Creating Consistency and Momentum in Calendar Development

The construct of our academic calendar has largely remained static since the 2013-2014 school year when we implemented the Wednesday early release for professional development. Based on a framework of 185 days, it is designed to ensure that we meet the minimum statewide requirement of 1,080 hours of instruction, with room to spare. The calendar uses 185 days to match the length of the master teacher contract. The teacher contract includes provisions for 178 days of student instruction, 2 days of conferences (one at the midpoint of first semester and the other at the midpoint of second semester), and 5 days non-instructional work. 

In the interim, the most substantive change to the calendar came at the start of the 2017-2018 school year when a state law was enacted promulgating the start of the school year to no earlier than August 23. For about the last decade, there has been very little change in the calendar, structurally or otherwise. Each January we solicit feedback on the construct of the calendar, using the feedback from the previous year's input to develop new versions for review. That isn't to state that each suggestion warrants a calendar option, but if themes emerge then we certainly will entertain them. Over the last handful of years there hasn't been much in the way of overwhelming desire to make any significant changes. I suppose the stability and predictability provides a level of comfort for families when it comes to their internal planning. Aside from options that range from adding a vacation day here or there, nothing really changes except for the last day of school when deploying those options for consideration. 

We've tested numerous options over the years, ranging from eliminating spring break to utilizing full days of professional development in lieu of the early release. Those results have told us that our community likes to have spring break. We've also heard there is a strong desire for classes to be finished by Memorial Day. 

I did want to spend a bit of time today talking about the early release each Wednesday and why it has become such a critical component of our school improvement efforts. As a starting point, around 2013 a state law was enacted that set the floor for the number of hours (36) that needed to be provided for teacher collaboration outside of the normal instructional framework. In addition to those hours, we must ensure enough time is allocated for ongoing teacher development. It was around that time the weekly early release was implemented. The math on that calculates out to about 76 hours per year, meaning that in an ideal scenario, half of that would be collaborative in nature and the other half would be professional learning. Truth be told, it never quite works out like that. Unscheduled meetings come up, emergencies happen, or a random snow day scrambles the schedule. Even under ideal circumstances and a schedule free of disruption, we find it challenging to fit everything in and tend to the professional learning needs of our faculty; those that are required by state law and those that are being implemented in furtherance of district achievement goals. 

Every once in a while, the suggestion is made to eliminate the early release in favor of full days of professional development. We can do that, but it would be a pretty big swing and a significant departure from current practice. I suspect this would upset the apple cart in ways that probably need a bit of explaining. First, in order to keep to a 185 day calendar we would need to significantly scale back the number of days for instruction (days that students will be in school). The quick math comes out to about 9 fewer student days. I'm not certain that is something I would be in favor of, and suspect most parents wouldn't be either. The other option would be to lengthen the calendar to 194 days. Easier said than done. Consider this. Based on the current budget, each day added to the calendar would come with a price tag of roughly $28,500. Multiply that by 9, and we are a bit north of $250,000.

Nevertheless, when we implemented this calendar construct more than a decade ago, we made clear our intent to ensure this time was wisely used. We had to be intentional about planning and to ensure we were getting the full benefit from this gift of time. Further, the Board of Directors plays an active role as well, annually approving the professional development plan. In summary, it would appear to be time very well spent. We have been able to implement a comprehensive Learner Management System (LMS) at the high school and explore characteristics of effective instruction at the elementary school. Our high school was able to engage in a multi-year effort in the exploration of authentic intellectual work while the elementary participated in the numeracy project. And most recently, due to a changes in state law regarding reading instruction, we have been immersed in an incredibly intensive study with our instructors in the Science of Reading. In addition, organizational changes at the middle school have enabled us to take time unpacking the characteristics of middle level education. All of this work is paying off with the gains and sustained academic achievement of our students. Indeed the proof can be found in the Iowa Performance Profile. 

The key to all of this includes thoughtful and deliberate planning, oftentimes a year or more in advance. Having a stable calendar helps in that planning. It requires coordination. Frankly, with the change in our organizational configuration this school year, coordination (and cooperation) has become even more complicated (particularly when considering some staff cross more than one organizational structure). What is happening at the elementary school is not happening at the middle school. What is being implemented at the high school is irrelevant to the work going on in the elementary school. Finally, we come to consistency. Once per week not only provides that consistency, it helps to create momentum and opportunities to embed that new learning directly into practice, and then be ready for follow up work the next week. 

Looking Around the Corner

It's that time of year. The legislature is in session and budget season is upon us. I'll be spending time in this space over the coming months explaining the various proposals that are being discussed in Des Moines and how they may impact Hudson Schools. To this point, we are relatively early in the session and as such there really are no surprises. Supplemental state aid is not yet set, but the governor recommended a 2% increase, which is what I have presumed in my forecast models. Property tax reform is a key priority this year, and while the proposals that have been filed so far are concerning, there will be ample time to unpack those as we get into the session. To begin, I want to spend a bit of time with you today discussing the budget and providing a bit of context into the conversations that are happening with some of our neighbors around the state as they consider what can best be described as austere budget cuts.  

