November, 2005 MSAD #50
|
Table of Contents Section 2 - Ideas Emerging from the Strategic Goals in the Strategic Plan
|
The purpose of this sixth edition of the MSAD #50 Budget Discussion Paper is to present emerging themes and ideas that will inform district-wide planning, program development, and anticipated budget trends for 2006/2007 and beyond. This paper is somewhat of a departure from prior ones in that it is tightly aligned to the recently adopted Strategic Plan.
The paper attempts to identify ideas and trends that are at the forefront of shaping programs and services for the future and to draw more near-term and pragmatic connections between these emerging elements and the realities of budget planning for 2006/2007. While many of the points included are associated with forces being brought to bear from outside the district, many have found their roots from within staff forums, ongoing curriculum work, and in feedback from our community.
As always, staff and administrations were solicited for input prior to the paper's development. But, unlike in the past, staff were asked to respond to four questions that were directly related to the Strategic Plan:
1. Which Year 1 (2005/2006) actions should be carried over to Year 2 (2006/2007)?
2. Are there any actions that should be added in Year 2?
3. What support might you need to accomplish these Year 2 goals?
4. Are there any areas of support you can envision needing that aren’t covered by the Strategic Plan?
In these discussions with staff, certain themes did emerge across the district. The most prominent is that faculty and staff would like to continue to work on most of the Year 1 goals for 2006/2007 and perhaps beyond. New initiatives and programs other than what are described in the four goal statements would generally not be welcomed at this point in time. The priorities for the district have been outlined through the Strategic Plan. Working on the quality of existing efforts, rather than adding more on, is a definite sentiment that is shared throughout our schools.
This year’s paper will once again attempt to present the practical and philosophical factors at work that will serve as a context for budget development proposals. It is hoped that it will give Board members, both experienced and not, a better lens through which to frame the difficult discussions that are surely ahead. Unlike last year, this Budget Discussion Paper will attempt to put the focus on enhancing current practice and programs rather than suggesting new ideas that demand both money and time. This being said, choices will have to be made based upon the balance between what we feel is best for students and what we feel the community can financially bear.
Please be reminded that inclusion of items or ideas in this paper should not necessarily be construed as endorsement by the Superintendent or the Administrative Team.
It is suggested that the following actions be carried into the future until accomplished. While not thought to be large in financial terms, all items could potentially have further budget impact over the time period covered by this paper. Thoughts about areas of possible future impact are italicized as they will be in all four goals.
No actions under this goal have been fully accomplished.
Possible actions with budget impact to be added to goals in the future: Support work beyond the contract for a committee to work on drafting a five-year professional development plan; funding of an increased teacher year.
* Model Classrooms would be classrooms (1@ K-4, 1@ 5-8, 1@ 9-12) where teachers could visit and observe best practices in action. Those teachers who agree to participate would be paid a stipend to use the first year of the two-year cycle as a planning year, and a further stipend for the second year of the cycle, the implementation year.
Central to the tenets of standards-based reform across all grade spans is an increased level of accountability in order to ensure that all students learn and that indeed - ‘no child is left behind.’ The Local Assessment System (LAS) will stand as the key component in this accountability system. The implications of this simple idea are profound in terms of how teaching and learning takes place. Not only must students be accountable for meeting the standards that are being phased in over time, but educators are also accountable for ensuring that specific student needs are identified, individualized and differentiated approaches to learning are made available to all students, and that the system accommodates for a variety of students’ needs – giving multiple and varied opportunities for them to demonstrate the attainment of expectations.
It is suggested then, that the following actions be carried into the future until accomplished. All items could have both immediate and future budget impact over the time period covered by this paper.
Year 1 (2005/2006) actions accomplished: Implement revised K-8 Health curriculum and pilot World Languages at K-3.
Possible actions with budget impact to be added to goals in the future: Extend the Learning Center model to K-8; provide after school and/or summer support for students who aren’t meeting the standards; create an enhanced focus on literacy by employing an elementary and a secondary literacy specialist; extend World Languages into the upper elementary grades.
Public schools are more challenging environments than ever. An increasing number of children and families need a variety of supports for student success in school. In addition, teachers are continuously responding to more and more demands being placed on their professional lives by local, state and federal entities. Yet, the communities’ ability to pay is affected by increased tax burdens and less state support, itself partially due to declining enrollments. It is being said over and over that schools, their employees and their students are showing signs of stress that are well above what was experienced in the past. It is, therefore, imperative that school culture and climate be closely examined to ensure that it remains conducive to learning.
