Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

East Troy Community School District 2014-15 Annual Meeting and Budget Hearing.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "East Troy Community School District 2014-15 Annual Meeting and Budget Hearing."— Presentation transcript:

1 East Troy Community School District 2014-15 Annual Meeting and Budget Hearing

2 I. Call to Order II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Election of a Temporary Chairperson IV. Appoint Recording Clerk

3 V. ANNUAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE TO EDUCATION AWARDS Congratulations and Thank You to: Meg and Shawn Hunter

4 VI. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT A. District History, Trends, and Stats B. Student Achievement C. Additional Data Points

5 Moving Forward toward the “District of Choice” Mission Statement: Ensuring and providing 21st century learning through: engaged student learning, quality teaching, strong leadership, rigorous coursework, and community service opportunities while demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness for the betterment of the students and community.

6 21 ST C. ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE VISION STATEMENTS TIME FOR LEARNING – REMOVE BARRIERS TIME FOR LEARNING – REMOVE BARRIERS COMPETENCY BASED EDUCATION – LOOK AT OUTCOMES, NOT BEING DEFINED BY GRADE OR AGE COMPETENCY BASED EDUCATION – LOOK AT OUTCOMES, NOT BEING DEFINED BY GRADE OR AGE SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS/PARENTS/AGENCIES/HIGHER EDUCATION SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS/PARENTS/AGENCIES/HIGHER EDUCATION PROVIDE MEANINGFUL, PRACTICAL APPLICATION SKILLS THROUGH ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECTS PROVIDE MEANINGFUL, PRACTICAL APPLICATION SKILLS THROUGH ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECTS HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION – MORE ENGAGEMENT/INTEREST, MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION – MORE ENGAGEMENT/INTEREST, MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS UTILIZING RESOURCES, CREATING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNERS UTILIZING RESOURCES, CREATING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNERS HIGH LEVELS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF HIGH LEVELS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INDIVIDUALIZED EXPERIENCES TO ENCOURAGE SELF DIRECTED LEARNING CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INDIVIDUALIZED EXPERIENCES TO ENCOURAGE SELF DIRECTED LEARNING

7 Goals Ensuring a year to a year plus of learning growth for each child, each year Ensuring a year to a year plus of learning growth for each child, each year Ensuring programming opportunities through systems and practices that recognize the talents of each child Ensuring programming opportunities through systems and practices that recognize the talents of each child Ensuring individualized learning by engaging students with a personalized learning environment Ensuring individualized learning by engaging students with a personalized learning environment Employing the highest quality professional staff Employing the highest quality professional staff Adapting facilities for current and future educational needs Adapting facilities for current and future educational needs Demonstrating fiscal responsibility through efficiency and effectiveness Demonstrating fiscal responsibility through efficiency and effectiveness

8 SIX FACETS SIX FACETS Student Achievement Student Achievement Quality Teaching / Quality Staff and Strong Instructional Leadership Quality Teaching / Quality Staff and Strong Instructional Leadership Technology Technology Facilities Facilities Operations Operations Community Engagement Community Engagement Dr. Hibner (2011)

9 HEAD COUNT Headcount includes resident and non-resident students enrolled within the district. Headcount excludes resident students enrolled outside the district and in alternative and special education placements. The enrollment numbers in the following charts are as of September of each year, except for the estimate for the current year.

10 ENROLLMENT HISTORY Estimate for 14-15

11 GENERAL FUND COMPONENT REVENUES 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR

12 GENERAL FUND COMPONENT EXPENDITURES 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR

13 GENERAL FUND & FD 27 SALARIES & BENEFITS 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR

14 Salary/Benefit Distribution by Staff Support Staff Teachers Admin/Supv Teachers Admin/ Supv Support Staff Basic Salary/Benefits Only – does not include extra duties.