In September, I shared with you our financial report on the current status of district finances with a promise to return to this topic with a forecast toward the end of October. That forecast was completed, but some of the assumptions needed additional refining. It wasn't until we had our property valuations complete and a sense of SSA recommendations before I had a moderate to high degree of confidence in the accuracy of these models. A disclaimer: when forecasting 5 years into the future it is very difficult to have a high degree of confidence in anything. I prefer a closer view; about 18 months. Even so, this is a great exercise to at least provide a roadmap. We'll get to that in a moment, but first...

If you have been following the local news, they have been running a series of stories regarding a roughly $11 million hole that needs to be filled in Cedar Rapids. The District explains the primary reason is due to the introduction of vouchers that came fully online this school year. As such, they have seen a precipitous drop in student enrollment. The governor, when interviewed, pointed to the use of covid money (AKA one time money) being used for ongoing or operating expenses. Truth be told, they are both right-with the edge probably going to the decrease in enrollment. 

First, the enrollment drop. In the simplest of terms, revenue for a school district is generated by the number of students served multiplied by the cost per pupil. If you have fewer students each succeeding year, less revenue will be generated. It is incumbent on schools then, to adjust expenditures accordingly. Granted, this is much easier said than done because the byproduct is most certainly going to be larger class sizes (and in the case of Cedar Rapids building closures). From a purely analytical and mathematic(s) standpoint it is pretty easy. From an emotional standpoint, it is much more difficult. 

The idea of covid money being one time money is also valid. Consider this scenario. You are gifted $500 and all you have is $500. You use that 'one time' money to finance a new car. The first month, the payment is $100, leaving you with $400. After 5 months, that money is gone and you no longer have a way to make the car payment. What do you do? Well, for starters you probably shouldn't have bought the car. Some school districts used this same principle with their covid allocations. They hired teachers and then when the money ran out, they retained them on staff. You can see the issue, right?

This is why it is so important to have the ability to 'look around the corner' and see what is on the horizon. If one time money is used for operational expenditures, what is the plan for when that funding stream dries up? How do we account for fluctuations in enrollment? Changes to state funding? If we change variable 'X', then what? How are property taxes impacted? Our ability to forecast is critical, not only to keep us out of budget trouble, but to help make long term plans for the district. These models are updated on a regular basis as new information is gathered. So, what does our forecast tell us? Well, based on the current assumptions, mostly sunny with a few clouds here and there. 

Here is what one model assumes. In this scenario, for FY27, general fund expenditures would grow by 5.33% from $12.092 million to $12.737 million, and then flatten to a growth rate of 4% for the run of the model. (If these expenditure forecasts seem high, keep in mind with projected enrollment growth there is also a need for additional staff to serve those students.) It also suggests a tax rate increase over the next 3 years in effort to keep the solvency ratio in the 15%-20% range. It also illustrates a property tax rate [relief] that would be realized if we were able to capture the valuation from our TIF district. This is quite a striking number! It also shows that our unspent balance remains healthy (which I continue to preach is the most important metric in Iowa School Finance), and it portrays a very healthy ending fund balance, increasing every year through the run of the model, with a decrease of $172,117 in FY31. 

The chart above, as stated in the title shows results in the simplest of terms. The blue bars along the 'X' axis illustrate the revenue generated to fund the program whereas the line that follows along the 'Y' axis is an illustration of the spending trajectory. Actual spending is shown through FY25, and then it forecasts four different scenarios ranging from a 3% growth pattern to a 6% growth pattern. If the line is touching the bar, the district has matched or underspent when compared to the resources. On the other hand, if there is a gap between the line and the bar, it suggests a deficit spending scenario. In this model, projections fall somewhere between the purple and green lines. 

In the final analysis, these projections should be consumed for what they are worth: they are assumptions. They answer the 'If, then', question. Forecasting what the budget is going to look like in FY31 is merely an academic exercise at this point. What I really try to hang my hat on at the end of the day is what is the end of this fiscal year going to look like, and what is the end of the next fiscal year going to look like.

At this point, these aren't even budget recommendations. That will come a bit later on in our budget season (and for FY27 only). Ultimately the school board will determine which variables make the most sense for our school district and what the actual 'spend' will look like. Not only that, but we have a lot of legislative session to get through yet, and property tax reform will be addressed this session. 

As our title today indiates, we are looking around the corner with an exercise like this. Granted, I'm only really focused the base year and out year. This type of financial tool at least gives us a jumping off point and ample runway if adjustments are needed in the future (and with every variable that changes in the model, adjustments are needed). A look like this provides us the gift of time and planning. 

However, time isn't on our side for all things when 'looking around the corner'. Currently, we are in the process of triangulating our enrollment projections with building utilization. For that exercise, we are looking all the way to 2034-2035 school year. By that school year, if enrollment continues to track as currently projected, we would have 4 sections per grade level K-12. Can we fit them all? Well, that is the question we are currently trying to answer. That one, well we don't have as much time. Stay tuned, we'll tackle that topic in an upcoming article!