82% 15th 65% 16th 76% 12th 79% At Advanced 7th 46% 13th 37% 19th 21% 10th 27% Grade 8 CMT Comparison Among 26 DRG E Districts for 2013
- 22. CONTENTAREA 2006 % of Grade 10 at GOAL or above 2011 % of Grade 10 at GOAL or above 2013 % of Grade 10 at GOAL or above MATH 55 63 71 READING 72 59 67 WRITING 61 73 75 SCIENCE 75 60 76 2006– 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Grade 10 at Goal
- 23. 2006 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS MATHEMATICS DRG E Rank READING DRG E Rank WRITING DRG E Rank SCIENCE DRG E Rank At Goal or above 2nd 71% 2nd 67% 6th 75% 1st 76% At Advanced 2nd 37% 1st 36% 1st 49% 1st 51% Grade 10 CAPT Comparison Among 14 DRG E Districts for 2013
- 24. Class of 2015 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8 CAPT Reading 67/26 74/24 80/34 89/38 87/56 83/45 67/36 Writing 64/31 59/21 74/37 71/27 73/28 65/19 75/49 Math 55/19 65/29 70/30 87/57 90 / 58 79/46 71/37 Science -- -- 69/17 -- -- 81/29 76/51 2006 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Class of 2015 Growth Over Time At or above Goal / Advanced
- 25. Class of 2017 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Gr. 8 Reading 69/27 75/27 74/33 83/40 87/53 81/37 Writing 72/30 71/30 75/27 70/20 71/29 76/21 Math 74/41 72/39 80/39 85/51 87/50 82/46 Science -- -- 77/26 -- -- 79/27 2008 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Class of 2017 Growth Over Time At or above Goal / Advanced
- 26. Class of 2018 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Gr. 7 Reading 67/15 76/16 71/20 89/35 84/41 Writing 67/27 78/26 76/27 85/38 72/25 Math 77/33 77/29 82/35 85/48 77/36 Science -- -- 67/24 -- -- 2009 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Class of 2018 Growth Over Time At or above Goal / Advanced
- 27. Class of 2019 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Gr. 6 Reading 71/19 78/26 85/29 90/36 Writing 67/17 75/30 90/28 87/36 Math 87/55 80/35 89/47 89/45 Science -- -- 76/37 -- 2010 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Class of 2019 Growth Over Time At or above Goal / Advanced
- 28. Class of 2020 Gr. 3 Gr. 4 Gr. 5 Reading 65/11 76/23 81/31 Writing 67/23 74/31 82/37 Math 69/34 82/32 83/48 Science -- -- 79/30 2011 – 2013 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Class of 2020 Growth Over Time At or above Goal / Advanced
- 29. # Tested Math Reading Writing Litchfield Female 35 521 541 555 Litchfield Male 29 553 537 534 Litchfield Total 64 535 539 546 STATE 36,370 510 507 508 TOTAL GROUP 1,672,395 513 497 487 2014 SUCCESS STORIES: SAT’S Class of 2014
- 30. # Tested Math Reading Writing Class of 2014 64 535 539 546 2014 State 36,370 510 507 508 Class of 2013 76 512 516 527 2013 State 36,053 512 508 512 Class of 2012 90 539 544 552 2012 State 36,469 512 506 510 Class of 2011 77 543 544 556 2011 State 36,774 513 509 513 Class of 2010 87 541 551 558 2010 State 36,076 514 509 513 2010 - 2014 SUCCESS STORIES: SAT’S
- 31. Total number of AP students 61 Total number of AP exams 105 Score 5 4 3 2 1 Exams 19 42 30 12 2 % scored 3 or above 87% 11% 2% Exams taken: Studio Art: 2D (2); Studio Art: Drawing (2); English Language and Comp. (18); English Lit. and Comp. (10); Psychology (6); US Gov. and Politics (12); US History (14); Calculus AB (8); Calculus BC (1); Biology (12); Chemistry (4); Environmental Science (11); Latin (2); Spanish Lang. and Culture (3) 2014 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Advanced Placement 2014 Increase of 17 students Increase of 8%
- 32. 2014 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS 79% 70%
- 33. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2014 SUCCESS STORIES: ACADEMICS Very low attrition rate for students attending post-high school education over the past five years. • Class of 2011: • 84% attended post-grad education immediately • 75% at four-year colleges • 11% attrition overall; 2% at private colleges • 11% enrolled as new students in 2013
- 34. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: TECHNOLOGY o Supported True windows 8.1 convertible tablets for High School students and staff. o Created a 24/7 learning environment with home access to files and web services. o Expanded Discover Video Educational Archive. o Created extensive self-help knowledgebase website with student and staff online ticket system.
- 35. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: TECHNOLOGY o Supported Windows 8.1 laptop for 7th & 8th grades. o Added 50 Chromebooks and 15 iPads. o Fully collaborative electronic environment across multiple platforms (Google, Office 365, Student Share).
- 36. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: TECHNOLOGY o Provided hardware access to: o 3-D Printing, Video Editing, Television Studio, Large Format Printing, o Digital Microscopes, LabQuest Data Collection Devices, o SmartBoards in every science, math, social studies classroom. o Managed District Wide Wireless Access. o Expanded 10GB Fiber LAN Within District. o Fully filtered student devices with robust reporting.
- 37. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: TECHNOLOGY o Office 365 Online (Outlook, OneNote, Word, Access, Excel, as well as full suite installed on student/staff devices). Supported software access to: o Google Apps with Google Sites o LPS Cloud File Access (WebDav) o SmartMusic and Garage Band o Adobe Premier, Corel Video Studio x5, Adobe Cloud Suite, Dreamweaver web-editing suite, Adobe Photoshop o TI Calculator Emulation, Smart Notebook o Quickbooks Accounting Software o Computer Assisted Design (CAD)
- 38. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: CENTER SCHOOL o Pre-school expansion for 4-year-olds that meets for extended day, 9:00 – 1:00. o Expanded “Literacy Volunteers” program, for students in grades K and 1; trained parents in reading intervention. o Perfected “Ready, Set, Grow” program for incoming K students and their parents.
