The Final Report - Malcolm Shabazz City High School, Madison WI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Decision Item #21:Expenditures:Revenues:FTE:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE PROGRAM SUPPORT FTE FOR SPECIALEDUCATION (ELIMINATION OF 3.0 PROGRAM SUPPORT TEACHERPOSITIONS) (cont.)There are currently 33.8 program support teachers in the Division ofSpecial Education, according to the most recent organizational chart,including 4.5 FTE funded through IDEA flow-through funds. This equatesto approximately $2,181,020. The department’s total special educationservices budget for 2001-2002 is over $53 million, approximately 19percent of the District’s total budget.The District does receive Federal Entitlements (IDEA Flow-Through) aswell as categorical IDEA Grants and State Aid. Entitlement funds arebased on an unduplicated head count. Categorical aids reimburse basedon expenditures (at the rate of approximately 30%). Total budgetedrevenue from federal entitlements in 2001-2002 is approximately $3million, with an additional $200,000 in categorical revenue and $17million in state categorical aid. The District also receives Medicaidreimbursement for many direct services to special education students,including the time spent by Program Support Teachers in evaluatingstudents.Program Support Teacher FTE broken out as follows:FunctionFTECentrally Coordinated IEP System(primary focus is evaluation) 18.3OT/PT 4 1.0Assistive Technology 1.0Staff Productivity/Technology 540Autism 2.5Child Find/Screening 2.0Early Childhood 1.0Private & Parochial 1.5Professional Development 2.0Collaborative School Reform 2.5Anticipated Savings: Expenditures anticipated to be reduced by $180,000, for elimination of 3program support teacher positions, assuming an average salary ofapproximately $54,000, including fringe benefits. These savings wouldbe partially offset by reduction of $60,000 in state categorical aid, for anet savings of $126,000.4 There are two OT/PT program support teachers listed on the organizational chart. However, each ofthese positions spends half his/her time serving as a therapist. Therefore, the total PST allocation is 1.0.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 105March 11, 2002
Decision Item #21:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE PROGRAM SUPPORT FTE FOR SPECIALEDUCATION (ELIMINATION OF 3.0 PROGRAM SUPPORT TEACHERPOSITIONS) (cont.)Student Impact: The services provided by program support teachers primarily affectstudents indirectly as the support is primarily directed to specialeducation staff to ensure optimal services. Some services, such as childfind and assistive technology are provided more directly to students(either screening or helping match students with appropriatetechnology). Others, such as professional development andcollaborative school reform, are exclusively indirect in the effect theyhave on students. The professional development PST positions werecreated when the centrally coordinated IEP program was developed. Atthat time, all program support teachers were removed from schools, asthe evaluation system was redesigned to ensure consistency inevaluation and PST’s were assigned to serve on evaluation teams.Strategic Priorities: Supports strategic priorities of staff development. (3)Board Priorities: NAEffectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:The direct impact that these positions have on students and staff is notpossible to quantify. The majority of the activities directed by thesepositions result in implementation by special education teachers orassistants. There are no data available to determine the effectiveness ofstaff development or the role that program support teachers play inensuring compliance with the law.Some functions performed by program support teachers are alsoperformed elsewhere within the organization. For example, while there isone PST dedicated to technology, there are also technology supportstaff in research and evaluation who are available to respond to staffquestions or concerns. The department has two staff dedicated toprofessional development, which is a function shared by all programsupport and by the staff and organizational development department. Inaddition, there are three staff dedicated to collaborative school reform.Service Delivery:Reductions in program support