El Paso ISD 2016-17 Budget Presentation

8/19/2019 El Paso ISD 2016-17 Budget Presentation

1/96

Budget

WorkshopTo Board Of Trustees

Presented: March 17, 2016


2/96

Workshop Agenda

1. Designation of TRE Funds2. FY16 Financials

3. FY17 Budget Challenges & Considerations

4. Student to Staff Report

5. FY17 Replacement Plans6. 2016-17 Staffing Results

7. Efficiency Study Reports – APQC

8. 2016-17 Budget Development Update

Budget WorkshopTo Board of Trustees

1


3/96

FUNDING PRIORITIES

2015-16

BUDGET

(INCLUDED)

ALLOCATED

2015-16

TRE

REVENUE

UNALLOCATED

TRE REVENUE

TRE REVENUE $13,961,658 $1,267,658

INSTRUCTION & ENRICHMENT

EPISD Summer Enrichment Program $400,000 $400,000 -

Replacement of Fine Arts Equipment and Instruments $1,816,000 - -

Investment in athletics with focus on middle school sports - - -

Expansion of science labs and career and technical education programs - - -

TEACHER RETENTION

2015-16 Cost of living increase - 2.5% & 3.5% increase - $9,200,000 -

SCHOOL BUSES

Buses and Vehicle 6-Year Replacement Plan $750,000 $3,094,000 -

ACADEMIC TECHNOLOGY

Power Up Initiative – Student Laptops and Personnel Costs $2,500,000 - -

New Tech Initiative $1,286,700 - -

Wireless Access for Classrooms – Districtwide - - -

UNALLOCATED TRE REVENUE $1,267,658

2


4/96

FY16 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF FEBRUARY 29, 2016

REVENUE3


5/96

El Paso Independent School District

FY 16 General Fund Budget vs Actual

As of February 29, 2016Sep t - Ma y

12 m onth

ADOPTED CURRENT CURRENT MONTH YEAR-TO -DATE REMA

REVENUE ACCOUNT BUDGET BUDGET REVENUES REVENUES BUDGET

LOCAL:

TAXES, CURRENT YEAR LEVY $165,777,859 $165,777,859 $49,125,411 $158,733,561

TAXES, PRIOR YEARS 3,358,031 3,358,031 230,672 1,198,192

TAXES, PENALTY & INTEREST 1,450,267 1,450,267 270,931 789,569

REGULAR DAY SCHOOL 700,000 700,000 42,020 291,540

EARNINGS-TEMP DEP/ INVEST 150,000 150,000 60,182 197,374

REVENUE-RENT-BUILDINGS 100,000 100,000 6,158 60,854

REVENUE-TRANSPORTATION 50,000 50,000 22,840 22,840

M ISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 1,000,000 1,000,000 65,244 300,970

REVENUE-ATHLETIC ACTIVITY 500,000 500,000 273 355,319

REVENUE EXTRACURRICULAR 800,000 800,000 41,375 513,268

Tota l Loc al: 173,886,157 173,886,157 49,865,106 162,463,487 (

STATE:

REVENUE-PER CAPITA 15,7 18 ,0 80 1 5,7 18 ,08 0 3 46 ,9 79 1 ,8 30 ,64 5 (

REVENUE-FOUNDATION ENTITLE 263,755,492 263,755,492 1,199 141,295,211 (12

M ISC STATE PROGRAM REV 158,000 158,000 0 174,533

TRS ON-BEHALF BENEFIT 24,000,000 24,000,000 1,897,754 12,729,143 (

Tota l Stat e: 303,631,572 303,631,572 2,245,932 156,029,532 (14

FEDERAL:

REVENUE-R O T C 590,000 590,000 54,428 338,256

FEDERAL REVENUES - TEA 600,000 600,000 28,229 643,122

REVENUE-SHARS-MEDICA ID 8,000,000 8,000,000 65,746 714,744

REVENUE-IM PACT A ID 4,200,000 4,200,000 759,785 3,979,341 To ta l Fed e ra l: 13,390,000 13,390,000 908,188 5,675,463


6/96

FY16 FINANCIAL STATEMENTSAS OF FEBRUARY 29, 2016

EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTION5


7/96



As of February 29, 2016Se pt

12 m

ADOPTED CURRENT CURRENT MONTH YEAR-TO-DATE OUTSTANDING

BUDGET BUDGET EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES B

11 INSTRUCTION

PAYROLL COSTS $273,753,168 $268,570,686 $27,367,190 $169,006,338 $0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 2,419,015 3,619,773 471,307 1,563,260 943,282

MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 9,769,185 16,852,295 1,406,362 8,048,454 2,372,530

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 1,029,711 1,321,940 58,227 221,912 154,030

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 199,895 1,164,017 0 157,325 125,507

INSTRUCTION 287,170,975 291,528,711 29,303,085 178,997,290 3,595,349

12 INSTR RESOURCES & MEDIAPAYROLL COSTS 8,706,717 8,658,750 831,965 5,454,239 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 176,089 217,627 4,215 201,168 10,588

MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 1,426,026 1,384,964 193,335 750,176 536,550

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 13,299 11,799 26 4,285 1,882

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 6,032 55,022 6,642 55,022 0

INSTR RESOURCES & MEDIA 10,328,163 10,328,163 1,036,183 6,464,890 549,020

13 STAFF DEVELOPMENT-CUR/ INS

PAYROLL COSTS 15,041,709 14,453,446 1,265,641 8,040,965 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 359,630 1,084,240 0 526,785 155,800 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 525,266 472,331 15,148 177,145 65,587

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 552,881 1,139,876 32,750 296,741 61,685

STAFF DEVELOPMENT-CUR/INS 16,479,486 17,149,892 1,313,539 9,041,636 283,072

21 INSTRUCTIONAL ADM IN

PAYROLL COSTS 2,340,010 2,066,263 224,598 1,686,062 0


MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 197,250 195,143 13,047 87,221 22,825

O THER OPERATING EXPENSES 66,853 134,838 9,933 45,979 4,787

INSTRUCTIONAL ADM IN 2,917,168 3,008,585 269,943 2,283,153 71,025

AC CO UNT CO DE BY FUNCTION


8/96




12 m


BUDGET BUDGET EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES BAC CO UNT CO DE BY FUNCTION

23 SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

PAYROLL COSTS 35,873,919 35,745,001 3,339,831 23,188,817 0



OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 166,729 243,048 6,383 57,247 12,573

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 12,000 0 0 0 0

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP 36,685,381 36,709,611 3,397,851 23,613,366 115,756

31 GUIDANCE & COUNSELING SVC PAYROLL COSTS 16,214,220 15,241,902 1,599,683 10,534,636 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 213,200 1,100,558 25,000 833,161 21,432



CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 50,000 0 0 0 0

GUIDANCE & COUNSELING SVC 17,179,453 17,179,453 1,727,397 11,666,202 194,630

32 SOCIAL WORK SERVICES

PAYROLL COSTS 2,937,243 2,905,398 358,417 2,296,691 0




SOCIAL WO RK SERVICES 3,193,173 3,193,173 371,743 2,373,573 111,191

33 HEALTH SERVIC ES

PAYROLL COSTS 6,417,629 6,406,679 667,591 4,138,458 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 59,600 59,600 0 0 49,819


OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 10,000 16,000 0 6,147 3,360