15 See Appendix “Rock Valley Athletic Conference 2012-13 Equalized Tax Levy Information” for Comparables MILL RATE HISTORY (14-15 – Estimate)

16 % Change in Equalized Value History See Appendix “WI DPI Analysis of General Aid and Equalization Aid Formula Components” for Comparisons to State Increases

17 Mill rate can increase, even when taxes decrease Year 1 Year 1 School Taxes: $2000 each Mill rate: taxes/property (1,000) $2000/$200 = $10 Year 2 Year 2 School Taxes: $1,944 each (2.8% decrease) Mill rate: $1944/$190 = $10.23 $200K $190K

18 2013-14 Tax Levy By Municipality See Appendix “Tax Bill Analysis” for steps to understand the components of a tax bill.

19 Report on Student Achievement

20 Learning Growth and Attainment LEARNING GROWTH AND ATTAINMENT HIGH GROWTH / HIGH ATTAINMENT LOW ATTAINMENTLOW GROWTH /

21 RESULTS - MAP 2005 Norms Study with Northwest Evaluation Association has concluded that a school district is successfully helping students to improve their annual achievement levels, if 50% or more of the students in the District reach their individual targeted growth goal for the school year.

22 Reading Results (MAP) National Schools in the Top 10% In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 60-70% of the students reach their growth norm target in reading. In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 60-70% of the students reach their growth norm target in reading. 2009 – 2010 (61.5%) 2009 – 2010 (61.5%) 2010 – 2011 (67.7%) 2010 – 2011 (67.7%) 2011 – 2012* (62.7%) 2011 – 2012* (62.7%) 2012 – 2013* (60.6%) 2012 – 2013* (60.6%) 2013 – 2014* (62.1%) 2013 – 2014* (62.1%) *Began K–8 during 2011-12 / Prior years were grades 2-8

23 Reading Results (MAP) Above 50% of students Met Targeted Growth 2010-11: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8) 2010-11: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8) 2011-12: 7 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) 2011-12: 7 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} 2012-13: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) 2012-13: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) 2013-14: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) 2013-14: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)

24 Reading Results (MAP) Overall Percentage of Students Meeting Targeted Growth 2009-10: 61.5% (Grades 2 – 8) 2009-10: 61.5% (Grades 2 – 8) 2010-11: 67.7% (Grades 2 – 8) 2010-11: 67.7% (Grades 2 – 8) 2011-12: 62.7% (K – 8) / 69.0% (Grades 2 – 8) 2011-12: 62.7% (K – 8) / 69.0% (Grades 2 – 8) 2012-13: 60.6% (K – 8) 2012-13: 60.6% (K – 8) 2013-14: 62.1% (K – 8) 2013-14: 62.1% (K – 8)

25 Reading Results (MAP) Overall Increase of Percentage of Cohort Meeting Targeted Growth 2010-11: 4 of 6 (excluding 2 nd grade) 2010-11: 4 of 6 (excluding 2 nd grade) 2011-12: 3 of 6 (excluding 5K, 1 st & 2 nd grades) 2011-12: 3 of 6 (excluding 5K, 1 st & 2 nd grades) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} 2012-13: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K) 2012-13: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K) 2013-14: 5 of 8 (excluding 5K) 2013-14: 5 of 8 (excluding 5K)

