Report made to Syracuse school board on its budget

8/3/2019 Report made to Syracuse school board on its budget

1/47

SCSD Budget AnalysisBoard Summary Presentation

Confidential

Tel: (703) 548-0855 Fax: (703) 683-4707

211 N. Union St. Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314

December 8, 2011


2/47

2Confidential

Agenda

Project Fundamentals

Historical District Costs

A New Value Chain

Findings

Recommendations


3/47


4/47

4Confidential


Summary of Critical Issues

What are the main activities that drive District costs? Do thosecosts vary significantly across quadrants or grade levels?

How have those costs changed over time?

How do the activities relate to the Districts goals, both

academic and other? Are there areas of significant over- orunder-investment?

What revenues support these activities?

How can funds be better allocated to more directly serve theDistricts needs?


5/47

5Confidential


Data Reviewed

Financial Data

Budgets and actual expenses by budget category from 2006 to present Transaction-level data from 2009 to present (2012 as detailed budget)

Operational Data, collected through interviews with the following people:

Suzanne Slack, CFO Jaime Alicea, Deputy Superintendent Randolph Williams, Director of Personnel

Karen Henry, Director of Accounting Nancy Squairs, Director of Fiscal Services Jennifer Indelicato, Assistant Director of Fiscal Services Michael Puntschenko, Director of Special Programs Tom Ferrara, Director of Facilities and Operations Thomas Ristoff, Director of Security Mary Cahill, Director of Curriculum and Staff Development Tony Tolbert, Director of Elementary School and K-8 Brian Nolan, Director of Secondary Schools, Career, and Adult Education

Brian Pulvino, Director of Special Education Christian Hodge, Sr. , Administrator for Health, Phys. Ed., and Athletics

Enrollment Data

Basic Education Data System (BEDS) data on entire District Individual course data, provided by Kelly Malone, Coordinator of Accountability and Testing


6/47

6Confidential


District Priorities

1. An effective teacher in every classroom, and an effectiveleader in every building

2. A rigorous curriculum, aligned with the Common Core

3. A system of supports for students and families

Source: S. Contreras


7/477Confidential


District Investment Goals

$51/student forcurriculumdevelopment, mainlyin extension of servicehours

$496/student in social-emotional andsupplementalacademic supports

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2012 investment

19,283

2013 goals

19,283

$/student

$598/student for full post-secondary preparation

$1,157/student, or 6% ofspending, for humancapital

$1,058/student for social-emotional and supplementalacademic supports

Fully funding SCSDs investment priorities will require reallocation of approximately $44M

Source: SHP analysis, interviews with S. Contreras, K. Bradley and S.Slack

$161/student inhuman capitalinvestment (throughprofessionaldevelopment and HR)


8/478Confidential

Agenda



A New Value Chain

Findings

Recommendations


9/479Confidential

Historical Presentation of Expenses

Syracuse City School District has traditionally presented expensesorganized by functional area. This view of the Districts investments shows:

An accounting perspective on tracking spending

A view corresponding to actual departments, in many cases,separated in the budget as they are physically

Investments in the same type of activity (e.g., clerical support)spread across various departments to correspond with the officein which the resources are deployed


10/4710Confidential

Historical Costs

Operating Expenses (A, C, and F)

0

25

50

75

100%

2007A

367

2008A

382

2009A

405

2010A

422

2011B

438

2012B

Personnel

Personnel

Personnel

Debt Service

F Fund

Contractual

406

Supplies

Contractual

C Fund

21,655 21,099 20,983 21,329 21,297 21,070Enrollment(P-12)

Source: SCSD budgets, 2006-2012; SCSD BEDS data; SHP analysis

Instruction

Administration

Ops + Maintenance

Special Programs

Transportation

A = Actual, B = Budgeted

$25M reclassification (F to A)

Unaudited actual = ~$432.5M

A fund: General expenses funded by State Aid, taxes C fund: Cafeteria expenses F fund: Special programs, funded mostly by grants originating at the US Dept. of Education


