1) How does my school division volunteer?

The Superintendent or the School Board Chairman (with the consent of the Board) should contact John Ringer (john.ringer@dpb.virginia.gov) to volunteer. At the start of each school year, the volunteer school divisions are taken on a 'first-come, first served' basis and completed until the money for that year is exhausted.

2) Who performs the reviews?

The Virginia Department of Planning and Budget manages the School Efficiency Review program. Using funds appropriated by the General Assembly, DPB hires educational consulting firms to conduct these reviews. DPB is careful to select firms with experience in performing this type of work with local school divisions.

3) What areas are covered in the reviews?

The reviews cover the following major areas:

• Division Administration and Human Resources
• Educational Service Delivery (not the effectiveness of education)
• Transportation
• Finance and Purchasing
• Food Service Delivery
• Information Technology Acquisition (not its integration into the classroom)
• Facilities

4) Isn't the job of the Standards of Learning (SOLs) to review the effectiveness of school divisions?

Yes, the role of the SOLs is to assess the effectiveness of K-12 education in Virginia. This program is designed to increase the efficiency of education in volunteer school divisions. While the SOLs evaluate whether students are learning what they need to learn, this program evaluates how well the school division is managing the non-instructional side of its operations and asks questions such as 'How could the school division save money through increased energy efficiency in buildings?'

5) Are school divisions required to implement the recommendations in the reports?

The reports contain recommendations. The Superintendent and School Board of the division undergoing the review decide which of the recommendations to implement, in what order, and if they want to implement them exactly as the consultant recommended or if they want to change it slightly. And they have the power to ignore a recommendation if they feel it is not in the best interest of their division.

The General Assembly has created requirements for implementation of recommendations. The goal of these requirements is to ensure that reviews are used for improvement and do not 'sit on the shelf.' The Code of Virginia requires a school division to pay a share of the costs of a school review. A school division must pay an initial portion of the costs of the review itself, and then additional portions if, and only if, the school division does not initiate at least half of the recommendations offered in the review.

The specific financial obligations for a division are as follows:

1. 25% of the contract costs. School reviews are performed using a private sector consulting firm selected by DPB through a public procurement. A school division must pay 25% of the costs of the contact price for conducting the review. Given the costs of previous reviews, it is estimated that this portion of the financial obligation may be in the range of $20,000-$30,000. This amount is determined at the time of the contract and is due to be paid to the state the following fiscal year.
2. 25% of the proportional share of the state's costs of administering the program. DPB staff oversee the school review program, work collaboratively with the school divisions and the contract consultants to ensure that a thorough and professional review is conducted under the terms and conditions of the contract, and provide analysis to the Governor and General Assembly on the outcomes and performance of the program. Staff track and report their time spent on each school review to DPB administrative staff. After the review is complete, a calculation will be made of the costs of administering each review and 25% of it will be assessed to the relevant school division. This is a new requirement, so no estimates are available on the potential costs related to administering the program or what the per review costs would be. This amount is determined at the end of the review and is due to be paid to the state the following fiscal year.
3. An additional 25% of both contract costs and proportional costs may be assessed. After the review is complete, the school division must report to DPB on the status of implementing the recommendations of the report. After two years, if the division has not initiated at least 50% of the recommendations or achieved 50% of the savings identified in the review, then the school division must reimburse the state for an additional 25% of the contract and administration costs for the program. Most school divisions initiate the vast majority of recommendations in some form or another, so this requirement is generally met by participating school divisions. This amount, if applicable, is due to be paid to the state in the third fiscal year following the release of the report.

6) How long does a review take?

A normal school efficiency review takes about four to five months to complete. The review normally ends with a presentation of the report and its findings to the School Board.

7) What happens during a review?

A review begins with the consultant sending the Superintendent a lengthy data request list. The division staff will need to furnish documents and data for analysis. The review includes on-site visits from consultants, analysis of data collected from the school division, and report writing and editing. The Superintendent has a chance to read and edit the report for accuracy before its release.

8) Where can I find further information?

The above answers are for informational purposes only, please consult with the Department of Planning and Budget for current requirements.

The January 10, 2008 joint meeting between the Giles County School Board and the county supervisors included an informative presentation by the school superintendent and county administrator.

A detailed breakdown of estimated costs to correct deficient conditions at Eastern Elementary was presented, including suggested improvements to the facility, such as rearrangement of classroom design, size, and location. The price tag for all of this is estimated to be $8,813,324.

The Giles Technology Center was also subjected to a detailed design presentation that would increase the size of shops, provide offices, classrooms, additional rest rooms and change rooms, and additional classrooms for a marketing program. A new greenhouse is also included in this recommendation. The total cost is estimated to be $8,041,886.

The athletic field bleachers at Narrows High School and Giles High School were evaluated for required maintenance and upgrade. The total cost is estimated to be $1,446,950.

The total cost for all of these improvements and maintenance items is estimated to be $18,302,160.

The county administrator stated that the debt service cost for a $15,000,000 Literary Fund loan at 2% for 20 years and a $3,000,000 conventional loan at 5% for 20 years would be $1,148,000 per year. The only way the county can pay for this is to increase county real estate taxes. This will require an increase of .14 cents per hundred of assessed property value, which will increase your real estate tax rate from the current .63 per hundred to .77 cents per hundred. This is a 22% increase in county real estate taxes.

It might not be obvious to the school board and county supervisors, but the citizens of Giles County cannot afford such an increase in their real estate taxes. So what is the solution to this problem, a problem that obviously needs serious attention, and a problem that will require detailed analysis and some tough decisions?

The first thing that should be done is to separate these projects into the following identifiable parts:

(a) Maintenance that is mandatory to the safety of the school, students, and staff.

(b) Maintenance that must be performed immediately to support operation of the facility.

(c) Maintenance that should be performed by a suggested future date of less than 5 years but isn’t considered critical to safety or facility operation at this time.

(d) Maintenance that is desirable but can be deferred for a period of 5 years or longer.

These areas should receive first evaluation for funding, with items (a) and (b) having the highest priority (Priority 1). Item (c) should be identified as Priority 2. Item (d) should be Priority 3.

Renovations evaluated as being non-critical to safety should be evaluated for their order of priority as follows:

(e) Renovations that are cost effective to be performed in conjunction with items (c) and/or (d) above.

(f) Renovations that are most critical to educational improvements for students.

(g) Renovations that are desirable but non-critical to the immediate needs of students.

Item (e) projects should be Priority 4.

Item (f) projects should be Priority 5.

Item (g) projects should be Priority 6.

This is the only sensible way of approaching these problems, yet having assurance that the problems will be resolved in their critical order of importance. When you can’t afford to purchase a custom-made eight-piece cake, sometimes you settle for individual cup-cakes.

This appears to be one of those times.