- 39. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: CENTER SCHOOL o Implemented Center School Book Club with books for every family and a calendar of literacy activities for the home. o Bookroom Summer Hours for families to support summer reading. o Held Common Core Parent Workshops – Language Arts, grades K – 3.
- 40. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL o Held Immigration Nation through EdConn -- inter-district program to reduce socio-economic isolation through 5 – 6 field trips. o Hosted Learning Through Moschen Math program -- 100% grant funded. o Won $2,000 mini-grant from CSDE for UConn to work with teachers on digital literacy strategies.
- 41. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL o Awarded a $7000 Library Media Grant from the Litchfield Education Foundation to create a ‘makerspace’. o Use PD to increase critical thinking through inquiry-based instruction in close reading and questioning technique. o Continued to align assessments to CCSS and the depth-of-knowledge matrix.
- 42. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL o Aligned and implemented teacher and administrative goals to improve communication. o Improved outreach through local television and radio. o Developed a 6th grade brochure on how students use Google Classroom. o Participated in CT Read Aloud Day sponsored by Chamber of Congress and community volunteers.
- 43. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL o Held a fundraiser and food drive for the local FISH shelter in honor of our local Veterans. o Continued heavy participation in band and chorus programs with students winning awards at the regional competition at Six Flags in Agawam, MA.
- 44. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD MIDDLE SCHOOL o Increased presence and involvement of middle school Student Council. o Implemented ‘Student Success Plans’. o Formalized middle school advisory program to include weekly teacher planning meetings.
- 45. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD MIDDLE SCHOOL o Redesigned 7th grade Parent Orientation. o Mid-year, flexibly reorganized French program to ensure middle school student’s success and credit- completion. o 4 Middle School students selected for the Northwest Regionals Music Festival.
- 46. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL o Reinforced community connections with the Town’s Prevention Council through Project Purple. o Completed eight, staff-led NEASC self-study reports; provided supporting evidence. o Received $9,991 CSDE Grant to complete school-wide review of assessment practices.
- 47. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL o 9 music students grade 9-12 selected for Northern Regional Music Festival. o LHS Student selected to design Prevention Council website. o Seven out of ten students in senior class accepted into first college choice.
- 48. 2014 – 2015 SUCCESS STORIES: LITCHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL o 2 seniors -- 1st Team All-Berkshire League Boys Soccer & All-State o 1 junior -- 2nd Team All-Berkshire League Boys Soccer o 1 junior -- 1st Team All-Berkshire League Cross Country o 1 junior -- 2nd Team All-Berkshire league Girls Soccer o 2014 Sportsmanship – Girls Soccer o 2014 Sportsmanship – Boys Soccer
- 49. THE 2015 – 2016 PROPOSED BUDGET o Maintains programs and choices for high school students. o Provides for a new CCSS aligned Math Curriculum, pre-K – 5. o Continues to expand Instructional Technology at Center School and Litchfield Intermediate. o Meets our contractual obligations. o Maintains the smaller class sizes = hallmark of the community.
- 50. 2015-2015 PRIORITY #1: MATH CURRICULUM o Replaces home-grown curriculum in binders. o Replaces old CMT model which had 26 standards per year = a mile wide and an inch deep. o Implements new CCSS model = deep understanding of fewer concepts per year. o $80,190 for texts and supplies
- 51. 2015-2015 PRIORITY #1: MATH CURRICULUM o New instructional model aligned with current LA instructional model o Meets CT requirements ensuring all students succeed and are prepared for Smarter Balance o Higher-level problem-solving and STEM (science-technology- engineering-math activities) o Student driven vs. teacher-directed o Provides for collaboration and independence
- 52. 2015-2016 PRIORITY #2: TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW MATH CURRICULUM o Technology-based resources to implement program. o Technology accommodates high- end students, as well as strugglers. o Adaptive technology eliminates one-size-fits-all worksheets. o Technology provides immediate feedback to students. o Technology provides supports, such as pre-recorded video snippets for parents and students
- 53. Center School o 75 iPads – 1 cart shared (25) per grades K - 2 o 25 Chromebooks – 1 cart shared Grade 3 2015-2016 PRIORITY #2: TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW MATH CURRICULUM 63% BOE FUNDED 37% State Grant Funded
- 54. o 2 -- 4th grade shared carts - 52 Chromebooks o 2 -- 5th grade shared carts - 52 Chromebooks Litchfield Intermediate School 63% BOE FUNDED 37% State Grant Funded 2015-2016 PRIORITY #2: TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW MATH CURRICULUM
- 55. 2015- 2016 Projected Enrollment -- Center School Grade Projected Enrollment / Sections Projected Class Size Pre-School 48 12 Kindergarten [62] / 4 15/16 Grade 1 62 / 4 15/16 Grade 2 62 / 3 20/21 Grade 3 53 / 3 17/18 * Partially participation fee-funded 2015-2016 PRIORITY #3: MAINTAIN SMALL CLASS SIZES / OFFERINGS
- 56. Grade Projected Enrollment / Sections Projected Class Size Grade 4 69 / 4 17/18 Grade 5 69 / 4 17/18 Grade 6 78 / 4 19/20 2015- 2016 Projected Enrollment – Intermediate School 2015-2016 PRIORITY #3: MAINTAIN SMALL CLASS SIZES
- 57. Grade Projected Enrollment / Sections Projected Class Size LA Projected Class Size Math Projected Class Size Science Grade 7 84 / 4 21 21 21 Grade 8 90 / 4 22.5 22.5 22.5 2015- 2016 Projected Enrollment – Middle School 2015-2016 PRIORITY #3: MAINTAIN SMALL CLASS SIZES
- 58. High School Class Sizes In a small high school such as Litchfield’s, class sizes are driven by several factors that play with the simple arithmetic. Those factors are: number of students who elect a class, weighted classes (AP, Honors, and Academic); heavily-enrolled core classes (band and chorus), and specialty courses with only one section, called singletons (AP classes, Tech-Ed, World Languages, art). Consider the junior class, for example, with 84 students. Simple division would yield four English classes with 21 students each. But, there may be only 12 juniors who elect AP Language and Composition and 48 students who want Honors English. The schedule then becomes further complicated when, of the 48 students taking Honors English, 20 are in Band and cannot take English during that particular block. If 14 of the 20 Honors/Band students are also taking AP US History, another singleton class, an extra section of English may now be needed to cover the inflexibilities caused by selecting these three classes. Litchfield has made a commitment to do the best it possibly can in honoring students’ individual program needs through flexible scheduling and recently through the flexible (asynchronous) scheduling of a few virtual high school courses.
