Pomperaug Regional School District 15
Superintendent’s Education Budget Recommendation for 2005-2006
As Presented to the Region 15 Board of Education
February 14, 2005

Dr. Frank Sippy, with the Board of Education, made some changes to the budget proposal on March 9, 2005. These changes are noted in red. Although these changes affect the distribution of money in the budget, it does not affect the percent increase request.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the skills needed by today’s youth for tomorrow’s world are complex, creative, conceptual tools that students must have to become real problems solvers, which is why education looks so much different today. However, one critical component remains and won’t change: Education remains a uniquely human experience. The purpose of this budget is to preserve the unique human experience of learning.

   Why Do People Select Region 15 Schools?

   Parents select our schools after doing careful research and they stay in our schools because they feel their children are getting a good education.

   I solicited testimonials from students and parents and I want to highlight one. “My children attended Region 15 from Kindergarten through graduation. They entered college with a real sense of confidence because they felt prepared.” Isn’t that our mission? To prepare our children for society and for a world of work, particularly in the 21^st century.

  What Has the Region 15 Strategic Plan Done Over the Last Three Years?

   In 2002, we began planning. We implemented district-wide Curriculum Teams. Rochambeau Middle School renovations were completed. And we launched a new reading program.

   In 2003, the Board of Education adopted the Strategic Plan in December of that year. Memorial Middle School renovations were completed. We automated a number of school libraries. We launched a new math program.

   In 2004, we launched a new science program. The Pomperaug High School renovations were completed. We adopted a new student management system. District e-mail started. And we began implementation of the Strategic Plan.

   The bullets that are under 2004 are symbolic of the first strategies of the Strategic Plan. They have to do with Curriculum, Communication, Attracting and Retaining Good Personnel. Finally, the Strategic Plan has been integrated into the evaluation process of all professional staff, including the superintendent.

   We are delivering what we said we were going to.

   What Remains to be Accomplished?

   In 2005-06, we’re going to continue to develop our own curriculum evaluation tools. Closely aligned with that, we’re going to develop authentic measures of student proficiency using student work. Beyond measuring student proficiency via standardized tests, it is a more authentic measure to measure whether or not our curriculum is doing what we want it to do. Also, to see whether our children are, in act, absorbing as much of it as possible.

   We’ll be advocating a multicultural focus within the curriculum, ongoing curriculum improvements continue, and we’ll expand opportunities to share ideas. As we launch different curricula efforts, our teachers are developing different skills and different ways to teach different lessons. It is critical that they come together to share those ideas so that the best practice in the world can spread throughout the district.

    The last four bullets represent our foray into Strategy 5 and Strategy 6. The Strategic Plan’s Strategy 5 talks about encouraging and developing student community service opportunities and Strategy 6 is about developing a student’s ability to gain some proprietorship over their education and goal-setting.

    For the balance of the Strategic Plan in 2006-08, we will continue to improve internal and external communication in the region; we will complete Strategy 5 and develop more student service opportunities. We will do the same with Strategy 6 to help students become more vested in their aspirations and their dreams in order to give them a context in what to look for and how to plan while they’re in high school.

    And then we’ll begin to develop a new Strategic Plan for the next five or six years.

   How Do We Get All of This Done?

   Supporting appropriate class sizes within the Board of Education’s guidelines is central to recover, sustain and continue to improve the level of excellence that we’ve come to know.

    I chose those words carefully. Recover: We have lost programs over the past and it’s critical that we make an effort to recover the ones that are valuable to us.

   Class Size

   The Board of Education’s class size guidelines were selected to promote optimum teaching and learning opportunities and they are not arbitrary numbers. The goal is to get 100 percent of the classes at the Board’s guidelines by 2008-09, where possible.

   We have some formidable facilities issues that we’ll have to deal with later on.

   This is the Board’s class size resolution, as adopted in 1999. It is important to note that in 2004, the Board commissioned a Class Size Task Force made up of members of the communities, members of local government, and Dr. Lanning chaired it. The purpose of that Task Force was to update the program reports for each school level and to determine if the 1999 class size guidelines were still applicable.

   Their findings: Class sizes below the Board’s guidelines are ideal for grades Kindergarten – 2. The guidelines have been utilized as much as possible and are manageable targets.

   There are three recommendations: 1) The 1999 Board of Education guidelines continue to be used as guides for class size; 2) The Board is going to consider class size targets at the middle level for fine arts: and 3) Change lettering system to reflect the course terminology at Pomperaug High School.

