• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2012 2013 Budget Presentation 4.25.2012
 

2012 2013 Budget Presentation 4.25.2012

on

  • 788 views

View the details of the Orange Board of Education’s 2012-2013 Budget as presented by Superintendent Lynn McMullin on April 25th at the Annual Budget Meeting held at High Plains. The budget is a ...

View the details of the Orange Board of Education’s 2012-2013 Budget as presented by Superintendent Lynn McMullin on April 25th at the Annual Budget Meeting held at High Plains. The budget is a 1.1% increase over the previous year’s budget and supports significant advancements in technology and a new math curriculum.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
788
Views on SlideShare
788
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
10
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2012 2013 Budget Presentation 4.25.2012 2012 2013 Budget Presentation 4.25.2012 Presentation Transcript

    • 2012 – 2013 Budget “Upon the subject of education,and not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, I can only say that I view it as the most important subject which we as a people may be engaged in.” Abraham Lincoln
    • Board of Education Members 3Administrative Team 4Superintendent‟s Letter of Transmittal 5Our Shared Beliefs and Commitment 6-8Success Stories: Academics 9 - 15Success Stories: Curriculum 16Success Stories: Programs 17Success Stories: Technology 18 Board of Education Members 4Success Stories: Facilities 19 - 20 Total Salaries 30Success Stories: Financial 21 Increases over 2011-2012 Budget 31 - 322012-2013 Budget Goals 22 - 24 Decreases from 2011-2012 Budget 33 - 34DRG B Per Pupil Expenditures 25 Personnel Reductions 35 - 36Projected Class Sizes by School and Grade: MLT 26 Executive Budget Summary 37 - 39Projected Class Sizes by School and Grade: RBS 27 Summary of Budget Request 40Projected Class Sizes by School and Grade: THS 28 DRG B Requests 41Projected Class Sizes by School and Grade: PPS 29 Contact INFORMATION 42
    • Jeanne Consiglio, Chair Susan FalveyKeith Marquis, Vice Chair William KrautJeffrey Cap Debra MarinoAmy Criscuolo Scott MasseyJody Dietch Robert Ricciardi
    • Lynn K. McMullin, SuperintendentRobert Martino, Director of CurriculumKai Graves, Director of Special ServicesKevin McNabola, BusinessAdministratorMichael Luzzi, Director of FacilitiesRalph Nuzzo, Principal, Mary L. TracySchoolAl deCant, Principal, Peck Place SchoolMichael Gray, Principal, Race BrookSchoolColleen Murray, Turkey Hill School
    • Dear Members of the Orange Community,The main objective of the 2012-2013 spending plan presented here is, of course, to maintain a high-quality educationfor our students, one that is rich in opportunities for academic, social, and personal success and accessible throughsafe and nurturing environments. While there is a glimmer of hope for economic recovery, we are still faced withdifficult financial decisions. Thus, this budget is also responsive to our current tough economy. Everyone whoparticipated in this budget’s development was respectful of the balance between the needs of our students and theconstraints of these difficult times.The 2012-2013 budget moves the district forward in three key areas of growth – a technology plan which enables up-to-date instructional strategies; a math curriculum aligned with the National Common Core Standards; andimprovements in our communications with our parents and the wider community. This budget meets all of ourcontractual obligations and absorbs previously available IDEA ARRA and other grant funds that have sincedisappeared. At the same time, this budget recognizes factors such as lower Kindergarten and Grade 1 enrollments;opportunities for savings in utilities and services contracts; and decreased enrollments in Special Education. Implicit inthe reductions we have outlined is a restructuring of programs, instruction, and support services. The conversationshave been deep and meaningful, and the leadership team is confident in the course of action presented here.Respectfully submitted,Superintendent of Schools“As a leader among schools in Connecticut and a source of pride in the community, the faculty and staff of the Orange PublicSchools will ensure that all children will achieve academic excellence in a safe and supportive environment in order for them tobecome life-long learners.”
    •  The Orange Public Schools are committed to the belief that a safe and supportive learning environment recognizes and respects the uniqueness of each individual. We believe that all children can and will learn the necessary skills to be contributing members in a global society, and that ongoing assessment of student work drives curriculum, instruction, and professional development. We believe that the education of each child is a shared responsibility of every member of our learning community, and that school, family, and community partnerships are essential to student learning and achievement.