- 59. 2014 - 2015 Class Size ACTUALS: LITCHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL Grade Enrollment Range LA Range Math Range Science Grade 9 69 8 - 19 7 - 16 7 - 17 Grade 10 75 9 - 23 11 - 24 7 - 24 Grade 11 84 12 - 20 10 - 17 8 - 19 Grade 12 70 8 - 18 4 - 23 5 - 20 Increase of 18 students next year: 88 freshmen incoming, 70 seniors outgoing
- 60. 2014 - 2015 ACTUAL Class Sizes: LITCHFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 5 highest class sizes Civics – 27 Algebra II – 24 Bio Honors – 24 Calculus Honors – 23 Spanish IV Honors - 23 5 lowest class sizes AP Spanish – 3 AP and Honors Art -- 3 Robotics – 3 Global Studies A – 5 Algebra I – 7
- 61. 2015-2016 KEY BUDGET DRIVERS 2015 – 2016 Contractual Obligations and Fixed Costs: 1. $10,298,755 -- Employee Salaries & Wages 4.95% 2. $2,983,693 – Employee Benefits 0.56% 3. $860,964 -- Regular Education Transportation - 6.80% 4. $657,300 – Special Education Tuition - 17.85% 5. $595,307 – Utilities 10.56% 6. $110,000 – Technology Lease to Town 0%
- 62. INCREASES OVER 2014 - 2015 BUDGET 1. $97,191 – Staffing added since budget adoption • District Database Specialist (PowerSchool) -- $19,191 • Library Aide (LHS) -- $22,000 • Cafeteria Aides and Crossing Guard (LCS) – $16,000 • Kelly Services (substitutes) -- $40,000 2. $80,190 – new math Curriculum Pre-K - 5 3. $65,282 – iPads/Chromebooks to support Math Curriculum (63% of total cost; 37% grant-funded)
- 63. DECREASES FROM 2014 - 2015 BUDGET 1. (- $141,105) – Special Education Tuition 2. (- $85,000) – Special Education Transportation 3. (- $62,849) – Regular Education Transportation 4. (- $31,564) -- Administration
- 64. DECREASES TAKEN FEBRUARY 2015 1. (- $28,424) – French -- LHS 2. (- $20,000) – Special Education Aide 3. (- $1,000) – iPads 4. (- $20,000) – Homebound Instruction 5. (- $10,000) – Curriculum Writing 6. (- $9,200) – Miscellaneous Supplies 7. (- $7,000) – Office Administrative Services - $95,624
- 65. DECREASES MADE MARCH 2015 1. (- $10,000) – Business Manager Salary 2. (- $40,000) – Health Insurance 3. (- $25,000) – Computers / replacement of desktops over 5 years 4. (- $14,000) – Fingerprinting of Volunteers - $ 89,000
- 66. CUTS MADE APRIL 2015 1. (- $51,729) – 1.0 FTE Teacher’s Salary 2. (- $20,000) – Intern program 3. (- $13,693) – Indoor Track (6 students) 4. (- $66,490) – Additional Technology 5. (- $40,000) – Pay ½ with end-of-year fund balance 6. (- $20,000) – School Lunch subsidy decrease 7. (- $14,242) - .5 LIS Secretary 8. (- $3,677) – CIS Furniture 9. (- $12,500) – Curriculum Update -$183,981
- 67. SALARIES: TEACHERS Teachers 2014-15 Budget 2015-16 Budget % Increase Notes Regular Instruction 5,670,565.98 5,926,862.32 4.51% Salary increases plus step and track changes; Cut 1.6 FTE Special Ed Instruction 649,625.00 642,903.32 - 9.99 1.0 FTE (Speech) moved to correct line below; 1.0 FTE SE teacher added 1/2015 Psychologists 154,988.00 157,397.00 1.55 Contractual Speech Pathologists 78,481.44 165,888.50 101.21 1.0 FTE (Speech) moved to correct line Social Worker 105,753.82 + 46,135.13 -56.37 + Correction of salary in this line; Partial salary moved to Title I grant Library Services 236,342.00 232,880.19 -1.46 Contractual Guidance Services 260,529.00 348,768.00 33.87 Salary increase and track change 1.0 Guidance for Center School added 7/2014 7,156,285.24 7,520,834.46 5.09
- 68. SALARIES: AFSCME Position 2014-15 Budget 2015-16 Budget % Increase Notes Computer Assistants 85,334.56 84,748.32 -0.69 Reorganization of Tech positions Regular Assistants 20,000.00 100.00 Library assistant added so servicing continues when Library Media Specialist is teaching classes Special Ed Assistants 404,547.92 426,547.98 5.15 PPT-required 1-to-1 and academic support services Secretaries - Schools 198,900.36 213,857.38 .3 Contractual raise; cut .5 CIS plus 2 additional longevity payments Secretaries - Guidance 28,485.31 29,270.78 2.76 Contractual 717,268.15 774,424.46 7.38%
- 69. SALARIES: NON-UNION CLASSIFIED Position 2014-15 Budget 2015-16 Budget % Increase Notes Fiscal Services 142,182.36 196,116.00 37.93 Added 1.0 database (PowerSchool) in reorganization of Tech Department Secretaries Central Office 59,048.64 60,823.44 3.01 Administrative Assistant to Superintendent Secretaries Special Ed 23,604.84 52,425.88 122.10 Change from .5 Secretary to 1.0 Secretary - Special Ed Technology Maintenance 225,814.00 143,212.00 -36.58 Reorganization of Technology Department; moved 1.0 database (PowerSchool) to Fiscal Services Courier 8,419.96 8,670.42 2.97 Contractual Nurses 172,002.00 177,163.71 3.00 Contractual 631,071.80 638,411.45 1.16
- 70. SALARIES: ADMINISTRATION Position 2014-15 Budget 2015-16 Budget % Increase Notes Principals 515,458.00 525,768.00 2.00 Contractual Special Education Director 120,000.00 122,400.00 2.00 Contractual Business Manager 115,566.00 120,000.00 3.84 Anticipated new hire Superintendent 163,000.00 168,000.00 3.07 Difference between previous contract/interim and new contract 914,024.00 936,168.00 2.40%
