FY 2022 BOARD BUDGET RETREAT - February 27, 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FY 2022
BOARD
BUDGET RETREAT
February 27, 2021
Welcome & Open Remarks Audit, Budget, Finance Co-Chairs Board Members Avant & Love
Today’s Agenda
8:00 am – 9:00 am Breakfast
9:00 am – 9:05 am Welcome & Open Remarks
9:05 am - 9:15 am Ice Breakers
District’s Long Term Financial Outlook
9:15 am – 10:30 am
& Board Discussion
10:30 am – 11:00 am Reimagining 901
Board 11:00 am - 12:00 pm Operating & CIP Budget Development
Budget
12:00 pm – 12:45pm Lunch
12:45 pm – 3:00 pm ESSER Funds & Board Discussion
Retreat Additional Discussions (As Needed)
3:00 pm – 3:30 pm & Closing Remarks
ICE BREAKER #1
“A SCS Story” 1. Shelby County Schools has a ______ member board with ______ past district employees. 2. There are many ways that they each show their devotion and support for Shelby County Schools. The Chair, a strong education advocate and proud mom of Langston serves graciously with ____ board members who started their board tenures before the year _____. It takes passion to serve and devote the amount of time committed within those years. 3. One Board member can even boastfully state that she has ____ children and ____ grandchildren that either graduated or attend SCS. 4. Another Board member who often prays over us all has a true passion for ______ and _______. She retired after 38 years of service. 5. While there are many board members who have served multiple years, there is one newly elected board member who proudly serves District 5 that _____ her Hound Dog, named _________ . 6. There are ____ gentlemen on the board that proudly serve District’s ____ and ____. They have been Board Members since ____. 7. This Board member’s daughter (Peyton) attends _______. She is a strong community and education advocate, and received the following award ________. 8. This Board Member is passionate about her community. Her advocacy began in ______ at ________ Headstart. The SCS Board Members are passionate and the absolute best Board Members in the nation!
Ice Breaker
#2
What Kind of
Education
Superhero Leader, are
you?
Education Superhero Leaders Today, education leaders are our newest superheroes. From the start of the pandemic, principals sprang into action delivering meals and learning devices. Educators shifted instruction. School communities came together in their loss and in defense of racial justice. Five months later, educators and leaders across the country continue to meet this moment: protecting learning, preserving community, and promoting connectedness in every form of classroom. – New Leaders
Long Term Financial Outlook
Today’s Journey
Journey Begins with Enrollment
• Projections for Historical Enrollment
• Where does enrollment take us?
• Board member Group Break out Sessions
Journey Continues Revenues & Expenditures
Long Term • Revenue & State Funding Assumptions
• General Fund Per Pupil Spending
Financial • Board member Reflections
• Student Based Budgeting Pop Quiz & Recap
Outlook • Summary of Long-Term Financial Outlook
(General Fund)
2035
68,614 38,094
2034
62,376 44,332
2033
56,706 50,002
2032
51,551 55,157
2031
46,864 59,844
2030
42,604 64,104
2029
38,731 67,993
PreK
2028
35,210 71,517
Adult
2027
32,009 74,713
Current Enrollment Cap 22,994
Contract Schools
2026
29,099 77,609
2025
26,454 80,346
Enrollment Trends
2024
24,049 82,830
Charters
2023
21,863 85,088
SCS
2022
19,875 87,137
2021
19,203 85,437
2020
17,934 87,623
2019
15,774 88,347
2018
14,928 89,076
2017
13,305 90,147
2016
12,187 94,116
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0Historical Growth Trends of Charters
$200,000,000 25,000
$185,441,812
$172,333,143
$180,000,000
$160,191,634
$160,000,000 20,000
$140,920,374
$140,000,000 Historical $126,572,780
Charter growth on average 10- 12% annually $109,911,287
$120,000,000 15,000
$93,070,446
$81,234,456
$100,000,000
$66,980,339
$80,000,000 $55,327,390 10,000
$51,101,585
$60,000,000
$38,449,101
$40,000,000 $29,227,295 5,000
$20,408,967
$20,000,000
$- -
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Enrollment Allocations Linear (Allocations)General Fund Financial Outlook
As student enrollment shifts and fixed cost remain constant in the short run, budget reductions
will shift pressures to decentralization and a charter majority school district.
BUDGET REDUCTIONS TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONS
2025
Decreasing Ability to Fund Centralized Operations &
Majority District-Run Schools & District-Run Schools
Centralized Administration
2027-2030
Decentralization
• Assumes no trade-offs 2023
• 10% Average Charter Growth
• Assumes minimal inflation in major contracts
• Employee average 2% raises
• Holding Schools with General Fund SBB Funding 2033
and sustaining school programs Charter Majority DistrictInstructions
Based on the information presented, discuss in your
groups and answer the following questions:
1. Is there support for limiting the rate of new
Charter school growth to ensure a balanced
portfolio of District-run and Charter Schools
supported by a centralized administration and
why?
