ROSEBURG PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Roseburg, Oregon

No. 3 Budget Committee Meeting April 20, 2010

BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS: ADMINISTRATORS:

X / Denny Austin / X / Rick Barnes / X / Larry C Parsons, Superintendent
Exc / Rodney Cotton / X / Keith Cubic / X / David Hanson, Assistant Superintendent / HR
X / Joseph Garcia / X / Brian Davis / X / C. Lance Colley, Chief Operations Officer
Exc / Dan Huff / X / John Markovich / X / Dawne Huckaby, Director of Teaching & Learning
X / Charles Lee / X / Stacy Stiefel / X / Matt Brausam, Director of Student Services
Exc / Theresa Lundy / X / Bernis Wagner
Exc / Paul Meyer / X / Gary Wayman

Attendees: DD Bixby – The News Review

Cheryl Northam, Budget Accounting Manager

Dennis Randolph, Physical Plant Manager

Tim Stoelb, OSEA Representative

Janet Kischel, Budget Committee Secretary

NOTES OF THE BUDGET MEETING

TIME, PLACE:The third meeting of the Budget Committee of Douglas County School District

No. 4 to approve the Budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year was held in the Board Room of the Central Office at 7:00 p.m.on Tuesday, April 20, 2010.

ATTENDANCE:Committee members present were Denny Austin, Rick Barnes, Keith Cubic, Brian Davis, Joseph Garcia, Charles Lee, John Markovich, Stacy Stiefel, Bernis Wagner and

Gary Wayman. Rod Cotton, Dan Huff, Theresa Lundy, and Paul Meyer were excused.

Administrators present were Larry Parsons, David Hanson, Lance Colley, Dawne Huckabyand

Matt Brausam.

CALL TO ORDER: BudgetCommittee Chair,Keith Cubic, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

FLAG SALUTE: Mr. Cubicasked Mr. Wayman to lead the pledge to the flag.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 15, 2010: Mr. Austin moved to accept the minutes as presented. Mr. Wayman seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

REVIEW OF AGENDA: The committee requested no changes to the proposed agenda format.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Chair Cubic asked if any parties wished to offer a comment to the committee, and there were none.

Mr. Davis shared that not as a committee member, but as a parent of children attending Hucrest, he wanted to commend the staff for the job yesterday in locking down the school due to a local criminal event. It was handled professionally and children indicated it was the highlight of their day.

BUDGET DELIBERATIONS

Lance introduced Dawne Huckaby, Director of Teaching and Learning, and Matt Brausam, Director of Student Services, who will both be addressing the committee this evening as we move through the document. Larry noted for newer participants that the department formerly known as “Curriculum” is now identified as “Teaching and Learning”, to more accurately describe their function.

General Fund: Lance explained that the proposed General Fund budget this year took a long time to put together as we were attempting to make sure everything was correctly entered in the program. This budget is a roll-up of current year services. Only current programs are included in the document, along with status quo costs. Our labor contracts expire June 30, 2010. Larry asked Lance to explain what happens if bargaining results in differing amounts than indicated in this document. Lance responded that the document is only an estimate of what we anticipate costs to be. Our Board negotiates the agreements with our licensed and classified groups, together with conditions of employment for administrative and confidential staff. This is in essence a spending plan. In the absence of bargained agreements, the roll-up levels go into effect July 1st.

General Fund Revenue: Our current tax rate is a little over $4.0327 per $1,000. Over time our collection ratio is 91.99%. Lance noted that Cheryl Northam has been working hard to identify our services such as long distance, internet activity, etc. that qualify for e-rate reimbursement. The federal E-Rate program pays us about 75% of the cost of the services we receive. Douglas Fast Net provides fiber optic capacity for all of our schools. We plan to increase our bandwidth up to 10 fold starting with the 2010-11 school year.

Our primary revenues from the state come from 1) StateSchool Support, based on 51% of the $6 billion allocation the legislature provided. We hope that enrollment doesn’t decline. Our estimate at $31,530,000 is almost exactly what we received in 2007-08. 2) Federal Forest Fees, while reduced to $1,530,000 continue to ratchet down, they remain a significant revenue source for school districts. As part of the State School Fund Formula, when federal forest fees decline, all districts across the state share the reduction proportionately. This results in an impact to our district of approximately half of the amount of the reduced funding. Our total resources are $49,321,000. Our goal is to not spend $1,000,000 of those dollars to preserve our ending fund balance.

Larry added that our philosophy is that we should maintain 5-8% of our ending fund balance. We have been able to maintain approximately 2%. We began building the balance in 2003-04 and finally reached 5% in 2008-09, just in time for the economic downturn. Gary inquired where stimulus funds are located in the document, and Lance stated that these are allocated in the Special Revenue areas of Title I and IDEA and approximate $665,000 in funding within the General Fund

District Goals: In the Budget Message, the goals begin on Page v. Our intent and plan is to always have the goals that the Board adopts driving our spending plan.

