The School District of South Orange and Maplewood

BOARD OF EDUCATION

The School District of South Orange and Maplewood

525 Academy Street, Maplewood, NJ 07040

December 20, 2010

TO:Members, Board of Education

Members, Board of School Estimate

Brian Osborne, Superintendent

FROM:Karla Milanette, Business Administrator

Cheryl Schneider, Assistant Business Administrator

Patricia Barker, Special Services Director

Rosetta Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum and Instruction

James Memoli, Assistant Superintendent, Admin. & Human Resources

SUBJECT: 2011-12 SCHOOL BUDGET DEVELOPMENT – ANALYSIS

The development of the 2011-12 school budget is again focused on allocating resources to student achievement to the extent possible consistent with the district goals first adopted by the Board of Education on September 15, 2008 and updated and readopted on September 20, 2010. Specifically, Board Goal Four: Resource Management(Objective A) calls for the development of:

“A transparent, efficient budget that aligns with and supports the attainment of district goals and that reins in spending on budget categories that are rising at a faster rate than the cost of living.”

The district’s General Fund (operating) budget is funded primarily from two sources: local taxes (95%), state aid (2%). Appropriated surplus and miscellaneous revenue make up about 3% of total revenue. Trenton has not yet provided any guidelines for budget development. However, given the current economic environment, it is likely that when guidelines are issued, the 2% CAP constraint on the amount of taxes that can be raised to support the school budget will continue. Likewise, the amount of state aid is not expected to increase and may decrease.

As a result of efforts to reduce the rate of increase of expenditures and general belt-tightening over the past several years, all areas for reductions around the margin and implementing efficiencies have been exhausted by this time. Schools are a “people” intense business and our budget is driven primarily by labor costs. We have outsourced most services including all custodial services, lunch monitoring services, security services, instructional aides, and most maintenance services which have allowed us to control labor costs to a major extent. This has allowed us to avoid impacting instructional programs and services. Cuts in those areas will be difficult to avoid beginning in 2011-12.

Given the expectation that the amount of resources available will be limited, and recognizing that the local taxpayers are financially stressed, the budget development process includes an analysis of the major categories of expenditures to determine if the resources are effectively and efficiently allocated and to identify trends in the rate of growth of expenditures. The goal is to identify opportunities that may result in the ability to redirect resources to new initiatives intended to impact student achievement.

The largest portion of the district budget is allocated to salaries and benefits, accounting for nearly 70% of the budget. Specific topic areas that comprise other major cost driverswere identified by the Finance Committee to review in more depth when developing the 2011-12 school district budget. The topic areas included the following:

1. Criteria for Determining Budget Priorities

Strategy for prioritizing our programs and operations.
Determine cuts from the perspective of what doesn't work or add value, basically a cost/benefit analysis.
Develop the framework for budget priorities

2. Special Education

Referral #s by school and grade
Cost by classification
Comparison Districts - Comparative data by classification
Special Education resources that support non-classified students
Extended School Year- Analysis of costs to see if it would be beneficial to develop and/or expandthese programs within the district as opposed to paying outside providers
Stem the Flow - Is this strategy working and providing cost savings? Would an investment to expand these offerings in district provide future cost savings?

Montrose program- Breaking out the cost/benefits of this program.

Historical Comparison Headcount Analysis
2010 and 2000- change over ten years
Breakdown by school and type of staff, including outsourced personnel
Comparison of total number of adults
Number of adults on staff

Analysis of how to provide alternative instructional methods for students
Online learning pilot at Montrose
Shared services with Seton Hall
Independent studies through online universities
Shared services with other school districts
Effectiveness of selected programs

Elementary World Language- how much Spanish do these students retain, especially now that sixth grade Spanish has been eliminated?
Physical Education for Athletes- how much redundancy exists here, and can we look at other districts who have a policy on this practice?
Supplemental Classes at CHS- non credit earning courses. How many do we have? What is the mobility rate out of those classes? What metrics are we using to determine if these classes improve student achievement?