2. What does a balanced portfolio look like?
Board 3. What lessons have you learned from the
Member charter school movement that you think would
apply to the scalability of the district?
Break Out
Supplemental Documents:
Sessions • Charter School Policy
• One pager of the State’s Charter CommissionThe Journey
Continues
Revenues & ExpendituresRevenues Trends
$1,400,000,000
• The State’s Basic Education Program formula has
Total increased unit variables primarily through a 2%
$1,200,000,000 Revenue instructional component increase or $6-7M.
• The County has held the maintenance of effort
$1,000,000,000 $427.3M. SCS’s portion of the County funding is
approximately 77%. This is for SCS, Charters, and ASD.
$800,000,000
• Federal and local revenue includes indirect cost from
State grants and miscellaneous revenues collected.
$600,000,000
• Building rents are declining due to sales.
County
$400,000,000 • Investment income has declined based on
market and economy.
$200,000,000
Federal &
$- Local
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040State Funding
Instructional Salary Increases
1. State’s Calculation includes SCS, Charters, & ASD.
2. Shelby County School’s Average Salary is approximately $9K-10K
Higher than the State’s Unit Variable for Average Salary.
3. Shelby County Schools has 1K+ positions higher than the State’s
Instructional Salary Component Calculation.
**Funding received from the State’s Instructional Salaries
Does Not Cover an Equivalent % Raise to SCS Instructional Staff **BEP Instructional Salaries Component
State Send Funds for SCS, ASD, Charters SCS Portion of State Funding SCS Disbursements
State’s
Funded BEP State’s
Salary Funded Instructional SCS’s SCS Funding SCS’s
(Including Positions for Increase on SCS’s Funding from SCS’s Positions Disbursed to SCS’s Average
CDF) State & Local BEP Portion State of TN Funded Instructional Positions Salary Compensation
Performance Based
(included in base pay)
TEM 3 $750, TEM 4 $1000,
2018- 3% $47,787 7,965 79% $6,818,692 6,292 $8,479,726 7,854 $58,773 TEM 5 $1500, Veteran
$8,631,256 Performer, Hard-to-Staff,
Advanced Degree, Stay
Pay
3% applied (included in
base) Veteran Performer,
2019-3% $48,672 8,020 $9,339,091 78% $7,284,491 6,256 $11,079,087 7,510 $59,474
Hard-to-Staff, Advanced
Degree, Stay Pay
3% applied (included in
base)
2020 TEM Bonus
$49,474 8,011 $7,364,374 78% $5,744,212 6,249 $17,612,974 7,522 $58,787
3% Teacher Max Bonus
Retention
Advanced Degrees
1% applied
2021 (included in base pay)
$49,969 8,130 $10,245,225 76% $7,786,371 6,179 $12,296,352 7,303 $58,582
1% $1,000 Certified; $500
*Non Reoccurring 1% Raise Due to Special Legislation * Classified
2022-3% $51,453 8,130 $6,552,444 75% $4,914,333 6,098 $8,631,975 $59,053 2% Base PayBoard Member
Thoughts on State Funding
1. What resonated with you on the state’s
instructional salary slide?
2. How do we present this clear? So that our
stakeholders can better understand?
Board 3. Feedback?
Member
ReflectionsGeneral Fund Operating Cost Per Pupil
On average, SCS receives $9,700 for students from State and Local Funding Sources
120%
100%
15%
80% 12%
60% 27%
40%
20% 46%
0%
Per Pupil
Site Based
Expenditures Fixed or Mandated
School Programs
School Supports & Central OfficeFixed & Mandated Cost (Per Pupil)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Amended“POP QUIZ ON SBB”
1. What does SBB stand for?
2. Why did we implement SBB?
3. What is a weight?
Board 4. How many weights are there?
Member
-Pop Quiz-School Allocations with SBB
2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
SCS K-12 for Staffing 86,351 84,857 83,672 83,865
Only
SBB Pool 398,925,819 405,021,599 386,880,226 381,886,187
Staffing Allocations 365,425,439 375,002,884 370,249,031 367,725,029
Based on Enrollment
Additional SBB Dollars 33,500,380 30,018,715 16,631,195 14,161,158
Budgeted
*Excludes PrincipalsSchools Examples “If Pool Is Reduced”
SBB Allocation FY' 22 FY' 22
Actual 20th
revised based
Projected FY '22
enrollment dollars vs. At this time,
on 20th day Projected FY' 22 vs. Actual Actual
School Day
count Enrollment
BASELINE ONLY
20th day 20th day school’s pool will
Enrollment No Additional SBB $
(with extra enrollment dollars remain funded!
