Developed by: Superintendent of Schools Robert M. Sullivan, Ed.D.

1
Draft FY08 Preliminary School Department
Operational Budget

• Developed in Consideration of a
• Possible Proposition 2 ½ Override
• Components of this Power Point Presentation were
  provided to the Middleborough Board of Selectmen
  on January 8, 2007

2
Purpose of a Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget
Developed in Consideration of a Possible
Proposition 2 ½ Override

• August 2006 Collaborative Leadership Group (CLG)
  meetings.
• Budget developed to address 2-3 years of growth.

3
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• At a meeting on August 22, 2006 of the (CLG)
  Collaborative Leadership Group, attended by Mrs.
  Marsha Brunelle, Mr. John Healey, Mr. Steven
  Spataro, Mr. Thomas Tatro and myself, it was
  decided that November 1, 2006 would be set as a
  target date for preliminary FY08 budgets to be
  developed. This request included the school
  departments FY08 budget.

4
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• The (CLG) Collaborative Leadership Group was
  created in 2003. Members include two members
  each from the School Committee, Finance Committee
  and Board of Selectmen, the Town Manager and the
  Superintendent of Schools. The purpose of this
  group is to maintain open and candid
  communication throughout the year regarding the
  Town budget.

5
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• A major topic of discussion during the summer CLG
  meetings was the potential need for a Proposition
  2 1/2 override in order to support the towns
  services and program needs in FY08 and into the
  future.
• It was also discussed on August 22, 2006 the need
  to develop preliminary FY08 budgets that
  reflected where a department needed to be in
  terms of services and programs 2-3 years in the
  future.

6
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• School Department understanding of the purpose to
  develop preliminary FY08 budgets
• Provide budgetary information that reflected the
  future (2 3 years) needs of a department
• Reconvene the Collaborative Leadership Group to
  discuss and share information regarding our
  preliminary budgets
• Consider whether a need for a Proposition 2 ½
  override was practical and/or feasible
• Develop Collaborative Leadership Group consensus
  regarding any FY08 budget course of action
  recommendations that could then be reported to
  the three boards/committees that are represented
  (on the Collaborative Leadership Group).

7
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• The School Departments FY08 budget process was
  performed in a manner that was extremely
  abbreviated in order to meet the November 1, 2006
  target request of the Collaborative Leadership
  Group. Unfortunately, the first opportunity to
  present our FY08 budget to the CLG was not until
  December 12, 2006.

8
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• More importantly, the FY08 preliminary budget was
  developed with the underlying premise that we
  were planning for where the School Department
  needs to be in two to three years. Planning
  ahead for two to three years is a normal premise
  to make when developing a school department
  budget, yet, for the past two fiscal years, the
  School Committee has been unable to plan into the
  future even beyond one year.

9
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• The reason for not being able to reasonably
  budget for future growth and needs has been the
  School Committees attempt to tighten the belt
  for two consecutive years in order to work
  collaboratively with the Town to meet the budget
  obstacles that we all share.

10
Draft FY08 Preliminary Budget Developed in
Consideration of a Possible Proposition 2 ½
Override

• The School Department responded to the Towns
  request to reduce proposed budgets by 942,000
  and 453,600 for FY06 and FY07 respectively.

11
Historical Data

• Operational Budget History and Recent Operational
  Budget Appropriations FY99 - 07
• Chapter 70 State Aid FY93 FY07
• Indirect Costs FY00 FY07

12
Operational Budget History

• The operational budget reflects the funding
  received from Chapter 70 State Aid and from the
  Town that directly impacts the educational
  programs that are offered to our students. The
  operational budget provides the funding for the
  educational and support services that directly
  impact our students.
• The operational budget does not include the
  following Indirect Costs
• a) Employee Benefits, b) Retiree Benefits, c)
  Insurance, and d) Town Administrative and Town
  Maintenance costs to support the school
  department.

13
Operational Budget History

• Indirect Costs are "municipal charges" that are
  described by the Department of Education as
  Non-discretionary expenses which the city or town
  is entitled to report and which count toward Net
  School Spending (NSS).

