School Request Observations Jack Petropoulos 2016 Spring Town - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
school request observations
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

School Request Observations Jack Petropoulos 2016 Spring Town - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 16, 2024 278 likes •778 views

School Request Observations Jack Petropoulos 2016 Spring Town Meeting Groton, MA Recognition There is no more important issue in our town Good people have worked very hard and pushed something they believe in Some people are very

slide-1
SLIDE 1

School Request Observations

Jack Petropoulos 2016 Spring Town Meeting Groton, MA

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Recognition

  • There is no more important issue in our town
  • Good people have worked very hard and

pushed something they believe in

  • Some people are very concerned
  • We may have missed a few things
  • There are some important considerations
slide-3
SLIDE 3

Themes

  • Levels Are Not Relevant
  • Our Schools Are Competitive
  • Spending Is Competitive
  • Enrollment Is An Advantage
  • ‘No’ Is Not A Disaster
  • There Is An Alternative
slide-4
SLIDE 4

$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Spend per Student 2014

Source: MA DOE

Levels and Spend per Student (K through 12 Comps*)

Sources: Levels: DOE 2015, http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/accountability.aspx Spending: DOE 2014 *Comps adjusted to include all schools in a region where districts are distinct prior to a Regional High School.

Level 1 Schools (FY’15)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Demographics and Per Pupil Expenditure

slide-6
SLIDE 6

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Groton Population -- more fixed incomes and fewer kids

School Age 65 All others

Source: Donahue Institute

slide-7
SLIDE 7

1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,700 2,900 3,100 Actual NESDEC Donahue-based

  • 367 (-12.4%)
  • 471 (-19.1%)
  • 193 (-7.8%)
slide-8
SLIDE 8

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Enrollment Grade 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Source: MA DOE, GDRSD

GDRSD Enrollment of Class Year of Entry into Kindergarten

  • 74 (-38%)
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Spending & Spend Per Student

slide-10
SLIDE 10

2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 $13,000 $14,000 $15,000 $16,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Number of students Dollars per student Spending/Student Students

Source: MA DOE, GDRSD 2016

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Source: MA DOE

$50,000 $70,000 $90,000 $110,000 $130,000 $150,000 $170,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000 $22,000 $24,000 Median Household Income Spending per Student

Spending per Student and Median Household Income Higher Income = Higher Spend 2014

Weston Littleton Westford Weston Littleton Westford Winchester Medfield Lincoln Subury Weston Littleton Westford Concord Carlisle Lexington Dover Sherborn Weston Littleton Westford Acton Boxboro Winchester Medfield Hopkington Duxbury Lynnfield/Schituate Medway Mendon Upton Weston Littleton Westford Weston Littleton Westford Winchester Medfield Groton Dunstable 2014 Lincoln Subury Weston Littleton Westford Concord Carlisle Lexington Dover Sherborn Weston Littleton Westford Acton Boxboro Winchester Medfield Hopkington Duxbury Lynnfield/Schituate Medway Belmont Hamilton Wenham Mendon Upton King Phillip Sharon

w/ Override (approx.)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Performance Against Comparable Schools

  • Cannot Compare Test Scores in a Vacuum
  • Trends Need To Be Evaluated Against Comps
  • Look at Early Grades
  • Focus on Comparative Trends
  • Groton Yellow
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Source: GDRSD Budget Overview 2017 _ http://gdrsd.org/wp-content/uploads/GDRSD-FY2017-Budget-Education-Slides-v6a.pdf

GDRSD Budget Overview 2017 “Test Performance Declining”_pg 7

No Science Scores GDRSD took MCAS for Science in 2015 and scores were highly competitive These are PARCC scores for 2015 Completely different Test than MCAS

slide-14
SLIDE 14

DART Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Test Scores_Duxbury

Science

Groton: Comp:

slide-15
SLIDE 15

DART Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Test Scores _ Hamilton - Wenham

