Board Workshop Presentation Compppyensation Comparability ...old.sandi.net/board/reports/2007/0724/4a_4.pdf · recommends that the SDEA Board of SDEA BARGAINING UNIT recommends that

Board Workshop PresentationBoard Workshop PresentationCompensation Comparability Task ForceCompensation Comparability Task Force

Board Workshop PresentationBoard Workshop PresentationCompensation Comparability Task ForceCompensation Comparability Task Forcep p yp p y

July 23, 2007July 23, 2007

p p yp p y

July 23, 2007July 23, 2007

Task Force OriginsTask Force Origins

Board Adopted (11/14/06) Tentative Agreement for 2006Board Adopted (11/14/06) Tentative Agreement for 2006SDEA Successor Agreement

Agreement included implementation of 3 Task ForcesAgreement included implementation of 3 Task Forcesto address– Impact on mainstreaming of Special Education & General

Education teachersEducation teachers– Article 14 Performance Evaluation– SDEA Compensation Comparability

Compensation Task Force initially convened 1/24/07– Met 12 times between 1/24/07 and 6/13/07

The parties are committed to cultivating educational excellence and improving student performance. Achieving this goalrequires a commitment to attract and retain the finest core of educational professionals possible. We have a shared belief

that compensation comparability needs to be addressed in this competitive environment1

Task Force MembershipTask Force Membership

SDEA– Dick Gale, Executive Director, SDEA, Co-Chair– John Anella, SDEA Bargaining Team Member– Marc Capitelli, Vice President, SDEA– Steve Kaplan, UniServ Field Organizer– Viraj Ward, SDEA Bargaining Chair

SDUSDSDUSD– Bill Kowba, CFO, Co-Chair– Delfino Aleman, Area 5 Superintendent

Carol Barry Area 1 Superintendent– Carol Barry, Area 1 Superintendent– Sandra Huezo, Director, Certificated Human Resources– Jodi Smith, Chief of Staff– Willy Surbrook Director Labor Relations



– Willy Surbrook, Director, Labor Relations

Task Force Descriptor … The TaskingTask Force Descriptor … The Tasking

Excerpt (10/16/06) … SDEA/SDUSD CAC Commitment

“…The parties are committed to cultivating educational excellence and improving student performance. Achieving this goal requires a commitment to attract and retain the fi f d i l f i l ibl W h h d b li f hfinest core of educational professionals possible. We have a shared belief that compensation comparability needs to be addressed in this competitive environment. To that end, the parties agree to form a task force whose charge is to assess and recommend options to improve compensation comparability for the SDEA bargaining unit. The task force is to use 20-year earnings compared to all districts in San Diego County as aforce is to use 20 year earnings compared to all districts in San Diego County as a standard. The task force recommendations can include reallocating current and new resources to bring the SDEA bargaining unit 20-year career earnings to at least the median within San Diego County. The recommendations will stem from a broad based review of areas including, but not limited to, budget reprioritization, certificated ll i l i b d ll f l l h d l dallocations, class size, budget allotment formulas, salary schedule structure, and new

sources of revenue. The task force is to submit its recommendations at the April 2007 meeting of the Joint SDEA/SDUSD CAC …”



San Diego County 20San Diego County 20--year Earnings … 2006/07year Earnings … 2006/07

A R k A R k

San Diego County School Districts

20-Year EarningsSan Diego County

School Districts

20-Year Earnings

Amount Rank Amount Rank

San Dieguito HS $1,510,066 1 Encinitas E $1,256,387 20

San Diego County CO $1,421,668 2 Grossmont HS $1,252,127 21

Rancho Santa Fe E $1,358,925 3 South Bay E $1,249,803 22

Del Mar E $1,353,770 4 Cajon Valley E $1,246,788 23

$ $Sweetwater HS $1,345,065 5 Lemon Grove E $1,245,290 24

Valley Center-Pauma U $1,333,835 6 Fallbrook E $1,245,214 25

Solana Beach E $1,325,507 7 Escondido E $1,239,854 26

Oceanside U $1,322,993 8 Santee E $1,223,949 27

San Ysidro E $1,288,708 9 Alpine E $1,222,567 28

S M U $1 286 267 10 C d U $1 216 006 29San Marcos U $1,286,267 10 Coronado U $1,216,006 29