Pool) FY'21 FY'21
School A 348
321 1,886,031 1,718,755 27 (167,276) Enrollment Shifts
School B 176 1,179,387 185 1,175,234 9 (4,153) will Only Be
Considered to
School C 544 2,199,511 615 3,487,145 71 1,287,633 Ensure Resources
School D 1,586 6,126,265 1,522 5,176,431 (64) (949,834)
Follow Students
Scenarios
▪ School A – gaining 27 students, will however need to reduce budget by $167K.
▪ School B – example of very smalls school, won’t really be impacted.
▪ School C– example of a few schools that are expecting a significant gain, so they will need additional staff.
▪ School D– large schools will be impacted the most.Timeline for Schools SBB Retreat (tentatively planned March 11 or 12) SBB Workbooks delivered to Principals March 15th Budget Checkout kicks off April 5 – April 20th (after Spring Break)
Causes of Operating Budget Pressures
Internal Factors External Factors
Fixed Expenditures Underfunded
BEP
Enrollment Shifts State
Mandates Operating
Budget Pressures
Education
Sustainability of
Landscape =
Student Based Budgeting
Decentralization
&
Other Factors Charter
Majority District
Return of ASD
Schools
Legislature
Continued Voucher
AttemptsBoard Member Thoughts
on the Long Term
Financial Outlook?
1. What resonated with you on the Long-Term
Financial Outlook?
2. What do you think our next steps should be?
Board 3. Feedback?
Member
ReflectionsReimagining
901FY 2022
Operating
Budget DevelopmentDistrict Priorities
WHEREAS, the Strategic Plan includes the following priorities:
Priority 1: Strengthen Literacy
Priority 2: Improve Post-Secondary Readiness
Priority 3: Develop Teachers, Leaders and Central Office to Drive Student Success
Priority 4: Expand High-Quality School Options
Priority 5: Mobilize Family and Community Partners; AND
WHEREAS, this Strategic Plan includes the following initiatives:
Initiative 1: Strengthen Early (K-2) and Continuing Literacy (3-12);
Initiative 2: Recruit and retain the best district leaders and teachers in the nation, immerse them in professional
development to embrace and teach foundational literacy skill concepts, and entrench them in the community and
classroom;
Initiative 3: Create relevant and equitable academic choices and learning environments to ensure scholars are
prepared for the global workforce;Budget Priorities
Strategic Budget Development
Investments $21,474,899
Proposals
Create relevant
$19,077,225 and equitable
Recruit and retain academic choices
$120,541,664 the best district
leaders and
to ensure scholars
are prepared for
teachers the global
workforce
General Fund
General Fund
General Fund Specific $16,207,225
$4,550,376
Investment Proposals
$48,022,251
Strengthen Early (K-2)
$20,757,601
and Continuing Literacy
(3-12)Summary
• Investments in schools are sustained and the highest priority. We
will continue to support schools by maintaining a $14M
investment in schools-based allocations above enrollment
based on projected revenue allocations.
• The budget includes a 2% salary increase for both certified and
non-certified personnel. $16M
• Charter & Contract Schools are projected to increase by $13M.
FY 2022
• Investments have been made in the universal screening for
Clue, African American Male Initiative, and programming for
the New Health High School $3M.
Operating • Contract costs have increased for both transportation and
Budget custodial. $7M
Development
• Reduced $22M across the General Fund, primarily in Central
Office with non-critical, duplication of resources, one time
expenses, and leveraging grants.FY 2022 General Fund
Revenue Development
$572.46
$579.28
$544.51
$538.52
$522.45
$502.01
$482.37
$479.02
$478.88
$478.41
$474.21
$463.10
$455.92
$473.58
$32.84
$32.84
$29.30
$23.50
$16.42
$15.45
$12.54
$11.98
$11.10
$10.62
$10.01
$15.37
$11.70
$6.99
$5.75
$1.60
$1.49
$1.45
$1.45
$1.42
$1.33
$1.33
$5.59
$1.33
$-
$-
$-
$-
CITY OF MEMPHIS SHELBY COUNTY REVENUES TN REVENUES (E.G., BEP) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OTHER LOCAL SOURCES PLANNED USE OF FUND
BALANCE
2016-17 Actuals 2017-18 Actuals 2018-19 Actuals 2019-20 Actuals 2020-21 Amended Budget 2020-21 Forecast 2021-22 BudgetGeneral Fund
Budget Changes
Amended Budget FY 2021 1,080,499,222
Change In Fund Balance Assignments (28,405,809)
Additions:
Instructional Resources 11,364,881
Charter & Contract Schools 13,532,969
