Productively Engaging the Community in the Budget Process

AASA National Conference on Education Nashville, TN February 14, 2014

Harris Sokoloff, Ph.D. Director, Center for School Study Councils Lou DeVlieger, Retired Superintendent, Upper Darby School District

Welcome and Introductions ¡  Who we are ¡  How we come to work together

2

Context: A Primer on PA School Budgets ¡  Equalized Subsidy for Basic Education

formula ended 1992 ¡  Act 1 (June 2006) put a cap on

district budget increases ¡  State used federal stimulus money to

increase school funding until 2011-12

3

Context: The Upper Darby School District ¡  An inner ring suburban school district,

bordering western edge of Philadelphia, PA

¡  Federal resettlement area for refugees from war-torn countries world wide

¡  Changes 1992 to 2013: l  High School went from 2,400 to more than

3,800 students l  ELL population representation grown from

20 to 80 countries

4

Context: The Upper Darby School District ¡  Points of Pride:

¡  2010: Philadelphia Inquirer rates Upper Darby as one of Top 25 Workplaces

l  “Wall of Fame” boasts many famous graduates, none as famous as:

5

Context: The 2011-12 Budget Experience ¡  PA funding formula frozen in 1992

l  Frozen formula places more pressure on property taxes

l  Act 1 (2006) cap on property tax increases l  Any increase over cap requires referendum

¡  2011-12 total budget: $163 million l  $13.4 million gap if stable program & taxes l  Used $4 million fund balance (1/3 of total) l  $4.6 million in staff reductions l  2.7% tax increase

6

Context: The 2011-12 Budget Experience

¡  Filling the gap: l  Cut 63 non-mandated positions

¡  23 reading specialists ¡  21 literacy/math coaches ¡  17 teachers at high school ¡  1 administrator and 1 security

¡  Community response: l  Concern but little push-back in general l  Biggest community concern: cuts in high

school PE teachers

7

Context: The 2012-13 Budget Experience

¡  2012-13 initial budget proposal: l  $166 million total l  $13.1 million gap if stable program &

taxes l  $3.5 million in staff reductions l  $4.0 fund balance (1/2 of total) l  3.5% tax increase

8

Context: The 2012-13 Budget Experience

¡  Filling the gap: l  Cut 65 non-mandated positions

¡  Restructure elementary specials: 42 positions ¡  Align middle school schedules: 7 positions ¡  Middle school foreign language/tech ed: 10

positions ¡  Reduce subject supervisors: 4 positions ¡  2 administrative positions

¡ Community response: l  Uproar over loss of general music and art

teachers in elementary schools.

9

The Community Reaction

10

Response from a “Point of Pride”

¡  Tina Fey said, "It makes me upset that the only answer is to take arts away from these kids. ...I got a public school education and am very proud of it. The kids growing up now deserve the same things I got. ...That should be a right." (Philadelphia Inquirer, May 28, 2012)

11

Theory: Why This Response is Typical

¡  The logic of decision-making l  Facts are necessary, not sufficient l  Values bridge the gap between the

facts and what we should/ought to do about those facts

l  Need to blend expert information with community values

12

13

The Traditional “Expert Information” Model

•  Favored by experts, the government and the press

•  Top-down and one-way •  The public is expected to

learn, not contribute •  Focuses on information

rather than values •  Focuses on creating

awareness •  Assumes awareness leads

to resolution •  Assumes that a well-

informed public is the “Holy Grail” of democracy

Daniel Yankelovich, Viewpoint Learning, Inc

14

A Nest of Flawed Assumptions The traditional model falsely assumes that:

•  Information is the key to public learning. •  People make up their minds once they receive relevant

information. •  The public interprets information in the same way that

experts do. •  Experts know what information the public needs and

how to convey it. •  Experts who debate their opposing views help the

public to learn. •  Technology can compensate for deficiencies in the

model. •  There is no need to base the model on how people

actually make hard choices.

15

Conclusion

The traditional model works only when there are no hard choices to

make.

But, a school budget is nothing if not a series of hard choices, and getting

harder each year!