- 71. UTILITIES Utility 2013-14 Budget 2014-15 Budget 2015-16 Projection Difference Notes Heating Oil $ 221,500.00 $ 221,500.00 $ 200,679.00 $ (20,821.00) 96,000 gallons x $2.0904 per gallon Electricity $ 192,600.00 $ 192,600.00 $ 256,790.00 $ 64,190.00 1,424,636 khw x $.103 + Delivery Charges Propane $ 14,800.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 4,110.00 $ (90.00) 2075 units x $1.98 per unit Water $ 13,100.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 4,800.00 based on actual usage of $19,780 in 2013-14 Medical Waste $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 $ - based on past charges Prop/Liability Insurance $ 65,400.00 $ 67,000.00 $ 67,000.00 $ - Sewer $ 14,300.00 $ 18,050.00 $ 18,050.00 $ - based on usage of $16,600 in 2013-14 Alarm Monitor $ 4,200.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 6,200.00 $ 2,000.00 based on additional systems for LHS and LIS $ 526,200.00 $ 522,850.00 $ 538,450.00 $ 15,600.00
- 72. UTILITIES Utility 2013-14 Budget 2014-15 Budget Projection 2015-16 Difference Notes ATT $ 13,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 3,500.00 based on $16,327 from 2013-14 ATT Mobility $ 2,200.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 4,000.00 based on $6,539 from 2013-14 $ 15,200.00 $ 15,600.00 $ 23,100.00 $ 7,500.00 Diesel $ 122,500 (budgeted as 1 line item) $ 122,500 (budgeted as 1 line item) $ 87,000.00 29,000 gallons x $3.00 per gallon Unleaded $ 10,920.00 3,900 gallons x $2.80 per gallon $ 122,500.00 $122,500.00 $ 97,920.00 ($ 24,580.00)
- 73. 2015 – 2016 BUDGET SUMMARY What’s included in…. Regular Education Instruction Supplies and programs for: Art, Business Education, World Languages, Family Consumer Science, Tech Ed, Language Arts, Math, Music, PE, Science, Social Studies, Kindergarten, Title I, Health Special Education Instruction Supplies and programs for: Learning Centers (Special Ed classroom), Speech & Language, Homebound Instruction, Pre-School Pupil Services Supplies and programs for psychological services, guidance, health offices, career education, OP/PT services, social work Library Media, Student Activities, Tech Support Supplies and programs for library media centers, student activities, and technology support; Cafeteria supplement ($45,000); Free and Reduced lunch Employee Salary, Wages, Benefits District-wide employee salaries – teachers, specialists, secretaries, counselors, nurses -- and benefits – health insurance, workman’s comp, disability, life insurance, mileage Administration, Board, Staff Development, Fiscal Services Board of Education, district-wide administration; Central Office, professional development for staff; fiscal services Plant Operations Utilities and technology maintenance; including $110,000 payment for technology lease to Town Tuition and Transportation Out-of district Special Ed tuitions and transportation; district-wide transportation, athletic transportation, magnet school and Vo-Ag tuitions
- 74. 2015 – 2016 BUDGET SUMMARY 2012 – 2013 Actual 2013 – 2014 Actual 2014 – 2015 Adopted 2015 – 2016 Proposed % Inc. Regular Education Instruction $198,717 $182,654 $169,090 $243,330 43.91% Special Education Instruction $13,870 $21,643 $19,232 $34,260 78.14% Pupil Services $100,374 $131,494 $117,010 $131,870 12.70% Library Media, Student Activities, Tech Support $216,666 $170,994 $226,807 $225,591 -0.54% Employee Salary, Wages, Benefits $11,968,957 $12,357,908 $12,779,765 $13,282.447 3.93% Administration, Board, Staff Development, Fiscal Services $384,190 $296,129 $280,709 $261,489 -6.85% Plant Operations $732,969 $680,183 $768,806 $872,087 13.43% Tuition and Transportation $2,024,085 $2,180,413 $2,219,221 $1,948,924 -12.18% TOTAL $15,639,827 $15,858,545 $16,600,641 $17,000,000 2.53%
- 75. 2% 0% 1% 1% 60% 17% 2% 6% 11% Expenses by Category Regular Ed Instruction Special Ed Instruction Pupil Services Library, Student Activities, Tech Salary Benefits Administration Plant Operations Tuition and Transportation
- 76. BUDGET SUMMARY o 2013–2014 Expended Budget: 1.32% $15,639,827 o 2014–2015 Adopted Budget: 4.68% $16,580,641 o 2015–2016 BOE Budget: 2.53% $17,000,000 % Year 2.96 2010-11 .997 2011-12 .99 2012-13 1.32 2013-14 4.68 2014–15 2.53 2015-16 2.24 Average
- 77. BUDGET COMPARISONS 95 districts have reported as of April 20th 2014 – 2015 Rank 131 2015 - 2016 Rank 95 Litchfield 4.68% 24th 2.53% 54th State Average 2.7% 67th 2.77% 50th High 6.70% 6.99% Top 5 Ansonia New Canaan Darien Middletown Rocky Hill 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Enfield Ansonia Cheshire Norwich Middletown 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Low - 1.80% -.26% Bottom 5 Region 18 Plainville Waterford Meriden Redding 127th 128th 129th 130th 131st Bethany North Stonington Preston Windsor Locks Region 12 91st 92nd 93rd 94th 95th
- 78. BUDGET COMPARISONS 95 districts have reported as of April 20th -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Enfield Cheshire Middletown NorwichFreeAcademy Newington Hartland Plymouth Windsor EastLyme Ellington Region#8 WestHaven Oxford Woodstock Bolton Stafford Wethersfield Fairfield Bristol Glastonbury OldSaybrook Trumbull Marlborough AVERAGE Groton Lebanon Litchfield Madison Granby Milford Barkhamsted Greenwich Salem Ashford Bloomfield Region#18 Waterford Norfolk Clinton Griswold Colebrook Montville Wolcott Colchester Canterbury NorthStonington WindsorLocks Litchfield 2.53% STATE AVERAGE 2.77%
Notes de l'éditeur