11/4711Confidential

Historical Costs

Staffing per Student (Schools)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Expe

dition

ary

Learning

Ms

Clary

Magn

etMiddle

DrWeeks

Elem

entary

Edwa

rdSmith

K-8

Delawa

reElem

entary

Hughes

Magn

etElem

entary

Blodgett

K-8

Van

Duyn

Elem

entary

Meache

mElem

entary

Gran

t Mid

dle

Elmwo

odElem

entary

Salem

-Hyd

eElem

entary

Robe

rtsK-8

Hunting

ton

K-8

Lem

oyne

Elem

entary

Frazier K

-8

Lincoln

Middle

Danf

orth

Magn

etMiddle

Notting

ham

High

Dr. Kin

gMagnet

Elem

entary

H.W

. Smith

K-8

Porte

r Mag

net E

lementary

Fowl

erHigh

Corc

oran

High

Institu

teof

Techno

logy

Fran

klin

Magn

etElem

entary

Seym

our M

agne

t Elem

entary

McKinle

y-Bright

onElem

Webst

erElem

entary

Henn

inger

High

Belle

vue

Elem

entary

Staff/student

2009 2010 2011 2012

Source: SCSD personnel data. SHP analysis

In addition to declines in absolute headcount, staff per student declined from a District average of .15 school-based staff/student in 2009 to .12 staff/student (1 staff member per 6.7 students to 1 per 8 students)

District-level managers have adapted to this change

Schools range from 0.19 to 0.11 staff/student (approximately 5 to 9 students/staff member)


12/4712Confidential

Some Observations

A View of the District Through the Historical Accounting Lens

Between 2007 and 2008, $25M in expenses were reclassified from the F fund to the A fund. F Fund expenses are those paid forby grants, primarily originating at the US Department of Education

After several years of consistent spending increases, the Districts 2012 operating budget fell by 6.1% from 2011 levels

Since 2007, the District has invested between 73.2% and 75.9% of its operating budget in instruction and F fund expenses.Approximately half of operating expenses are instructional personnel, which includes both special education and regular educationteachers and some teaching assistants

As the Districts expenses rose from 2007 to 2011, A fund expenses classified as instructional ( including personnel, supplies, andcontracts) rose as well, though at a slower rate. Instructional expenses fell by 2% in the 2012 budget as the total A fund budget fellby 2.1%. A fund expenses are those paid for primarily by State Aid and tax revenues

Expenses categorized as administrative were flat (7.6% in 2007, 7.7% in 2011) as a percentage of all operating expenses until

2011-12, when they rose to 10% of total operating expenses

During this time of increasing investment (2009 to 2011), A fund instructional expenses rose in the absolute (until 2012) whilefalling slightly as a percentage of total expenses and rising on a per-student basis

However, instructional expenses were effectively flat as a percentage of A fund expenses. There was little variation in any sectionof the A fund, in terms of the percent of total A fund spending dedicated to each specific budget area.

This suggests that all A fund expenses are considered variable costs, since the entire A fund budget had, by 2011, increased by10% over 2008s budget. Even administrative expenses, which behaved in part like f ixed costs over the past year, changed onlyfrom 10.4% of 2007 A fund expenses to 12.1% of 2012 A fund expenses

The years with the most pronounced spending increases, however, were also those with flat or declining enrollment, so thesecosts appear to vary with something other than student enrollment.

In 2008 (after the 2007 reclassification from F to A), instructional costs in the general fund made up approximately 57.8% of theoperating budget. In this view, instructional spending has increased slightly to 58.9% of the budget

Finally, on a per-student basis, instructional (including F fund) investments rose each year, though more slowly over time, until2012, when they were cut by 4.6%


13/4713Confidential

Some Observations

District Staffing Through the Historical Lens

Headcount has been reduced across the District, both in schools and administrative departments

Over the course of numerous interviews with program, operations, and business staff, it was clear that the reduction in staff hasbeen a challenging and, in many cases, painful change for the District to undergo

In every instance that managers noted this challenge, they were quick to follow up with an explanation of thoughtful responses tothe constraints on resources that were intended to preserve service levels for students and, as applicable, for teachers

All schools reduced headcount on a per-student basis; many, but not all, departments did so as well. There is, however,meaningful variation in per-student staffing levels among different schools. Some schools are staffed at twice as many staff per

student as others


14/4714Confidential

Agenda



A New Value Chain

Findings

Recommendations


15/4715Confidential

What is the Value Chain?