Strategic Compensation 15,688,000
Transportation Contracts 5,695,421
Academic Enrichment Investments 3,289,790
Other 8,575,957
58,147,018General Fund Budget Changes
Reductions:
Duplication of Resources 1,673,447
Removal of One-time expenditures 3,252,492
Non-Critical to Operational Sustainability 9,393,500
Unallocated Expenditures Carrying in Budgets 5,098,432
Limiting Travel Due to COVID 499,560
Removal of Vacancies 1,827,486
Leveraging Grants & Other Funding Sources 1,648,589
Total Reductions (23,393,506)
Initial Budget Development FY 2022 $1,086,846,946General Fund Balance
$196.8 $198.8
$158.3
$156.1
$156.1 $156.1
$108.5 $122.6
$88.2 $95.0
$76.2 $74.7 $83.6 $72.8 $83.3 $72.8 $72.8 $83.3
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Total Fund Balance Nonspendable, Restricted & Assigned Fund Balances Unassigned Fund BalanceProcess for Project Prioritization
Highest Priority Scores receive highest priority for capital investment / selection
Maintenance Type is weighted as follows:
Projects are listed to include:
o 5 = Construction, HVAC,
Renovation, Roofing
o School / Building Location
o 4 = ADA, Fire Alarm System,
o FCI (Facility Condition Index)
Windows
o Utilization – from Facilities Planning
o 3 = Carpentry, Electrical, Paving,
o Maintenance Type and Weight
Plumbing
o Severity/Urgency
o 2 = Athletics, Grounds
o Priority Score
o 1 = Energy Mgt, Intercom System,
o Total Cost Estimate
Painting, Stage Curtain
FY 2022 Severity/Urgency is weighted as follows: Priority Score is calculated as follows:
CIP o
o
1 = Urgent
2 = Extremely Urgent
Selection Score =
Prioritization
o 3 = Critically Urgent [(1-FCI) x (Utilization) x
(Maintenance Weight) x
(Severity/Urgency Weight) x 100]
ProcessDescription # of Projects Project Estimates
Classroom Addition 1 4,000,000
Classroom Addition- Design
Only 8 2,500,000
Fire Alarm Replacement 2 1,700,000
Gym 1 5,000,000
Gym- Design Only 3 240,000
HVAC Boiler Replacement 1 1,400,000
HVAC Replacement 6 12,790,000
HVAC Replacement & Fire
Alarm Replacement 1 1,250,000
HVAC Replacement/ Interior
Painting 1 4,000,000
FY 2022
HVAC/ Controls Replacement 1 3,100,000
HVAC/ Fire Alarm
Replacement/ Int. Painting 1 1,900,000
CIP Proposal New Build- Design Only
Roof Replacement
1
6
4,770,000
18,850,000
Roof Replacement/ Civil
Improvements 1 2,400,000
Roof/ HVAC/ Fire Alarm
Replacements 2 6,600,00
Stadium Improvements 2 3,500,000
STEM Building Addition 1 1,000,000
Grand Total 39 $75,000,000Board Member Reflections on
General & CIP Budgets ?
1. What resonated with you on the General &
CIP Budgets?
2. What do you think our next steps should be?
Board 3. Feedback?
Member
Check in?ESSER COVID Relief Funds
Our ESSER To-Do?
ESSER Introduction
• ESSER 1.0
• ESSER Allowability & Criteria
• Special Legislation
• Performance Management of ESSER Funds
• ESSER 2.0- How Much Funding?
• Needs Assessment
The ESSER 2.0 Money Game
A Review with Administration Proposals
ESSER • Learning Loss
Summary •
•
Social Emotional Learning
ACT Preparatory
• Digital Pedagogy
• Teacher Supports
• Operations & Safety
Building A Plan with the Board’s & Administration’s ThinkingESSER 1.0 Update
Budget Reallocation Amended Budget
1:1 Device 20,667,790 10,681,543 31,349,333
Extended Learning; 12,160,222 (10,681,543) 1,478,679
Fall, Spring, Saturdays
Safety (PPE) 6,121,174 - 6,121,174
ESSER Finance 224,985 - -
Personnel
Indirect Cost 503,665 - 503,665
Charter School 7,795,835 - 7,795,835
Allocation
Private Allocation 1,159,994 - 1,159,994
CARES Federal $48,633,665 - $48,633,665
FundingESSER 2.0 Areas of Focus by USDOE & TNDOE • Addressing learning loss • Addressing learning acceleration • School facility repairs and improvements • Planning for long term closures • Unique needs of special populations • Purchasing educational technology • Mental health supports • Other approved activities
2021 Special Session Legislation
2021 Special Session Legislation
Programming
After School Summer Learning
Summer Learning Camps Learning Loss Bridge Camps
Mini Camps
• 6 hours of daily programming • 6 hours of daily programming • These are also known as “STREAM”
Mini Camps. (STREAM is “Science
• 4 Hours Daily: 1hr. Reading, • 4 Hours Daily: 1hr. Reading, 1hr. Technology, Reading, Engineering,
1hr. Math, 1 hr. intervention, Math, 1 hr. intervention, and 1 Arts, and Math)
and 1 hr. play. hr. play.
