School Efficiency Review of Halifax County Public Schools

Transcription

1 School Efficiency Review of Halifax County Public Schools March

2

3 School Efficiency Review of Halifax County Public Schools March 2012 Planning is bringing the future into the present so that you can do something about it now. -Alan Lakein

4

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction Background Methodology Peer Divisions Stakeholder Input Study Limitations Overview of the Final Report Acknowledgements Overview of Academics and Finances Academic Performance Educational Productivity Revenues and Expenditures Divisional Administration Division Management and Organizational Structure Site-Based Management Administration and Board Support Internal and External Communication Policies and Procedures Legal Cost Management Planning Evaluation Educational Service Delivery School Administration and Decision-Making Curriculum Policies and Management Special Education Bilingual Education/English as a Second Language Gifted and Talented Education Personnel and Human Resources Organization and Management Personnel Policies and Procedures Recruitment, Hiring, and Retention Staff Development Compensation and Classification Systems Class Size Analysis

6 6.0 Facilities Use and Management Plans, Policies, and Procedures Maintenance Operations Custodial Operations Energy Management Financial Management Financial Management Financial Operations Purchasing Budgeting Transportation Operations Safety and Training Fleet and Maintenance Routing and Efficiencies Technology Technology Planning Organization and Management Professional Development Instructional Technology Food Services Policies, Procedures, and Compliance Planning and Budgeting Management and Facility Operations Qualifying Students for Free and Reduced Price Meals Student Participation Nutrition and Nutrition Education Programs Summary Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Appendix F: Appendix G: Student Survey Results Parent Survey Results Staff Survey Results Focus Group Comments Board Self-Evaluation Tool Finance Resources Sample Table of Contents for a Food Services Manual This report printed double sided in support of the Earth.

7 Executive Summary In September 2011, Halifax County Public Schools (HCPS) contracted with Prismatic Services, Inc., to complete a school efficiency review of the division. Modeled on the Virginia School Efficiency Review process developed by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, the purpose of the review was to identify savings that can be gained through best practices in non-instructional areas of: organization; educational service delivery; human resources; facilities use and management; financial management; transportation; technology management; and food service. It was the intent of the review team to identify potential savings in non-instructional areas so that dollars could be redirected into the classroom. HCPS voluntarily undertook this efficiency review, as an outgrowth of repeated school board discussions about having a review and in light of several years of financial reductions. The division wanted to know (and show) that they are doing what they can to be as efficient and effective as possible. METHODOLOGY In completing this school efficiency review, Prismatic followed a 13-step work plan: 1. Initiate project. 2. Conduct Advance Team visit. 3. Complete initial comparative analyses. 4. Field staff, student, and parent surveys. 5. Prepare initial analysis. 6. Conduct On-Site visit. 7. Develop interim briefing document. 8. Develop initial draft report. 9. Complete internal quality control. 10. Develop exposure draft report. 11. Develop final report. i

8 12. Submit concluding documents. 13. Close project. Project initiation occurred on September 19, A Prismatic Advance team of two was on-site in the district October 11-12, The Advance team interviewed 15 staff, all eight Board members, and conducted a community focus group attended by 12. The results of the Advance visit were distributed internally to Prismatic team members to assist them in developing interview and focus group questions, prioritize areas for on-site observations, and tentatively identify any areas of likely findings. The full On-Site visit was completed with nine Prismatic team members October 31 through November 4, The team completed 82 interviews of either individuals or several staff together, interviews with four School Board members, and 24 focus groups. Once on-site, team members were free to schedule additional and follow-up interviews, as needed. Team members also observed operations in schools. All schools were visited at least once during the On-Site visit. Prismatic made comparisons to peer divisions where appropriate and possible. The peers selected for comparison in all areas except transportation were: Danville City; Dinwiddie County; Henry County; and Mecklenburg County. Because of the challenges presented by the division s rural and large geographic size, as well as its organization with only one high school, these peers were selected for transportation comparisons only: Franklin County; Pittsylvania County; Pulaski County; and Rockingham County. Prismatic provided three groups of stakeholders with an opportunity to provide input through surveys: HCPS staff, parents, and 11 th and 12 th grade students. All surveys were available in October The response rates were: Student survey 683 responses out of a possible 785; Parent survey responses; and Staff survey 680 responses out of a possible 1,111. ii