    • We commit ourselves to using innovative and research-based 21st century ideas to: Promote high student achievement Communicate about and engage the Orange community in the education of its youth Manage the district‟s program data and resources Practice focused educational leadership Make sound financial choices
    • All children shall have the benefit of: High quality resources Exposure to varied opportunities to inspire their academic, intellectual, artistic, civic, and social interests A community that understands the value of its supportive role in ensuring a strong tradition of excellence for each generation of students
    •  Improved student achievement as measured by the Connecticut Mastery Test, as well as by in-district assessments Improved ranking among DRG B schools as measured by the Connecticut Mastery Test
    • CONTENT AREA 2002 2011 % of Grade 6 at GOAL % of Grade 6 at GOAL MATH 79.5% 93.4%READING 82.4% 91.2%WRITING 88.6% 87.2%
    • MATHEMATICS READING WRITINGYEAR DRG B Rank DRG B Rank DRG B Rank2006 12th of 21 18th of 21 17th of 212011 3rd of 21 6th of 21 4th of 21
    • Longitudinal Improvements in % at Goal or aboveGrade 3 2008 2009 2010 2011 Reading 62.4% 70.5% 80.9% 71.7% Writing 80.5% 72.9% 79.3% 72.5% Math 78.8% 84.3% 86.0% 86.1%Grade 4 2008 2009 2010 2011 Reading 71.4% 78.1% 78.7% 87.0% Writing 83.3% 76.3% 80.5% 91.4% Math 80.8% 85.8% 89.5% 90.3%
    • Longitudinal Improvements in % at Goal or aboveGrade 5 2008 2009 2010 2011 Reading 75% 88.8% 83.1% 75.8% Writing 82.2% 91.2% 89.1% 86.7% Math 83.2% 91% 91.6% 92.9% Science -- 69% 76% 81%Grade 6 2008 2009 2010 2011 Reading 78.8% 88.8% 92.3% 91.2% Writing 77.9% 87.7% 88.7% 87.2% Math 81.5% 90.4% 95.9% 93.4%
    • Growth over time: Achievement at Goal or above, same cohortGrade 5 (in 2011) 2009 2010 2011 % change 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Reading -- 84.3% 89.5% 92.9% + 8.6 Writing -- 70.5% 78.7% 75.8% + 5.3 Math -- 72.5% 80.4% 86.7% +14.2Grade 6 (in 2011) 2008 2009 2010 2011 % change 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade 6th grade Reading 78.8% 85.5% 91.6% 93.4% +14.6 Writing 62.4% 78.1% 83.1% 91.2% +28.8 Math 80.5% 76.3% 89.1% 87.2% +6.7
    •  Scientifically Research-based Interventions which include: o Universal Screenings - to identify students‟ areas of need o Multi-tiered Interventions – to differentiate students‟ instruction o Progress Monitoring – to assess students‟ improvements o Curriculum and Program analysis
    •  A variety of authentic, rich, and interesting texts Problem solving taught through manipulatives, mental math, and computation Common Core State Standards aligned with Connecticut‟s „Grade-Level Expectations‟ and CMT objectives Implementation of Sitton Spelling Implementation of Social Studies curriculum
    •  Increased participation in LEGO League Increased participation in String Orchestra School Band program Expansion of Infinite Possibilities Math-Science Partnership Innovative Grants Program Accelerated Reader / Operation Read
    •  SmartBoards in each classroom Document camera for each SmartBoard 13 Student Responder Systems eBooks – Library/Media Centers 3 iPads THS Gr. 5 through „innovative grants Tablet PC‟s for classroom walk- throughs for Leadership Team Destiny software for the libraries
    •  Presented FOUR key facilities projects to the BOF in January 2012 Conversion to gas heat at MLT; projected savings of $25,690 Mechanicals to control heat in classrooms at Peck Place o 5% = $2,828 annual savings on gas
    •  Electricity savings, due to lighting updates: o Race Brook reduced 19.7% = $13,530 annual savings o Turkey Hill reduced 27.6% = $18,741 annual savings o MLT reduced 22.8% = $13,746 annual savings o Peck Place reduced 10% = $9,017 annual savings Total Savings= $55,034
    •  Negotiated new contracts for: o Konica Copiers = $39,340 annual savings o Uniform cleaning = $2,148 annual savings o Sprinkler system maintenance = $1,967 annual savings o 24-hour alarm monitoring = $1,880 annual savings o Annual boiler cleaning = $1,950 annual savings o Pest control = $370 cost savings Total Savings= $47,655
    •  Increase Commitment to Technology o Implement the 2012 – 2015 Technology Plan o Establish a full-time Technology Department o Increase students‟ access to computers o Improve technology-based instructional strategies o Improve assistive technologies in Special Education
    •  Implement new Math curriculum Improve SRBI through addition of technology-based screening and reporting tools for Reading and Math Implement the district‟s state mandated “Safe-Schools Plan”
    •  Improve district-wide communication o Dynamic vs. static webpage o Daily web-calendar o Provide updates on curriculum and programs o Improve teachers‟ webpages o Showcase programs and student work o Create virtual „backpacks‟ to reduce paper and photocopying
