1 / 22

Strengthening Local Control

Strengthening Local Control. Converting San Lorenzo Valley USD to a Charter School District. Presentation Overview. Why Charter? Charter Funding District Budget Outlook. Why Charter?. Enhanced local control Focus on measurable results Freedom from bureaucratic rules and “red tape”

stefano-carton
Download Presentation

Strengthening Local Control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strengthening Local Control Converting San Lorenzo Valley USD to a Charter School District

  2. Presentation Overview • Why Charter? • Charter Funding • District Budget Outlook

  3. Why Charter? • Enhanced local control • Focus on measurable results • Freedom from bureaucratic rules and “red tape” • Funding that reflects the true cost of delivering education

  4. Why Charter?The Charter Compact • District agrees to: • Strict accountability based on measurable educational outcomes • SPI/State Board of Education grant: • Enhanced local control over budget, staffing, curriculum, and teaching methods

  5. Charter FundingFunding Sources • Block grant • General-purpose • Categorical • Special education • Other state and federal programs

  6. Charter FundingGeneral-purpose Block Grant (01-02 est.) • Average daily attendance (ADA) • (K-3) * $4,405 • (4-6) * $4,466 • (7-8) * $4,597 • (9-12) * $5,335

  7. Charter FundingReflects True Cost of Education

  8. Charter FundingReflects True Cost of Education

  9. Charter FundingCategorical Block Grant (01-02 est.) • Average daily attendance (ADA) • (K-3) * $341 • (4-6) * $351 • (7-8) * $256 • (9-12) * $325 • (ELL + low-income) * $95

  10. Charter FundingCategorical Block Grant • Block grant is in lieu of funding for specified state categorical programs, thus… • Charter districts are ineligible to apply separately for programs included in block grant

  11. Beginning teacher salary Digital high school Economic Impact Aid Gifted and Talented Instructional materials K-4 reading Ninth grade CSR Partnership Academies School Improvement School safety Supplemental grant Teacher PAR Tenth grade counseling Charter FundingPrograms Included in Block Grant

  12. Charter Funding Other Funding Sources • Special education • State programs not included within block grant* • Federal programs no change no change no change * K-3 class-size reduction, home-to-school transportation, school facilities aid, summer school/after school, staff development buy-back

  13. Revenue Comparison (thousands)Charter District vs. Status Quo (01-02 est.) “Bottom Line”: District gains $710,000

  14. District Budget OutlookDeclining Enrollment REVENUES

  15. Declining EnrollmentThe Funding Squeeze • District loses 100 students • Revenue loss @ $4,528 per pupil $452,800 • District lays off 4 teachers • Savings @ $50,000 (sal/benefits) -200,000 Additional cuts needed$252,800

  16. What Has District Doneto Cope with Enrollment Loss? • Expanded alternative education/charters • Keeps students in District • Increases revenues by $600,000+ annually • “Freed up” unrestricted resources with categorical funds • $379,000 in 2000-01, $65,000 thereafter • Maximized grants and donations • Packard Foundation, Field of Dreams

  17. Defining the Problem:Declining Enrollment or Raises? • FACT: All districts received an 11% increase in unrestricted funding per-pupil • FACT: SLVUSD must pay competitive wages to retain high-quality staff • FACT: SLVUSD could afford to grant all employees a 10% salary increase, were it not for declining enrollment.

  18. Enrollment-related* Cuts (millions)Status Quo $2.4 million *Funding loss due to enrollment decrease since 1999-00.

  19. Declining EnrollmentBridging the $2.4 Million Gap • Charter District $710,000 • Employee raises below 10% 800,000 • Classified & management 6.2% • Teachers retro to 11/1/2000 • Staff dev buy-back & beg teacher • Ongoing Spending Cuts 414,000 • Administrative cuts -- $100,000 • Other cuts -- $314,000 • One-Time Spending Cuts 286,000 • Beginning Balance 191,000 TOTAL $2,401,000

  20. Enrollment-related* Cuts (millions)Status Quo Cumulative additional cuts: $8.1 million *Funding loss due to enrollment decrease since 1999-00.

  21. Enrollment-related* Cuts (millions)Charter District Cumulative additional cuts: $4.6 million *Funding loss due to enrollment decrease since 1999-00.

  22. The “Bottom Line”Cumulative Cuts Over 5 Years • Status Quo $8.1 million • Charter District 4.6 million • Difference $3.5 million SAVINGS: $700,000 PER YEAR

More Related