It is suggested then, that the following actions be carried into the future until accomplished and all could have definite budget impacts over the time period covered by this paper.
Year 1 (2005/2006) actions partially accomplished: Administration of school culture surveys with staff, parents, and students at GVHS.
Possible actions with budget impact to be added to goals in the future: Architectural study for K-8 configuration in each community; building of a new collaborative campus based high school; ongoing team training needs.
Communication is key in running a great public school system. It would be difficult to over emphasize this point. The more constituents know and understand their schools, the more effective schools will be. All possible tools must be utilized to assist us in getting out our message. Thus, the following goals and potential budget impacts will be ongoing for a couple of years:
Year 1 (2005/2006) actions partially accomplished: Progress on PowerSchool problems has been made.
Possible actions with budget impact to be added to goals in the future: Create a yearly district report card for the Board and the community.
Note: The four goals listed above are the goals as they are articulated in MSAD #50’s Strategic Plan.
With the continuing implementation of MLR, there are many new program requirements for Maine school districts. Guidelines for instituting curricula and programs for Modern and Classical Languages, Career Preparation, and for the Visual and Performing Arts have all been charted within the timeframes set out in Maine legislation Chapter 127. These, in conjunction with the requirements for full implementation of LAS over the next several years, continue to challenge our district in a variety of ways – not only in the creation and delivery of new services, but also in meeting the reporting requirements that will require technological interactivity with state agencies in documenting individual student performance data through the proposed Maine Educational Data Management System (MEDMS).
The Board included funding in the 2005/2006 budget to pilot Elementary World Language at grades K-3. When the decision was made to institute Elementary World Language, it was made with the clear understanding that initiation of this program should be viewed as a long-term commitment that would warrant expansion to grades 3-8. Therefore, consideration must be given to developing a plan to extend this program into the upper elementary grades. One option that has been discussed is to expand the program to grade 4 in 2006/2007. This should be able to be accomplished with little incremental cost.
Actively supporting students in their day-to-day learning is mainly centered within the professional, collegial work being accomplished within district-wide teaming efforts. At this level, teachers are constantly engaged in collecting and reviewing assessment data, designing instruction specifically targeted to meet student learning needs, and are in constant communication with students and parents regarding progress towards learning goals. When conscientious and well documented attempts at this level are not able to support expected progress, alternative approaches need to be planned. Instituting support services, inclusive of students not eligible for specific special education services, will need to be considered in budget planning for 2006/2007 and beyond.
As NCLB and Chapter 127 mandates continue to take effect, the district will need to be able to certify, through LAS, that all students have met the standards that allow them to move from grade to grade, and eventually receive a GVHS diploma. As noted, in this more rigorous and ‘high stakes’ environment, the district will need to consider additional strategies for supporting students struggling to meet mandated learning standards. This is particularly critical for students who do not otherwise qualify for existing support services under special education, alternative education, or Title IA (our early literacy intervention program). Assistance strategies that will be actively considered will include:
- School-based ‘student learning/resource centers’ to be jointly staffed by special education and regular education personnel. These could follow a traditional ‘resource room’ model or the ‘learning center” model implemented this year at GVHS.
- Consultation and flexible team teaching services provided by a ‘master level teacher.’
- The assignment of a special education teacher to exclusively work within each instructional team – with the ability to serve non-eligible students as well.
- Establishment of school-based tutoring services, after school, and summer support offerings.
- inking specific remedial classes or services occurring within the school day to specific students who are not able to certify attainment of MLR.
MSAD #50 has also effectively pioneered support services for ‘non-traditional’ learners via its alternative education efforts, both at the mid-level and secondary levels. In contemplating future needs, it should be noted that these programs are typically filled to capacity. While these existing programs should continue to be fully supported, they may also require incremental expansions should students’ needs warrant.
Of concern at the high school level is the decreasing opportunity for students who, for any number of reasons, require alternative instructional practices and opportunities to be successful. Recent indications suggest that programming at Mid-Coast School of Technology (MCST) is becoming more restrictive, and less available to our students with cognitive, learning, or behavioral challenges. While the push toward all students meeting standards is one that we are upholding as children come up through the system, we are also obligated to make available learning opportunities for students who are challenged by this requirement. Our alternative programs and the VISTAS program (which serves mid-level special education students with behavioral and other emotional problems) are wonderful options for supporting a specific population of students who need an alternative to the mainstream. Some students graduate from these programs to move onto a successful traditional high school program. However, there are others who continue to need additional emotional supports, instructional supports, and hands-on learning opportunities to be successful. This need is not necessarily limited to students with disabilities, and probably needs to be addressed as a collaborative effort between special education and general education. There are many ways this may be addressed including creating an additional alternative (regional?) program for students whose learning and behavioral needs require a more structured, yet hands-on curriculum. This program would be charged with building pre-vocational opportunities for students who are no longer able to access MCST, or working with MCST to develop such a program. Opportunities within this context should also include a GED prep course for those students who continue to fall short of meeting the standards of the learning results.