9 Overall, this study was completed with few limitations. In a few limited areas, the division did not have information the team requested for analysis. In some cases, the team was forced to estimate using reasonable assumptions based on past experiences in other divisions. While it would obviously be preferable to rely on solid, verifiable data, it is not likely that this methodological limitation impacted the team s overall conclusions. All assumptions necessary because of data limitations have been clearly outlined in subsequent chapters. COMMENDATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this report, Prismatic awarded 38 commendations, highlighting exemplary processes and practices in HCPS. Prismatic also made 122 recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of district operations. The high number of commendations awarded is a testament to the strength of the school division and the dedication of its staff. On reviews such as this, a typical ratio of commendations to recommendations is one to four. HCPS has been awarded commendations at a rate of one to three, clearly indicative of the high level of efficiency and effectiveness already present in the division. Of the 122 recommendations, Prismatic developed fiscal impacts for 30, which are the only recommendations where the most likely implementation path is clear and direct costs or savings can estimated from that implementation. In all cases, we have endeavored to be conservative in estimating savings and aggressive in estimating costs. School Efficiency Review reports are typically lengthy and densely packed with information. They can at first be overwhelming to division stakeholders. For that reason, Prismatic has identified the most likely tipping point recommendations. These are recommendations that we believe are the most important to implement and most likely to have the greatest organizational impact. Of the 122 recommendations made, we believe these 13 recommendations to be the most critical: Chapter 3 Divisional Administration Identify sources of data beyond test scores and continually use them to inform decision making. Some HCPS school faculties reported working together to examine SOL information, use data about individual questions/skills, analyze performance trends at grade levels, and facilitate school improvement planning, but such activities are not uniform across the division. Division leaders, including principals, should include identification of data that will enhance their understanding of progress toward goals and objectives. They should regularly use data analysis as they focus on activities and programs most likely to improve student performance. Research shows that the regular use of data is a key characteristic of high-achieving schools. Adopt a new central office structure. The division is losing several key personnel this year who have been integral to the division s ongoing success. Over the past several years, budget woes have cut too deeply into central office staffing; the division has managed to continue to operate at a high level due to the deep experience and iii

10 effectiveness of senior leaders. Without them, the division will need a new, slightly larger central office organization to support continued success. Chapter 4 Educational Service Delivery Develop a comprehensive professional development plan that addresses student needs, division needs, and content area deficiencies. To maintain a high-quality and effective workforce, HCPS must have a staff development program tied to its goals and objectives. Research indicates that teacher professional development can impact classroom instruction, but it must be targeted and long-term (at least 80 hours). It need not be outside the division some of the most effective professional development is often conducted internally, with successful teachers and administrators sharing what they know. As noted in Chapter 5, Prismatic recommends the creation of a supervisor position, responsible for assessments and staff development. Chapter 5 Personnel and Human Resource Establish and publish a new compensation and pay plan. Future financial stability in HCPS depends on strong salary and pay planning. With no salary increases for the past four years, the division does not have current knowledge regarding the market comparability of the salaries it is paying. Analyze class sizes and its impact on staffing needs each year. Combined with shrinking enrollment in its elementary schools, which, for example has led to 5 th grade classes ranging in size from 17 to 28 students, the division has a number of middle and high school classes with small enrollments. Middle school teacher loads range from 78 to 135 students. High school teacher loads range from 30 to 97. Effective school divisions place a major emphasis on human resource management in their schools and annually answer the question, How many teachers do we need? Chapter 6 Facilities Use and Management Develop a closure plan for at least two elementary schools. While never a pleasant task, when enrollment significantly lags capacity, as is the case in HCPS, a division must consider the significant fiscal impact of continuing to operate schools that are enrolled under capacity. Each additional school requires resources in the form of facilities maintenance, utilities, transportation, and equipment. Each school also requires additional staffing administrators, clerical, custodial, and food services that could be provided more efficiently in one full school rather than two half-empty schools. Consider upgrading the CMMS software to one of the newer CMMS solutions (administered online) and create an efficient preventative maintenance program. This will require an initial expense (less than $10,000), but should provide significant benefits in improved efficiency and effectiveness in facilities maintenance. An internet-based system would offer automated work orders, preventive maintenance scheduling, and comprehensive reporting. iv

11 Chapter 7 Financial Management Reorganize the finance office. A new business manager position would be created. The business manager would be responsible for all daily financial processing and financial reporting. Chapter 8 Transportation Adopt a full-time router position. Hiring and training a full-time bus router will enable the transportation department to implement more efficient routing (or verify that the current routing is as efficient as possible). A full-time router will also be able to develop detailed analyses of what-if scenarios, such as various potential options in bus tiering. Adopt staggered bell times or combine schools on bus routes. Every bus route that can be eliminated by combining two routes saves approximately the cost of one school teacher. Chapter 9 -- Technology Re-establish technology leadership through both a director of technology and an instructional technology position. While some areas of a division may be highly effective operating in relative isolation from other areas, the pervasive nature of technology, as well as its comparatively high cost per unit, dictate that technology be leveraged from one central direction. This requires central leadership. Eliminate division-wide LAN manager positions. The division s current deployment of computers in labs is outdated. In today s academic environment, technology should be integral to instruction. Moving the computers into classrooms changes the dynamic from pull out program to classroom integration. Chapter 10 Food Services Develop a comprehensive updated food services procedures manual. Many of the concerns identified by the consulting team in this area can be addressed in an updated procedures manual that clearly identifies performance standards and expectations. As a first step in implementing report recommendations, Prismatic recommends that division leaders review all report recommendations to identify which (in whole or in part) can be implemented immediately or within the next three months. We suggest that HCPS prioritize the completion of the 13 tipping point recommendations. From there, division leaders should then develop a prioritized action plan with accompanying deadlines and metrics. Individuals or small teams within the division should be assigned to spearhead each effort and should be held accountable for producing results. v