HEALTH SERVIC ES 6,644,118 6,644,118 678,417 4,201,915 81,068


9/96




12 m



34 STUDENT TRANSPORTATIO N

PAYROLL COSTS 9,986,753 9,971,753 1,185,126 6,760,954 0



OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 326,668 328,668 (44,078) 116,876 2,258

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 750,000 750,000 0 72,223 0

STUDENT TRANSPORTATIO N 13,759,591 13,789,591 1,285,730 7,811,047 425,609

3 6 CO CURRICULAR AC TIVITIES

PAYROLL COSTS 7,014,041 6,922,342 688,338 4,373,933 0 PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 888,500 940,457 119,110 540,469 163,644


OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 2,034,074 2,227,389 171,657 1,054,315 165,436

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 20,000 87,836 0 49,198 28,695

CO CURRICULAR A CTIVITIES 11,572,237 11,745,526 1,043,612 6,764,804 633,100

41 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

PAYROLL COSTS 8,192,867 7,715,517 687,558 5,094,626 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 1,687,552 2,221,487 117,415 694,160 512,067

MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 221,195 317,703 12,910 147,705 24,191 OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 1,401,626 1,514,915 24,614 592,460 130,773

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 150,000 160,000 0 0 0

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 11,653,240 11,929,622 842,497 6,528,952 667,032

51 PLAN T MA INT & OPERATION

PAYROLL COSTS 27,686,755 27,275,010 2,383,049 18,106,480 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 18,968,484 18,641,083 1,405,979 10,152,905 1,790,461

MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 4,599,477 5,421,189 582,645 3,344,068 445,642

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 1,073,565 1,102,657 2,170 912,963 32,971

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 2,558,747 597,984 27,993 492,680 6,642

PLAN T MAINT & OPERATIONS 54,887,028 53,037,922 4,401,837 33,009,095 2,275,716


10/96




12 m



52 SECURITY & MONITORING SVC

PAYROLL COSTS 5,556,010 5,464,573 476,672 3,440,675 0



OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 6,053 10,053 110 5,167 0

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 46,080 197,760 151,680 151,680 0

SECURITY & M ONITORING SVC 6,094,687 6,156,937 638,784 3,822,073 61,188

53 DA TA PROCESSING SERVICES PAYROLL COSTS 2,894,637 2,636,321 250,367 1,886,632 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 1,771,255 2,256,826 71,699 1,401,209 242,960


OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 33,000 33,500 82 9,827 430

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 341,634 397,660 50,128 239,766 11,959

DATA PROC ESSING SERVICES 5,943,392 6,066,608 496,838 3,892,891 427,255

61 CO MM UNITY SERVIC ES

PAYROLL COSTS 50,462 12,167 74 12,241 0

PROF. & CONTRACTED SERVICES 4,690 2,690 0 0 0

MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 27,412 97,137 225 258 0

OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES 51,774 22,344 1,033 1,969 489

CO MM UNITY SERVIC ES 134,338 134,338 1,332 14,467 489

71 DEBT SERVIC ES

DEBT SERVICE 2,270,473 2,270,473 472,588 2,174,042 0

DEBT SERVIC ES 2,270,473 2,270,473 472,588 2,174,042 0


11/96




12 m



81 FACILITIES AC QUISITION/ CO NSTRUCTION

MATERIALS & SUPPLIES 0 11,093 0 0 0

CAPITAL OUTLAY - LAND,BLDG ,EQUIP 760,800 4,869,806 166,528 1,375,008 1,039,454

FACILITIES AC QUISITION/ CO NSTRUCTION 760,800 4,880,899 166,528 1,375,008 1,039,454

99 OTHER INTERGOVERNM ENTAL CHA RGES

TAX APPRA ISAL & COLLECTION 2,549,967 2,549,967 0 1,258,297 1,291,670

OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL CHARGES 2,549,967 2,549,967 0 1,258,297 1,291,670

00 TRANSFER OU

TRANSFER OUT - QSCMTN SINKING FUND 684,059 684,059 684,059 684,059 0

TRANSFER OUT 684,059 684,059 684,059 684,059 0

Tota l Budg ete d Exp end itures: $490,907,729 $498,987,647 $48,131,963 $305,976,760 $11,822,622


12/96


SUMMARY COMPARISON BY FISCAL YEAR11


13/96


14/96


SPECIAL REVENUE SUMMARY13


15/96


16/96


17/96


18/96

El Paso Independent School Distric t

FY 16 Special Revenue Repor t

As of February 29, 2016

Fund Program Fisca l Year Prog ram Ap p ro ved To ta l Estim a ted **Ac c rued Ava ila b le Ac tua l

# Year 2015-2016 Pe rio d Bud g e t Exp end i- Enc um b ra nc es Pa y ro ll Ba la nc e Sp end

Prog ram Title ture s As o f 03/ 03/ 16 (see no te ) %

499 2016 Army Youth Program in Your 07/01/15 - 06/30/16 316,517 63,488 16,611 0 236,418 25%

2013 Active Schools Acceleration Project 10/01/12 - 06/30/16 25,000 19,594 0 0 5,406 78%

2014 Dollar General Literacy Foundation 06/01/14 - 12/31/15 10,000 9,870 0 0 130 99%

Remaining funds will be utilzed to buy supplies for students.

2015 Dollar General Literacy Foundation 06/01/14 - 06/30/16 10,000 8,028 0 0 1,972 80%

Remaining funds will be utilzed to buy supplies for students.

2015 El Paso C ommunity Foundation -

Coronado

07/01/14 - 06/30/16 10,000 8,656 0 0 1,344 87%

2015 El Paso Community Foundation - Hart 07/01/14 - 06/30/16 10,000 2,876 1,493 5,631 44%

Remaining funds will be utilzed to purchase instructional support for students and web-based services for students.

2016 Community Solutions for Substance Abuse 08/03/15 - 06/30/16 50,000 0 18,000 0 32,000 36%2016 Wal-Mart Grant 08/03/15 - 06/30/16 2,000 0 0 0 2,000 0%

February 29, 2016 Totals 123,622,813$ 58,993,035$ 10,618,765$ 15,648,285$ 38,362,728$ 69%

Prior Month Totals 124,343,260$ 50,700,233$ 11,557,619$ 20,238,317$ 41,847,091$ 48%

Net Change (720,447) 8,292,802 (938,854) (4,590,032) (3,484,363) 21%

Please note: ALL programs ending in FY16 have a target spent % of : 67%

The target spent % is ca lculated based on expending the funds by the end of the schoo l year (May 2016

Multiple year grants are calculated based on the corresponding program end date.