However, the configuration of services emerge to address this constellation of issues and needs, increases in personnel costs and/or access to services via additional ‘slots’ or expanded programs seem inevitable.
Over the past couple of years, student needs in MSAD #50 have evolved significantly to impact staff, equipment, and programming. As is occurring nationally, the diagnosis of an increasing number of students with diabetes has required full time nursing availability and flexible instructional practices to respond to blood sugar fluctuations that impact classroom behavior and academic performance. In addition, the number of students with other medical diagnoses that compromise their ability to learn and safely participate in the instructional setting, have required additional staff support, and significant environmental accommodations to ensure safe participation in the functional and instructional activities in the schools. Finally, the number of students with severe behavioral/emotional challenges, particularly at the early elementary level has increased in MSAD #50. The students require intensive, consistent support and intervention to maintain levels of behavior that are conducive to learning. Staff have worked very hard to provide assistance to all students to facilitate successful learning. However, the needs of some students may require more than existing staff and programming are capable of accommodating successfully.
In terms of in-house staffing and programs, the special education budget for 2006/2007 will in all likelihood be impacted by the increase in special education students at GVHS and at Thomaston Grammar School (TGS). Additionally, there is a growing need to provide treatment and academic support locally for K-12 students with severe emotional/behavioral disabilities.
Based on this year’s student numbers, it is estimated that there will be 56 special education students at GVHS in grades 9-12. There are currently two special education teachers at the high school, with caseloads of 24+ students. The numbers projected for next year will increase caseloads to at least 28 per case manager. Ed Tech support at GVHS for special education is currently two Ed Tech II’s, and one Ed Tech III. Increasing the number of special education teachers at GVHS next year by one while simultaneously eliminating the Ed Tech II position may warrant consideration. This change would provide a high level of instruction and support for the GVHS students with disabilities, and create reasonable caseloads for each special education teacher. Concurrently, the existing Ed Tech III will be available to provide support to students needing alternate programming, tutoring, or instruction in an alternate location.
Although the number of identified students is projected to decrease at Cushing Community School (CCS) and the St. George School (STGS) next year, the district’s commitment to supporting a school in each community results in the need to continue Special Education instruction and support at each of these schools.
It is anticipated that the Life Skills I and II programs, operated at Lura Libby School (LLS) and TGS, respectively, will experience a shift in student population next year. The Life Skills I program will decrease from ten to seven students. The Life Skills II program will increase from six to nine students next year. The behavioral and hygiene needs of the Life Skills II students may require increasing the Ed Tech staff in this program. At this time, it is anticipated that tuition funds to support the education of ten of these sixteen students will be received from MSAD #5, MSAD #28, and Union 69. It must be kept in mind that these student numbers do tend to shift up and/or down depending on new students moving into or out of the districts in the mid-coast region.
Additionally, discussions are currently underway to potentially form a collaborative with the Five-town CSD, MSAD #5, MCST, and Spurwink to create programming for students with multiple disabilities; including those with severe emotional/behavioral disabilities. The intent would be to house this program at MCST so that students can access appropriate pre-vocational and vocational opportunities, while receiving the emotional support that will enable them to progress academically. Currently MSAD #50 pays tuition and transportation costs to send these students to Spurwink in Chelsea, to MSAD #40, or even further to appropriate out-of-district placements. Funding to support space availability for MSAD #50 students in this program will hopefully be available, at least in substantial part, from the reduction or possible elimination of tuitions and transportation for out-of-district placements. At this time, we will have a minimum of four students who will require this level of programming next year.
Students with Limited English Proficiency must by law be provided with English language instruction, as well as support in accessing the general education curriculum in order to meet the standards of the MLR. Levels of support are determined by student screening on the ACCESS to ELLS assessment administered on an annual basis, or when a student first enters the district. To date, MSAD #50 has had six students with ESL, and is currently providing extensive, direct ESL services for three of the students. Services include consultation fees for a credentialed consulting teacher, materials, tutor prep time, and direct tutoring services for up to 20 hours per week. However, the level of tutoring instruction depends on the levels of English proficiency demonstrated by the individual student.
