2012 planning retreat

2012 Board Planning Session of 60

Skokie District 69

2012 Planning Retreat


Finance & Operations


PMA PRESENTATIOIN: by Mike Frances

Topics include: A historic look back at the District’s financials, assumptions for the

future, and a look at the next five years out including the projected fund balance. (See

F1 in the Appendix for PMA 5 year projections)


ED FUND:

● Fund Balance Goal Discussion: Building and maintaining an adequate Fund Balance is a

prudent fiscal issue with increasingly critical benefits for any governmental body. These

include the ability of the body to:

○ Stabilize year over year educational performance

○ Minimize educational service disruptions

○ Maintain cash on hand to counter unanticipated cash flow shortfalls

○ Address emergency situations, particularly those that threaten health and life

safety

○ Fund educational growth and change opportunities

○ Enhance credit rating strength and increase access to debt markets at lower

interest costs

○ Increase long-term fiscal performance

○ Allow the government to manage unforeseen expenditure demands and revenue

shortfalls

● The Government Finance Officers Association recommends a minimum fund balance of

two months of either revenues or expenditures. It should be stressed that this is a

minimum recommendation only and other local factors must be considered, including

the timing and dependability of significant revenue sources (i.e. state, federal and

county tax distribution and program funding).

● ISBE gives only those districts with three months (25%) fund balance to expenditures its

highest Financial Profile sub score. This is a minimum expectation to be qualified to

receive a high score and does not take into consideration particular elements of local

funding or educational/operational planning.

Action Plan:

Spring 2012: ○ Negotiations: So far the board has put together a negotiating team, including

several board members, administration team members and the board attorney

from Franczek. We have tentatively set the teacher union negotiations to start at

the beginning of March 2012. There are several assumptions that we’ve set for

levy and budget purposes, however until we have a signed contract in place

there are still many unknowns.

○ Finalize Federal Grants for 2011-2012: Many of the State and Federal grants have

been approved at this point in the year (See F2 in the Appendix for Grant

Schedule). However even though approvals have now been set, getting the


funding in the district’s account is another story. To date the district is owed

$817, 623. The total amount of grant funding that we are set to receive in FY12

is $3,512,033.

○ Staff/Schedule Changes: Over the past several months, the administrative team

has been meeting to discuss and review the staffing changes for FY13. This is a

cumbersome process as we thoroughly review the needs of both instructional

and non-instruction areas of the district, and then try to match them up with the

staff required to fulfill those needs. These plans primarily effect the Ed Fund

(although some funding does come from other funds), and are tentative as we

do have over seven months until the start of school. There are many moving

pieces when it comes to staffing, and we will remain flexible in terms of funding

as the plans unfold. At the same time, contractually we must put forth the

staffing plan, and ask the board for approval by the March meeting for any

changes for FY13 at that time.

○ Textbook Adoption: This topic is huge in terms of the selection and

implementation of the math series, and in financial terms. Within the curriculum

report, there is a lengthy discussion about the math textbook initiative, so I’ll just

focus in on the financial aspect. Tentatively we’ve set aside an estimated cost for

implementation at approximately $400,000. This implementation is the first of

several, and frankly just the first step in constantly evolving curriculum that will

require large textbook budgets every other year or so. Science is anticipated to

be the next subject area to focus on followed up by Social Studies.

■ History: Since 1975 IL legislation provided IL with a program that would

help districts with funding for their textbook adoptions. The program

literally allocated millions of dollars (about $40 per student) for districts

to spend on refreshing textbook series in IL. In FY11, ISBE stopped

funding the program and shifted the burden of textbook purchases to the

local level.

○ Complete Bond Issue and Refunding: For several months we have been focused

on getting both the $3.5M GO Limited Tax Bond Issue, and the refunding of the

remaining liability from the 2003 $8.3M Bond Issue complete. The $3.5M issue

will go into the working cash fund, for now, until we address the capital project

needs which are laid out in the long range facility plan. The 2003 GO Bond Issue

refunding is simply a savings to the taxpayers as it will have a slight affect on the

Bond and Interest Tax Rate. While the market changes every day, we anticipate

an annual savings of over $30,000. Municipal bond rates are still hovering at

about 1%, and our hope is that they fall slightly by the time we officially refund

them in March of 2012. Both bond deals will close in March 2012. In the


February Board Meeting the board will have been asked to pass the resolution to

initiate both of these deals, which will be the last associated board action.

● Summer 2012:

○ State Budget: I’ll begin working on the FY13 soon, with the plan to finalize

working and state budget forms to the furthest extent possible for advance

notification to the Board of Education. As always, as information becomes

available I’ll include it in the assumptions in the working budget for FY13, and

apprise the board of any substantial changes.

○ Federal Grants for 2012-2013: As FY12 grant applications receive final approval,

we will have a starting point for assumptions as to what we might be able to

expect for FY13. As the year progresses and as we track the conversations in

Springfield looking ahead to next year, the figures will undoubtedly change. We

are making every effort to work with the Pre-K team to help ensure the

submission of a competitive ‘Preschool for All’ grant application. That was a huge

win for the district this year bringing in over $200,000 to offset the cost of

operating our Pre-K program.

○ Registration: It’s February and we’re thinking about Registration already! Well,

it’s not too far off, and the ball has to get rolling soon. We plan on making the

2012-2013 school year registration packets available to families in April, as we

did last year. KG registration will take place toward the end of April. No big

changes as I think the consensus is that registration has been much improved in

the last few years. However, the administration is seriously contemplating the

need for an additional hire to help with the increased effort needed to complete

the registration process. In fact, the secretaries were burdened with additional

responsibilities beginning last year including the processing of the free and

reduced meal applications. This addition of a secretarial position would be

created in order to help the secretaries with their additional work load, oversee

the registration process and be stationed at Lincoln to assist Assistant Principal

Donev with daily responsibilities.