14
Operational Budget History
15
Chapter 70 State Aid FY93 FY07 Received By
Middleborough

• Towns are required and expected to appropriate
  sufficient funds to support quality public
  education. In Massachusetts, Chapter 70 aid is
  the major source of state funding to assist
  communities with their public education
  responsibilities. Chapter 70 aid is based on a
  number of factors including number of students
  and local economic conditions, but is not meant
  to provide 100 of the funding for local
  districts.

16
Chapter 70 State Aid FY93 FY07 Received By
Middleborough
17
Indirect Costs

• Indirect costs have increased dramatically since
  FY2000.
• Indirect Costs are "municipal charges" that are
  described by the Department of Education as
  Non-discretionary expenses which the city or town
  is entitled to report and which count toward Net
  School Spending (NSS).

18
Indirect Costs FY00 - 07
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
The A, B, Cs of School Finance Reform

• Foundation Budget created to determine the cost
  of providing a fair and adequate minimum per
  student funding
• Local Contribution required standard of minimum
  local support
• State Chap 70 Aid to make up the difference to
  meet required spending

23
Hancock v. Driscoll -- Hancock v Driscoll data

• It was reported that the seventy-five school
  districts that perform the highest on the MCAS
  tests spend, on average, 130 per cent of the
  foundation budget, while the State average was
  between 115 to 117 per cent of the foundation
  budget.
• Middleboro, in FY05 spent 106.8 per cent of the
  foundation budget and in FY06 Middleboro spent
  109.9 per cent and in FY07 Middleboro spent 107.6
  per cent of the foundation budget.

24
Fiscal Year 2006 Revenue Components
25
Academic and Curriculum Concerns

• Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
  (MCAS)
• No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
• Adequate Yearly Progress
• K-8 Class Size
• High School Course Offerings

26
Purpose of MCAS

• MCAS is designed to improve classroom instruction
  and assessment by
• providing specific feedback that can be used to
  improve the quality of school-wide, classroom,
  and individualized student instructional
  programs.
• serving as an accountability tool for measuring
  the performance of individual students, schools,
  and districts against established state
  standards. (AYP)

27
Massachusetts School District Accountability
System (MSDAS) Purpose

• Designed to gauge the progress of schools and
  districts toward getting all students to
  proficiency in English Language Arts and
  mathematics by 2014
• Adequate Yearly ProgressAYP

28
What is AYP?

• Stands for Adequate Yearly Progress
• Means progress toward 100 of students achieving
  proficiency in key subject areas by 2014
• Measures progress against specific expectations
  each year

29
AYP Status

• John T. Nichols Jr. Middle School
• Mathematics
• Aggregate did not make AYP
• Low Income subgroup did not make AYP
• Corrective Action status for Mathematics
• English Language Arts
• Low income subgroup did not make AYP
• Needs Improvement status for ELA
• Henry B. Burkland Elementary School
• English Language Arts
• Low Income subgroup did not make AYP
• Special Education subgroup did not make AYP
• Corrective Action status for English Language Arts

30
Using MCAS

• Local educators are encouraged to use MCAS
  results to identify strengths and weaknesses in
  curriculum and instruction, and to help determine
  the needs of individual students or groups of
  students in order to serve them more effectively.

31
Spring 2006MCAS Administration

• This past spring, students were tested in
• Reading (grade 3),
• English Language Arts (grades 4 - 8, and 10),
• Mathematics (grades 3 - 8, and 10), and
• Science and Technology/Engineering (grades 5 and
  8).

32
Spring 2006MCAS Administration

• Six of these sixteen tests English Language
  Arts at grades 5, 6, and 8 and Mathematics at
  grades 3, 5, and 7 were newly introduced in
  2006 in response to the requirements of the
  federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

33
Spring 2006MCAS Administration

• The 2005-2006 school year marked the first time
  that NCLB required all 50 states to have in place
  annual reading and mathematics assessments at
  grades 38 and one grade at high school.