The value chain is a framework for viewing the series of activities that add value towhatever product or service is delivered in a given industry

At each step in the chain, there should be more and more value added

In addition, the value chain shows supporting activities, such as Apples accountants,human resources staff, janitors and security guards

When Apple produces an iPad, the value chain could be described as:

1. Acquire processors, glass, batteries, etc.; hire engineers

2. Develop new products

3. Assemble devices

4. Ship from factory to stores

5. Advertise products, operate Apple stores and website

6. Provide customer service

Source: The concept of the value chain was first described by Michael Porter in his 1985 book, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance


16/4716Confidential

Value Chain-Based Presentation of Expenses

The analysis that follows shows expenses organized by value chain area.This view of the Districts investments shows:

An operations perspective

A view corresponding to the ways in which the Districts activitiesprogressively add value to students in SCSD schools, from

design of the curriculum, through teaching and other studentactivities, to food service and transportation

Investments in the same type of activity are aggregated basedon where those activities fall in the value chain.

For example, all clerical and administrative work is groupedunder District Administration, rather than separated by physical

location of the different clerical staff members

For the value chain view, investments are not separated by revenuesource (A fund, F fund, etc.)


17/4717Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

CurriculumDevelopment

Non-academic

SupplementalPrograms

ProfessionalDevelopment

Core AcademicInstruction

Counseling,Guidance, and

Health Care

Academic

SupplementalPrograms TransportationFood Service

Assessment,Program

Evaluation, andReporting

Finance and Business Operations

Human Resources Grants and Development

Information Technology Physical Plant and Maintenance

Communications and Community Relations Benefits and Incentives

Debt Service

School

Leadership

EnrichmentAcademicInstruction

Special EducationInstruction

Operating Activities

Support Activities

District Administration


18/4718Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Key Definitions

CurriculumDevelopment

ProfessionalDevelopment

Core AcademicInstruction

Staff in schools or central office and in-service time,dedicated to the direct creation or selection of curriculum

On-going professional development directly associated withDistricts goals

Wages and benefits for English Language Arts, Math, Science,History/Social Studies, Foreign Languages

Instructional materials


19/4719Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Key Definitions

EnrichmentAcademicInstruction

Wages and benefits for Physical Education, Arts, CareerDevelopment; Health, vocational programs, and general electives

Instructional materials

Clerical and supply expenses, support staff, some managersDistrict

Administration

Benefits andIncentives

Retiree payments, sick and vacation time buybacks

Support Activities

SpecialEducationInstruction

Wages and benefits for special education instruction

Instructional materials Tuition


20/4720Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Methodology

We began by reviewing historical budgets to understand at a broad level how the District has invested in itsoperations since 2006

We then developed the value chain categories for operating activities and support activities

We talked to the Superintendent to understand her plans for future investments in District priorities: effectiveteachers in every classroom and effective leaders in every building, a rigorous curriculum aligned with the CommonCore, and a system of support services for all students and their families

Working with the finance and accounting teams, we received data on all transactions from 2009 to 2011, as well asa detailed budget for 2012

We built a database to analyze these transactions and found approximately 5,100 unique combinations of functional

area, account, and location that described all the transactions With input from finance and program staff at the District, we matched each of those unique combinations to a part of

the value chain

This matching provided the bridge between the Districts historical accounting and record-keeping systems and thevalue chain-based view of the budget

We then broke out the transactions by value chain area and year to see how the Districts investments in, forexample, professional development, core academic instruction, or human resources varied over time

We also were able to view costs per student for different parts of the value chain, both for the entire District and bylocation

Next, we worked with the Central Data Processing department to add data on student enrollment, by course, to thedatabase

Using the data on the Districts spending, we were able to show what the District had invested, per student, indifferent grade levels and individual courses

We were then able to compare levels of productivity across years and locations within the District to makerecommendations for reallocation towards the Districts priorities


21/47

21Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Costs by Value Chain Area

Source: SCSD financial data. SHP analysis

0

20

40

60

80

100%

2009

$405M

2010

422

2011

433

2012

Debt Service

Benefits andIncentives

Special

Education

Core

AcademicInstruction

406Non-academic Suppl.

Academic Suppl.

Food ServiceIT

School Leadership

Counseling/Health

Transportation

DistrictAdministration

Physical Plant

Enrichment

AcademicInstruction

Not visible: Professional Development, Communications, Grants andDevelopment, HR, Assessment, and Curriculum Development


22/47

22Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Costs by Value Chain Area


54.5% of this years budget will be invested in core, special

education, and enrichment instruction, down from 56.8% inthe prior year

These costs include teachers, some TAs, and purchasedinstructional materials, but not curriculum development orprofessional development

Enrichment investments (again, teacher wages andbenefits, instructional supplies and materials) are 40% aslarge as core or special education