- The 2015 – 2016 Budget presents the accomplishments of the district over the past few years, and particularly during the current year to illustrate the great things that have come as a result of the community’s investment. It features test scores, awards, initiatives, class sizes, and rankings within the DRG. What follows is a presentation of the funding needed to maintain and build upon that success.
- As your new superintendent, I have worked as quickly as possible to learn the various facets of the budget, trying to come to grips with the more complex categories such as technology and the FTE’s, or full-time equivalent assignments for staff. At the same time, I was trying to get an accurate read on what’s important to the school community. I asked a lot of questions, requested rationales to better understand why something was important, and even watched people’s faces when we talked about cuts. This budget reflects what the school community feels is important to provide the best for kids next year.
- Many thanks to the people who have dedicated many hours to the business of the school district, not just on the budget preparation, but on policy, curriculum, facilities planning, and so many other domains which keep the district running smoothly. The BOE was very helpful in the budget development. They are not careless about spending. They listen to the principals’ requests thoughtfully. They, too ask a lot of questions.
- The people above are members of the District Leadership Team and work collaboratively, and to the best of their ability, to support a pre-K – 12 educational system aimed at providing the best education in the safest and most supportive environment possible for all our students.
- The budget was adopted by the Board of Education at its March 18th meeting and is requesting a 3.64% increase, or $603,341 dollars over last year. However, following discussions with the Board of Finance, the budget was cut to $17,000,000 or an increase of 2.53%. 77% of the budget is salary and benefits. Fixed costs such as utilities and transportation make up 13%, and only 10% of the budget is curriculum and supplies. The two notable increases are for the new K – 5 math curriculum and the technology required to support it, and both will be explained in greater detail in upcoming slides.
- The salary increases for the upcoming year average 2.96%, including step increases. In additional there are several new longevity payments and teachers changing classifications because of new advanced degrees. The budget includes salaries for non-certified staff members hired over the summer to meet significant needs – adding designated cafeteria monitors allowed paraprofessionals to return to tutoring and support services during those key times. Additionally there was a need for a crossing guard at Center School … and a library assistant at the high school, so the library could remain open while the librarian teaches classes in Internet research, avoiding plagiarism, and proper citations. Each of these positions was posted and filled after the last budget, but each was carefully considered and acted upon by the Board of Education. To meet these needs, other cuts were made. This year, these salaries are added to the budget for the first time, creating a portion of the increase in the Personnel lines. In addition, the budget recognizes a loss of $20,000 in the cafeteria and a payment of $110,000 to the town for the computer lease.
- Personal learning experiences for every learner is the key ideal in Litchfield Public Schools’ published Mission Statement, which acknowledges that our local and worldwide community will be dependent upon a future productive and self-directed citizenry.
- While, as a superintendent, I am new to this district, it did not take long to witness the values of the community and the community’s pride in the schools. People are committed to sustaining what is excellent and to supporting what can be improved upon. Evidence supports a school system dedicated to educating the social and civic nature of each child, in addition to the core academics. Music, athletics, community service, and so many other enrichment activities play a vital role in the schools.
- The leadership team begins work on the budget in the fall. By the time I arrived on January 5th, the budget was built; and it has been my role to come to understand the budget as fully as possible so I can support it with specifics and a richness of detail when asked. This was not a careless timeline, nor was it deliberately stalled to prevent people from viewing and analyzing it. In fact, as soon as it was passed by the Board of Education, it was posted to the webpage. I arrived in Litchfield on January 5th, and almost immediately the budget discussion began. I presented this PowerPoint, but with a 4.57% increase, to the Finance Sub-Committee on February 10th. The sub-committee made a few changes and I presented, with the changes, to the full Board at their very next meeting on February 18. At that time, the BOE members asked a great number of questions, causing Arty Poole and me to go back and look at the budget with more scrutiny. We found reductions, and on March 4th, I brought back to the Board of Education the 4.18% budget, the budget you are seeing tonight. They adopted their budget on March 4th.
