Jan. 29, 2018 Tavares, FL
The Lake County, FL School Board had a morning workshop and Jim Krakowski was at the meeting and wrote his observations below.
You can watch the entire meeting on video at: https://youtu.be/HHzf3Uzq574
And you can see the online agenda and attachments HERE: http://www.boarddocs.com/fla/lake/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AV3KH65177F7
Vance Jochim
Meeting Observations From Jim Krakowski
jakmak@comcast.net
My Comments / Observations – School Board Meeting
January 29, 2018
(Jim Krakowski 2/2/18)
Monday’s School Board Workshop meeting focused on three topics:
• Updated student demographics …. past, present and future
• Budget timeline
• Review of staffing allocation policy
Demographics: Every year the LCSD has an outside consultant review, update and present
to the SB the projected student demographics for the District. The objective is to:
• Identify student trends by grade level over the last several years,
• Determine “natural” progression (Kindergarteners moving to 1st grade, 1st to 2nd, etc.)
• Projected birth rates,
• New housing starts within the County
The objective is to use these updated demographics to help determine how many “student
stations” and schools will be needed in the near term … i.e. capital needs
After factoring the effects of the hurricanes in Puerto Rico and the students added to the
District rolls (316), the impact of the Conversion Charters (Charter schools using District
facilities) and the non- Conversion Charter schools; for example, Minneola Charter will be
expanding from a K-5 last year to a K-8 over the next few years. In addition, Pinecrest Lakes
Charter opened in 2017 in Minneola and Pinecrest Four Corners Charter is expected to open
in 2018. Although Charter schools are part of the LCSD, their students are not counted when
determining the number of student stations needed that are under the Districts direct control /
responsibility.
From a capital needs standpoint, the demographics is used to determine the student stations
shortfall and overages by District operated schools … elementary, middle and high school.
This is then presented to the SB in order to identify the capital needs relating to student
stations by individual school. For example:
• By 2021 Sawgrass Bay ES and Cypress Ridge ES are short student stations of 378 and
324 respectively while Masscotte ES and Sorrento ES have an excess of 231 and 115
respectively.
• By 2021 Windy Hill MS is projected to be short 525 while Cecil E. Gray MS has an
excess of 412.
• By 2021East Ridge HS will need an additional 431 stations while Leesburg HS will have
an excess of 451 stations.
My Comments: The objective is to identify growth/decline in student population and capital
facilities needed by the District. My questions … is this the best method to use to provide
demographics and is it cross referenced to other “local” data (e.g. Lake County data both
public and private)? After listening to this presentation for several years, the SB asks the
same questions they have been asking for the last several years:
• Do the short falls and overages in student stations take into consideration the
“portable class rooms” in use or in inventory? The question has been no. They do
not take portables into consideration
• Can the presentation be revised to reflect the stations available via portable
classroom currently in use or in inventory? The answer has consistently been yes.
By presenting both permanent stations and those provided via portables would present
a more accurate picture of what actions are needed for each school.
Budget Process: The District’s CFO (Karen Briggs) presented to the SB on outline of the
time line for the 2018/19 budget. The budget is driven to a large extent by the state and the
availability of the funds allocated to education and specifically to the LCSD. The budget
process starts with the projection of student enrollment for the 2018/19 school year. Thus, the
demographics noted above play a role in the process … a significant portion of state revenues
is tied to student enrolment. The CFO, briefly went through the 2017/18 budget as previously
presented. The total 2017/18 budgeted revenues were $584 millions of which $364 are
unencumbered and directly controlled by the District … General Fund and Title 1, Title 2 and
expenditures for students with special needs (for more detail of the 2017/18 budget go to the
District’s website)
My Comments: I’m not sure what the purpose of the presentation was intented to
accomplish other than indicating the process starts with anticipated student enrollment
and that preliminary enrollment must be submitted to the state within the next several
weeks.
Allocation Policy: Dr. Weiskopf (Chief of Transformation) presented a draft of a revised
Basic Instructional Allocation policy to support Basic, ESOL (English for Speakers of Other
Languages), ESE (Exceptional Student Education) and CTE (Career and Technical Education)
enrollment for SB approval for the 2018/19 school year. The objectives of revising this policy
were to effectively utilize the instructional resources available, make the plan easy to
understand, allow the plan to be transparent, increase the effectiveness of each school and in
this process, hopefully reduce costs.
Although the Allocation Policy is quite extensive and detailed, the SB discussion centered on
two aspects:
• Those schools that have been designated by the state as needing additional support
(schools in the lowest 300 state wide … F or D rated schools for more than one year).
What to do with these resources once the school has improved to a C rating or better
for 2 years and no longer need these additional resources and the state is no longer
providing the funds for these resources?
• Basic Allocation formula relating to student “enrichment” instructions. Each school will be
allotted 4 instructional personnel … PE, Art, Music and one Discretionary. Basic
Allocation and defining specific positions as it relates to CRT instructors (Curriculum
Resource Teacher) was discussed at length amongst the SB and Dr. Weiskopf.
My Comments: It appears that schools having CRT’s utilize them for a variety of rolls
under the specific direction of that school’s administration. As pointed out by SB
member Gamble a job description for CRT’s is not specifically identified and thus may be
why these individuals are utilized in a variety of positions that may not be consistent from
school to school. SB member Luke noted that limiting the Basic allocation to three
specific and one discretionary instructor may hinder the effectiveness and flexibility of a
particular school and that schools specific “specialty” … basically one size may not fit all.
This was a long but interesting dialog among the SB to be continued at a future board
meeting. However, I was getting the impression that some on the Board were somewhat
micromanaging vs. providing guidance