Lakeside E $1,282,327 11 Julian Union HS $1,209,582 30

Chula Vista E $1,279,200 12 National E $1,209,068 31

Carlsbad U $1,276,081 13 Vista U $1,193,562 32

La Mesa-Spring Valley E $1,271,033 14 Dehesa E $1,184,551 33

Poway U $1 265 733 15 Jamul Dulzura E $1 182 175 34Poway U $1,265,733 15 Jamul-Dulzura E $1,182,175 34

Fallbrook HS $1,263,464 16 San Diego U $1,171,420 35Escondido HS $1,262,538 17 Bonsall E $1,129,081 36

Cardiff E $1,258,560 18 San Pasqual E $1,077,665 37

Ramona U $1,257,585 19 Mountain Empire U $1,040,439 38



County Median $1,256,986 Amount Below Median $ 85,566 7.30%Percent Below Median

14 Recommendations14 Recommendations

Examined various SDUSD Practices, Programs, Allocations, etc.gDeveloped recommendations to enable SDUSD to achieve costefficiencies & contribute to improved compensation comparability

SDUSD & SDEA will work to increase teacher 20-year earnings toSDUSD & SDEA will work to increase teacher 20-year earnings tocounty median

Multi-year recommendations touch on:Unanimous Task Force

support

- Salary schedule restructuring- Over-formula positions- Certificated ADA/FTE ratios

S ll i d i i i

- Facilities consolidation- Administrative/Supervisory spending- Supplemental early retirement program

Ti l I h h ld- Small site administration- Atypical program costs- Small school structure- Special education

- Title I thresholds- District calendar- Health/Welfare benefits- Innovative educational programs



- Special education - Innovative educational programs

Recommendation 1: Salary ScheduleRecommendation 1: Salary ScheduleReRe--structuringstructuringReRe structuringstructuring

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the SDEA Board of

SDEA BARGAINING UNIT

SALARY PLAN 0101recommends that the SDEA Board of Directors and the SDUSD Board of Education approve a re-structuring of the SDEA salary schedule that will

Steps With MA MA MA Steps01 $37,789.94 $40,095.52 $42,402.57 $44,708.16 $47,015.22 0102 39,208.36 41,515.44 43,821.04 46,128.07 48,433.67 0203 40,684.81 42,990.37 45,297.45 47,603.03 49,910.09 0304 42,220.96 44,528.00 46,833.60 49,140.65 51,446.22 04

enhance 20-year earnings.”

– Would supplement the impact of a general salary increase

0 , .9 , . , . 9, . , . 005 43,817.97 46,123.53 48,430.59 50,736.16 53,043.25 0506 45,477.75 47,784.79 50,090.36 52,397.46 54,704.53 0607 47,206.14 49,513.24 51,818.80 54,125.88 56,431.45 0708 49,001.69 51,308.79 53,614.34 55,921.41 58,226.95 0809 50,867.54 53,174.63 55,481.74 57,787.26 60,094.36 0910 52,809.63 55,115.22 57,422.29 59,727.87 62,034.95 1011 54 828 16 57 133 75 59 440 80 61 747 89 64 053 44 11

g y– One way to make progress towards the

median on 20-year earnings– May take fewer dollars than a general

salary increase

11 54,828.16 57,133.75 59,440.80 61,747.89 64,053.44 1112 54,828.16 59,234.69 61,541.79 63,847.34 66,154.43 1213 54,828.16 59,234.69 63,726.76 66,033.82 68,339.40 1314 54,828.16 59,234.69 63,726.76 68,304.34 70,611.40 1415 54,828.16 59,234.69 63,726.76 68,304.34 72,973.44 1516 54,828.16 59,234.69 63,726.76 68,304.34 72,973.44 1617 54,828.16 59,234.69 63,726.76 68,304.34 72,973.44 17salary increase

