Developing A Staffing Formula SASBO APRIL 2008. Presentation Objectives: Illustrate the development of a practical teachers staffing formula. Demonstrate

Developing A Developing A Staffing FormulaStaffing Formula

SASBO SASBO APRIL 2008APRIL 2008

Presentation Objectives: Illustrate the development of a practical

teachers staffing formula.

Demonstrate the financial impact of using the formula.

Discuss the pros & cons of implementing the formula.

The Jefferson Davis Parish School The Jefferson Davis Parish School Board has enjoyed some success over Board has enjoyed some success over the last thirteen years. Student the last thirteen years. Student achievement ranks high as do achievement ranks high as do average teacher salaries, and the average teacher salaries, and the General Fund balance has grown General Fund balance has grown substantially. Of all the reasons for substantially. Of all the reasons for that that success, and there are that that success, and there are many, perhaps the most important many, perhaps the most important contributing factor is the contributing factor is the development of the Teachers Staffing development of the Teachers Staffing Formula in the 1994-1995 school yearFormula in the 1994-1995 school year..

Case Study: Jefferson Davis Parish School Board

Development of the Staffing Formula for Teachers

The SituationThe Situation The Jefferson Davis Parish School The Jefferson Davis Parish School

Board General Fund recorded an Board General Fund recorded an operating deficit for four operating deficit for four consecutive years (FY 1991-1994).consecutive years (FY 1991-1994).

As a result, the General Fund As a result, the General Fund Balance dropped to about $4 Balance dropped to about $4 million and was considered million and was considered dangerously lowdangerously low..

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND OPERATING RESULTS

FYE JUNE 30, 1991 THROUGH FYE JUNE 30, 1994

Fiscal General Fund General Fund Surplus Beginning Ending Fund

Year Revenues Expenditures (Deficit) Fund Balance Balance

1990-91 $22,734,705 $23,509,556 $ (774,851) $ 5,742,511 $ 4,967,660

1991-92 23,368,369 23,488,955 (120,586) 4,967,660 4,847,074

1992-93 23,388,292 23,594,235 (205,943) 4,847,074 4,641,131

1993-94 23,512,047 24,113,594 (601,547) 4,641,131 4,039,584

Net Decline in General Fund Balance over the period shown:($1,702,927)

The Situation, cont’d . . . The Situation, cont’d . . .

The incoming Superintendent, Cleve The incoming Superintendent, Cleve Beard, the Assistant Superintendent, Beard, the Assistant Superintendent, Cliff Friedman, and the Finance Cliff Friedman, and the Finance Director, Karl Bruchhaus analyzed the Director, Karl Bruchhaus analyzed the operating budget for potential operating budget for potential savings.savings.

Their review of the General Fund Their review of the General Fund budget showed that the largest budget showed that the largest potential for savings lay with the cost potential for savings lay with the cost of salaries and benefits, which of salaries and benefits, which comprised about 90% of the total comprised about 90% of the total budgetbudget..


The School Board had The School Board had experienced a slow but steady experienced a slow but steady decline in the student population decline in the student population due to the migration of families due to the migration of families to better paying jobs elsewhere.to better paying jobs elsewhere.

However, as the number of However, as the number of students declined, students declined, the number of the number of teaching positions remained teaching positions remained unchangedunchanged. .


Faced with declining MFP Faced with declining MFP funding due to the drop in funding due to the drop in student population coupled student population coupled with no corresponding with no corresponding reduction in the number of reduction in the number of teaching positions, the General teaching positions, the General Fund was destined to go broke Fund was destined to go broke within a few yearswithin a few years..

The Old Teacher The Old Teacher Staffing FormulaStaffing Formula

E = mcE = mc22

where . . . where . . .