staff (if not taken from targeted supportsuch as professional development, technology, or collaborative schoolreform) would likely increase the caseloads for support requests andevaluations. Assuming all reductions were taken from CCIS, the averagenumber of evaluations per PST would increase from 32 to 35.Other Considerations: The CCIS PST’s have allowed the District to experience a decline overthe past two years in the percentage of students being found eligible forspecial education. The department also reports that the CCIS PST’shave increased compliance with IDEA.Collaborative school project PST’s (2.5) and staff development PST’scould play an important role in supporting schools with redesigningservice delivery and staffing schedules if the student/teacher ratio wereto increase.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 106March 11, 2002
Page 1 and 2:
MADISON METROPOLITANSCHOOL DISTRICT
Page 3 and 4:
Executive SummaryThe Madison Metrop
Page 5 and 6:
Project OverviewIn October 2001, th
Page 7 and 8:
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY (cont.)Ins
Page 10 and 11:
Budget DiscussionOVERALL DISTRICT E
Page 12 and 13:
MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES (cont.)Hence,
Page 14 and 15:
MANDATE INFORMATION (based on funct
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Budget Decision ItemsEXPLANATION OF
Page 48 and 49:
FISCAL IMPACT OF BUDGET DECISION IT
Page 50 and 51:
Decision Item #1:Effectiveness:REDU
Page 52 and 53:
Decision Item #2: ELIMINATE OR SECU
Page 54 and 55:
Decision Item #3: ELIMINATE THE VAC
Page 56 and 57:
Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDAT
Page 58 and 59: Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDAT
Page 65 and 66: Decision Item #5:Revenues:ELIMINATE
Page 67 and 68: Decision Item #6:Background:REDUCE
Page 69 and 70: Decision Item #6: REDUCE SCHOOL LIB
Page 71 and 72: Decision Item #6:Service Delivery:R
Page 73 and 74: Decision Item #7:Option B:ELIMINATE
Page 77 and 78: Decision Item #8:Effectiveness:REDU
Page 79 and 80: Decision Item #9: REDUCE FUNDING OF
Page 81 and 82: Decision Item #10: REDUCE DISTRICT
Page 83 and 84: Decision Item #11:REDUCE/REORGANIZE
Page 85 and 86: Decision Item #11:Student Impact:RE
Page 87 and 88: Decision Item #12:Expenditures:REDU
Page 89 and 90: Decision Item #13:Background:INCLUD
Page 91 and 92: Decision Item #14: ELIMINATE DRIVER
Page 97 and 98: Decision Item #15:ELIMINATE THE ATH
Page 99 and 100: Decision Item #16:Strategic Priorit
Page 101 and 102: Decision Item #18:Background:REDIST
Page 103 and 104: Decision Item #19:REDUCE FUNDING FO
Page 105 and 106: Decision Item #20:Background:INCREA
Page 107: Decision Item #21:Background:REDUCE
Page 111 and 112: Decision Item #22:Background: (cont
Page 113 and 114: Decision Item #22:ELIMINATE SELECTE
Page 115 and 116: Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT
Page 117 and 118: Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT
Page 119 and 120: Decision Item #24:Background: (cont
Page 121 and 122: Decision Item #24:Student Impact:EL
Page 123 and 124: Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS
Page 125 and 126: Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS
Page 129 and 130: Decision Item #27:Background:PRORAT
Page 131 and 132: Decision Item #27:Effectiveness:PRO
Page 133 and 134: Decision Item #28:Expenditures:ELIM
Page 135 and 136: Decision Item #29:Background:ELIMIN
Page 137 and 138: Decision Item #29: ELIMINATE TEACHE
Page 139 and 140: Decision Item #30:Background:BUSSIN
Page 141 and 142: Decision Item #31:Background:ELIMIN
Page 143 and 144: Decision Item #31: ELIMINATE HIGH C
Page 145 and 146: Decision Item #32: RISK MANAGERBack
Page 147 and 148: Allocation AnalysisINSTRUCTION - RE
Page 149 and 150: INSTRUCTION - REGULAR EDUCATION (co
Page 155 and 156: INSTRUCTION - SPECIAL EDUCATIONBack
Page 157 and 158: INSTRUCTION - SPECIAL EDUCATION (co
Page 159 and 160:
AdministrationAdministration is def
Page 161 and 162:
Grant AnalysisFISCAL IMPACT OF GRAN
Page 163 and 164:
GRANT ADMINISTRATIONThe District ma
Page 165 and 166:
• Staff Development Course Offeri
Page 167 and 168:
NEXT STEPS - INCORPORATING THE MODE
Page 169 and 170:
A - MASTER LISTING
show all

The Final Report - Malcolm Shabazz City High School, Madison WI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?