• 1 hr. of programming focused on a
• Students entering grades 1-5 • Students entering grades 6-8 STREAM educational approach
• 5 Days per week for 6 weeks • 5 Days per week for 4 weeks • Students entering grades 1-5
• 4 Days per week for 6 weeks
provided by a licensed teacher or
TN ALL Corps Member.2021 Special Session Legislation
Participation Eligibility
After School Summer Learning
Summer Learning Camps Learning Loss Bridge Camps
Mini Camps
• Students entering grades 4-5 who • Students entering grades 6-8 who scored • Students entering grades 4-5 who scored
scored proficient in math or ELA on at Approaching or Below in math or ELA proficient in math or ELA on the student’s
the student’s most recent TCAP on the student’s most recent TCAP or most recent TCAP
state adopted bench assessment.
• Students entering grades 1-3 who 2022/2023 • Students entering grades 1-3 who attends a
attends a school with fewer than 50% school with fewer than 50% of grades of 3-5
of grades of 3-5 students are students are proficient in math or ELA on the
proficient in math or ELA on the most • Students entering grades 4-8 who scored most recent TCAP
recent TCAP at Approaching or Below in math or ELA
on the student’s most recent TCAP or • Students entering grades 1-4 who scored
• Students entering grades 1-4 who state adopted bench assessment. 2024 below proficient in math or ELA on the state-
scored below proficient in math or adopted bench mark assessment.
ELA on the state-adopted bench
mark assessment. • Students entering 1-5 who is eligible for TANF.
• Students entering 1-5 who is eligible
for TANF.Performance Management
• All key strategies for ESSER funds are being folded into
the performance management cadences that are for
the strategic plan initiatives
• Meetings specific to recovery strategies every
week.
• All strategies are being frontloaded with literature
reviews to affirm and inform best practices and a
ESSER complete evaluation plan
Performance • Where did the money go?
• Did it have an impact?
Management • How do we know?
• Data will be used to inform Long term impact and
future resource allocationPerformance Management
Dashboard Sample
ESSER
Performance
ManagementESSER 2.0 Funding
Funding 224,032,803
Charter Schools Allocation (40,224,117)
Indirect Cost (23,895,129)
Net ESSER 2.0 Allocation $159,913,557
Summer Learning Camps (ES) 7,969,531
STREAM Mini Camps (ES) 2,277,009
Bridge Camps (MS) 2,974,690
Charter School Camps (2,379,821)
Total Allocation for Camps 10,841,408
Total Funding Available $170,754,965Administration’s Need’s Assessment
Addressing COVID-19 Impact Operations &
Safety Supports
Remote Learning Social Emotional
Supports Supports Addressing
Learning Loss
Teacher & Leader
Supports
ESSER & Grant
Management
Academic
Enrichments
Returning Stronger & SustainabilityThe Money Game
❑ Each Board Member has the following:
• Criteria for ESSER 2.0 Spending
• Copy of the Board’s Strategic Priorities
• Legislation Update
• Dollars in $170M
The ESSER 2.0 • Administration’s Proposals
Money Game ❑ Take 15 min individually on your flip charts and
draft how you would propose spending funds
❑ Each Board Member Reports OutESSER 2.0 Continuation
❑ Administration Review of Proposals
❑ After each section, we will review for alignment
and pause for Board Member Questions.
❑ Discuss next steps
The ESSER 2.0
ContinuedLearning Loss
Winter 2020-21 i Ready
Diagnostic Summary
The following slides provide a high-level summary
of the iReady Winter 2020-21 Diagnostic
Assessment Participation/Completion rates and
student-level placement for grades K-8 with some
comparisons to previous diagnostic window
data.
Learning Loss The iReady Winter Diagnostic (the District’s
Intervention Program for progress monitoring)
window was from January 11 – 29, 2021. The data
for this presentation was downloaded directly
from the iReady platform on February 4, 2021.Winter 2020-21
iReady Diagnostic Summary
K-8, Reading
On average, for the Winter 2020-21 iReady Reading Diagnostic, the higher the grade, the higher the percentage of students at two or
more grade levels below. Kindergarten and 3rd grade students had the highest percentage of students on or above grade level.
The slides that follow show a comparison by grade of the previous year’s diagnostic assessments. Kindergarten students had a significant
increase in the percentage of students scoring on or above grade level in reading compared to previous diagnostics.
On or Above Grade Level One Grade Level Below Two + Grade Levels Below
100%
5%
90%
27% 26%
80% 39% 39%
70% 53% 58% 60%
54% 61%
60%
36%
50% 19%
34%
40%
73% 21% 16% 12% 13%
30%
20% 41% 38% 42%
27% 25% 26% 27% 27%
10%
0%
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Data pulled from iReady on 2/04/2021Winter 2020-21
iReady Diagnostic Summary
K-8, Math
On average, for the Winter 2020-21 iReady Math Diagnostic, the higher the grade, the higher the percentage of students at two or
more grade levels below. Kindergarten and 1st grade students had the highest percentage of students on or above grade level. The
slides that follow show a comparison by grade of the previous year’s diagnostic assessments.