2012-2013 FEE SCHEDULE: Overview:

Historically the district’s fees have been relatively low, and have not been raised much in the last 5 years, if not longer (see F3 in the Appendix for Historic Fee Structure). For the 2011-2012 school year the board did approve a $10 increase in the Registration Fee, and a $10 increase in the Technology Fee. While the fees don’t cover the full costs of activities and supplies, they do help to offset some of the expenses. Due to the state’s financial forecast, and the lack of funding since the ARRA funds at the Federal level, we must continue to ask parents to help offset the increasing costs of technology, textbooks, calculators, field trips, and transportation.

○ Registration/Technology: Because of the recent increase in Registration and

Technology fees, the administrative recommendation will be to keep those two

fees the same for the 2012-2013 school year. Registration - $75, Technology -

$50

○ Textbook: We are recommending a new fee for the year, for textbook costs. The

district is adopting a new math textbook series as a part of the math initiative,

and the costs are astronomical. Preliminary projections for the math textbook

series are estimated to more than $400,000. Therefore parents are being asked

to pay a textbook fee for the year in the amount of $15. Again, while this

doesn’t cover the cost of the books, it does help offset the cost, and is projected

to bring in over $10,000. While this purchase is just a onetime cost for the most

part, there are going to be other subject area textbook costs in the years to

come, and the continued revenue stream will help offset future needs as well.

○ Field Trip: Field trip fees have been around for some time now. This year we

initiated a new way of arranging, communicating and charging for trips at Edison,

and it worked out quite well. Parents are told which field trips are planned for

the year by Registration Days, and pay the total fee upfront for the year. This

way parents, teachers and students don’t have to deal with cash throughout the

year, and we’ve planned out exactly what we’re doing and why, well in advance.

The one change to that plan is that we are going to attempt to limit the number

of trips each student takes and charge one fee, district-wide to help offset costs.

If we limit the number of trips, the hope is that we can keep them restricted to

the most educationally beneficial experiences possible and keep the cost down

for both the board and the students. The administrative recommendation is to

change each student just $10 for the year.

○ Transportation: Based on the Governor’s feelings toward transportation being a

local burden, and the constant decrease in funding, we began a district wide

transportation study. The study revealed that a significant amount of students in


district should actually being paying for their transportation to and from school.

In order to offset the increasing cost of providing transportation and the lack of

funding, the board has made a determination that we will be working on

finalizing the administrations recommendation for a two year fee structure. For

the 2012-2013 school year: the first student will pay a fee of $150, while each

additional student will pay $75. For the 2013-2014 school year: the first student

will pay a fee of $200, while each additional student will pay just $100.

Additionally, if students participate in any after school activities, there is an

annual $10 fee, regardless of how many activities the student is involved in.

2011-2012

2012-2013 2013-2014

Registration $75 $75 $75

Textbooks $0 $15 $15

Technology $50 $50 $50

Field Trip Varies $10 $10

Transportation $0 $150 Half, or $75 for every rider after

the 1st at $150, After school busing - $10 per student

annually

$200 Half, or $100 for every rider after

the 1st at $200, After school busing - $10 per student annually

Using Census and Skokie Village data, we wanted to ensure our fee structure

accords with what families can reasonably afford. The data we were able to

gather inform us that within a three mile radius of downtown Skokie, the

average family income is $102,630. As an example, a family with two school age

children will pay approx. $525 in fees next year. This is 0.5% (half of one percent)

of the total family income on school fees.

Indicators of Achievement: ● Submission of a balanced budget for 2012-2013 (Oct. 31, 2012 or before) ● Achieve the highest financial profile rating from the ISBE of Recognition status (Winter

2012-2013, with preliminary audit report in Fall 2012)(See F4 in the Appendix for 2012 Financial Profile Designation)

● Fund Balance: Short term target - 30% year end, Long range target - 30% low point (Monthly, Annual)


FOOD SERVICE:

Action Plan:

Spring 2012: ○ Wellness Committee work: As a part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the

district Lunch Advisory Committee will focus on the wellness component. By

May of 2012 the District’s Lunch Advisory Committee must report back to the

community how well we are doing at achieving the goals set forth in the

Wellness Policy. The committee has preliminary met to begin the assessment

process of our goals in the wellness policy. The committee has also had ongoing

discussion about how to improve our execution since July of 2010. While this

will be even more apparent after the results come back from the assessment,

the committee is shaping the recommendation it will make to the board this

spring on how to improve our wellness program in the schools. As a part of the

recommendation, the committee will put forth the idea of publishing a list of

advised snack items for classroom consumption, and ideas for how we can

reward/celebrate without using food.

○ Nut Free by FY13: The admin team (mostly Megan) has been planning for

adoption of the Life Threatening Food Allergy’s Program. After much thought

and discussion, the administration has come to the conclusion that going Nut

Free altogether may be best for student safety. Research shows that there is an

increasing number of students with life threatening tree and peanut allergies,

some of which may not be known yet.

○ To support board policy of life threatening food allergies the district is working to

develop procedural guidelines that can be consistently implemented throughout

the district. In addition, Individual Health Care Plans are being developed for all

students with life threatening food allergies. These guidelines and plans will help

to keep students safe while attending school and help staff to have a plan in the

event a reaction occurs at school. Staff training and drills will be provided at the

start of the school year and throughout the year to ensure guidelines and plans

are being followed with integrity.

