Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Richmond Public Schools Staffing Study Review of Report Findings and Key Recommendations March 26, 2009.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Richmond Public Schools Staffing Study Review of Report Findings and Key Recommendations March 26, 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 Richmond Public Schools Staffing Study Review of Report Findings and Key Recommendations March 26, 2009

2 Presentation Agenda Who We AreWho We Are Our Charge: Overview of Project ObjectivesOur Charge: Overview of Project Objectives 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

3 Who 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

4 Our 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 comparisons 4

5 Our 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

6 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 Objectives 6

7 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 Objectives 7

8 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 Objectives 8

9 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 Objectives 9

10 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 Objectives 10

11 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 Objectives 11

12 No. of RPS Employees Surveyed/Interviewed Employee Group No. Surveyed Central Office Administrative13 Clerical108 Support31 Teachers716 Principals42 Assistant Principals48 Nurses40 Totals998 12

13 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 Objectives 13

14 Study Findings: RPS Upper Management 14

15 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 Management 15

16 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 Management 16

17 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: Key Recommendations 17

18 RPS School Board Superintendent Deputy Superintendent Instruction & Accountability (Vacant) Chief Operating Officer Finance & Operations (Vacant) Assistant Superintendent Administrative & Support Services Director Information, Communications & Technology Services Director Instruction Director Exceptional Education & Student Services Manager Grants Director Finance Director Budget Exec. Director Elementary Ed. Exec. Director Secondary Ed Director Human Resources Director Prof. Dev. Specialist Partnerships & Volunteers Communications Officer Hearing Officer Chief Safety & Security Director Plant Services RPS Org Chart (October 2008) Chief Auditor Board Clerk ADA Compliance Officer 18

19 RPS School Board Superintendent Chief Instructional Officer (CIO) (Vacant) Chief Operating Officer (COO) (Vacant) Chief of Staff Coordinator Communications, Partnerships, & Volunteers Director Instruction Director Exceptional Education & Student Services Director Prof. Dev. Exec. Director Elementary Ed. Exec. Director Secondary Ed Director Human Resources Director Plant Services Coordinator ADA Compliance Supervisor School Nutrition Services Chief Safety & Security Director Finance Director Budget Proposed RPS Org Chart Chief Auditor Board Clerk Hearing Officer Manager Grants Specialist Pupil Placement Director Pupil Transportation & Fleet Management 19

20 RPS Staffing 20

21 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 Staffing 21

22 RPS Instructional Staffing 22

23 Five-Year Student Enrollment Patterns SCHOOL DIVISIONS20042005200620072008 5-YEAR CHANGE Richmond Public Schools25,05424,72624,24723,77123,000-2,054 Chesterfield County Public Schools 56,24257,23958,51159,02159,0802,838 Henrico County Public Schools46,71147,14747,68048,62048,9912,280 Newport News Public Schools33,09633,13932,38131,57131,298-1,798 Norfolk Public Schools36,25036.05435,65735,12434,488-1,762 Portsmouth Public Schools15,84315,87215,44115,40415,323-520 Division Average35,53329,69335,65335,58535,363-169 23

24 Five-Year Teacher Staffing Patterns SCHOOL DIVISIONS20032004200520062007 FIVE YEAR CHANGE Richmond Public Schools1,901.501,955.001,951.501,961.002,059.00157.50 Chesterfield County Public Schools3,658.633,831.393,840.433,900.803,924.12265.49 Henrico County Public Schools2,974.312,967.083,209.773,205.973,240.05265.74 Newport News Public Schools2,250.272,206.702,202.002,232.002,249.75-0.52 Norfolk Public Schools2,790.572,806.602,976.702,987.002,815.0024.43 Portsmouth Public Schools1,210.011,227.351,276.011,474.111,476.07266.06 24

25 RPS Elementary Teacher 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 K1,9191131:17119* -6 Grade 11,8191131:16114* Grade 21,9011121:17118* -6 Grade 31,8161001:17113* -13 Grade 41,709831:2171 12 Grade 51,777851:2174 11 Division10,9416061:18609-3 25

26 Financial Impact of Austerity Cut (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 K1,9191131:178033 Grade 11,8191131:167637 Grade 21,9011121:177933 Grade 31,8161001:177624 Grade 41,709831:217112 Grade 51,777851:217411 Division10,9416061:18456150 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.

