11. What is the cost to provide a refrigerator for Flower Hill Elementary school? Provide information on the Maryland Meals for Achievement (MMA) program including whether or not having a refrigerator impacts participation in the MMA program.
Budget page reference: N/A
Schools with Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) eligibility of 40 percent or greater are eligible to participate in the Maryland Meals for Achievement (MMFA) program. Whether or not a school has a refrigerator has no bearing on its eligibility. Every year in April, the Division of Food and Nutrition Services applies to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) for all eligible schools. Currently, 80 schools are eligible based on the fact that 40 percent or more of their students are eligible for FARMS. However, MSDE determines the schools that will participate in the program based on available funding. At this time, MCPS has 31 participating schools: 27 elementary schools and 4 secondary schools.
The equipment needed depends on the particular facility. The cost of a refrigerator is $6,000 for a 2-door reach-in refrigerator. An additional milk cooler would be $3,500.
12. How are Alternative Level 1 staffing allocations determined?
Budget page reference: N/A
Alternative Program options are designed to provide academic and behavioral support to secondary students who have not been successful in the general education program. The goal of all of the Alternative Programs is to return the student to a comprehensive school as soon as possible.
Level 1 Alternative Programs are available for students who are experiencing academic and/or behavioral difficulties and who are not demonstrating progress in response to prescribed instructional and/or behavioral interventions and strategies that have been provided in general education.
Each secondary school has staff members dedicated to the development and implementation of a school-based Level 1 Alternative Program. With ongoing direct instruction in these areas, as well as guidance and monitoring, students in these programs should be able to experience greater success and remain in the mainstream of school activities. The programs also are designed to support the student in his or her general education classes.
There is no staffing formula used to allocate positions to Alternative Level 1 programs at schools. The Alternative Level 1 staffing allocations are determined for individual middle and high schools based on a school’s historical Level 1 Alternative Program enrollment data throughout the school year, the school’s total enrollment of students, the number of student referrals made to a Level 2 Alternative Program at a school, the percentage of students at a school that are identified as ineligible, the percentage of students at a school that are identified as FARMS eligible, and a school’s drop-out rate.
Enrollment at each school’s Level 1 Alternative Program fluctuates throughout the school year as student’s transition in or out of the program based on individual student needs and movement to and from Level 2 and 3 Alternative Programs.
13. Provide information about the Title I program and how have Title I funds been used over the past five years?
Budget page reference: 1-37
Title I, Part A grant funds are used to provide supplemental programs, staffing, and support to elementary schools with the highest rates of poverty. The MCPS model for staffing and programming for Title I schools include the following:
- Providing an equitable funding process to support elementary schools striving to achieve academic standards known as Adequate Yearly Progress.
- Providing funding for family involvement and extended-year programming.
- Implementing a full-day Head Start program in all Title I schools that have a Head Start program.
Title I school-based and family involvement allocations are based on the number of Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) students enrolled in the school as of October 31 of the previous year.
Schools may use allocated funds to:
- hire additional focus teachers and paraeducators in support of the core academic program.
- purchase supplemental instructional materials that are linked to the core academic areas of reading/language arts and mathematics and focus on the implementation of research-based instruction.
- fund school-based activities in the following areas:
- Professional Development–Title I schools identified for school improvement based on Maryland School Assessment results set aside 10 percent of their school allocation for professional development. Title I schools that are not identified for school improvement may elect to set aside funds for professional development activities.
- Schoolwide Initiatives–All Title I schools allocated up to 10 percent of their Title I school-based allocation to support schoolwide initiatives such as voluntary after-school curriculum planning meetings, consultants, or substitutes for grade-level, long-range planning meetings.
- Family Involvement–Title I regulations require that a portion of the district’s Title I, Part A funds be set aside for family involvement programs and services. Family involvement funds may be used for No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB)required parent meetings and other outreach activities. Funds may be used to facilitate parent involvement in preparation of the School Improvement Plan.
- Extended Day Programming–Title I schools may elect to allocate school-based funds for extended-day activities to support student achievement. Funds may be used to purchase materials that support academic sessions offered as a part of the extended-day program.
During the 2011–2012 school year, three Title I schools were identified for school improvement status. As a result, they had to set aside 10 percent of their school-based allocation to address professional development needs of the staff. Additionally, all three schools were required to offer the public school choice option, a provision in which students enrolled in a school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are given the opportunity to attend another public school in the Local Education Agency (LEA). To fulfill the guidelines of this requirement, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) set aside $156,000 to fund transportation for students transferring under this provision.