While it is impossible to fully anticipate the cost of LEP services, it is anticipated, based on information currently available, that it could be in the $50,000 range in 2006/2007. It should be noted that efforts are currently being pursued to consolidate ESL services with MSAD #5.
It is reasonable to predict that Title IA funding will continue to decrease in 2006/2007 and the cost to operate this program will continue to increase. This program provides reading performance improvement services to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders who are struggling to perform at the 35th percentile as measured by the Woodcock Reading Mastery test. At one point in time, these Title IA funds were sufficient to cover the cost of this early grades literacy program. However, over the past few years the district’s general fund has supported a growing proportion of the cost of this program. Currently the program staff consists of a .5 teaching position and an Ed Tech position at CCS, 1.5 teaching positions at STGS and 1 teaching position and an Ed Tech position at LLS. In 2005/2006, the cost of this program supported with general fund monies grew to approximately $50,000. In addition to shrinking revenues and increasing costs the ‘shortfall’ problem will be exacerbated in 2006/2007 by the fact that on August 31, 2004 the grant had a balance of $35,000, which was available for use in 2005/2006. This amount on August 31, 2005 was only $9,500.
Student participation numbers have been fairly consistent, and district-wide projections expect it to remain so, particularly as we attempt to include the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) results in our identification for Title IA services policy.
Regulations impacting gifted and talented programming allow for flexibility in terms of percentage of students served, type of supplementary instruction provided, as well as grade levels where particular supplementary instruction is provided. MSAD #50’s gifted/talented policies and procedures define that we will provide supplementary academic and arts instruction to the top 4% of students identified in grades 4-12. 2004/2005 was our first year to implement our policy as formally defined. As long as we are able to provide an appropriate level of services for identified high school students with the .25 staff person available, the district would anticipate maintaining the same staffing level for the 2005/2006 school year and beyond, should enrollment levels remain steady.
While the discussion below focuses on hardware, software and staffing, it is imperative that the reason that it primarily exists is not lost. Access to information via technology is, and will continue to be, essential to the lives and livelihoods of teachers and students of the 21st century. To allow any piece of the technology puzzle to fall behind would be paramount to committing educational malpractice. Because every facet of technology supports classroom instruction in one way or another, it is of utmost importance that a commitment is made to do whatever possible to support the needs of the District in this area. And, it is highly likely that increases will be warranted over the term of this paper.
1. Laptops
a. 7th and 8th Grade
This year, that is 2005/2006, is the fourth year of the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI), or so-called laptop program. This state initiative began at the 7th grade level in 2002/2003. In 2003/2004 it was expanded to serve both the 7th and 8th grade. To date the State has assumed the “lion’s share” of the costs associated with this initiative at these two grade levels. The 190 laptops currently deployed at the 7th and 8th grade are still the property of the state.What will happen at the 7th and 8th grade in 2006/2007 is not at all clear and probably won’t be clarified until long after the district’s budget is complete. The Department of Education (DOE) has outlined options that it will be presenting to the legislature as follows:
1. The DOE issues a new request for proposals and funds or partially funds new laptops for 7th and 8th grade students to be in place in the fall of 2006. If it so desired, districts would also be able to purchase additional machines under the state’s contract terms for grades 9-12 deployment.
2. The DOE extends the current contract one year and provides services through the 2006/2007 school year. In other words, things would stay the same until June 30, 2007.
3. The DOE ends the current contract and districts must decide whether or not to “buy out” the existing machines. Under the terms of the state’s current contract when it expires on June 30, 2006, district’s can buy out the current machines on hand at $48 per machine (roughly $10,000 for 200 iBooks). Districts would lose license to two software applications, but the remainder of the software would stay. Districts would also lose the maintenance and support currently provided under the contract and would have to pay to continue those services.
If the state elects to implement ‘1’, districts still have the option of buying out the iBooks currently in the 7th and 8th grades and deploying them as they see fit. If ‘2’ is implemented, districts would not be able to buy the iBooks this summer. It is assumed that DOE will present ‘1’ to legislature and hold ‘2’ as a compromise measure.