– May benefit some unit members more than others

– May be structured to improve

, , , , ,18 54,828.16 59,234.69 63,726.76 68,304.34 72,973.44 1819 56,758.23 61,164.75 65,656.79 70,234.36 74,903.48 1920 56,758.23 61,164.75 65,656.79 70,234.36 74,903.48 2021 56,758.23 61,164.75 65,656.79 70,234.36 74,903.48 2122 56,758.23 61,164.75 65,656.79 70,234.36 74,903.48 2223 58,688.25 63,094.80 67,586.85 72,164.43 76,833.54 23



recruitment and/or retention of teachers

Recommendation 2: OverRecommendation 2: Over--Formula PositionsFormula Positions

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the SDUSD HR and Finance departments in collaboration with the Area superintendentsand Finance departments, in collaboration with the Area superintendents, re-examine, with the intent of reducing, the number of over-formula positions at the sites. Where over-formula positions cannot be reduced, sites should be responsible for the true cost of purchasing positions, such as additional operational costs that include utilities supplies support staffas additional operational costs that include utilities, supplies, support staff, elementary prep time teachers and space allocations for custodial support. This recommendation would also apply to sites that use categorical monies to fund over-formula positions. The task force further recommends that there be careful monitoring of hiring practices and an assessment ofthere be careful monitoring of hiring practices and an assessment of central office controlled over-formula positions.”

– Annually, SDUSD buys 40-50 ‘extra’ (over-formula) teachers … not in budget– Addressing difficult staffing scenarios … combo classes, CSR, bi-lingual needs– In 2006/07, 69 O/F teacher requests approved … $4.8M cost– Will never totally avoid need … must tighten, streamline process

R tl lid t d b i l t bli hi 2007/08 i l



– Recently validated business rules … establishing 2007/08 review panel

Recommendation 3: Certificated ADA/FTE Recommendation 3: Certificated ADA/FTE RatiosRatiosRatiosRatios

“The task force recommends that the SDEA and SDUSD conduct joint research project in 2007 08 to determine why SDUSD’s certificatedresearch project in 2007-08 to determine why SDUSD’s certificated ADA/FTE ratios (based on J-90 information) are substantially lower than other large urban districts. The task force further recommends that the data gleaned from this research serve as a basis in 2008-09 for possible elimination or consolidation of certificated positions.”

– ADA/FTE Ratio (2005/06) Why are weso low?

Addi 1District District

San Diego Unified 14.37 Elk Grove Unified 18.33San Francisco Unified 15.08 Santa Ana Unified 20.18Oakland Unified 16 49 San Juan Unified 20 31

Ratio RatioAdding 1

more student to formulas

could achieve $5.5M savings

Staffing at large urban

average Oakland Unified 16.49 San Juan Unified 20.31Sacramento City Unified 16.68 Long Beach Unified 20.58Los Angeles Unified 17.29 Capistrano Unified 21.08San Bernardino Unified 17.62 Garden Grove Unified 21.10Fresno Unified 17 89

g(18.23) would mean 1,600 fewer FTE



Fresno Unified 17.89

Recommendation 4: Small Site AdministrationRecommendation 4: Small Site Administration

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the Di i id li d i i j i l d i iDistrict consider policy and criteria to jointly administer (administrator & classified) small/dual sites (high, middle, elementary). The task force further recommends that

i i i i i iadministrative and classified assignments for 2008-09 reflect any newly-established criteria.”

– There are 19 schools with less than 300 students– Another 28 schools have enrollments between 300 & 400– Consider sharing principals, vice-principals & other staffg p p p p– Already some itinerant support with nurses, counselors, child

development administrators, etc.– Need focused, strategic assessment



Need focused, strategic assessment

Recommendation 5: Atypical Program CostsRecommendation 5: Atypical Program Costs

“The task force recommends that in 2007-08, SDUSD and SDEA research the actual costs as well as the opportunity costs of atypical programs withthe actual costs, as well as the opportunity costs of atypical programs with the idea of determining more cost efficient ways of providing mandatory and other student services.”

SchoolProjected

Enrollment 2007/08 BudgetAverage per

studentA.L.B.A 286 $2,272,136 $7,945Garfield 560 3 288 777 5 873

AVG Typical School

-ES $4,282MS $3 791Garfield 560 3,288,777 5,873

Mt Everest 238 1,511,539 6,351 Muir 263 1,820,763 6,921 SCPA 1,348 5,122,966 3,800

-MS $3,791-HS $4,778

SCPA 1,348 5,122,966 3,800 SD MET 173 1,359,764 7,860 Twain 480 3,679,051 7,665 TOTALS 3,348 19,054,501$ 6,631$ AVG



Recommendation 6: Small School StructureRecommendation 6: Small School Structure

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the SDUSD finance department, in consultation with the area superintendents, research the cost anddepartment, in consultation with the area superintendents, research the cost and efficiency of the current small school structures districtwide. The task force further recommends that the analysis includes data on student performance and attendance, as well as impacts on the teaching staff, so that beginning in 2008-09, h b d h ill id ffi i i hil i i ichanges can be made that will provide cost efficiencies while maintaining or

improving student performance.”