Summer 2012 ○ Pre-Bid Discussions for the upcoming Food Service bid that the district will be

going out for during the 2012-2013 school year, to take effect at the start of the 2013-2014 school year.

○ Prepare literature on any wellness related changes for parents/students for the start of 2012-2013 school year.

○ Reminder for staff of Wellness Policy provisions.


Indicators of Achievement: Wellness Policy Goals - full implementation. (Start of school - 2012) Nut Free (Start of school 2012) Wellness language inserted into district calendar/handbook (Student handbook,

Summer 2012) Federal Comparison on Wellness Goals made public (May, 2012)


O&M FUND:

Action Plan:

● Spring 2012: ○ Continue in-house maintenance effort with help of the Head Engineer Stipend

Position. There are potential savings in completing small-mid size maintenance projects within the district, so long as our Engineers feel comfortable the level of skill needed.

○ Research potential new district wide recycling program: While each school does have some variation of a recycling program in place, the idea is to really coordinate a comprehensive program that can be tracked and measured district wide. To start the research phase, we’ll want to measure how much garbage we current dispose of. Pending an increase in recycling pick-up, we will start to recycle soiled goods and then measure the decrease in garbage disposal. We will have to factor in the increased recycling charges, custodial time etc. This will continue to be an evolving conversation and we will keep you apprised.

● Summer/Fall 2012: ○ Track progress in O&M fund balance and finalize the recommended designation

of funds toward future capital projects in the 2-4 year range.

Indicators of Achievement: ● Fund balance: 30% as a percentage of total annual expenditures (minus any designation

of funds). Monthly, Annually. ● Green initiatives: Full plan and implementation of recycling program (start of school

2012). This includes the organization of student green clubs at all 3 schools, and

potentially a district wide green committee (comprised of representatives from all 3

student green clubs).


TRANSPORTATIOIN FUND:

Action Plan:

● September

○ Began researching State and School code regarding pupil transportation.

○ District lawyers were contacted to further review and advise on pupil transportation laws and policies that directly affect the District.

○ Spoke with IDOT about hazardous crossings and the proper procedures for adding and eliminating those hazards.

● October ○ Re-evaluated Districts hazardous crossings, and in doing so were able to

recommend eliminating 3 hazards by adding crossing guards. Those crossings

are at Gross Point & Main, Gross Point & Oakton and Lincoln & Oakton. The

Skokie Swift railroad tracks will remain a hazard; along with Main St between the

Eden’s Expressway and Laramie for Madison and Edison Schools.

● November

○ Evaluated all current students; recorded walking distance to school, proximity to

public transportation and if a hazard would need to be crossed.

● December

○ Contacted both Skokie and Morton Grove for information on obtaining

additional crossing guards and associated costs.

○ Formally requested additional guards with Morton Grove (District is still waiting

on a response).

○ Survey was sent to families regarding bus transportation.

● January

○ Continue to research, discuss and meet with key organizations.

○ Met with Skokie PD to identify potential additional hazardous crossings at

Lincoln and Gross Point.

● February

○ Pre bid meeting with potential bidders and 219/feeder districts.

○ Put official bus bid out and open bid at 219 (late Feb.).

○ Notify Skokie PD and MG PD of: bell schedules for FY13 and bus company for

FY13.

○ Pick up the transportation fee discussion at the Board Retreat.

○ Continue to research, discuss and meet with key organizations.


*Administrative Recommendation:

As a result of the research and determination that D69 is and has been a ‘Common’ Type

School District, the administration is recommending that ALL District 69 students be assessed

a fee (FY13 - $150/$75). However, those students who qualify for a Fee Waiver (Full or

Reduced), and choose to take D69 transportation to school, will only be assessed half of the

full transportation fee (FY13 - $75/$37.50).

● March

○ Board Approval of new Bus co. contract (Low & Responsible Bidder).

○ Approve Fee Schedule for 2012-2013 School year including transportation fees.

○ Meet with school secretaries regarding bus application and evaluation process.

○ Meeting with Skokie PD, Village Traffic Engineers and D69 to discuss safe routes

to schools and establish if additional signage is needed.

○ Meeting with Morton Grove PD, Village Traffic Engineers and D69 to discuss safe

routes to schools.

○ Host meeting with PTO, Fund 69 and others to get input on roll out plan.

○ Post support resources on website for those parents who are considering

walking or biking to school.

○ Mailing homes regarding transportation eligibility and the supports for those

who may choose to walk or take public busing to school (May 1st deadline for

bus pass) - include meeting date with Skokie PD.

● April

○ Send article to the Skokie Pioneer Press explaining fee and transportation

changes.

○ Registration Mailing –include reminder regarding transportation.

○ Put new information regarding transportation on District Website (i.e.

Applications, safe walking routes).

● May

○ May 1st deadline for bus enrollment option.

○ Begin registering students and assigning transportation routes.

○ Crossing Guards hired and trained – 16 hours of training.

● June

Design and create bus pass system for paid bus riders.


July

○ Transportation application deadline?

● August

○ 8-29-12 Crossing Guards fist day.

○ 8-29-12 Street traffic control: 1 police off duty police officer, for 2 hours per day,

for the first week of school – SRO at Lincoln on traffic control.

○ 8-29-12 Volunteer to help students to school within 3 block radius of schools.

○ Packet Pick-Up and assign any remaining students to transportation routes.

● September

○ 8-29-12 Street traffic control: 1 police off duty police officer at Madison/Edison,

for 2 hours per day, for the first week of school.

○ 8-29-12 Volunteer parents to help students to school within a 3 block radius of

all three schools.