The District Budget: Context

2012-13 Final Budget Result

l  $166 million total l  $1.5 million in staff reductions l  $4.0 fund balance (1/2 of total) l  3.5% tax increase l  $2 million state line item to preserve

elementary arts and music

17

Avoiding a Repeat: The 2013-14 Budget Experience

¡  2013-14 initial budget proposal: l  $169 million total l  $9.7 million gap if stable program & taxes l  8.7% tax increase (Act 1 cap plus Act 1

exceptions for special education, transportation, retirement fund increases)

l  $2.5 fund balance (1/3 of total)

18

Avoiding a Repeat: The 2013-14 Budget Experience

¡  The Challenge: l  Community mistrust of board and

administration after 2012-13 experience l  Community fear that 2012-13 proposed

cuts to elementary music and art would occur this year

l  Community would not approve an 8.7% tax increase

19

20

Information vs. Learning Models

¡ The Traditional “Expert

Information” Model

Daniel Yankelovich, Viewpoint Learning, Inc

¡  The New "Public Learning” Model

21

The New “Public Learning” Model

Daniel Yankelovich, Viewpoint Learning, Inc

23

Major Features of the New “Public Learning” Model l  Requires three stages rather than two l  Accounts for how people actually resolve

hard choices l  Interactive l  Takes time l  Requires people to struggle with conflicting

values l  The public’s wisdom adds value to the

experts’ l  Different communication strategies apply to

each stage

Kinds of Forums

¡  To Tell/Inform

¡  To Learn/Get Feedback

¡  To Build Common Ground

24

25

Buy-in/Ownership/Cooperation

People work hardest to implement that which they had a hand in planning.

26

“Outwitted”

He drew a circle that shut me out- Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But Love and I had the wit to win: We drew a circle that took him in!

- Edwin Markham

Advisory Group ¡  Make up

l  12-15 people, broadly representative of stakeholder interests (supporters/critics)

¡  Parent ¡  Student ¡  Non-parent resident and senior citizen ¡  Community leader and business person ¡  Upper Darby "resident" staff

27

Advisory Group ¡  Role

l  Identifying potential participants for each of the forums

l  Communicating with your peers in support of the project

l  Helping us anticipate particular challenges, hurdles, etc.

28

29

Where wisdom comes from …

¡ “None of us is as smart as all of us.” – Japanese proverb ¡  “Together we can come to find a wisdom that we could not find alone” – Michael Sandel ¡ “Your audience is always smarter than you are” - Dan Gillmor

How this applied to Upper Darby

¡  Move from Information to Learning Model

¡  Move from forums that tell or just ask for feedback to forums that require working through and building common ground

¡  Include values, feelings, hopes, fears and dreams

30

31

¡  Inform district residents

¡  Inform the district ¡  Build common

ground for action

The Upper Darby School District Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices

Goals

Time Line

32

December 2012 Initial advisory group meeting

January 2013 Start community outreach Second advisory gorup meeting

February 15 – March 15, 2013

Hold community budget forums/workshops Third advisory gorup meetig

March 15-25, 2013 Final advisory group meeting

March 30, 2013 Final report to community and School Board

Community Response: Skepticism From the Start

¡  "To me, the process is biased," one man said. "The choices are narrowed to a pre-selected group. A lot of staff fattens the budget."

¡  A woman disagreed: "For me it's not bias, but the outcome that is predetermined," the woman said. "This (list) is a sampling of what is going to happen."(Delaware County Daily Times)

33

How We Did It: The “Game” ¡  Inform the Community:

l  Created a “budget worksheet” l  All budget categories l  Only items with district discretion l  Items worth 1% of the budget deficit

¡  Individual reflection ¡  Small groups deliberation of choices

34

Constructing the Worksheets

¡  The Challenge of Categories l  Finding items that would get 1 point

(1%=$97,000) l  Time and labor intensive

¡  The Challenge of “Impact” Statements l  Facts not values l  Other

¡  The Challenge of Inclusion

35

How We Did It: Sample Worksheet

36

Deliberative Structure ¡  Divide “choices” into four categories:

l  Low Hanging Fruit l  Shared Pain l  Gut Wrenchers l  No Way No How

¡  Individual choices ¡  Group deliberation to move from

individual opinion to public judgment

37

38

The Upper Darby School District Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices

Activities Four Workshops: ¡  February 27 — Watkins Senior Center; 53+

participants; 4 groups, 21 wailing wall comments

¡  March 5— Beverly Hills Middle School; 114+ participants; 6 groups, 61 wailing wall comments

¡  March 10 — Drexel Hill Middle School; 180+ participants ; 5 groups, 98 wailing wall comments

¡  March 11 — Westbrook Elementary School; 125+ participants; 4 groups, 74 wailing wall comments