ComplexProjected

Enrollment Budget 2006/07

Transition from GATEs to self-

funding?

Attract/Retain staff … avoid

burnout?Complex Enrollment Budget 2006/07Mann (3 schools) 951 $6,293,897Crawford (4 schools) 1,562 9,002,236 Kearny (4 schools) 1,774 8,670,706 2007/08 Staffing FTE

Principals 20 000

funding? burnout?

y ( )San Diego (6 schools) 2,695 15,147,005 Lincoln (4 schools)* 1,730 9,630,436 TOTALS 8,712 48,754,280$

-Principals 20.000-Vice-Principals 4.000-Reg Teachers 340.193-Other 324.598Totals 688.791



* planned 2007/08 Budget

Recommendation 7: Special EducationRecommendation 7: Special Education

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the SDUSD incorporate necessary changes as suggested by the District’s outside consultant for Special Education. The task force further recommends that the District, in consultation with HRSD, SDEA and Special Education staff, promote staffing efficiencies related to class size, caseload, and administration, as well as non-site based programs such as LCI.”

– Not unique … districts everywhere challenged by growth/costNot unique … districts everywhere challenged by growth/cost – Building cost containment strategies that support quality programs– Ensure interventions are fully utilized in classroom prior to referral– Examine high incidence referral areas … answer the “WHY?” …applyExamine high incidence referral areas … answer the WHY? …apply

optimal resources– Validate staffing trade-offs … in-house vs. contractor– Schedule monthly performance/resource reviews



y p

Recommendation 8: Facilities ConsolidationRecommendation 8: Facilities Consolidation

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the SDUSD and the members of the SDUSD Board of Education closely examine the implications y pof the growth in District facilities during a period of declining enrollment. The task force further recommends that beginning 2008-09, the District administration and Board of Education consider the possibility of closing or consolidating facilities and programs changing attendance boundaries andconsolidating facilities and programs, changing attendance boundaries, and other options to improve the efficiency in supporting facilities and maintain the fiscal and operational viability of the District.”

– Conflicting trends … capacity … fixed operating costs … enrollment– More footprint in the fall … drives up custodial, landscaping, maintenance, etc. – “Just turning the lights on” … principal, clerical, custodial, utilities … starting

with $400K commitment per schoolwith $400K commitment per school– Since 2000/01 fixed operating cost per student increased across all school groups



Recommendation 9: Administrative/Supervisory Recommendation 9: Administrative/Supervisory SpendingSpendingSpendingSpending

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the SDUSD Finance d d HRSD l h f h i i l i fdepartment and HRSD analyze the reasons for the continuing escalation of administrative and supervisory salaries as a percentage of the total SDUSD budget. The task force further recommends that, beginning in 2008-09, the District implement practices to control administrative spending such asDistrict implement practices to control administrative spending, such as new vice-principal staffing ratios.”

SDUSD Administrative Salariesas a % of Total Outgo

2000-20086.00%

How do administration %

3.85% 3.91%

4.52% 4.85%4.80%

4.26%

5.17%5.33%

5.00%

4.00%

changes compare … schools vs central

office?

3.00%

2.00%

1.00%



2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/080.00%

Recommendation 10: Supplemental Early Recommendation 10: Supplemental Early Retirement ProgramRetirement ProgramRetirement ProgramRetirement Program

“The task force recommends that upon the conclusion of the District’s funding for the 2003 04 Supplemental Early Retirement Program (SERP)funding for the 2003-04 Supplemental Early Retirement Program (SERP) that the SDUSD and SDEA conduct a bargaining unit feasibility study of offering another SERP. Any savings resulting from this SERP decreased long-term salary schedule costs or increased certificated ADA/FTE ratios would be used to bring teacher 20-year earnings to the median.”