- During the renovation that took place in the basement of Center School, a few rich ‘glimpses of history’ were uncovered. Beautiful collages of pictures from the 1920’s were uncovered – very well preserved and ready for display. They were all donated to the historical society; but for a short time, we have hung on to one collage of financial information. The next two slides depict a few of the many, many receipts which document local businesses and interesting Board of Education expenses. We’ll have the collage on display in the Board of Education Office and at the hearing and Town Meetings on April 29 and May 13th.
- Oh for the days when the athletic department expenses totaled $2.78 for the month. But, I’m sure today’s basketball players appreciate washable fabrics rather than the wool of the past.
- The CMT is no longer given, and the new Smarter Balance test will soon make its mark. But, for the time being, the CMT scores from 2013 are the only state comparison we have. Here we can see improvements over seven years, with different groups of children. By no means, however, does Litchfield measure its success solely by standardized testing.
- Scores in the fourth grade have fluctuated year-to-year, but remained steadily above average. DRG comparisons follow.
- DRG, or District Reference Group, is a grouping of Connecticut school districts based on the demographics they share. Litchfield is in DRG E. Grouping like districts together is useful in order to make legitimate comparisons of data for everything from testing to budgeting.
- When you make a DRG comparison, you can see how well Litchfield’s student do in comparison with other similar districts. The green indicates where we fall in the top 10 of similar districts. As it becomes more and more important to differentiate instruction for students who are excelling, as well as for those that struggle, it becomes increasingly important to attend to the number of students who score in the ‘advanced’ band, as well as at ‘goal’. For example, of the 74% of students who achieved goal in math, 33% were in the advanced band.
- In Grade 5 and grade 8, students also take a standardized test in Science. This is one of the reasons why it is important to align curriculum to the standards, so students learn the correct concepts in the correct year. Social Studies standards were just approved this month by the Connecticut legislature.
- By 6th grade, it is clear that Litchfield’s students are doing extremely well across all three content areas. The higher the scores, the less significant incremental changes become.
- The same is true for the rankings when it is likely that the difference between 1st and 6th place, for example, may be a mere one or 2 points.
- 7th and 8th grade marked another level of complexity in testing, just as did the 10th grade CAPT. Math scores are fluctuating a bit; reading and writing remain steady.
- However, it is important that the scores be analyzed on a regular basis and adjustments in curriculum, instruction, and sometimes even approach be modified to maximize student achievement. Litchfield is not a district that ‘teaches to the tests,’ but rather looks at the expectations of the tests and aligns curricular concepts so that students’ knowledge and skills are improving with each succeeding year.
- Our 8th grade students in 2013 did not achieve as well as they had previously in 6th grade. Math and Science were their strongest areas of achievement, and the 47% in the advanced band in math is impressive.
- The CAPT score results show why Litchfield High School is ranked so high in the State and why the High School earned a national ranking as well.
- Even though the score points at goal seem lower than, for example, the 6th grade CMT, you can see that within the DRG, Litchfield students excelled and ranked 1st in half of the categories (four) and 2nd in three.
- The next few slides show ‘growth-over-time.’ Rather than comparing different groups of students at each grade level, these slides show the growth of the same group of students as they progressed from 3rd grade to a higher grade. The above slide shows the progress of the current senior class. Remember that the CAPT is a very different test than the CMT and this class ranked very high in the CAPT. The last time state testing was recorded was 2013.
- This slides shows growth over time for this year’s sophomores.
- Growth over time for this year’s freshmen. If you are not getting enough time with these slides, the entire presentation is available on the district’s webpage from the left-hand menu under 2015 – 2016 Budget Information.
- Growth-over-time for this year’s 8th graders.
- Growth over time for this year’s 7th graders.
- The College Board annually reports out the district, state, and global scores for the SAT tests for the graduating class. They report the highest score, as some students take SAT’s more than once, including in the fall of their senior year. Thus, the scores are for only the 2014 graduating class and do not include any of this year’s seniors (Class of 2015), even if they tested in 2014. The ‘total group’ includes international students.
- This slide shows the ups-and-downs in the SAT over the past five years. In general, Litchfield’s students have scored above the state averages by a healthy margin. This budget includes an increase in the student activities line because the College Board is requiring the SAT be given during the week in the fall, and we’ve included the fee for sophomores and junior to take the test during the day. This may be a one-year only requirement; we don’t know the outcome of this requirement yet, until we have been through one cycle.
- The College Board’s Advanced Placement data is one of the key indicators used in determining high school ranks. They look for increases in the number of students who attempt AP courses and take the exams. They look for increases in the number of exams the students take, and the number of students who receive a 3 or above and may therefore qualify for college credit. AP exams are expensive – almost $100 each. Because taking the exams benefits the school and district, this year’s budget includes a line item to pay for the exams a single student takes beyond 3, so that students who take 4 or more AP courses/ exams have some relief.
- This slide tells the story of Litchfield students who enroll in college after high school. 79% of the Class of 2012 enrolled in college. Of that 79%, 70% of the students enrolled in a four-year program.
- Once enrolled, Litchfield students have a very low attrition, or drop out rate. For the Class of 20122, for example, 84% went to college immediately after high school; 75% of those students went to 4-year schools. Whereas, nationally attrition from college stands at about 46% (some call this a national crisis), Litchfield has an 11% attrition rate. In addition, another 11% of Litchfield students enroll in a post secondary program within 2 years of graduating from high school.
- Litchfield has made an impressive investment in technology and most students are successfully using technology on a daily basis. They have a help desk they can access and can generate help-desk tickets. Like any new program, there is a ne4ed to constantly assess what works and make adjustments and changes. We are making two changes this year for example. First, we are moving to a single platform for assigning and collecting homework. Second, we will be implementing a new inventorying system for the laptops.