34
Middleborough Public Schools - PK-8 Enrollment
35
(No Transcript)
36
Preliminary Draft FY08 Operational Budget In
Consideration of Prop 2-1/2 Override

• Major Expense Categories
• SALARIES
• SUPPLIES/MATERIALS
• CONTRACT SERVICES
• MAINTENANCE
• UTILITIES

37
Middleborough Public SchoolsNovember, 2006 CLG
RequestedPreliminary Draft FY08 Operational
Budget In Consideration of Prop 2-1/2 Override
38
Middleborough Public SchoolsNovember, 2006 CLG
RequestedPreliminary Draft FY08 Operational
Budget In Consideration of Prop 2-1/2 Override
39
Middleborough Public SchoolsNovember, 2006 CLG
RequestedPreliminary Draft FY08 Operational
Budget In Consideration of Prop 2-1/2 Override
40
Cost Summary of FY08 Preliminary Budget "New
Items"
41
Preliminary Draft FY08 Operational Budget In
Consideration of Prop 2-1/2 Override

• Impact Statement

42
Impact Statement

• The FY08 budget situation presents a very serious
  dilemma for our students of the Middleborough
  Public Schools.
• The impact of any reductions will have a negative
  effect on the quality of the educational
  experience for Middleboroughs students.

43
Impact Statement

• Up to this year (FY07), the Towns support for
  the educational needs of our students has been
  positive and deeply appreciated. However, this
  support has been greatly assisted by the
  willingness on the part of the Middleborough
  School Committee to agree to bring School
  Department operational budget recommendations to
  Town Meeting that are well below the actual
  budget needs required to promote consistent and
  continual improvement.

44
Impact Statement

• The school district has willingly tightened the
  belt for two years in a row to work
  collaboratively with the entire Town to meet the
  budget obstacles that we all share. Our School
  Committee has worked to be part of the solution
  to meet the Towns budget crisis and it is
  important to note that

45
Impact Statement

• 1,395,600 in initiatives aimed to improve
  student achievement were reduced from our FY06
  and FY07 Budgets, all due to the School
  Committees willingness to work closely with Town
  boards and departments in a collaborative manner
  to face our budget challenges together.

• As a result of the inability to move forward
  these past two years with initiatives focused on
  improving student achievement, our FY08 Budget
  will reflect not only our academic based
  personnel needs, but will also reflect supply,
  materials and maintenance needs that cannot be
  ignored any longer.

46
Impact Statement

• Our need to address
• a) program needs at our high school,
• b) No Child Left Behind (NCLB) adequate yearly
  progress (AYP) status, and
• c) improving student achievement on Massachusetts
  Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), cant be
  placed on a backburner any longer without
  severely deteriorating the educational value and
  quality of our school system.

47
Impact Statement

• The Towns commitment through the past three
  budget cycles to maintain a level of financial
  support above the minimum level has been and
  continues to be necessary to maintain basic
  programs and is greatly appreciated. Yet,
  without additional financial support that allows
  for growth and sustainability of present
  programs, the school department will be unable to
  even maintain our present programs and may soon
  need to decrease the level and degree of services
  to our students.

48
Impact Statement

• We must begin to ask, why not the best when we
  discuss the education of our children. Our
  students have only one opportunity in each grade.
  I realize the importance of ensuring that as a
  Town we have safe roads, timely, responsive and
  properly equipped safety officials and
  appropriate services for all citizens of all ages
  in our Town. However, our children deserve an
  education that will provide them with the
  knowledge and skills necessary to reach their
  full potential as adults. Fulfilling that basic
  education condition will have a longer lasting
  effect on our future as a Town and country than
  any other Town service.

49
Impact Statement

• The following has been shared by me in past
  correspondence and bears repeating again
• Our second President of the United States,
  President John Adams from Braintree,
  Massachusetts, urged the widest possible support
  for education. President Adams stated, Laws for
  the liberal education of youthare so extremely
  wise and useful that to a humane and generous
  mind, no expense for this purpose would be
  thought extravagant.