Productively Engaging the Community in the Budget Process
AASA National Conference on Education Nashville, TN February 14, 2014
Harris Sokoloff, Ph.D. Director, Center for School Study Councils Lou DeVlieger, Retired Superintendent, Upper Darby School District
Welcome and Introductions ¡ Who we are ¡ How we come to work together
2
Context: A Primer on PA School Budgets ¡ Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education
formula ended 1992 ¡ Act 1 (June 2006) put a cap on
district budget increases ¡ State used federal stimulus money to
increase school funding until 2011-12
3
Context: The Upper Darby School District ¡ An inner ring suburban school district,
bordering western edge of Philadelphia, PA
¡ Federal resettlement area for refugees from war-torn countries world wide
¡ Changes 1992 to 2013: l High School went from 2,400 to more than
3,800 students l ELL population representation grown from
20 to 80 countries
4
Context: The Upper Darby School District ¡ Points of Pride:
¡ 2010: Philadelphia Inquirer rates Upper Darby as one of Top 25 Workplaces
l “Wall of Fame” boasts many famous graduates, none as famous as:
5
Context: The 2011-12 Budget Experience ¡ PA funding formula frozen in 1992
l Frozen formula places more pressure on property taxes
l Act 1 (2006) cap on property tax increases l Any increase over cap requires referendum
¡ 2011-12 total budget: $163 million l $13.4 million gap if stable program & taxes l Used $4 million fund balance (1/3 of total) l $4.6 million in staff reductions l 2.7% tax increase
6
Context: The 2011-12 Budget Experience
¡ Filling the gap: l Cut 63 non-mandated positions
¡ 23 reading specialists ¡ 21 literacy/math coaches ¡ 17 teachers at high school ¡ 1 administrator and 1 security
¡ Community response: l Concern but little push-back in general l Biggest community concern: cuts in high
school PE teachers
7
Context: The 2012-13 Budget Experience
¡ 2012-13 initial budget proposal: l $166 million total l $13.1 million gap if stable program &
taxes l $3.5 million in staff reductions l $4.0 fund balance (1/2 of total) l 3.5% tax increase
8
Context: The 2012-13 Budget Experience
¡ Filling the gap: l Cut 65 non-mandated positions
¡ Restructure elementary specials: 42 positions ¡ Align middle school schedules: 7 positions ¡ Middle school foreign language/tech ed: 10
positions ¡ Reduce subject supervisors: 4 positions ¡ 2 administrative positions
¡ Community response: l Uproar over loss of general music and art
teachers in elementary schools.
9
The Community Reaction
10
Response from a “Point of Pride”
¡ Tina Fey said, "It makes me upset that the only answer is to take arts away from these kids. ...I got a public school education and am very proud of it. The kids growing up now deserve the same things I got. ...That should be a right." (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 28, 2012)
11
Theory: Why This Response is Typical
¡ The logic of decision-making l Facts are necessary, not sufficient l Values bridge the gap between the
facts and what we should/ought to do about those facts
l Need to blend expert information with community values
12
13
The Traditional “Expert Information” Model
• Favored by experts, the government and the press
• Top-down and one-way • The public is expected to
learn, not contribute • Focuses on information
rather than values • Focuses on creating
awareness • Assumes awareness leads
to resolution • Assumes that a well-
informed public is the “Holy Grail” of democracy
Daniel Yankelovich, Viewpoint Learning, Inc
14
A Nest of Flawed Assumptions The traditional model falsely assumes that:
• Information is the key to public learning. • People make up their minds once they receive relevant
information. • The public interprets information in the same way that
experts do. • Experts know what information the public needs and
how to convey it. • Experts who debate their opposing views help the
public to learn. • Technology can compensate for deficiencies in the
model. • There is no need to base the model on how people
actually make hard choices.
15
Conclusion
The traditional model works only when there are no hard choices to
make.
But, a school budget is nothing if not a series of hard choices, and getting
harder each year!