# of employees = mass confusion# of employees = mass confusion22

The New Staffing FormulaThe New Staffing Formula Mr. Friedman created a mathematical Mr. Friedman created a mathematical

process to rationally allocate teaching process to rationally allocate teaching positions to the parish schools based on a positions to the parish schools based on a function of the MFP student count (referred function of the MFP student count (referred to as the “Staffing Formula”).to as the “Staffing Formula”).

The crux of the Staffing Formula became The crux of the Staffing Formula became the state-recommended student-to-teacher the state-recommended student-to-teacher ratio of 20 students per teacher in grades K ratio of 20 students per teacher in grades K to 3 and 25 students per teacher in grades 4 to 3 and 25 students per teacher in grades 4 though 12.though 12.

The Staffing Formula, cont’dThe Staffing Formula, cont’d::

Staffing decisions for the next school year Staffing decisions for the next school year are made by the School Board are made by the School Board administrative staff during the 5administrative staff during the 5thth six weeks six weeks of the current year.of the current year.

As a result, student count data from the As a result, student count data from the current 4current 4thth six weeks period and the three six weeks period and the three previous years are used to calculate previous years are used to calculate teaching staff requirements for the next teaching staff requirements for the next school yearschool year. .


In essence, the Staffing Formula takes the In essence, the Staffing Formula takes the MFP student enrollment per school at the MFP student enrollment per school at the fourth 6 weeks period, adjusts the total for fourth 6 weeks period, adjusts the total for the average student loss for the last three the average student loss for the last three years (no credit is given for average student years (no credit is given for average student gain), and divides the result by the gain), and divides the result by the appropriate state student-teacher ratio to appropriate state student-teacher ratio to get the number of teachers to be allocated get the number of teachers to be allocated to that school - with certain allowed to that school - with certain allowed adjustments madeadjustments made..


Step # 1Step # 1 - Obtain the 4 - Obtain the 4thth six weeks MFP six weeks MFP student count broken out by grade for a student count broken out by grade for a given school (the “Projected” Student given school (the “Projected” Student Count for the Count for the nextnext school year). school year).

Step # 2Step # 2 - Calculate the average student - Calculate the average student gain or loss for the previous three years. gain or loss for the previous three years. For each year, compare the previous year’s For each year, compare the previous year’s 44thth six weeks MFP count with that year’s six weeks MFP count with that year’s actual October 1 MFP count. Average the actual October 1 MFP count. Average the student gain/loss for the previous three student gain/loss for the previous three years combinedyears combined..


Step # 3Step # 3 - Subtract the average student - Subtract the average student loss for the last three years from the loss for the last three years from the Projected Student Count for next year to get Projected Student Count for next year to get the Final Projected Student Count for the the Final Projected Student Count for the next school year. Remember - Average next school year. Remember - Average student gains calculated in Step # 2 are not student gains calculated in Step # 2 are not added.added.

Step # 4Step # 4 – Divide the Final Projected – Divide the Final Projected Student Count by the appropriate state-Student Count by the appropriate state-recommended student/teacher ratio to get recommended student/teacher ratio to get the Allocated Teaching Staff for the school. the Allocated Teaching Staff for the school. (Round up to a whole number if calculation (Round up to a whole number if calculation is above .5)is above .5)


Step # 5Step # 5 – Compare the calculated – Compare the calculated Allocated Teaching Staff number with the Allocated Teaching Staff number with the current teaching staff to determine the current teaching staff to determine the number of positions that must be added number of positions that must be added or cut with the following adjustments and or cut with the following adjustments and considerations:considerations:

a.a. Each high school gets an additional two Each high school gets an additional two teachers for vocational education.teachers for vocational education.

b.b. High schools that include grades 9-12 get High schools that include grades 9-12 get an additional teacher for each full 350 an additional teacher for each full 350 block of students after the first 350 block block of students after the first 350 block of studentsof students..