See Appendix for:

F5. Hazardous Crossings Map

F6. Crossing Guard Map

F7. Public Bus Routes

F8. Madison Student Homes Map

F9. Edison Student Homes Map

F10. Lincoln Student Homes Map

F11. Crossing Guards Cost

Performance Indicators:

● This section is fairly straight-forward. We will know if we are successful based on the number of people who pre-register for bus participation. These statistics will be shared with the Board through the months of July, August and a final report in September.

● The final transportation report given to the Board will also include recommendations for the following year to improve our delivery of services.


CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND:

Action Plan

● Spring 2012: ○ Begin design phase of building summer maintenance work

○ Pre-Bid discussions

○ Inter-Fund Transfers: Move to appropriate funds ■ $1,129,501 (from 2009 Working Cash Bond Proceeds) from the Working

Cash Fund to the Capital Projects Fund – May 2012 Board Meeting ■ Estimated $350,000 from O&M to Capital Projects (This depends on the

final projected costs from the district wide building maintenance work to be done in July of 2012 by Wight) – May 2012 Board Meeting

■ Estimated $100,000 transfer from Working Cash to IMRF to cover deficit anticipated at year end. Transfer to be presented at June 2012 Board Meeting. Again, this deficit is expected due to the protection of the Ed Fund during the 2011 levy.

● Summer 2012: ○ Board approval on maintenance bids from sub contractors ○ Begin maintenance work with Wight

● Fall 2013:

○ Designations under GASB 54: ■ $1,500,000 for Capital Projects from the O&M Fund – to be completed

after FY12, as we adopt the FY13 budget September or October of FY13 Indicators of Achievement:

● Completion of summer maintenance projects. ○ Specifically, a punch-list is the finalization of any projects and only takes place

after a walk-through with the architects. We will keep the board apprised when this occurs. (Fall, 2012)

● General building appearance and working order for 2012-2013 school year ○ As part of the final walk-through, we will visually inspect all buildings prior to

student arrival.


Curriculum & Instruction


I. GUARANTEED & VIABLE CURRICULUM:

LANGUAGE ARTS:

McGRAW HILL TREASURES (K-5)/PRENTICE HALL LITERATURE (6-8)

Background:

● You will recall these series were adopted in Spring 2010. Professional development

began shortly thereafter and throughout the 2010-2011 school year, we worked to

implement and evaluate the textbooks. Conversations centered around validity and

fidelity. Over the course of the year we began informing an opinion about how units

were constructed, how assessments were connected, and we identified various points

of strength as well as areas in need of modification. 2011 summer professional

development began with revisiting some of the units and beginning to make

modifications for the 2011-2012 school year. (See C1 and C2 in the Appendix)

● Throughout the course of this year, we have continued to dialogue. With a “year under

our belt” the units are moving more smoothly and we can begin to anticipate areas

where students might struggle. Also this year, we have been working to connect the

various units to the common core by use of a Google doc map. This map is really only for

internal use and will likely never see the light of day, but has helped us to do two things.

First, we have started to get our collective minds wrapped around the common core

standards for English Language Arts. By working through what needs to be taught at

which grade level, and connecting that with our current textbook we have begun the

process of identifying holes in our curriculum. This puts us far ahead of the curve as far

as the State of Illinois’ plan for common core implementation. Second, we are well

underway towards having a road map of the Treasures/Literature curricula. Here again,

the map itself is far less important than the process of simply making our map. By

making it our own, we are conscientiously making connections with the text, the units

and the common core. Although we will have a very good map at the conclusion of this

process, the real value will be locked up inside the heads of the teachers who have gone

through the process. That’s why good curriculum maps generally aren’t about the map,

but the process associated with it.

● Curriculum Map demonstration/presentation (15 min.): Ms. Vladika and principals will

be showing the google.doc we so often speak of as well as an on-line curriculum guide

we’ve been exploring. It is an exciting next step and will lead to an action plan step

below as it connects our content with essential questions at all grade levels. It’s a start

for the online tool, but more importantly might be a perfect first step to share with

parents in a guide of some kind.


Action Plan: ● Spring 2012:

○ Continue Language Arts articulation meetings (both horizontally and vertically)

○ Continue to update and modify the Google doc.

○ Survey teachers for necessary summer 2012 professional development related

to Language Arts.

○ Organize and approve summer curriculum projects related to refinement of

Treasures/Literature curricula and assessment.

○ Curriculum Mapping - Take information from our curriculum map Google

document and begin draft work on a parent guide for Fall distribution digitally/in

hand.

● Fall 2012:

○ Curriculum Mapping - Continue to work digitally on our curriculum maps for all

content areas including key information: Grade, Content Area, Unit of Study,

Unit Overview, Essential Questions (What do we want students to know),

Standards Addressed for Mastery, Assessment Protocols (How will we know

when they’ve learned it?), Differentiation techniques (what we will do if they

have/have not learned it).

○ Continue township Common Core workshops. In 2011-2012, these workshops

focused on Mathematics standards. In 2012-2013, the township districts will

work together to focus on analysis, implementation and assessment of ELA

standards.

○ The strength of the curriculum map is in aligning teachers horizontally and

vertically within a content area. With sound understanding of what we want

students to learn we can better utilize assessments to determine if they have

learned it. These assessment connections will really be the crux of our focus for

2012-2013.

■ All of this is a precursor to our major effort to differentiate content

according to student need.

Indicators of Achievement

● Spring/Summer 2012: Prepare for the data retreat by using ○ ISAT ○ EXPLORE ○ End of year benchmarking data ○ Treasures Summative Assessments

This data will be collected and analyzed first at the administrative level (spring and early summer). Throughout the summer we begin working on how we will share this data


with the Board of Education and staff in order to facilitate discussion toward growth opportunities. This information will feed into the District and school improvement planning process.