Class size increase across grade levels
Areas, if any, where we could increase class size that would result in savings

Each topic area and its impact on the development of the 2011-12 school budget is discussed in detail in the following sections.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING BUDGET PRIORITIES

The process for development of the 2011-12 school budget began with the determination of parameters or guiding principles for prioritizing programs and operations. These included:

Impact on teaching and learning
Reduce the proportion of costs that increase faster than 2% CAP
Sustainability
Ease of implementation
Magnitude of savings
Political repercussions

Sixty-one program and operations cost areas, including items that had been suggested by South Orange and Maplewood CBACs in previous budget discussions, were identified. Each cost area was placed into one of the following categories for consideration:

Process review
Re-engineering
Efficiency or waste reduction
Cuts
Revenue Generation

The result was the creation of a framework for prioritizing items for consideration in the 2011-12 budget. An example of some of the topics discussed using the framework are illustrated in the following chart:

CATEGORIES/COST ITEMS / NOW / 2011-12 / 2112-13 / LONGER / L/M/H / DROP
Process
External audit of special education
Eliminate non-mandated transportation
Increase paint schedule to 7 years
Cost/benefit of partnerships
Re-Engineering
On-line courses
Credit recovery courses
Credit for athletics & marching band
Lecture/lab model for CHS classes
Independent study w/ online university
Efficiency/reduce waste
Additional shared services
Increase class size
Reduce copies/create copy center
Solar power
Cut
Reduce headcount
Reduce # of clubs & activities
Close Montrose
Eliminate (non-mandated) programs
One-year freeze on spending
non-essential maintenance & repair
technology purchases and upgrades
non-essential professional services
courtesy busing to SB and MR/JF
travel and conferences
textbook replacement
Revenue Generation
Pay-to-play
Summer school tuition
Subscription busing

Each cost area was then fully analyzed and discussed in detail by the Superintendent and his Leadership Team using this framework.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Referrals by School and Grade

Following is a review of referrals to Special Education over the past 3 years. The referrals have risen 11% over the past the years going from 320 to 356. The schools where there have been the largest increases are:

Columbia up 36% from 36 to 49 with the largest increase in grade 9, an increase of 86% from 14 to 26
Clinton up 48% from 29 to 43 with the largest increase in K, an increase of over 200% from 3 to 11
Seth Boyden up 81% from 32 to 58 with the largest increase in Grades 1 and 5, an increase of 150% from 6-15 and 4-10 respectively

Preschool had a drop of 25% going from 87-65. Both middle schools had a drop of 26%, going from 23 to 15 at MMS and 22 to 16 at SOMS.

An increase of 7 in district students translates into approximately 1 teacher in special education. Using Table 1, it can be seen that for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 there was an increase of 6 in-district students. An estimated increase of 1 staff members would be needed to provide services to these students. This does not take into account additional related service providers such as paraprofessionals, Speech and Language Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and Behavioral Management Specialists. The rise from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 represents an 12% increase of in-district students and a similar increase would be expected for in-district expenses and staffing.

Table 1. Growth of Special Education Over a Four Year Period.

Location / 2007-2008 / 2008-2009 / 2009-2010 / 2010-2011
In District* / 676 (+1) / 698 (+22) / 751 (+53) / 757 (+6)
Out of District** / 153 (-3) / 160 (+7) / 157 (-3) / 165 (+8)
Shared Time*** / 20 (+1) / 11 (-9) / 18 (+7) / 20 (+2)
Total / 849 (-1) / 869 (+20) / 926 (+57) / 942(+16)

*In District represents students attending programs/classes in district full time.

**Out of District represents students attending private, public, county or commission schools which charge tuition.

***Shared time represents students attending vocational technical programs for part of the school day.

Our strategy has been to increase services in district so that we can reduce the number of students attending out of district schools. While providing in district programs is less expensive than out of district costs, there is still a substantial expense to the district. We should not expect to see savings in special education unless the numbers of students decreases.

Classification

The following two charts depict the classification rates. The first chart depicts the rates across New Jersey while the second chart depicts the district classification rates. Both charts are for the 2009 school year.

ClassificationComparisonsState to SOMSD

As can be seen from the charts, South Orange and Maplewood rates are similar to the rates across the state. The SLD (Specific Learning Disability) is by far the largest percentage of special education in the state as well as in our district.