    • Per Pupil Expenditure200001800016000140001200010000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Orange [$13,849] is the mid-point between Woodbridge [$14,916] and Trumbull [$12,687]. Orange [$13,849] is $1,500 lower than the mid-point of DRG B schools [$15,275].
    • School Projected Population Projected Class SizeDistrict Total 1244 Mary L. Tracy - Kindergarten 146 (8) 18 /19Race Brook 392Turkey Hill 323Peck Place 383
    • School Projected Population Projected Class SizeDistrict Total 1244Mary L. Tracy Kindergarten 146 Race Brook 392 Grade 1 57 (4) 14/15 Grade 2 60 (4) 15 Grade 3 70 (4) 17/18 Grade 4 73 (4) 18/19 Grade 5 73 (4) 18/19 Grade 6 59 (3) 19/20Turkey Hill 323Peck Place 383
    • School Projected Population Projected Class SizeDistrict Total 1244Mary L. Tracy Kindergarten 146Race Brook 392 Turkey Hill 323 Grade 1 47 (3) 15/16 Grade 2 49 (3) 16/17 Grade 3 51 (3) 17 Grade 4 59 (3) 19/20 Grade 5 51 (3) 17 Grade 6 66 (3) 22Peck Place 383
    • School Projected Population Projected Class SizeDistrict Total 1244Mary L. Tracy Kindergarten 146Race Brook 392Turkey Hill 323 Peck Place 383 Grade 1 49 (3)* 16/17 Grade 2 63 (4) 15/16 Grade 3 75 (4) 18/19 Grade 4 54 (3) 18 Grade 5 72 (4) 18 Grade 6 70 (4) 17/18 * Reduction of one position
    • Custodians / Maintenance Principals 5% 5% Administration 4%Paraprofessionals 8%Special Education Teachers Regular Education 9% Teachers 70%
    •  Technology + 100% o Reallocated funds from contracted services and certified staff o Collated all technology subscriptions and audio visual into technology o Additional equipment o Improved email and webpage hosting
    •  Curriculum Development +18.6% o New math curriculum, Grades K – 2 Pupil Transportation +1.6% o BOWA Bus Contract o State Bid for gasoline Employee Benefits +1.3% Classroom Supplies +12.6% o Rebuilding depleted science kits, grades 1 - 6 o Small increases in music , reading, PE, and art Property/Liability Insurance +5%
    •  Administration - 12.8% Classroom Teachers - 1.4% o Reduction of 1.45 positions o Retirements o Contractual increases of approximately 2.5% o Increase in substitute teachers Professional Services - 45.5% o Includes moving Tech Support contract to Technology o Renegotiated contract
    •  Non-Certified Staff - 1.4% o Reduction of 2 positions o Reduction of substitutes based on 2 years‟ actuals o Includes contractual increases Audio Visual - 77% o Moved to Technology Oil heat - 5.9% o State bid price increase (16.2%) o Savings on MLT gas conversion
    •  Special Education – 6.0% o Reduction of 2 certified Special Education teachers, based on enrollment o Reduction of 4 non-certified positions, based on enrollment o Reduced tuition to outplacements o Reduced transportation to outplacements o Increase in „assistive technologies‟ o 1.0 Special Education teacher moved from ARRA grant into budget o Increase in contractual salaries
    • Reductions based on decreased enrollments over past two yearsSpecial Education Teachers - 2 FTE 2011- 2012 = 137 students; case loads average 9/10 2012 -2013 = 121 students; case loads average 10Special Education Paraprofessionals - 4 FTERatio with reduction = 3.5 students : 1 adultRatio without reduction = 3 students : 1 adult
    • Peck Place Grade 1 Teacher - 1 FTE2011-2012 = 60 students in Grade 1: class size = 15Without reduction of one teacher:2012–2013 = 49* students in Grade 1: class size =12/13With reduction of one teacher:2012–2013 = 49* students in Grade 1: class size = 16* Includes an anticipated increase in enrollment over 2011-2012 actual enrollment
    • Instruction 1% Technology 2% Employee Benefits 19% Regular Education 52%Building Operations 8% Special Education 18%
    • 2011-2012 2012-2013 Increase/ Description Budget Proposed (Decrease)Central Office $556,133 $484,977 (-12.8%)All Certified Staff $6,521,329 $6,587,062 1%Non-Certified Staff $555,539 $547,795 (-1.4%)Special Education $3,355,107 $3,154,784 (-6.0%)Pupil Transportation $720,593 $732,407 1.6%Employee Benefits $3,355,628 $3,398,057 1.3%Curriculum & Professional $189,820 $225,139 18.6%DevelopmentInstructional Programs $238,706 $225,940 (-5.3%)Building Operations $1,490,668 $1,456,787 (-2.3%)Property/Liability Insurance $97,000 $101,850 5%Building Principals $501,487 $501,487 0%Technology (and Other) $0 $350,603 100%TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET $17,582,010 $17,766,888 1.1%
    •  2011-2012 Approved Budget: $17,582,010 2012-2013 Proposed Request: $17,766,888 Difference 2011-2012 to 2012-2013: $184,878 Difference in percent: 1.1%
    • % Increase over past TWO (2) Years6543210 Final 2011-12 Budget Increase (%) BOEs 2012-13 Budget Increase (%)
    •  Questions may be sent to lmcmullin@orange- ed.org Budget information will be posted on the district‟s website: www.oess.org