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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PURPOSE AND SCOPE (cont.)The decisions facing the District are difficult; the analysis we provide is intended to frame thesedecisions with data about the impact, cost, and policy implications of programs so that Districtdecision makers have the information they need to make informed decisions. At the same time,there were many cases where quantitative data on program effectiveness, impact or successwere not available. In those cases, we attempted to include any available quantitative data,coupled with qualitative information.This functional analysis is intended to provide the District with consistent, objective informationto use in decision making. The functional analysis does not make decisions about where theDistrict should target budget reductions. It merely recognizes that the District faces difficultdecisions, and attempts to frame those decisions within a balanced, analytical and objectiveframework.APPROACH AND METHODOLOGYThe cornerstone of our approach to completing this functional analysis is our decision model.The model began with identification of all functions and sub-functions within the District. We thendeveloped categories into which all functions could be divided (see below). Next, we developedscreening criteria – a standard set of variables used to analyze all functions based on howfunctions are categorized. For example, all mandated functions underwent the same analysis,while all instructional discretionary items were analyzed on a distinct set of criteria.Through the application of screening criteria, we identified items where a decision was required.In light of the fiscal constraints facing the District, a decision item was a case where a functionwas material in cost and could be eliminated or reduced (based on the screening criteria).Decision items attempt to frame the potential effects of function elimination or reduction, in lightof data available.In designing the decision model, we embedded two crucial features. First, we took great lengthsto avoid substituting our value judgments for those of District decision-makers. As a result, we donot offer recommendations, but rather frame the budget decision options. The second crucialfeature of our model is that all functions are analyzed within the same framework. Theapplication of a standard set of functional categories and screening criteria (coupled with anobjective perspective) was intended to foster consistency in analyzing functions across programareas, departments, and divisions within the District.In order to implement this approach, the following tasks were completed:• Each department and division submitted a listing of their functions and sub-functions.• All sub-functions were classified into one of the following functional categories forscreening purposes:Core to Classroom Instruction – providing direct core classroom instruction for the District(e.g. Math instruction)Health and Safety – directly related to the well-being of students or District employees(abandonment would create direct negative impact on health or safety)Mandated (State or Federal) – mandated through specific state or federal statues or legaladministrative rulesInstructional Support – resources directly supporting core classroom instruction (e.g. supportinstruction, equipment, supplies)Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 4March 11, 2002
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY (cont.)Instructional Discretionary - indirectly related to classroom instruction (e.g. athletics, schoolforest, extracurricular)Core to Corporate – providing direct core services for the District (e.g. building maintenance,payroll, accounting)Corporate Discretionary - indirectly related to core corporate functionsCompetitive Grant – Directly linked to grant funding (spending can be traced to specificgrant(s))• Interviewed staff, gathered data, and analyzed functions and sub-functions based oncategory assigned, using the following screening criteria:#1 Core to Classroom- Enrollment projections- FTE allocated to function- Impact of FTE change- Standards for course offerings/class size- Student/Teacher ratios#2 Health and Safety- Validate key impact /risk on employee/student health- Identify opportunities for outsourcing#3 Mandated- Research legislative language- Level of service provided (comparison with mandated level)- Alternatives for service delivery#4 Instructional Support- Student impact- Strategic priorities and plan recommendations –- Is it effective in meeting priorities – performance measures/qualitative data- Are there redundancies or overlap- Is the service available elsewhere- Are there service delivery issues- Expenditures/Revenues/Fees- FTE allocated to function#5/#7 Instructional Discretionary / Corporate Discretionary- Student/employee impact- Strategic priorities and plan recommendations- Collective bargaining agreement impacts- Alternatives to current service delivery/reduction alternatives- Is it effective in meeting priorities – performance measures/qualitative data- Are there redundancies or overlap- Is the service available elsewhere- Are there service delivery issues- Expenditures/Revenues/Fees (current and potential)- FTE allocated to functionVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 5March 11, 2002
Page 1 and 2: MADISON METROPOLITANSCHOOL DISTRICT
Page 3 and 4: Executive SummaryThe Madison Metrop
Page 5: Project OverviewIn October 2001, th
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 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:
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:
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:
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 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
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?