26 Reading Results (MAP) Grade Levels Above National Norms 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 – 9 of 9 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the year. Began K – 8 testing during 2011-12 school year. Prior years were grades 2 – 8. 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 – 9 of 9 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the year. Began K – 8 testing during 2011-12 school year. Prior years were grades 2 – 8. Actual Attainment v. Benchmark Attainment Actual Attainment v. Benchmark Attainment 2011 - 20122012 – 20132013 - 2014 - - Class of 2026 N/A / N/A/(K) – 159.8 (157.7) {2.1} - Class of 2025 N/A / (K) – 159 (157.7) {1.3} /(1) – 178.5 (176.9) {1.6} - Class of 2024 (K) – 159.7 (155.1) {4.6} / (1) – 178.4 (176.9) {1.5}/(2) – 192.0 (189.6) {2.4} - Class of 2023 (1) – 179.7 (176.9) {2.8} / (2) – 194.6 (189.6) {5.0} /(3) – 203.7 (199.2) {4.5} - Class of 2022 (2) – 192.3 (189.6) {2.7} / (3) – 204.0 (199.2) {4.8} /(4) – 212.0 (206.7) {5.3} - Class of 2021 (3) – 204.6 (199.2) {5.4} / (4) – 210.9 (206.7) {4.2} /(5) – 216.4 (212.3) {4.1} - Class of 2020 (4) – 210.3 (206.7) {3.6} / (5) – 214.9 (212.3) {2.6} /(6) – 217.4 (216.4) {1.0} - Class of 2019 (5) – 217.9 (212.3) {5.6} / (6) – 219.0 (216.4) {2.6} /(7) – 223.4 (219.7) {3.7} - Class of 2018 (6) – 219.7 (216.4) {3.3} / (7) – 224.0 (219.7) {4.3} /(8) – 228.6 (222.4) {6.2} - Class of 2017 (7) – 224.8 (219.7) {5.1} / (8) – 228.9 (222.4) {6.5} / - Class of 2016 (8) – 226.3 (222.4) {3.9} /

27 Reading Results (WKCE) Overall Percentage of Grade Levels 3-8, & 10, Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced 2010-11: of 7 grades - 88% 2010-11: of 7 grades - 88% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 41.2% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 41.2% 2011-12: of 7 grades - 87% 2011-12: of 7 grades - 87% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 42.7% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 42.7% 2012-13: of 7 grades - 45.7% (NAEP aligned) 2012-13: of 7 grades - 45.7% (NAEP aligned) 2013-14: of 7 grades - 39.7% (NAEP aligned) 2013-14: of 7 grades - 39.7% (NAEP aligned) Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year (testing window will be in the spring) Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year (testing window will be in the spring) Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year

28 Reading Results (WKCE) Cohorts 4-8, & 10, That Increased Overall Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced 2010-11: 4 of 6 cohorts* 2010-11: 4 of 6 cohorts* 2011-12: 2 of 6 cohorts* 2011-12: 2 of 6 cohorts* 2012-13: 3 of 6 cohorts* 2012-13: 3 of 6 cohorts* 2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts* 2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts* *Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam *Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam

29 2013 – 20142012 – 20132011 - 2012 10 th – 52.9% / 8 th – 31.9% 10 th – 52.9% / 8 th – 31.9% 8 th – 31.8% / 7 th – 38.8% / 6 th – 44.2% 8 th – 31.8% / 7 th – 38.8% / 6 th – 44.2% 7 th - 39.9% / 6 th – 42.2% / 5 th – 46.7% 7 th - 39.9% / 6 th – 42.2% / 5 th – 46.7% 6 th – 33.1% / 5 th – 37.4% / 4 th – 39.8% 6 th – 33.1% / 5 th – 37.4% / 4 th – 39.8% 5 th – 40.8% / 4 th – 38.3% / 3 rd – 34.8% 5 th – 40.8% / 4 th – 38.3% / 3 rd – 34.8% 4 th – 42.5% / 3 rd – 45.7% 4 th – 42.5% / 3 rd – 45.7% 3 rd – 36.7% 3 rd – 36.7% Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year Reading Results (WKCE) Cohorts 4-8, & 10, Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced

30 Math Results (MAP) National Schools in the Top 10% In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 65 - 75 percent of the students reach their growth norm target in mathematics. In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 65 - 75 percent of the students reach their growth norm target in mathematics. 2009 – 2010 (64.3%) 2009 – 2010 (64.3%) 2010 – 2011 (61.2%) 2010 – 2011 (61.2%) 2011 – 2012 (75%) 2011 – 2012 (75%) *2012 – 2013 (65.5%) *2012 – 2013 (65.5%) *2013 – 2104 (64.3%) *2013 – 2104 (64.3%) *Kindergarten and 1 st graders began taking MAP testing.