** NOTE: Teachers, Librarians, Counselors, Nurses & Campus Staff have been accrued through Augus


19/96

BUDGET CHALLENGES AND CONSIDERATIONS

2016-2017

COSTS ASSOCIATED

Impact on State funding from the estimated drop in student enrollment –

estimated 1395 students. Loss of $7.8 million

The contribution to the Workers Comp Fund was funded at 50% for FY16 - $1.6 million. At some point this

contribution will have to be restored to 100% - Annual Contribution $3.2 million$1.4 million

Cost of living increases for next year (2% increase) – 2016-2017; ($7.2 million from Local Funds) $7.9 million

Facilities Capital Maintenance budget needs to be reinstated, reduced in FY15 $7 million

Buses and Vehicle 5-Year Replacement Plan $13.9 million

Technology 5-Year Replacement Plan $10.4 million

Library Book/Materials (5-Year Replacement Plan) $2.4 million

Musical Instrument (5-Year Replacement Plan) $8.9 million

Increase to Utility Costs – Electric, Gas, and Water $2 million

Central Office Building Relocation/Demolition – Possible use of General Fund Balance

Health insurance - both an increase in the basic premium by TRS and an increase in participation due to the

effects of the Affordable Care Act are probable

18


20/96

Growth Student: Student:

Year Students (Decline) Teacher Staff

2010‐11 64,023 14.6 7.5

2011‐12 63,794 (229) 15.1 7.8

2012‐13 62,884 (910) 15.2 8.0

2013‐14 61,290

(1,594)

14.9

7.5

2014‐15 60,556 (734) 15.0 7.5

Growth Student: Student:

District (ISD) Students (Decline) Teacher Staff

El Paso 60,556 (734) 15.0 7.5

Socorro 44,380 (25) 18.2 8.3

Ysleta 42,421

(586)

15.0

6.7 Aldine 69,553 2,349 16.4 7.8

Texas Academic Performance Reports (TAPR)

El Paso ISD

FY 2014‐15: EPISD and Peer Districts

Student to

Teacher

Ratio

and

Student

to

Staff

Ratio


21/96

$ 1 0 ,

3 9 3 , 0

7 1

7 ,

8 5 7

$

9 ,

1 6 0 ,

6 2 5

$ 1 0 ,

8 2 7 ,

0 1 5

$ 1 0 ,

0 5 2 ,

2 7 8

$8,500,000

$9,000,000

$9,500,000

$10,000,000

$10,500,000

$11,000,000

Function 41 General Administration


22/96

$ 3 ,

8 8 1 ,

0 0 5

$ 3 ,

1 4 4 ,

7 6 5

$ 3 , 6 0 7 ,

2 6 4

$ 3 ,

4 6 3

, 6 3 4

$ 3 ,

3 1 6 ,

1 6 5

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

Function 21 Instructional Leadership


23/96Replacement Plans

TRANSPORTATION

22


24/96

TRANSPORTATION REPLACEMENT PLAN

Department Vehicle Type

Number

ofVehicles Cost per Vehicle Total

Custodial 23,000.00$

Facilities Heavy Duty Vans 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Food Serv ices Compact Vans 8 22,000.00 $ 176,000.00 $

Live Materials Van 1

Maintenance Heavy Duty Vans 34 23,000.00$ 782,000.00$Heavy Duty Trucks 21 23,000.00$ 483,000.00$Stake Bed Trucks 4 30,000.00$ 120,000.00$Dump Truck 3 90,000.00$ 270,000.00$

Police Police Cruisers 0 26,000.00$ -$

Print Shop Heavy Duty Van 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

ROTC Van 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Science Van 1 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Special Ed Passenger Van 1 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $

TIS Compact Vans 0 21,000.00$ -$

$ $

2016-2017


25/96



Number

ofVehicles Cost per Vehicle Total

Custodial Truck 0 $ 23,460.00 -$

Facilities Heavy Duty Vans 0 $ 25,500.00 -$

Food Serv ices Compact Vans 0 $ 22,440.00 - $

Maintenance Heavy Duty Vans 0 $ 23,460.00 -$Heavy Duty Trucks 0 $ 23,460.00 -$

Police Police Cruisers 0 $ 26,520.00 -$

Print Shop Heavy Duty Van 0 $ 25,500.00 -$

Science Van 0 $ 25,500.00 -$

Spec ial Ed Passenger Van 0 $ 30,600.00 - $

TIS Compact Vans 0 $ 21,420.00 -$

$ $

2017-2018


26/96



Number

ofVehicles

Cost perVehicle Total



Food Serv ices Compact Vans 1 $ 22,888.80 22,888.80 $

Maintenance Heavy Duty Vans 1 $ 23,929.20 23,929.20$Heavy Duty Trucks 3 $ 23,929.20 71,787.60$

Police Police Cruisers 7 $ 27,050.40 189,352.80$


Science Van 1 $ 26,010.00 26,010.00$

Special Ed Passenger Van $ 31,212.00 - $


$ $

2018-2019


27/96



Number

ofVehicles


Custodial Truck 1 $ 24,407.78 24,407.78$

Facilities Heavy Duty Vans 1 $ 26,530.20 26,530.20$

Food Services Compact Vans 1 $ 23,346.58 23,346.58 $

Maintenance Heavy Duty Vans 1 $ 24,407.78 24,407.78$Heavy Duty Trucks 3 $ 24,407.78 73,223.35$Light Truck 9 $ 24,407.78 219,670.02$

Police Police Cruisers 0 $ 27,591.41 -$


Science Van $ 26,530.20 -$

Spec ial Ed Passenger Van $ 31,836.24 - $

TIS Compact Vans 2 $ 22,285.37 44,570.74$

$ $

2019-2020


28/96



Number

ofVehicles




Food Serv ices Compact Vans 1 $ 23,813.51 23,813.51 $

Maintenance Heavy Duty Vans 0 $ 24,895.94 -$Heavy Duty Trucks 0 $ 24,895.94 -$

Police Police Cruisers 12 $ 28,143.24 337,718.83$


Science Van $ 27,060.80 -$

Spec ial Ed Passenger Van $ 32,472.96 - $


$ $

2020-2021


29/96

LIBRARY

Replacement Plan28


30/96

EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

LIBRARY 3-YEAR REPLACEMENT PLAN

REPLACEMENT PLAN FY ACCEPTABLE RECOGNIZED EXEMPLARY

LIBRARY MATERIALS 16-17 813,710$ 1,750,723$ 2,918,838$



2,441,131$ 5,252,170$ 8,756,513$

29


31/96

EPISD 2016-17Staffing Update

30


32/96

Historical Enrollment

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code

Location Name Loc IdRfs Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st6 Weeks)

2011-12Students

Enrolled(End of 1st 6

Weeks)

2012-13Students


Weeks)

2013-14Students


Weeks)

2014-15Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED

100EE Kelly Elementary School 100 EE 3 3 1 2 6 3 3

100PK Kelly Elementary School 100 PK 68 64 83 76 83 71 77

100KG Kelly Elementary School 100 KG 82 115 116 105 101 120 106

1001 Kelly Elementary School 100 1 96 97 106 95 87 105 108





Kelly Elementary School Total 479 518 576 535 569 658 664

31


33/96

Cohort Survival

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code

Location Name Loc IdRfs

Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12Students


Weeks)

2012-13Students


Weeks)

2013-14Students


Weeks)

2014-15Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










32


34/96

Cohort Survival

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12Students


Weeks)

2012-13Students


Weeks)

2013-14Students


Weeks)

2014-15Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










33


35/96

Cohort Survival

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










34


36/96

Cohort Survival

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










35


37/96

Cohort Survival

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










36


38/96

Cohort Survival

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










37


39/96

ohort Survival Method 2016-17

Projections

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










38


40/96


Projections

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










92.17%

39


41/96


Projections

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










92.17% 81.90%

40


42/96


Projections

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










92.17% 81.90% 82.86%

41


43/96


Projections

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










92.17% 81.90% 82.86% 103.96%

42


44/96

ohort Survival Method

2016

-17 Pr

ojections

92.17%

81.90%

82.86%

103.96%

Cohort Survival Rate

4 Year Average


3 and 4 year Average


3 Year Average

81.90%

82.86%

103.96%

90.22% 90.10%89.97%

43


45/96


Projections

LocIDRfs

Grade

Code


Grade

Code

2010-11

Students

Enrolled

(End of 1st 6Weeks)