The challenge for MSAD #50 will be to create a budget that allows it to respond to whatever the state ends up deciding as it is unlikely the state will decide what it intends to do prior to MSAD #50 finalizing its budget.
b. 9th Grade
In the late summer of 2004, the MSAD #50 Board of Directors voted to commit to extending the MLTI laptop program to grade 9 beginning in the school year 2004/2005. In doing so, the Board committed to purchase 120 laptops over a period of four years.The approximate first year costs for the 9th grade expansion was $50,000 (inclusive of all hardware purchases, staff training, stipends, infrastructure upgrades). These funds were not included in the 2004/2005 budget; however a variety of Federal and State grants were utilized to cover these costs for year one.
During the 2005/2006 budget process, the Board decided not to further expand this program beyond the 9th grade. The Board did add $15,000 to the District Contingency to cover any shortfall portion of the second of four $36,000 annual payments for these 9th grade computers that could not be supported by the Rural and Low Income Grant only, as the amount of that grant was not known at that time. As it turned out, that grant amount was $31,400; thus only $4,600 was needed from contingency. How to fund this $36,000 payment will again be an issue as the 2006/2007 budget is developed; and again it is unlikely that the amount of the Rural and Low Income Grant will be known at budget time or if the district will even receive the grant in 2006/2007.
Finally, although the Board last year decided not to expand the program to the 10th grade, undoubtedly voices urging a turnover of this decision for 2006/2007 will be heard.
Changes that have occurred in grades 7, 8, and 9, and that are being further contemplated at the secondary level, will also impact the ‘landscape’ for how technology is deployed and integrated in grades K-6. Many of the resources currently in use, particularly at the high school level, will continue to be incrementally shifted to assist classrooms in the elementary grades.
One persistent and continuing concern for technology instruction at the elementary level is the inconsistent delivery of keyboarding instruction for elementary students so that these skills are taught correctly and solidified for students early on. This remains a challenge that should be addressed as the technology curriculum develops more formally.
2. Student Information System (SIS)
In 2004/2005, the district purchased and implemented a new district-wide student information system (SIS) – PowerSchool. This was done to unify the district under one system and to meet State and Federal requirements for having a SIS that would be able to interface with the Maine Educational Data Management System (MEDMS). The basic requirements for SIS is that it be cross-platform, web-based and run as a single database.
First year purchase and implementation costs have fully covered acquisition, three multi-day training sessions offered by PowerSchool, and on-going technical assistance/consultation services. While the transition to PowerSchool has held all (and more) of the challenges anticipated as a result of such a fundamental change, the time commitment for the overall transition has been underestimated. Consequently a variety of obstacles remain to fully realize the coordination and efficiency benefits of this new system.
While much progress with implementation challenges is being made in 2005/2006, it remains imperative that the resources required to fully operationalize PowerSchool not be underestimated. These will involve continued additional technical training for the technology staff, additional staff training (administrative assistants and teachers), or adequate personnel to manage the system on a day-to-day basis.
3. Technology Staffing
Over the past several years, great strides have been realized within MSAD #50 in response to the growing involvement and influence of technology as an evolving educational resource. As the amount of hardware and accompanying infrastructure has increased, incremental additions of technology staff have been made in order to deal with management, ongoing maintenance, and professional development needs. In large measure these staffing additions have been responsive to this technology environment when it has become evident that our emerging needs have outstripped our ability to respond effectively and efficiently. Additionally, the district’s technology initiatives (internet access to classrooms and libraries, school-based servers, the introduction of laptops, or devising spread sheets to analyze assessment data) have been largely guided by the educational applications and issues that accompany the use of technology in the service of student learning.
With the advent of the state and federally mandated requirements for the implementation of SIS, another major function was delegated to our technology staff. The initiation of the new SIS marked a departure for district technology staff from primarily serving the educational applications of technology to also supervising an administrative data management function that has been required of all school districts in Maine. This management system affects a wide array of desirable aspects (formulating report cards, teacher plan books, computerized class scheduling, on-line communications with and progress data accessibility for parents, enrollment etc.), but is most critically linked to the state’s data management system (MEDMS) for tracking student achievement information related to satisfying NCLB accountability requirements - constituting what amounts to yet another substantial and unfunded mandate.
As noted above, the transition to the new SIS (PowerSchool) encountered multiple start-up hurdles. The comprehensive and demanding management aspects of this system remain evident. As management of this system often involves tasks that are time sensitive (e.g. getting report cards out at GVHS) other technology maintenance/repair needs often get deferred. This is a source of frustration to staff that are increasingly attempting to utilize technology as an instructional tool.