Kindergarten students had a significant increase in the percentage of students scoring on or above grade level in reading compared to
previous diagnostics.
On or Above Grade Level One Grade Level Below Two + Grade Levels Below
100%
9%
90%
27%
33%
80% 40% 38% 43% 48%
70% 55% 56%
60% 54%
50% 44%
42%
40% 38%
34% 28%
22% 19%
30% 60%
20% 36%
29% 25% 24% 26%
10% 23% 22% 23%
0%
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Data pulled from iReady on 2/04/2021Learning Loss Recovery
Strategy/Accountability Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Success/Implementation
6-week Target students $69.4M • Mastery of pre-requisite skills • 10% increase on pre-post
5th Quarter for all Students below a specific • Reduce Behavior assessment during institute
Summer 2022/2023 academic YR 1 - $34.7M challenges • 93% attendance rate for
threshold will • Reduce dropouts enrolled students
ACT Prep Summer receive YR 2- $34.7M • Increase in student school • 7-10% reduction in RTI
Academy for High School instructional and district performance diagnostic data for student 2+
Students support in ELA grade levels below
and Math.
Annual Cost Details
Contracts
Stipends Supplies Total
(Transportation)
$19.5M $4.4M $10.8M $34.7MLearning Loss Recovery Interventionists
Strategy/Accountability Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Success/Implementation
Provide intensive instructional A Multi-Tiered Student $5.8M • Tier II and Tier III student’s • Reduced number of Tier II and
support in ELA & Math to Tier II Support Specialist will academic deficit areas Tier III students at each priority
and Tier III students in Priority provide instructional YR 1 - $2.9M addressed school
Schools support to Tier II and • Small group intervention • Proficiency rates increase by 5-
Tier III students in a YR 2- $2.9M support provided by a 10% at each priority school
small group setting trained professional • Reduction in behavioral
• Academic intervention infractions due to increased
needs being met in a student engagement
structured environment
Annual Cost Details
FTE’s Positions Stipends Total
36 $2.7M $168K $2.9MESL Support
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
• Additional • Extension to full day of ESL Year 1 $600K • Full day allows more time • Pre & Post Assessments
support for ELs Student Summer Camp (K-11) for for newcomers to develop
during 5th learning loss YR 1 - $300K language and engage • Increased instructional
Quarter with academic discourse scaffolds and use of
• Provide targeted EL support within YR 2- $300K with peers language objectives
5th quarter via hiring ESL teachers • Targeted EL support across all content areas
and Bilingual Mentors provides continued
language development to • Increased percentage of
WIDA levels 1.0-3.4 ELs reaching ESSA ELPA
Growth Measure
Annual Cost Details
Let’s Check Our Thinking
Where do we align? PTE’s Positions
50 $300KSocial Emotional
SupportsSocial Emotional Supports
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
Expansion of ReSet • Designed to help prevent $9.2M • Allows implementation of effective
Rooms to all the escalation of practices that decrease out-of- • 30 Pilot schools in the first year of
Elementary and Middle inappropriate student YR 1 - $4.6M school suspensions, improve grades, implementation averaged a 6%
schools behaviors by addressing improve attendance, improve SEL decrease in exclusionary
academic, emotional, YR 2 - $4.6M skills, and increase instructional time consequences and greatly
and/or behavioral issues due to few behavior infractions. improved time on task in
before they become a classrooms.
crises.
• Expanding direct mental health • 1,373 students visited ReSet rooms
services to include evening hours in Pilot schools, with 75% returning
• Creation of two Mental will provide flexibility for parents and successfully to class within 30-60
Health Centers to operate in students, without disrupting minutes
the North and South areas instructional time and provide
Creation of two of the County and provide convenient times for working
evening Mental Health individual and family parents to participate in therapy • Three schools saw 15- 17%
Centers therapy through 7 PM. decreases in student suspensions.Social Emotional Supports Continued
Strategy/Accountabili Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
ty Success/Implementation
$9.2M • Strengthen universal prevention and
Universal ACEs/trauma • Early identification of early identification of students who • This proposal calls for student and
screening for all students trauma-related distress YR 1 - $4.6M have been adversely impacted by parent education to inform about
and professional would begin with the socio-economic disruption the warning signs of trauma-related
development for screening, parent YR 2 - $4.6M caused by the coronavirus distress and actions that can be
school/district staff, outreach, behavioral pandemic; taken to reduce vulnerabilities and
parents, and monitoring, and transition hasten recovery. For students
administrators to systematic mental health • Provide critical prevention and early already manifesting signs of
services for students with intervention support to teachers and trauma, an early identification
evidence of traumatic student support staff who may be campaign designed to divert at-risk
exposure. experiencing occupational burnout students to secondary and tertiary
secondary to the extreme adaptive intervention would significantly
challenges presented by the enhance coronavirus response
pandemic and compassion fatigue efforts within this school district.