○ The Board will see evidence and indicators at several times including: ■ End of Year school improvement report ■ ISAT scores ■ EXPLORE test scores ■ IIRC website

● Summer 2012

○ A curriculum map to be published for public access will be developed and shared with the Board (stretch goal).

● Fall 2012: ○ Begin beta-testing curriculum dashboard metrics for the District website. This

will be done through the student achievement sub-committee. ○ All Treasures Units to have a differentiated component for re-teaching and

enrichment opportunities.


MATH TEXTBOOK ADOPTION:

Background:

● As was the case with Language Arts, K-8 teachers have been working in isolation in

Mathematics. It has been roughly 10 years since the district adopted new Math series.

In that time, fidelity of the curriculum began to fall apart. Some teams are stronger than

others in regard to creating and refining curriculum and assessments. With the

adoption of the Common Core Math Standards, the time was right to begin exploring

new series. Through our township Math workshops and having access to various

publisher samples, teachers and administrators were able to start narrowing viable

options down. We saw the power of a common curriculum with 2010 to 2011 Reading

ISAT scores and we’re excited to see the same dramatic increase in Math scores from

2012 to 2013. (See Appendix for C3 and C4)

Action Plan:

● Fall 2011:

○ We have collected publisher samples, examine those samples as well as talked

with other township teachers to see what their schools are using.

● Winter 2011/2012:

○ We have had members of the K-8 Math committee attend various publisher

presentations (McGraw Hill My Math and Everyday Math, Glencoe Math and

Algebra 1).

○ Grade level teams have “test driven” viable series to see how lessons and

activities go over in the classroom.

○ Held a K-8 Math committee meeting after publisher presentations to finalize

choices. At this point all schools are ready to recommend.

● Spring 2012: ○ March: Board to approve textbook recommendation. ○ Professional development phased in: We have been coordinating with all of the

textbook reps to ensure that once books are in hand, our staff will be given

ample opportunity for professional development.

○ Increase staffing at the Junior High. The Lincoln staffing plan will allow us to improve our math curriculum and how it is delivered by implementing our math interventions with consistency. The additional staff will allow us to have a full time math interventionist who also would teach an ELL math class (and bring our district into compliance with Title III programming mandates). By adding the staff


to the math department, we would bring our class sizes in math to an average of 20 students.

● Summer 2012: ○ Continue Math articulation meetings (both horizontally and vertically). ○ Continue to update and modify the Google doc. ○ Survey teachers for necessary summer 2012 professional development related

to Math (new textbook support and training, common core and assessment PD, PD related to providing higher quality Math interventions).

○ Organize and approve summer curriculum projects related to the adoption and implementation of the new series’ curricula, instruction and assessment.

○ Using a very similar format as found on page one in the L.A. section of this report, as we prepare to use the new textbook series next year we will be thinking of how to incorporate them into our parent guides/curriculum maps.

● Fall 2012:

○ Deploy the textbook curricula (K-8). ○ Through the Fall, we will use a process similar to the Treasures/Literature

deployment. We will hyper-focus our efforts to allow for as much team

collaboration as we can possibly fit into a schedule. We know that the

conversations will evolve throughout the Fall so it is hard to predict how much

collaboration time will be needed, but we are committed to a first-year

successful deployment of the textbook.

○ Professional Development: lots of work to do here. We will need to continue working with grade level teachers for status and progress checks. It’s somewhat hard to commit to exactly what PD is going to be needed at this point. We will have a much better sense of what PD to undertake in the Fall after the summer is complete and we get some feedback from the staff.

○ Common Core: Similar to this year and our Language Arts curriculum, we are

going to work hard to connect the Math textbooks to the common core

standards. This really is the ‘best’ way to know both the common core and our

textbook. We are contemplating the use of the Google doc format. This will be

very similar to what we have done this year.

Indicators of Achievement:

● As an example, below is a chart that shows the positive effect of curricular focus on L.A. in the past year. This chart is specific to Lincoln, and is one indicator of successful implementation. We will continue to chart our Mathematics implementation in the same manner with two intentions:

○ Celebrate our successes: Part of a successful implementation is recognizing when good things happen and then understanding why in order to replicate success.


○ Find opportunities for growth. If grade levels (or classrooms) show evidence of

struggling, we must be quick to step in. We will need active and fluid data in

order to accomplish this.


ELIMINATION OF PULL-OUT ELL SERVICES AT MADISON & EDISON:

Background:

● The graph below illustrates the long term effect of the 7 major ESL program models. As

you can see below, students in ESL pullout programs peak in Reading in the 4th grade

and then fall behind in the years after that. Two-way immersion programs and late exit

bilingual programs were the only programs where students reached the 50th percentile

in Reading and maintained an upward trajectory through 12th grade. Two-way

immersion may be a viable programming choice in the future, especially in Spanish. This

would be a benefit for both native English and native Spanish speakers.

● This year we expanded sheltered programs to all grade levels. Students in these

classrooms have made significant gains. By providing them instruction with

comprehensible input and in a manner not totally tied to language, students are able to

meet content goals. Since ESL instruction is content driven and seamlessly paired with

the curriculum, ESL services are more meaningful when provided through a pull out

model.

Action Plan:

● Eliminate pull out programming for ESL at Madison and Edison, effective 2012-2013

● Expand sheltered rooms to include newcomers.


● Continue to explore programs for bilingual education (what are options and what is

going to be/yet to be mandated by the state board of education).

● Increase number of Kindergarten sheltered classrooms.

● Continue to see an increase in the number of district staff who hold ESL or bilingual

endorsements.