Over the past four years, core general education andspecial education expenses have grown in years that thebudget grew. Each has grown faster than did the entirebudget on a compound annual basis since 2009 (0.69%and 1.32%, respectively, versus 0.08%)

District administration grew at 5.3% annually since 2009

Enrichment, school leadership, and supplemental activityinvestments fell (by 4.5%, 6.0%, and 18%, respectively, ona compound annual basis)

Despite the large investment in instructional personnel (andmaterials) spending on curriculum development andprofessional development was low, declining from 0.74% to0.3% of the total operating budget from 2009 to 2012

0

20

40

60

80

100%

2009

405

2010

422

2011

433

2012

406

Budgeted professional development investment = $153K in contractedservices and extension of service hours

Budgeted curriculum development investment = ~$875K in department

salaries and benefits, $200K in extension of service hours


23/47

23Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Costs Per Student By Value Chain Area

0

10,000

20,000

2009

19,316

2010

19,798

2011

20,312

2012

Debt Service

SpecialEducation

Core

Academic

Instruction

Physical Plant

19,283

$ per student

Transportation


Counseling/Health

School Leadership

Enrichment Academic Instr.

Benefits and Incentives

IT

Food Service

20,983 21,329 21,297 21,070Enrollment (P-12)Source: SCSD financial and BEDS data. SHP analysis

Not visible: Professional Development, Communications, Grants and Development, HR,Assessment, Curriculum Development and Academic and Non-Academic Supplemental activities


24/47

24Confidential

SCSD Value Chain

Costs Per Student by Value Chain Area and Quadrant

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

09 10 11 12 090 1 0 11 12 09 10 11 12 09 10 11 12 09 10 11 12

$ per student

10,858

12,707

8,828

12,669

IT

Physical Plant

HR

Transportation

Benefits and Incentives

Special Education

Debt Service


Finance and Business

6,925

6,507 3,562 21,1705,122 4,474Four-year averageenrollment


Physical Plant

Core Academic Instruction

Special Education

Enrichment Academic Instr.Counseling/Health

Academic and Non-Academic Supplemental

School Leadership

DistrictNottinghamHenningerFowlerCorcoran


Henninger Quadrant operates at the lowest per-student cost

It keeps costs low by reducing core academic costs per student high school class sizes are larger than in the otherquadrants

Henninger also spends much less on enrichment classes than Nottingham and Fowler, the most expensive quadrants

The size of the quadrants suggests meaningful fixed costs; there may be an opportunity for quadrants to share services thatdo not expand with student population


25/47

25Confidential

Agenda



A New Value Chain

Findings

Recommendations


26/47

26Confidential

Findings

Across the District, similar activities demonstrate significantly different costs

This effect was noticeable in both schools and supporting departments

At the school level, it was driven primarily by class size and overall courseenrollment

At the department level, the lack of specific allocation rules for certain

positions means that some sites will demonstrate more productivity thanothers


27/47

27Confidential

Findings

Teaching Assistants

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

McKinle

y-Brigh

ton

Lincoln

Van

Duyn

Franklin

Delaw

are

Elmwo

od

Lem

oyne

Meachem

Exp

editi

onary L

earning

DrKing

Bellevu

e

DrWeeks

Hugh

es

H.W

. Smith

Porte

r

Webst

er

Gran

t

Danf

orth

Salem

Hyde

Roberts

Edwa

rdSmith

Fraz

er

Hunting

tonClary

Fowl

er

Seym

our

Notting

ham

Henn

inger

Corc

oran

Institute

ofTech.

TAs/Teacher General Education Teaching Assistant staffing levels range from nearly 1 for every4 teachers to fewer than 1 per 10 teachers

While high schools have uniformly low concentrations of General Education TAs,middle schools are as varied as elementary schools

Green Elementary and K-8; Yellow Middle; Blue - High



28/47

28Confidential

Findings

Unit Cost by Course

Source: SCSD 2012 financial and enrollment data. SHP analysis

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

AISReading

7

Wilson

ReadingProgram8

Math

&Literacy 8

APBiology

ACEnglish

7

USHistory&Government

French

V

ESF Calculus

Food

Service

II

French

IV

Reading

8

AcSci/Hlth

Reading7/8

Writing

&Literacy 8Math

HonorsEnglish

8

GlobalI

IBPsychologyHL-II

AISELA7

ESLIIb- Intermediate

Lvl (b)