Let’s Check Our Thinking associated with their roles as first
Where do we align? responders to student trauma.
Annual Cost Details
FTEs Positions Contracts Supplies Equipment Total
76 $3.3M $1.1 $120K $106K $4.6MAcademic Enrichments
ACT Preparation
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
ACT Prep University The program offers academic $2.6M • Metrics of Success: SCS is using the research
support for high school students by Increase the number of from the University of
utilizing college students as mentors YR 1 - $1.3M students who score 21 or Chicago, as well as the
and tutors. above in the ACT. Network for College Success
YR 2- $1.3M and the National Freshman
Institute.
Annual Cost Details
Let’s Check Our Thinking
Where do we align? Contracts
$2.6MEnhancing Digital Pedagogy
Digital Pedagogy
Strategy/Accountability Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Success/Implementation
Provide professional Year-long $4.1M • In-depth understanding of • Academic performance
learning support to professional the different instructional increase in all content areas
teachers, principals, development YR 1 - $2.05M models in a blended • Lower chronic absenteeism
families, and central office focused on learning environment; • Increased participation in
status on blended learning instructional YR 2- $2.05M maximum use of digital professional learning
models and devices; increased student opportunities from teachers
strategies to engagement through use • Instructional culture survey
increase of teacher pedagogy and results increase
academic student buy-in
performance
through digital
devices
Annual Cost Details
Contracts Supplies Total
$1.95M $100K $2.058MRemote Learning Continued Supports
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
Our 1:1 digital device • Our initial device plan $17.3M • Minimize the learning loss Enhance local economic
plan is part of our included $105 million resulting from the current development, reduce crime
ongoing commitment to commitment to supports YR 1 - $8.65M health crisis while and unemployment in the
student equity and 21st over a four-year span. The permanently closing the Shelby County community
century learning to following support will YR 2- $8.65M digital divide and by improving literacy and
prepare our students for alleviate fiscal burden for academic gaps that creating a technologically-
college and careers. We the following cost: Florida currently exist for Shelby literate graduating
believe the addition of Virtual Schools, Student County students by workforce.
modern technology into Internet Access, IT Personnel providing access to
daily instruction will open Supports, Cyber Security, meaningful learning
up amazing new learning and Lost/Replacement technology resources.
possibilities! Devices.
Annual Cost Details
Let’s Check Our Thinking Contracts Equipment Total
Where do we align?
$6.5M $2.1M $8.65MTeacher & Leader
SupportsBuild Teacher Capacity
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
Reduce Adult/Student • Classrooms will $20.8M • Reduce unemployment • 10% increase in On
Ratio in K-1 receive a fulltime ed • Community investment Track/Mastery for students in
assistant who has YR 1 - $10.4M • Poverty rate reduction 3rd grade on TN Ready in 2022-
• 95% attend in PD been supported on • Market share increase 2023 (annually)
• Logged support foundational skills YR 2 - $10.4M • More students attending SCS;
transcripts instruction and best more state/federal funding • 5% reduction in K-1 vacancies
• Support Summer instructional in 2022-2023 (7-10% annually)
Learning practices.
• 50% reduction in K-1
behavioral referrals in 2022-
2023 (7-10% annually)
• 7-10% increase in ready
Annual Cost Details graduate and graduation rate
for cohort of students once
FTEs Positions Supplies Total they are seniors.
250 $9.7M $760K $10.4MTeacher Recruitment
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
Teacher Recruitment Viable staffing option for $5.24M • National recruitment is Providing qualified, licensed,
Opportunities school districts with required to bring teacher candidates to fill SCS’s high-need
existing vacancies in YR 1 - $2.87M candidates to Memphis and teaching vacancies.
elementary and support teacher licensure. Candidates are licensed and do
Virtual Teacher secondary settings (ES & YR 2 - $2.87M not require permits.
Recruitment MS & HS). Develop and support existing
(Additional EOC) District employees, reducing the
Virtual learning can be need to hire new educators on
an option to fill semester permits.
Teacher Licensing or year-long vacancies
in any subject
Number of vacancies filled
Annual Cost Details
FTEs Positions Supplies Total
Let’s Check Our Thinking
Where do we align?
250 $9.7M $760K $10.4MOperations & Safety Supports
Operations- Needlepoint Bipolar Ionization
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
Improve Indoor Air Install Needlepoint • Improves IAQ of school • Reduced VOC’s in the air
Quality (IAQ) of school Bipolar Ionization YR 1 - TBD and central office • Eliminated presence of the
and central office Technology in all HVAC Waiting on buildings COVID-19 virus in school and
building systems competitive • Reduces airborne central office buildings
bidding transmission of COVID- • MERV-13 rating achieved for
process 19 and other pathogens HVAC filtration systems
• Deactivates and kills up
to 99.94% of the COVID-
19 virus.