39

The Upper Darby School District Budget: Tight Times, Tough Choices

The Workshop Structure At each forum: ¡  Opening presentation on the District budget ¡  Small group works – 10-20 or 30-40people

per group l  Work through a list of more than 33 service areas

and more than 63 actions to close a $9.7 million annual budget gap

l  Differentiate “low hanging fruit,” “no way, no how,” “shared pain” and “gut wrenchers”

¡  Individual input: l  Short written statements on “Wailing Wall”– 255+

What outcomes to expect

¡  Products l  Priorities from the forums l  Values-based principles to explain

decisions ¡  District response

l  Tell you how they used the above products

40

Sample Worksheet Tallies             TIMES  SELECTED   TIMES  NOT  

Service  Area   Ac*on  (current)   Points  (@97000)  

Low  Hanging  Fruit  

NO  WAY    NO  HOW  

SHARED  PAIN  

GUT  WRENCHER  

SELECTED  BY  ANY  GROUP  

1.  a.  Elementary  Classroom  Teachers  

Reduce  regular  elementary  school  regular  educa<on  by  an<cipated  loss  of  10  teachers  through  aCri<on.    

9   8   2   1   1   7  

Reduce  elementary  school  staff  by  10%  (roughly  26  regular  educa<on  teachers).   23   0   5   1   0   13  

1.  b.  Kindergarten  Teachers  

Eliminate  Kindergarten,  a  reduc<on  of  27  teachers.     24   0   9   0   1   9  

2.  Elementary  Lead  Teachers   Eliminate  lead  teachers   5   2   0   5   1   2  

35,  Property  Taxes  (NOTE:  each  0.1%  increase  in  property  taxes  raises  $89,000)  

Increase  property  tax  up  to  the  index  of  2.4%  (up  0.79  mills)   22   4   0   5   0   10  

Increase  property  tax  up  to  the  index  plus  par<al  approved  excep<ons  of  4%  (up  1.31  mills)  

37   3   0   2   0   14  

Increase  property  tax  up  to  the  index  plus  par<al  approved  excep<ons  of  6%  (up  1.97  mills)  

55   3   1   0   0   15  

Increase  property  tax  up  to  the  index  plus  maximum  approved  excep<ons  of  8.4%  (up  2.76  mills)  

73   0   3   0   0   16  

41

Most and Least Often Decided MOST OFTEN DECIDED (In declining frequency)

¡  Property Taxes ¡  Elementary Classroom Teachers ¡  Fund Balance ¡  Transportation (public/non-

public) ¡  Band, Choral, Theater & Extra

pay/extra duty ¡  Office of Superintendent ¡  Instruction & Curriculum ¡  Middle School Specials Teachers ¡  High School Sports ¡  High School Specials Teachers ¡  Kindergarten Teachers

LEAST OFTEN DECIDED (In increasing frequency) ¡  Crossing guards ¡  Attendance (Central Registration) ¡  Building Support Elementary

Schools ¡  Information services ¡  Guidance ¡  Nursing (public & non-public) ¡  Library ¡  Maintenance ¡  Computer Lab Assistants

Elementary Schools ¡  High School Classroom Teachers ¡  Business/fiscal services

42

Most Often… …Low Hanging Fruit ¡  Transportation (public/non-

public) ¡  Office of Superintendent ¡  Property Taxes ¡  Instruction and Curriculum ¡  Elementary Classroom

Teachers ¡  Fees ¡  Coordinator & Secretary of

Instructional Media ¡  Office of the Principal ¡  Business/Fiscal services

…No Way No How ¡  Band &, Choral, Theater & extra

pay/extra duty ¡  High School Sports ¡  Kindergarten Teachers ¡  High School Specials Teachers ¡  Middle Schools Specials

Teachers ¡  Fund Balance ¡  Elementary School Special

Teachers ¡  Noontime Support ¡  Elementary Classroom Teachers ¡  Middle School Sports

43

44

Thematic Analysis (1) ¡  Themes:

l  Tension between property values, quality of schools, and what people can afford

l  Mistrust l  Redesign for efficiency, effectiveness and

savings l  Work with others to reduce cost &

improve services.