27 RPS Middle School Teacher Staffing Levels GRADE LEVELS ACTUAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT NUMBER OF TEACHERS CURRENT TEACHER- STUDENT RATIO TEACHER ALLOCATION BASED ON 1:24 SOQ RATIO OVER/UNDER TEACHER UNIT ALLOCATION Grade 61,545601:2664-4 Grade 71,482611:24610 Grade 81,455571:2660-3 Division4,4821781:25185-7 27

28 RPS High School Teacher Staffing Levels SCHOOLSUBJECT NUMBER 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 ArmstrongEnglish910325419-5.21 History78475615-9.38 Math910115419-5.21 Science89514820-4.17 WytheEnglish76844216-8.03 History87354815-9.38 Math88084219-5.21 Science87194416-8.33 HuguenotEnglish911395421-4.04 History911595023.04 Math1011115919-5.21 Science1010815918-6.25 English77304118-6.25 History77543820-4.17 Math87164117-7.29 Science76453518-6.26 T. JeffersonEnglish66353518-6.25 History77613920-4.17 Math76624216-8.33 Science87174117-7.29 Total159NA*92218-1174.47 28


30 RPS Administrative Staffing Levels 30


32 Factors in Administrative Staffing 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

33 Factors in Administrative Staffing: Student Discipline 33

34 Factors in Administrative Staffing: Student Discipline 34

35 Comparisons in Administrative Staffing 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

36 RPS Clerical Staffing Levels 36

37 RPS Elementary Clerical Staffing Levels ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NAME TOTAL ENROLLMENT CLERICAL STAFF SOQ ALLOCATION OVER/UNDER ALLOCATION Elementary30511* Blackwell Elementary66111* Broad Rock Elementary32611* Elementary55611* Springs Elementary19811* E.S.H. Greene Elementary43511* Elizabeth D. Redd48711* Elementary51111* G.H. Reid Elementary55411* George Mason Elementary47411* George W. Carver Elementary49811* Elementary53822* J.B. Fisher Elementary36311* J.E.B. Stuart Elementary36211* J.L. Francis Elementary51711* 37

38 RPS Elementary Clerical Staffing Levels ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NAME TOTAL ENROLLMENT CLERICAL STAFF SOQ ALLOCATION OVER/UNDER ALLOCATION Linwood Holton Elementary51511* Mary Munford Elementary55111* Maymont Elementary20311* Miles Jones Elementary50611* Oak Grove/Bellemeade Elementary41011* Overby-Sheppard Elementary31311* Elementary41411* Summer Hill/Ruffin Road Elementary50811* Swansboro Elementary32811* Westover Hills Elementary36811* William Fox Elementary45411* Woodville Elementary56211* TOTALS11,91728 * 38

39 RPS Secondary Clerical Staffing Levels MIDDLE SCHOOL NAME TOTAL ENROLLMENT CLERICAL STAFF SOQ ALLOCATION NO. OVER/UNDER ALLOCATION Albert Hill Middle51411* Binford Middle45311* Chandler Middle3042.51.5 Elkhardt Middle47111* Fred D. Thompson Middle55411* Henderson Middle528211 Lucille M. Brown Middle694211 Martin Luther King Jr. Middle55311* Thomas C. Boushall Middle41111* TOTALS4482128.53.5 HIGH SCHOOL NAME Armstrong High117033* George Wythe High1055321 Huguenot High132333* John Marshall High96422* Thomas Jefferson High860321 TOTALS5,37214122 39

40 RPS Nurse Staffing Levels 40

41 RPS Nurse Staffing 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

42 RPS Nurse Staffing Levels HIGH SCHOOLSENROLLMENTNURSING STAFF* Armstrong High1,170(1) NBA George Wythe High1,031(1) RN Huguenot High1,302(1) RN John Marshall High947(1) NBA Thomas Jefferson High839(1) NBA *RN – Registered Nurse LPN – Licensed Practical Nurse NBA – Nurse with Bachelor’s Degree NA – Nursing Assistant 42

43 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: Key Recommendations 43

44 RPS Recruitment Strategies 44

45 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 Recruitment Strategies 45

46 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: Key Recommendations 46

47 RPS Staffing Study Fiscal Summary CHAPTER REFERENCE ANNUAL SAVINGS (COSTS) TOTAL FIVE- YEAR SAVINGS (COSTS) 2009-102010-112011-122012-132013-14 CHAPTER 2: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Rec 2-2 Eliminate One Assistant Superintendent $125,780 $628,900 Rec 2-2 Create One Chief of Staff Position ($102,938) ($514,690) Rec 2-2Eliminate Two Specialists$150,642 $753,210 Rec 2-2 Create One Coordinator Position ($87,205) ($436,025) Rec 2-11 Eliminate the Supervisor of Grants Fiscal Management Position $79,873 $399,365 Rec 2-11 Eliminate One and a Half Senior Accountant Grants Accounting Positions $83,071 $415,355 TOTAL SAVINGS/(COSTS) $249,223 $1,246,115 CHAPTER 3: DIVISION STAFFING Rec 3-5 Hire Three School Nurse Assistants ($64,284) ($321,420) TOTAL SAVINGS/(COSTS) ($64,284) ($321,420) GROSS SAVINGS$439,366 $2,196,830 GROSS (COSTS)($254,427) ($1,272,135) NET SAVINGS$184,939 $924,695 TOTAL NET SAVINGS$924,695 47

48 Questions ? 48

Download ppt "Richmond Public Schools Staffing Study Review of Report Findings and Key Recommendations March 26, 2009."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google