   Status of Class Size

   We see that the elementary schools are creeping up a little bit with enrollment but at the same time, you can see some stable bars so it’s something that Dr. Chung forecasted three or four years ago. Therefore the enrollment hasn’t deviated markedly from his earlier predictions. However, when we look at the elementary classes above the Board’s guidelines, you can see in 2004, 43 percent of the classes were above the guidelines. In 1998-99 when the Board originally looked at those guidelines, the percentage of classes above the guidelines was 46 percent.

    So the Board of Education has made some progress, particularly in the context of building projects. Our concern is that we don’t want to see too much deviation from the guidelines and that we want to see classes that are reasonably sized.

    Next year, it looks like we’ll be about 45 percent above the class size recommended by the Board.

   ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Long Meadow Elementary School

   For the most part, it’s a fairly stable situation there; somewhere between 43 and 45 percent of the classes are above the class size guidelines. One of the past practices to safeguard against going above a certain level is to freeze classes when they are Plus-4 to the guideline. So whatever the guideline is, if you have classes that are Plus-4 to that guideline, we would, in most cases, assign children who have just moved into the district to the sister/partner school, assuming there was room at that school. The partner school for LMES is MES.

Middlebury Elementary School

   In 2002, just over half of the classes were over the class size guidelines. In 2004-05, it is approaching two-thirds. 

Gainfield Elementary School

   Gainfield is a much better picture, although it’s not a perfect situation. More of the classes are at or below the class size guidelines, and that’s been a fairly stable situation. Gainfield also has begun to realize more students due to new housing developments in that area. 

Pomperaug Elementary School

   Pomperaug Elementary School’s profile is similar to that of MES. You can see that for some time, almost two-thirds of the classes were above the class size guidelines. Over the last couple of years, that has backed off to a little over a half.

   These are situations that the Board of Education will be considering and that I have considered in Administrative Council when we developed this budget proposal. 

      MIDDLE SCHOOLS

   Memorial Middle School has a fairly stable enrollment. Notice that Rochambeau Middle School, on the other hand, lost 26 kids last year. I stood here before you and reduced two teachers. One of those positions that was reduced from RMS became the additional teacher that was reassigned to MES. We did not rehire the other teacher, but rather a one-half teacher was divided between RMS and MMS as a reading/language arts position.

   Next year, Rochambeau’s enrollment is going to go up by 25 or 26 students. We’re not going to be looking for additional staff however.

   You can see that the picture in both middle schools is a little more optimistic. We’re sensitive to the fact that we have class size issues and we’re trying to do whatever we can to address those. Rochambeau is a similar situation. In fact, the proportion is exactly the same in 2005, nearly a third of the classes are above the class size guide. 

       POMPERAUG HIGH SCHOOL

   From 2001-05, Pomperaug High School has really gained the equivalent of a small elementary or middle school—275/300 students.

   In 2001 to 2005, there has been a dramatic shift in the number of classes above the class size guidelines. In 2001, it was about one-third. In 2005, it’s over half. 

Are There Other Needs?

   There certainly are. They’re bundled under six topics. All of these are important to sustaining quality. We do have limited resources and we do have to make choices. It’s my responsibility as superintendent of schools to recommend the funding level to the Board of Education that I feel is affordable and does justice to all the needs of our schools.

   We started the budget process. This is not a fait accompli and the Board will take my recommendations, but it’s their budget in the end.

1.            Instructional Support

   We recognize our obligation to ensure academic success for all and that’s why the Board introduced the School Improvement Program, commonly known as the SIP program.

   SIP is funded 55% through grant funds and 45% through local funds. However, the combination of increased enrollment and increased academic rigor, as well as the new No Child Left Behind laws demand that we revise this program. To ensure Adequate Yearly Progress for all students, it will require more attention to class size, revisions to the curriculum, more hands-on learning opportunities, redefining the SIP role as well as adding about 4,400 hours of SIP time at a cost of $57,200 or $13 an hour. (How I got to that number was: 1,100 hours of SIP time is roughly the equivalent of one fulltime, classified person who works 180 days in the school).

   The idea is to develop a network or safety net for students to help them acquire the skills and bridge the gaps they may have. But, unfortunately, we cannot afford that added time right now. We’ll have to rely on the reallocation of SIP resources, improve the instructional techniques as well as pay attention to class size to meet the challenges of No Child Left Behind and our own district mission. The need for more student support isn’t going to go away and we will need to address this in the not-too-distant future.

2.            Facilities Needs

  The direct impact on instruction cannot be ignored or discounted, even if we could afford to staff all the classes to the optimum class size, we do not have the space to house them.