2011-12

Students


Weeks)

2012-13

Students


Weeks)

2013-14

Students


Weeks)

2014-15

Students


Weeks)

2015-16

StudentsEnrolled

(End of 1st

6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED










89.97%

44

15-16 Enrollment Compared to 16-17 Predictions 15-16 Enrollment Compared to 16-17 Predictions


46/96

p

Location Name

2015-2016 Student

Membership

(End of 1st 6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED

with Construction

Alta Vista Elementary School Total 360 332

Aoy Elementary School Total 562 545

Barron Elementary School Total 460 444

Beall Elementary School Total 440 436

Bliss Elementary School Total 558 557

Bond Elementary School Total 543 522

Bonham Elementary School Total 257 245

Bradley Elementary School Total 398 400

Burleson Elementary School Total 468 455

Burnet Elementary School Total 302 289

Cielo Vista Elementary School Total 404 405

Clardy Elementary School Total 516 495

Clendenin Elementary School Total 483 468

Coldwell Elementary School Total 520 504

Collins Elementary School Total 546 525

Cooley Elementary School Total 569 545

Crockett Elementary School Total 532 521

Crosby Elementary School Total 506 477

Douglass Elementary School Total 388 378

Dowell Elementary School Total 295 293

Fannin Elementary School Total 526 513

Green Elementary School Total 419 410

Guerrero Elementary School Total 544 535

Hart Elementary School Total 563 541

Hawkins Elementary School Total 345 363

Herrera Elementary School Total 465 461

Hillside Elementary School Total 481 455

Hughey Elementary School Total 749 718

Johnson Elementary School Total 541 514

5 6 o e t Co pa ed to 6 ed ct o s

Location Name

2015-2016 Student

Membership

(End of 1st 6 weeks)

2016-2017

LOW PRED

with Construction

Kohlberg Elementary School Total 645 634

Lamar Elementary School Total 531 517

Lee Elementary School Total 554 521

Logan Elementary School Total 458 443

Lundy Elementary School Total 770 763

MacArthur Elementary School Total 329 325

Mesita Elementary School Total 1144 1105

Milam Elementary School Total 734 824

Moreno Elementary School Total 493 466

Moye Elementary School Total 527 505

Newman Elementary School Total 565 557

Nixon Elementary School Total 510 508

Park Elementary School Total 531 519

Polk Elementary School Total 627 613

Powell Elementary School Total 590 567

Putnam Elementary School Total 417 407

Rivera Elementary School Total 412 393

Roberts Elementary School Total 409 389

Rusk Elementary School Total 340 322

Schuster Elementary School Total 259 255

Stanton Elementary School Total 484 478

Tippin Elementary School Total 569 550

Tom Lea Elementary School Total 859 882

Travis Elementary School Total 383 376

Western Hills Elementary School Total 504 485

Whitaker Elementary School Total 442 401

Zach White Elementary School Total 468 476

Zavala Elementary School Total 262 261

Grand Total 28556 27884

45

Middl S h l 15 16 E ll t C d t 16 17 P di ti


47/96

Middle School 15-16 Enrollment Compared to 16-17 Predictions

Location NameEnroll by Grade 10.2.15

(end of 1st 6)

2016-2017

LOW PRED

Henderson Middle School Total 789 802

Ross Middle School Total 968 991

Canyon Hills Middle School Total 818 791

Guillen Middle School Total 842 797

Charles Middle School Total 682 660

Morehead Middle School Total 698 658

Magoffin Middle School Total 761 706

Terrace Hills Middle School Total 557 538

Bassett Middle School Total 643 600

Lincoln Middle School Total 885 851

Wiggs Middle School Total 914 919

Hornedo Middle School Total 1,223 1,257

Armendariz Middle School Total 688 657

Richardson Middle School Total 758 722

Brown Middle School Total 808 802

MacArthur Middle School Total 455 453

Grand Total 12,489 12,203 46


48/96

High School 15-16 Enrollment Compared to 16-17 Predictions


(end of 1st 6)

2016-2017

LOW PRED

Andress High School Total 1723 1698

Austin High School Total 1,523 1,477

Bowie High School Total 1,344 1,381

Burges High School Total 1,477 1,472

Coronado High School Total 2,687 2,596

El Paso High School Total 1,392 1,358

Center Career & Technology Educ Total 92 93

Irvin High School Total 1,450 1,383

Jefferson High School Total 1,001 961

Franklin High School Total 2,743 2,667

Silva Health Magnet Total 637 619

Chapin High School Total 1,938 1,861

Transmountain Early College HS Total 438 443

Grand Total 18445 18008

47


49/96

Alternative 15-16 Enrollment

Compared to 16-17 Predictions


(end of 1st 6)

2016-2017

LOW PRED

CCTA 328 328

Delta Academy 69 69

Telles Academy 33 33

Telles Academy JJAEP 0 0

LaFarelle Middle School 15 15

LaFarelle Middle School JJAEP 0 0

About Face Program 2 2

Total 447 447

48


50/96

Projected vs Enrolled

2015-2016 Student

Membership*

2016-2017

PREDICTIONDIFFERENCE

Elementary 28,556 27,884 -672

Middle 12,489 12,203 -286

High 18,445 18,008 -437

Alternative 447 447 0

TOTAL 59,937 58,542 -1,395

*At end of 1st six-weeks

49

Campus Organization Sample


51/96

Projected 2016-2017 Campus OrganizationSchool: BURLESON Elem 107

Staffing MeetingDate: Friday, January 22, 2016 Local 199 External Funded Final Cu rrent Year P roj ect ed Chan ge

2015-16 2016-17

GradeProjected

MembershipRequired Local

SectionsRequired Local

Teachers Class Type

Sub-TypeM(ixed) or

D(ual)

P r o j e c t e d

M e m b e r s h i p

S e c t i o n s

T e a c h e r s

A v e r a g e P e r

S e c t i o n

S o u r c e

S e c t i o n s

T e a c h e r s

A v e r a g e P e r

S e c t i o n

P r e v i o u s S e c t i o n s

P r e v i o u s

T e a c h e r s

+ / - S e c t i o n s

+ / - T e a c h e r s

PK 39 2 1 Bilingual 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 39.00 2 1 0 0

DualLanguageBilingual 39 2 1 19.50 0

Regular

Regular 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.00 0 0 0 0

KG 66 3 3 Bilingual 52 3 3 17.33 0 17.33 3 3 0 0 Add due

DualLanguageBilingual 0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 to program

Regular

Regular 14 1 1 14.00 0 14.00 1 1 0 0

1 69 4 4 Bilingual 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 31.33 3 3 0 0

DualLanguageBilingual 47 3 3 15.67 0

Regular

Regular 22 1 1 22.00 0 8.80 1 1 0 0

2 66 3 3 Bilingual 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 32.00 3 3 0 0 Add due