The Staffing Formula, cont’dThe Staffing Formula, cont’d

c.c. Principals, assistant principals, guidance Principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, librarians, special education counselors, librarians, special education teachers, magnet teachers, CSR teachers, magnet teachers, CSR (classroom-size reduction) teachers, Title I (classroom-size reduction) teachers, Title I teachers, pupil appraisal staff, Pre-K teachers, pupil appraisal staff, Pre-K teachers, and French teachers for grades 4 teachers, and French teachers for grades 4 - 8 are exempt from staffing cuts. The need - 8 are exempt from staffing cuts. The need for these positions is evaluated outside of for these positions is evaluated outside of the formulathe formula..


Each principal meets individually with the Each principal meets individually with the Assistant Superintendent to discuss which Assistant Superintendent to discuss which positions are cut, if any, or where to best positions are cut, if any, or where to best utilize any new positions added as a result utilize any new positions added as a result of the application of the Staffing Formula. of the application of the Staffing Formula. (Note: The Assistant Superintendent (Note: The Assistant Superintendent reserves the right to adjust the teaching reserves the right to adjust the teaching staff as needed should school open in the staff as needed should school open in the fall with a large difference in actual vs. fall with a large difference in actual vs. projected student count.)projected student count.)

Numerical ExamplesNumerical ExamplesExample # 1Example # 1 - Calculate the number of - Calculate the number of

teachers to add or cut for the 2008-teachers to add or cut for the 2008-2009 school year for a high school that 2009 school year for a high school that includes grades 7 through 12 and the includes grades 7 through 12 and the following enrollment data as of the 4following enrollment data as of the 4thth six weeks for the 07-08 year:six weeks for the 07-08 year:

Grade 7: 154Grade 7: 154 Grade 10: 191Grade 10: 191

Grade 8: 138Grade 8: 138 Grade 11: 140Grade 11: 140

Grade 9: 180*Grade 9: 180* Grade 12: 144Grade 12: 144

*Includes projected students from *Includes projected students from parochial schools that will enroll for 9parochial schools that will enroll for 9thth gradegrade..

Example # 1, cont’dExample # 1, cont’d::

• Total 07-08 4Total 07-08 4thth six weeks six weeks enrollment = 947 students. This enrollment = 947 students. This becomes the “Projected Student becomes the “Projected Student Count” for 08-09.Count” for 08-09.

• Comparative Student Gain/Loss Comparative Student Gain/Loss for the three previous yearsfor the three previous years::06-0706-07 05-0605-06 04-0504-05

ProjectedProjected

Student CountStudent Count

(4(4thth Six Weeks) Six Weeks)

958958 941941 922922

October 1 MFPOctober 1 MFP

Student CountStudent Count

927927 999999 918918

DifferenceDifference

Gain (Loss)Gain (Loss)

(31)(31) 5858 (4)(4)


• Average student gain (loss) for Average student gain (loss) for the three previous years:the three previous years:

06-0706-07 (31) (31)

05-0605-06 58 58

04-0504-05 ( 4)( 4)

Net GainNet Gain 23 23

Average Student Gain (=23/3) Average Student Gain (=23/3) 7.677.67

Rounded to Rounded to 8 8

Example # 1, cont’d:Example # 1, cont’d:

• Calculate the Final Projected Student Calculate the Final Projected Student Count for 2008-2009:Count for 2008-2009:

07-08 407-08 4thth Six Weeks Six Weeks

EnrollmentEnrollment 947947

Subtract Average Student LossSubtract Average Student Loss

(no credit for Average Student Gain)(no credit for Average Student Gain) 0 0

Final Projected Student CountFinal Projected Student Count947947


• Calculate the Allocated Teaching Staff Calculate the Allocated Teaching Staff using the appropriate student/teacher using the appropriate student/teacher ratio.ratio.