12

13 Chapter 1 Introduction In September 2011, Halifax County Public Schools (HCPS) contracted with Prismatic Services, Inc., to complete a school efficiency review of the division. Modeled on the Virginia School Efficiency Review process developed by the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget, the purpose of the review was to identify savings that can be gained through best practices in the non-instructional areas of: organization; educational service delivery; human resources; facilities use and management; financial management; transportation; technology management; and food service. It was the intent of the review team to identify potential savings in non-instructional areas so that dollars could be redirected into the classroom. This report is presented to fulfill the requirements of the division s contract with Prismatic. 1.1 BACKGROUND HCPS voluntarily undertook this efficiency review as an outgrowth of repeated school board discussions about having a review and in light of several years of financial reductions. The division wanted to know (and show) that they are doing what they can to be as efficient and effective as possible. At the time of project initiation, the HCPS superintendent had already announced his retirement, effective June A number of other senior administrators will leave this school year or in the near future, potentially leaving a leadership vacuum. Although the school board was generally in favor of this study, it was the desire of one school board member in particular. Shortly after the on-site work of the Prismatic team, several school board members changed in the November 2011 election. The division undertook this review at this time in recognition of likely challenging budget discussions for and beyond. The national economic downturn has resulted in difficult 1-1

14 times in many school divisions. For the first time ever, states overall spending decreased for two years in a row 4.8 percent in FY2009 and 4.0 percent in FY And, as one expert recently noted: States are looking at tens of billions in budget shortfalls for fiscal year And the accelerating downturn in commercial real estate and the soft housing market mean that districts will likely be looking at tight budgets into 2014 and beyond. 2 It was in this environment that HCPS took the commendable step of seeking out a consulting firm to conduct a school efficiency review. In this report, Prismatic has sought to provide the division with a menu of options from which to become more efficient and effective. 1.2 METHODOLOGY In completing this school efficiency review, Prismatic followed a 13-step work plan: 1. Initiate project. 2. Conduct Advance Team visit. 3. Complete initial comparative analyses. 4. Field staff, student, and parent surveys. 5. Prepare initial analysis. 6. Conduct On-Site visit. 7. Develop interim briefing document. 8. Develop initial draft report. 9. Complete internal quality control. 10. Develop exposure draft report. 11. Develop final report. 12. Submit concluding documents. 13. Close project. Project initiation occurred on September 19, At that time, Prismatic and division staff confirmed overall project goals, finalized a project timeline, and discussed areas of potential focus for the study. Prismatic then provided to the division an Initial Data Request List comprised of 216 items. The items requested were in the categories of: General Information; Divisional Administration; Educational Service Delivery; 1 Hess, F. and Downs, W. (2010) K-12 budget picture: lean years ahead. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. (10). 2 Hess, F. and Osberg, E. (2010). Stretching the school dollar: how schools and districts can save money while serving students best. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. 1-2

15 Human Resources; Facilities Use and Management; Financial Management; Transportation; Technology Management; and Food Services. Division staff provided all existing information requested and did so in a timely manner. Most collected data were digitized and distributed electronically to Prismatic team members prior to the On-Site visit. A few larger items were distributed in paper form. A Prismatic Advance team of two was on-site in the district October 11-12, The Advance team interviewed 15 staff, all eight Board members, and conducted a community focus group attended by 12. The results of the Advance visit were distributed internally to Prismatic team members to assist them in developing interview and focus group questions, prioritize areas for on-site observations, and tentatively identify any areas of likely findings. The full On-Site visit was completed with nine Prismatic team members October 31 through November 4, The team completed 82 interviews of either individuals or several staff together, interviews with four School Board members, and 24 focus groups. Once on-site, team members were free to schedule additional and follow-up interviews, as needed. Team members also observed operations in schools. All schools were visited at least once during the On-Site visit. 1.3 PEER DIVISIONS As part of the analyses completed in this study, Prismatic made comparisons to peer divisions where appropriate and possible. After review of data available at the state level and discussions with division staff, the peers selected for comparison in all areas except transportation were: Danville City; Dinwiddie County; Henry County; and Mecklenburg County. Because of the challenges presented by the division s rural and large geographic size, as well as its organization with only one high school, these peers were selected for transportation comparisons only: 1-3