Consequently, it is fully anticipated that the issue of what is an appropriate staffing level for the technology office will again this year be an issue.
There continues to be ever growing and increasingly complex regulatory demands placed upon district administrative staff from myriad Federal and State agencies and other entities. These demands range from requirements directly related to the provision of education to personnel management to environmental/health and safety concerns. Additionally expectations regarding communication/notification also continue to expand. To date the expanded duties have simply been absorbed by existing administrative staff.
The administrative function that has been repeatedly cited as requiring attention and improvement at the central office level is human resource management. Currently this function, which increasingly requires the attention of a highly qualified specialist, is performed by a variety of central office staff. This leads to inconsistencies and the potential for very expensive employee claims is certainly exacerbated.
At the school level, demands placed on the administrative assistants and principals also continue to exponentially increase.
The October 1, 2005 enrollment report reflected a continuing decline in the number of students attending MSAD #50. The district-wide building enrollment at 968 was a decrease of 14 from October 1, 2004. The total resident enrollment on October 1, 2005 was 965. This is a decrease of 13 from October 1, 2004. What was interesting, and somewhat unanticipated, was the fairly dramatic shift in the proportion of resident students by town.
St George resident students remained stable, comprising approximately 34.5% of the total enrollment in both years. Cushing’s percentage dropped from 25.7% in 2004 to 22.8% in 2005, while Thomaston increased from 39.6% to 42.7%. This shift is contrary to the trend of the past several years where Cushing resident enrollments as a percent of the total have been increasing, while Thomaston has been decreasing. This shift in the trend was due, in large part, to a very small number of Cushing residents entering Kindergarten (9) and a relatively large, at least by recent standards, of Thomaston residents entering Kindergarten (38).
Total K-8 enrollment on October 1, 2005 was 658 compared to 654 last year. After several years of steady decline (the K-8 enrollment hovered around 850 in the mid to late 90s) it is anticipated that the total K-8 enrollment will remain stable for the next several years at around 650.
The 9-12 enrollment continued its anticipated decline, dropping from 328 on October 1, 2004 to 310 on October 1, 2005. Again, as has been stated on many occasions, it is anticipated that the 9-12 enrollment will continue to decline over the next few years, reaching a low at or below 260 by 2010. This level of 9-12 enrollment will be 100 less than the “baby boom echo” peak of 357 in October 2002; a 27% decline in just 8 years.
As is typically the case, the need to adjust staffing to match shifting enrollment patterns will again arise in 2006/2007. Shifting enrollment patterns is a complex issue that undergoes annual fluctuations resulting from MSAD #50’s student housing pattern of operating four elementary schools in three towns with different grade levels and a small comprehensive high school.
Additionally, the concept of ‘equity’ between schools seems to prove to be an illusive goal, while simple in concept, it is complex in implementation, due to differences between the district’s schools and other factors.
Cushing
Community School (CCS)
At CCS, it is envisioned that the current scenario of one teaching position
at each grade will carry forward to 2006/2007. Approximate enrollments
by grade will, in general, remain very small as projected below.
2006/2007 |
Projected
# Students |
Grade |
|
| K |
13 |
1 |
12 |
2 |
16 |
3 |
14 |
4 |
16 |
St.
George School (STGS)
The need to adjust teaching positions at STGS, due to declining and erratic
grade sizes, will continue.
Whether one or two sections of Kindergarten will be required in 2006/2007 is not certain. The two enrollment projections, that is Caffarella and Planning Decisions, project 22 and 24 students respectively; so it appears that it may be necessary to budget for more than one teacher.
The 2006/2007 1st and 2nd grade
enrollments are projected at 22 each. It is anticipated that discussion
may arise as to whether to budget three teaching positions to serve these
two grades (1.5 each grade) or to assign one position to each grade.
Grades 3 and 4, with 2006/2007 projected enrollments of 15 and 31, are
projected at one and two teaching positions, respectively.
In 2006/2007, the projected total ‘team’ enrollment for grades
5-6 will be 46 (19 at 5th grade and 27 at 6th grade). Currently the team
is staffed by three core teaching positions and it is anticipated this
will again be the case next year.
In 2006/2007, the projected
enrollments at the 7-8 grade will drop from 56* to approximately 47* (17
at 7th grade and 32 at 8th grade). This team is currently staffed by four
core teaching positions. It has long been anticipated that when the current
small 6th grade transitioned to the 7th grade in 2006/2007, this team
of four teachers would be reduced to three, as was the case when this
class entered the 5th grade two years ago.