Student/Teacher ratio for grades 4 – 12:Student/Teacher ratio for grades 4 – 12: 25 to 1 25 to 1

Final Projected Student CountFinal Projected Student Count947947

Divided ByDivided By 25 25

Allocated Teaching StaffAllocated Teaching Staff 37.88 37.88


• Adjust the Allocated Teaching Adjust the Allocated Teaching Staff for the following:Staff for the following:

Allocated Teaching StaffAllocated Teaching Staff 37.88 37.88 teachersteachers

Add:Add:• 2 vocational teachers2 vocational teachers 2.00 2.00• 1 teacher for full block of1 teacher for full block of

350 students after the350 students after the

11stst 350 350 1.00 1.00

Total Allocated TeachersTotal Allocated Teachers 40.8840.88

Rounded to Rounded to 41 teachers41 teachers


• Compare the Allocated Teaching Compare the Allocated Teaching Staff figure with the current staff Staff figure with the current staff amount to determine the addition amount to determine the addition or loss of staff for next year:or loss of staff for next year:

Current teaching staff, Current teaching staff,

excluding exemptionsexcluding exemptions4040

Allocated Teaching StaffAllocated Teaching Staff 4141

DifferenceDifference 1 1

RESULT: RESULT: ADD 1 TEACHERADD 1 TEACHER

Example # 2Example # 2Calculate the number of teachers to add or Calculate the number of teachers to add or cut for the 2008-2009 school year for an cut for the 2008-2009 school year for an elementary school that includes grades K elementary school that includes grades K through 6 and the following enrollment through 6 and the following enrollment data as of the 4data as of the 4thth six weeks for the 07-08 six weeks for the 07-08 year:year:

Grade K: 170*Grade K: 170* Grade 4: 168Grade 4: 168Grade 1: 173Grade 1: 173 Grade 5: 150Grade 5: 150Grade 2: 165Grade 2: 165 Grade 6: Grade 6: 147147Grade 3: Grade 3: 162162 4 – 6 Total 465 4 – 6 Total 465

K – 3 Total 670K – 3 Total 670*This is a fixed projection of kindergarten *This is a fixed projection of kindergarten

students used each year.students used each year.


• Total 07-08 4Total 07-08 4thth six weeks six weeks enrollment = 1,135 students. enrollment = 1,135 students. This becomes the “Projected This becomes the “Projected Student Count” for 08-09.Student Count” for 08-09.

• Comparative Student Gain/Loss Comparative Student Gain/Loss for the three previous yearsfor the three previous years::06-0706-07 05-0605-06 04-0504-05

ProjectedProjected

Student Student CountCount

(4(4thth Six Six Weeks)Weeks)

1,1541,154 1,1451,145 1,1341,134

October 1 October 1 MFPMFP

Student Student CountCount

1,1231,123 1,1511,151 1,0981,098

DifferenceDifference

Gain (Loss)Gain (Loss)(31)(31) 66 (35)(35)


• Average student gain (loss) for Average student gain (loss) for the three previous years:the three previous years:

06-0706-07 (31)(31)

05-0605-06 6 6

04-0504-05 (35)(35)

Net GainNet Gain (60)(60)

Average Student (Loss) Average Student (Loss)

= (60)/3 = (60)/3 (20)(20)


• Calculate the Final Projected Student Calculate the Final Projected Student Count for 2008-2009:Count for 2008-2009:

07-08 407-08 4thth Six Weeks Enrollment Six Weeks Enrollment 1,1351,135

Subtract Average Student LossSubtract Average Student Loss

(no credit for Average Student Gain)(no credit for Average Student Gain) (20)(20)

Final Projected Student CountFinal Projected Student Count 1,1151,115


• Calculate the Allocated Teaching Staff using the Calculate the Allocated Teaching Staff using the appropriate student/teacher ratioappropriate student/teacher ratio..

Student/Teacher ratio for grades K - 3:Student/Teacher ratio for grades K - 3: 20 to 120 to 1

Student/Teacher ratio for grades 4 – 6:Student/Teacher ratio for grades 4 – 6: 25 to 125 to 1

Note: subtract Average Student Loss from higher Note: subtract Average Student Loss from higher grade range.grade range.

