Continued Budget Discussion and Approval of Decision Items Presentation to the S tate Board of Education June 2019 1
Summary of Decision Items for 2019-20 Budget Cycle Amount Description of Request FTE Requested* Total Program Funding TBD 0.0 Categorical Programs Funding TBD 0.0 Educator Preparation Programs $98,640-155,320 1.0 Educator Licensing Background Checks $57,660 1.0 New Discussion Item: CDE Infrastructure Support TBD TBD Totals: * All amounts are estimates 2
Annual Budget Requests • Total Program Funding (Annual and Required) • Categorical Program Funding (Annual and Required) • The department is required by statute to submit to the General Assembly to adj ust Total Program and Categorical funding. • These amounts are determined later in the budget cycle, once most other statewide budget amounts are final. 3
Educator Preparation Programs The Division of Educator Talent, Educator Preparation Office oversees for 56 Educator Preparation Programs (EPP) and approximately 200 educator induction programs across the state: • 24 programs through institutes of higher education • 32 alternative educator preparation programs 4
Educator Preparation Programs In addition to statutory requirements, the authorization and reauthorization of EPPs, is based on three main principles: • Quality of instruction plays a central role in student learning • Teacher preparation programs contribute to the quality of instruction • Evaluation of teacher preparation programs can provide useful information 5
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) The CDE authorization and reauthorization process includes three main categories: • Ensuring accountability by monitoring program quality • Providing information for teachers, districts, public and policy makers • Enabling continuous improvement by providing institutions with information on strengths and weaknesses 6
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) • The Educator Preparation Program is currently funded through educator licensing fees and is limited to a basic review at a preliminary level. • CDE enlists the help of subj ect matter experts to be program evaluators and complete EPP reviews. • Enlisted program evaluators are not paid for this work and do not receive travel reimbursement. Therefore, time is limited to single days to avoid overnight expenses. 7
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) • Per Board and staff discussions, we are moving to a more systematic review through competency-based and observable measures. • An example of this is the need to more deeply review EPPs to ensure they are teaching evidence-based literacy instruction throughout all programs. • Reviews at this level require more depth than a simply syllabi review. • This focus will allow CDE to offer deeper supports and technical assistance to the EPPs. • In May we gave you a rough estimate of 90,000; as we built out the request, we identified several options for you to consider. 8
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) Dedicated funding for Educator Prep Programs would allow CDE to create a more focused and rigorous system of review which could include: • Funding for a dedicated 1.0 FTE to provide opportunities for technical assistance and professional learning on an individual and collective group EPP basis. • S tipends and travel costs for subj ect matter experts for authorization review of new EPP programs, and reauthorization of current EPPs. • Designated agency advisory group convenings and opportunities for professional learning. 9
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) Comprehensive request includes 1.0 FTE for staff support, subj ect matter expert stipends and travel costs, 2 advisory group convenings and 4-8 professional learning opportunities per year. The estimated cost for this option is $155,320 and 1.0 FTE: Type of Expenditures FY 2019-201 Operating $30,720 Travel $49,600 Payroll $75,000 Total $155,320 10
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) Mid-range request includes 1.0 FTE for staff support, subj ect matter expert stipends and travel costs, 1 advisory group convening and 2-4 professional learning opportunities per year. The estimated cost for this option is $126,980 and 1.0 FTE: Type of Expenditures FY 2019-201 Operating $21,180 Travel $30,800 Payroll $75,000 Total $126,980 11
Educator Preparation Programs (continued) Low-range request includes 1.0 FTE for staff support and subj ect matter expert stipends and travel costs. No advisory group convenings or professional learning opportunities are included. The estimated cost for this option is $98,640 and 1.0 FTE: Type of Expenditures FY 2019-201 Operating $11,640 Travel $12,000 Payroll $75,000 Total $98,640 12
Educator Licensing Background Checks • House Bill 19-1166 requires that when the results of a fingerprint- based criminal history background check for certain applicants reveals a record of arrest without a final disposition of the case, an applicant must submit to a name-based criminal history background check. • The fiscal note for the bill recognized that workload will increase for CDE to review name-based criminal history background checks for various applicants. • The Legislative Council staff concluded that the increase can be accomplished within existing resources. If additional resources are required, they will be requested through the annual budget process. 13
Educator Licensing Background Checks (continued) • The department estimates that the bill will increase department expenditures by $57,660 and 1.0 FTE in FY 2019-20 and $57,684 and 1.0 FTE in FY 2020-21. • The estimate assumes that the department will need additional staff to research, track, and record criminal histories for offenses that do not exclude someone from obtaining a license, along with monitoring recent arrests and requesting documents from other court j urisdictions. 14
New Discussion Item: CDE Infrastructure Support • During our annual legislative review, we identified a resource issue and wanted to bring it up for discussion • Annually CDE has a number of bills to implement: • 40 from the 2019 session • 41 from the 2018 session • 27 from the 2017 session • The department includes fiscal notes to accurately reflect anticipate resource requirements. • S ome fiscal note responses include activities which can be absorbed within existing resources individually. However, there is a point that these activities can no longer be absorbed given the cumulative impact. • Other fiscal impacts are not incorporated into the published fiscal note. 15
CDE Infrastructure Support (continued) • CDE identified the fiscal impact for competitive grants, grants fiscal management, procurement, rulemaking and other activities. Many of the impacts were determined to be absorbable on an individual basis. • 16 bills passed in 2109 involve new competitive grant programs or changes to existing grant programs. • 10 bills involve procurement activities, many of which will require an RFP process • 17 sets of rules must be created or amended as a result of bills • House Bill 19-1166 discussed previously is an example of a fiscal note that does not incorporate CDE’s anticipated fiscal impact. • Additionally, we identified and requested 0.7 FTE for Competitive Grants and Grants Fiscal Management. Only 0.3 FTE was approved through the fiscal note process. 16
CDE Infrastructure Support (continued) • The collective impact of a number of bills over recent years has resulted in difficulties, particularly on the infrastructure support for the department, including: • Competitive Grants/ Grants Fiscal Management • Procurement • Rulemaking • Program Evaluations • Human Resources • Communications • Other areas… .. • Is the S BE willing for CDE to further evaluate resources needed to provide adequate infrastructure support and submit a corresponding budget request? 17
Recommend
More recommend