This school year MCPS as a system entered Year 1 of System Improvement status. Title I regulations require that districts in system improvement commit to set aside at least 10 percent of Title I, Part A funds to address the professional needs of the instructional staff serving the LEA.
The Title I, Part A, grant also funds the Title I summer program, Extended Learning Opportunities-Summer Adventures in Learning, (ELO SAIL) which provides a half-day academic program during the month of July for kindergarten through Grade 5 students enrolled in Title I schools. In addition to the academic component, students receive free breakfast, lunch, and transportation to and from school. The academic program consists of literacy and mathematics lessons that preview the curriculum content for the upcoming school year at each grade level. This provides students with an opportunity to build on skills critical to academic success. The goals of the program include the following:
- Accelerating learning by previewing grade-level concepts and skills.
- Strengthening basic skills that are the prerequisites for later learning.
- Alleviating the achievement loss experiences by students over the extended summer break.
- Providing continuing English language instruction for second language learners.
ELO SAIL is funded through the Title I, Part A, allocation. These funds are centrally reserved, which means that these funds are not included in Title I schools’ per pupil allocations and that the funds are deducted from the Title I,Part A, allocation from Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). School eligibility for ELO SAIL is determined by eligibility for the Title I program. Typically, all Title I schools are eligible to participate in the ELO SAIL program, which starts at the beginning of July. (Due to the June 28, 2011, decision to maintain Title I status for Twinbrook and Burnt Mills elementary schools, as a result of additional federal funding, ELO SAIL could not be offered at these two schools.)
Identification as a Title I school is based upon the percentage of students eligible for the Free and Reduced-price Meals System (FARMS) at each school. A rank order of schools based on FARMS rates is generated each year as of October 31. This ranking is used to create various options for funding of Title I schools based on the regulations of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. MCPS establishes the FARMS cut-off percentage when it decides how many schools it will serve. There are several factors that can result in a schools ineligibility or removal from the program. The factors include:
- Fluctuating Free and Reduced-price Meals System rates. Each year FARMS rankings fluctuate depending on enrollment and number of students eligible for the FARMS at each school. This may result in schools being added or removed from Title I status. Title I regulations state that districts must serve schools with Title I, Part A funds if the FARMS rate is at 75 percent or higher. After identification of all schools with a FARMS rate at or above 75 percent, districts may serve lower-ranked schools in rank order. In following this process MCPS establishes the FARMS cut-off percentage when it decides how many schools it will serve.
- Maryland State Department of Education Funding. Another determining factor for schools being removed from Title I status is funding from the MSDE. In February 2011 the Board was notified that available Title I funding to support the Title I 23 schools for 2011-2012 school year. These schools were those at or above the FARMS rate of 65.63 percent. This was based on preliminary information received from the state that we should assume title I funding for FY 2012 would be the same as received in FY 2011.
Based upon the approval process, once schools are no longer Title I eligible, the Department of Title I Programs discontinues fiscal support and technical assistance to these schools. MCPS makes decisions in regards to the type of support provided to schools for both Title I and ELO SAIL.
14. What formulas do other Maryland counties use to allocate psychologists?
Budget page reference: N/A
As shown below, Maryland school systems employ a range of practices and formulas for
allocating psychologists.
Anne Arundel County Public Schools (AACPS)
AACPS allocates school psychologists to schools as follows:
FTE Comprehensive Schools
0.2 Elementary school with less than 600 students
0.4 Elementary school with 600 or more students
0.6 Middle school
1.0 High school
AACPS allocates an additional 0.2 FTE psychologist for regional special education programs, such as Multiple Intensive Needs Classes, and regional programs for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and students with Emotional Disabilities.
Baltimore City Public School System (BCPSS)
BCPSS allocates a full-time school psychologist for every 850 students.
Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS)
Since 2005, BCPS has included a 0.6 FTE school psychologist allocation in its operating budget whenever a new school opens. Baltimore County Public Schools does not allocate school psychologists to schools by a formula.
Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS)
FCPS does not have a formula for allocating psychologists.
