richmond public schools staffing study review of report findings and key recommendations march 26,...
TRANSCRIPT
Richmond Public Schools Staffing Study
Review of Report Findings and Key Recommendations
March 26, 2009March 26, 2009
Presentation AgendaPresentation Agenda
• Who We AreWho We Are• Our Charge: Overview of Project Our Charge: Overview of Project
ObjectivesObjectives• Study Findings and RecommendationsStudy Findings and Recommendations
• Division AdministrationDivision Administration• Human ResourcesHuman Resources• School AdministrationSchool Administration• Instructional PersonnelInstructional Personnel• School Health StaffingSchool Health Staffing
• Fiscal SummaryFiscal Summary• QuestionsQuestions 2
Who We AreWho We Are
• MGT of America, Inc.• Established in 1974• National Firm Specializing in
Reviews of Public Sector Organizations. Major
Regional Offices in:– Tallahassee, FL– Olympia, WA– Sacramento, CA– Austin, TX
• National and International Experience– Current and past projects in 50 states
and 5 countries
• Leading National Firm in Educational Consulting
3
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
• Review Richmond Public Schools’ current organizational charts, job descriptions, job classifications, payroll information, and other pertinent data
– Collected job descriptions, job classifications, and position data for all identified RPS employee groups (RPS upper management, HR and Budget/Finance administrators and support staff, school administrators, school clerical staff, and school nurses)
– Prepared comparisons with peer divisions regionally and locally
– Made recommendations based on comparisons4
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
• Consider all potential opportunities for position consolidation based upon actual job duties, workload, workflow, and skill sets while respecting the Virginia Department of Education mandates.
– Reviewed staffing levels at all RPS schools for instructional, administrative, clerical and nursing personnel, and for RPS upper management, budget and finance, and human resources
– Conducted individual and focus group interviews, conducted online surveys with all targeted employee groups
– Made comparisons with local, regional school divisions, and Virginia Standards of Quality where appropriate
5
• Examine each specified management position for the match between job description and the required skills set and education level
– Reviewed position descriptions , focusing on the skills required and education level
– Analyzed current work load and relationships to look for opportunities for added efficiencies
– Provided recommendations for organizational realignment
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
6
• Review the division’s recruitment practices and compare with best practices– Reviewed current and historical data on
recruitment activities and budgets
– Reviewed recruitment activities for compliance with EEOC and other federal mandates
– Reviewed all resources allocated to recruitment
– Reviewed processes for job postings and position description updating
– Provided comparisons with peer divisions
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
7
• Provide peer comparisons of size, and organizational structure with local and regional school divisions
– Obtained size, and organizational structure information from peer divisions (Newport News, Norfolk, Chesterfield, Henrico, Portsmouth)
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
8
• Evaluate the RPS organizational structure to assess the RPS organizational structure efficiency as it pertains to supervisory span of control, dissemination of information, and lines of communication and authority.– Interviewed specific personnel and reviewed the
organizational structure to determine opportunities for greater efficiency
– Conducted individual interviews on the nature and structure of their current positions
– Created proposed organizational charts based on analysis of interview data and peer comparisons
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
9
• Conduct focus group and individual interviews of all upper management and school administrative personnel, and solicit their feedback and recommendations
– Individual interviews conducted with RPS Upper Management, and key administrators in Budget and Finance, Human Resources, and Elementary and Secondary Curriculum & Instruction