16 Franklin County; Student Survey Pittsylvania County; Pulaski County; and Rockingham County. Several other divisions in Virginia were considered but eliminated because they were found to be less comparable in terms of student enrollment, percentage of free and reduced price lunch eligible students, and percent non-white students. In some analyses, the team used peer data available from the Virginia Department of Education. In other analyses, team members contacted the peer divisions with specific data requests. Not all peer divisions were responsive to all requests. 1.4 STAKEHOLDER INPUT Prismatic provided three groups of stakeholders with an opportunity to provide input through surveys: HCPS staff, parents, and 11 th and 12 th grade students. All surveys were launched online and housed on servers maintained by Prismatic. Division staff reviewed and approved all survey questions prior to launch. All surveys were available in October All survey responses were held confidential and no individual survey result was shared with any division staff. For the student survey, the review team asked all 11 th and 12 th grade students to complete a 32- question survey. Division staff coordinated the completion of the survey October 24-27, A total of 683 students responded to the survey out of 795, for a response rate of 86 percent. Based on the review team s experience, this response rate is much higher than typical for a survey of this nature. The margin of error for responses to survey questions ranges from 1.4 percent to 1.5 percent. Aggregated responses to the survey are provided in Appendix A of this report. For the parent survey, the review team provided a link to the online survey that was available October 12 th through the 28 th. Division staff handled the distribution of the survey link. Parents were asked to complete a 38-question survey. A total of 291 parents responded to the survey. Based on the review team s experience, this response rate is higher than typical for a survey of this nature. Aggregated responses to the survey are provided in Appendix B of this report. For the staff survey, the review team asked all staff to complete a 148-question survey. The online version of the survey was available October 18 th through the 28 th. A paper version of the survey was provided to the approximately 430 staff members without regular or computer access in their division work. Prismatic completed the data entry of all surveys returned in paper format. A total of 680 staff responded to the survey out of 1,111, for a response rate of 61 percent. Based on the review team s experience, this response rate is typical for a survey of this nature. The margin of error for responses to survey questions ranges from 2.3 percent to 2.7 percent. Half (50%) of the respondents identified themselves as teachers. A slightly lower percentage (45%) identified 1-4

17 themselves as other staff and five percent identified themselves as administrators. Aggregated responses to the survey are provided in Appendix C of this report. 1.5 STUDY LIMITATIONS Overall, this study was completed with few limitations. In a few limited areas, the division did not have information the team requested for analysis. In some cases, the team was forced to estimate using reasonable assumptions based on past experiences in other divisions. While it would obviously be preferable to rely on solid, verifiable data, it is not likely that this methodological limitation impacted the team s overall conclusions. All assumptions necessary because of data limitations have been clearly outlined in subsequent chapters. 1.6 OVERVIEW OF THE FINAL REPORT The remaining chapters of this report are presented in this order: Chapter 2 Overview of Academics and finances; Chapter 3 -- Divisional Administration; Chapter 4 -- Educational Service Delivery; Chapter 5 -- Human Resources; Chapter 6 -- Facilities Use and Management; Chapter 7 -- Financial Management; Chapter 8 -- Transportation; Chapter 9 -- Technology Management; Chapter Food Services; Chapter 11 Summary of Commendations and Recommendations; Appendix A Student Survey Results; Appendix B Parent Survey Results; Appendix C Staff Survey Results; Appendix D Focus Group Comments; Appendix E Board Self-Evaluation Tool; Appendix F Finance Resources; and 1-5

18 Appendix G Sample Table of Contents for a Food Services Manual. It is important to remember that not all areas reviewed by Prismatic are included in this report. Only those areas where team members either identified an outstanding practice or one in need of improvement have been included. Findings regarding outstanding practices conclude with a commendation; those regarding practices in need of improvement conclude with a recommendation. Division areas operating at an acceptable level are not included in the report, although the team may have had to investigate them deeply in order to determine their efficiency and effectiveness. Had information on division areas without findings been included, this report would have approximately tripled in size. While Prismatic has included recommendations it strongly believes are necessary, we emphasize that the division is under no obligation to implement any recommendation in this report. HCPS undertook this study voluntarily, in an effort to identify areas for improvement. Moreover, as division staff members work through the chapters of this report, they may find alternative ways to address the findings presented. 1.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prismatic gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following individuals in the performance of our on-site research, data analysis, and in the preparation of this report: Paul Stapleton, Superintendent; Robin Mahan, Office Manager; Larry Clark, Deputy Superintendent; Bill Covington, Chief Finance Officer; Valdivia Marshall, Administration Executive Director; Melanie Stanley, Instruction Executive Director; David Guill, Transportation Director; Larry Roller, Maintenance Director; Carolyn Higgins, Food Services Supervisor; Nancy Leonard, Special Education Supervisor; Dan Chmiel, Energy Manager; and David Day, Lead Technician. Prismatic also thanks the many other division staff who provided time, assistance, observations, and data for this review. 1-6

19 Chapter 2 Overview of Academics and Finances This chapter provides an overview of academics and finances in Halifax County Public Schools (HCPS). It includes these sections: 2.1 Academic Performance 2.2 Educational Productivity 2.3 Revenues and Expenditures Four other Virginia divisions were selected as peer divisions for this school efficiency review and are included in a number of exhibits for comparison purposes to HCPS. They are: Danville City; Dinwiddie County; Henry County; and Mecklenburg County. 2.1 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE The Virginia Department of Education tracks the performance of each division on required annual assessments in a number of subject areas, based on the Standards of Learning (SOL). Exhibit 2-1 provides the percentage of HPCS students in each grade that passed the Virginia reading assessment, as well as those in the peer divisions. As shown, HCPS was above the peer average in three grades, but below the peer average in four grades. Exhibit 2-1 Comparison of Virginia Reading Assessment Pass Rates Grade Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg Peer Average 3rd Grade 87% 73% 83% 84% 80% 80% 4th Grade 85% 80% 91% 89% 89% 87% 5th Grade 91% 81% 94% 92% 90% 89% 6th Grade 74% 82% 81% 86% 89% 85% 7th Grade 76% 81% 80% 91% 89% 85% 8th Grade 78% 87% 82% 92% 93% 89% End of Course 93% 86% 90% 93% 93% 91% Source: Virginia Department of Education, October

