The Transformation Budget 2013–2014 Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Meeting 4VUKH`1HU\HY`WT Citizens’ Bu udget Rev view Com mmission n Meeting g Janu uary 14, 2 2013 5:00 0 P.M., BO OARD RO OOM Agenda Introductions L Louisa Meyer C Chairperson I. Fe ederal Program ms - - - - - Jordan Robertss 1 II. Compliance Division - - - - - D Donald Smith 19 III. Fo ood Services - - - - - D Dora Rivas 31 Appendix A - CBRC Reco ommendations Update 59 Appendix B – Budget Callendar 2012-20 013 71 Appendix C – Contact Lis st 81 Future Mee eting Dates: Feb. 11, 20 013 Mar. 04, 20 013 Apr. 08, 20 013 Apr. 22, 20 013 May 06, 2013 May 23, 2013--Budget Adoptted Federal Programs Budget Commission Report, January 2013 Jordan Roberts, Director of Grants Management 1 1 Grants Management Duties Compliance Budget Accounting Supplemental Education Services (SES) NCLB Application Title I School Improvement Program (SIP) 2 2 2012 – 2013 Federal Awards Dallas ISD currently operates with 26 federal grant awards. Grant Type Grant Award ($) Total FTE Entitlement $ 168,944,190 1827.9 Discretionary $ 17,547,145 179.6 Total $ 186,491,335 2007.6 3 3 Grants Entitlement Discretionary Competitive Published selection criteria Applications must best meet program requirements and are, therefore, most worthy of funding Not competitive Award based on a formula prescribed in legislation or regulation (ex. population, enrollment, per capita income, or a specific need) 4 4 Entitlement Grants Grant 2012-13 Award Title I, Part A FTE Title I, Part D 92,105,500 1091.0 64,241 Title II, Part A 14,656,739 150.6 Title III, Part A 8,366,482 33.8 IDEA B Cluster 41,598,905 496.6 Title I School Improvement Program 9,422,628 48.6 Carl D Perkins 2,527,195 7.0 202,500 0.5 $ McKinney Vento – Homeless Education 5 5 Entitlement Grants Budgets Budget FTE Campus 89,540,421 1,305.1 Non-Campus 79,403,769 523.9 168,944,190 1,828.1 Total 6 6 Entitlement Grants Example of Programs Funded: Title I Title II Title III IDEA SIP Carl D. Perkins McKinneyVento Community and Family Relations Teacher Recruitment and Retention Multilanguage • Training • Coaches EBS Healthcare – Specialized speech therapy Supplemental Educational Services (SES) Thom Markham Project-based Learning Salvation Army/Camp Hoblitzelle Extended Year School Alternative Certification Dual Language UTD Callier Center Deaf Ed Services Education Service Centers support North Central Texas Interlink Big Thought Arts education services College Access Program School Leaders Academy Early Childhood Dallas County Schools – Bus Monitors Teacher, program development specialists, aides Career Cruising middle and high school campuses Rainbow Days After-school programming Youth and Family Centers Instructional Leadership & Coaching AVANCE Campus based instructional staff (teachers, support staff, diagnosticians) Campus based instructional staff Class Size Reduction Teachers National Academy Foundation - High School Redesign Capital Outlay (computers, AV equipment, etc.) 7 7 FY 13 Entitlement Grants FTEs 8 8 Discretionary Grants Grant 2012-13 Award Head Start FTE 1,422,957 41.0 10,807,533 68.3 3,331,824 66.2 Indian Education 130,698 2.0 Refugee School Impact 136,750 1.0 $ Texas Title I Priority Schools (TTIPS) Adult Basic Education Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) - United Way of Metropolitan Dallas 1.2 279,600 Other Miscellaneous Grants 1,437,783 9 9 Discretionary Grants Budgets Budget FTE Campus 9,299,987 107.3 Non-Campus 8,247,158 72.4 17,547,145 179.7 Total 10 10 Discretionary Grants Example of Programs Funded: Head Start Texas Title I Priority Schools Adult Basic Education Indian Education HIPPY Other Misc. Campus staff: Teachers and Teacher assistants for 26 classrooms on 9 campuses Master and Mentor Teacher program Teaching staff providing literacy, numeracy, and language acquisition Personnel: Program Manager & Community Liaison Personnel: Coordinator and part-time Home Instructors for 3 areas Alternative Certification grants focused on interns/teachers in highneed areas Instructional supplies Incentive Pay Testing materials and instructional supplies Instructional Reading Supplies Curriculum and supplies Texas Eat Grow Go: Junior Master Gardnerin school (4) gardens Educational excursions Dual Credit Program Extra-Duty Pay for summer enrichment Technology Infrastructure HIPPY: home instructors for 3 Dallas areas Refugee Impact: summer program and translators TAP Program – Alternative Education System 11 11 FY 13 Discretionary Grants FTEs 12 12 Current Year FTEs All Grant Types 13 13 Funding Trend Analysis by Grant Type 14 14 Total Funding by Fiscal Year *ARRA funding received in FY 10 and ended beginning of FY 12 Dallas ISD received approx. $125M 15 15 FTEs by Grant Type 16 16 Total FTEs by Fiscal Year 17 17 Grants Management Q&A 18 18 Dallas ISD Compliance Division Briefing For Citizens Budget Review Commission Donald R. Smith, Chief Compliance Officer 19 Dallas ISD Compliance Division Director E‐Rate Programs……………………...Rhonda Scholwinski Director Office of Professional Responsibility...Norman Epstein Manager Child Abuse Office…………………...Carol Duncan 20 Dallas ISD Compliance Division Comprised of Three Separate Functions, which work together to efficiently provide a positive and safe environment for the students in the Dallas Independent School District. • E‐ Rate • Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) • Child Abuse 21 E‐Rate Dallas ISD E‐Rate History • In July, 2005, reports began to surface about potential improprieties in the Dallas ISD E‐Rate Program that centered around a high ranking DISD Employee; • Federal Investigation was launched to determine if allegations were true; • Federal Investigation found Dallas ISD guilty of non‐compliance with Federal E‐rate program. • Actions of Dallas ISD resulted in the following: • Arrest and incarceration of a Dallas ISD Administrator and other individuals; • Withholding of E‐Rate funds for projects since 2006 • Criminal matters concluded in 2008 • On June 25, 2009, Dallas ISD and US Department of Justice Agreed to Settle Claims Under These Terms: • Relinquish E‐rate funding requests ‐ $150 Million • Pay fines ‐ $750,000.00 • Enter into a compliance agreement with the FCC and USAC • Hire an E‐Rate Compliance Officer (ERCO) as a direct report to Superintendent Compliance Agreement is a legal contract composed of 15 pages, 25 paragraphs, 30 subparagraphs Dallas ISD current E‐Rate • Unique (only 2 districts in Texas are under a Compliance Agreement – Dallas and Houston) • Dallas ISD Policy – CAA (Reg) & CAA (Local) Incorporate Compliance Agreement Dallas 2012 Annual Audit for Compliance • 2012 Deloitte Audit – 1 finding (failed to advertise RFP in Newspaper) • Corrected audit findings immediately, 1st time to be in compliance since Compliance Agreement signed in 2009 • Prior Audit for 2011 revealed 26 items in 8 program areas of non‐compliance 22 E‐Rate Dallas ISD current E‐Rate Outstanding funds Current Status Total Funding Request Number (FRN) $ 11,662,805.19 4 2011 $ 767,082.20 $ 733,498.76 $ 1,500,580.96 3 2010 $ 5,106,882.96 $ 30,053,562.12 $ 35,160,445.08 8 2009 $4,298,125.87 $ 30,132,783.75 $ 34,430,909.62 3 2008 4 2006 $4,076,410.54 $ 28,971,991.82 $ 33,048,402.36 $ $ 5,657,968.44 ‐ $ 5,657,968.44 $ ‐ $ 17,666,925.29 $ 17,666,925.29 Totals $ 31,569,275.20 $ 107,558,761.74 28 Year P1 2012 $ 11,662,805.19 2007 P2 23 $ 139,128,036.94 3 3 Office of Professional Responsibility OPR History • In June of 2007 the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) was created and staffed to restore public confidence in the District (Purchase Card Investigation) • By increasing the accountability of District employees • Through the detection and prevention of fraud, waste and abuse. • To accomplish its mission • OPR originally provided ethics training • Conducts internal investigations • Fraud, Waste and Abuse • Employee Misconduct • Child Abuse Complaints involving Employees • Criminal Arrests Reporting Violations • EEO Violations • Raises awareness of District policies. • Computer Forensic Investigations 24 Office of Professional Responsibility OPR History • OPR gained additional responsibilities in July 2007 during the “delayering process” with the absorption of the Human Resources Investigations (HR Investigations) and Criminal Records Checks departments. • During the spring of 2011, the Dallas ISD faced a significant budget shortfall and implemented a district wide downsizing. During that downsizing, OPR lost three investigative and one training position; a reduction of more than one third of its personnel. • OPR was folded into the newly formed Compliance Division in August 2011 due to E‐Rate Compliance Officer inclusion. 