Drama I

ESFWriting

&theEnvironment

Computer Applications I

Language

Arts6

English

10

Algebra

Science 8

Science 7

Geography

Phys

Ed8

Math

7XL

IBDesignTechnologySL

$/student

Blue Core, Red Enrichment, Yellow Special Education All data for 2012 school year

>$5,00019 courses

$2,501 to $5K29 courses

$1,001 to $2,50098 courses

$1,000 and below109 courses

Of the 255 high school and middle school courses with enrollments greater than 1 student, 43% cost$1,000 per student or less

98 courses, or 38% cost between $1,001 and $2,500/student, 11% cost from $2,501 to $5,000 perstudent, and 7% (19 courses) cost more than $5,000 per student

Those courses with the highest unit costs are spread among core, enrichment, and special educationclasses. The core classes tend to focus on targeted reading and literacy instruction

Note: Not all course names visible


29/47

29Confidential

Findings

Unit Cost and Enrollment


1

2

5

10

20

50

100

200

500

1,000

2,000

5,000

10,000

20,000

50,000

1 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1,000 2,000 5,000 10,00020,000 50,000

AP French

Welding II

AIS Reading 7

Gospel Choir

ELL

Production System

Resource 7/8

Referee Officiating

Wilson Reading

Art Focus 8

AC Math

Resource

Math 7

Math 8 Algebra

Physical Education

Student enrollment

Unit cost, $

Orchestra 7

Reading 7/8AP Studio Art

English 12 ADV. Study Hall

Living Environment

Core

Enrichment

Special education

Courses with low overallenrollment have the highestunit costs

Courses with the highestenrollments have the lowest unitcosts


30/47

30Confidential

Findings

Clerical Expenses by School, 2012

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00%

% budget to Clerical

Early

InterventionProgram

Early

Childhood

Carnegie

School

McCarthyatBeardSchool

JohnsonVocational Center

Institute

ofTechnology

Fowler

High

School

Danforth

Magnet

MiddleSch

Henninger HighSchool

Expeditionary

Learning

Ms

Nottingham

High

School

McKinley-Brighton

Elem

Sch

ClaryMagnet Middle

School

Elmcrest School

Huntington

K-8School

Grant Middle

School

Salem

Hyde

Elementary

School

Lincoln

MiddleSchool

BlodgettK-8School

VanDuyn

Elementary

School

Corcoran

High

School

Edward

Smith

K-8School

Meachem

Elementary

School

H.W. Smith

K-8School

Seym

our Magnet Elementary

Sch

Lemoyne

Elementary

School

HughesMagnet

Elementary

Such

BellevueElementary

School

Frazer

K-8School

Elmwood

Elementary

School

Roberts

K-8School

Webster Elementary

School

Po

rter Magnet Elementary

Sch

DrKing

Magnet

Elementary

Sch

Universal

PreKPre-K

Franklin

Magnet

Elementary

Sch

DrWeeks

Elementary

School

Green Elementary and K-8; Yellow Middle; Blue High; Gray,- Pre K and other

Source: SCSD 2012 budget, SHP analysis

Efficiency goal


31/47

31Confidential

Findings

Clerical Expenses by Department, 2012

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00%

Purcha

sing

Payr

oll

Accoun

ting

Bova

Supply

Cent

er

Pers

onne

l

Staff R

elations

Superin

tend

ent O

ffice

Teacher T

rainin

gCent

er

Curri

culum

&Instru

ction

Curri

culum/Staff

Develop

ment

Supervisi

on&Instru

ction

Supp

ort S

ervic

es

Funded

Program

&Grant M

anag

Security

Dept

Pupil S

ervic

e

Boar

dof

Education

Facilit

ies, Main

t &Operations

Busin

ess

Service

s

Food

Service

Special

Education

Inform

ation

Techno

logy

Service

Healt

hService

s

Parent

Partn

ership

Netw

ork

Refu

gee

Assis

tanc

eProgram

Publi

c Saf

ety

Buildin

g

Tran

sportation

Scho

olService

Cent

er

District W

ide

% of budget to Clerical


Efficiency goal - excluding high clerical need departments


32/47

32Confidential

Findings

Office Supply Expenses by School, 2012

0

50

100

150

200

Levy

K-8

Scho

ol

Corc

oran

High

Scho

ol

Hennin

ger H

igh

Scho

ol

DrWeeks

Elem

entary

Scho

ol

Webst

erElem

entary

Scho

ol

Fowl

erHigh

Scho

ol

Fran

klin

Magn

etElem

entary

Sch

Institute

ofTechnolog

y

Bellevu

eMiddle

Acad

emy

Notting

ham

High

Scho

ol

Porte

r Magne

t Elem

entary

Sch

H.W

. Smith

K-8

Scho

ol

McKinl

ey-Brig

hton

Elem

Sch

Huntin

gton

K-8

Scho

ol

Gran

t Midd

leScho

ol

Seym

our M

agnet E

lementary

Sch

Dr K

ing

Magn

etElem

entary

Sch

Fraz

erK-8