DualLanguageBilingual 48 3 3 16.00 0 to program

Regular

Regular 18 1 1 18.00 0 7.20 1 1 0 0

3 66 3 3 Bilingual 17 1 1 17.00 0 25.50 3 3 0 0 Add due

Mixed Bilingual 34 2 2 19.50 0 to program

Regular 5

Regular 10 1 1 10.00 0 7.50 1 1 0 0

4 62 3 3 Bilingual 15 1 1 15.00 0 22.00 3 3 0 0 Add due

Mixed Bilingual 29 2 2 14.50 0 to program

Regular

Regular 18 1 1 18.00 0 9.00 1 1 0 0

5 86 4 4 Bilingual 26 1 1 26.00 0 34.67 2 2 0 0

Mixed Bilingual 26 1 1 26.00 0

Regular

Regular 34 2 2 17.00 0 13.60 1 1 1 1

Totals 454 22 21 454 26 25 17.46 0 0 17.46 25 24 1 1

w/SpEd 479

Bilingual Cert. 18 0 Bilingual Cert. 0 0

Regular Cert. 7 0 Regular Cert. 1 150

Campus Organization Sample Page 2


52/96

Projected

School: BURLESON Elem 107 2016-2017 School Year

StaffingMeetingDate: Friday, January 22, 2016 Local 199 School Funded Final

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

P r o j e c t e d M e m b .

S e c t i o n s

T e a c h e r s / P a r a s

A v e r a g e P e r S e c t i o n

S o u r c e

S e c t i o n s

T e a c h e r s / P a r a s

A v e r a g e P e r S e c t i o n

P r e v i o u s S e c t i o n s

P r e v i o u s T e a c h e r s

+ / - S e c t i o n s

+ / - T e a c h e r s

Gifted and Talented

Connections IV 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0

Connections V 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0

0 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 0 0

Reading Program

DRD (Reading) SpEd code 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

DRD (Reading) 199 6 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

7 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0 0 0

Special Education

Teacher/Para

AIMI ( includingPara) 0 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

AIMII (includingPara) 0 0.00 0 0

CRC 23 3 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3 0 0

CRC Paraprofessionals 5 5 0.00 5 0 0

SpecialEducationInstructionalCoach 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

Inclusion 14 2 18.5 18.50 1 0 1

Resource Room 23 0.00 0 0

Speech Therapist 40 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

AdaptivePE 8 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

Other: #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

Support Paraprofessionals SpEd 1 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1 0 -1

114 0 10 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 10 0 0

FineArts

Orchestra 22 0.25 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.25 0 0

Art #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Vocal Music 479 0.5 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.5 0 0

501 0 0.75 #DIV/0! 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 0.75 0 0

Centrally Funded Supplemental Positions

ActiveLearning Leader 185 2 #DIV/0! 2 0

Counselor 185 1 #DIV/0! 1 0

Nutrition Clerk/Campus or Nutri Clerk/PIA Fund 240/199 240/211 1 1 0

LPAC Clerk 185 1 #DIV/0! 1 0

Play Ground Monitor (part-time) Amount: $5,059 1 1 0

Other: FCF Social Worker 185 0.2 0.2 0

Other: Campus Clerk 199 1 1 0

5258 2 0.0 0 5.2 0.00 7.2 0

CampusFunded Personnel

Bilingual Literacy Teacher #DIV/0! 211 1 #DIV/0! 1 0 0

Bilingual Literacy Teacher #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