25 Office of Professional Responsibility Disposition of Information Reported to OPR September 1, 2009-August 31, 2012 2009/2010 OPR Investigations 2010/2011 2011/2012 139 157 63 268 67 72 80 626 272 238 1136 120 95 94 72 538 444 242 1224 84 77 121 51 396 709 862 1967 193 182 375 184 129 313 157 67 224 (fraud, waste, abuse,) CRC Investigations CPS Investigations Public Information Requests TEA Requests Sub Total Transferred to Other Divisions or Closed Without Action Total Incidents Reports of Investigation Submitted Preliminary Investigations Completed Investigations 26 Child Abuse Office Children who live with the fear of abuse cannot learn. Not only is their health and safety at risk, but they also risk school failure, cognitive and developmental delays, mental illness, behavioral problems, delinquency, and dropping out of school. Child Abuse Office History Created in 1990 in response to complaints from Dallas Police Dept., Child Protective Services and other community agencies that Dallas ISD campus staff were not reporting suspected child abuse as is mandated by law. Operates hotline to help staff with recognition and reporting of suspected abuse. Receives all reports of employees alleged to have abused or neglected a child and coordinates assignment for follow‐up investigation. 27 Child Abuse Office Provides mandated training to district staff on recognition and reporting of suspected child abuse, as well as district policies regarding suspected child abuse. In 2007, the Child Abuse Office was also charged with offering Teen Dating Violence Awareness training for students in secondary schools, as mandated in Texas Education Code Section 37.0831. In 2011, the Child Abuse Office was reduced from 5 FTE’s to 2 FTE’s. In 2011‐2012, there were 2776 reports of abuse made to the Child Abuse Office. Already this school year, we have received 921 reports. 59 of the Reports received this year were investigated or are under investigation by OPR. These reports would all involve a school staff member. 28 Budget Year Employees Departments Total Budget FY 07‐08 16 3 $1,309,8661 FY 08‐09 9 2 $1,043,0501 FY 09‐10 10 2 $1,019,7381 FY 10‐11 7 1 $1,074,8371 FY 11‐12 12 3 $1,007,8501, 3 FY 12‐13 13 3 $1,294,5902 3 E‐Rate and Child Abuse personnel 1 All Figures are as of June 30 End of FY acquired late in FY budget year 2 Current year’s budget 29 30 CITIZEN’S BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE Dora Rivas, MS,RD,SNS, Executive Director 1 Presentation: 1/14/2013 31 FCNS STRATEGIC PLANNING/CYCLE PROCESS Visioning Session/ Mission Statement Annual Review and Update Key Performance Indicators SWOT Analysis Dallas ISD FCNS Strategic Plan 2011-2015 Critical Issue Statements Goal Setting//Strategy and Action Step Development Balanced Scorecard 32 2 CGCS KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED IN GOAL SETTING CGCS Key Performance Indicators CGCS KPI 2008 Median Dallas ISD 2008 Report CGCS KPI 2010 Median Breakfast Participation rate 26.90% 25.40% 27.58 Elementary 31.50% 29.10% Secondary 19.10% Lunch Participation Rate Dallas ISD 2010 Report 30.83 CGCS KPI 2011 Median Dallas ISD 2011 Report Dallas ISD Goals for Actual 2012‐13 2012 33.07 30.78 34.43 35% 37.23 42.76 36.35 44.27 60% 18.80% 11.12 20.17 23.09 20.53 20% 61.10% 79.10% 62.56 64.92 79.86 77.27 80% Elementary 74.50% 86.60% 75.57 77.58 92.28 88.15 89% Secondary 48.30% 65.80% 44.24 50.28 62.73 61.9 65% Food Costs per Revenue 34.40% 34.20% 34.93 34.27 34.50 42.85 35% 19.03 44.75 18.54 79.57 36.17 Meals per Labor Hr Labor Cost per Revenue 49.00% 41.50% Total Costs per Revenue Fund Balance as percent of Revenue 47.33 38.13 99.07 94.66 5.51 12.56 19% 37.86 35.9 38% 96.24 93.55 105.32 95% 6.69 6.45 ‐5.32 15% The top quartile (whether high or low) The third quartile (which is the value between the median and the top quartile) 3 The second quartile The lowest quartile The analysis compares a district across all Power Indicators and Essential Few within each functional area to determine overall quartile ranking 33 FCNS RESPONSE TO CORE BELIEFS 1. Improve academic achievement through good nutrition and nutrition education. 2. Maximize effective instruction by supporting healthy living initiatives through nutrition education and quality meals. 3. Self-operated and financially self-supporting operations free up resources that can be directed toward supporting high quality instruction. 4. Provide free or low cost access to meal services that meet special dietary needs of all students and assure equity to quality meals through integrated systems solutions in a pleasing dining environment across the District. Maximize revenue for continued facility and kitchen improvements. 5. Commitment to excellence in delivery of service for the children. 34 4 GUIDING PRINCIPLES OUR VISION: To be The Exemplary Food and Nutrition Provider RECIPE FOR SUCCESS: “Communicate, Cooperate, Collaborate, and Commitment” OUR MISSION: “We Provide Nutrition that Fuels Successful Learning” OUR MOTTO: Quality Food.... On The Line…. All The Time…. WITH A SMILE! 5 35 CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS BREAKFAST PROGRAM LUNCH PROGRAM FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE PROGRAM AFTERSCHOOL SNACK PROGRAM SUMMER MEALS PROGRAM 6 36 FINANCIAL CORE BELIEF 3: Self-operated and financially self-supporting operations free up resources that can be directed toward supporting high quality instruction. SELF-SUSTAINING FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS 7 37 REVENUE BY SOURCES (Ending 06-30-2012) .92% 5.84% 1.9% .93% 6.67% 2.37% 18.36% Cash State Matching Breakfast Lunch USDA Summer Snack Miscellaneous 63.01% 38 ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURES Food and supplies Labor and benefits Utilities Travel Printing Office Equipment Nonexpendable Items: freezers, refrigerators, table & chairs, steam tables, mixers, etc Advertising Recognition of employee achievement 9 39 ELIGIBILITY FOR LAST FIVE YEARS SCHOOL YEAR FREE REDUCED % of Enroll 2012-13 132,750 6,939 88.18* 2011-12 132,194 6,721 89.49 2010-11 129,898 7,241 88.18 2009-10 127,171 9,456 86.36 2008-09 124,124 11,419 84.88 2007-08 119,914 12,416 82.70 * - thru 12-9-2012 10 40 REVENUE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Cash 7,737,772 7,957,320 7,150,751 6,321,941 6,391,706 State 566,604 568,265 566,848 535,822 523,115 Breakfast 11,939,337 12,736,801 13,431,725 12,347,255 15,342,067 Lunch 46,273,572 49,335,895 52,641,871 51,764,128 52,677,796 USDA 3,345,805 3,770,025 3,827,259 5,600,316 4,886,202 Summer 1,343,483 1,195,005 804,519 1,180,742 1,762,042 927,063 784,952 761,099 853,425 778,397 22,539 106,379 835,715 1,491,431 2,136,726 72,156,175 76,454,642 80,019,787 80,095,060 84,498,051 Snack Misc. (FFVP) 11 Total 41 LUNCH PARTICIPATION Middle School Lunch Elementary Lunch 82,000 94,645 95,000 28,247 19,000 27,883 18,500 81,000 94,000 80,000 93,000 28,500 28,071 28,000 27,630 18,000 91,912 79,000 91,122 92,210 91,257 90,785 78,000 77,000 81,123 79,886 80,664 79,945 77,045 17,000 91,000 16,500 90,000 16,000 15,500 26,000 25,854 25,500 25,000 15,000 88,000 Lunch Participation Count 27,287 27,000 26,500 78,788 75,000 17,500 92,000 89,000 76,000 27,500 15,975 17,885 18,129 18,692 17,933 17,874 14,500 Enrollment Trendline 24,500 Lunch Participation Count Participation Trendline Participation Trendline 42 Enrollment Trendline LUNCH PARTICIPATION High School