31 Math Results (MAP) Overall Percentage of Students Meeting Targeted Growth 2009-10: 64.3% (Grades 2 – 8) 2009-10: 64.3% (Grades 2 – 8) 2010-11: 61.2% (Grades 2 – 8) 2010-11: 61.2% (Grades 2 – 8) 2011-12: 75% (Grades 2 – 8) 2011-12: 75% (Grades 2 – 8) 2012-13: 65.5% (K – 8) / 66.9% (Grades 2 – 8) 2012-13: 65.5% (K – 8) / 66.9% (Grades 2 – 8) 2013-14: 64.3% (K – 8) 2013-14: 64.3% (K – 8)

32 Math Results (MAP) Above 50% of students Met Targeted Growth 2010-11: 5 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8) 2010-11: 5 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8) 2011-12: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8) 2011-12: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8) 2012-13: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) 2012-13: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} 2013-14: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) 2013-14: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)

33 Math Results (MAP) Overall Increase of Percentage of Cohort Meeting Targeted Growth 2010-11: 2 of 6* 2010-11: 2 of 6* 2011-12: 5 of 6* 2011-12: 5 of 6* 2012-13: 0 of 6* 2012-13: 0 of 6* {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1 st grades} 2013-14: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K) 2013-14: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K) *Number of cohorts excludes 2 nd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year therefore 2 nd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam

34 Math Results (MAP) Grade Levels Above National Norms 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 7 of 7 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the 2011 – 2012 school year. 8 of 9 for the 2012 – 2013 and 9 of 9 for the 2013 – 2014 school year. 7 of 7 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the 2011 – 2012 school year. 8 of 9 for the 2012 – 2013 and 9 of 9 for the 2013 – 2014 school year. Actual Attainment (Benchmark Attainment) {Difference of Actual & Benchmark} 2011 - 20122012 – 20132013 - 2014 - - Class of 2026 N/A / N/A/(K) – 162.2 (159.1) {3.1} - Class of 2025 N/A / (K) – 157.9 (159.1) {-1.2} /(1) – 182.1 (179.0) {3.1} - Class of 2024 (K) N/A / (1) – 180.8 (179.0) {1.8}/(2) – 195.6 (191.3) {4.3} - Class of 2023 (1) N/A / (2) – 197.4 (191.3) {6.1} /(3) – 207.1 (203.1) {4.0} - Class of 2022 (2) – 195.3 (191.3) {4.0} / (3) – 207.2 (203.1)) {4.1} /(4) – 221.5 (212.5) {9.0} - Class of 2021 (3) – 208.4 (203.1) {5.3} / (4) – 218.6 (212.5) {6.1} /(5) – 225.2 (221.0) {4.2} - Class of 2020 (4) – 218.3 (212.5) {5.8} / (5) – 225.3 (221.0) {4.3} /(6) – 229.6 (225.6) {4.0} - Class of 2019 (5) – 230.3 (221.0) {9.3} / (6) – 231.9 (225.6) {6.3} /(7) – 237.8 (230.5) {7.3} - Class of 2018 (6) – 231.7 (225.6) {6.1} / (7) – 235.6 (230.5) {5.1} /(8) – 239.5 (234.5) {5.0} - Class of 2017 (7) – 237.3 (230.5) {6.8} / (8) – 241.4 (234.5) {6.9} / - Class of 2016 (8) – 240 (234.5) {5.5} / Began K-8 testing during 2012-13 school year. Prior years were grades 2-8.

35 Math Results (WKCE) Overall Percentage of Grade Levels 3-8, & 10, Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced 2010-11: of 7 grades - 86% 2010-11: of 7 grades - 86% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 59% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 59% 2011-12: of 7 grades - 88% 2011-12: of 7 grades - 88% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 57.7% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 57.7% 2012-13: of 7 grades – 59.4% (NAEP aligned) 2012-13: of 7 grades – 59.4% (NAEP aligned) 2013-14: of 7 grades – 56.6% (NAEP aligned) 2013-14: of 7 grades – 56.6% (NAEP aligned) Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year