Grades K-3Grades K-3

Final Projected Student Count Final Projected Student Count

670 students divided by 20 students per teacher 670 students divided by 20 students per teacher = = 33.533.5

Grades 4-6Grades 4-6

Final Projected Student CountFinal Projected Student Count

445 students (465 – 20 avg. loss) divided by 445 students (465 – 20 avg. loss) divided by

25 students per teacher 25 students per teacher = = 17.817.8

Total Allocated Teaching Staff Total Allocated Teaching Staff 51.3 51.3

Example # 2, Example # 2, cont’dcont’d::

• Compare the Allocated Teaching Compare the Allocated Teaching Staff figure with the current staff Staff figure with the current staff amount to determine the addition amount to determine the addition or loss of staff for next year:or loss of staff for next year:

Current teaching staff, Current teaching staff,

excluding exemptionsexcluding exemptions 53.053.0

Allocated Teaching StaffAllocated Teaching Staff 51.351.3

DifferenceDifference 1.7 1.7

RESULT: RESULT: LOSE 1 TEACHER (maybe 2)LOSE 1 TEACHER (maybe 2)


Financial Impact of the Staffing Formula

Financial ImpactFinancial Impact

As a result of implementing the As a result of implementing the Staffing Formula, Staffing Formula, the Jefferson Davis the Jefferson Davis Parish School Board cut 88 teaching Parish School Board cut 88 teaching positions in the first 3 years of positions in the first 3 years of implementationimplementation..

If the average cost of a teacher’s If the average cost of a teacher’s salary including benefits was salary including benefits was $30,000 per year (in 1994-1997 $30,000 per year (in 1994-1997 salaries) , then the total annual salaries) , then the total annual savings would be $2,640,000savings would be $2,640,000. .

Financial Impact, cont’dFinancial Impact, cont’d::

Teaching positions cut were Teaching positions cut were mostly in the non-core subject mostly in the non-core subject areas, such as art, music, etc.areas, such as art, music, etc.

Support positions (cafeteria Support positions (cafeteria workers, aides, custodians) were workers, aides, custodians) were also reviewed with cuts made in also reviewed with cuts made in staffing where appropriate.staffing where appropriate.

Bus driving routes were Bus driving routes were consolidated with cuts being made consolidated with cuts being made through retirement and attrition.through retirement and attrition.


As result of the application of the As result of the application of the Staffing Formula, coupled with cuts in Staffing Formula, coupled with cuts in the support positions, the JDPSB the support positions, the JDPSB General Fund reserve balance grew General Fund reserve balance grew from $4,039,584 at June 30, 1994 to from $4,039,584 at June 30, 1994 to $7,836,075 at June 30, 1997 – $7,836,075 at June 30, 1997 – a net a net increase of $3,796,491 in three years increase of $3,796,491 in three years timetime..

Net Increase in General Fund Balance over the period shown:$10,067,731

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

SUMMARY OF GENERAL FUND OPERATING RESULTS

FYE JUNE 30, 1994 THROUGH FYE JUNE 30, 2000

Fiscal General Fund General Fund Surplus Beginning Ending Fund

Year Revenues Expenditures (Deficit) Fund Balance Balance

1993-94 $23,512,047 $24,113,594 $ (601,547) $ 4,641,131 $ 4,039,584

1994-95 24,661,146 23,519,455 1,141,691 4,039,584 5,181,275

1995-96 25,077,340 23,787,251 1,290,089 5,181,275 6,471,364

1996-97 25,972,156 24,607,445 1,364,711 6,471,364 7,836,075

1997-98 28,522,125 25,920,887 2,601,238 7,836,075 10,437,313

1998-99 29,972,025 28,465,492 1,506,533 10,437,313 11,943,846

1999-00 31,263,733 29,100,264 2,163,469 11,943,846 14,107,315


There were other factors that There were other factors that contributed to the increase in the contributed to the increase in the General Fund reserve balance, most General Fund reserve balance, most notably the increase in MFP funding notably the increase in MFP funding received from the state over that time received from the state over that time period. By controlling the cost of period. By controlling the cost of teacher salaries as a function of teacher salaries as a function of student enrollment, the General Fund student enrollment, the General Fund reserve balance was able to grow reserve balance was able to grow even when student enrollment even when student enrollment dropped from about 6,400 students to dropped from about 6,400 students to a current level of around 5,600 a current level of around 5,600 studentsstudents..


