Archived Minutes: Jan 8, 2010 | Dec 11, 2009 | Nov 13, 2009

LSRT Meeting – January 22, 2010

Present:

T. Nesbitt
P. Eisler
S. Spooner
H. Edelman
M. Boyd
N Atwell

P. Eisler presided.
Dana Nerenberg discussed the 2010-2011 School Budget

1. Hyde receives a specific dollar amount per student in lump sum.   We also get Title 2 money for professional development and money for special needs services.
   
   
2. We are part of a collaborative of elementary schools called the DC Collaborative for Change (“DC3”).  The schools in the collaborative share best practices and are aligned philosophically, that is, with respect to curriculum offerings.
   
   
3. The Brookings Institution and others projects our enrollment.  Dana proposed a change of the projected enrollment to 260.  For that number, we would receive $2,337,000 in local funding.  Of the $2.3M, special education funding is $250,00, which Dana thinks this is an error.  We would receive $177K for ELL, and  $5K for Title 2.  Dana thinks that we will lose $160K for special education services.  So, of the $2.3M, $5K is specifically allocated and the balance goes into a big pot – we can spend the balance however we want.
   
   
4. For teaching and administrative positions at Hyde, Dana proposed as follows: 1 assistant principal, 11 teachers, 2 pre-k teachers, 1 stem teacher, 2 ESL teachers, 3 SPED teachers, 1 librarian, 1 social worker, 4 teacher assistants for pre-k and k, and 1 additional classroom teacher.
   
   
5. Dana proposed the following for custodial and administrative staff: 2 administrative assistants, 2 custodians and 1 custodial foreman.  She also proposed money for Fillmore ($293 per child times 260 children).  After money for all of the positions and costs described in items 4 and 5 is allocated– we have a balance of $400,000.  If we subtract the $160K for the error associated with SPED services– that leaves us a $240K balance.
   
   
6. What to do with extra $240K?   The concensus is to use that money to hire more teaching assistants and additional custodial services (costs approximately $43K per year).
   
   Peter Eisler suggested that PTA not formally pay for teaching assistants and that the school/DCPS should employ them.  This would result in the assistants receiving benefits and would shield PTA from liability or lawsuits resulting from acts or omissions of the assistants.  He spoke to Karen about it – she was supportive and the other PTA treasurer, Kevin O'Neill, agreed.   PTA spends $25K per year for each of the two teaching assistants it employs. It would cost $34K per aide to fund those positions through our DCPS budget. We have enough money in our budget to pay the $18,000 difference ($9K per aide beyond what the PTA funds). We also have enough to hire two additional aides, as well.
   
   Money for supplies and in-service training would then be paid by the PTA. That gives us four aides for the 1st to 5th grades (one for every two classrooms), 1 additional custodian – that leaves $230K.  Subtract $160K – then we would have a $70k  balance.
   
   
7. It was proposed that if PTA did not cover the cost of assistants, it could cover our supply cost which would allow us the freedom to use any purveyor we wanted and to purchase items quicker.  Margaret Boyd suggested that we ask PTA to cover the cost of  Smartboards.