The District Budget: Context
2012-13 Final Budget Result
l $166 million total l $1.5 million in staff reductions l $4.0 fund balance (1/2 of total) l 3.5% tax increase l $2 million state line item to preserve
elementary arts and music
17
Avoiding a Repeat: The 2013-14 Budget Experience
¡ 2013-14 initial budget proposal: l $169 million total l $9.7 million gap if stable program & taxes l 8.7% tax increase (Act 1 cap plus Act 1
exceptions for special education, transportation, retirement fund increases)
l $2.5 fund balance (1/3 of total)
18
Avoiding a Repeat: The 2013-14 Budget Experience
¡ The Challenge: l Community mistrust of board and
administration after 2012-13 experience l Community fear that 2012-13 proposed
cuts to elementary music and art would occur this year
l Community would not approve an 8.7% tax increase
19
20
Information vs. Learning Models
¡ The Traditional “Expert
Information” Model
Daniel Yankelovich, Viewpoint Learning, Inc
¡ The New "Public Learning” Model
21
The New “Public Learning” Model
Daniel Yankelovich, Viewpoint Learning, Inc
23
Major Features of the New “Public Learning” Model l Requires three stages rather than two l Accounts for how people actually resolve
hard choices l Interactive l Takes time l Requires people to struggle with conflicting
values l The public’s wisdom adds value to the
experts’ l Different communication strategies apply to
each stage
Kinds of Forums
¡ To Tell/Inform
¡ To Learn/Get Feedback
¡ To Build Common Ground
24
25
Buy-in/Ownership/Cooperation
People work hardest to implement that which they had a hand in planning.
26
“Outwitted”
He drew a circle that shut me out- Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But Love and I had the wit to win: We drew a circle that took him in!
- Edwin Markham
Advisory Group ¡ Make up
l 12-15 people, broadly representative of stakeholder interests (supporters/critics)
¡ Parent ¡ Student ¡ Non-parent resident and senior citizen ¡ Community leader and business person ¡ Upper Darby "resident" staff
27
Advisory Group ¡ Role
l Identifying potential participants for each of the forums
l Communicating with your peers in support of the project
l Helping us anticipate particular challenges, hurdles, etc.
28
29
Where wisdom comes from …
¡ “None of us is as smart as all of us.” – Japanese proverb ¡ “Together we can come to find a wisdom that we could not find alone” – Michael Sandel ¡ “Your audience is always smarter than you are” - Dan Gillmor
How this applied to Upper Darby
¡ Move from Information to Learning Model
¡ Move from forums that tell or just ask for feedback to forums that require working through and building common ground
¡ Include values, feelings, hopes, fears and dreams
30
31
¡ Inform district residents
¡ Inform the district ¡ Build common
ground for action
The Upper Darby School District Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices
Goals
Time Line
32
December 2012 Initial advisory group meeting
January 2013 Start community outreach Second advisory gorup meeting
February 15 – March 15, 2013
Hold community budget forums/workshops Third advisory gorup meetig
March 15-25, 2013 Final advisory group meeting
March 30, 2013 Final report to community and School Board
Community Response: Skepticism From the Start
¡ "To me, the process is biased," one man said. "The choices are narrowed to a pre-selected group. A lot of staff fattens the budget."
¡ A woman disagreed: "For me it's not bias, but the outcome that is predetermined," the woman said. "This (list) is a sampling of what is going to happen."(Delaware County Daily Times)
33
How We Did It: The “Game” ¡ Inform the Community:
l Created a “budget worksheet” l All budget categories l Only items with district discretion l Items worth 1% of the budget deficit
¡ Individual reflection ¡ Small groups deliberation of choices
34
Constructing the Worksheets
¡ The Challenge of Categories l Finding items that would get 1 point
(1%=$97,000) l Time and labor intensive
¡ The Challenge of “Impact” Statements l Facts not values l Other
¡ The Challenge of Inclusion
35
How We Did It: Sample Worksheet
36
Deliberative Structure ¡ Divide “choices” into four categories:
l Low Hanging Fruit l Shared Pain l Gut Wrenchers l No Way No How
¡ Individual choices ¡ Group deliberation to move from
individual opinion to public judgment
37
38
The Upper Darby School District Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices
Activities Four Workshops: ¡ February 27 — Watkins Senior Center; 53+
participants; 4 groups, 21 wailing wall comments
¡ March 5— Beverly Hills Middle School; 114+ participants; 6 groups, 61 wailing wall comments
¡ March 10 — Drexel Hill Middle School; 180+ participants ; 5 groups, 98 wailing wall comments
¡ March 11 — Westbrook Elementary School; 125+ participants; 4 groups, 74 wailing wall comments
39
The Upper Darby School District Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices
The Workshop Structure At each forum: ¡ Opening presentation on the District budget ¡ Small group works – 10-20 or 30-40people
per group l Work through a list of more than 33 service areas
and more than 63 actions to close a $9.7 million annual budget gap
l Differentiate “low hanging fruit,” “no way, no how,” “shared pain” and “gut wrenchers”
¡ Individual input: l Short written statements on “Wailing Wall”– 255+
What outcomes to expect
¡ Products l Priorities from the forums l Values-based principles to explain
decisions ¡ District response
l Tell you how they used the above products
40
Sample Worksheet Tallies TIMES SELECTED TIMES NOT
Service Area Ac*on (current) Points (@97000)
Low Hanging Fruit
NO WAY NO HOW
SHARED PAIN
GUT WRENCHER
SELECTED BY ANY GROUP
1. a. Elementary Classroom Teachers
Reduce regular elementary school regular educa<on by an<cipated loss of 10 teachers through aCri<on.