45

Thematic Analysis (2) ¡  Values:

l  Maintain broad supports for students/children

l  Be student-centered – as little impact on student learning as possible

l  Build on our strengths & cultivate student engagement

l  Insure equity l  Minimize impact to those adults with

fewest resources

2013-­‐14  TENTATIVE  FINAL  BUDGET  

   PENN  PROJECT  RELATED  REDUCTIONS    $  2,381,000  OTHER  EXPENDITURE  REDUCTIONS            1,177,830  REVENUE  REVISIONS              1,420,666  FUND  BALANCE                2,600,000  *PROPOSED  TAX  INCREASE            2,097,973    TOTAL            $  9,677,469      *PROPOSED  TAX  INCREASE  2.94%          

       

Top Selected Choices by the Public “Low Hanging Fruit” & “Shared Pain

¡  Office of the Superintendent ¡  Transportation ¡  Elementary Classroom Teachers ¡  Instruction and Curriculum

47

#22. Office of the Superintendent (11 vote LHF)

¡  PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce secretarial support by 5%.

¡  Recommended Action: Reduce secretarial support in the Administration Building and duties combined through attrition. (This reflects the voiced value to avoid firing and use attrition.)

¡  Savings: $54,000

#28. Transportation (10 votes LHF) ¡  PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce by 5% by

eliminating late bussing of secondary students. Eliminate transportation for all field trips. Increase efficiency of existing bus runs.

¡  Recommended Action: Budgeted field trips will be reduced. One late bus run will still remain at middle and high school. Increase efficiency of bus runs. (This is a redesign for efficiency and effectiveness.)

¡  Savings: $294,000

#1. Elementary Classroom Teachers (8 votes LHF)

¡  PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce 10 elementary school teachers through attrition/retirement thus increasing class size to approximately 24.

¡  Recommended Action: Reduce 7 elementary school teachers through attrition/retirement. (Although class sizes will increase slightly, there will be an attempt to “insure equity” and “redesign for efficiency, effectiveness, and savings.”)

¡  Savings: $840,000

#19. Instruction and Curriculum ( 2 votes LHF @ 5% cut 7 votes LHF @ 10%)

¡  PPCE: Reduce staff and shift responsibilities.

¡  Recommended Action: No action recommended based on the importance that Instruction and Curriculum or great teaching is to the welfare of our children. Proper supervision and mentoring of teachers is critical to maintaining a high quality staff. Due to cuts in recent years, the administration to staff ratio is the highest in the county.

¡  Savings: None

The Tough Choices: “Gut Wrenchers” or “No Way – No How”

¡  Reduce Maintenance Staff ¡  Reduce Extra Pay for Extra Duty

52

#26. Reduce Maintenance Staff ¡  PPCE Action/Recommendation: Reduce by

2% by laying off one person and reducing contracted repairs. Delay necessary repairs.

¡  Recommendation Action: Reduce one employee by attrition and reduce the maintenance budget in the supplies area. Do not delay necessary repairs. (This reflects the voiced value of “minimizing impact on those with the fewest resources” by using attrition & “reduce costs” & “redesign for efficiency, effectiveness, & savings.”)

¡  Savings: $114,000

#34. Reduce Extra Pay for Extra Duty

¡  PPCE Action/Impact: Reduce by 10% to 30% Extra Pay for intramurals, clubs, detentions, bus duty, cafeteria coverage, etc.

¡  Recommended Action: Reduce this budget line for all K-12 schools. Each middle school intramural program will have 45 units each used at the principal’s discretion. Three High School Assistant Coaches will be reduced, but all sports will be maintained. (This modified recommendation reflects the voiced value to “build on our strengths and cultivate student engagement” while trying to be “efficient.”)

¡  Savings: $180,000

Community Response After Final Budget Presentation: “Relief”

¡  "... the plan was greeted with applause from the crowd of 100 people at the meeting. Many undoubtedly breathed a sigh of relief, too." (Delaware County Daily Times Editorial, May 3, 2013)

55

Community Response After the Forums: Hope Delaware County Daily Times, March 2, 2013

¡  "I thought the forum was great," Lois Johnston, 65, said at the conclusion of the meeting. "This is the first time in the history of the school district they have given the residents a chance to see what is done with the budget for the education of our children.

¡  “My group was good. We had some hard decisions to make. I wish we didn't have to cut or not as drastic cuts. I wish other things were done before we got to this point of desperation. I know they are going to raise taxes, but we got a chance to look at it and give our suggestions.”

56

Discussion

¡  Your questions, thoughts, ideas

57

Contact

Harris Sokoloff, Ph.D. Center for School Study Councils Penn Project for Civic

Engagement Penn Center for Educational

Leadership Graduate Center for Education University of Pennsylvania 3440 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 898-7371 harriss@gse.upenn.edu

Lou DeVlieger Educational Consultant Retired Superintendent Upper Darby School District LouDeVlieger@yahoo.com cell 610-389-3001

58