- The more access to devices, the more interactive and individualized classroom instruction becomes. When the kids and teachers have ready access to technology, the devices greatly diminish the amount of one-size-fits-all assignments, worksheets, and outdated practices such as poster-projects.
- There has been tremendous improvements in infrastructure as well.
- The technology department not supports a large number of devices, they support programs, as well.
- Last year, the pre-school successfully expanded the hours for four-year-olds. This year we are expanding the program to include more seats (up to 48 3’s and 4’s will be able to attend). And the number of days/ hours that the two groups of children will come to Center School. We know we can provide an excellent program and at the same time, ease the transition into kindergarten for students who become familiar with the building, staff, and curriculum.
- The Center School principal and staff have worked hard to include families in their programming knowing that positive and informed family involvement is a key student success factor.
- At the Intermediate School, an effort has been made to extend students opportunities for learning beyond the daily classroom activities. As with all of our schools, teachers often pursue grant opportunities to off-set the costs of a program.
- Professional development is a significant budget line item. Teachers have several full-day and 2-hour professional development opportunities throughout the year. These days give teachers new knowledge and techniques, but they all help ensure a more uniform curriculum and instructional base, so that students experiences across a grade are more similar.
- Parent reach-out and improved communication was a goal throughout the district this past year, and with the new Teacher Evaluation system emphasizing parent feedback goals, improving communication and community outreach is likely to be an important focus for the foreseeable future.
- There are many success stories which illustrate the effort on the part of the schools to engage our students in their community through performances, volunteerism, fundraisers for local causes, and special events such as the recognition of our local Veterans.
- Oftentimes, the budget includes the district’s response to mandates from the State Department of Education. This year, we implemented Student Success Plans with Naviance software. Next year, we’ll need to create and print an Emergency Response booklet, write a new 5-year Technology Plan, and update the Teacher Evaluation and Professional Development Plans.
- In a few rare instances, a program shifts out from under us and an adjustment needs to be made mid-year. Such was the case with French this year when an unexpected resignation, coupled with small enrollments, caused us to rethink offering French as a third offering in world languages. This BOE made a commitment to complete French for students already enrolled, but not to take any new enrollments. This led to a .4 budget cut in FTE at the high school. It should be a continued source of great pride that the community continues to support, not only world language, but music, art, and technology education.
- Sometimes people don’t realize how time consuming the self-study can be and how expensive the actual visitation can be. On the other hand, the NEASC accreditation led the high school teachers to a decision to deeply study their assessment practices and look at the kids of tests, quizzes, and projects students were completing. This led to the principal applying for and winning a State grant to study assessment.
- The success of the high school is no secret… it is a priviledge to work in a district with a state-ranked and nationally ranked high school that values the wide variety of opportunities it can provide for kids.
- Despite smaller graduating classes, Litchfield has made a commitment to providing as many extra-curricular activities and sports as possible. The sportsmanship awards show that kids are not only exercising and competing, but gaining a healthy appreciation for the team over self and the importance of personal respect.
- So now that I’ve given the work of the school district a brief and somewhat limited overview, I like to begin talking about how this year’s budget sustains that excellence. This is in some respects a maintenance budget. I’ve looked at what is important to the Litchfield School Community – smaller class sizes, programs, opportunities for choice, opportunities to be current and tech savvy, and respectful of the people who make the school district strong.
- There are three priorities in this budget. The first is the purchase of a new, common-core aligned curriculum for grades K - 5. Recently, the elementary teachers have been teaching a math program written in-house and aligned to the CMT. The old Connecticut standards taught 26 different math concepts in each year, everything from number sense to estimation to currency and problem-solving. Teachers moved quickly through the concepts, embedding some concepts into others, and sometimes teaching strands in isolation. The new common core teachers far fewer concepts in each school year focusing on a greater depth of understanding. But it also includes math practices such as perseverance when the answer doesn’t come quickly and using the language and vocabulary of math to describe why the answer is correct. We are purchasing one of the high-flyers in math – a program that is common-core aligned, uses a workshop model, has SmartBoard ready lessons, all the materials teachers need for differentiation, and excellent technology. The committee is working very hard to select the right program for our community by visiting other districts, examining texts, and testing lessons.
- The committee work is thorough and the members know exactly what they are looking for to meet the kids needs. They want a program that includes all the components of excellent instruction, from differentiation for high-flyers and strugglers to pre-tests and post-tests which help them identify who those students are.
- The second priority is the technology to support that new curriculum. We have SmartBoards in the elementary classrooms and therefore need interactive lessons predesigned for the SmartBoards. We also want on-line supports for parents. One program we have reviewed has barcodes on the homework kids bring home, which when parents scan it with a phone, opens a video explaining the concept.
- We need more devices on carts at the elementary level. We not looking for the one-to-one as at the middle and high school. But, one cart per grade level, so that teachers can share the devices for their center-work. When students are dividided into groups after their mini-lesson, one of the groups will be using technology.
- The devices will allow students and teachers to take advantage of adaptive programming – or online activities that track kids progress and repeat concepts when kids are struggling and continue to tree up as long as they are getting problems right. In both cases, instructional video clips and vocabulary cards are available to kids from a menu.
- A third priority is maintaining the small class sizes at the elementary school that have become a hallmark of the community. Small class sizes allow for individualized instruction and differentiation. They allow teachers to know kids and their families well.
- Class sizes are below 22 throughout the elementary grades.
- In the middle school you see some larger class sizes, and since there are far fewer electives, the class sizes are much more consistent.
- At the high school, is where the biggest fluctuations in class sizes occur. This slide explains why you can’t take a high school graduating class and divide it by four oe five to get even class sizes. The example provided here explains why 84 juniors can’t be scheduled into four English classes of 21 each… it explains the complication that a large, but successful band and chorus create because all kids need to be scheduled for those classes simultaneously. When you add what we call singletons to the mix, such as AP English and AP Chemistry, you create further scheduling difficulties. There be a group of only14 students who take Band, AP English, and AP Chemistry.