Breakfast High School Lunch 7,000 40,000 6,000 39,500 21,500 39,624 21,000 39,624 38,836 19,500 38,836 39,000 20,000 39,000 5,000 39,500 20,500 39,455 40,000 39,455 38,038 19,000 38,500 4,000 37,988 38,000 37,516 18,500 38,000 38,038 3,000 37,500 17,000 36,500 18,408 19,483 20,549 20,732 19,831 21,257 16,500 37,000 1,000 37,000 17,500 37,516 2,000 37,500 18,000 37,988 36,000 36,500 4,105 4,504 5,532 5,725 4,908 0 5,093 36,000 Lunch Participation Count Participation Trendline Breakfast Participation Count Enrollment Trendline 13 Participation Trendline 43 38,500 Enrollment Trendline EXPENSES FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS 2007-08 Payroll 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 30,838,992 29,153,682 30,295,118 30,716,218 30,304,863 Contract Services 9,635,076 9,822,413 11,105,072 6,565,356 8,613,198 Food & Supplies 29,219,963 31,100,990 31,895,645 44,295,812 47,937,730 730,727 229,065 239,112 278,299 208,678 1,575,826 2,067,469 1,323,236 2,987,009 1,924,948 Yes Yes Other Capital Fund Balance Transfer Total Profit/Loss No 72,000,584 155,590 No No 72,373,619 74,858,183 4,081,023 5,161,603 44 84,842,694 88,989,417 (4,747,634) (4,491,366) 14 BUDGET 2012-2013 Object 2011-12 2012 - 13 Payroll 33,334,477 33,273,814 Contracted Service 12,474,300 7,575,297 Food & Supplies 35,360,328 44,383,977 Other Expenses 483,231 313,543 Capital Expenses 735,000 254,667 7,000,000 4,587,715 89,387,336 90,389,013 Fund Balance Transfer Total 45 15 GRANT FUNDS OVER LAST 3 YEARS 2009 ARRA Dairy Max Grant 2010 Walmart Foundation Actions for Healthy Kids Healthier US School Grant 2012 Arby’s Share our Strength Grant Farm to School Grant Total $363,547 $ 28,554 $338,645 $ 16,500 $155,065 $ 5,000 $ 43,587 $950,898 16 46 NUTRITION/NUTRITION EDUCATION CORE BELIEF 1: Improve academic achievement through good nutrition and nutrition education. CORE BELIEF 2: Maximize effective instruction by supporting healthy living initiatives through nutrition education and quality meals. Healthy students are better students. Smarter Lunchrooms Menu Planning Special Diet Needs Nutrition Education 17 47 INITIATIVES 2012-2013 MENU • Implement New Menu Pattern- Lunch • Implement New Breakfast Regulations • Special Dietary Needs (Allergen info online) NUTRITION EDUCATION/TRAINING Chef-Dietitian demos Nutrition Ed Promotions Culinary Training SMART LUNCHROOMS (Cornell Univ) Culinary Training NEW INITIATIVES: Expand Breakfast Program CO(LOCAL) At-Risk Supper Program (10 Pilots) Wellness Policy (FFA Regulation) Farm to School Planning Grant RD-Chef Demos Smart Lunchrooms Program 18 48 KITCHEN FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS UTILIZING FCNS FUNDS CORE BELIEF 4 Provide free or low cost access to meal services that meet special dietary needs of all students and assure equity to quality meals through integrated systems solutions in a pleasing dining environment across the District. Maximize revenue for continued facility and kitchen improvements. 19 49 FURNITURE…..EQUIPMENT.... ……….SERVING LINES Seating and Tables @ Spruce HS Serving lines @ Ann Richards Smoothie-Deli Bar @ Carter HS 20 Serving lines @ Woodrow Wilson 50 FCNS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CORE BELIEF 1: Improve academic achievement through good nutrition and nutrition education. CORE BELIEF 4: Provide free or low cost access to meal services that meet special dietary needs of all students and assure equity to quality meals through integrated systems solutions in a pleasing dining environment across the District. Maximize revenue for continued facility and kitchen improvements. 21 51 FCNS TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVES 2012-13 OneSource Improve Testing & Upgrade Implement 3rd Serving Period Implement Quantity Sale Process Research/Implement BIC reports FileMaker Develop Access Management Normalize Dbase Structure Implement FileMaker V12 Implement Quantity Sale App Site POS Support Develop Image Tracking Migrate All users to AD Disaster Recovery Buckner DR Site Installation 22 52 Media Cast – Digital Signage Completed Successful Pilot of 13 Sites Implementing Phase1: 75 site rollout Elementary Gold HUSSC Smoothie Bar Displays Additional MS/HS 23 53 PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE CORE BELIEF 5: Commitment to excellence in delivery of service for the children. SCHOOL NUTRITION ASSOCIATION (SNA) “DISTRICT OF EXCELLENCE” USDA HealthierUS SCHOOL Challenge Criteria (HUSSC) ELEM SCHOOLS (78 Gold & 76 Bronze Awards) MIDDLE SCHOOLS (pending approval) 24 54 Collaborations/Partnerships DFW Health Collaborative (United Way) Food Planning Association (Baylor Texas Hunger Initiative) Food Focus Alliance Alliance for a Healthier Generation North Texas Food Bank Hunger Research Center Urban School Food Alliance (Los Angeles, Miami-Dade, Chicago PS, New York, Orange County) 25 55 Research Studies & Intern Programs BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Breakfast in Classroom TEXAS A & M- Texas Go! Eat! Grow! Walking, Healthy Eating, School Gardens, Curriculum Texas AgriLife Plate Waste for Potato Council Cornell University BEN Group – Smarter Lunchrooms USDA Farm to School 26 56 FCNS in REVIEW Q&A 27 57 58 Appendix A CBRC RECOMMENDATIONS UPDATE 59 60 Recommendations 1. Benchmark Salaries and Staffing Ratios Against Peer Districts Annually – The most recently available Education Resource Group data (compiled for school year 2009‐10) comparing DISD’s average salary, staffing ratios and resulting cost per student to a group of districts reflecting similar characteristics (Houston, Garland, Mesquite, Richardson and Carrollton‐ Farmers Branch ISD’s) revealed substantial differences in costs at the campus level between DISD and the comparison group. (See Exhibit A.) DISD exceeded the average salary paid for every position (Principals, Asst. Principals, Teachers, Aides, Counselors, Librarians, Nurses, and other Auxiliary/Support Staff). Team Leader Charles Glover/James Terry Completion Date December‐2012 Status TASBE completed an analysis that concluded this fall. Feasability recommendations impacting certain staffing groups will be examined by the compensation team for priority implementation. Collectively, if DISD had paid the average salary in 2009‐10 for each position of this specific peer group and maintained identical staffing ratios, it would have saved over $110 million dollars, with aggregate spending for teaching staff ($75 million) and teacher aides ($20 million) accounting for most of this variance. The variance is driven by three factors: (i) a salary scale (see Exhibit B) that is meaningfully higher for DISD than for peers districts for teachers with of more than 5 years of tenure; (ii) staffing ratios (Exhibit A) that are lower in most cases for DISD than for peer districts; and (iii) higher tenure levels. While this data is two years old and does not reflect the District’s recent budget reductions made in response to declining state revenues from the state, DISD’s peers have made similar adjustments and it is likely that a sizable difference in campus costs per student continues to exist. (Note that these amounts exclude expenditure differentials for custodial services, with DISD spending exceeding market levels based on recent quotes to outsource this service). 2. We recommend the district compare its compensation plans and staffing ratios to those of peer districts annually to identify potential opportunities to reduce costs and improve efficiencies (fully recognizing that the district may opt to pay above the benchmark levels as a necessary cost of attracting and retaining talent). In order to help determine whether premium pay is necessary, we further recommend that the district measure annually (i) the percentage of employees in each category who are requested to stay but leave voluntarily and (ii) the number of potential new hires who are offered a job but choose to go elsewhere to help ascertain whether the district is maintaining a competitive compensation structure. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) Charles Glover HCM will be building out a centralized system of processing and exiting and allocating capacity to to understanding employment and resigantion trends. Creating one hub for offcial resignation will go live in Novmeber. Implement the Vertical Alignment of Schools by Feeder Pattern – The Commission concurs with the recent STAR Commission report that a single director should have expanded authority and accountability over all schools within each K‐12 cluster. By serving as a “feeder pattern director”, each manager would have full accountability and flexibility in staff selection throughout the cluster (principals, teachers, support staff, etc.) ensuring a consistent culture and alignment throughout. We believe that a large majority of parents pick a school system based on the confidence they have that their child will have a consistent experience throughout their child’s K‐12 years. Placing a manager over that feeder pattern fully responsible for its hiring, culture and outcomes is a critical step in recruiting and retaining those parents and their children within DISD. Sylvia Reyna Done 61 1/10/2013 Recommendations Team Leader As part of this recommendation, the selection and the associated budget responsibility for such programs as College Readiness/Access and Parental Engagement should also fall under the feeder pattern director’s management (staffing at 3700 Ross should be limited to centralized data collection, compliance reporting and monitoring of best practices). As a result, each feeder pattern would have a consistent culture and identity, and each employee working within that feeder pattern would have collective responsibility for every student within their care, including feeling a shared sense of accountability for their ultimate DISD graduation and post‐secondary readiness. Benefits would include less central overhead and meetings as costs are pushed down closer to the field; greater ability to communicate a consistent experience coupled with historical outcomes to each parent and student; and improved flexibility to implement programs accelerating student success. Sylvia Reyna In order to provide the “director” with meaningful academic performance data and in consideration of high student mobility, the student database will need to include a reliable history of campuses students have attended. The database currently assumes the secondary students attended the elementary school defined to their current address when in fact they attended one or more schools in and outside of DISD. The lack of this easily retrievable information already causes additional work for campus registrars to support reporting needs at headquarters. (Approved by CBRC 8‐0 with two abstentions) James Terry/Gray Salada 3. Expand/Continue to Improve Principal Leadership Training – Given the Board’s stated desire to empower principals much more fully while concurrently holding them much more accountable for campus results, we strongly support the District’s recent expansion of principal training programs (such as its Aspiring Principals program) to 40‐50 candidates annually to fill the 8% to 10% rate of annual vacancies that should occur due to voluntary and involuntary turnover. With 500 to 600 principal positions across the district and a stated belief by management and the Board that DISD does not have universally strong quality principals in all positions, a more highly‐trained pipeline of managers comfortable with more robust teacher evaluation and development and the enhanced campus‐level budget responsibility recommended later in this memo is critical to DISD’s future success. Data/surveys should be continually employed to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of any leadership training program (including graduates subsequent ability to drive academic growth and reduce grievances on their campus). (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) Mike Miles/Ann Smisko 4. Undertake Initiatives to Improve Attendance – According to the most recently available attendance data from TEA, DISD’s average attendance of 94.8% in 2009‐10 was lower than the 96.3% average for its peer group of Mesquite (96.7%), Garland (96.4%), Carrollton‐Farmers Branch (95.8%), and Richardson (96.0%). DISD forgoes $41 per student per day for student absences from school. By bringing its attendance rate up to the peer‐group average, DISD could achieve $16.6 million of additional revenue. Roughly 40,000 students did not show up for the first day of school in August 2011 (a one‐day revenue loss of $1.6 million alone) and it takes roughly 3 to 4 weeks for school attendance to ramp up. In addition to the financial cost, student absences negatively impact student achievement. To raise attendance, we recommend the district: Sylvia Reyna/Jennifer Sprague 62 Completion Date August‐2012 Status Done In Process: – Update on FELLOWS ACADEMY sent to CITIZENS BUDGET REVIEW COMMISSION on OCTOBER 3, 2012 1/10/2013 Recommendations 5. Team Leader a) Provide funding for (i) outsourced truancy programs (especially those which can be done on a revenue sharing basis at no cost to the district) and (ii) outsourced parental engagement programs (which cost $5,000 to $10,000 annually per campus) stressing the importance of continued attendance starting the first day of school. It is believed that these efforts could more than pay for themselves, both financially and academically, through higher attendance. We also recommend that the district evaluate which campuses were the biggest contributors to first day absences and whether targeted strategies to meaningfully reduce the associated revenue shortfall can be implemented. To incentivize principals to take these actions, we recommended that the increased net revenues resulting from these moves stay on the subject campus; James Terry b) Increase funding for extracurricular programs, which help keep students engaged and which could partially pay for themselves through higher attendance; and c) Create “reason codes” in the student database and proactively capture the reasons that students (i) are not in school on the first day, (ii) transfer from the school and (iii) drop out of the school, to better understand and attempt to address these issues. At a minimum, these efforts should be piloted in a number of schools and their effect on attendance should be carefully monitored to determine whether scaling these programs district‐wide makes sense. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) James Terry Growing a Culture Aspiring to Careers and Post Secondary Education – With recent statistics showing that less than 10% of DISD 9th graders graduate four years later with a college‐ready SAT or ACT entrance exam, increasing both the academic preparedness and the incentive for students to want to prepare for and access a post secondary education (college or vocational) and subsequent career remains critically important. We recommend giving campuses freedom to drive one or more of the following strategies including: Mike Miles/Ann Smisko a. sourcing internal and external funds to reinstate district‐wide funding for AVID starting in 7th/8th grade to help emphasize a college‐going culture in the critical middle school years; b. seeking grants for additional funding for effective college access programs on each high school campus (such as EIF and ASP) given current staffing levels and; c. finding marketing dollars to ensure better visibility to all students and their parents within our comprehensive schools of different career paths found within non‐magnet DISD programs (i.e. law, business, cosmetology, hospitality, etc.) James Terry d. support for feeder pattern initiatives that standardize events, programs and projects for their schools (Career Days, Leader Project, college visits, etc.) e. giving SAT/ACT tests during school hours (as has been done recently by Irving ISD) to increase participation and reduce the transportation, work or other barriers that may prevent a student from taking the test on a weekend; f. consider studying and perhaps replicating RISD’s Enterprise City by repurposing a closed or underutilized campus. Bond funds could be used to establish the center. RISD’s annual cost to maintain is $106K. Sylvia Reyna Completion Date Status James Terry/Gray Salada James Terry/Gray Salada In process: Ann Smisko is working with Pam Lear, Director, High School Redesign Jennifer Sprague 2013‐2014 goal for DEF Jennifer Sprague Included in the 2012‐2014 marketing campaign plan Sylvia Reyna Sylvia Reyna (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) 63 1/10/2013 Recommendations Team Leader Completion Date Status 6. Aggressively Promote Pre‐K Opportunities and Fill Every Seat Possible – If all seats cannot be filled with children from low socio‐economic populations (the district’s first priority), offer open positions to DISD parents for a tuition equal to only the marginal cost to deliver the education (rather than the likely higher market price). Doing so will bring other families to the district who might not engage otherwise while ensuring that a quality pre‐K education is delivered to as many children as possible living within DISD boundaries. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) Ann Smisko/Jennifer Sprague Our records currently indicate 379 remaining seats to fill for 2012‐13. We have a current waiting list of 172 children from a list that started well over 700. Upon offering seats to these children on the waiting list, all other seats will open up to the three children who are on the centralized waiting list for PreK tuition. See the chart below for an update by Division. 7. Create and Fund a Grant Writing Office – Given the funding challenges DISD faces and the strong interest expressed by area foundations to support the district, budgeting funds for this function will most likely easily pay for itself while providing dollars to help scale programs and initiatives proven by data to be effective toward increasing student achievement. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) Jennifer Sprague/James Terry Hired Byron Sanders and developing an action plan for the DEF. Not sure about grants writing office./Alan King 8. Reevaluate Safety and Security Plans to Ensure That Use of Metal Detectors on Traditional (non‐Alternative) Secondary School Campuses is Necessary. This long held daily practice is fairly unique to DISD and not used on a regular basis by surrounding peer districts (Grand Prairie, Lancaster, DeSoto and Richardson were surveyed). It is unclear whether this practice is truly effective given the vast number of entrances a student can use to enter a building, the fact that many students go to outside portables at beginning of day, etc. In addition, the associated costs of two to four people staffing these stations at dozens of secondary campuses could be significant and better used elsewhere. Eliminating this practice will also help students to get to classes more quickly and reduce tardiness. Finally, their removal will make the school appear more welcoming and remove the negative external perception concerns that DISD high schools must use them in order to provide a safe environment. Kevin Smelker/Chief Craig Miller Our recommendation is that principals, teachers and perhaps students be polled on this issue. In addition, this management practice should be evaluated by the Dallas ISD police in terms of actual incidents vs. the cost (both monetary and to a school’s culture) of maintaining them. The alternative use of security cameras may prove to be meaningfully more effective at a lower cost to school budgets and culture. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) Kevin Smelker/Chief Craig Miller Ensure Sufficient Funds are Budgeted to Pay for Recent Events/Changes – These would include the following: a) Anticipated higher costs of summer remediation due to higher standards associated with new STAAR testing; b) Search firm costs associated with filling numerous senior vacancies beneath the superintendent level. These are some of the most important positions affecting the direction of the district and the net should be cast wide to source their replacements; James Terry c) Costs associated with the complete restructure of the Human Resource area as recommended by the STAR Commission; Charles Glover 9. January, 2013 Work in Process August‐2012 Completed James Terry Mike Miles 64 Aug‐13 HR will move into an official new structure by the end of October 2012. Full cost of reorganization against budgeted funds wil be reported at end of fiscal year. 1/10/2013 Recommendations 10. 11. Team Leader d) Costs to implement the new Teacher Evaluation System, including costs for: technology, training for principals and teachers about the new system, training for principals on how to evaluate teachers and conduct reviews, and increased professional development. Charles Glover e) Costs associated to train the feeder pattern directors as recommended above as well as costs associated with providing them accurate student academic histories as described above. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) James Terry LONGER TERM RECOMMENDATIONS Empower Principals to Make Budget and Staffing Decisions at the Campus Level – Currently, DISD management determines the staffing levels for all campuses solely on the basis of FTEs per student, without regard to total salaries or campus expenditures per student. DISD principals are not empowered nor required to make the tough judgments in terms of the right mix of salaries, staffing levels and programs on their campuses consistent with their student revenues and campus objectives. Other districts, such as Houston ISD, allocate revenues to each campus based on expected enrollment and attendance. They then in turn require the principals to make critical judgments about the optimal mix of tenure and compensation (as well as staffing ratios consistent with board policy and Title 1 comparability requirements) to meet their academic goals while holding them fully accountable for their academic results. Without financial discipline at the campus level, overall costs per employee (as noted above) have steadily grown beyond those of similar districts, forcing DISD to cut back in numerous other areas that meaningfully contribute to academic growth and student engagement. The results from other districts demonstrate that a principal (well trained and supported by a business analyst) in control of his/her campus budget will allocate their resources more effectively to best support student achievement, if given the flexibility (and the responsibility) to pick their desired mix of resources. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention)$ Outsource Custodial Services – DISD recently solicited bids to outsource its custodial services. The district received several attractive bids from qualified custodial services that would save the district approximately $15 million per year for custodial services. The CBRC voted 5 to 2 with one abstention to urge the district to move forward on outsourcing custodial services under a performance‐driven model through the use of three vendors (one of which could be in‐house services, if cost‐competitive). It made this recommendation based on the belief that the district would (i) be able to easily compare vendor performance, (ii) create an environment where vendors strive to provide exceptional performance else lose their contract on a specific campus and (iii) be in a position to more easily replace an under‐performing vendor. Even though the board ultimately decided to continue to insource custodial services, we recommend that management and the board continue to benchmark these costs against outsourced alternatives should cost savings be needed in the future. (Approved by CBRC 8‐0 with two abstentions) James Terry Kevin Smelker 65 Completion Date Ongoing January, 2013 July, 2013 Status Thus far the cost of DMC contract was reduced by $360,000 given capacity of Supt., HCM, and other departments to design parts of the evaluations and implement focus group. 