• Increases effective
MERV rating of existing
HVAC filtration from
MERV-8 to MERV-13.Needlepoint Bipolar Ionization NPBI Advantages
Needlepoint Bipolar Ionization NPBI Testing Summary
Operations- COVID Testing
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
• COVID Testing for • Districts can expand $6.0M Testing performed in Public health officials and school
Students, Teachers, capacity to administer schools can play an important administrators may consider
and Staff. coronavirus testing, YR 1 - $3.0M role in assisting public health placing a higher priority for testing
monitor the virus, and officials in identifying teachers, in schools that serve populations
support other activities YR 2- $3.0M staff, or students who have experiencing a disproportionate
related to coronavirus COVID-19 symptoms or who burden of COVID-19 cases or
testing for students, had recent close contact severe disease. These may
teachers, and staff (within 6 feet for a total of 15 include:
minutes or more) with Schools with moderate or large
someone with COVID-19. proportions of racial and ethnic
groups that have experienced
higher rates of COVID-19 cases
relative to population size.
Annual Cost Details Schools in geographic areas with
limited access to testing due to
Other Charges distance or lack of availability of
testing.
$3.0MOperations- Addressing Facilities Needs
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
• Address Deferred Replace HVAC equipment $5.5M • Replace aged, unreliable • Reduced equipment
Maintenance needs HVAC equipment downtime
of school buildings • Havenview MS YR 1 - $5.5M • Reduce equipment • Reduced maintenance costs
• Crump ES downtime an repairs • Reduced energy costs
• Egypt ES • Improve IAQ • Improved IAQ
• Fox Meadows ES
Annual Cost Details
Capital Outlay
$5.5MAthletics Safety
Reconditioning/Recertification
Strategy/ Description Cost Benefits Evidence of
Accountability Success/Implementation
• Helmet National Athletic Equipment Re- $500K • Cleaning, sanitizing, • Increased compliance with
reconditioning and conditioners Association repair/restoration and testing of National Guidelines for safety
recertifying recommends helmets issued during YR 1 - $250K athletic equipment to the • Support for additional supplemental
according to the time of Covid-19 and prior to original performance standard safety equipment needed to avoid
manufacturer being reissued to another athlete YR 2 - $250K • National Operating Committee loss of athletic programs
guidelines be reconditioned/recertified along on Standards for Athletic • Documentation supporting
with sanitizing non-certifiable Equipment standards are appropriate use
• Equipment equipment adopted by National
sanitization in Federation of State High School
accordance to Associations
manufacturer • Safety equipment while
guidelines & participating in sports is crucial
purchasing of in preventing and lessening the
recommended impact of sports-related injuries.
safety equipment
Annual Cost Details
Let’s Check Our Thinking Capital Outlay
Where do we align? $250KBudget Priorities
Strategic Budget Development
FY 2022 Investments
$120,541,664
Strengthen Early (K-2) and Continuing Recruit and retain the best Create relevant and equitable Operational Safety Supports
Literacy (3-12) district leaders and teachers academic choices to ensure scholars
are prepared for the global workforce
Fifth Quarter Extended $34.7M 2% Annual Salary Increase 1 to 1 Device Initiative $8.7M Needlepoint Bipolar Ionization $23M
Build Teacher Capacity: Reduce $15.7M ESL Support $300K Covid Testing $3M
Adult/Student ratio K-2 Class Size Ratio Recruitment & Early ACT Preparation $1.3M Addressing Facility Needs and
$10.4M Incentives For Prospective Digital Pedagogy $2.1M Deferred Maintenance $5.58M
Learning Loss Recovery Interventionists Teachers $100K Clue Expansion $1M Athletics Safety $251K
$2.9M Relocation For Teachers Equity African American Male Initiative
$308K $979K
Teacher Referral $15K District Branding $900K
Grow Your Own Partnerships Health High School $1.5M
$100K Social Emotional Supports $4.6M
Leadership Professional
Development $250K
Teacher Recruitment $2.6MHow do we incorporate the
Board’s Thinking?
• Gather All Feedback from Today
• Cross Check with Administration
• Highlight Non-negotiables
• One on Ones with Each Board member
The ESSER 2.0 • Check in with Board Chair and ABF Co Chairs
Review? • ABF Summary Where Idea’s were IncorporatedNext Steps, Board Feedback & Touch Points
Feb 27, 2021 March 9, 2021
01 High Level
Review &
03 Audit, Budget,
Finance FY 2022
05
Discussion Board Budget
Retreat Discussion
Feb 19, 2021 Week of March 1, 2021 March 23, 2021
Detail Review One on Ones for
Proposed Budget
of Budget Details
02 Further Budget
Details
04 Delivered to
Board for VoteDiscussions & Closing Remarks
Thank you
You can also read