36 Math Results (WKCE) Cohorts 4-8, & 10, That Increased Overall Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced 2010-11: 1 of 6 cohorts* 2010-11: 1 of 6 cohorts* 2011-12: 4 of 6 cohorts* 2011-12: 4 of 6 cohorts* 2012-13: 2 of 6 cohorts* 2012-13: 2 of 6 cohorts* 2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts* 2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts* *Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam

37 Math Results (WKCE) Cohorts 4-8, & 10, Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced 2013 – 20142012 – 20132011 - 2012 10 th – 60.4% / 8 th – 50.0% 10 th – 60.4% / 8 th – 50.0% 8 th – 48.6% / 7 th – 52.6% / 6 th – 57.5% 8 th – 48.6% / 7 th – 52.6% / 6 th – 57.5% 7 th - 57.1% / 6 th – 77.2% / 5 th – 68.6% 7 th - 57.1% / 6 th – 77.2% / 5 th – 68.6% 6 th – 52.3% / 5 th – 60.9% / 4 th – 54.0% 6 th – 52.3% / 5 th – 60.9% / 4 th – 54.0% 5 th – 55.2% / 4 th – 60.8% / 3 rd – 62.6% 5 th – 55.2% / 4 th – 60.8% / 3 rd – 62.6% 4 th – 59.4% / 3 rd – 58.1% 4 th – 59.4% / 3 rd – 58.1% 3 rd – 63.4% 3 rd – 63.4% Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year

38 EPAS Results (ACT) East Troy Scores and Participation Rate Grad Year ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Participation Rate 200822.621.421.522.122.055.6 200922.420.821.422.121.961.2 201022.821.9 22.522.465.1 201122.721.121.822.422.262.3 201222.521.421.022.622.170.6 201322.721.622.223.322.674.6 2014*22.622.4 22.922.760.5 *2013-14 data is approximate. Data will be certified Spring 2015.

39 EPAS Results (ACT) District Comparison District 2010-112011-12 2012-13 2013-14* Score% % % % Surround ing Districts Burlington22.456.822.358.122.358.222.354.3 Elkhorn21.859.620.962.622.166.721.860.8 Mukwonago23.466.723.369.223.673.023.773.8 Whitewater21.763.821.763.622.747.823.845.8 East Troy22.262.322.170.622.674.622.760.5 Other Local Districts Arrowhead24.881.725.083.224.682.024.883.1 Elmbrook25.285.525.484.524.987.425.083.5 Kettle Moraine23.981.024.180.323.882.823.884.5 Mequon-Thiensville25.782.425.279.725.085.926.087.5 Waterford22.971.122.668.723.179.122.968.9 Waukesha22.956.322.557.122.754.522.457.8  Score = Average Composite ACT Score  % = Participation Rate *2013-14 data is approximate. Data will be certified Spring 2015.

40 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort (Class of 2018): 2014-15 Grade 9 8 th Gr Explore (2013-14) ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ACT Benchmark 1613171816 East Troy Avg. Score15.515.616.617.516.4 National Avg. 14.614.715.516.615.5 9 th Gr Explore (2014-15)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*18.0-18.518.1-18.619.1-19.620.0-20.518.9-19.4 ACT Benchmark1714171917 *East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year. 10 th Gr Plan (2015-16)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*20.5-21.520.6-21.621.6-22.622.5-23.521.4-22.4 ACT Benchmark1815192018 ACT (2016-17)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*23.0-24.523.1-24.624.1-25.625.0-26.523.9-25.4 ACT Benchmark2218222321

41 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort (Class of 2017): 2014-15 Grade 10 8 th Gr Explore (2012-13) ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ACT Benchmark 1513172016 East Troy Avg. Score15.915.716.417.716.5 National Avg. 14.614.715.516.615.5 9 th Gr Explore (2013-14)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*18.4-18.918.2-18.718.9-19.420.2-20.719-19.5 ACT Benchmark1714171917 East Troy Avg. Score16.917.317.618.417.7 National Avg.15.415.716.317.116.2 ET Growth 8 th to 9 th 1.01.61.20.71.2 10 th Gr Plan (2014-15)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*20.9-21.920.7-21.721.4-22.422.7-21.721.5-22.5 ACT Benchmark1815192018 ACT (2015-16)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*23.4-24.923.2-24.723.9-25.425.2-26.724-25.5 ACT Benchmark2218222321 *Projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.