Science Teacher #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

Computer Teacher #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 0

Campus Teaching Coach #DIV/0! 0

InstructionalParaprofessionals #DIV/0! 211 1 #DIV/0! 1 0 0

Other: SSA 199 $5,059 1 N/A 1 0

Other: FCF Social Worker 185 0.3 0.3 0

Other:TechnologyTeacher #DIV/0! 211 1 #DIV/0! 1 0 0

Other: PreK Para #DIV/0! 211 1 #DIV/0! 1 0 0

1 #DIV/0! 0 4.3 #DIV/0! 0 5.3 0 0

51


53/96

Campus Organization Sample Page 3

Projected Facility Needs 2016-2017 School Year

Space Available

Permanent Classroom Count 48

Multipurpose Building 1

Portable Classroom Count 0

Total Classroom Count 49

Space Needed 2016-2017Homerooms 25

Special Education Rooms 4

Designated Science Lab 2

Designated Computer Lab 2

Science Intervention Lab 0

Community Room 0

Parent Center

Speech (Special Education) 1

Counselor 1

Art 0

Music 1

Reading Specialist 1

Literacy Leader 1

Mathematics Leader 0

Physical Education 1

Conference 0

Connections (G/T Program) 0

Learning Resource Center 0

Other: AVANCE 3

Other: Orchestra 1

Other: Social Worker 1

Other:Active Learning Leaders

TotalClassrooms Needed 44

Space Available or (Needed) 5.0

Portables (Available) or Needed 0.0

52

Elementary School Staffing Differences Elementary School Staffing Differences

2015-2016 2016-2017 Actual


54/96

Campus

2015-2016

199 Allotment

2016-2017

199 Allotment

Actual

Gain/Loss

Alta Vista 21 18 -3

Aoy 30 30 0

Barron 24 22 -2

Beall 24 25 1

Bliss 31 28 -3

Bond 29 28 -1

Bonham 17 17 0Bradley 22 22 0

Burleson 24 25 1

Burnet 17 15 -2

Cielo Vista 22 24 2

Clardy 26 27 1

Clendenin 25 24 -1

Coldwell 27 27 0

Collins 30 29 -1

Cooley 29 27 -2

Crockett 28 28 0

Crosby 27 27 0Douglass 23 21 -2

Dowell 17 16 -1

Dr. Green 26 24 -2

Fannin 27 27 0

Guerrero 29 28 -1

Hart 28 27 -1

Hawkins 20 20 0

Herrera 28 26 -2

Hillside 26 24 -2

Hughey 37 37 0

Johnson 30 27 -3

Campus

2015 2016

199 Allotment

2016 2017

199 Allotment

Actual

Gain/Loss

Kohlberg 36 33 -3

Lamar 30 29 -1

Lea 31 29 -2

Lee 42 42 0

Logan 25 24 -1

Lundy 39 40 1

MacArthur 21 19 -2

Mesita 54 55 1

Milam 36 41 5

Moreno 26 26 0

Moye 31 28 -3

Newman 30 28 -2

Nixon 27 26 -1

Park 29 27 -2

Polk 33 33 0

Powell 30 28 -2

Putnam 25 24 -1

Rivera 21 21 0Roberts 24 22 -2

Rusk 20 20 0

Schuster 15 15 0

Stanton 26 26 0

Tippin 28 28 0

Travis 21 20 -1

Western Hills 26 25 -1

Whitaker 25 22 -3

White 24 26 2

Zavala 16 15 -1

Total 1535 1492 -43 53

Middle School Staffing Differences High School Staffing Differences


55/96

g

Campus

2015-2016

199 Allotment

2016-2017 199

Allotment

Actual

Gain/Loss

Armendariz 32.07 31.07 -1.00

Bassett 29.67 28.30 -1.37

Brown 38.55 37.55 -1.00

Canyon Hills 37.96 37.13 -0.83

Charles 32.24 30.72 -1.52

Guillen 39.90 38.25 -1.65

Henderson 36.44 38.44 2.00

Hornedo 57.32 59.32 2.00

Lincoln 41.65 40.15 -1.50

MacArthur 23.24 23.24 0.00

Magoffin 36.47 33.24 -3.23

Morehead 32.48 31.18 -1.30

Richardson 36.35 34.35 -2.00

Ross 44.80 47.13 2.33

Terrace Hills 25.74 26.25 0.51

Wiggs 43.49 43.20 -0.29

Total 588.37 579.52 -8.85

High School Staffing Differences

Campus

2015-2016

199 Allotment

2016-2017 199

Allotment

Actual

Gain/Loss

Andress 75.38 75.34 -0.04

Austin 70.58 66.75 -3.83

Bowie 59.58 63.27 3.69

Burges 66.50 67.36 0.86

Chapin 87.00 84.65 -2.35

Coronado 118.25 118.17 -0.08

El Paso 62.66 61.86 -0.80

Franklin 122.02 121.01 -1.01

Irvin 66.20 63.49 -2.71

Jefferson 44.71 44.43 -0.28

Silva 38.49 39.73 1.24

TMECHS 23.60 23.00 -0.60

Total 834.97 829.07 -5.90

54


56/96

Middle School Externally

Funded FTE Positions

Location2016-17 Staffing

External Allotment

Henderson Middle School 2

Ross Middle School 1

Canyon Hills Middle School 1

Guillen Middle School 2

Charles Middle School 0

Morehead Middle School 3

Magoffin Middle School 1

Terrace Hills Middle School 4

Bassett Middle School 4

Lincoln Middle School 1

Wiggs Middle School 0

Hornedo Middle School 0

Armendariz Middle School 1

Richardson Middle School 1

Brown Middle School 1

MacArthur Middle School 0

TOTAL 22

High School Externally

Funded FTE Positions

Loc Name2016-17 Staffing External

Allotment

Andress High School 1

Austin High School 1

Bowie High School 2

Burges High School 0

Coronado High School 0

El Paso High School 1

Irvin High School 2

Jefferson High School 2

Franklin High School 0

Franklin 9th Grade Center 0

Silva Health Magnet 0

Chapin High School 1

TOTAL 10

55


57/96

2016 2017 Staffing Cuts

Campus Type Total Cuts

Elementary 43

Middle Schools 8.85

High Schools 5.90

Total 57.75

56


58/96

Special Education Staffing Added

Position Elementary Middle School High School

Paraprofessional AIM 1Paraprofessional Support 11 2 2

Structure Learning Unit Teacher 1

AIM Teacher 1 1

Resource Teacher 5 5

Total 19 2 8

57


59/96

Elementary Staffing Guidelines

Position Allotment Position Allotment

Principal 1 PEIMS Clerk 1

Assistant Principal 0-800 = 1

801+ = 1

Office Assistant 1

Counselor 1

1,000+ = 2

Librarian 1

Campus LPAC Clerk 1

Nurse 1

Playground Monitor 1

Secretary to

Principal

1

Military Family Liaison76-200 = .5

201+ = 1

58


60/96

Middle School Staffing Guidelines

Position Allotment Position Allotment

Principal 1 Attendance Clerk 1

Assistant Principal 500 and Under (1)

501-1,000 (2)

1,001-1,800 (3)

1,801-2,500 (4)

2,501+ (5)

Bookroom Clerk 1

Counselor 400:1 Campus Clerk 1

At-Risk Coordinator 1 LPAC Clerk 1

Librarian 1

Nurse 1

Secretary to Principal 1

Military Family Liaison76-200 = .5

201+ = 1

Registrar 1

Campus Patrol 600:1

PEIMS Clerk 1

59

High School Staffing Guidelines


61/96

Position Allocation Position Allocation

Principal 1 Senior Attendance Clerk 1

Assistant Principal, Guidance & Instruction 1 PEIMS Clerk 1

Assistant Principal, Discipline 3

2,000-2,500 (4)2,501-3,000 (5)

Campus Patrol 1,400 or below: 2 (1male, 1 female)

1,401-2,100: 32,101-2,800:4

2,801+: 5

Counselor 350:1 Attendance Clerk 1

Manager, Student Activities 1 Registrar Assistant 1

Librarian 1 Campus Clerk 1

Assistant Librarian 1 LPAC Clerk1

Nurse 1 SEMS Clerk

Secretary to Principal 1

Registrar 1 Military Family Liaison 76-200 = .5

201+ = 1

Business Agent 1 Bookroom Clerk 1

60


62/96

El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) worked with American Productivity and Quality Center

(APQC EDUCATION) to engage in the building of the support structure for systemic improvement across

the district. The purpose of this collaboration was to provide several departments with an opportunity

to address efficiencies and effectiveness in a cross-functional process focused approach through

Process and Performance Management (PPM). The complete report from APQC is attached.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT OVERVIEW

IMPLEMENATION

Five EPISD Departments participated in 4 day training sessions

and 2 virtual coaching calls with an APQC Senior Advisor to learn

the methodology and tools for Process and Performance

Management (PPM).

Each department utilized the strategies to develop and document

a process improvement project in PowerPoint Storyboards

The Storyboards document the work, communicate results, and

include next steps for implementation and monitoring of the new

or improved process.

PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

EXTERNAL FUNDING ➔ SUBMITTING ENTITLEMENT GRANT

FACILITIES & CONSTRUCTION ➔ REQUESTING FACILITIES IMRPROVEMENTS

STRATEGY & ACCOUNTABILITY ➔ CONDUCTING PROGRAM EVALAUTIONS


63/96


Process and Performance Management


64/96

Table of Contents

Page

Executive Summary 2

Process and Performance Management (PPM) Overview 4

PPM Projects

Submitting the entitlement grant (External Funding) 7

Requesting facility improvements (Facilities and Construction) 9

Conducting program evaluations (Strategy and Accountability) 11

Requesting technology support (Technology Help Desk) 13

Managing inbound material flow (Warehouse) 17

Recommendations for Next Steps 19

Appendices

Appendix A: Process Management 21


65/96

Executive Summary

El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) chose to work with the American Productivity and QualityCenter (APQC Education) to improve operational effectiveness and efficiencies. APQC has found through

years of experience that the very best approach for systemic improvement is to blend Process

Management, Performance Management and Process Improvement. Process Management helps

organizations create a structure that increases the ability to address efficiencies and effectiveness in a

cross-functional, process focused approach to obtain higher levels of performance.

Five Departments are currently working on implementing process improvements to better serve the

district and all stakeholders. These projects include:

Project Team Process

External Funding Submitting entitlement grant

Facilities and Construction Requesting facilities improvements

Strategy and Accountability Conducting program evaluations

Technology Requesting technology support (Help Desk)

Warehouse Managing inbound material flow

The teams participated in four days of training to learn the methodology and tools for

Process and Performance Management (PPM). During the sessions, the teams began

work on their projects and then had follow-up virtual coaching with APQC to support

and facilitate each team’s progress. As a component of the project, the teams are

creating a Storyboard to document the work and communicate the results and next

steps for implementing the improved or new process.

The teams concluded their formal training with Dr. Kathryn LeRoy, APQC Senior Advisor, on November 4working to develop implementation plans and strategies to sustain and monitor the processes. The


66/96

• The design, development, and implementation of a help desk process that results in:

o Improved customer experience

o Categorization and measurement of work orders

o Reduced time and resource allocation by $X (TBD)

o Performance measurement at the individual and aggregate levels

o Ability to analyze trends and forecast resource allocation

• Creation of processes for consistent inbound material flow and vendor accountability. Theseprocesses will result in a 10% decrease of backorders. The decrease in back orders will then

decrease labor and maintenance/operation costs by X (TBD) and minimize the impact to

instruction, as well as the other needs of the campuses/departments.


