Spring 2025 School Board Update

Hey everyone

It's been a minute since my last update. The board has been busy with budgeting, superintendent search, and policies. As you might have noticed, there's been a lot of talk about the schools' budget, and what the city council is considering. Here are some top line numbers (read below for more details):

Current budget issue and order of events:

City council gave FCCPS guidance for a $2,957,364 increase in the local transfer
School board developed a budget within that guidance
Real estate valuations came in higher than expected. The board felt our budget was appropriately needs-based and did not request any share of the extra revenue, and our budget remained within original guidance
School board presented the budget to council that was within the guidance
Revenue projection (from meals and sales taxes) revised downward by $1.2 million (conditional on maintaining 2.5 cent RE tax reduction)
The current proposal from the council is to reduce the RE tax rate by 1.5 pennies, which would require a $285,000 cut to the schools' proposed budget.

That's the rough equivalent of 2 full time teachers and a paraprofessional
Relative to a 0.5 penny cut (which would fully fund the schools’ budget), the proposed 1.5 penny cut would save the owner of the median-valued home approximately $9/month

Enrollment is the biggest challenge facing the schools:

projected growth for next school year is 159 students (which is the size of this year's kindergarten): a 6% increase in enrollment
This is on top of the 212 additional students that have enrolled between the beginning of the 2021-22 school year (FY22) and the beginning of this school year
Of that increase since FY22, new mixed use accounted for 84 students
Additionally, 38 new students from across the city have enrolled since December (which highlights the enrollment uncertainty schools face)

Bearing in mind that 85% of the budget is staff salary and benefits, our budget increase funds (among other things):

a step and COLA for all staff (approximately a 5% average increase for staff (lower than most of the surrounding districts and below the region average))
increase staffing to account for projected student growth
moving positions previously funded by one-time funds last year:

NOTE 1: these were needed to account for student growth through the current fiscal year
NOTE 2: these were funded with one-time money for the current fiscal year due to a late change in the tax rate approved by city council last year

The board's budget maintains per pupil spending (adjusted for inflation) at the level from FY2017

Read on for more info about the budget, the superintendent search process, and the personal technology policy passed by the board.

Budget

As mentioned above, enrollment is the biggest budgetary challenge the schools are facing. This school year, we passed our previous peak enrollment from FY2018. Since then, the city has added quite a few developments (which I, personally, am excited about), but that comes with more capacity for the city to house students (which means more uncertainty around enrollment growth). More than 1/3 of student growth in the past few years has come from new mixed use developments, higher than any other housing category. Some of the developments were not fully rented when the enrollment figures were reported, and more will be opening next school year. The near term projections show enrollment growth slowing after next school year (I'm focusing on the short term forecast because longer term demographic forecasts can be unreliable). Given the slower enrollment growth after next year, the main ongoing expense increases would be ensuring that staff pay remains locally competitive, while staff growth would be less of a contributing factor.

This enrollment growth is also coming with changes in student needs. The schools are educating more students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, students with disabilities, ESOL students than at any time since 2018. The number of students with 504 plans is near its peak from the 2019-20 school year. The schools are also educating more students who are receiving advanced academic services than at any time since 2021. Additionally, as part of the experience students have in FCCPS, there are 394 grade 8-12 students (36%) who participate in sports, on top of the number of students who participate in other school activities, such as theater, quiz bowl, robotics, etc. All of these activities require staffing.

FCCPS is serving all these student needs while the inflation-adjusted cost per pupil in the proposed budget is nearly the same as it was in 2017.

So here's what the school board's proposed budget provides for:

As mentioned above, a step and COLA for all staff (approximately a 5% average increase for staff (lower than most of the surrounding districts))
health insurance increases
Funds for private placements for those students who require more educational resources to than FCCPS can provide
increase staffing to account for projected student growth

4.5 more classroom teachers
increased staffing for special education
Bus driver and bus aide
Car driver (for transporting students with disabilities to private placements)
Parent resource and engagement specialist (aids those families who require more support, such families of ESOL students)
Assistant Activities Director (half-time): accounts for the increased numbers of students participating in school activities
athletic and instructional materials

moving positions to recurring after being funded by one-time funds for the current fiscal year:

School counselor
Math resource teacher
School counseling services
half-time advanced academic coordinator
ESOL teacher

other miscellaneous, such as textbooks, property and liability insurance, and utility increases

*FCCPS staff budgeted for 5% salary increase (only higher than Arlington and Alexandria and lower than the regional average, see* *question 20 in the council budget Q&A*).

I want to emphasize again that this comes at basically a flat per pupil expenditure (adjusted for inflation) relative to 2017.

*Comparison of* ***annual*** *tax burden between 0.5 penny cut and 1.5 penny cut*

The board fully appreciates some council members' focus on providing tax relief to city residents, and it's important we keep the tax burden on households and individuals in mind, especially in a time of economic uncertainty. But we should also be honest about the magnitude of the options being considered. Relative to a budget that fully funds the schools proposed budget, the 1.5 penny cut under consideration by the council will result in the owner of the median-valued home saving ~$100/year (or ~9/month). The owner of a $3 million home would see a savings of about $300 over the year.

Before the revenue shortfall, the board was already considering ways to find cost savings. The schools are saving some money by reorganizing how summer school services are provided (utilizing 2 sites rather than 4 and providing virtual supplements). Additionally, after productive conversations, the board decided to forgo an additional IB PYP coordinator position due to the recognition of 1) uncertainty of future budgets and 2) the uncertainty around future enrollment. These funds have been put into a staffing reserve to meet staffing needs in the event that enrollment comes in higher than projections. This provides the schools flexibility to respond to unexpected enrollment (which has been an issue this year) and grows staff in a sustainable manner and does not add permanent staff unless they are needed.

The city has the ability to cut programs like watch night or delay playground improvements that are budgeted for annually, but with a budget that is 85% staff-related, finding large cost savings in the schools budget that don't affect key services is a trickier task. With the understanding that revenue growth will not be as rosy next year, the board is fully supportive of allowing the new superintendent ample time (rather than giving us a couple of weeks) to thoughtfully consider ways of cutting costs.

Speaking of the new superintendent:

As expected for a school district of our caliber, there was substantial interest in the position for FCCPS superintendent. Our nationwide search resulted in 51 applicants across 23 states. We will be announcing the next superintendent at a special meeting at the Meridian auditorium on Monday at 6 p.m. Come out to meet the next leader of FCCPS.

Personal Tech Policy

The school board passed Policy J-TEC with 4 votes in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 abstention. This policy requires bell-to-bell bans on personal technology (phones, smartwatches, earbuds/headphones) for grades PK-8. It does allow for use of personal devices during non-instructional time at the high school (with appropriate exceptions where necessary). The policy requires that the board revisit the issue on an annual basis to allow for further discussion. As one of the dissenting members, I thought the bell-to-bell ban should have extended to the high school as well. After multiple very fruitful community engagements (including with students and teachers), I was not convinced that the net value of personal tech was positive in the school environment. I didn't hear anyone make the case that personal tech had on net improved education at the high school level. There was concern expressed by members of the community who favored a less restrictive policy that students needed to learn to manage their education while in possession of a personal device. Because students already get plenty of that kind of experience outside of school (they have plenty of homework to do), I think school should be a place where students learn how valuable the absence of personal tech can be. We will be revisiting the topic next year, and we’ll see how the discussion evolves in that time.

December 2024 School Board Update