"Specific learning disability" corresponds to "perceptually impaired" and means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

A specific learning disability can be determined when a severe discrepancy is found between the student's current achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas:

(1) Basic reading skills; (2) Reading comprehension; (3) Oral expression; (4) Listening comprehension; (5) Mathematical calculation; (6) Mathematical problem solving; (7) Written expression; and (8) Reading fluency.

ii. A specific learning disability may also be determined by utilizing a response to scientifically based interventions methodology as described in N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4(h) 6.

iii. The term severe discrepancy does not apply to students who have learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, general cognitive deficits, emotional disturbance or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.

iv. The district shall, if it utilizes the severe discrepancy methodology, adopt procedures

that utilize a statistical formula and criteria for determining severe discrepancy. Evaluation shall include assessment of current academic achievement and intellectual ability. (N.J.A.C.6A:14-3.5(12)

The District primarily uses a discrepancy model to diagnose this disability. The instruments used are the Wechsler Scale of Intelligence IV and the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement III. When the difference between these 2 scores is greater than 1.5 standard deviations (about 22 scaled points) in one of the eight areas cited above a student is considered to have a learning disability.

Comparison of Classifications
Eligibility Category / 2006-07 / 2007-08 / 2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11
Auditorily Impaired-Deafness / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0
Auditorily Impaired-Hearing Impaired / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4
Autistic / 45 / 56 / 60 / 76
Cognitive Impairment – Mild / 6 / 6 / 5 / 8
Cognitive Impairment - Moderate / 5 / 3 / 3 / 5
Cognitive Impairment – Severe / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0
Communication Impaired / 124 / 126 / 141 / 145
Emotionally Disturbed / 56 / 55 / 57 / 46
Multiply Disabled / 83 / 73 / 76 / 76
Orthopedically Impaired / 5 / 4 / 4 / 4
Other Health Impaired / 113 / 123 / 125 / 143
Preschool Disabled / 62 / 59 / 50 / 62
Specific Learning Disability / 336 / 332 / 336 / 350
Traumatic Brain Injury / 7 / 3 / 3 / 4
Visually Impaired – Blind / 1 / 4 / 4 / 3
Visually Impaired - Partially Sighted / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0
TOTAL / 850 / 849 / 869 / 926
All students / 6,257 / 6,257 / 6,333 / 6,566
Classification Rate / 14% / 14% / 14% / 14%
Source: District Records as of Oct 15.

Total Dollar Amount Spent by Classification

The total dollar amount spent by classification was calculated by summing all costs associated with that disability. For example under the classification of autism there could be out of district tuition costs plus the cost of related services delivered at the school. There could also be in-district calculated costs ($40,394 per student) plus the cost of any home services (ABA) provided. The in-district costs include related services delivered in school. Transportation costs are omitted for comparison purposes. An average was then calculated for each classification.

For Communication Impaired and SLD in-district calculation $10,000 was added to the in-district tuition cost to account for a second teacher in the classroom. While not all of those students have a second teacher in the classroom, many of them do.

Classification / #OOD Students / # In District Students / Total # Students / Avg. OOD Cost / AVG In Dist Cost / Total Cost
Autistic / 32 / 50 / 82 / $80,835 / $43,344 / $4,753,920.
Communication Impaired / 5 / 154 / 159 / $31,848 / $28,000 / $4,471,240
Emotionally Disturbed / 22 / 25 / 47 / $49,365 / $23,116 / $1,663,928
Multiply Disabled / 40 / 25 / 65 / $53,638 / $25,716 / $2,788,420.
Other Health Impaired / 24 / 134 / 158 / $42,088 / $24,000 / $4,226,112
Preschool Disabled / 10 / 43 / 53 / $$59,870 / $12,807* / $1,149,401
SLD / 22 / 329 / 351 / $29,140 / $24,000 / $8,537,080
Other / 12 / 15 / 27 / $56,880 / $47,264 / $1.391,520
Total / 185 / 757 / 942 / $28,981,621

Special Education Resources That Support Non-Classified Students

Many of the resources placed in inclusion classes are used by both the general education and special education population. Following is a list of some of these resources:

A second teacher or a classroom paraprofessional in the classroom may also help children who are struggling who are not special education.