Science

Groton: Comp:

slide-16
SLIDE 16

DART Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Tests _ Medfield

Science

Groton: Comp:

slide-17
SLIDE 17

DART Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Tests _ Scituate

Science

Groton: Comp:

slide-18
SLIDE 18

BIC Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Tests _ Harvard

Science

Groton: Comp:

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Science

BIC Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Tests _ Westford

Groton: Comp:

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Science

BIC Comparison School (Grade 5) MCAS Tests _ Weston

Groton: Comp:

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Failure To Spend Above Minimum

slide-22
SLIDE 22

What If We Say Yes? What If We Say No? Schools Property Taxes

slide-23
SLIDE 23

From 56th to 18th Highest Tax Rate

2016 Property Tax Rates

Municipality Residential Longmeadow $24.33 Ashburnham $22.75 Shutesbury $22.08 Greenfield $21.81 Orange $21.70 Wilbraham $21.60 Adams $21.39 Maynard $21.25 Fitchburg $21.23 Amherst $21.22 Pelham $21.21 East Longmeadow $21.12 Bolton $20.91 Russell $20.88 Worcester $20.61 Paxton $20.59 Sherborn $20.57 Groton (Projected 2017) $20.56 Heath $20.51

Source: https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/reports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=PropertyTaxInformation.taxratesbyclass.taxratesbyclass_main

Note: These are FY ‘16 rates for all towns except

  • Groton. Groton rate is

projected FY ’15. Other town rates can be expected to rise. Our current rate is $18.78. The avg growth in rates statewide is between 2% and 4%.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Comp School / General Overrides by Size

Municipality Vote Type Fiscal Year Amount Win/Loss

Belmont Override 2016 4,500,000 WIN Sharon Override 2008 2,900,000 WIN Sudbury Override 2009 2,821,200 LOSS Lynnfield Override 2007 2,818,935 WIN Scituate Override 2008 2,741,729 WIN Sudbury Override 2008 2,519,400 WIN Scituate Override 2012 2,200,000 WIN Belmont Override 2011 2,000,000 LOSS Hopkinton Override 2007 1,933,119 WIN Sudbury Override 2009 1,821,200 LOSS Upton Override 2016 1,391,632 WIN Hamilton Override 2009 1,288,322 WIN Hopkinton Underride 2015

  • 1,250,000

WIN Weston Override 2007 1,100,000 WIN Medfield Override 2007 1,000,000 WIN Groton Override 2007 937,570 LOSS Sharon Override 2007 934,000 LOSS Medfield Override 2009 850,000 WIN Upton Override 2011 812,044 WIN Dover Override 2007 800,000 LOSS Harvard Override 2009 786,000 LOSS

source https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/DLSReports/DLSReportViewer.aspx?ReportName=OverrideUnderrideCapStab&ReportTitle=Override,%20Underride,%20Stabilization%20Override%20and%20Capital%20Exclusion%20Votes

slide-25
SLIDE 25

10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Dollars per student

Spending per Student -- Two Budget Cases

Without Override 2016 With Override 2017

Source: Budget = GDRSD, Enrollment = NESDEC

slide-26
SLIDE 26

What Can We Do?

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • Demonstrate A Multi Year Plan
  • Leverage Declining Enrollment

– Lower Class Sizes – Reallocate Resources – Stabilize Cost

  • Maintain a Competitive Spending Per Student
  • Identify Only Highest Priority & Otherwise Unobtainable

Needs

  • For Any New Investment, Show How Costs Decline In

Future

Avoid A Permanent Solution To A Temporary Problem

Return With A Revised Budget That Will:

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Backup

Not shown at town meeting

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Target Aid Share (part of Ch 70) Supplemental Aid Share (part of Ch 70) Target Local Share (= Foundation – Target Aid)

Chapter 70 (= Target Aid + Supplemental Aid)

Required Net School Spending (=Chapter 70 + Target Local Share)