Dawne shared that our primary focus is to teach students. We are constantly assessing our students’ progress toward standards, and the bulk of the budget is the result of how to make sure we have highly qualified teachers in the classrooms. Resources are directed toward math and reading. We are held accountable for reading, math and writing, but are also doing a lot with Science, Social Studies and the Arts. At RHS, we also have foreign language and career/ technical programs.

Another goal pertains to School-Wide Climate, essentially our efforts to make sure our schools and classes are safe, and students are respectful and responsible. A “Continuous Improvement” process is used as programs are evaluated. A wide variety of data is gathered, including how students are performing and observations in the classrooms. Our teams meet to review data and identify priorities. Some of our schools have identified additional goals for their sites after reviewing data.

Ultimately we are preparing students for their next step, whether that is their next grade, college education, military career, etc. Everything focuses on core instruction. Efforts are made for earlier identification of kids who are struggling academically in an attempt to compress the achievement gap for students.

Average Yearly Progress: Districts must meet all 42 indicators, although credit is awarded for districts showing growth. This tells us how we are doing with instructional targets the State has set for reading and math.

State Report Card: This program was in place prior to AYP. This is the State’s method of getting information to the public about how schools are doing in Oregon.

Both of these programs are indicators of how schools are performing in academics and behaviors.

OAKS: Mr. Cubic asked for clarification of this program. Dawne explained that this is the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. This state assessment system utilizes an on line test for math, reading and social science.

Graduation Requirements: Lance added that graduation requirements are changing, and a new requirement is that to graduate, students must pass the OAKS test. The graduating class of 2012 must pass the State reading assessment in order to graduate. The freshman class will also have to pass the tests for reading and writing. The class after that will have math added as well. Stacy inquired if we expect graduation rates to drop as a result of these requirements, and Dawne responded that we would hope not. This is the reason we try to identify students early on, and students may test many times. Larry commented that each State sets their own standards, resulting in test results that have no commonality.

Function 1111 – Primary K-3 and 1112 – Intermediate 4-5: Lance stated that the proposed staffing levels are a reflection of staffing currently in place. In response to Mr. Garcia’s inquiry regarding how last year’s budget cut affected elementary staffing, Mr. Hanson provided three pages of staffing allocations for consideration. He explained that we utilized stimulus dollars for instructional coaches this year and next. We are also a “District in Improvement” which means that we cannot add IA instructional time to a Title I school. We can add hours to existing staff to bring them to full or ½ time.

White Handout – Elementary Enrollment 3/31/10 (100 fte)

Dave shared the current allocation of elementary staffing. While last year’s budget reduced some positions that we accomplished through attrition, our class sizes are overall pretty respectable. Hucrest had an influx of 96 students from the prior year, resulting in a gain of 31 after some students left. Dave reminded us that when we get an unexpected increase, we add IAs as needed. He further noted that Roseburg historically has enjoyed some of the smallest class sizes in the region. Our Board targets 23 students in elementary classrooms, and 25-28 in intermediate. As “bubbles” of students move through the grades, we are constantly having to move staff to go with those higher numbers of students. As our number of students increased unexpectedly in the 4-5 blended classroom at Hucrest, we have opted to have students receive reading instruction in smaller groups in other classrooms. Again, when two curriculums are taught in the blended classes, we provide additional IA support. This year we have six blended classrooms.

Yellow Handout – 2010-2011 No Blended Classrooms (103 fte)

Mr. Garcia had questioned what it would look like to have no blended classes, and that would result in the need for three additional teachers, an increase of approximately $200-225,000 in costs. Ms. Wagner inquired if parents have a choice of classrooms, and Dave responded that we try to reduce class size in those classrooms to accommodate the two grade levels, and do try to accommodate parent choice when possible. Seven of our nineelementaryschools qualify for Title I status, enabling us to supplement IA support in those classrooms. Dawne added that our Title I allocation increases as our percentage of students eligible for free and reduced lunch increases.

We are also experiencing decreased enrollment in both Melrose (236) and Rose (234).

Blue Handout – 2010-2011 Blended Classrooms (98 fte)

This projection shows what it would look like if we had blended classrooms, using the same strategies utilized this year. There would be six blended classes: Eastwood (1-2), Fir Grove (4-5), Melrose (2-3), Rose (1-2) and (4-5), and Sunnyslope (4-5).