● Increased ACCESS scores

● Increased ISAT scores (3rd-5th grade) over time

● Less years of ESL service needed by students

● Less ELL programming needed (for non recent immigrants) at Lincoln

REFINEMENT OF ELL PROGRAMMING AT LINCOLN:

Background:

● ELLs at Lincoln currently are divided into 4 levels (1, 2, 3 and 4). Students who are

placed in levels 1 and 2 (due to W-APT or ACCESS scores, usually students who are

recent immigrants to the US) receive ESL Language Arts, ESL Science and ESL Social

Studies. Students who are placed in levels 3 and 4 receive ESL Language Arts and are in

general education classes for Math, Science and Social Science. With only two staff

members teaching all ESL courses, the quality of instruction is not as high as it could be.

In the last two years we have seen an increase in the number of students coming to

Lincoln with little to no formal education. As you can imagine, it is a tremendous

challenge getting these students “caught up to speed” in basic academics and then

expecting them to make typical 6-8th grader growth.

● Furthermore, recent research concludes that ELLs who are proficient in English by 8th

grade are two-thirds less likely to fail in 9th grade and half as likely to drop out of high

school compared to those who are not proficient (“Listening and Learning”, Ivannia

Soto, Principal Leadership, February 2012).

Action Plan:

● Add ESL Math classes to support the levels 1 and 2 students.

● Consider new planning options for ELL programming at Lincoln (new “pathways” for

students, consider abandoning the 4 levels and moving to 3 (newcomers/level 1,


approaching/level 2 and nearing proficiency/level 3, possible co-taught periods of

Language Arts).

● Add interventions designed for ELLs in both Language Arts and Mathematics.


● Increased assessment scores in Mathematics for ELLs (MAP, AimsWeb, ISAT and

classroom assessments) as a result of added Math programming and interventions.

● Moving students towards English proficiency at a faster and more rigorous rate.

● Improved quality of instruction for students (they will now have ELL specific

interventions).

● Higher ELL placement or little to no ELL services needed at Niles West High School for

outgoing 8th grade ELLs.


II. ASSESSMENTS:

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate mastery of the above and also as a lead into what

we will do for both remediation and enrichment.

● MAP: MAP testing is currently done at the 3-8th grade level. The administration

recommends adding 2nd grade to the spectrum for the 2012-2013 school year.

Nationally most school districts are using MAP testing grades 2-8. While MAP testing is

available at the K and 1st grade levels, several districts choose not to assess students at

those grade levels due to potential invalidity of scores. It is recommended that we do

add 2nd grade to our assessment group, however, so that these students are prepared

for the MAP experience in grades 3-8. In addition, it is recommended that we adopt the

new Common Core aligned MAP testing for 2012-2013.

● AimsWeb: Currently, we use AimsWeb Curriculum Based Measures to benchmark grade

levels and to monitor the progress of students receiving educational interventions. A

general outcome measure, curriculum based measurement is a useful way to obtain a

snapshot about school performance and to determine if the core programming is

meeting the needs of the majority of students.

● ACCESS: Currently, we use ACCESS for our ELL population. The purpose is to measure

student language acquisition. As students acquire a command of the English language,

we can expect that knowledge to expand beyond social language and into content

knowledge.

● ELL Benchmark Assessments: It is recommended we implement formative assessment of

English language proficiency and progress in the 2012-2013 year. Currently we only have

the ACCESS test. This gives us summative data (final judgment) of student progress and

is only done once per year. We will begin assessing our ELLs’ growth on a more frequent

basis.

● Growth Model and/or Value Tables: Principal Hailpern and I have been having some

interesting conversations about how we can “use” some of the massive amounts of data

that we currently have in a way that will allow us to predict success for students and

teachers.

○ Current changes to Illinois Principal evaluations (SB7 & SB315) will require that a

portion of principal evaluations be connected to student achievement data from

their buildings. We have embarked on the process of creating a tool that will be


both effective and fair. To that end, we started talking about value tables several

months ago and shortly thereafter we began building one.

○ About four weeks ago the State Board of Education suggested that all schools

should be using... (yes, you guessed it) value tables next year with principal

evaluations. I’m sure you’re wondering how we knew what the state board was

going to do before they did, but that’s another story for a different time! (See

Appendix for C5)

○ Needless to say, D69 is well-ahead of the curve. We are going to be using this

model or some variation on the model next year with our principals as indicators

of student success in their buildings. Because the information is specific to

students and connected to teachers, it is not appropriate to show at a board

meeting. Leading up to this planning session, Principal Hailpern and I discussed

ways that we might show some of the elements of the tables and spreadsheets,

but at this point are at a loss on how to do that exactly.

○ We are both very excited at the sheer power of this tool insofar that it will allow

us to drill deep into student success, not in a general sense, but in a very specific

sense and over time.


III. INTERVENTIONS:

MADISON 2012-2013

Background:

● This year, we originally had common planning time in the schedule, but when we lost the music room we were unable to double up classes for music. When it was necessary to add an additional kindergarten section at the start of the year, music was moved to a cart. The music teacher travels from room to room to provide music instruction. Due to space constraints, we were not able to combine classes. As school enrollment increased higher than ever before, we had to add more supervisors during the lunch/recess times for student safety. When all staff members were required to take on extra duties throughout the day, common planning time was greatly affected. This has been challenging for all teams. The kindergarten and second grade teams have chosen to meet outside of our limited school hours to ensure that they have the time to talk about student learning.

● My priority for the 2012-2013 school year is to embed common planning time in the

school day, structure common literature and math blocks, and add a prevention/ intervention/ enrichment block of all grade levels. By converting the stage to a music room, we will be able to double music classes for grades 1-2. Physical Education classes will be doubled for grades 1-2 as well, but we will be able to keep single classes for Kindergarten.

