[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6312924,"mediaKeyId","2390226-9fa760241ca0c35d5a9a9dd5cb09750f","parentId",2390226,"title","Trustees direct analysis of allocation process after deep dive on triggers, K–3 ratios and tradeoffs","audioSeconds",3597,"startMs",3273000,"endMs",6870000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2390226-9fa760241ca0c35d5a9a9dd5cb09750f&start=3273&end=6870","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2390226-9fa760241ca0c35d5a9a9dd5cb09750f/thumbnail_3273000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6312924/Nevada/Trustees-direct-analysis-of-allocation-process-after-deep-dive-on-triggers-K3-ratios-and-tradeoffs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6312924-92ea026fdef836be1e02b4bb568425b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771109789&Signature=XfVmO3ioELSJuHCbqQbKMV0BlqZgndqW6vEvUtaZJ40MUTM9AtHmfJiJOsQmqS1~d2fMgrQOP5Ig49HDBna5IrIq8RxRIa7XM1gjhfKLkaZYgOBY52dh0rSr2F-VWLFvGkTKSoKMxUqhghiU3evdS0-rS1jGKBHwbSXgnN9tGyYOMJqP1yC~8WAjuD3gysnY6-sXnwGvykHBnyiDMwlqXJw~-qIAMvdJtHOaStNVJcV06lJpT1g11G1~~9hGCFoQ50WxW4V3CCUSj6b0A8EihvprQx55RQ2ewsCodUCqKskuNq9CvQZgyUy8NAkJmtkvrxtD-LSWUfy2iSL7g1aV6w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washoe County School District, NV","date","2025-02-25T16:16:44Z","article","Washoe County School District leaders walked trustees through the district\u000027s school staffing allocation process on Feb. 25 and the board voted to direct the superintendent to analyze potential changes and return with a report.

The presentation, led by Deputy Superintendent Tiffany McMaster with Jeff Bozzo and lead elementary associate chief Dr. Mike Paul, covered the full allocation lifecycle: projected enrollment (demographer-driven beginning in October), release of certified allocations after Thanksgiving, spring/summer adjustments based on Infinite Campus and online registration, count day (fourth week of school) adjustments, and midyear allocation rules.

Why it matters: Nearly 81% of the district\u000027s general fund expenditures are school-based positions; most revenue (roughly 88%) is tied to state per-pupil funding. Small changes in enrollment and in class-size policy therefore have large budget and operational consequences. After staff presentations and trustee questions, the board approved a motion directing the superintendent to analyze and report back on possible changes to the allocation process; the motion included a specific request for an analysis of what it would cost to achieve the district\u000027s district-wide kindergarten-through-third-grade ratios.

Key points from staff presentation:
- Projected vs. net enrollment: Staff explained that allocations use net enrollment for teacher counts (gross enrollment minus some specialized counts such as certain gifted and self-contained special education students counted at 75%).
- Early/spring allocations: Staff use a rule of thumb that a grade-level increase of 10 students over allocation combined with about 90% online registration can trigger an early allocation in spring/summer; staff emphasized they avoid issuing allocations that would later be removed on count day.
- Count day and midyear: The official count is taken in the fourth week of school; midyear allocations are considered after fall break through November. For elementary schools, staff described a midyear trigger of the average class size being at least 2 students over the target; for secondary schools, the practical trigger used is approximately 10 students over the threshold and additional checks on master scheduling and licensure feasibility.
- Costs and exceptions: Staff said the general fund contingency paid $3,300,000 this year to keep 1- and 2-star schools\u000027 allocations whole at count day. The district has historically spent about $1.1 million to $1.4 million when issuing spring/summer allocations; staff emphasized new allocations create vacancies that must be filled quickly to avoid classroom disruption.
- K–3 ratios and tradeoffs: Staff presented multiple cost scenarios. Bringing every K–3 classroom to the state-law ratios (16:1 K–2; 18:1 grade 3) across every school would require about 203 additional teachers (estimated cost $20.3 million). A stricter standard proposed in 2021 (15:1 K–3) would require roughly 445 teachers (about $44.5 million). Reducing district-wide K–3 averages by one student districtwide would require about 107 teachers (roughly $10.7 million). Staff noted the state historically funded different district-wide ratios and the district\u000027s maximum class sizes reflect a mix of school-level enrollments.

Trustees raised several operational concerns: the effect of special-education students who \"push in\" to general education classrooms much of the day, master-schedule constraints at secondary schools, availability of licensed teachers and certification timelines, and the effect on families when allocations arrive late. Trustees asked staff to produce an analysis that included the district-wide K–3 ratio scenario and cost estimate, and to clarify tradeoffs and feasibility (hiring pipeline, space constraints, and timing).