The Jefferson Davis Parish School The Jefferson Davis Parish School Board has utilized a good bit of its Board has utilized a good bit of its savings to enhance the teacher salary savings to enhance the teacher salary schedule, with the current starting schedule, with the current starting salary for teachers (BS, 0 yrs) being salary for teachers (BS, 0 yrs) being almost $39,000.almost $39,000.

The average teacher salary for the The average teacher salary for the parish ranks in the top 8 in Louisiana. parish ranks in the top 8 in Louisiana. It is currently one the 11 school It is currently one the 11 school districts whose average teacher salary districts whose average teacher salary

exceeds the SREB averageexceeds the SREB average..


Also, the School Board was able Also, the School Board was able to utilize some of the savings to to utilize some of the savings to invest heavily in technology at invest heavily in technology at an average cost of about an average cost of about $550,000 per year since 1997. $550,000 per year since 1997. The current student-to-computer The current student-to-computer ratio is at or below 3 students ratio is at or below 3 students per classroom computer.per classroom computer.


Student achievement has not Student achievement has not suffered as a result of the Staffing suffered as a result of the Staffing Formula. Instead, one can argue that Formula. Instead, one can argue that student achievement has improved student achievement has improved because of it. Raising teacher pay because of it. Raising teacher pay significantly has allowed the School significantly has allowed the School Board to attract better qualified and Board to attract better qualified and motivated teachers, which has motivated teachers, which has translated into student achievement translated into student achievement scores that consistently rank in the scores that consistently rank in the top 10 school districts in Louisianatop 10 school districts in Louisiana..


All of this was accomplished to date All of this was accomplished to date within a rural parish without a major within a rural parish without a major metropolitan center and relatively no metropolitan center and relatively no tax base to speak oftax base to speak of..


Problems to Anticipate When Implementing the Staffing

Formula

Implementation ProblemsImplementation Problems

You can realistically expect to You can realistically expect to incur resistance from incur resistance from implementing the Staffing implementing the Staffing Formula from three main interest Formula from three main interest groups (in order of importance):groups (in order of importance):

1.1. School Board MembersSchool Board Members

2.2. PrincipalsPrincipals

3.3. Teachers and Teacher UnionsTeachers and Teacher Unions

Implementation Implementation ProblemsProblems:: It is absolutely critical that your School Board It is absolutely critical that your School Board

members endorse the implementation of the members endorse the implementation of the Staffing Formula. It will be doomed to failure Staffing Formula. It will be doomed to failure without their support.without their support.

Note: The Jefferson Davis Parish School Note: The Jefferson Davis Parish School Board members were faced with little choice Board members were faced with little choice but to endorse the Staffing Formula due to but to endorse the Staffing Formula due to the impending financial crisis the General the impending financial crisis the General Fund faced in the early 1990s. The Fund faced in the early 1990s. The Superintendent at that time, Mr. Beard, Superintendent at that time, Mr. Beard, recalls that he met with a lot of resistance – recalls that he met with a lot of resistance – but the numbers didn’t lie. Given its success, but the numbers didn’t lie. Given its success, the current School Board members still the current School Board members still support its usesupport its use..

