Date: February 10, 2016 For ACTION For INFORMATION X Board Agenda: Yes No X FROM: Stacey Johnson, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Alvin L. Crawley, Ed.D., Superintendent TO: The Honorable Karen A. Graf, Chairman, and Members of the Alexandria City School Board TOPIC: School Board Questions on FY 2017 Proposed Budget – Packet #1 BACKGROUND: The attached packet contains responses to 73 budget questions from School Board members. With this packet, 73 of 83 questions have been answered. Also included in this packet is the School Board Budget Question log. CONTACT PERSON: Stacey Johnson, 703-619-8141 FY 2017 Budget Responses February 10, 2016 Packet #1 Amended February 12, 2016 #B-17-01 Board Member: Margaret Lorber, January 29, 2016 Respondent: Clarence Stukes, Chief Operating Officer Alvin Crawley, Superintendent of Schools Question: Regarding school capacity: a. How will ACPS deal with the capacity crisis we currently face, even if the new Preschool Center and West End elementary school are approved? How will ACPS alleviate crowding next fall? b. Does ACPS have any plans to provide temporary classrooms at the most crowded schools for SY 2016-17? Will temporary classrooms be set up at Minnie Howard and is there room to place them on the grounds of the most crowded elementary schools, such as John Adams or William Ramsay? c. What is Plan B if the Preschool Center or West End elementary school are not completed either because funding is not approved or the right facilities cannot be acquired? Would ACPS consider trailers as an affordable short term solution? Response: a. We will address student enrollment issues similar to past years by: looking at each school's projected enrollment and capacity. When required, students will be assigned to nearby schools with grade level capacity based on modified open enrollment (MOE). We will also look at spaces in buildings to determine if there is any flexibility for additional instructional spaces. b. Our staff will make recommendations about the need for additional Learning Cottages (trailers) at elementary schools no later than March, if necessary. It is our plan to put 6-8 relocatable classrooms on the Minnie Howard Campus for this coming school year using existing FY 2016 funds. c. At present, we have not recommended the widespread use of trailers as the solution to crowding. In the event we do not receive funding, we will have to pursue other solutions that may include trailers pending School Board approval. We are in the process of looking at leased spaces. I believe that there will be viable leased space options to consider. #B-17-02 Board Member: Margaret Lorber, January 29, 2016 Respondent: Clarence Stukes, Chief Operating Officer Alvin Crawley, Superintendent of Schools Question: Is it possible to set up trailers as temporary classrooms for next year's immediate capacity needs and swing space? Should funding be added for trailers or modulars to the FY 2017 budget? Page 1 of 51 FY 2017 Budget Responses February 10, 2016 Packet #1 Amended February 12, 2016 Response: Given the long-term plan for modernization of several schools over the next ten years and size of our schools, individual trailers are problematic. Ideally, large modular units are the most feasible. However, many of our schools are site-constrained. For example, it would be extremely difficult to put modular units on Douglas MacArthur's site and safely build a new school. There are limited land options in the City to locate the number of trailers on a site that would accommodate an entire school. #B-17-03 Board Member: Margaret Lorber, January 29, 2016 Respondent: Alvin Crawley, Superintendent of Schools Question: How will the 0.50 FTE position for residency verification be implemented? Is it possible for the responsibilities to be absorbed by the division-wide parent liaison in the ELL office? While it is not solely an ELL issue, the division-wide parent liaison could work with ELL families and also advise the registrars. Response: As our school division continues to grow, staff believes that it is critical that we have a dedicated person working with school and central office staff to monitor and follow-up on questionable cases of residency. This work is not confined to any one group of students. Given the size of our school division and the time it takes to follow up on residency verification cases, we have recommended additional human resources. Based on the number of families receiving services through our Welcome Center, staff does not believe that current ELL staff can take on the additional system-wide demands of residency verification. It has been our experience that a position dedicated to residency issues is cost efficient and assures our community that all of the students in our school division meet enrollment requirements in ACPS. #B-17-04 Board Member: Margaret Lorber, January 29, 2016 Respondent: Alvin Crawley, Superintendent of Schools Question: Please explain the merits of the new office partnership