9 8 2 1 1 7
Reduce elementary school staff by 10% (roughly 26 regular educa<on teachers). 23 0 5 1 0 13
1. b. Kindergarten Teachers
Eliminate Kindergarten, a reduc<on of 27 teachers. 24 0 9 0 1 9
2. Elementary Lead Teachers Eliminate lead teachers 5 2 0 5 1 2
35, Property Taxes (NOTE: each 0.1% increase in property taxes raises $89,000)
Increase property tax up to the index of 2.4% (up 0.79 mills) 22 4 0 5 0 10
Increase property tax up to the index plus par<al approved excep<ons of 4% (up 1.31 mills)
37 3 0 2 0 14
Increase property tax up to the index plus par<al approved excep<ons of 6% (up 1.97 mills)
55 3 1 0 0 15
Increase property tax up to the index plus maximum approved excep<ons of 8.4% (up 2.76 mills)
73 0 3 0 0 16
41
Most and Least Often Decided MOST OFTEN DECIDED (In declining frequency)
¡ Property Taxes ¡ Elementary Classroom Teachers ¡ Fund Balance ¡ Transportation (public/non-
public) ¡ Band, Choral, Theater & Extra
pay/extra duty ¡ Office of Superintendent ¡ Instruction & Curriculum ¡ Middle School Specials Teachers ¡ High School Sports ¡ High School Specials Teachers ¡ Kindergarten Teachers
LEAST OFTEN DECIDED (In increasing frequency) ¡ Crossing guards ¡ Attendance (Central Registration) ¡ Building Support Elementary
Schools ¡ Information services ¡ Guidance ¡ Nursing (public & non-public) ¡ Library ¡ Maintenance ¡ Computer Lab Assistants
Elementary Schools ¡ High School Classroom Teachers ¡ Business/fiscal services
42
Most Often… …Low Hanging Fruit ¡ Transportation (public/non-
public) ¡ Office of Superintendent ¡ Property Taxes ¡ Instruction and Curriculum ¡ Elementary Classroom
Teachers ¡ Fees ¡ Coordinator & Secretary of
Instructional Media ¡ Office of the Principal ¡ Business/Fiscal services
…No Way No How ¡ Band &, Choral, Theater & extra
pay/extra duty ¡ High School Sports ¡ Kindergarten Teachers ¡ High School Specials Teachers ¡ Middle Schools Specials
Teachers ¡ Fund Balance ¡ Elementary School Special
Teachers ¡ Noontime Support ¡ Elementary Classroom Teachers ¡ Middle School Sports
43
44
Thematic Analysis (1) ¡ Themes:
l Tension between property values, quality of schools, and what people can afford
l Mistrust l Redesign for efficiency, effectiveness and
savings l Work with others to reduce cost &
improve services.
45
Thematic Analysis (2) ¡ Values:
l Maintain broad supports for students/children
l Be student-centered – as little impact on student learning as possible
l Build on our strengths & cultivate student engagement
l Insure equity l Minimize impact to those adults with
fewest resources
2013-‐14 TENTATIVE FINAL BUDGET
PENN PROJECT RELATED REDUCTIONS $ 2,381,000 OTHER EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS 1,177,830 REVENUE REVISIONS 1,420,666 FUND BALANCE 2,600,000 *PROPOSED TAX INCREASE 2,097,973 TOTAL $ 9,677,469 *PROPOSED TAX INCREASE 2.94%
Top Selected Choices by the Public “Low Hanging Fruit” & “Shared Pain
¡ Office of the Superintendent ¡ Transportation ¡ Elementary Classroom Teachers ¡ Instruction and Curriculum
47
#22. Office of the Superintendent (11 vote LHF)
¡ PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce secretarial support by 5%.