Implementation Implementation ProblemsProblems:: Principals within your school district will Principals within your school district will

initially hate the Staffing Formula. They will initially hate the Staffing Formula. They will protest the elimination of staff at their school protest the elimination of staff at their school using every possible argument to support using every possible argument to support their case (drop in student achievement due their case (drop in student achievement due to higher student-teacher ratios, etc). They to higher student-teacher ratios, etc). They must be able to see the “big picture” and must be able to see the “big picture” and agree to it or else they will contact board agree to it or else they will contact board members, media, teacher groups, etc to stop members, media, teacher groups, etc to stop its implementation. its implementation.

If the Staffing Formula is implemented, then If the Staffing Formula is implemented, then its use must be fairly and impartially applied its use must be fairly and impartially applied to all schools and demonstrably so – or it will to all schools and demonstrably so – or it will failfail..

Implementation Implementation ProblemsProblems::

Note: Principals within the Jefferson Davis Note: Principals within the Jefferson Davis Parish School Board are never happy when Parish School Board are never happy when teachers are cut from their school – even to this teachers are cut from their school – even to this day. But, they have seen the results and they day. But, they have seen the results and they cannot deny the Staffing Formula’s success, cannot deny the Staffing Formula’s success, particularly since their salaries as a principal in particularly since their salaries as a principal in Jeff Davis Parish are indexed to the teacher Jeff Davis Parish are indexed to the teacher salary schedule. salary schedule.

Teacher unions and teachers in general will also Teacher unions and teachers in general will also not like losing jobs. But, if the School Board not like losing jobs. But, if the School Board members and principals have bought into the members and principals have bought into the plan, then it will be harder for teacher groups to plan, then it will be harder for teacher groups to fight the Staffing Formula. fight the Staffing Formula. Please be careful if Please be careful if teacher unions have collective bargaining teacher unions have collective bargaining agreements in your parishagreements in your parish..


There are limitations to the There are limitations to the extent to which the Staffing extent to which the Staffing Formula may be applied. Over its Formula may be applied. Over its use during the last 13 years, use during the last 13 years, several factors have arisen that several factors have arisen that have altered its pure use, as our have altered its pure use, as our School Board has discoveredSchool Board has discovered..

Limitations


Most importantly, there is a “point Most importantly, there is a “point of diminishing returns” in the use of diminishing returns” in the use of the formula that is reached at of the formula that is reached at the school level when you can’t the school level when you can’t cut teaching positions further cut teaching positions further without harming educational without harming educational opportunities for the children. opportunities for the children. Your School Board administration Your School Board administration will have to use its best judgment will have to use its best judgment to decide when you have arrived to decide when you have arrived at that pointat that point..


The introduction of the required The introduction of the required TOPS curriculum also limits the TOPS curriculum also limits the ability of the Staffing Formula to ability of the Staffing Formula to trim teaching positions, trim teaching positions, particularly at small high schools particularly at small high schools with limited curriculum choices with limited curriculum choices for students. The foreign for students. The foreign language requirements for TOPS language requirements for TOPS is a particular concern.is a particular concern.

Implementation Implementation ProblemsProblems:: Usually, the non-core curriculum Usually, the non-core curriculum

bears the brunt of teacher cuts. bears the brunt of teacher cuts. Music, art, drama, and other Music, art, drama, and other similar elective programs have similar elective programs have been eliminated in most of the been eliminated in most of the schools. Cuts in these programs schools. Cuts in these programs may be unpopular with the publicmay be unpopular with the public. .

Questions?Questions?

Bill Hebert, Director of FinanceBill Hebert, Director of Finance

Jefferson Davis Parish School BoardJefferson Davis Parish School Board

P. O. Box 640P. O. Box 640

Jennings, LA 70546Jennings, LA 70546

(337) 824-1834(337) 824-1834

[email protected]@jdpsbk12.org

Thank you for attending!Thank you for attending!

Please enjoy the rest of Please enjoy the rest of the conference . . . the conference . . .

Documents

Developing A Staffing Formula SASBO APRIL 2008. Presentation Objectives: Illustrate the development of a practical teachers staffing formula. Demonstrate