Howard County Public Schools (HCPS)
HCPS applies the following formula to allocate full-time equivalent (FTE) psychologists to schools and special education programs:
FTE Comprehensive Schools
0.4 - 0.5 Elementary school
0.5 Middle school
0.4 High school
FTE Comprehensive Schools (Continued)
0.1 Elementary schools with more than 750 students; secondary schools with more than 1,500 students
0.1 – 0.4 Schools with identified or “targeted” need
FTE Special Education Programs
0.1 - 0.4 Part C Regional Early Childhood Center (birth to age 3 years)
0.1 Multiple Intense Needs Program (MINC)
0.1 - 0.2 Local and regional Fundamental Life Skills programs
0.2 - 0.4 Local and regional Emotional Disability (ED) Program
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
MCPS does not have a staffing formula for psychologists. For FY 2013, psychologists are budgeted as follows:
Department of Special Education Services
Unit or School |
FTE
|
Autism Unit
|
1.5
|
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services
|
1.0
|
Developmental Evaluation Services for Children
|
1.5
|
Emotional Disabilities Services
|
8.0
|
Placement and Assessment Services
|
2.5
|
Preschool Education Program
|
2.5
|
Carl Sandburg
|
1.0
|
Rock Terrace
|
0.5
|
Subtotal
|
18.5
|
Department of Student Services
Unit |
FTE
|
Bilingual Assessment Team
|
5.0
|
Psychological Services
|
68.5
|
Subtotal
|
73.5
|
Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP)
Unit |
FTE
|
Prekindergarten and Head Start
|
2.805
|
Subtotal
|
2.805
|
Psychologists budgeted within the Psychological Services Unit provide psychological services within the comprehensive schools. The psychologists provide a broad range of consultation, assessment, counseling, intervention, and crisis services. School assignments are based upon multiple factors including overall school enrollment, special education program enrollments (e.g., Fundamental Life Skills and School/Community-based programs, etc.), psychological referral patterns, and geographic proximity of schools assigned to each psychologist.
Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS)
PGCPS does not have a staffing formula for psychologists
15. Please explain the role of the central office teacher? How will this impact instructional capacity within Alternative Programs?
Budget page reference: N/A
The role of the central office teacher for Alternative Programs, under the direction of the supervisor, assists in the planning and implementation of comprehensive programming to meet the unique and intense needs of students who have been referred from comprehensive schools or placed through the disciplinary process. In this capacity, the central office teacher applies knowledge of research in the area of alternative programs to develop and assist in implementing a strong instructional program to engage students in learning. The teacher supports staff in the seven alternative programs in guiding students through the learning process to meet their academic and behavior goals. In this capacity, the central office teacher applies knowledge and research to design intervention plans to address academic, truancy, and behavioral needs. Through the collaborative problem solving process and team meetings, the central office teacher leads interdisciplinary teams to develop and monitor intervention plans. The teacher works closely with the supervisor to analyze data, including the development, implementation, and monitoring of the Program Improvement Plan (PIP). The central office teacher also serves as the school test coordinator (STC) and student service learning (SSL) coordinator for the middle and high school alternative programs. The teacher also manages the budget and financial monitoring, including grants that support the programs. Critical to alternative programs are the responsibilities within the professional growth system, which include designing and providing staff development and staff observation and supervision.
Changing 2.0 12-month instructional specialist positions to 10-month central office teacher positions will not impact the ability to provide consistent support to students in the seven programs throughout the school year and during the summer. To ensure that there will be no impact, professional part-time funds are available to provide additional support. This recommendation was reviewed by the Associations, Deputy Superintendent, and Chief Operating Officer (ADC) committee and the committee agrees that the change is appropriate.
16. Staff has advised the BOE that MCPS would undertake a comprehensive look at various 12-month positions to determine which, if any, should be reduced to 10-month positions. Is this specific proposed reduction being recommended in the context of this budget review? What is the status of that larger review?
Budget page reference: N/A
A workgroup was formed this fall to review 12-month positions to determine if any should be changed to 10-month positions. The workgroup included each union’s executive director, other representatives from each employee organization, and MCPS staff. The workgroup implemented a process to review positions and gather input. This process included developing criteria and two stages of reviewing positions, an initial review to decide what positions would be excluded and a secondary review to gather data on the remaining positions.
During the initial review, a total of 1,082 different jobs were considered (182 administrators and supervisors, 79 MCEA other professionals, 49 MCBOA supervisors, and 772 supporting services positions). This resulted in a narrowed list of 145 jobs (11 administrators and supervisors, 68 MCEA other professionals, 3 MCBOA supervisors, and 63 supporting services positions) to be reviewed using identified criteria.