In summary, depending on what decisions are made concerning the staffing
levels at grades K, 1, and 2, the aggregate staffing level of core teachers
at St George in 2006/2007 could range from an increase of one to a decrease
of two.
2006/2007 |
Projected
# Students* |
Grade |
|
| K |
22 |
1 |
22 |
2 |
22 |
3 |
15 |
4 |
31 |
5 |
19 |
6 |
27 |
7 |
17 |
8 |
30 |
* Does not include enrollments in mid-level Alternative Education at Grades 7 and 8.
Lura
Libby School (LLS)
At LLS, there are currently two core teachers per grade. At this time,
no changes in the number of core teachers is anticipated for 2006/2007.
The one possible exception to this could be at Kindergarten should an
abnormally low enrollment emerge in the next year. Such an event is not
out of the realm of possibility as the two enrollment projections, that
is Caffarella and Planning Decisions, project 22 and 20 students respectively;
in any event it appears that it may be necessary to budget for more than
one teacher.
The 2006/2007 enrollment at
grade 4 is projected to be 19 students per section. Consequently, if there
is an influx of new enrollees they will have to be assigned to Cushing
unless creation of a third position is considered.
2006/2007 |
Projected
# Students* |
Grade |
|
| K |
21 |
1 |
34 |
2 |
32 |
3 |
24 |
4 |
38 |
* Does not include students who spend 60% or more of their time in the Life Skills program.
Thomaston Grammar School (TGS)
At TGS there were ten core teaching positions budgeted. An eleventh position
was added during the course of this year.
In 2006/2007, it appears that three positions will be needed at grade 5 with a projected enrollment of 50. Discussion will undoubtedly arise regarding the need to include the position that was added during the course of this year in the budget at grade 6 next year with an anticipated enrollment of 43*. At grade 7, with a projected enrollment of 52*, three core teaching positions are anticipated. At grade 8, with a projected enrollment of 37*, two core teaching positions are anticipated.
2006/2007 |
Projected
# Students* |
Grade |
|
| 5 |
51 |
6 |
43 |
7 |
52 |
8 |
42 |
* Does not include students who spend 60% or more of their time in the Life Skills or VISTAS programs.
Georges
Valley High School (GVHS)
As noted above, the enrollment at GVHS in 2002/2003 was at 357. By October
2005 it had dropped 310. It is anticipated to further decline to about
260 by 2010. However, due to the presence of a relatively large current
grade 8 (88), the 2006/2007 enrollment should remain approximately equal
to this year’s level; that is around 310. It should be noted that
the 310 includes 12 students enrolled in Alternative Education at MSAD
#5.
What follows is a brief discussion of some other topics that will impact, or potentially impact, at least the 2006/2007 budget, and in some cases, the entire three-year period covered by this discussion paper. They include:
Employment terms and conditions of most employees in MSAD #50 are governed by one of two collective bargaining agreements with the Maine Education Association. The two different units are Teachers and Educational Support Personnel (ESP). The latter covers Educational Technicians, Administrative Assistants, Bus Drivers/Custodians and Food Service Workers.
The current three-year agreement with the teachers was consummated in July of 2003. It expires on August 31, 2006. The Board and the teachers are, as of this writing, in the midst of negotiating a successor agreement. Hopefully, this new agreement will be finalized prior to Board adoption of the 2006/2007 budget. If the new agreement is not complete prior to the issuance of the first draft of the 2006/2007 budget, currently scheduled for March 1, 2006, it will be necessary to include an “assumed” amount for teacher raises in order for budget discussions to maintain relevancy.
The current three-year agreement with the ESP group was consummated on August 15, 2004. It was retroactive to July 1, 2003 and expires on June 30, 2006. Negotiations for a successor agreement have yet to commence and it is anticipated that they will not commence until the teacher agreement is finalized. Consequently, it is doubtful that a successor agreement with ESP will be finalized prior to Board adoption of the 2006/2007 budget. In any event, it is almost a certainty that an ESP agreement won’t be finalized prior to issuance of the first draft of the budget. So an assumed amount will be required.
Another major issue related to personnel costs continues to be the rapidly escalating cost of employee health insurance premiums. The rate increases in the past five years have been 11% for 2005/2006, 6.95% for 2004/2005, 9.9% for 2003/2004, 16% for 2002/2003, and 20% for 2001/2002. Actual rate increases for 2006/2007 will likely not be known until sometime around April of 2006. For years, the fact that rate increases are not known until after the budget has been adopted by the Board, or once in a while at the “11th hour”, has been a source of frustration which requires an “assumed” rate increase to be included in the budget. To put a perspective on this matter, based on existing staff and employer/employee cost sharing arrangements, a rate increase of 15% would cost the district approximately $210,000. This alone would increase the budget nearly 2%.