20 Exhibit 2-2 provides the results of the Virginia writing assessment. As shown, HCPS was below the peer average for all three grades tested and had the lowest percentage of 8 th grade students passing among the peers. Exhibit 2-2 Comparison of Virginia Writing Assessment Pass Rates Grade Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg Peer Average 5th Grade 82% 75% 86% 85% 88% 84% 8th Grade 77% 84% 94% 88% 87% 88% End of Course 91% 87% 91% 93% 96% 92% Source: Virginia Department of Education, October Exhibit 2-3 provides the results of the Virginia math assessment. As shown, HCPS was above the peer average in 3 rd grade, Algebra I, and Algebra II. HCPS was below the peer average in all other grades. Exhibit 2-3 Comparison of Virginia Math Assessment Pass Rates Grade Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg Peer Average 3rd Grade 95% 87% 96% 95% 89% 92% 4th Grade 89% 88% 93% 93% 94% 92% 5th Grade 89% 82% 95% 94% 91% 91% 6th Grade 63% 70% 51% 76% 72% 67% 7th Grade 70% 76% 83% NA 83% 81% 8th Grade 75% 81% 67% 91% 76% 79% Algebra I 96% 92% 94% 97% 91% 94% Algebra II 96% 91% 94% 97% 96% 95% Geometry 82% 71% 85% 89% 90% 84% Source: Virginia Department of Education, October Exhibit 2-4 provides the results of the Virginia science assessment. As shown, HCPS was above the peer average for 3 rd grade, biology, and earth science. The division was below the peer average for the remaining three grades. 2-2

21 Exhibit 2-4 Comparison of Virginia Science Assessment Pass Rates Grade Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg Peer Average 3rd Grade 92% 86% 91% 91% 88% 89% 5th Grade 84% 79% 91% 87% 88% 86% 8th Grade 85% 88% 89% 95% 94% 92% Biology 90% 72% 87% 90% 85% 84% Chemistry 88% 95% 100% 92% 93% 95% Earth Science 88% 67% 88% 95% 86% 84% Source: Virginia Department of Education, October EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY As has been detailed in several previous research efforts, 1 there has been little verification that increased spending is significantly and positively correlated to increased academic achievement. It may appear obvious to the average citizen that spending more on education will result in better educated students, but school divisions are increasingly discovering that smarter spending often has a greater impact than increased spending. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics show that nationwide, after adjusting for inflation, education spending per student has nearly tripled in the past 40 years. Yet, data from a number of sources do not show that student achievement has climbed in a similar fashion. 2 Some argue that student achievement has instead remained flat. In January 2011, the Center for American Progress released a report detailing a groundbreaking attempt to measure the academic achievement of a school district, relative to its educational spending and controlling for such factors as cost of living and the percentage of students living in poverty. Such an analysis attempts to determine whether a given district is spending its funds wisely, in comparison to other districts within the same state. 3 The Center developed three measures: Basic Return on Investment (Basic ROI) index rating This measure rates districts on how much academic achievement they get for each dollar spent, relative to other districts in their state. It is adjusted to account for cost-of-living differences, as well as differences in low-income, English language learners, and special education students. 1 Schoolhouse, Courthouses, and Statehouses (2009) by Hanushek, E. and Lindseth, A. provides a good review of the funding-achievement debate. 2 Ibid. 3 Because of a myriad of differences in state education and accountability systems, comparisons across state lines are not valid. 2-3

22 Adjusted Return on Investment (Adjusted ROI) index rating This measure uses the same approach as the basic index, but uses regression analysis to adjust for the higher costs associated with serving larger concentrations of low-income, English language learners, and special education students. Predicted Efficiency index rating This measure assesses whether a district s achievement is higher or lower than would be predicted, after accounting for its per student spending and its levels of low-income, English language learners, and special education students. 4 The Center reports the results of all three measures in a green-to-red color-coding scheme. The basic and adjusted ROI indices use the matrix shown in Exhibit 2-5 to report district results. The desired areas of the matrix are shown in shades of green, where medium or high achievement is reached through low or medium cost. The predicted efficiency index rating uses a comparable color-coding scheme to indicate where districts have achieved from lower than expected achievement to higher than expected achievement. Exhibit 2-5 Center for American Progress Return on Evaluation Matrix Lowest Achievement Medium Achievement Highest Achievement Lowest Cost Medium Cost Highest Cost Source: Center for American Progress, Return on Educational Investment: A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity, January 2011, Using data (the most recent available on a nationwide basis), the Center computed the basic ROI, adjusted ROI, and predicted efficiency for each Virginia division. The results are shown in Exhibits 2-6 through 2-8. The individual result for HCPS is circled on each graph. As shown, HCPS was in the middle in each category, getting slightly better student achievement than other Virginia divisions, given its level of per student spending. However, in none of the three measures was HCPS in the upper left quadrant, among those getting the best student achievement, given the level of per student spending. Moving to the upper left quadrant would require HCPS to reduce expenditures relative to academic achievement (become more cost-efficient) or to improve academic achievement relative to expenditures (become more cost-effective). Of course, a division could seek to improve cost efficiency and effectiveness at the same time