Scho

ol

Lem

oyne

Elem

entary

Scho

ol

Meachem

Elem

entary

Scho

ol

Blod

gett

K-8

Scho

ol

Roberts

K-8

Scho

ol

Elmwo

odElem

entary

Scho

ol

Van

Duyn

Elem

entary

Scho

ol

Danf

orth

Magnet

Midd

leSch

S

alem

Hyde

Elem

entary

Scho

ol

Lincoln

Middle

Scho

ol

Bellevu

eElem

entary

Scho

ol

Delaw

are

Elem

entary

Scho

ol

Edwa

rdSmith

K-8

Scho

ol

Clary

Magnet M

iddle

Scho

ol

Expe

ditio

nary

Learning

Ms

Hugh

esMagnet

Elem

entary

John

son

Vocatio

nal C

enter

McCa

rthy

atBear

dScho

ol

Office supply expenses/employee

($)

Green Elementary and K-8; Yellow Middle; Blue - High


Efficiency goal


33/47

33Confidential

Findings

Office Supply Expenses by Department, 2012

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

Security Dep

t

Payroll

Commun

icatio

ns&Commun

ity Re

l

Superin

tend

ent O

ffice

Curricu

lum

&Instructio

n

Pers

onne

l

Inform

ation

Techno

logy

Servic

e

Peer

Assis

tanc

eReview

Busin

ess

Service

s

Purchasin

g

Faciliti

es, Main

t &Operation

s

Curricu

lum/Staff

Deve

lopmen

t

Supe

rvisi

on&Instructio

n

Supp

ort S

ervice

s

Boar

dof

Educatio

n

Pupil S

ervice

Budge

t

Parent

Partn

ership

Networ

k

Accountin

g

Staff R

elation

s

Special

Educatio

n

Distr

ictWid

e

Health

Service

s

Transp

ortatio

n

Fund

edProgram

&Grant M

anag

Office supply expenses/employee

($)


Efficiency goal


34/47

34Confidential

Findings

The District staff has demonstrated support for the Superintendent's operations reviews. In interview afterinterview, and through numerous requests for data, the staff went out of their way to share information, make

District actions transparent, provide new ideas and insights, and note how excited they were aboutSuperintendent Contreras

The CFO, Suzanne Slack, and her team Nancy Squairs, Karen Henry, Jennifer Indelicato, and Heather TenEyck were unfailingly helpful and positive

From an historical accounting view, the District appears to invest 2/3 to 3/4 of its funds in instruction and F fund-related activities. From the value chain view, the District invests 55% of its funds in instruction

The absolute scale of these investments grew from 2007 to 2011 and was reduced for the 2012 budget

Considering all operating expenses, the District plans to spend $19,283/student this year. Last year, this figurewas $20,585. In 2007, it was $16,962

Revenues to support these investments come mostly in the form of state aid, taxes, and grants such as Title I, II,and III. Federal Recovery Act (ARRA) funds provided a small amount of revenue in 2010 and 2011 but do notappear in the budget this year

Approximately 587 people will work in non-school positions this year. A similar number were employed in 2011,but the 2010 headcount was 8.9% higher. The team of District-wide staff is the largest group, followed by CentralData and its related departments

Several larger departments added staff on a per-student basis

Since 2009, students per school-based staff member increased by ~1.3


35/47

35Confidential

Findings

The District invests over half of its resources in instructional staff and supplies, but comparatively little indeveloping content and professional skills through curriculum and professional development

Additionally, the way professional development is delivered should be revisited. Currently each building has itsown plan for professional development, and, in addition, teachers can choose other sessions. There are nopractices in place to measure value added by either type of professional development. In addition, we heardreports of an history of resistance to District-planned development initiatives. These factors combine to make ithard to understand what supports have worked to improve student achievement and which have not

The District should, along with its planned additional investment, develop a series of practices that allow forDistrict-wide initiatives and tracking of changes at the classroom level. The Saturday sessions are a step towardsthe first point; Teachscape, a system to record video of classroom instruction, may allow the District to move

towards the second, though many users still need specific training and the District must work out policies thatallow principals and teachers to best use the system productively