1. Implemented a one for one position trade off procedure. Guidelines and form were developed, implemented and communicated to principals. 2. Considering a budget system similar to Houston ISD's model for campuses. At the completion of FY 12‐13 cost per square foot will be calculated and compared to prior outsourced competitive bids. In addition to financial benchmarks, customer satisfaction surveys will be conducted annually, benchmarked at 75% approval and service level inspections conducted monthly benchmarked at 90% compliance. 1/10/2013 Recommendations 12. 13. Team Leader Completion Date Status Establish Consistent Campus‐Based Communication Tools – The CBRC has a significant concern about the lack of funding toward a consistent school appearance and image and the inability to effectively market feeder pattern culture and outcomes that help create a sense of school pride and community identity and engagement. Similar to the need for curriculum alignment, establishing common information at the front door of each campus is critical to improving parent engagement and reducing the 30% student mobility rates which hamper the district. Examples include: Jennifer Sprague a) Posting the map of a school’s attendance zone to help a family requiring a move identify new living communities that would keep them within the same attendance zone or feeder pattern: b) Removing outdated banners and certificates. c) Establishing standardized signage, within the main entrance of each campus, that includes a photo of the principal and a departmental listing of staff members, a map of the feeder pattern attendance zone, commonly needed campus and district phone numbers, e‐mails and website addresses, calendar, school accolades, volunteer information etc. James Terry/Velia Lara Jennifer Sprague Will be addressed in a principal's training during a best practices in marketing/communication presentation. d) Establishing a middle and high school bulletin board at each elementary campus that promotes secondary school programs and successes, and also provides contact information. Regular updates to the boards would be created by the secondary schools and distributed to the feeder pattern via inter‐office mail. Jennifer Sprague Will be addressed in a principal's training during a best practices in marketing/communication presentation. e) Establish a Common Open House across the entire district held the same week in February each year to market neighborhood schools to prospective parents. Follow and improve upon the pilot program initiated in 2010 for three North Dallas feeder patterns. Note: The district has consistently financially supported magnet and vanguard open houses recruiting within DISD. DISD is also now in competition for students with neighboring districts (Grand Prairie and DeSoto ISD to name two) and charter schools who have developed recruiting programs. Jennifer Sprague Sylvia Reyna f) Providing support for creating campus brochures that communicate a unified message about the district and feeder pattern but that are personalized to each campus. Jennifer Sprague Will be addressed in a principal's training during a best practices in marketing/communication presentation. Most likely an initiative for the 2014‐2015 school year. g) Allocating additional funds for exterior banners on schools that earn the two highest academic performance ratings from the TEA and to laud other significant campus achievements awarded by a State or National organizations. h) With the reinstatement of previously eliminated videographer positions, campuses could share the benefit via video of outstanding guest speakers and programs. Jennifer Sprague Working on this Jennifer Sprague Working on this Evaluate Priorities within Transportation Practices – Rising fuel costs and an inefficient and inequitable use of transportation services require the need to reprioritize this operation with a 2012 budget amount of $24.4 million. 2010 costs were reported to be $24K per bus route (55 students) or $480 per student. Other estimates based on lower ridership (35 student average) are $700 per student for buses and $4,500 per student for vans. a. Campuses report having limited funds for field trips and no funds for even local college visits. James Terry James Terry 66 1/10/2013 Recommendations Team Leader b. Transportation is provided for approximately 23,000 students living two or more miles from their assigned campus; plus over 8,000 magnet and vanguard students ($5 million) and approximately 250 (1% of those eligible) who elected NCLB transfer ($1.5 million). i. Outliers include: the use of vans ($1.5 million) carrying as few as four students under NCLB transfer with one making three stops and traveling as much as 52 miles round trip from Seagoville to North Dallas; and a magnet school bus traveling the same distance to Dealey Montessori when Stone Montessori is closer. 1. Principals report that routes traveling long distances are frequently late. 2. The annual cost of the Seagoville to Dealey bus is equal to that needed to send 10,000 seniors on one college visit to UNT in Denton. James Terry c. Transportation is denied to almost 10,000 students (est. $7 million if provided) who have exercised choice options to attend another school. This includes: i. students at 16 campuses who elected, as allowed, to complete middle or high school where they started despite being reassigned due to a change in attendance zone; ii. students at 42 campuses allowed transfer by (PEG) Public Education Grant; and iii. students at 17 of 22 high schools offering Career Pathways. Five such campuses provide transportation. James Terry Completion Date Status d. The 11,000 students in charter schools provide their own transportation. e. It was recently reported that the state of Illinois is considering charging students for bus transportation. (Approved by CBRC 8‐1 with one abstention) 14. Reduce Contract Labor Costs by Addressing the Shortage of Speech Pathologists, Therapists and Diagnosticians – Work with local and regional universities to expand their programs and graduates and establish pathways and financial incentives for those students to work for DISD. Consider establishing related vocational programs on high school campuses with the goal of DISD graduates ultimately becoming DISD employees. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) Charles Glover Ongoing Being Reviewed for letter of early intent. Meeting with local and state universities. Examining outsourcing of services that do not require full time employment. 15. Identify Trends and Reasons for Student Transfers – 10,000 non‐magnet student transfers, often utilizing a “hardship” rationale, are the primary reason many campuses are underutilized (vs. declining populations).. We must address any leadership, program or perception issues that are causing students to transfer away from their neighborhood school, which often results in an inefficient use of campus assets and reduced parent engagement at the school left behind (for example, 1/3rd of students living within the Carter High School attendance zone opt to transfer to another school).. DISD should proactively survey on a confidential basis every parent opting to have their child transfer outside of their home school to determine the true reasons for their move. Only by having true and candid knowledge for why over 10% of students across the district opt to attend elsewhere can steps be taken to effectively address this issue.. (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) James Terry/Sam Iliya/Gray Salada April, 2013 Being reviewed and considered in conjunction with recommendation 4) Undertake Initiatives to Improve Attendance, c) Create “reason codes” in the student database and proactively capture the reasons that students (i) are not in school on the first day, (ii) transfer from the school and (iii) drop out of the school, to better understand and attempt to address these issues. 