23 Exhibit 2-6 Center for American Progress - Basic ROI for Virginia Divisions Source: Exhibit 2-7 Center for American Progress - Adjusted ROI Index for Virginia Divisions Source: 2-5

24 Exhibit 2-8 Center for American Progress - Virginia Predicted Efficiency Index Source: Exhibit 2-9 compares the Center s indices for HCPS and the peer divisions. As shown, HCPS had better basic and adjusted ROIs than one of the peers (Danville) On predicted efficiency, HCPS was better than two peers (Danville and Dinwiddie), the same as one peer (Henry), and worse than one peer (Mecklenburg). Exhibit 2-9 Center for American Progress Return on Evaluation Matrix Basic ROI Adjusted ROI Predicted Efficiency Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg Source: 2-6

25 2.3 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES The following exhibits provide comparative data regarding revenue and expenditures. For the most part, HCPS is well-positioned in the middle of the pack in financial comparisons. Exhibit 2-10 displays the comparative composite index information of each of the peer school divisions. The composite index incorporates a notion of a 55 percent state/45 percent locality sharing of the standards of quality (SOQ). It is equalized, in relation to all other divisions in the commonwealth, with respect to a division s ability to pay. The composite index takes into account a locality s wealth in the form of property values, personal income, and local taxable retail sales. Local composite indices range from.2000 to In other words, the poorest districts in the state are responsible for 20 percent of the established SOQ amount with the wealthiest providing 80 percent of the established SOQ cost. The composite index for HCPS for the through biennium of.2748 indicates a notion of percent state and percent local funding of the SOQ accounts. Halifax County s composite index is comparable to other divisions within the peer group. As evidenced by a low composite index rate, all peer divisions are at a recognized disadvantage when compared to other divisions within the commonwealth. Exhibit Composite Index of Local Ability-To-Pay - Updated March 2010 Indicators Of Ability-To-Pay (Base Year: 2007) Division True Value Of Property Adjusted Gross Income Taxable Retail Sales 3/31/08 ADM Total Pop. Composite Index Halifax $3,804,168,752 $541,935,298 $276,044,225 5,750 35, Danville $2,336,202,870 $712,511,708 $706,644,236 6,471 44, Dinwiddie $2,681,177,616 $518,935,294 $101,263,865 4,678 26, Henry $3,168,928,023 $857,251,860 $380,792,952 7,359 53, Mecklenburg $3,925,469,727 $503,212,100 $324,611,481 4,682 32, State Totals $15,915,946,988 $3,133,846,260 $1,789,356,759 28, ,340 Source: Table 15 of the Superintendent's Annual Report for Virginia, Sources of Financial Support for Expenditures, Total Expenditures for Operations, Fiscal Year Exhibit 2-11 displays the amount of local funding in excess of the state required amount. The Commonwealth of Virginia mandates that each locality must meet its funding share of the Standards of Quality and Lottery Funded Optional programs in order to qualify for state funds. Most divisions in the state far exceed the state minimum level of funding in order to maintain a viable instructional program. As shown, HCPS exceeds the state requirement by $5,080, or percent of the state requirement. The division s local support of education is comparable to the majority of divisions in its peer group. 2-7

26 Exhibit 2-11 Comparative Required Local Effort ( ) Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg ADM 5,629 6,130 4,668 7,176 4,610 Total Expenses $59,927, $73,943, $50,257, $73,910, $44,210, Net Local Expenses $15,024, $15,425, $12,009, $14,806, $10,936, SOQ Required Local $9,253, $8,372, $6,784, $9,013, $8,962, Lottery Required Local $690, $1,202, $348, $930, $657, Total Local Requirement $9,943, $9,574, $7,132, $9,944, $9,619, Exceeds Required Local Effort by: Amount $5,080, $5,850, $4,876, $4,862, $1,317, Percent 51.09% 61.11% 68.36% 48.90% 13.69% Source: Individual School Division Annual School Financial Reports. Exhibit 2-12 details each division s revenue by source in aggregate, per pupil, percent of total, and state ranking. All divisions reflect a significantly lower than average local per pupil contribution as expected in accordance with their composite indices. Of the group, HCPS apportions a greater local per pupil contribution. It also has the second highest total per pupil amount of the group. The percent by source appears to be relatively consistent among the peers. All divisions are ranked relatively high on their ability to secure grant funding. This may be, in part, due to their economic need. Although staff survey comments indicate that HCPS does an exceptional job of securing grant funding, Danville and Mecklenburg rank higher in their receipt of grant funds. Nevertheless, Halifax s grant funding rank of 46 out of 132 divisions is commendable. The Halifax local appropriation is the highest of the peer group but not significantly variant. It is slightly more than one-half of the state average, but in line with its composite index expectation. 2-8