The District also uses My Learning Plan software to track professional development, but this system is only usedfor those teachers getting an initial certificate and there are gaps in the data recorded

It is a challenge for the District that even when principals select teachers to attend the workshops, teachers mayopt out

Curriculum content coordinators roles were described as overseeing the curriculum and selecting or approvingresources. As it increases investment in curriculum aligned with the Common Core, the District must be deliberateabout what will be bought and what will be written in-house, as well as about the specific responsibilities of thecoordinators

Textbooks, which represent an investment of over $1M per year, are not carefully tracked and many are lost. It ishard for people to see what the District already owns and where those assets are stored

The new Superintendents ambitious goals suggest a need to reallocate dollars in a transformative way

There are many opportunities for this reallocation


36/47

36Confidential

Agenda



A New Value Chain

Findings

Recommendations


37/47

37Confidential

Recommendations

Recommended areas for reallocation towards District priorities:

Focus TA investments

Add HS TeachingPeriod

Reduce Low-EnrollmentCourses

Standardize Clericaland Office Expenses

Re-Design SecurityStaffing

Re-Focus CurriculumDevelopment Dept.

Rationale Opportunity

HS teachers can move from 25 to 30 classes /2 weeks andonly give up duty periods

$1.9M $3.0M

TA subs part of larger professional development effort $804K

The District offers 58 core and 56 enrichment classes with


38/47

38Confidential

Recommendations

Convert Duty Responsibilities to Teaching

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

Potential reallocation

3.0

$, millions At the high school level, full time teachers are assigned 5classes, which meet for 25 80-minute periods every twoweeks. Teaching time accounts for 51% of the work day

They also have a duty period (5 times in 2 weeks) and a dailyplanning period (10 times in 2 weeks)

The District should be able to assign 6 classes (30 periods in2 weeks) to each teacher. This would eliminate teacher dutyperiods

Because these duties are mostly study hall, students couldthen be fully scheduled

Teaching time per person would move to 240 minutes per day(61.5%)

Depending on how duty periods are considered, this movecould enable reallocation of $1.9M to $3.0M

If it was preferable to move back to the 7 period day in which

teachers have 5 teaching periods/day, the District couldreallocate $2.8M

Same schedule, 6 coursesDuty = 0.5 courses

7 period day5 courses

Same schedule, 6 coursesDuty = 1.0 courses

Source: interview with B. Nolan, SCSD financial data, SHP analysis

R d i


39/47

39Confidential

Recommendations

Teaching Assistants

The District has a team of Teaching Assistants who can go intoschools and serve as substitutes when teachers go to professionaldevelopment

This model does allow professional development to take place withinthe school day hours, but it cuts into instructional time

By eliminating this team, the District can reallocate $804K toprofessional development

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Teaching Assistants

TA Subs

804.6

$, thousands

Source: interviews with M. Cahill, T. Tolbert and B. Pulvino, SCSD financial data, SHP analysis

R d i


40/47

40Confidential

Recommendations

Reassign Students in Low-Enrollment Courses

0

100

200

300

400

500


Core

Enrichment

413.0

$, thousands

At the high school level, the District offers over 100 Core andEnrichment classes with 15 or fewer students

This does not include special education, ELL, or vocational classes

The reallocation assumes the following:

Two classes with 10-15 students can be combined, assumingthey are in the same subject area

Classes smaller than that can sometimes be combined withtwo other classes

Classes smaller than 5 can be redistributed to open seats inother classes

Study halls are eliminated

Freshman Seminar is unchanged

Source: SCSD financial data, SCSD course coverage and enrollment data, SHP analysis

R d i


41/47

41Confidential

Recommendations

Standardize Clerical and Office Supply Expenses

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0


Clerical

Office Supplies

Clerical

3.6

$, millions Schools spend between 0.45% and 4.43% of their total budgets on clerical

staff

These differences do not appear to correlate with school size or type

Administrative departments range from 3% to 76%. Some departmentsdemand higher levels of clerical staffing such as accounting, whichemploys several clerks who are classified in the budget as clerical staffand have been left level funded

It is clear from interacting with school and District office staff that the peoplein the clerical role work hard and strive to provide excellent service toparents, visitors, and colleagues

Discussions with business and operations leaders in the District haveestablished the proper proportion of a departments total budget that shouldbe invested in clerical support staff at roughly 18%