– SERP is an infrequent workforce shaping tool – Strategic decision based on several factors ranging from retirementStrategic decision based on several factors ranging from retirement

eligibility pool and administrative costs to projected savings – Over 1,450 SDUSD employees retired in the 2003/04 SERP– SERP payments total $84.3M … distributed between 03/04 and 08/09 …

f t d 5 l t d i $7 7Mforecasted 5-year accumulated savings $7.7M



Recommendation 11: Title I ThresholdsRecommendation 11: Title I Thresholds

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the Board of Ed i i l i i h h Di i d i i i h Di iEducation, in consultation with the District administration, the District Advisory Council, and Area Superintendents review the Title I thresholds to determine if the SDUSD Board of Education should establish higher District thresholds for Title I designations beginning in 2008 09 ”District thresholds for Title I designations beginning in 2008-09.”

– Mandated to fund schools with 75% free/reduced lunch (F/RL) students– Authorized to fund schools down to 40% F/RL population current practiceAuthorized to fund schools down to 40% F/RL population .. current practice– About 30 schools do not receive Title I– Raising thresholds moves additional funds to more disadvantaged students

reduces exposure to Program Improvement (PI)… reduces exposure to Program Improvement (PI)– PI re-structuring costs increasing on annual basis … have passed

$4M mark … adding staff, equipment, instructional materials,transportation etc



transportation, etc.

Recommendation 12: District CalendarRecommendation 12: District Calendar

“Beginning in 2007-08, the task force recommends that the District Finance and Facilities departments in consultations with the District Calendar Committee studyFacilities departments, in consultations with the District Calendar Committee, study the cost and benefits of moving all SDUSD schools and programs to a traditional or single track schedule. The task force further recommends that, based on the results of this analysis, the SDUSD Board of Education consider calendar changes for 2008-09 that would reduce facilities and transportation costs while still meeting09 that would reduce facilities and transportation costs while still meeting enrollment requirements.”

–Streamlining the calendar is complicated … many factors–14 days of one time payment for conversion to traditional (est $10 0M+)14 days of one time payment for conversion to traditional (est. $10.0M+)–Collateral community services alignment (childcare, camps, sports)–Collateral savings: Transportation, Testing, Food Services, Utilities–Staff and Community surveys for input regarding proposed change

D i f h l d di i l d difi d–Design of the common calendar – traditional vs. year-round vs. modified–Alignment with San Diego County School districts–Bargaining unit concerns and involvement in the process–Applicable education code and governmental regulations



Recommendation 13: Health/Welfare BenefitsRecommendation 13: Health/Welfare Benefits

“The task force recommends that the parties continue to work together through the districtwide Health and Welfare Benefits Committee to addressthrough the districtwide Health and Welfare Benefits Committee to address their shared responsibility for maintaining quality benefits while reigning in the increased cost of such benefits. These savings could be used to bring teacher 20-year earnings to the median.”

– Must build on past successes of H/W committee• Decrease premiums Self-fund Dental• Consolidate services Shed high cost providers• Consolidate services Shed high cost providers

– Consider new possibilities• Examine direct eligibility interface with carriers• Reduce administrative cost through process improvement,g p p ,

staffing efficiency, automation, etc.• Promote “Best Doctors” … great potential …

quality care … savingsV l H/W b fit i iti l



– Value H/W benefit program in recruiting new employees

Recommendation 14: Innovative Educational Recommendation 14: Innovative Educational ProgramsProgramsProgramsPrograms

“The task force recommends that the parties jointly explore cost efficient ways to develop innovative educational programs to enhance student achievement and to increase student enrollment.”

F “ t hi ” & i ti

Critical goal …sustain innovative

concentrated effort– Focus on “partnership” & innovation• Partnership = investment in community, children, & teachers

– Innovation is a defining descriptor of student achievement &

concentrated effort to close gap

g pexcellent teachers & administrators

– Need “Out of the box” thinking applied to administration and staffing

– Provide freedom to try different approaches … recruiting staff& developing programs

Consider specialized schools with clear “brand identity”



– Consider specialized schools with clear brand identity

Conclusions/WrapConclusions/Wrap--upup

Sense of urgency … competition for skills … “Supply/Demand”Need for incremental change .. Not “Big Bang” approachNo single solution … multiple actions are required Patience is a must this is a multi year effortPatience is a must … this is a multi-year effortDiscipline & focus are fundamental … “Stay the course”Commitment to build a more stable work force … not a“training ground for other districts”Prerequisite: Collaboration of board, management, & employees



Documents

Board Workshop Presentation Compppyensation Comparability ...old.sandi.net/board/reports/2007/0724/4a_4.pdf · recommends that the SDEA Board of SDEA BARGAINING UNIT recommends that