27 Exhibit 2-12 Comparative Revenue by Source ( ) State SOQ and Incentives Federal Grants & Subsidies Total Revenue for Operations Division ADM Local Appropriation State Sales Tax Halifax $16,419,064 $29,186,436 $5,152,223 $9,125,871 $59,883,594 Danville $17,040,650 $31,775,856 $6,038,405 $12,918,579 $67,773,490 Dinwiddie $10,330,659 $22,192,636 $4,136,645 $6,234,481 $42,894,421 Henry $15,704,970 $35,662,235 $6,802,929 $10,629,529 $68,799,663 Mecklenburg $10,369,288 $22,797,993 $3,727,209 $8,302,425 $45,196,915 State Total 6,547,840,888 4,235,983,924 1,074,619,680 1,445,809,241 13,304,253,733 % of Total 49.22% 31.84% 8.08% 10.87% % Per Pupil Amounts Halifax 5, $2, $5, $ $1, $10, Danville 6, $2, $5, $ $2, $11, Dinwiddie 4, $2, $4, $ $1, $9, Henry 7, $2, $4, $ $1, $9, Mecklenburg 4, $2, $4, $ $1, $9, State Avg. 1,210, $5, $3, $ $1, $10, Percent of Total Halifax 27.42% 48.74% 8.60% 15.24% % Danville 25.14% 46.89% 8.91% 19.06% % Dinwiddie 24.08% 51.74% 9.64% 14.53% % Henry 22.83% 51.83% 9.89% 15.45% % Mecklenburg 22.94% 50.44% 8.25% 18.37% % State Avg % 31.84% 8.08% 10.87% % State Rank Halifax Danville Dinwiddie Henry Mecklenburg Source: Table 15 of the Superintendent's Annual Report for Virginia, Sources of Financial Support for Expenditures, Total Expenditures for Operations, Fiscal Year Exhibit 2-13 details the comparative amounts spent by major category for the Regular Day School Operation. The regular day expenditure provides a common basis for comparison. It excludes after- school activities, summer school, adult education, food service, and other ancillary programs. As shown, HCPS spent a greater amount on administration, pupil transportation, and maintenance and operations than the state average, and is higher than most of its peer group members. This may be attributable to the distribution of the county s population. This dynamic may have a significant impact on transportation and facilities services. 2-9

28 Exhibit 2-13 Comparative Expenses by Major Category Regular Day School Expenditures (FY ) Attendance and Health Services Operations and Maintenance Services Total Cost of Operation Regular Day School Pupil Trans. Division ADM Admin. Instruction Services Halifax 5,629 $1,969,675 $42,331,244 $1,088,406 $4,800,816 $6,983,883 $57,174,024 Danville 6,130 $2,985,061 $50,297,437 $1,497,415 $3,164,813 $6,731,823 $64,676,549 Dinwiddie 4,668 $883,207 $31,264,060 $957,048 $3,121,197 $5,300,843 $41,526,355 Henry 7,176 $1,556,388 $50,363,746 $1,299,884 $4,486,825 $8,028,904 $65,735,747 Mecklenburg 4,610 $1,065,299 $34,538,064 $429,963 $3,712,330 $3,434,014 $43,179,670 State Total 1,210,115 $434,611,546 $10,125,705,315 $247,585,867 $731,069,390 $1,296,442,415 $12,835,414,533 Percent of Total 2.84% 66.24% 1.62% 4.78% 8.48% 83.97% Per Pupil Amounts Halifax $350 $7,521 $193 $853 $1,241 $10,157 Danville $487 $8,205 $244 $516 $1,098 $10,551 Dinwiddie $189 $6,697 $205 $669 $1,136 $8,896 Henry $217 $7,018 $181 $625 $1,119 $9,160 Mecklenburg $231 $7,491 $93 $805 $745 $9,366 State Average $359 $8,368 $205 $604 $1,071 $10,607 Percent of Total Regular Day School Halifax 3.45% 74.04% 1.90% 8.40% 12.22% % Mecklenburg 2.47% 79.99% 1.00% 8.60% 7.95% % Dinwiddie 2.13% 75.29% 2.30% 7.52% 12.77% % Henry 2.37% 76.62% 1.98% 6.83% 12.21% % Danville 4.62% 77.77% 2.32% 4.89% 10.41% % State Average 3.39% 78.89% 1.93% 5.70% 10.10% % Data Source: Table 13 of the Superintendent s Annual Report for Virginia Disbursements by Peer Divisions, Fiscal Year Exhibit 2-14 presents an overview of each peer division s total enrollment, number of schools, and detailed elementary school enrollment statistics. The two newest HCPS elementary schools, South Boston (803 students) and Cluster Spring Elementary (596), accommodate over 55 percent of the division s elementary population. The five remaining elementary schools, Clay Mills Elementary (204), Meadville Elementary (221), Sinai Elementary (254), Sydnor Jennings Elementary (255) and Scottsburg Elementary (289) serve less than half. HCPS offers both large and small population elementary schools while other divisions in the peer group include some of mid-sized schools. On average, HCPS enrollment per elementary school is comparable to the other division in the peer group. However, HCPS attains this average by combining both ends of the size spectrum. Smaller schools create certain diseconomies of small scale, as each school requires an administrative and support staff as well as consumables and utilities. These expenses that are spread over a small population contribute to a higher per pupil cost. However, small localized schools may be necessary to serve widely-distributed populations or community demands. 2-10

