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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Allocation Decision Scenarios (cont.)CHANGE IN PUPIL TO TEACHER RATIOS - SAGEOption 1: Change SAGE Allocation to 15:1The first discussion point is SAGE State and Federal class size requirements for schools toqualify for SAGE funding at K-3 grade levels. The requirements for of the funding are for eachSAGE school to have base pupil to teacher class size ratios of 15:1 or less for K-2 and 18:1 orless for Grade 3 (15/18). MMSD currently allocates SAGE schools at a 14/18:1 ratio, thusexceeding the ratio requirements to receive SAGE funding. A policy decision to changeallocations for SAGE schools to a ratio of 15:1 rather than the current ratio of 14:1 haspotential District savings of 14 FTE positions or $679,000. This allocation change will notimpact SAGE funding or change the SAGE program implemented at SAGE schools.Our subsequent allocation discussions and scenarios are calculated based on 15/18:1 SAGEallocations. We do not presume Board of Education approval of this item. This merely simplifiesour subsequent scenario discussion.Option 2: Limit SAGE Program to Low Income SchoolsThe majority of additional scenarios run either increases local funding or reduces the number ofschools participating in SAGE. One of these scenarios eliminates the remaining $1,028,685 localfunding entirely and maintains the existing components of the MMSD SAGE program along withthe planned expansion to 3 rdgrade for 2002-2003. A total of 21.21 FTE are related to thispotential $1,028,685 reduction. This scenario changes the participating SAGE schoolrequirement to those schools with greater than 30% overall low-income enrollment. The lowincomeenrollment requirement must be met by each school individually to qualify for SAGEunder this scenario. Overall low-income enrollment for MMSD are approximately 30%.For 2002-2003, this scenario would result in 10 of the existing 23 SAGE schools no longerparticipating in SAGE: Crestwood, Franklin, Lapham, Muir, Marquette, Randall, Schenk,Shorewood, Stephens, and Chávez. The following 13 schools remain on SAGE under thisscenario: Allis, Emerson, Glendale, Falk, Hawthorne, Lakeview, Lowell, Mendota, Midvale,Thoreau, Lincoln, Lindbergh, and Leopold. The schools remaining on the SAGE program wouldbe those with the most need as they are the 10 schools with the highest low-income enrollments.This scenario yields an additional $1,028,685 in District savings. The impact of implementingthis scenario would be a reversal of the District plan to fully implement SAGE with the overallpurpose to improve 3 rd grade reading levels.SAGE: Our SAGE analysis focused on reviewing scenarios for reducing the local fundingrequirements for SAGE. Elimination of the SAGE program entirely would cost the Districtapproximately $4.5 million in lost SAGE funding. Implementation of changing the SAGEallocation to 15/18 from 14/18 would reduce the SAGE local funding requirement for 2002-2003from $1,707,685 to $1,028,685.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 147March 11, 2002
INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Allocation Decision Scenarios (cont.)CHANGE IN PUPIL TO TEACHER RATIOS - BASEOption 1: Change in Secondary Class SizeBase pupil to teacher class size is allocated at MMSD based on historical ratios. Base ratiosexist at the elementary, middle and high school level independently. Current secondary pupil toteacher ratios in place for MMSD are 17.0 at the middle schools and 21.8 at the high schools:The financial impact of a base pupil to teacher ratio change at the secondary-level is a simplecalculation based on middle school ratios increasing from 17.0 and high school ratios increasingfrom 21.8. The impacts shown in 0.5 ratio increments are displayed here:Middle SchoolAllocationsBase RatioBase PositionAllocationsFTE ReductionBaseRatioBase PositionAllocationsDollar EquivalentFTE SavingsCurrent 17.0 326.6 0.0 $0Increase 0.5 17.5 317.3 9.3 $451,050Increase 1.0 18.0 308.4 18.2 $882,700Increase 1.5 18.5 300.1 26.5 $1,285,250Increase 2.0 19.0 292.2 34.4 $1,668,400High SchoolAllocationsBase RatioBase PositionAllocationsFTE ReductionBaseRatioBase PositionAllocationsNumber of FTEDollar EquivalentCurrent 21.8 360.2 0.0 $0Increase 0.5 22.3 352.2 8.0 $388,000Increase 1.0 22.8 344.4 15.8 $766,300Increase 1.5 23.3 337.0 23.2 $1,125,200Increase 2.0 23.8 330.0 30.2 $1,464,700Wisconsin secondary school pupil to teacher ratios produced by DPI for the year 2000-2001 weredisplayed in an earlier table. The table indicates that MMSD overall secondary pupil to teacherratio is 14.49. This compares to a 15.67 ratio for MMSD’s closest 10 peer schools. A 1.0increase in this ratio would bring MMSD’s ratio to 15.49, closer, yet still below the average of thesame 10 peer schools.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 148March 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 and 148: Allocation AnalysisINSTRUCTION - RE
Page 149: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?