There are several schools with under 1% of expenses dedicated to clericalstaff; to allow for the presence of veteran staff in this role, we benchmarkedoff a school with a low percentage of dollars allocated to clerical but with ahigh clerical wage (0.95%)

In addition, we assumed a floor on how much could be reallocated from anyone department or school

Finally, we examined the use of office supplies in the same way to allow themost efficient departments to set the standard for the District

Source: SCSD financial data, interview with S. Slack , SHP analysis

R d i


42/47

42Confidential

Recommendations

Redesign Security Staffing

0

100

200

300

400

500


Ideal staffing

Minimum

staffing

427.3

$, thousands Security staffing currently includes school monitors, school sentries,

and police officers from the Syracuse Police Department

These officers are accountable to the City police force but are paid bythe District (9 officers @ $85K/year)

School monitors are not trained in Positive Behavior Interventions andSupports (PBIS), which leaves them able to break up fights, escortstudents to class on time, and maintain a presence in the hallway, but

not build meaningful relationships with students Sentries can be more productive and can be trained to implement

PBIS. Over time, they should replace monitors

In addition, school monitors should be replaced with guards forschools with few behavior problems but dangerous neighborhoods,sentries in the buildings to support students and some Sentry IIpositions to provide direct supervision to sentries

Ideal levels of staffing would provide $162K for reallocation; minimumstaffing would provide $427K

Source: SCSD financial data, interview with T. Ristoff, SHP analysis

R d ti


43/47

43Confidential

Recommendations

Refocus Curriculum and Development Investments

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0


Curriculumdevelopment

4.0$, millions

The District has allocated 4 million dollars to the CurriculumDevelopment function (including textbooks)

These funds should be reallocated to more productive curriculumdevelopment and professional development work

Source: SCSD financial data, interview with M. Cahill, SHP analysis

R d ti


44/47

44Confidential

Recommendations

Recommended areas for reallocation towards District priorities:

0

20

40

60

80

100%

Highly recommended

TAs

Title II

Clerical

Teaching schedule

IT

Curriculum development

Recommended

Security

IT

Teaching schedule

Clerical

SecurityLow-enrollment classes

Total = 16.2M

Additi n l R mm nd ti n


45/47

45Confidential

Additional Recommendations

In addition, there are very likely to be additional opportunities for reallocation. With a longer time horizon for detailedresearch, the District should investigate:

Substitutes and absenteeism. Current levels of substitute expenses suggest ~11 absences/year/teacher. Thislevel of absenteeism represents an expense of over $1M/year for substitutes

General education TAs. Currently the District does not have a strategy for TA use, other than to allow eachprincipal to make his or her own decision about deployment. This investment represents >$12M/year inresources. The District should develop a plan to make the large team of TAs a part of the curriculum andinstruction reforms being rolled out. If this is not practical or desirable, the District should investigate reductions

Cross-quadrant and cross-school variation in spending

Schools in the Henninger Quadrant will spend $8,827 per student this year, while those in the Fowler andNottingham Quadrants will spend over $12,600 per student

Among other areas, Henninger spends less per student on such non-instructional areas as food service($16 to $136/per student), custodial staff ($155 to $164), nurses ($20 to $54), and utilities ($141 to $209),as well as on TAs ($345 to $912) and TA substitutes ($13 to $64)

Some elementary, K-8, and middle schools spend over $12,000 per student (Grant, Clary, Blodgett) andothers less than $10,000 (Dr. King, McKinley-Brighton, Frazer, Dr. Weeks)

The savings from a focused review targeted at individual school-level expenses would likely be significant

Growth over time in directors and coordinators. Increases are visible in expenses for the CurriculumDevelopment, Regular School Supervision, and Personnel departments, but changing titles and reportingstructures over time obscure the reasons for these increases. The District should carefully review theresponsibilities for and allocation of these positions, which represent $4.8M in salaries and benefits this year, toensure that these managers are best positioned to support District priorities

Revenue generation. The District should reduce reliance on state aid through fundraising and, where allowableand practical, fees

Immediate Next Steps


46/47

46Confidential

Immediate Next Steps

Share Findings with SCSD Board

Incorporate feedback from the Board

Continue collaboration with SCSD managers (if requested) tofurther understand implications of recommendations


47/47

End of Document

Report made to Syracuse school board on its budget

Documents

Transcript of Report made to Syracuse school board on its budget