29 Exhibit 2-14 School Enrollment Comparison (September 30, 2010) Elementary Schools K-12 Total Avg. Schools by Enrollment Division Students Schools Students Schools School Enrollment < < Halifax 5, , Danville 6, , Dinwiddie 4, , Henry 7, , Mecklenburg 4, , Peer Group Total 29, , Data Source: Virginia Department of Education, September 30, 2010 Student Membership by School by Grade. 2-11

30

31 Chapter 3 Divisional Administration This chapter reviews division level organization and management in Halifax County Public Schools (HCPS). Included are observations, findings, and recommendations in regard to: 3.1 Division Management and Organizational Structure 3.2 Site-Based Management 3.3 Administrative and Board Support 3.4 Internal and External Communication 3.5 Policies and Procedures 3.6 Legal Cost Management 3.7 Planning 3.8 Evaluation 3.1 DIVISION MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The heart of an organization is its overall organization and management. The health of the organization can be ascertained in a number of ways, including reviewing the organizational structure and its management. An organization functioning at a best practices level has these characteristics: defines itself as a system and the organization s stakeholders include its owners and staff, its suppliers, intermediate customers, the ultimate customers of the product or service, and the communities in which the organization operates; has a strong sensing system for receiving current information on all parts of the system and their interactions (system dynamics thinking); possesses a strong sense of purpose; operates in a form follows function mode work determines the structures and mechanisms to do it and consequently it uses multiple structures, including formal pyramidal structures, horizontal structures and teams, project structures, and temporary structures as necessary; respects customer service both to outside customers and to others within the organization; is information driven and shares information across functions and organization levels; has communication systems which are relatively open throughout the organization; encourages and allows decisions to be made at the level closest to the customer, where all the necessary information is available; 3-1

32 has reward systems that support team and individual development managers, supervisors, and teams are appraised against both performance and improvement goals; operates in a learning mode and identifies learning points as part of the process of all decision making; makes explicit recognition for innovation and creativity, and has a high tolerance for different styles of thinking and for ambiguity; has policies which reflect respect for the tensions between work and family demands; keeps an explicit social agenda; gives sufficient attention to efficient work, quality, and safety awareness in operations, and identifying and managing change; and is generally guided by a strong manager employing a variety of work groups composed of individuals possessing appropriate skills and complementary traits. FINDING 3-1 The current division organizational structure presents barriers to cohesive communications, planning, and collaboration. With budget cuts for the past three years, central office staff has decreased and many responsibilities have been merged. A list provided by division administration reveals that 12 central positions have been eliminated in the past four years, four of them secretarial and the other eight administrative. Exhibit 3-1 shows the existing organizational chart that has been in place since July

33 Exhibit 3-1 HPCS Current Organizational Structure Effective July 2011 Board of Education Superintendent Deputy Superintendent Chief Finance Officer Executive Director Instruction Executive Director Administration Director Operations & Maintenance Principals (9) Supervisor Special Education Supervisor Federal Programs Director Transportation Supervisor Elementary & Gifted Education Division Testing Coordinator Supervisor Child Nutrition Supervisor Secondary & Off-Site Education Supervisor Alternative Education Source: Halifax County Public Schools, Changes from the 2010 to the 2011 organizational chart are: 3-3

34 elimination of an Assistant Superintendent for Instruction and its conversion to the position of Executive Director for Instruction ; elimination of the position of Director of Academies and responsibility for academies assigned to the Executive Director for Instruction; conversion of two supervisor positions for Special Education and Student Services, one elementary and the other secondary into: o o a Supervisor of Special Education Services; and, a Supervisor of Federal Programs; addition of a Supervisor of Alternative Programs; and conversion of the Executive Director for Federal Programs to an Executive Director for Administration. Many staff reported that the reorganization of the central office and merging of responsibilities had led to some positions being overwhelmed with the duties they have been assigned. The one position that was most referenced was the supervisor of secondary education who has assumed responsibility for all student hearings. Although the organizational chart does not show it, there is currently an additional position of testing coordinator. The person who was previously responsible for testing and professional development was tasked with all the division testing for to better lead and analyze the testing and data use functions of the division. The testing coordinator reports to the executive director for instruction. Those changes had a net result of no additional staff but likely reductions in costs; two positions were eliminated at the director and assistant superintendent salary levels. One reason provided for the conversion of the executive director for federal programs to executive director for administration is the anticipated retirement of the deputy superintendent in December Division leaders plan for the human resources functions currently led by the deputy superintendent to be assumed by the executive director for administration. 3-4