¡ Recommended Action: Reduce secretarial support in the Administration Building and duties combined through attrition. (This reflects the voiced value to avoid firing and use attrition.)
¡ Savings: $54,000
#28. Transportation (10 votes LHF) ¡ PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce by 5% by
eliminating late bussing of secondary students. Eliminate transportation for all field trips. Increase efficiency of existing bus runs.
¡ Recommended Action: Budgeted field trips will be reduced. One late bus run will still remain at middle and high school. Increase efficiency of bus runs. (This is a redesign for efficiency and effectiveness.)
¡ Savings: $294,000
#1. Elementary Classroom Teachers (8 votes LHF)
¡ PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce 10 elementary school teachers through attrition/retirement thus increasing class size to approximately 24.
¡ Recommended Action: Reduce 7 elementary school teachers through attrition/retirement. (Although class sizes will increase slightly, there will be an attempt to “insure equity” and “redesign for efficiency, effectiveness, and savings.”)
¡ Savings: $840,000
#19. Instruction and Curriculum ( 2 votes LHF @ 5% cut 7 votes LHF @ 10%)
¡ PPCE: Reduce staff and shift responsibilities.
¡ Recommended Action: No action recommended based on the importance that Instruction and Curriculum or great teaching is to the welfare of our children. Proper supervision and mentoring of teachers is critical to maintaining a high quality staff. Due to cuts in recent years, the administration to staff ratio is the highest in the county.
¡ Savings: None
The Tough Choices: “Gut Wrenchers” or “No Way – No How”
¡ Reduce Maintenance Staff ¡ Reduce Extra Pay for Extra Duty
52
#26. Reduce Maintenance Staff ¡ PPCE Action/Recommendation: Reduce by
2% by laying off one person and reducing contracted repairs. Delay necessary repairs.
¡ Recommendation Action: Reduce one employee by attrition and reduce the maintenance budget in the supplies area. Do not delay necessary repairs. (This reflects the voiced value of “minimizing impact on those with the fewest resources” by using attrition & “reduce costs” & “redesign for efficiency, effectiveness, & savings.”)
¡ Savings: $114,000
#34. Reduce Extra Pay for Extra Duty
¡ PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce by 10% to 30% Extra Pay for intramurals, clubs, detentions, bus duty, cafeteria coverage, etc.
¡ Recommended Action: Reduce this budget line for all K-12 schools. Each middle school intramural program will have 45 units each used at the principal’s discretion. Three High School Assistant Coaches will be reduced, but all sports will be maintained. (This modified recommendation reflects the voiced value to “build on our strengths and cultivate student engagement” while trying to be “efficient.”)
¡ Savings: $180,000
Community Response After Final Budget Presentation: “Relief”
¡ "... the plan was greeted with applause from the crowd of 100 people at the meeting. Many undoubtedly breathed a sigh of relief, too." (Delaware County Daily Times Editorial, May 3, 2013)
55
Community Response After the Forums: Hope Delaware County Daily Times, March 2, 2013
¡ "I thought the forum was great," Lois Johnston, 65, said at the conclusion of the meeting. "This is the first time in the history of the school district they have given the residents a chance to see what is done with the budget for the education of our children.
¡ “My group was good. We had some hard decisions to make. I wish we didn't have to cut or not as drastic cuts. I wish other things were done before we got to this point of desperation. I know they are going to raise taxes, but we got a chance to look at it and give our suggestions.”
56
Discussion
¡ Your questions, thoughts, ideas
57
Contact
Harris Sokoloff, Ph.D. Center for School Study Councils Penn Project for Civic
Engagement Penn Center for Educational
Leadership Graduate Center for Education University of Pennsylvania 3440 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 898-7371 [email protected]
Lou DeVlieger Educational Consultant Retired Superintendent Upper Darby School District [email protected] cell 610-389-3001
58