42 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort (Class of 2016): 2014-15 Grade 11 8 th Gr Explore (2011-12) ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ACT Benchmark1513172016 East Troy Avg. Score14.41516.316.815.7 National Avg. 14.614.715.516.615.5 9 th Gr Explore (2012-13)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*16.9-17.417.5-18.018.8-19.319.3-19.818.2-18.7 ACT Benchmark1614182017 East Troy Avg. Score16.216.717.418.417.3 National Avg.15.415.716.317.116.2 ET Growth 8 th to 9 th 1.81.71.11.6 ACTReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score21.9-23.422.5-24.023.8-25.324.3-25.823.2-24.7 10 th Gr Plan (2013-14)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*19.4-20.420.0-21.021.3-22.321.8-22.820.7-21.7 ACT Benchmark1815192018 East Troy Avg. Score18.0 19.519.919.0 National Avg.16.716.217.617.817.2 ET Growth 8 th to 9 th 1.81.32.11.51.7 *East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.

43 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort (Class of 2015): 2014-15 Grade 12 9 th Gr Explore (2011-12) ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ACT Benchmark1614182017 East Troy Avg. Score17.317.417.718.617.9 National Avg. 15.415.716.317.116.2 10 th Gr Plan (2012-13)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*19.8-20.319.9-20.420.2-20.721.1-21.620.4-20.9 ACT Benchmark1715192118 East Troy Avg. Score18.8 19.820.519.6 National Avg.16.916.417.91817.5 ET Growth 9 th to 10 th 1.51.42.11.91.7 Retired ACT (2013-14)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*22.3-23.322.4-23.422.7-23.723.6-24.622.9-23.9 Benchmark2218222321 East Troy Avg. Score19.618.620.019.519.6 ET Growth 10 th to 11 th 0.8-0.20.20.0 *East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.

44 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort (Class of 2014): 2013-14 Graduates EPAS Results 11 th Grade Retired ACT Cohort (Class of 2015) – 2013-2014 9 th Gr Explore (2010-11) ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ACT Benchmark1614182017 East Troy Avg. Score16.217.017.418.417.3 National Avg. 15.315.516.316.516.1 10 th Gr Plan (2011-12)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*18.7-19.219.5-20.019.9-20.420.9-21.419.8-20.3 ACT Benchmark1715192118 East Troy Avg. Score18.418.019.019.418.8 National Avg. 16.916.417.91817.5 ET Growth 9 th to 10 th 2.21.01.61.01.5 Retired ACT (2012-13)ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite Projected Score*21.2-22.222.0-23.022.4-23.423.4-24.422.3-23.3 Benchmark2118222421 East Troy Avg. Score18.817.719.019.118.8 ET Growth 10 th to 11 th 0.4-0.30.0-0.30.3 *East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.

45 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort - Percent Met or Exceeded Benchmark Class of 2018 2014-15 Grade 9 ReadingEnglish MathScienceComposite ETNatETNatETNatETNatETNat 8 th Gr Explore (2013-14) 46%36%71%68%47%36%5037% 9 th Gr Explore (2014-15) TBA 10 th Gr Plan (2015-16) TBA Class of 2017 2014-15 Grade 10 ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ETNatETNatETNatETNatETNat 8 th Gr Explore (2012-13)52%46%76%68%45%36%27%16%61% 9 th Gr Explore (2013-14)54%3675%6755%3345%3165% 10 th Gr Plan (2014-15)TBA Class of 2016 2014-15 Grade 11 ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ETNatETNatETNatETNatETNat 8 th Gr Explore (2011-12)44%51%68%83%42%38%19%27% 9 th Gr Explore (2012-13)53%49%75%83%51%54%42%48%61% 10 th Gr Plan (2013-14)49%40%84%64%55%36%49%40%65%