position. If ACPS wants to switch to an RFP system, can it be accomplished with current staff? Response: Included as Attachment 1 is a copy of the most recent Partnership Report including funded partners and outcomes, as well as a list of approximately 50 non-funded partners. Please know that we appreciate all of our partnerships, both funded and unfunded. The revised proposal accomplishes the following: moves funding in the amount of $200,000 to Curriculum and Instruction, where proposals for compensating eligible groups are selected based on the instructional needs of our school division; and builds capacity for the school division to coordinate large community-funded capital projects or private/public partnerships. We are also looking at strengthening the alignment and coordination of various partnerships across departments. Page 2 of 51 FY 2017 Budget Responses February 10, 2016 Packet #1 Amended February 12, 2016 #B-17-05 Board Member: Margaret Lorber, January 29, 2016 Respondent: Terri Mozingo, Chief Academic Officer Question: Specialized Instruction independent audit: a. What is the status of the Specialized Instruction, aka Special Education, independent audit? b. Where is it currently on the schedule? c. Did the list of scheduled evaluations from the Department of Accountability include a budget for funding the various evaluations? Response: Two years ago, we laid out a plan to conduct specific evaluations in the school division over five years. This information was shared with the board so that we were clear on which evaluations would be undertaken and how staff resources would be used. This action was necessary given the size and work demands of the Accountability Office. For example, we are currently undergoing a major evaluation of our curriculum in the core subject areas using external evaluators and internal staff resources. These findings will inform our work on behalf of all students. Unlike most areas, special education has annual and ongoing reporting requirements to meet state and federal indicators of performance that range from timeliness of meetings to graduation outcome data. We would be happy to share with you the massive amount of data that is already collected. Upon review of the new special education plan, you will see additional outcome- driven reporting actions that will be used to address targeted areas of the plan. While staff supports the importance of conducting an external special education evaluation to determine our effectiveness and impact on students, we do not recommend that it is done through the 2017 budget. #B-17-06 Board Member: Cindy Anderson, January 29, 2016 Respondent: Julie Crawford, Chief Student Services, Alternative Programs & Equity Officer Alvin Crawley, Superintendent of Schools Question: Regarding the proposed deletion of partnership funds, I have the following questions/concerns: a. Where can I find a list of the partners we funded last year and how much each organization received? What kind of application process and/or evaluation process currently exists? b. Who is currently responsible for managing our partners? c. Is there a more effective way to leverage our funding rather than creating another position? d. What will be the impact on the program of having to wait to hire a new employee and have a new program set-up? e. What do the principals and teachers say about the partnership program? Response: The 2014-2015 Partners in Education Report to the Community provides an overview of organizations which received funding, the amount allocated, total students served and the academic outcomes achieved, and attached as Attachment 1. Currently, the partners are managed by the Coordinator of Partnerships, Family and Community Engagement in the Department of Student Services. Under the proposal, the new position would focus on Page 3 of 51 FY 2017 Budget Responses February 10, 2016 Packet #1 Amended February 12, 2016 strengthening partnerships with a major focus on building our internal and external capacity to coordinate large community facility projects and build public/private partnership opportunities. Based on a review of our existing resources and staffing, we believe the creation of the director position is the most effective way to leverage our financial resources. The director will be able increase consistency by developing and implementing efficient work flow processes across multiple departments. Under the proposal, the funded partners that are in the Partnership Report could still apply for funding through an RFP (which we did this year) with dedicated funds held in the Curriculum and Instruction Budget. Staff would work with schools to determine our programmatic needs. I shared this model with principals prior to the release of the budget and they thought it was a sensible approach. It is highly unusual for a school division to funds its “partner volunteers.” The recommended approach would be aligned with how we purchase educational services or resources in general.