67 1/10/2013 Recommendations 16. Team Leader Evaluate Increase within the Extra‐Curricular Activities Budget ‐ the CBRC feels that extracurricular activities are critical in engaging and motivating students and that their balanced inclusion allows DISD to educate the whole child. Unfortunately, DISD spending on extracurricular activities ranks in the bottom 8 of the top 100 large school districts in Texas (an additional $23 million would be required to simply meet the midpoint of our peers, demonstrating the acute needs in this area). These programs are proven to improve student success by serving as after‐ school and dropout prevention programs where students are mentored, learn discipline, and obtain needed physical activity. A study by Northside ISD found that its athletes had a 2% higher attendance rate, 7% higher graduation rate, 4‐10% higher TAKS passing rate and had a 10% lower incidence of discipline referrals. Furthermore, extra‐curricular activities are a source of individual and community pride, and help to increase parent engagement. We recommend that the district identify the best use of any increase in funds that can be found via recommendations of a potential to‐be‐created Extra‐Curricular Activities Task Force. James Terry a.) Create a group of District stakeholders with backgrounds in Athletics, Fine Arts, Speech, Journalism, ROTC, chess and other traditional extra‐ curriculum school programs. Invite those with similar backgrounds from peer districts with the objective of increasing the funding and structure of DISD programs to match that of successful peer districts and to most importantly, maximize student participation. Include community leaders in related collegiate or professional fields. James Terry/Sylvia Reyna b.) Utilize existing Bond funds to purchase needed equipment as identified by the task force and improve campus areas devoted to band, choir, art, theatre and athletics, especially where existing program subscription exceeds capacity. c.) Reward successful programs with additional funds based on increased subscription and success in UIL competition. d) Continue to evaluate attendance and relative costs for sporting events held at regional field houses versus holding events at home gymnasiums. Almost 300 basketball games were moved in 2012 to campuses for a savings $150K. Utility savings at the field houses were not quantified but could be significant. a. Many of these field houses were built during an era when many DISD schools were 5A in class size and had larger event attendance. With many high schools now 4A and 3A and lower‐income students having less access to transportation, the district should carefully look at where it makes sense to use these larger facilities and expand leasing opportunities to external groups. b. Conversely, most campuses lack the needed equipment to host volleyball games and many older high school campuses and most middle schools lack bleachers. If the direction is toward more campus based athletic events, then facility upgrades will be required. James Terry/Ed Levine e.) In the next school year, expand the number of athletic trainers so that each high school campus has at least one trainer on site. It is difficult for all student athletes to receive therapy when transportation is required to see a trainer at the area field house. In some districts, on site Athletic Trainer programs also teach classes related to their profession thus providing another career pathway. In addition to reducing utility usage at the field houses, contract labor expenses will be reduce for the hiring of extra trainers to staff all campus based football practices. James Terry/Jeff Johnson Completion Date Status April, 2013 James Terry/Jeff Johnson 68 1/10/2013 Recommendations Team Leader Completion Date Status (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with on abstention) 17. Asset Sales/Additions to General Fund Balance – Dallas ISD may sell buses currently within its inventory to Dallas County given the County’s ability to finance their purchase at roughly 1.5%. Because the expected proceeds of $6‐$7 million are non‐recurring, it is the Commission’s recommendation that those funds, once received, be allocated to the District’s General Fund Balance in its continuing effort to rebuild those funds to acceptable levels. The CBRC is additionally supportive of the District continuing to work toward a General Fund Balance that is able to cover working capital needs without necessitating borrowing during the year (target of $190 to $210 million vs. current level of $140 million). (Approved by CBRC 9‐0 with one abstention) James Terry 69 June 30, 2012 Fund Balance end of Fiscal Year 2012 expected to see over $200M 1/10/2013 70 Appendix B Budget Calendar 2012 - 2013 71 72 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 Please read over and review the 2013-2014 Preliminary Budget Calendar for discussion. If you have any suggestions or changes, please contact Christina Campos at [email protected] and\or 972-9253661. September 7, 2012 Campus deadline to delete no shows from Student Data System (Chancery) September 12, 2012 Attendance Boundary Core Meeting September 13, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Briefing September 11-28, 2012 Leveling meetings September 19, 2012 Attendance Boundary Advisory Committee Meetings September 25, 2012 Deadline to submit documentation for October 11th Board Briefing September 27, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Meeting September/ October, 2012 Demographics Department- Special Ed and MLEP reviews\analyzes preliminary enrollment data to be used in the 2013-2014 Projected Enrollment Pre-leveling meetings to discuss integrity of enrollment data HCM Staffing will meet with principals to discuss Leveling results Final leveling campus staff numbers used to run Title I, Part A – Comparability of Services Requirement October 1, 2012 13/14 Projection Analysis begins – Chancery Enrollment Snapshot October 4, 2012 Board Business Briefing Meeting October 5, 2012 Actual enrollment used to determine settle-up 1/08/2013 73 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 October 8, 2012 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting October 11, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Briefing October 12, 2012 Settle-Up Date – Over\Under Enrollment Projections sent to campuses October 15, 2012 Demographics Department - MLEP and Special Ed to finalize the review\verification of current enrollment data October 16, 2012 Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting October 23, 2012 Deadline to submit documentation for November 8th Board Briefing October 24, 2012 2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Conner Elementary School (Schools affected: Truett, Conner, Bayles, Sanger) October 25, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Meeting October 29, 2012 2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Dade Middle School (Schools affected: Dade, Long, P.C. Anderson) October 30, 2012 2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Mata Elementary School (Schools affected: Roberts, Mt. Auburn, Mata) November 1, 2012 Board Business Briefing Meeting 2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Hawthorne Elementary School (Schools affected: Hawthorne, Ireland, San Jacinto) November 5, 2012 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting 1/08/2013 74 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 November 8, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Briefing November 12, 2012 2013-2014 Attendance Boundary Community Meetings at Lang Middle School (Schools affected: Gaston, Lang) November 13, 2012 Deadline to submit documentation for December 13th Board Briefing Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting November 20, 2012 Preliminary Action Plans due to the Superintendent November 29, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Meeting December 4, 2012 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting December 6, 2012 Board Business Briefing Meeting December 10, 2012 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting December 11, 2012 Deadline