– Captured interview data for correlation with other quantitative data
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
10
• Conduct focus group interviews with identified stakeholder groups, and solicit feedback on clerical/support staff configuration– Focus groups conducted with the following
personnel groups:• Elementary Principals and Assistant Principals• Secondary Principals and Assistant Principals• HR Support Personnel (Staff and Clerical)• Budget and Finance Support Personnel (Staff
and Clerical)• School Clerical Personnel• School Nurses
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
11
No. of RPS Employees No. of RPS Employees Surveyed/InterviewedSurveyed/Interviewed
Employee Group
No. Surveyed
Central Office Administrative 13
Clerical 108
Support 31
Teachers 716
Principals 42
Assistant Principals 48
Nurses 40
Totals 998
12
• Conduct surveys to capture position classification, size, and wage concerns
– Provided individual surveys to all focus group participants to discuss job concerns related to job responsibilities and wages
– All RPS teachers were provided with an online survey to address these concerns
Our Charge: Study ObjectivesOur Charge: Study Objectives
13
Study Findings: Study Findings: RPS Upper ManagementRPS Upper Management
14
• Findings:
– Lack of board policy language regarding annual evaluation of staffing patterns and organizational structures
– Overly broad span of control for the superintendent’s position
– Lack of job description accuracy for some positions
– No designated position for coordination of leave, identification/scheduling of training for central office staff
RPS Upper ManagementRPS Upper Management
15
• Findings:
– High volume of email to RPS executive staff without an effective management system for responding
– Lack of a strategic planning document– Vacancies in key division leadership positions– Grants management function is not consolidated
within a single work unit in the school division– Ineffective system for the distribution of work loads– Lack of operations manual in human resources
RPS Upper ManagementRPS Upper Management
16
• Reduce span of control by top executives and clarify roles and responsibilities for specified positions
• Fill key leadership vacancies• Create policy language to support the
annual review and evaluation of system organizational structures
• Review and revise selected job descriptions• Develop a strategic planning document• Develop an operational manual•
RPS Upper Management:RPS Upper Management:Key RecommendationsKey Recommendations
17
RPS School Board
Superintendent
DeputySuperintendent
Instruction &Accountability
(Vacant)
Chief OperatingOfficer Finance & Operations
(Vacant)
AssistantSuperintendentAdministrative & Support Services
DirectorInformation,
Communications & Technology
Services
DirectorInstruction
DirectorExceptional Education &
Student Services
ManagerGrants
DirectorFinance
DirectorBudget
Exec. DirectorElementary Ed.
Exec. DirectorSecondary Ed
DirectorHuman Resources
DirectorProf. Dev.
SpecialistPartnerships &
Volunteers
CommunicationsOfficer
HearingOfficer
Chief Safety & Security
DirectorPlant Services
RPS Org Chart (October 2008)
ChiefAuditor
BoardClerk
ADA ComplianceOfficer
18
RPS School Board
Superintendent
Chief Instructional Officer (CIO)
(Vacant)
Chief Operating
Officer (COO)(Vacant)
Chief ofStaff
CoordinatorCommunications,Partnerships, &
Volunteers
DirectorInstruction
DirectorExceptional Education &
Student Services
DirectorProf. Dev.
Exec. DirectorElementary Ed.
Exec. DirectorSecondary Ed
DirectorHuman Resources
DirectorPlant Services
CoordinatorADA Compliance
SupervisorSchool Nutrition
Services
ChiefSafety & Security
DirectorFinance
DirectorBudget
Proposed RPS Org Chart
ChiefAuditor
BoardClerk
Hearing Officer
ManagerGrants
Specialist Pupil Placement
DirectorPupil Transportation& Fleet Management19
RPS StaffingRPS Staffing
20
• Findings:
– Current general and special education, and clerical staffing levels satisfy requirements of the Virginia SOQ’s
– RPS provides 86 teachers-on-special-assignment to Title I schools
– The division does not have an allocation formula for the assignment of special education teachers
– The division is slightly understaffed in nursing positions