As usual, the situation regarding state aid remains clouded. This year, that is 2005/2006, was the first year of the new state aid funding formula known as Essential Programs and Services (EPS). The highlight of this new model is that the state issues each district an amount that the state thinks the district ‘should’ spend on education to provide every student with an opportunity to achieve the MLR. This amount will be known as the EPS budget. The amount of state aid that a district will receive is then calculated by applying a state established maximum mill rate to each town within the district. The difference between what this mill rate generates in local revenue and the EPS budget amount assigned to each town is the amount of state aid that each town within the district ‘generates’.
Any expenditures above the state established EPS budget may be raised locally and are still subject to a district’s local assessment formula; which in the case of MSAD #50 is based on 50% valuation and 50% enrollment.
Current law (LD 1924) requires the state to increase the total amount of state aid ramping up its level of commitment to 55% of the aggregate statewide EPS over the next three years. Skepticism already exists that the legislature may alter the current ramp up plan by extending the implementation period beyond the remaining three years. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is that with a declining enrollment and property valuations that continue to escalate above the state average, a decrease in state aid is very likely.
In terms of timing, the state should issue its first rendition of its Form ED 281 (commonly known as the “subsidy printout”) in mid to late January. This form should indicate “Total EPS Allocation” and what portion of that allocation will be borne by the state (state aid) and what the locally funded portion will be.
Inextricably related to the discussion of state aid is local property taxation. Concern continues to exist over the fact that MSAD #50’s gross budget has increased by 73% in the last ten years. There is greater concern, however, that over the same period, the assessment (property taxes) to the member towns has increased by 89%. As was predicted in last year’s discussion paper, the impact of the new EPS methodology combined with changing intra-district enrollment and valuation patterns, did reduce the Thomaston assessment in 2005/06 by $94,651, in spite of the fact that the overall budget increase was 6.24%. Conversely, these factors resulted in assessment increases in Cushing and St. George of 21.84% and 9.36%, respectively.
Based on the October enrollment reports and the proposed 2006 state valuations, it appears that any extraordinarily dramatic differences in assessments by town should not be seen in 2006/2007. It does appear, however, that costs will shift back towards Thomaston after several years of Thomaston’s assessment being less than the other two towns.
Certainly, the ever-present task of balancing the educational needs of MSAD #50 students with the communities ability to pay will not abate in the near future.
With the creation of the part-time district-wide head custodial position in 2005/2006, the district took a huge step forward in establishing the ability to properly maintain its facilities; so no changes to custodial labor needs are envisioned at this time.
The district has for several years been undertaking a moderately aggressive commitment of capital reinvestment in and enhancement of its five facilities. While much progress has been made, the district’s capital improvements remain formative in terms of both scope and cost. The current capital improvements plan needs to be updated and that process is now underway. The annual level of funding commitment to capital reinvestment will require continued evaluation.
The top priority, and by far and away the most substantial and costly major capital improvement project currently on the district’s capital improvement plan list, is the renovation/expansion of GVHS. However, given the recently issued report of the GVHS Futures Options Task Force, the future of GVHS will continue to be the subject of community discussion.
Additionally, continuing the discussion of the conversation regarding the concept of creating K-8 facilities in Cushing and Thomaston has been identified in the Strategic Plan.
The current lease-purchase for the district’s two newest buses expires in 2007/2008. It is not anticipated that any new buses will be considered prior to 2008/2009.
The cost of fuel will obviously impact the 2006/2007 budget.
Planning for alternative student transportation patterns should be reactivated. Although the sense of urgency surrounding this issue has abated for the time being, contingency planning still should be conducted.
As noted in the introduction to this paper, it is the hope of the Administrative Team that a full presentation of these issues will inspire discussion, which in turn will serve to inform and assist ongoing efforts in long-range planning, program development for the future, and budget planning as we look to 2006/2007 and the years beyond.
Mindful of the many challenges highlighted within this budget discussion paper, we look forward to conscientiously engaging with our Board of Directors, our highly committed teaching staff, and the community-at-large as we once again move into this budget building process, with the goal of providing the very best for the students of MSAD #50.
Respectfully Submitted,
MSAD #50 Administrative
Team