67/96

Process and Performance Management

Performance Management is a comprehensive process for establishing measurement systems

that

assess an organization’s on-going ability to perform against strategic goals and customer

needs. The measurement system must include both outcome measures and measures to

determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the process activities.

Process Management is a systematic approach to identify and align an organization’s

processes and measurement systems that aligns work efforts to strategic goals and customer

requirements and includes:

Gathering and analyzing customer and stakeholder data

Performing gap analyses

Identifying and prioritizing process improvement opportunities

DMAIC Methodology

DMAIC refers to a data-driven

improvement cycle used for improving,

optimizing, and stabilizing operational

and

educational processes and designs.

DMAIC is an abbreviation of the five improvement steps: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control.

All of the DMAIC process steps are required and always proceed in this order.

Define

Defining and understanding the process includes:

Clearly identifying the problem and laying the foundation for process

improvement

activities

Understanding how the process works – or not


68/96

Improve

After identifying possible root causes, the improve phase leads to:

Developing potential solutions

Evaluating and selecting the best solutions

Developing a future focus process map that reflects what the process will look like after changes are made

Developing and implementing a pilot solution

Confirming attainment of project goals

Control

A critical factor in sustaining improvements over time is building in the controls that will ensure

the continued process efficiency and effectiveness. This includes building a control plan,

documenting the process, monitoring measures of success, and internalizing the changes.

Developing a control plan:

Ensures the process is continuously monitored

Supports organizational Process Management efforts

Places controls on the process that will ensure consistent performance including mistake

proofing, documentation, and continued gathering of Voice of the Customer (VOC) and

Voice of the Stakeholder (VOS) data

Tools and Templates

APQC provided the following tools and templates to support documentation of the processes

and to develop a

plan to implement, control, and sustain the efforts:


69/96

Roles and Responsibilities (RACI): A roles and responsibilities chart clarifies

relationships and establishes responsibilities for decisions, tasks, and activities to

achieve desired project or

process goals. RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consult,Inform) diagrams ensure that the right people are in place to handle complex

processes and in the right role at the right time. RACI diagrams can be used to identify

roles and responsibilities at multiple levels of the organization, for example across the

organization, within a department, division, or within a work group

SIPOC: The SIPOC analysis tool provides a big picture view of the important elements of

the process. The team uses the SIPOC to gain a deeper understanding of the broader

context or system in which the process occurs. A SIPOC is generally used to identify

only the very high level

steps in a complex process. However, the complexity of aprocess may warrant using the SIPOC tool for each of those high level process steps to

reach the level of process specificity to clearly identify the required sub-processes.

Stakeholder Analysis: The stakeholder analysis identifies the individuals or groups with

an interest in a project that includes a rollout of change that will need the support of

those who can make it succeed. A stakeholder is anyone with an interest or right in an

issue, or anyone who can affect or be affected by an action or change. Stakeholders

may be individuals or groups, internal

or external to the organization. Stakeholdersmay also be primary customers.

Sustainability Plan: Change rarely occurs without affecting behavior, expectations, new

knowledge and skills, or all of these. Since people and organizations tend to resist

change, even when it significantly improves their work or benefits them, putting a

plan in place to support change is important to develop a plan to support the change.

There is a dynamic balance between the forces pushing for change and forces holding

to the status quo. What is the balance of pressure and support needed to stabilize the

new design/change?

Voice of the Customer: The Voice of the Customer (VOC) table is a tool to capture and


70/96

PPM Projects

The project teams completed a Project Storyboard that provides that documents the DMAIC

methodology and tools used by the teams. While the formal training is complete, the Storyboards

represent the progress of the teams as of November 15, 2015. The implementation of the projects spans

the remainder of the 2015-2016 school year. Sustaining these improvements or new processes will

require ongoing monitoring, support, and continuous improvement based on both leading and lagging

performance indicators. Following are key excerpts from the project team Storyboards.

Submitting entitlement grant

Team: External Funding

Process Owner: Esther Jacobo

Team Members: Anna Torres, Elizabeth Perez

Opportunity

We have the opportunity to establish consistency across the District in determining district-wide

needs. This will allow us to:

Collaborate

Support the District and Campus strategic plans

Improve communication between all stakeholders

Problem Statement

There is not a documented process for submitting the entitlement grant application. This creates

inconsistencies in the collection of data, compliance reports and budget discrepancies. Resulting

in:

Budget errors


71/96

Lack of required information

Delays in receiving funding

SIPOC

Key Performance Measures

# of errors on submitted information

# of incomplete schedules

# of questions from stakeholders needing assistance in completing the schedules

Process Analysis

Sub-process Map for “gathering and reviewing data” (step 1 in the SIPOC)


72/96

Lessons Learned

Importance of a documented process

How to analyze a process to identify weaknesses or bottlenecks

Benefits of making Process and Performance Management (PPM) a districtwide effort

Next Steps

Document all processes in the department

Create procedures for all processes

Monitor and evaluate for continuous improvement

Requesting facilities improvements

Team: Facilities and Construction

Process Owner: Adrian Stresow, P.E., Director, Facilities & Construction

Team Member: Liliana Fierro

Opportunity

The district has an opportunity to create a systematic process for campus administration to

approach facility improvements to benefit learning environments. There is currently no clearly

defined process by which to follow a request from initiation to possible completion.

Problem Statement

There is not a systematic process for campus administration to request and achieve facility

improvements to positively impact learning environments. Without a process, the district is

missing opportunities to make timely and necessary facility improvements.

There is no baseline data to determine the extent of the impact of operating without a


73/96

SIPOC


$ of facility improvements

#/% requests per campus

# of each type of request

% customer satisfaction

Process Analysis: New Process Parameters

Communication

o Sharing Information with principalso Communication with senior leaders


74/96

Conducting a program evaluation

Team: Strategy and Accountability

Team Leader: Jose Lopez, Executive Director, Strategy and Accountability

Process Owner: Victoria Orozco, Director of Strategy and Evaluation

Team Members: Victor Maldonado, Yesica Torres, Carlos Perales

Opportunity

We have the opportunity to impact and support the improvement of programs in EPISD. We willhave the benefit of establishing a process that will be:

Clearly defined

Strategically implemented

Monitored for effectiveness

Problem Statement

There currently is not a Program Evaluation Process.

Goal Statement

The Strategy and Accountability Department will create, implement, and measure the Program

Evaluation Process.

Cost of Poor Quality

Poor use of Human Capitalo rework, busy work, duplication of effortso completing non-essential work

Programs not being evaluated


75/96

SIPOC


# of evaluations requested

# of evaluations requested using new process

# of various types of evaluations requested using new process

# of planning guides on file

Cycle time of request to planning guide on file with signature

Cycle time of request to time of evaluation completed

# evaluations completed following new process # of customer feedback forms collected on process

# f iti f db k i f ti


76/96

Process Analysis: Conducting a program evaluation

Lessons Learned

Process must be established in order to ensure support of District Priorities

Process are important for department efficiency and effectiveness

Identify and improve efficiencies as a continuous process

Important to evaluate our own department like we do other programs

Next Steps


77/96

Opportunity

The district has an opportunity to bring greater efficiency and effectiveness to the help desk

management process, improving the customer experience and introducing visibility to all stepswithin the process.