to submit documentation for January 10th Board Briefing Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting December 12, 2012 Final Action Plans due to the Superintendent December 13, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Briefing December 20, 2012 Board of Trustees Board Meeting January 10, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Briefing 1/08/2013 75 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 January 14, 2013 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting Presentation on the 13-14 Budget Development Process January 15, 2013 Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting Action Plans Presented by the Superintendent January 18, 2013 Demographics Department – Preliminary projections sent to campuses for review & response January 22, 2013 Deadline to submit documentation for February 14th Board Briefing January 24, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting Final Approval of Boundary Re-Zoning January 30, 2013 Release of non-campus controllable budget preparation tool (position & non-position) January 31, 2013 Release of campus controllable budget preparation tool (position & non-position) February 1, 2013 Preliminary enrollment review from campuses due back to Demographic Department. February 6, 2013 Demographics Department sends Budget Services Final 13-14 Projected Enrollment Campus Staffing Ratios due to Budget Services February 7, 2013 Board Business Briefing Meeting February 11, 2013 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting February 12, 2013 Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting 1/08/2013 76 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 February 14, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Briefing February 19, 2013 Deadline to submit documentation for March 7th Board Briefing. February 25, 2013 Budget Services will send HCM 13-14 Campus Staffing Allocations February 26, 2013 HCM Talent Partners begin to meet with principals to discuss 13-14 Campus Staffing Allocations February 28, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting Deadline to request additional allocations to Executive Directors to be prioritized for both campus and non-campus. Prioritization is sent to Chiefs. Requests should be submitted to Budget Analysts. March 1, 2013 Board Business Briefing Meeting March 4, 2013 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting March 5, 2013 Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting March 7, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Briefing March 22, 2013 Deadline to submit prioritized additional allocations to Budget Services. March 26, 2013 Deadline to submit documentation for April 11th Board Briefing 1/08/2013 77 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 March 27, 2013 Submit Citizens Budget Review Commission proposed recommendations Submit Budget Presentation – Dallas Expenditures vs Peer Group Comparisons Submit Budget Presentation – Preliminary Estimate of Expenditures and Budget Reductions Submit Budget Presentation – Estimated Revenue & Preliminary Costs Estimates Submit Preliminary Budget for FY 2014 Submit Preliminary Budget Presentation Comparison Districts – ERG & eFacts March 28, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting March 29, 2013 HCM Talent Partners complete meetings with principals to discuss 13-14 Staffing Allocations HCM will complete changes in BAUI (budget preparation tool) April 4, 2013 Board Business Briefing Meeting April 8, 2013 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting April 9, 2013 Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting April 11, 2013 Deadline to submit documentation for May 9th Board Briefing (Estimate date) Board of Trustees Board Briefing Preliminary Budget for FY 2014 Board of Trustees determines on public meeting date on budget and proposed tax rate Preliminary Budget Presentation Comparison Districts – ERG & eFacts April 22, 2013 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting April 24, 2013 Submit Proposed Budget for FY 2014 presented to the Board 1/08/2013 78 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 April 25, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting Discuss Citizens Budget Review Commission proposed recommendations Budget Presentation – Dallas Expenditures vs Peer Group Comparisons Budget Presentation - Preliminary Estimate of Expenditures and Budget Reductions Budget Presentation – Estimated Revenue & Preliminary Costs Estimates Preliminary Budget for FY 2014 presented to the Board Board of Trustees determines on public meeting date on budget and proposed tax rate April 30, 2013 Estimate of Preliminary Certification of Appraisal Roll May 2, 2013 Board Business Briefing Meeting May 3 & 10, 2013 Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Budget & Proposed Tax Rate (Source: Dallas Morning News) Publish proposed budget summary on DISD website. May 6, 2013 Citizens Budget Review Commission Meeting May 7, 2013 Principal’s Budget Review Committee Meeting May 9, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Briefing Submission & review of the proposed 2013-2014 Budget May 17, 2013 (Estimate date) Deadline to submit documentation for June 13th Board Briefing May 23, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting Adoption of 2013-2014 Budget and to discuss proposed tax rate. June 6, 2013 Board Business Briefing Meeting June 13, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Briefing 1/08/2013 79 REVISED DRAFT 1/08/13 The Transformation Preliminary Budget Calendar for 2013-2014 June 27, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting Back-up date for Budget Adoption July 25, 2013 Final Tax Roll estimates received from DCAD. August 2 & 9, 2013 Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Proposed Tax Rate (Publish on these dates only if needed) (Source: Dallas Morning News) August 9, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Briefing Discuss Adoption of Tax Rate August 23, 2013 Board of Trustees Board Meeting Adoption of Tax Rate 1/08/2013 80 Appendix C Contact List 81 82 Citizens’ Budget Review Commission Contact Superintendent of Schools CHAIRPERSON CONTACT NUMBER Mike Miles Louisa Meyer 4635 Sugar Mill Road Dallas, TX 75244 (972) 490-5038 (home) (214) 669-3842 (cell) TRUSTEE REPRESENTATIVE(S) EMAIL [email protected] CONTACT NUMBER EMAIL Nancy Bingham* Jose Hernandez (972) 287-8936 (home) (214) 724-6790 (cell) Dan Micciche* Jeff Veazey 404 Bondstone Drive Dallas, TX 75218 (214) 226-5422 [email protected] (214) 394-0028 [email protected] Bernadette Nutall* Justin Henry Vinson & Elkins, LLP 2001 Ross Av., Ste 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Susan Schuerger (214) 226-7866 [email protected] (214) 827-6719 (home) (214) 500-0689 (cell) [email protected] Lew Blackburn* Elizabeth Jones* Mike Morath* Eric Cowan* Carla Ranger Adam Medrano Jim Kipp 6648 Avalon Avenue Dallas, TX 75214 David Look 7007 Yamini Dallas, TX 75230 Josh Womack Debbie Sherrington 5843 Del Roy Dallas, TX 75230 Michael MacNaughton Strasburger & Price, LLP 901 Main Street, Ste 4400 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 215-4567 Val Haskell Lucy Livingston 1600 Day Star Drive Dallas, TX 75224 Jesse Moreno Jr. 5004 Columbia Avenue, Ste.103 Dallas, TX 75214 (972) 816-9837 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (214) 762-6957 [email protected] (last email address I had) (214) 651-4830 (office) (214) 564-5316 (cell) [email protected] (214) 566-5093 [email protected] (214) 339-1464 (home) (972) 207-7969 (cell) [email protected] 214-682-1633 [email protected] Staff Contact [email protected] Kevin Smelker Chief of Operations (972) 925-5062 (office) Sylvia Reyna Chief of School Leadership (972) 925-4660 (office) [email protected] Deno Harris Board Services (972) 925-3962 (office) (469) 955-7010 (cell) [email protected] James Terry Budget & Demographic Services (972) 925-3655 (Office) [email protected] 1/10/2013 83
* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
advertisement
© 2021