The board approved a motion directing the superintendent to analyze and report back on potential changes to the district\u000027s allocation process, explicitly including an analysis of achieving the district-wide K–3 ratios; staff will return with findings and options suitable for the spring budget timetable.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2-25-2025 WCSD Work Session of the Board of Trustees","oneSentenceSummary","District leaders explained how allocations are determined and adjusted (projections, spring/summer snapshots, count day and midyear triggers); trustees asked staff to analyze potential changes — including what it would cost to meet districtwide K–3 target ratios — and directed the superintendent to report back.","taxTitle","Events, School Districts, Nevada","taxId",80332,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6312929,"Washoe County Schools see $9.7 million preliminary general fund shortfall; board asks staff for further analysis",2364,592000,2956000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2390226-9fa760241ca0c35d5a9a9dd5cb09750f&start=592&end=2956","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2390226-9fa760241ca0c35d5a9a9dd5cb09750f/thumbnail_592000.jpg","/articles/6312929/Nevada/Washoe-County-Schools-see-97-million-preliminary-general-fund-shortfall-board-asks-staff-for-further-analysis","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6312929-53a6d1e41ca145735ec0be869aa58615/orig.mp4?Expires=1771109789&Signature=OZ4tyAe8qZm2Rw7qhoFAOUTGFDUI6pf5MYZqxocH1mz28ikTnWPNdBUIggQSTDF71tc94CBjFpa8VV-J~P4v~ZHlfH6Rm55FyjH1vGxe~yia~bSsdWbRpFD9rggpkcBdXSeFxEVSqU-pP7E1bJkAQ5AjCjWWq6JyXcQlSBM~odeNSsO~-e3a1f5dtP1mnvbrH3JSseNB~cajNMz9zFU8Bc2PKLb8S00hpK9YLZTqvZtAZzjJbG-0eKxsJKDniuFM2bsxSYyO2UXUe7mwR4CQmHAjW67sBsX3GAD6e7bLVjB~cyRbkpErRAlFkqx5wDXaXDyWQJWaQoOCFRoi29N-Cw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Washoe County School District finance officials told the Board of Trustees on Feb. 25 that the district faces a preliminary general fund deficit of $9,700,000 for fiscal year 2025-26 and directed the superintendent to analyze potential responses.

The board requested the analysis after a budget presentation from Mark Mathers, chief financial officer, and Jeff Bozzo, budget director. Bozzo summarized the district\u000027s estimate: \"our preliminary general fund estimate, if we take the known revenue changes and our known expenditure changes, we're looking at a preliminary general fund deficit of 9,700,000.\" The board approved a motion directing the superintendent to analyze and report back; the motion passed (motion moved by Trustee Diane Nicolette, seconded; tally stated in meeting: 6 to 0 when taken).

The nut graf: Trustees were shown how a mix of flat state per-pupil funding, a projected enrollment decline and known expenditure increases combine to create the shortfall and were asked to weigh possible reallocations, program adjustments and other options before finalizing budget decisions later in the spring.

Bozzo and Mathers framed the district\u000027s estimate around the governor\u000027s amended biennial budget and the state\u000027s People-Centered Funding Plan. Key figures presented by staff include:
- Adjusted base per pupil: Washoe\u000027s per-pupil amount is projected to remain flat at $9,705 in fiscal year 2026 and rise by about $71 in fiscal year 2027.
- SB 231 (compensation) allocation to Washoe: $19,300,000 per year (unchanged in the proposed budget); staff warned the fixed dollar amount will buy a smaller percentage COLA over time as local base wages rise.
- Enrollment decline: the district\u000027s demographer projects a decline of \"a little bit more than a thousand students,\" which staff estimated as roughly $10,000,000 in reduced revenue.
- Weighted/at-risk funding: district at-risk funding fell from about $15,000,000 (FY24) to roughly $10,000,000 (FY25) and was shown in the governor\u000027s proposed amendments to increase by about $4,000,000 in FY26; staff said the at-risk calculation lacked transparency and remains volatile.

On the revenue and expenditure side, Bozzo reported that total general fund revenues are projected to increase by $18,800,000 (largely reflecting higher local revenues and a special education funding increase), while known expenditure increases total about $28,500,000. Specific cost drivers cited included negotiated step increases and cost-of-living adjustments ($12,300,000), increased special education staffing ($4,700,000), contract and insurance increases, concurrent-enrollment cost increases, and a required contingency top-up of about $200,000. Bozzo also noted that shifting enrollment results in a $9,900,000 revenue decline but only about $2,500,000 in staffing reductions from enrollment-based positions, leaving a gap.

Trustees and staff discussed the limited feedback loop between districts and the state budget process, with Mathers noting state law limits pre-filing exchanges and that some budget details were only available after late filings from the governor\u000027s office. Board members urged continued legislative advocacy and asked staff for options to close the gap that would balance priorities and the need to maintain a structurally balanced general fund.

Actions and next steps: the board moved and approved a directive that the superintendent analyze and report back on new items related to the FY25-26 budget. Staff said a fuller set of recommendations and options will come after March, but cautioned that the district may need to reallocate existing resources or pause proposed new investments unless the state provides additional relief.

Ending: Trustees said they wanted careful, data-driven options brought forward rather than immediate cuts; staff reiterated it would propose reallocation ideas, program reviews and other measures in subsequent meetings as numbers and legislative outcomes become clearer.","District finance staff told trustees the governor\u000027s amended budget yields flat per-pupil funding, a projected enrollment drop and rising costs that together point to a $9.7 million general fund gap for fiscal year 2025-26; the board directed the superintendent to analyze options and report back.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Trustees direct analysis of allocation process after deep dive on triggers, K–3 ratios and tradeoffs

Washoe County Schools see $9.7 million preliminary general fund shortfall; board asks staff for further analysis