- Thus, this slide shows the total enrollment for each class and the ranges of enrollments in three core areas of English, Match, and Science.
- In the interest of transparency, this slides shows the highest enrolled classes and the lowest. My limited experiences in Litchfield have demonstrated to me the communities great pride in maintaining the programs kids need and the counterpart – the actual trepidation in NOT meeting those needs. In the future, we’ll need to look at whether or not virtual courses can help fill these needs. But in some areas, such as Art and Robotics, which are experience based and in which the teacher is truly serving in an advisor/coaching role, a virtual experience just won’t do.
- These are the budget drivers, i.e. the six highest expenditures in the budget. Some are increases and some are decreases; they are presented in descending order of cost, not importance.
- Some of the increases in the Personnel line are due to additional positions added last summer, due to needs, but not reflected in the budget last year. Those positions, which were all presented to the Board of Education and approved last summer, are listed here. The PowerSchool database specialist is dedicated to fixing errors and misplaced data and formulas in the PowerSchool which was grossly underused until this year.
- The budget also does include some savings. The four biggest are above.
- I first presented the budget to the BOE in February. In their deliberations between February 18 and March 4, they found line items where they wanted closer scrutiny. They also voted at the February 18th meeting to phase-out the French program, not because of budget, but because of the extreme difficulty of finding a highly-qualified teacher. Those cut led to a $95,000 cut.
- I first presented the budget to the BOE in February. In their deliberations between February 18 and March 4, they found line items where they wanted closer scrutiny. They also voted at the February 18th meeting to phase-out the French program, not because of budget, but because of the extreme difficulty of finding a highly-qualified teacher. Those cut led to a $95,000 cut.
- I first presented the budget to the BOE in February. In their deliberations between February 18 and March 4, they found line items where they wanted closer scrutiny. They also voted at the February 18th meeting to phase-out the French program, not because of budget, but because of the extreme difficulty of finding a highly-qualified teacher. Those cut led to a $95,000 cut.
- This slide is somewhat self explanatory. The personnel line for teachers shows a 5.82% increase overall. This includes additional staff not previously budgeted. It does NOT mean teachers are getting an almost 6% raise. It’s actually half that. The contractual raise, including step increases, is 2.96%.
- Additional staff impacts this employee group as well. The raise here was also about 3% (2.97%), but includes some new longevity payments.
- The significant increase here is only for the full-time secretary to Special Education, currently a .5 position. A full-time secretary will relieve the Special Education Director or some routine clerical duties and enable her to better evaluate the Special Education program, including supervising and coaching the teachers in that department, when she is not attending PPT’s.
- This slide shows the administrative salaries. We’ll actually see a small cut here, as just last week, after the Board approved the budget, we hired the new Business Manager at $110,00, which gives us a $10,000 savings next year. We had budgeted at $120,000 not knowing whether or not the Business Manager would come to us a large number of years in public education or not.
- This slide shows our anticipated utilities costs, a portion of the budget over which we do not have a lot of control other than in the bidding process – for example the 2.09 per gallon secured for oil -- and the conservations measures we take – for example, the auto-shut-offs on the lights and computer monitors throughout the district.
- We’re not sure why, but several utilities have been under-budgeted for two years – for example, ATT, as shown here was under-budgeted in both 2013-14 and this year, as was the water bill on the previous slide -- although not by a huge amount. We fixed those numbers in this budget. We also separated gas, previously budgeted together, into two lines for greater clarity. Overall, utilities is a decrease in this year’s budget.
- Before we get to the budget summary, I’ve included an explanation of what line items are included is in each of those categories. The Budget Narrative, along with this presentation and the Budget summary, is available on the District webpage. It’s also included in your notebooks.
- The Budget Summary with the yellow category headings includes more detail than included on the slides.
- As I mention in my letter of transmittal to you, Personnel and Benefits make up 77% of the budget. Instruction, including the new math program, books and supplies, makes up only about 10%
- The two-year budget history, and this year’s BOE budget are shown here. A six-year history is included in the inset. People ask why the enrollment goes down and staffing doesn’t, but there have been decreases in staff. You have 3 fewer regular education teachers in 2015- 2016 than in 2012 – 2013, you have 8 fewer teachers than in 2005 – 2006. You have one fewer Speech Pathologist, 4 fewer teaching assistants, decreasing from 5 to 1. Your nurses, librarians, principals, and social worker have all remained constant at 4 -- one per building -- a need that exists independent of the number of students. Special Education assistants are down 3 individuals since 2008 – 2009. On the other hand, Special Education teachers increased by 2, with a teacher added in 2013-2014 and another this year; and the increase in Guidance brings us back to the same number of counselors as 2008 – 2009, although at an elementary school servicing kids and their families, vs. at the high school. This increases are a need of our times, with increasing Special Education needs.
- Of the 95 reporting districts, Litchfield’s BOE budget increase is 54th on list. Currently, Enfield’s budget is highest at 6.99% and Region 12’s is lowest with a negative .26% increase. I’m not a Superintendent who takes pride in ‘coming in low’ for the sake of a low number. I am one who believes in the best program for kids we can possibly provide. As we go through the next budget cycle, I will be better able to evaluate what we are doing and how well… and look for efficiencies with a fresh eye.
- This slide shows another look at the budget comparisons. The three red bands are the districts with 6% or above with Enfield the highest at 6.99%. The two orange bands represent two districts with 5.9% increases. Then, the yellow bands represent a about a dozen districts with budgets in the 4%’s. The green is the 3%’s. The blue, with Litchfield just below the state average, is the 3’s … etc.