Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rochester board begins expedited review of 'balanced budget' funding model that would shift categorical dollars to schools
Summary
School leaders proposed a model that keeps core instructional roles centrally allocated while shifting more categorical dollars and flexible staffing to schools; board members pressed for safeguards to protect electives and ensure community input before a December vote.
Superintendent Patel presented a proposed "balanced budget model" to the Rochester Public School District board on Nov. 19, saying the plan would align staffing and dollars more closely with school improvement plans and shift some categorical funding to sites.
The model divides district resources into four buckets — district required, school-managed, centrally managed and central office — and would give schools greater discretion over learning supports such as instructional coaches, resiliency specialists and other non-core positions. "The big picture is that we're on the cusp of a significant change," Patel said, while emphasizing the proposal "preserves very significant components of our funding and staffing that would be staffed at the central level." He added that the district purchased Allocate software to enable scenario modeling and transparency.
Why it matters: The proposal seeks to direct more compensatory education and Title I dollars to sites and to use a three-year averaging approach for funding students who take college-credit options (PSEO/CTEC/PTECH) to reduce year‑to‑year staffing swings. Patel said the district would allocate 100% of compensatory education aid to sites but would tightly restrict the nine authorized statutory uses for those dollars.
Board questions centered on equity and program access. Director Merten warned that giving schools more flexibility "could mean one school decides music or auto mechanics is not important," leaving students without opportunities if they cannot transfer to another building. Patel and staff responded that core curricular teachers and course offerings remain centrally allocated and that the flexibility largely affects learning supports, not the educational program. "There's nothing in this proposal that would say ... you would choose to stop doing art, because that's in the educational program," Patel said.
Implementation and next steps: Staff described implementation work to come, including rightsizing FTE ratios and building processes for school improvement (SKIP) teams to include parents, students and staff. The model uses illustrative FTE ratios — one flexible FTE per 105 elementary students, 129 middle school students and 141 high school students — as a starting point. Patel told the board the timeline is tight: version 2 of the model will be presented Dec. 3, with a final vote planned for Dec. 17. He added referendum revenues are included as maintenance of stability rather than funding new programs.
What remains unresolved: The board asked for clearer accountability mechanisms and community input requirements for school-level staffing decisions; staff said those procedural details are part of the next implementation phase. No formal vote on the model was taken; the board scheduled further review at upcoming meetings.