Action Plan: (See Appendix for C6)

● Common Planning Time for Teachers ○ 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week; 1 dedicated to weekly student problem solving ○ Weekly Problem Solving will focus on student data, drive instructional decisions

in core content areas, facilitate flexible grouping in core content areas, and provide critical team meeting time on a weekly basis

○ Four days a week dedicated to monitoring, recording, and making available

interpretations about prior, present, and targeted student achievement. This will

include the progress of students both regularly and across years, using the

information for both planning and evaluating lessons. Teachers will create

targets for all student learning and students will be involved in the goal setting

progress, leading to students taking an active role in their parent teacher

conferences.

● Common Literacy Block ○ 60 minutes of Reading shared across each grade level ○ One additional 30 minute session would be scheduled by each teacher in

addition to the literacy block. This would ensure that all students receive 90 total

minutes of literacy instruction daily.


■ This staffing plan includes the allocation of reading specialists (2) to the core reading block for the differentiated instruction portion of the Reading block.

■ These staff members will teach a section of reading during the Reading block.

■ Doing this will lower class sizes significantly and make the flexible portion more manageable. For example, if numbers are to maintain the same, we would have an approximate class size of 18 for reading in KG and first grade and 20 for reading in second grade.

● Common Math Block ○ 1 - 60 minute math block shared across each grade level. ○ Accelerated opportunities will be offered at each grade level, KG-2. ○ Flexible grouping opportunities will be offered across each grade level, KG-2. ○ This staffing plan includes the addition of a math specialist to the core math

block for the purpose of lowering class size during core instruction. This

specialist will facilitate the necessary rigor for the adoption of the Common Core

and will provide guidance about math interventions.

○ Class sizes for math will lower and make the flexible portion more manageable.

For example, if numbers are to maintain the same, we would have a class size of

18 for math in KG and first grade and 20 for math in second grade.

● Common Prevention/ Intervention/ Enrichment Block

○ Accelerated opportunities will be offered at each grade.

○ Enrichment and remedial opportunities will be offered at each grade, KG-2.

■ All certified staff members will provide instruction during the Enrichment

block.

Indicators of Achievement

Ultimately, increased student achievement should be the biproduct of all action plan

changes. However, other indicators can also be measured. Team meeting notes and

agendas will indicate an increase in common planning time and the use of this time

under the PLC model. Meeting minutes should include student specific problem solving

weekly, allowing for greater flexibility for student movement between intervention

tiers.


EDISON 2012-2013

Background:

We have seen class sizes remain relatively stable over the past few years, but they are

undoubtedly high. Our collective goal this winter has been to find ways to lower class

size in core content areas (Reading, Writing, Math). In addition, my staffing

recommendation is designed to provide classroom teachers with common plan time five

days a week. This plan is homeroom teacher weighted in that it is intentionally designed

to provide more time, flexibility, and support towards the classroom teachers who

spend ⅔ of the day with their students. Given the design, there are drawbacks that were

considered and ultimately decided to be acceptable challenges for the coming year.

These primarily include the typical class size in specials.

Action Plan: (See Appendix for C7)

To enact our goal in planning for 2012-2013 (lower class size in reading, writing and math AND provide grade level teachers with common planning time) we need to increase the special offerings at Edison. It is proposed that LMC and Drama, taught by certified staff on a similar schedule to Art, be offered at Edison. This will give each grade level 5 special offerings from which students can learn during the common planning block (Drama, Art, LMC, PE, and Music).

● Common Planning Time for Teachers ○ 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week; 1 dedicated to weekly student problem solving ○ Weekly Problem Solving will focus on student data, drive instructional decisions

in core content areas, facilitate flexible grouping in core content areas, and provide critical team meeting time on a weekly basis.

○ Our model for training and conducting ongoing problem solving will be the “I do, We do, You do” model. Year 1 will be facilitated for the teams by our building leadership with ongoing training of the team in preparation for year 2. Year 2 will be a shared responsibility to lead the problem solving. In year 3, the expectation will be for teams to be independently functioning in problem solving meetings, using our format for conducting problem solving, and making sound educational decisions about groups based upon acceptable data.

● Common Literacy Block ○ 90 minutes of Reading shared across each grade level.

■ 1 - 45 minute block for direct instruction purposes.

■ 1 - 45 minute block for differentiated instruction, flexible grouping.

● This staffing plan includes the allocation of reading specialists (2)

to the core reading block for the differentiated instruction portion

of the Reading block.


● These addition staff members will teach a section of reading

during the flexible group time.

● Doing this will lower class sizes significantly and make the flexible

portion more manageable across the board.

● Common Math Block ○ 1 - 60 minute math block shared across each grade level

■ Stagnant accelerated opportunities will be offered at each grade level. We will consider using the grade level above textbooks for classes that are developmentally ready

■ Flexible group opportunities will be offered across each grade level ■ This staffing plan includes the addition of a math specialist to the core

math block for the purpose of lowering class size during core instruction. This specialist will also be instrumental in expanding our services for students struggling with core mathematical concepts at all three grade levels.

● Common Writing Block ○ 1 - 45 minute writing block shared across each grade level

■ Staffing allocations are made to increase the number of sections during

the writing block, which will lower the class sizes, and increase feedback

opportunities for students. Careful study of the master schedule will

show that multiple staff members are being asked to stretch themselves

in this area in a way they have not had to before.


● Ultimately, increased student achievement should be the bi-product of all action plan changes.

