November 18, 2004 LPS Board of Education Workshop

Sam Drury commented on mill levy override funding:

• Support for lower-performing students:
  • Sam noted that he has frequently spoken to the Board about the LPS below-grade-level students.
  • He told the Board that he probably would favor expansion of the LPS Early Literacy Intervention Program (ELIP).
  • However, he also said that he still has not received answers from anybody to any of his 12 questions about ELIP that he had stated at the March 11, 2004 Board meeting:
    • 1. What are the CSAP Reading and Writing results for 2001, 2002, and 2003 (each year) for all students in Grades 3, 4, and 5 (each grade) in each building (overall building averages, not student-identifiable)?
    • 2. Same as first question for just those students receiving at least one, two, and three years of ELIP service?.
    • 3. Same as first question for just those students receiving at least one, two, and three years of IEP (Individual Education Program) service?
    • 4. Same as first question for just those students receiving at least one, two, and three years of ILP (Individual Literacy Plan per Colorado Basic Literacy Act) service?
    • 5. What other non-student-identifiable data are available for public review of ELIP performance?
    • 6. What caused the large increase for fall/2003 in the number of Third Graders at Priority Level 10?
    • 7. What caused the large decrease for fall/2003 in the number of Third Graders at Priority Level 8?
    • 8. What key results measurements should be used to determine ELIP success?
    • 9. Why have the CSAP Reading results for Grades 3, 4, and 5 not increased (due to ELIP) since 2001?
    • 10. What are the major factors for determining the building-level ELIP FTE allocations?
    • 11. What are the existing plans (who does what by when), if any, for expansion of ELIP to higher grades?
    • 12. What are the existing plans (who does what by when), if any, for expansion of ELIP to math literacy?
  • Therefore, Sam is reluctant to endorse expansion of ELIP until he receives answers to some of  those questions.

• Ballot questions for successful LPS mill levy override budget elections:
  • 2004
    • Approved annual amount $6,500,000
    • No restrictions on the educational purposes that would preclude charter schools from receiving a full pro rata share
  • 1997
    • Approved annual amount $5,000,000
    • No restrictions on the educational purposes that would preclude charter schools from receiving a full pro rata share
  • 1988
    • Approved annual amount $2,998,234
    • Absolutely no restrictions on the educational purposes

• Allocation of funds for charter schools:
  • Funds total about $14,500,000 annually (for 1988, 1997, and 2004).
  • All three ballot questions do not preclude charter school full pro rata shares.
  • Since Littleton Academy charter school and Littleton Preparatory Charter School have about 5.5% of the total annual LPS enrollment, the charter schools are entitled to the same percentage of mill levy override (MLO) funds.
  • Therefore, annual fair share for these two charter schools should total about $360,000 for 2004 MLO funds, and about $800,000 total for all three MLO funds.

• Sam then provided two handouts:
  • Copies of the budget election ballot questions [PDF 43KB] for 2004, 1997, and 1988
  • ICAN November 13 website page [PDF 37KB] on the November 11 BoE regular meeting

The workshop presentation and discussion covered many areas:

• Budget priorities

  • Refer to the four-page handout [PDF 128KB].
  • A major portion of the 2004 override ongoing expenditures is intended to offset the budget deficit (e.g., about $2,216,000 for 2005-06).
  • The 2004 override ongoing expenditures are planned at $2,000,000.
  • The 2004 override one-time expenditures are planned at $2,200,000 for 2005-06 and $1,000,000 for 2006-07.
  • The undesignated fund balance remains positive through 2008-09.
  • The potential mill levy budget priorities were expressed as:
    • Maintain low class size
    • Meet the needs of lowest performing students
    • Comprehensive set of programs
    • Academic excellence

• Weighted staffing

  • Refer to the three-page handout [PDF 301KB].
  • The plan restores the 3% across-the-board 2004-05 budget staffing cuts and improves the weighted staffing formula.
  • This may include increasing available pool points for targeted assistance for schools with low performing students.
  • Most Board members appear interested in revising the weighted staffing restoration plan to 3-4-5% (rather than across-the-board) for ES-MS-HS in spite of current typical imbalance in teaching workloads.
  • The superintendent will provide information on current class sizes at the middle schools and high schools.
  • Most Board members seem to want reductions in class sizes at every building.

• Band instruments and uniforms

  • Refer to the one-page handout [PDF 34KB].
  • The one-time allocation of about $930,000 would be primarily for replacement of band instruments and uniforms for the high schools.
  • One Board member stated: "... The whole time I've been on the Board we haven't been able to do something about the band instruments ... We need to do something...."
  • Another Board member questioned the need for band uniforms.

• Visual arts instruction

  • Most schools do not have full-time teachers with a degree in art.
  • There are differences between delivery of curriculum by "highly qualified" (per NCLB definition) teachers and the "quality of instruction" now in place.

• Miscellaneous

  • Some Board members expressed interest in helping the lowest-performing students through expansion of literacy programs in grades 4-8 (about $3,030,000 one-time over three years) and math support in grades K-10 (about $500,000 ongoing annually beginning in 2006-07).
  • Some Board members are reluctant to impose district-level preferences upon the current school-centered decision-making practices.
  • The next Board meeting will be a Board workshop on November 30 to discuss budget priorities.

• ICAN has concerns about some budget-related issues not discussed:

  • Current inequity in total previous mill levy override allocations to charter schools (only 2% of $8,000,000 for about 6% of LPS students).
  • Previous and future declining-enrollment trend (briefly mentioned at that workshop).
  • Potential problems with out-of-district enrollment.
  • Stagnation of student academic achievement.
  • LPS focus on curriculum delivery rather than performance improvement.
  • Questionable sustainability of current pay-increase practices.
  • Tendency to identify future class-size increases as the primary solution to budget problems.
  • Lack of effective long-range problem analysis and corrective actions.
  • Credibility problems with some LPS "Budget Matters" publication statements.

Last modified: 11/20/2004

Send mail to webmaster@ICAN4.info with your questions or comments about this website.
Copyright © 2003-2005 Independent Citizens Action Network (ICAN).   All Rights Reserved.