  For example, as Middlebury Elementary School, we talked about the conversion of half their library, thus sacrificing a good portion of that program to make room for one more classroom. There are no more classrooms to covert at MES.

  There are also class size issues at LMES and PES, and there are classes of 26 and 27. Part of my role and responsibilities and that of Administrative Council is to weigh the following: If there are no places to convert, what program do we compromise to make room for these classes? We will continue to look at this issue.

  At PES, I know that a number of special education programs will be displaced. I know that the SIP program will be displaced. And orchestra will be displaced to make room for that particular classroom. So it becomes and instructional dilemma for me and the administrators to look at what make the most sense and what’s the best decision, educationally, for those children.

   The same thing can be said at LMES. LMES will have to relocate one of its significant special education programs to make room for this class. Again, we need to take into consideration the ramifications and effects on other programs. We have limited resources and we have to make choices.

   Gainfield Elementary School is over 60 years old and it has some serious heating, ventilating and cooling issues that need to be addressed. It also has some septic issues that may limit the number of students that we can put in that school.

  The scope of these needs far exceeds the Board’s ability to fund them in the operating budget. The best vehicle that the Board has at its disposal is bonding, so I anticipate in the not-too-distant future that the Board will add the facilities’ needs that I talked about and others, like more substantial additions to elementary schools to accommodate the class size issues.

3.            Technology

  The infrastructure impacts our ability to improve communication and facilitate independent student learning activities for children. We have 7-, 8-, and 9-year-old computers, which are too slow to run our XP operating system, causing major delays in our network and email systems. Also, delaying the computer replacement schedule will slow down the reassignment of computers to the elementary classrooms, falling short of our three computers-per-classroom goal.

    Instruction is becoming increasingly dependent on technology to enable students to do more hands-on activities that are either developed locally or accessed via the Internet. Some people cling to the notion that education is fine without computers in schools. I would answer them in two ways. First with a question: When was the last time a company hired an employee for a significant job without that person having computer skills? Second, information technology is the communication medium of choice. Whether we like it or not, whether we resist it or not, it is here to stay. It is our obligation as educators to prepare students for the world of work in the 21^st century. In doing so, we need to make sure that they are literate in technological skills.

   When our youngsters leave the computer labs in the elementary schools and they go back to their classrooms, it is the spreadsheet activities, the word processing skills, and the Internet navigation skills that they’ve learned that enable them to go back to the classroom with the three computers, and practice these skills under the watchful eye of their teacher. These are not arbitrary skills, they are very important skills that we need to be sure these students have and will continue to have.

   We have 100 computers that are 7-, 8-, and 9-years old. By the time the next fiscal year rolls around on July 1, we can add another 136 6-½ year old machines, which represents about 22% of the machines that we use in the district.

   Regarding Governor Rell’s proposal about state-funded laptops, it has no impact on our budget. It is a noble and ambitious goal, but I don’t expect to see those computers in our future. I am optimistic that this will come to fruition some day. If it does, the disposition of those machines would occur at priority districts first because they have a few more economic challenges than we do. If and when Region 15 gets these machines, the biggest challenge would be compatibility issues. The assumption is that they would be wireless and although our high school does have an infrastructure that has some wireless technology, it doesn’t have the capability of handling 300-400 laptops. There would be some conversion costs associated with that. The large volume of laptops would also require more maintenance and more replacement costs, and that would have to be factored in. We would certainly need a network person to help manage the system and make repairs.

   It’s import to know that the Board’s current technology plan does not call for the large acquisition of laptops at this time. However, our new technology plan will look at wireless systems and laptops. If and when we do receive these laptops from the state, we’ll make adjustments in our purchases. Although I think it’s a great idea, we’re still some time away yet.

4.           Instructional Supplies

  Next year with no increase, we’ll have 375 more students and $400,000 less than 2001 allocated for instructional supplies. In fact, our instructional supplies have not gone up since 1999. If our instruction is to become more inquiry-based, more hands-on… For example, elementary science: the need to budget for the annual replacement costs of consumable supplies (when kids do experiments they use litmus paper and solvent, for example) we need to budget for the replacement of those items. They’re fundamental to instruction. My budget proposal doesn’t make up $400,000 in one year, but I have tried to make some significant inroads to move forward in that direction.

5.            Programs

   We have not ignored the NEASC, the high school accreditation report that recommended in creating the number of electives at the high school. In fact, we have proposed a number of them.

   First, a physical conditioning course. The best way for schools to assist society for the growing issue of obesity is through education and wellness. What we have proposed is to offer this course after-school at the high school at a cost of $11,000.