Mr. Lee pointed out that every fall, enrollment changes. Mr. Markovich noted enrollment numbers, and Larry acknowledged that the Board will be looking at configurations District-wide. It may be hard to maintain 9 elementary schools if enrollment levels continue to drop. Ms. Wagner inquired how students in blends are testing, and Dawne explained that elementary instructors typically give early literacy tests late in the school year. Charles added that the District has historically utilized more experienced staff in the blended classes.

Mr. Garcia noted he did not support blends last year and would like more information. He felt that the curriculum staff last year was not supportive of the concept. Lance explained that for six consecutive years, our enrollment levels have dropped. We are trying to meet the Board directives for specific grade levels.

Mr. Austin acknowledged that while valid points were being brought forward, his understanding is that staffing levels are a Board responsibility. Mr. Cubic agreed that fte is clearly a school board decision, but that the budget drives the fte level. He stated that the proposed budget includes 100 fte. It would take 103 fte (yellow handout) to have no blends. It would take 98 fte (blue handout) to have 6 blends.

Ms. Wagner suggested the Board may want to consider not having blended classrooms, or have 100 rather than 98 fte. Mr. Lee shared that blended classrooms relate not only to size, but a number of other considerations also must be weighed. Other things to consider may include:

  • Some classroom make-ups are more conducive to a blend.
  • Is a larger class better than a blended classroom?
  • If we are sensitive to blended classrooms, you could consider restricting the community to what school their student may attend based on our enrollment numbers. We have not placed any restrictions on student movement in the past.
  • You cannot control where children will pop up.

Mr. Davis observed that this budget reflects a slight improvement in budget, as well as a slight improvement in our blended numbers.

The current budget (white) would be a hybrid at (100 fte) of the yellow (103 fte) and blue (98 fte) sheets. Lance shared that if had had another $1.5 million, we would not have included blends and would have provided funding for the items discussed last week. With the allocation of $49 million, this is a roll-up of our current services and our best attempt to fund the highest education level we can with the resources we have available.

Function 1121 – 1122 Middle School: Lance stated that we are basically rolling up current staffing levels. We would prefer to have at least two additional teachers at both middle schools. Staffing at both schools are virtually identical. Mr. Stiefel inquired if we are expecting any wide variations in numbers of students, and Lance indicated that we anticipate a slightly smaller group coming in than the group going out. RHS may see a growth of 50-60 students next year as we have a very small graduating class this year, and larger 8th grade class coming in as freshmen. We are looking at fairly stable enrollment projections at this level, and Mr. Cubic confirmed that we have a licensed staff to student ratio of approximately 21.

Function 1122 – Middle School Co-Curricular: This reflects all athletic programs and extra curricular activities for which we incur additional costs. It includes after school activities. Last budget year we reduced 7th and 8th grade football from two teams to one at each middle school. The Board responded to concerns with that model and we have reinstated the additional teams at each site. Approximately 45-50 kids participate at each level. Mr. Stiefel inquired if there had been a reduction last year in volleyball, and staff will research that. (There were no reductions in the prior year.)

Function 1131 – RHS 9-12: We are proposing 76.25 fte at RHS to run classes next year, which is exactly what we have right now, again, rolling up existing staff. Lance pointed out the difference in PERS costs, and this is a reflection of how we are budgeting our obligation to pay PERS.

Ms. Wagner inquired what our health insurance rate is this year, and Lance indicated that we have a benefit cap for employees, who have out of pocket amounts varying from $100-$400 depending on what plan they select. Classified staff working 4 or more hours per day are eligible for a pro-rated benefit.

Mr. Stiefel assumed that our instructional costs will increase due to OAKS, etc., and this is correct. Mr. Parsons explained that even though schools are required to comply with mandated services, reporting requirements, etc., the organizations making those decisions are not funding the districts to meet the expenses that go along with the mandates. We anticipate a larger student population at RHS, but this should not be problem as there are approximately 75 class offerings, and more instructors who previously only taught electives are being asked to assist in teaching core subjects, thereby reducing class sizes in the areas that most students must receive credits.

Function 1132 – RHS Co-Curricular: During last year’s budget process, we ultimately did not have to make as many reductions as originally planned. We are increasing the budget in purchased services and supply areas to cover actual costs. Mr. Garcia asked for clarification of the increase in extra-duty salaries, and Lance explained that this is due to the corrections we have made in aligning positions with appropriate line items so that we can clearly see actual costs associated with specific areas. This year, our actual costs will exceed the budget. Cheryl Northam has been reviewing all extra-duty positions to assure that associated stipends are budgeted to correctly.

Function 1210 – Programs for Talented and Gifted: Dawne explained that even though we have some requirements to provide services for TAG, services are provided through our regular education programs. We provide opportunities for these students to work through their course work faster so they can get to a higher level, and they may also take classes at UmpquaCommunity College. Mr. Lee added that instead of providing a formal program for these students, we provide them with opportunities and try not to get in their way.