“Supplemental Aid Share” represents Ch 70 Aid over and above Target Aid Share Target Local Share represents how much the state feels we should pay (= Foundation – Target State Aid) Target State Aid calculates how much the state will contribute based on Groton’s wealth Foundation Budget sets a standard level of education for Groton compared to other towns

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Average Annual Change in Chapter 70 and Enrollment 2011 - 2016

  • 1.00%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00%

  • 4.00%
  • 3.00%
  • 2.00%
  • 1.00%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% Chapter 70 Enrollment

Lexington Groton Dunstable State average Mendon Upton Winchester Westford Ayer Shirley Wrentham Tynsboro Belmont Littleton Lexington Groton Dunstable State average Mendon Upton Winchester Westford Ayer Shirley Wrentham Tynsboro Belmont Littleton Weston

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Average Annual Change in District Contribution (NSS - Chapter 70) and Enrollment 2011 - 2016

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00% 7.00% 8.00%

  • 4.00%
  • 3.00%
  • 2.00%
  • 1.00%

0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% District Contribution Enrollment

Lexington State average Groton Dunstable Mendon Upton Winchester Westford Ayer Shirley Medway Harvard Wrentham Tynsboro Belmont Littleton Weston

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • Foundation Budget = The total amount the state thinks should be spent to

achieve a state standard of education given what they know about our student population (irrespective of town wealth)

  • Target State Aid = The amount the state thinks they should contribute

given what they know about our town's wealth

  • Chapter 70 Aid = the amount that the state actually provides. This is

independent of Target State Aid and in Groton's case, it is very generous (See graphic)

  • Target Aid Share = The % of the Foundation Budget that the state feels

that the state should cover

  • Target Local Contribution = The % of the Foundation budget that the state

feels the town should cover

  • Minimum Net School Spending (MNSS) = Chapter 70 Aid + (Foundation -

Target State Aid)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Groton Dunstable’s State Aid Relative to “Targeted Aid Share”

slide-34
SLIDE 34

“………The Groton Dunstable schools have faced drastic cuts for 8 years. Now, the effect of such cuts are showing – our overall student performance is declining. What was once a high-ranking school system is now a Level 2

  • District. If the current FY17 school budget does

not pass, the Groton Dunstable schools will continue to

decline and follow the current trajectory to become a Level 3 District. This would mean that Groton Dunstable schools would be ranked in the bottom 20% of all schools in Massachusetts. Home values would plummet and our children’s quality of education would decline even more.”

slide-35
SLIDE 35

$- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900

  • 1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Unreimbursded Transportation Spend per Student Total School Enrollment

2014 Unreimbursed Transportation Costs per Student for School Districts

GDRSD

Source: MA DOE

slide-36
SLIDE 36

HAMILTON WENHAM Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year

Chapter 70 Aid Foundation Budget Required Net School Spending Actual Net School Spending

slide-37
SLIDE 37

DOVER SHERBORN Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year

Chapter 70 Aid Foundation Budget Required Net School Spending Actual Net School Spending

slide-38
SLIDE 38

CONCORD CARLISLE Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year

Chapter 70 Aid Foundation Budget Required Net School Spending Actual Net School Spending

slide-39
SLIDE 39

WESTFORD Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year

Chapter 70 Aid Foundation Budget Required Net School Spending Actual Net School Spending

slide-40
SLIDE 40

LITTLETON Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

$0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year

Chapter 70 Aid Foundation Budget Required Net School Spending Actual Net School Spending

slide-41
SLIDE 41

GROTON DUNSTABLE Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

slide-42
SLIDE 42

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

66.70% 67.30% 67.40% 65.80% 64.20% 64.40% 61.80% 61.70% 61.50% 62.40% 61.70% 63.40% 60.50% 59.90% 60.40% 58.30% 59.60% 58.70% 59.00% 58.80% 58.60% 57.80% 59.40% 58.40%

