Information Covering the February 24 BOE Work Session
On Monday night, the USD 417 Board of Education held a second work session dedicated to BOG Goal 1 addressing the issue of resource allocation and meeting our student and facility needs. Before delving into last night’s information, let me refresh your memory regarding work that was completed at the January BOE work session. Please keep in mind that all of the handouts given to the BOE can be found on the district website (http://www.usd417.net). In January, the BOE…
- Reviewed a 5-year enrollment projection for USD 417 provided to us by the Kansas Association of School Boards. In short, the report stated that the population of Morris County has been in decline since 1910 and will likely continue to decline unless something significant causes growth to occur. Our district’s overall student population will decline in the short term then will level out for a couple years. Enrollment for CGHS, PHES, and PHMS will continue to decline under current circumstances.
- Reviewed how revenue is generated for our school district, the primary source being student enrollment in the school and in designated programs. This was broken out by enrollment by building so as to show the funding contribution of each school. A short history of recent enrollment shows that both this current year and next year the district will lose between $300,000 and $400,000 dollars due to declining enrollment and little increase in state funding for schools.
- Reviewed a breakout of spending by building which shows three schools spending more to operate than what their respective revenue (enrollment) generates.
- Last there was information covering the district level costs for athletic and other student activity programs.
The meeting Monday night, February 24, focused on three primary objectives. The first objective was to begin discussing practices and programs that impact student achievement. The idea here is to work to meet our student needs by focusing on what research says activates (causes) student learning compared to practices that facilitates learning. The research shared and the effect size for each practice (in parenthesis) were:
- Early childhood education (.47)
- Professional development of teachers (.64)
- Class size (.21)
An effect size of 0.40 or higher is considered to be significant and something schools should focus on. Included with these reports is a paper showing numerous educational practices and the effect size for such practices. These practices were selected for specific reasons. First, the district is working to contribute significant resources to professional development for our teachers. Second, due to the composition of our district, there is a real need for early childhood education programs. The research on the impact of effective early childhood programs on at-risk children is significant. There is a need for such programs in our school district. Last, there is a lot of misconception regarding the impact of small class sizes on student achievement. This is important because school districts can tie up a lot of resources working to keep classes small for little academic gain.
The second goal was to begin to give a picture of the transitory nature of students in our school district. This is significant because students who move in and out of schools can be challenging to educate. Understanding this growing feature of American schooling is important for school boards. It may call for our schools to develop programs to help these children as they enter and exit our buildings. The focus for the evening was on data from the Prairie Heights and Council Grove High School (as these schools were identified in the KASB report). More information will be shared on this topic as we work to paint a complete and accurate picture for all schools in our district.
The third goal focused again on expenditures from the 2012-13 school year. In particular I tried to answer the following question regarding the Prairie Heights schools, “Do these two schools generate enough revenue from their respective enrollment to at least cover the costs of each school’s operations?” Other than transportation, special education, and maintenance services, no other portion of district level expenses were included in these figures. The short answer to this question for this one school year was “no”. Thinking it to be relevant information for the BOE to have, I then provided two work sheets illustrating what would happen to the district’s financial picture if the two Prairie Heights schools were closed and all students attended school in Council Grove and what happens if no students attend Council Grove schools. Again, this information can be found on the district website.
With this, the meeting came to an end with reporting to continue in March. At that time I hope to have a projection for the 2014-15 budget and will break things out in a manner similar to these other spreadsheets for the BOE to review. I do want to make sure that I am clear on this point, the BOE has not held any discussions at any time this year regarding the closing of any schools. Nor has there been any discussions by the BOE at this time of staff reduction. Staffing discussions will occur in March as part of the development of our annual budget.
This work being done by the BOE is to help understand resource allocation, particularly money and personnel. With little to no increase in school funding coming from the state and a declining enrollment, meeting the needs of our students and teachers is a significant challenge. Improving teacher pay, early childhood programs, additional counseling help, and other needs that exist in our district are significant issues the BOE is working to address. The solutions to these issues lie with us, which is why the BOE has asked for this information. I would invite those who want to be more informed to visit the district website and review the documents posted under BOE Goal 1. Also, know that work sessions will continue on the fourth Monday of March at the district office.