46 EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT) Cohort - Percent Met or Exceeded Benchmark Class of 2015 2014-15 Grade 12 ReadingEnglish MathScienceComposite ETNatETNatETNatETNatETNat 8 th Gr Explore (2010-11) NA 9 th Gr Explore (2011-12) 63%45%80%67%40%33% 21% 10 th Gr Plan (2012-13) Class of 2014 2013-14 Graduates ReadingEnglishMathScienceComposite ETNatETNatETNatETNatETNat 8 th Gr Explore (2009-10)NA 9 th Gr Explore (2010-11)50%43%80%64%46%37%27%17% 10 th Gr Plan (2011-12)69%50%82%66%48%39%36%22%

47 School Perceptions Survey Grade 12 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree 201420132012201120102009 Do not feel part of the school26.0519.725.3725.0018.2617.07 Disruptive behavior in class 43.6028.9044.0224.0726.9622.76 No access to technology IN school 11.7517.7030.5921.297.824.87 Worry about my safety at school 6.723.007.468.333.476.50 School does not offer courses I want 41.1739.3544.0250.9232.8637.39 Classes are irrelevant 56.3052.3350.7451.8555.6536.58 Poor study habits 68.9053.3761.1962.0047.8254.47 Classes poorly taught 75.6371.9673.8870.3777.3964.47 Teachers had high expectations of me 79.8289.0080.5878.788.6987.80 School is boring 70.5857.9358.9471.2966.9463.40 I enjoy being at school 45.3751.3958.9451.8451.2960.97 Learning can be fun 80.6695.3280.5980.5481.7384.55

48 School Perceptions Survey Grade 12 – Preferred Instructional Methods Which two instructional methods help you to be engaged and maximize your learning? 2013-142012-13 Project Based Assignments (hands on activities)64.03%58.11% Direct Instruction50.03%N/A Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates70.17%77.0% Using More Technology58.77%52.13% Homework21.92%17.09%

49 School Perceptions Survey Grade 8 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree 20142013 I feel safe at school80.6988.59 Bullying was not a problem at school 65.7871.55 The school does a good job trying to prevent bullying from happening 44.2461.39 School does not offer courses I want 51.3733.02 My classes were interesting 50.8772.52 Poor study habits 40.3634.82 No access to technology in school 33.9219.64 Using technology made learning fun 81.0780.69 Using technology helped me learn 79.2776.06 My teacher allowed me to use technology on a daily basis to assist with my learning 31.4840.17 Classes poorly taught 64.2244.64 School is boring 72.8060.33 I enjoy being at school 45.1263.15 Learning can be fun 60.5181.03 I feel fully prepared for high school 73.5786.48

50 School Perceptions Survey Grade 8 – Preferred Instructional Methods Three methods you would like teachers to use more often to assist and enhance your learning. 2013-142012-13 Project Based Assignments (hands on activities)64.3%58.11% Direct Instruction44.73%N/A Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates70.17%77.00% Using more technology58.77%52.13% Homework21.92%17.09%

51 School Perceptions Survey Grade 5 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree 20142013 I feel safe at school91.6087.26 Bullying was a problem at school 22.8937.26 The school does a good job trying to prevent bullying from happening 68.7474.76 School does not offer courses I want 36.6445.04 Poor study habits 19.0819.81 No access to technology in school 24.0228.03 Using technology made learning fun 94.6495.45 Using technology helped me learn more 88.8489.18 My teacher allowed me to use technology on a daily basis to assist with my learning 62.4961.68 Classes poorly taught 23.6612.62 School is boring 51.547.7 I enjoy being at school 53.0258.92 Learning can be fun 68.4977.27 I feel fully prepared for middle school 81.5380.9

52 School Perceptions Survey Grade 5 – Preferred Instructional Methods Three methods you would like teachers to use more often to assist and enhance your learning. 2013-142012-13 Project Based Assignments (hands on activities)70.99%67.88% Direct Instruction32.06%N/A Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates70.22%80.73% Using more technology70.22%79.81% Homework/Worksheets19.84%15.59%