RPS StaffingRPS Staffing
21
RPS InstructionalRPS InstructionalStaffingStaffing
22
Five-Year Student Five-Year Student Enrollment PatternsEnrollment Patterns
SCHOOL DIVISIONS 2004 2005 2006 2007 20085-YEAR
CHANGE
Richmond Public Schools 25,054 24,726 24,247 23,771 23,000 -2,054
Chesterfield County Public Schools
56,242 57,239 58,511 59,021 59,080 2,838
Henrico County Public Schools 46,711 47,147 47,680 48,620 48,991 2,280
Newport News Public Schools 33,096 33,139 32,381 31,571 31,298 -1,798
Norfolk Public Schools 36,250 36.054 35,657 35,124 34,488 -1,762
Portsmouth Public Schools 15,843 15,872 15,441 15,404 15,323 -520
Division Average 35,533 29,693 35,653 35,585 35,363 -169
23
Five-Year TeacherFive-Year TeacherStaffing PatternsStaffing Patterns
SCHOOL DIVISIONS 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007FIVE YEAR CHANGE
Richmond Public Schools 1,901.50 1,955.00 1,951.50 1,961.00 2,059.00 157.50
Chesterfield County Public Schools
3,658.63 3,831.39 3,840.43 3,900.80 3,924.12 265.49
Henrico County Public Schools 2,974.31 2,967.08 3,209.77 3,205.97 3,240.05 265.74
Newport News Public Schools 2,250.27 2,206.70 2,202.00 2,232.00 2,249.75 -0.52
Norfolk Public Schools 2,790.57 2,806.60 2,976.70 2,987.00 2,815.00 24.43
Portsmouth Public Schools 1,210.01 1,227.35 1,276.01 1,474.11 1,476.07 266.06
24
RPS ElementaryRPS ElementaryTeacher Staffing LevelsTeacher Staffing Levels
GRADE LEVELS
ACTUAL STUDENT
ENROLLMENT
NUMBER OF
TEACHERS
CURRENT TEACHER-STUDENT
RATIO
TEACHER ALLOCATION
BASED ON FEDERAL (1:16)* OR VIRGINIA
SOQ RATIO (1:24)
OVER/UNDER TEACHER
UNIT ALLOCATION
Grade K 1,919 113 1:17 119* -6
Grade 1 1,819 113 1:16 114* -1
Grade 2 1,901 112 1:17 118* -6
Grade 3 1,816 100 1:17 113* -13
Grade 4 1,709 83 1:21 71 12
Grade 5 1,777 85 1:21 74 11
Division 10,941 606 1:18 609 -3
25
Financial Impact of Austerity Cut Financial Impact of Austerity Cut (Loss of Class Size Reduction Funds)(Loss of Class Size Reduction Funds)
26
GRADE LEVELS
ACTUAL STUDENT
ENROLLMENT
NUMBER OF
TEACHERS
CURRENT TEACHER-STUDENT
RATIO
TEACHER ALLOCATION
BASED ON VIRGINIA
SOQ RATIO (1:24)
OVER TEACHER
UNIT ALLOCATION
Grade K 1,919 113 1:17 80 33Grade 1 1,819 113 1:16 76 37Grade 2 1,901 112 1:17 79 33Grade 3 1,816 100 1:17 76 24Grade 4 1,709 83 1:21 71 12Grade 5 1,777 85 1:21 74 11Division 10,941 606 1:18 456 150
An austerity reduction of 150 teachers would amount to $7,863,000. This figure was derived using the division’s base teacher salary of $39,712, plus $12,708 (32 percent benefit rate) to obtain a per teacher salary of $52,420, times 150 teachers.
RPS Middle SchoolRPS Middle SchoolTeacher Staffing LevelsTeacher Staffing Levels
GRADE LEVELS
ACTUAL STUDENT
ENROLLMENT
NUMBER OF
TEACHERS
CURRENTTEACHER-STUDENT
RATIO
TEACHER ALLOCATION
BASED ON 1:24 SOQ
RATIO
OVER/UNDER TEACHER
UNIT ALLOCATION
Grade 6 1,545 60 1:26 64 -4
Grade 7 1,482 61 1:24 61 0
Grade 8 1,455 57 1:26 60 -3
Division 4,482 178 1:25 185 -7
27
RPS High SchoolRPS High SchoolTeacher Staffing LevelsTeacher Staffing Levels
SCHOOL SUBJECTNUMBER OF TEACHERS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
NUMBER OF
PERIODS TAUGHT
AVERAGE NUMBER
OF STUDENTS
PER CLASS
OVER/UNDER STANDARDS OF QUALITY
ENROLLMENT
OVER/UNDER TEACHER
UNIT ALLOCATION
Armstrong English 9 1032 54 19 -5 .21History 7 847 56 15 -9 .38Math 9 1011 54 19 -5 .21Science 8 951 48 20 -4 .17
Wythe English 7 684 42 16 -8 .03History 8 735 48 15 -9 .38Math 8 808 42 19 -5 .21Science 8 719 44 16 -8 .33
Huguenot English 9 1139 54 21 -4 .04History 9 1159 50 23 -1 .04Math 10 1111 59 19 -5 .21Science 10 1081 59 18 -6 .25English 7 730 41 18 -6 .25History 7 754 38 20 -4 .17Math 8 716 41 17 -7 .29Science 7 645 35 18 -6 .26
T. Jefferson English 6 635 35 18 -6 .25
History 7 761 39 20 -4 .17Math 7 662 42 16 -8 .33Science 8 717 41 17 -7 .29
Total 159 NA* 922 18 -117 4.47
28
RPS SPED TeacherRPS SPED TeacherStaffing LevelsStaffing Levels
RPS SCHOOLS
NUMBER OF STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES
TOTAL NUMBER OF TEACHERS LEVEL I LEVEL II
LEVEL II WEIGHTS (LEVEL II
x 2.5)
LEVEL I AND
LEVEL II WEIGHTS
AVERAGETEACHER
CASELOADS
TOTALS 4519 370 2344 2175 5437.5 7612.5 20.5
29
RPS AdministrativeRPS AdministrativeStaffing LevelsStaffing Levels
30
RPS AdministrativeRPS AdministrativeStaffing LevelsStaffing Levels
TOTAL STUDENTS PRINCIPALS
SOQALLO-
CATION
OVER/UNDERALLO-
CATIONASST.