58.60%

56.70% 56.40% 56.20% 55.70% 55.50% 56.90% 55.70%

55.90%

56.00% 55.60%

55.10%

56.30% 54.80% 53.90% 55.70% 55.20% 54.60% 55.80% 53.30% 53.50% 55.50% 54.20% 54.10% 53.50% 53.30% 53.40% 53.50%

53.30%

54.00% 53.40% 52.40% 52.90%

53.30%

52.90% 52.80%

52.50% 51.70%

52.50% 53.10% 52.30% 51.70%

51.90% 51.50% 52.10% 52.20% 52.10% 51.60% 51.70% 51.00% 51.70% 52.10% 51.50% 51.50% 50.90% 50.70% 51.50% 51.90% 50.50% 51.20% 50.20% 48.60% 48.90% 50.70% 50.20% 49.60% 49.50% 48.00% 47.90% 50.10% 48.80% 47.10% 49.20% 47.20% 46.40% 46.60% 47.20% 46.20% 48.90% 47.00% 46.40% 46.50% 46.50% 46.00% 47.10% 46.80% 45.20% 46.40% 45.60% 45.80% 46.60% 46.60% 45.10% 44.80% 44.10% 45.70% 46.30% 42.70% 45.00% 39.80% 41.80% 44.80% 39.80% 40.10% 40.20% 33.10% 38.40% 41.90% 52.50% 51.70% 52.50% 53.10% 52.30% 51.70%

% Of Total Town Spend on Schools

slide-43
SLIDE 43

GDRSD Budget Growth

$- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 $50,000,000 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY 17 (est)

Compound Avg. Growth Rate:

2017 With Override (est.) 3.2% 2017 Without Override (actual) 2.4%

slide-44
SLIDE 44

$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Weston Lincoln Sudbury Dover Sherborn Lexington Concord Carlilse Hamilton Wenham Sharon Acton Boxboro Norwell Littleton AyerShirley Lynnfield King Phillip Scituate North Middlesex Hopkington Groton Dunstable Medfield Mendon-Upton Belmont Duxbury Medway Winchester Westford Tyngsboro Chelmsford Spend per Student 2014

Spend per Student (2014)

Source: MA DOE

slide-45
SLIDE 45

GROTON DUNSTABLE Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

slide-46
SLIDE 46

STATE TOTAL Chapter 70 Trends, FY93 to FY16

$0 $2,000,000,000 $4,000,000,000 $6,000,000,000 $8,000,000,000 $10,000,000,000 $12,000,000,000 $14,000,000,000 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fiscal Year

Chapter 70 Aid Foundation Budget Required Net School Spending Actual Net School Spending

slide-47
SLIDE 47

source https://dlsgateway.dor.state.ma.us/DLSReports/DLSReportViewer.aspx?ReportName=OverrideUnderrideCapStab&ReportTitle=Override,%20Underride,%20Stabilization%20Override%20and%20Capital%20Exclusion%20Votes

Municipality Vote Type Fiscal Year Amount Win/Loss

Belmont Override 2016 4,500,000 WIN Upton Override 2016 1,391,632 WIN Dunstable Override 2015 200,000 WIN Hopkinton Underride 2015

  • 1,250,000

WIN Lynnfield Override 2012 560,000 WIN Medfield Override 2012 500,000 WIN Scituate Override 2012 2,200,000 WIN Sudbury Override 2012 553,000 LOSS Belmont Override 2011 2,000,000 LOSS Harvard Override 2011 107,000 LOSS Upton Override 2011 812,044 WIN Carlisle Override 2009 251,610 WIN Groton Override 2009 106,437 LOSS Hamilton Override 2009 177,444 WIN Hamilton Override 2009 1,288,322 WIN Harvard Override 2009 786,000 LOSS Harvard Override 2009 415,172 LOSS Harvard Override 2009 200,000 WIN Medfield Override 2009 850,000 WIN Sudbury Override 2009 2,821,200 LOSS Sudbury Override 2009 1,821,200 LOSS

Comp School / General Overrides by Date

slide-48
SLIDE 48