53 Additional Results District Data Points – attendance, truancy rate, drop out rate, suspensions, expulsions, retention rate, high school completion rates, open enrollment students, home- schooled students, ELL students, gifted and talented, special education, extra-curricular, etc. PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventional Strategies) YRBS (Youth Risk Behavior Survey) School Perceptions Senior Survey

54 VII. TREASURER’S REPORT – 2013-14 VII. TREASURER’S REPORT – 2013-14 BudgetedUnauditedVariance EXPENDITURES General Fund17,884,70817,529,276 (355,432) Special Education Fund 1,871,719 1,789,611 (82,108) Debt Service Funds 2,241,110 2,273,257 32,147 REVENUES General Fund 17,479,922 17,581,668 101,746 Special Education Fund 1,871,719 1,789,611 (82,108) Debt Service Fund 1,829,627 1,829,734 107 Total fund balance increase of $52,392

55 VIII. PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET

56 14-15 Key Aspects of REVENUES STATE BUDGET – per pupil revenue limit increase of $75 with matching $75 increase per pupil state aid provision (@$150 currently) What this means: Projected Revenue Limit on July 1 w/out new transfers of $203,608: $16,407,959; $150 aid = $255,200 1.35% overall revenue increase $16,662,459 total is still less than 2009-10 levels State aid DPI July 1 projection: decrease of -10.26% Overall levy: $15,052,714 (5.03%) Mill rate: 10.55 (3.31%)

57 14-15 Key Aspects of Shortfall Projected Shortfall: $308,000 original With additions to budget the shortfall increased to $577,000 Largest Budget reductions: Health insurance renewal – 4% renewal rather than an originally projected 10% increase & EE contribution increase to 9% = $199,173 Decrease of two elementary grades by 2 sections - $163,000

58 IX. BUDGET HEARING By S. 65.90 Wis. Stats, common school districts must hold the public budget hearing at the time and place of the annual meeting. Residents have an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget.

59 School District Funds 10General Fund -Used to record district financial activities for current operations, except those activities required to be accounted for in separate funds.

60 School District Funds 20 Special Project Funds 21Special Revenue Trust Fund Gift / Donations Fund – prudent when project directed by donation will cross fiscal years. 27Special Education Fund Exceptional Educational Needs/Federal Handicapped/Other Special Projects

61 School District Funds 30Debt Service Funds Irrepealable debt tax levy and related revenues. Principal, interest, and related long-term debt retirement. 38 Non-referendum Approved Debt Service (within the revenue limit) 39 Referendum Approved Debt Service

62 School District Funds 50Food Service Fund Federal regulations require separate accounting for Food Service. Fund deficit must be eliminated through transfer from the General Fund. Fund balance must be retained for use in Food Service.

63 School District Funds 70 Trust Funds These funds are used to account for assets held by the district in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations, or other governments. East Troy utilizes this fund for its scholarship donations.

64 School District Funds 80 Community Service Fund Fund established through S. 120.13 and 120.61, Wis. Stats. Allows a school board to permit use of district property for civic purposes. Examples of activities could include adult education, community recreation programs, and/or day care services. Act 20 created new requirements for this Fund, including no increases in the levy from 2012-13 unless by referendum, and reporting requirements such as including the expenditure report attached to the budget hearing documents.

65 LONG TERM DEBT As of September 1, 2014 Remaining principal on Fund 38 - $541,283 (Debt Expires 9/19/2018). Remaining principal on Fund 38 - $541,283 (Debt Expires 9/19/2018). Remaining principal on Fund 39 - $2,705,000 (Debt Expires 3/1/2018). Remaining principal on Fund 39 - $2,705,000 (Debt Expires 3/1/2018).

66 RESOLUTIONS (Last page of booklet) X. Resolution A: Adoption of Tax Levy XI. Resolution B: Salaries for Board of Education Members XII. Resolution C: Set Date and Time for 2015 Annual Meeting

67 XIII. NEW BUSINESS XIV. ADJOURN


Download ppt "East Troy Community School District 2014-15 Annual Meeting and Budget Hearing."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google