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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Background (cont.)Madison Metropolitan Schools enrollment history and forecast by grade level:HistoryForecast96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07K 1998 1902 1865 1703 1797 1810 1819 1798 1798 1798 17981 2080 1955 1868 1902 1701 1753 1792 1800 1780 1780 17802 1986 2011 1892 1818 1883 1722 1727 1765 1773 1753 17533 1985 1946 1931 1835 1782 1827 1670 1675 1712 1720 17014 2039 1970 1904 1938 1821 1802 1809 1654 1658 1695 17035 1992 1996 1940 1901 1931 1828 1793 1800 1645 1650 16866 1867 1946 1933 1908 1888 1884 1791 1757 1764 1612 16177 1849 1877 1948 1897 1944 1887 1884 1791 1757 1764 16128 1813 1824 1864 1950 1933 1946 1887 1884 1791 1757 17649 2041 2156 2141 2144 2263 2277 2267 2198 2195 2087 204710 1891 1952 2044 2077 2114 2219 2209 2199 2132 2129 202411 1731 1777 1779 1830 1939 1948 2041 2032 2023 1962 195912 1552 1650 1639 1697 1728 1785 1821 1909 1900 1892 1834Total 24824 24962 24748 24600 24724 24688 24510 24262 23928 23599 23278Comparative data for Wisconsin public school staff to student ratios is available from theDepartment of Public Instruction (DPI). The latest data available for the 2000-2001 year ispresented here for the 10 most comparable Wisconsin schools based on enrollment.Enrollment Teacher FTE Pupil/Teacher RatiosDistrict Name K-8 9-12 K-8 9-12 Total K-8 9-12 OverallMadison Metropolitan 17043 8044 1,469.00 555.01 2,024.01 11.60 14.49 12.39Racine 14722 6380 928.00 365.80 1,293.80 15.86 17.44 16.31Kenosha 14387 5712 938.65 393.26 1,331.91 15.33 14.52 15.09Green Bay Area 13909 6195 961.11 394.22 1,355.33 14.47 15.71 14.83Appleton Area 9973 4820 658.29 291.07 949.36 15.15 16.56 15.58Waukesha 8516 4244 578.78 268.10 846.88 14.71 15.83 15.07Eau Claire Area 7494 3774 545.32 237.61 782.93 13.74 15.88 14.39Oshkosh Area 7343 3395 500.03 199.75 699.78 14.69 17.00 15.34Janesville 7251 3507 530.06 225.44 755.50 13.68 15.56 14.24Sheboygan Area 7143 3275 465.76 218.05 683.81 15.34 15.02 15.24Top Ten WI SchoolsTotals: 107781 49346 7,575.00 3,148.31 10,723.31 14.23 15.67 14.65State of WisconsinTotals: 592788 283001 40,108.59 19,663.28 59,771.87 14.78 14.39 14.65According to this data, MMSD ranks lowest among peer schools in K-8 pupil to teacher ratio at11.60. MMSD ranks 13th lowest across all 417 Wisconsin K-8 school districts. At the 9-12 gradelevels, MMSD ranks lowest among peers and 246 thacross all 385 Wisconsin 9-12 schooldistricts. An overall pupil to teacher ratio of 12.39 ranks MMSD lowest among peers and 47 thacross all 427 Wisconsin school districts.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 145March 11, 2002
INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Background (cont.)Many factors can influence staffing decisions in a particular district. Thus, the fact that theMadison school district has the lowest ratios of staff to students among it’s closest peers andlower than average ratios across all Wisconsin schools should be interpreted with caution.However, benchmarks do serve to open discussion related to the benefits achieved from lowerratios including comparisons of student test scores and quality of education provided.Allocation Decision ScenariosWith assistance and cooperation of the MMSD budget staff we have created decision scenariosbased upon projected 2002-2003 data including enrollment projections and staffing levels. Ourreview of allocations indicates several areas of potential savings exist for MMSD. The areas aresupplemental staffing, class size, SAGE, and specials. Some potential savings areas havedependencies with each other that create multiple scenarios. We are presenting the scenarioswe feel have the most merit based upon financial and student impacts. The scenarios arepresented here in a decision format by category.REDUCTION TO SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATIONSupplemental allocations currently exist at varying levels for elementary, middle and highschools. The number of allocations for each individual school building is created throughformulas based mainly on Educational Need Index (ENI). ENI attributes include EEN/ESLattributes as well as free & reduced, parent education and home status factors. This allocationmethod results in buildings with a higher index typically allocated more supplemental positions,while other buildings receive fewer supplemental allocations as a result of low ENI indexes. Thesupplemental FTE allocations are currently utilized differently by each building with the mostcommon uses as additional psychologists, social workers, guidance or clerical staff.Our overall functional analysis has included an individual review of the most common FTE usesof supplemental allocations. These reviews provide analysis and options for staffing levels forthese functions. Additional supplemental FTE allocations in these areas are considereddiscretionary. Current projected 2002-2003 supplemental allocations and potential savingsare presented here:Supplemental Allocations Total FTEApproximateBuilding FTEDollar EquivalentFTE SavingsElementary 28.74 1.0 $1,393,890Middle School 24.30 2.2 $1,178,550High School 7.80 2.0 $ 378,300Total Supplemental Allocations 60.84 $2,950,740While supplemental allocations have been provided historically, they are discretionary in natureand could be eliminated. The average impact at the building level is 1.0 FTE elementary, 2.2FTE middle school, and 2.0 FTE high school. Individual building impact will be higher or lowerthan average ranging from 0 to 2.2 elementary, 0.6 to 3.2 middle school, and 2.8 to1.6 highschool.INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 146March 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:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
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 75 and 76:
Decision Item #8:Background:REDUCE
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 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
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 and 108: Decision Item #21:Background:REDUCE
Page 109 and 110: Decision Item #21:REDUCE/REORGANIZE
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 127 and 128: Decision Item #26:Background:REDUCE
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: Allocation AnalysisINSTRUCTION - RE
Page 151 and 152: INSTRUCTION - REGULAR EDUCATION (co
Page 153 and 154: 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?