The process must start and end with the customer, and will be measured by SLA criteria,

customer satisfaction, and greater staff accountability.

Problem Statement

Insufficient help desk process, resulting in:

no customer feedback loop limited customer visibility

insufficient work order measurement

inadequate work categorization

limited individual staff accountability

insufficient District visibility of overall performance

inability to correlate resources to performance

insufficient to analyze trends

Inadequate process management capability costs $X in resource allocation. Insufficient customer

feedback costs satisfaction levels by X%. (Note: Lack of current accurate, reliable data, or

accessible data has made it difficult to compute the extent of the problem.)

Goal Statement

To build a help desk process – March 2015 – that results in:

improved customer experience

categorization and measurement of work orders reduced time and resource allocation by $X


78/96

SIPOC

The process of providing technical support via the help desk has two major hand-off points between

the help desk staff and the technicians. The yellow highlighted process steps are completed by thetechnicians who then hand off back to the help desk staff.


Outcomes/Outputs Metrics

# of work orders in queue

Cycle time to resolve ticket

# customers not agreeing on workcompletion

% customer satisfaction

Inputs and Process Metrics

# completed tickets/tech

Support staff is able to gauge theirperformance and adjust accordingly (calls

closed per day/longevity of solution

implementation)

Help Desk software features meet the


79/96

Process Analysis

Lessons Learned Customers and Staff adopting new process

Tracking the work order process (Fedex Expectations)

What customer wantso Expected time of worko Completion of worko Satisfaction of worko Status of worko The project validated the development of the help desk system

Inform resource management


80/96

Managing inbound material flow

Team: Warehouse

Process Owner: Ernesto Ortiz

Team Members: David Alvarado, Victoria Orozco

Opportunity

We have the opportunity to plan and manage the inbound material flow for Warehouse Services.

We need a process that will:

Expedite the flow of materials from receipt into stock location

Increase vendor accountability

Facilitate the departments mission of providing resources in a timely manner

Problem Statement

Inconsistent flow of inbound materials, and the lack of a process to hold vendors accountable,

results in X amount of backorders. Backorders, in turn, result in an order being pulled and

delivered more than once. These multiple pulls and deliveries cost X amount in labor and X

amount of maintenance/operation cost. Not having resources in stock has the potential of

impacting instruction and other needs of the campus/department.

Goal Statement

By January 2016, create processes for consistent inbound material flow and vendor

accountability. These processes will result in a 10 % decrease of backorders. The decrease in

back orders will decrease labor and maintenance/operation costs by x . It will also minimize the

impact to instruction, as well as the other needs of the campuses/departments.

SIPOC


81/96


# of back orders

$ cost/backorder % of customer satisfaction

Future vendor performance metricso Cycle timeo Qualityo Serviceo Value


82/96

Recommendations for Next Steps

Develop a governance system to support, guide, and sustain Process and Performance

Management. Governance includes, but is not limited to, the following:

o Developing strategies and setting the vision

o Creating goals and business objectives

o Providing oversight of organizational activities

o Monitoring business performance

o Capturing on-going Voice of the Customer

o Performing a gap analysis and prioritizing improvement opportunitieso Identifying resources to support improvement projects

Establish clear roles and responsibilities for Process and Performance Management. Followingare typical roles and responsibilities for project teams:

Program Manager : the person named as the responsible party internal to an organizationthat will manage and oversee PPM efforts such as scheduling coaching, arranging for formalproject reviews, acting as liaison between the teams and the cabinet.

Process Owner : the person who has the most at stake for the results; responsible fordesign, measurement and monitoring, continuous improvement and reporting; generally, aperson with some level of authority that can make decisions regarding changes to theprocess, moving people or changes their jobs, spending money, etc.

Champion/Sponsor : person who provides support to project action teams and removesroadblocks that would prohibit team success; ensures the teams continue to move forwardtoward successful conclusion; ensures teams have access to experts and coaching

Team Leaders: responsible for pulling all the team work together and ensuring projectdocumentation is complete; acts as liaison between district leadership and team as well ascoaches and team; acts as project leader tracking action items and keeping the team movingtowards successful conclusion; works with Program Manager to ensure progress on projects


83/96

Identify Voice of the Customer (VOC), which includes teachers, students, staff, and appropriate

stakeholders to determine the specific needs and requirements of the processes that will supportthe district’s vision and goals. Developing multiple methodologies to clearly understand the VOCwill ensure that process improvements address the needs, requirements, and expectations ofcustomers across the functional units within the district and across the life cycle of each process.

Develop measurement systems that provide accurate and frequent results on the effectiveness ofthe core processes that directly support the district’s strategy and operational effectiveness andefficiency. Metrics should include leading performance indicators that can signal the currentcapability of a process to perform as designed and potentially deliver the expected outcomes tocustomers and stakeholders.

Provide the opportunity for additional teams to complete PPM training to develop the knowledgeand skills to execute the improvement process for future process improvements.


84/96

Appendix A: Process Management

Process Management is a systematic approach to identify and align an organization’s processes andmeasurement systems that aligns work efforts to strategic goals and customer requirements and

includes:

• Gathering and analyzing customer and stakeholder data

• Performing gap analyses

• Identifying and prioritizing process improvement opportunities

Process management can be implemented at any level of an organization, but works best if all levels

incorporate the methods. For example, a principal at a campus may have a process management systemthat feeds upstream to the district level system, and in turn, the district level system may feed into a

process management structure at a state level.

When creating or revising the organization’s strategic plan, consider what components exist within the

leadership level and which ones do not. Having a sound process management system will drive better

implementation of your strategic plan – and knowing about Process and Performance Management will

enhance how the organization crafts and distributes the strategic plan.

The following visual illustrates process management as a systemic and closed loop process. In a closedloop approach, all the information found from formalized projects or work out events should be fed

back into the governance systems for PPM.


85/96

Appendix B: About the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC)

North Star Vision

The North Star project is our vision to transform the U.S. public education system through Process

and Performance Management. Using an approach based on over 30 years’ experience with

thousands of global organizations, APQC Education conducted a pilot program in 2009 with 10

school districts to illustrate the impact of our work. In one year, these 10 school districts saved $17.5

million dollars and released over 40,000 instructional hours back into the classroom. Since then the

North Star Community of school districts has dramatically increased in size and new members are

seeing similar results! Our goal is to see EVERY school district in the United States similarly

transformed. The North Star name was chosen to symbolize this project as a universal guidance

system for transforming education and as an inspiring goal that won’t change over time.

Currently, we’re are over 81 North Star Community members who have saved over $110M on

completed projects.

Educational outcomes (test scores, graduation rates, AYP) cannot be improved if the processes thatgenerate those outcomes are not improved.

For this reason, APQC Education approaches student achievement in a more holistic manner,

seeking causes for problem areas that may result in low achievement scores or in higher costs to the

district, which may detract from the learning experience or instructional budget. Our approach

combines process management and performance management and was designed

El Paso ISD 2016-17 Budget Presentation

Documents

Transcript of El Paso ISD 2016-17 Budget Presentation