As a result of the second review, a list of positions was moved forward for consideration and further study by the Associations, Deputy Superintendent, and Chief Operating Officer Committee (ADC). The ADC has reviewed the positions and is currently discussing next steps. It is important to note that the review of the positions did not include meeting with individual employees who are in these positions. Supervisors and directors provided data, and job descriptions were used as a source. Before decisions can be made, the impact of the potential changes for employees, including salaries, must be considered. Also, if decisions to change work schedules are made, it will be essential to develop transition plans to minimize impact on employees.
In the FY 2013 Recommended Operating Budget, there is a reduction of 2.0 instructional specialist positions and a corresponding increase of 2.0 10-month central office teachers for Alternative Programs. This recommendation was reviewed by the committee and the committee agrees that the change is appropriate.
17. On page 1-31 there is a reference to projections for “decreased revenue” for Neglected and Delinquent Youth that necessitate a reduction in professional part-time salaries. Please explain.
Budget page reference: 1-31
Funding for the Neglected and Delinquent Youth program originates at the federal level and is awarded to MCPS via the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). Because the preliminary estimate from MSDE for FY 2013 is not available, the amount received for FY 2012 is the basis for the FY 2013 estimate. The amount received for FY 2012 is $54,313 less than the amount budgeted for FY 2012. Therefore, there is revenue failure of $54,313 this year, and the FY 2013 budget of $137,644 is reduced by $54,313.
There is a reduction of $18,053 for professional part-time salaries that are currently used to provide instructional services at the Montgomery County Correctional facility and to pay for student incentives for increased attendance and academic achievement. In addition, there is a reduction of $34,234 for contractual services used for social worker interns, school liaisons, and outdoor programs. A reduction of $2,026 for field trip transportation also will be required although the locally-funded budget for Alternative Programs will be sufficient to cover this cost.
18. The budget on Page 1-23 identifies a reduction to the High School Plus program. Please provide the cost of the program and enrollment numbers for High School Plus over the past two years and explain how the reduction will impact the number of students we can serve. Is data available on what the cost was for the last year that night school operated?
Budget page reference: 1-23
The chart below shows the enrollment, budget, and actual/projected expenditures for the High School Plus program, including the Twilight program, for FY 2010 through FY 2013.
Enrollment & Budget for the
High School Plus Program
(including the Twilight program)
|
|
FY 2010
|
FY 2011
|
FY 2012
|
FY 2013
|
Enrollment
|
Actual 5,124
|
Actual 4,469
|
Budgeted 4,390
|
Budgeted 4,400
|
Budget
Actual Expenditures
|
$1,861,060
$1,204,847
|
$1,509,060
$1,094,716
|
$1,509,060
$1,141,681
(projected)
|
$1,289,219
|
The FY 2013 recommended budget for High School Plus is $1,289,219, a decrease of $219,841 from the FY 2012 budget. As indicated in the chart above, actual spending has been lower than the amount budgeted. Based on the projection for this year, the amount budgeted for FY 2013 still leaves funding available for growth in the number of students.
The High School Plus program enables students who have failed courses to retake the courses for credit recovery. The classes meet beyond the school day typically for 100 minutes per day, two days per week. Students may take only one course per semester or no more than 2 courses in a school year.
The High School Plus program benefits the students it serves as it offers small class sizes and student-focused instruction. In FY 2011, over 60 percent of the students enrolled in a High School Plus course obtained credit through the program.
The cost of the last Evening High School Program in FY 2007 was $1,185,334. This amount included costs for administrators, substitutes, special education paraeducators, media specialists, ICB costs, and employee benefits. If the same program were to be implemented in FY 2012, taking into consideration compensation changes since FY 2007, the cost of the program would be $1,342,659.
19. A reduction to the Bridge to Academic Validation program is noted on the budget on page 4-13. Are these reductions based on anticipated decreases in student enrollment? Are we expecting a decrease in Bridge program projects due to the elimination of the Government HSA requirement?
Budget page reference: 4-10
There is a reduction of $9,000 for the Bridge to Academic Validation program for FY 2013. The budget reduction can be made as a result of a decrease in the number of Bridge Plan projects due to the elimination of both the Government HSA test and Government Bridge Plan.