   Second, we proposed a math tutorial class targeted to those students who continue to score below the proficient range on the CT Academic Performance Test (CAPT) at a cost of $8,650.

   Third, we proposed adding a companion course to transportation technology for those students who are interested in automotive industrial technology. This is not a shop course—this is a technology course, at a cost of $3,350, which covers supplies.

  However, when Administrative Council and I looked at the limited resources and choices we had to make, we chose not to fund these.

   Number Four was to propose adding a lab component to physical science, a freshman course subscribed to by 325 students. This represents a significant upgrade. If our high school were so constituted five or six years ago, I think the discussion of whether or not physical science needs a lab component would be a moot point because we would have that. But the high school was operating with limited facilities at that point and it didn’t allow us to offer a physical science lab. I am recommending that the Board consider adding that particular component to its list of fundamental needs for students and that will take the form of a .7 FTE teacher to run the physical science lab at a cost of $32,637.

   A year ago, we lost our middle school enrichment program, reduced our middle school reading program by 50% and at the high school we lost our video production program. We have made a concerted effort over time to be fiscally sensitive to the community and we will continue to do that. But we also have to be true to our kids.

6.         Class Size

   We recognize the importance of the Board’s guidelines but we can’t afford to address this in one budget. The addition of 80-100 new high school students next year will place additional challenges to the staff and students. Mr. Agostine had originally requested 5.9 certified staff and 1.7 classified staff for the high school to meet the volume of student needs, clerical, custodial, and guidance needs.

   I have been here on a number of mornings to see 20-25 kids in the guidance area who are there for serious business, need information on courses, admissions to colleges, or they need to run certain ideas by their counselor. The problem is that when you don’t have enough clerical staff to handle these situations, the students have to stay in that area longer than I’d like them to. I’d rather have them in their classroom.

    Unfortunately, we’re up against the limited resources and we need to make choices. Budgeting is, in the end, a value exercise. You have values and we have values. Hopefully our values will meld together and that you will support our budget.

   Mr. Agostine’s referenced 5.9 FTE (full time equivalent) at the high school will probably bring him to a level that would allow us to staff the classes at about where we are right now. It does not address all the class size issues. We cannot afford to do that. Nor can I afford to staff his 5.9 FTE request. 

The Budget Proposal

Proposed Additional Allocation

  This year, I’ve proposed to the Board of Education additional allocations in the following areas:

1.            $10,000 for the Board’s Strategic Plan to help us launch Strategies 5 and 6: those two student-centered strategies.

2.         2.1 teachers at the high school for class size

  Mr. Agostine has some ideas that will be dependent upon subscription and where the distribution of classes fall. He could be plugging in certain classes of .4 English, may be a .6 math—depending upon where his course subscription falls. The .7 teacher to add to the physical science class is very valuable.

3.         1.0 School Resource Officer program

  The Board of Education cannot hire a school resource officer. That is the minion of either town. The School Resource Officer program originated shortly after (the) Columbine (tragedy). The idea was to create a program that would allow for a police officer to be in the schools, be a conduit or a friend or a confidante to people as a way to proactively prohibit, prevent, and interrupt these types of behaviors. I have had direct experience with this as a superintendent in another district.

  The reason we have $40,000 in there is because with the onset of Homeland Security, the amount of federal dollars for the SRO program have really dried up significantly. The town of Middlebury does provide us with a School Resource Officer and that particular person is very valuable and serves the schools on the Middlebury side of the District. However, their grant funding is running out soon and I doubt whether those funds are going to be replenished. So, the idea of providing $20,000 for each town to assist as a way of saying Thank You and We understand that we are asking each town to fund something that we feel is critical. The Town of Southbury and its leadership have been very receptive. I’m very hopeful that we will be able to provide a School Resource Officer here for the high school and hopefully at the two middle schools and elementary schools at some point. Again, the SRO is a tremendous individual to have on this campus to help prevent issues, instead of reacting to situations. We want to be proactive. And I’d like to thank both local police forces. They have been tremendous and have responded when we’ve needed them and we appreciate them a great deal.

(NOTE: The superintendent revised the recommendation on March 9th: School Resource Officer $20,000).

4.            Instructional Supplies

  I’m looking for $99,057 for instructional supplies.

(NOTE: The superintendent revised the recommendation on March 9th: Instructional supplies $84,057).