PRINCIPALS
SOQALLO-
CATION
OVER/UNDERALLO-
CATION
ELEMENTARY TOTALS
11,706 27 26.5 0.5 29 13.5 15.5
MIDDLE SCHOOLTOTALS
4482 9 9 * 12 5 7.5
HIGH SCHOOLTOTALS
5372 5 5 * 14 8 6
31
Factors in Factors in AdministrativeAdministrative
StaffingStaffing
• Virginia SOQ identify minimum staffing levels and each school division may determine appropriate staffing levels based on local conditions
• Local conditions/factors include:• School size/physical layout• Academic program complexity• School safety/discipline• Availability of alternate funding sources for
additional positions
32
Factors in AdministrativeFactors in AdministrativeStaffing: Student DisciplineStaffing: Student Discipline
33
Factors in AdministrativeFactors in AdministrativeStaffing: Student DisciplineStaffing: Student Discipline
34
Comparisons in Comparisons in AdministrativeAdministrative
StaffingStaffing
• Richmond Public Schools and its peer divisions have factored in site conditions in their staffing decisions
• In comparing the administrative staffing levels of peer divisions, MGT found the following:– Except for Henrico, elementary schools have one
full-time AP, regardless of school size– Middle schools have 2-3 assistant principals– High schools have 3-4 assistant principals– Some divisions also augment their secondary school
administrative teams with student deans and/or administrative assistants 35
RPS Clerical RPS Clerical Staffing Staffing
LevelsLevels
36
RPS ElementaryRPS ElementaryClerical Staffing LevelsClerical Staffing Levels
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NAMETOTAL
ENROLLMENTCLERICAL
STAFFSOQ
ALLOCATION
OVER/UNDERALLOCATION
Elementary 305 1 1 *
Blackwell Elementary 661 1 1 *
Broad Rock Elementary 326 1 1 *
Elementary 556 1 1 *
Springs Elementary 198 1 1 *
E.S.H. Greene Elementary 435 1 1 *
Elizabeth D. Redd 487 1 1 *
Elementary 511 1 1 *
G.H. Reid Elementary 554 1 1 *
George Mason Elementary 474 1 1 *
George W. Carver Elementary 498 1 1 *
Elementary 538 2 2 *
J.B. Fisher Elementary 363 1 1 *
J.E.B. Stuart Elementary 362 1 1 *
J.L. Francis Elementary 517 1 1 *
37
RPS ElementaryRPS ElementaryClerical Staffing LevelsClerical Staffing Levels
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NAMETOTAL
ENROLLMENTCLERICAL
STAFFSOQ
ALLOCATION OVER/UNDERALLOCATION
Linwood Holton Elementary 515 1 1 *
Mary Munford Elementary 551 1 1 *
Maymont Elementary 203 1 1 *
Miles Jones Elementary 506 1 1 *
Oak Grove/Bellemeade Elementary 410 1 1 *
Overby-Sheppard Elementary 313 1 1 *
Elementary 414 1 1 *
Summer Hill/Ruffin Road Elementary 508 1 1 *
Swansboro Elementary 328 1 1 *
Westover Hills Elementary 368 1 1 *
William Fox Elementary 454 1 1 *
Woodville Elementary 562 1 1 *
TOTALS 11,917 28 28 *
38
RPS SecondaryRPS SecondaryClerical Staffing LevelsClerical Staffing Levels
MIDDLE SCHOOL NAMETOTAL
ENROLLMENTCLERICAL
STAFFSOQ
ALLOCATION
NO. OVER/UNDE
RALLOCATION
Albert Hill Middle 514 1 1 *Binford Middle 453 1 1 *Chandler Middle 304 2 .5 1.5Elkhardt Middle 471 1 1 *Fred D. Thompson Middle 554 1 1 *Henderson Middle 528 2 1 1Lucille M. Brown Middle 694 2 1 1Martin Luther King Jr. Middle 553 1 1 *Thomas C. Boushall Middle 411 1 1 *TOTALS 4482 12 8.5 3.5
HIGH SCHOOL NAMEArmstrong High 1170 3 3 *George Wythe High 1055 3 2 1Huguenot High 1323 3 3 *John Marshall High 964 2 2 *Thomas Jefferson High 860 3 2 1TOTALS 5,372 14 12 2
39
RPS Nurse RPS Nurse Staffing Staffing