Special Education has funded many smart room set-ups where smart boards, sound fields, laptops and computers are provided.

Computers on Wheels (COWS) which are laptops on carts were funded by special education so that each elementary and middle school had access to these mobile laptops. They could be used by all teachers.

K-2 Initiative, an Early Intervention initiative was funded through special education. This included many general education students who were flagged as having academic or social-emotional issues.

Intervention Materials. Special education has funded all Intervention supplies and materials to elementary schools. These services are offered to students who are not special education but are struggling either academically or behaviorally.

Orton Gillingham Teacher Training Program. This was seeded by Special Education and has been picked up and shared with General Education. The Orton Gillingham Teacher Training and Tutoring Program provides teacher training in Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory reading strategies with identified students at risk in grades 1-3, after regular school hours.

BuildingSocialWorkersBuilding social workers provide the counseling mandated in students’ IEPs. They also support the general education students in their buildings and serve as crisis intervention specialists.

CPI Trainers Special education pays for the training of trainers to offer non-violent crisis intervention training to all staff members.

Extended School Year Costs

There were 106 out of district students who received ESY services in the amount of $903,984. 00. This cost averaged to $8,528 per student. These programs were six week full day programs for the most part. Transportation was provided but the costs were not included for comparison purposes.

There were 14 in-district ESY classes for about 125 students. The cost for one teacher and one or two paraprofessionals in each room, related services (OT, PT & Speech) was $100,000 or about $800 per student. This was a six week three-hour program.

Many of the students in out-of-district ESY programs require a full-day program.

Stem the Flow

This is the strategy that attempts to reduce the number of students going out of district by building in-district programs to support them. Following are the general results which depict an annual increase of special education students but a decrease in percentage of students sent to out of district schools.

School Year / Number of Special Education Students / #OOD Students / % of OOD to Total
2007-2008 / 829 / 153 / 18.5%
2008-2009 / 843 / 145 / 17.2%
2009-2010 / 903 / 152 / 16.8%
2010-2011 / 927

The two classification areas where in-district services have been expanded are for the autistic and for the multiply disabled. It appears that this strategy has worked for autistic students in that we have been able to lower the percentage of students placed out-of-district in that category, although the numbers in this classification category from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 have risen by 36%.

School Year / Autistic / #OOD Students / % of OOD to Total
2007-2008 / 56 / 29 / 52%
2008-2009 / 60 / 27 / 45%
2009-2010 / 76 / 30 / 39%

In the multiply disabled category, the numbers have remained relatively stable form 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 but the percentage of students placed out-of-district has increased. One explanation could be that as these students get older a more functional life skills program is needed than the one offered in our schools.

School Year / Multiply Disabled / #OOD Students / % of OOD to Total
2007-2008 / 73 / 41 / 56%
2008-2009 / 72 / 38 / 53%

ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM AT MONTROSE

Identification of Need

The Alternative Program at Montrose is designed for students who are at risk of dropping out of high school because of their lack of success in a traditional high school setting such as ColumbiaHigh School. The reasons for their lack of success include academic, attendance, social, emotional, and behavior problems. Many of these behaviors stem from personal issues which impact on the students’ educational progress. While attending a traditional program at Columbia, these students are often frustrated and discouraged which leads them to engage in disruptive and unproductive behaviors at school. Despite the investment of considerable time and energy by teachers and administrators, the students are not able to earn the credits required for graduation while on the Columbia campus.

The Alternative Program is not punitive nor is it a program for students with severe behavioral problems. It is flexible and individualized so that students have a realistic chance to attain their high school diploma in a reasonable amount of time. Enrollment in the program is currently capped at 50 students in order to preserve the personal attention that is crucial to the program’s success. There is at certain times of the year a waiting list for admission to the Montrose campus. Many students who are not successful at CHS view the Alternative Program as a last chance and arrive hopeful of a new beginning. When a student decides to enroll in Montrose, he/she intends to complete their high school experience. They cannot return to the main campus and either earn a diploma or age out.