5.           Technology Hardware and Software

  $200,000 represents funding of our technology plan. We unfortunately haven’t been able to fund the plan to the level that we’ve needed to because it conflicted with other areas. Besides all the hardware that I’ve talked about, we also have software issues. We have technology training issues. As we become more sophisticated in drilling down for data to figure out the specific questions, skills, and objective our children are missing, we must use data mining and data-based decision-making. We know a little about it, we’ve used it a bit and we could certainly do a lot more.

(NOTE: The superintendent revised the recommendation on March 9th: Technology software and hardware $150,000).

6.           2.0 FTE Teachers LMES/PES: The superintendent revised the recommendation on March 9th: Add one teacher at LMES and add one teacher at PES to relieve class size issues. $85,000.

  So the total request of additional allocation that we’re proposing is roughly a half of a million dollars or 1.05 percent increase. 

Foundation Budget

  This is an increase of 4.87 percent.

  Medical insurance costs in our district went up only 13 percent, which is a credit to the Board of Education and Ed Arum. This translates to $600,000 savings.

  We have issues around plant operations. Electricity will be going up $105,000 or 14 percent. Refuse collection is going up $32,000. Fuel oil is going up $165,000. Last year we budgeted $1.00 a gallon and now we’re paying $1.48 a gallon. Next year we’ll be budgeting $1.50 a gallon. We use about 240,000 gallons of fuel oil a year. Ed Arum is the leader of the Fuel Oil Consortium so he checks the harbor price of fuel oil every day and when it becomes appropriate, he will lock that in at the most favorable price for the Consortium. 

New Debt Service

  At almost a million dollars, this is the incorporation of the high school construction project into our budget.

  Our total suggested operational budget is increasing by 5.92 percent. Now, I’m not playing games with numbers. But you can see that I’ve purposely set aside debt service. If you are not familiar with the government structure of regional school districts, regional districts must carry debt service for projects in their operating budgets.  Municipal districts do not. So when you compare budgets, its apples to oranges. So when you add the nearly 2 percent budget for debt service, the total budget is 7.85 percent. 

Summary

   In the last four years, we’ve done more with less to help accommodate the impact of facilities, improvements, and other fixed costs. We’re working with fewer instructional supplies and more kids. We’re working with an increasing number of older computers. We’ve eliminated valuable programs to adjust class size pressures, where we could.

Are We Getting Value for our Investment?

   I think that’s a personal assessment, but let me say this. Last year I stood before you and said our Net Per Pupil ranking was 104. At that time we were $736. We spent less than the state average. You see that in 2003-04 our ranking has dropped. And that was with a 7.85 percent budget that was approved two years ago. You can see that the variance between what we spend and the state average has increased by $760. What does that really mean? It means that in 2002-03, 103 towns spent more per pupil than Region 15 did and in 2003-04, 107 towns spent more per pupil than Region 15 did.

   When we take a look at 40 districts across the state of Connecticut (and these are superintendent-recommended budgets, by the way), the Connecticut average is 7.34 percent increase. And most of these are municipal districts. So I referenced the Region 15 proposed budget both with debt service included in the total number—and you can see we’re about half a percent above the average. But if you’re going to make a fair comparison then we need to extract debt service out and we go back to 5.92 percent which is a healthy margin below the state average. 

The Challenge

   Region 15 is an upper middle class community, which receives minimal state aid, to fund schools—about three percent. School districts with higher economic resources receive minimal state aid but have greater wealth to rely on. School districts with fewer economic resources receive significant assistance of state aid and federal funds. Region 15 is caught in between which is why it sets up the tension between people when it comes to funding education budgets. We recognize we have an obligation to our children. We recognize for us to do the job we want to do, it’s going to cost money and we recognize that we’re asking people like yourselves to sacrifice. We take that seriously and empathize with you, but again, I have to tell you: I’m very concerned about this budget. I don’t want to lose this budget. I want it to pass on the first referendum vote and we need your help. We need people to come out to participate in this voting process.

   We are at a critical threshold; we need to respond to class sizes that have been creeping up beyond the Board’s guidelines, which have been putting us at risk for not being able to deliver quality instruction. The public expects this and you have confirmed that tonight. 

Mission Statement

   I’m not going to read the mission statement to you, but I am going to highlight: “Enlightened citizens through innovative, dynamic learning experiences.” I guarantee you the number of innovative and dynamic learning experiences goes up as the number of students in a classroom goes down.

   You’ve been very generous to us in the past and we appreciate that and recognize that the Board of Education and the administrators and I have a difficult job. I know we’re not going to please everyone. We’re going to try and we’ll continue to listen to you. The Board will be deliberating and looking to see what it can do, but in the end, we need you to support us. Thank you.