LevelsLevels
40
RPS NurseRPS NurseStaffing LevelsStaffing Levels
• Staffing levels for nurses are within the 1:750 (nurse-student ratio) recommended SOQ Levels
• Staffing levels at RPS high schools fall slightly below the SOQ standard
41
RPS NurseRPS NurseStaffing LevelsStaffing Levels
HIGH SCHOOLS ENROLLMENT NURSING STAFF*
Armstrong High 1,170 (1) NBA
George Wythe High 1,031 (1) RN
Huguenot High 1,302 (1) RN
John Marshall High 947 (1) NBA
Thomas Jefferson High 839 (1) NBA
*RN – Registered Nurse LPN – Licensed Practical Nurse NBA – Nurse with Bachelor’s Degree NA – Nursing Assistant
42
• Monitor staffing levels to ensure continued compliance with Virginia SOQ standards
• Continue to utilize teachers on special assignment to provide job-embedded professional development and instructional support
• Develop a staffing allocation formula for special education personnel
• Hire three additional school nurse assistants
•
RPS Staffing:RPS Staffing:Key RecommendationsKey Recommendations
43
RPS RPS RecruitmentRecruitment
StrategiesStrategies
44
• Findings:
– The division does not have a written, comprehensive employee recruitment plan
– The timelines for identifying position vacancies are not adequate for effective recruitment activities
– The position control function does not currently reside in human resources
– The absence of recruitment coordinators from the HR office creates a work flow vacuum during recruitment season
RPS RecruitmentRPS RecruitmentStrategiesStrategies
45
• Create a comprehensive recruitment plan for all employee groups
• Establish a recruitment and hiring schedule that allows for early identification of potential vacancies
• Restore position control function to human resources
• Create a principal on special assignment position to assume duties for special education staffing
•
RPS Recruitment Strategies:RPS Recruitment Strategies:Key RecommendationsKey Recommendations
46
RPS Staffing StudyRPS Staffing StudyFiscal SummaryFiscal Summary
CHAPTER REFERENCE
ANNUAL SAVINGS (COSTS)TOTAL FIVE-
YEAR SAVINGS (COSTS)
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14CHAPTER 2: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Rec 2-2Eliminate One Assistant Superintendent
$125,780 $125,780 $125,780 $125,780 $125,780 $628,900
Rec 2-2Create One Chief of Staff Position
($102,938) ($102,938) ($102,938) ($102,938) ($102,938) ($514,690)
Rec 2-2 Eliminate Two Specialists $150,642 $150,642 $150,642 $150,642 $150,642 $753,210
Rec 2-2Create One Coordinator Position
($87,205) ($87,205) ($87,205) ($87,205) ($87,205) ($436,025)
Rec 2-11
Eliminate the Supervisor of Grants Fiscal Management Position
$79,873 $79,873 $79,873 $79,873 $79,873 $399,365
Rec 2-11
Eliminate One and a Half Senior Accountant Grants Accounting Positions
$83,071 $83,071 $83,071 $83,071 $83,071 $415,355
TOTAL SAVINGS/(COSTS) $249,223 $249,223 $249,223 $249,223 $249,223 $1,246,115 CHAPTER 3: DIVISION STAFFING
Rec 3-5Hire Three School Nurse Assistants
($64,284) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($321,420)
TOTAL SAVINGS/(COSTS) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($64,284) ($321,420)GROSS SAVINGS $439,366 $439,366 $439,366 $439,366 $439,366 $2,196,830 GROSS (COSTS) ($254,427) ($254,427) ($254,427) ($254,427) ($254,427) ($1,272,135)NET SAVINGS $184,939 $184,939 $184,939 $184,939 $184,939 $924,695 TOTAL NET SAVINGS $924,695
47
Questions ?Questions ?
48