● Benchmarking and formative assessment data will show us a great deal about how students are doing in the present. This data will further help us study our long term trajectory of academic progress. (Bi-annually and as part of the retreat)

● Correlation Analysis - A study will have to be conducted to ascertain what extent

student growth is a result of class size, school structure, time allocation to subject

matter, staffing allocation, or none at all. This will be a comprehensive study looking at

historical student and cohort data verses the present performance data alongside a

survey that asks key environmental questions of students and staff. (Ongoing)

● Team meeting notes and agendas will indicate an increase in common planning time

and the use of this time under the PLC model. Meeting minutes should include student

specific problem solving weekly, allowing for greater flexibility for student movement

between intervention tiers. (Ongoing)


LINCOLN 2012-2013 (See Appendix for C8)

Background:

● We need to provide a model that fits the needs of our current student population. The scheduling model, and offerings we currently have, is something that was established years ago when our population was much different in terms of needs. To illustrate:

○ Percentage of Low Income students in 2000, 19%, in 2011, 54%

○ Percentage of White students in 2000, 54%, in 2011, 38%

○ Percentage of Black students in 2000, 6%, in 2011, 12%

○ Percentage of Hispanic students in 2000, 9%, in 2011, 18%

● With Response to Intervention and the Common Core Standards, we need to re-

prioritize what we do and how we do it. After researching and discussing scheduling

models with successful middle schools, ideally we would implement a block-type

format. Examining this further and being mindful of financial considerations, the model

created under this format would not be plausible. While this model features class sizes

of 15-20 and core instructional time over 70 minutes, and is something that would best

fit our needs, at this time it cannot become a reality. The changes being recommended

should allow us to build into this ideal model within the next three years barring any

unexpected shifts in our financial and enrollment projections.

● The following components are part of the overall recommendation:

○ Adjusting Lincoln’s start and stop times to reflect Edison’s times and

consequently, Edison taking on Lincoln’s current start and stop times. This would

mean a start time for students at 8:25am and a dismissal time of 3:00pm.

The rationale for this is partly based upon research regarding young adolescent

learners and their “prime-time” for acquiring knowledge in the late morning

hours. The other factors behind this change involve the next recommendation

and some of the needs being addressed at Edison with this time change.

○ Moving Band/Chorus/Orchestra to an “overture” hour before the official student

day begins (7:30am to 8:20am). The will allow us to break up our Band and

Chorus programs into grade configurations; a 6th and a 7th/8th grouping. Doing

so would allow students to take both Band and Chorus along with Orchestra.

These groups would meet twice a week for 100 minutes total followed by a

Friday meeting of Orchestra and an all-Chorus meeting. The rationale for this

move is based on two major factors. 1) By moving these programs outside the

school day, flexibility is afforded to core instructional time and interventions for

struggling students following our legal RTI mandates. 2) We can potentially


improve our programs and student performances. The time in these programs

would be increased and the instruction running outside the student day allows

for a more focused and dedicated student group to participate.

○ Add two Math teachers to the staff: The rationale for this is based upon a few

factors. First, this addition will allow us to have an ELL sheltered math class and a

true math interventionist. Secondly, it will bring the number of math sections at

each grade level from 7 to 10. These additional sections will bring class sizes

down to a range of 18 to 20 students. Lastly, the additional Math staff will

enable us to implement a new textbook series in the most ideal environment set

up for success. Given the need to raise our math performance in line with the

upward trends seen in Reading, this infusion of personnel should help us to

attain that goal.

○ Adjusting the exploratory offerings to allow for interventions to be delivered

with integrity. In order to accommodate some of the initiatives at Edison and to

align our RTI interventions up against exploratory classes, Lincoln would reduce

the amount of exploratory sections being offered. Specifically, Drama would only

be offered at 7th and 8th grade to allow the teacher to teach Drama classes at

Edison in the morning. This mirrors what currently happens with Art at Lincoln

with the teacher starting his day at Edison. We would also eliminate the

exploratory class being taught by our District Library Coordinator so that she

could teach classes at Edison.

○ The rationale for these adjustments is based upon two main factors. The first

one is that by doing so, Edison is able to deliver some much needed Literacy

support to their students. The other factor is that we do not need as many

exploratory classes if we are doing our RTI interventions against such classes.

Running our interventions against the exploratory classes allows students to

“flex” in and out of an exploratory class as opposed to a core class. With the

need to have flexible interventions and delivery mechanisms, this is important.

One of the results of this change would be that students who are in need of a

Reading or Math intervention would only have one period of exploratory classes

as opposed to two. However, students who take Band/Chorus/Orchestra would

be able to take two exploratory classes or one if they choose to take Spanish in

addition to the music before school.

○ The addition of an Advisory period held at the start of school. This period would

be 18 minutes long and is facilitated by taking ten minutes out of lunch and

making lunch a 30 minute period. This period would be facilitated by all teachers

to allow for small student groups of 10-17. The rationale for this type of class is

based upon the research around effective middle school models. While the ideal


time allotted for this type of period is 20-30 minutes, given our time/financial

constraints, this is a success. In this class, teachers would focus on some basic

skills dealing with organization and study skills, along with a large component of

character education. The last part involving character education is one of the

vital pieces missing from our formal programs at Lincoln. While there are

countless examples of character education going on in and around the

classrooms at Lincoln, there are no formal means to meet this need. The truth is

that even in this model, more time and effort would be needed to create the

ideal Advisory program but this time and class are a much needed start to the

ideal.

○ Alter the Language Arts and Science class structures toward differentiation.

Currently, we offer advanced Language Arts at the 7th and 8th grades and

advanced Science at the 8th grade. While the rationale for offering this type of

class is based upon meeting the needs of students, the reality is that by doing so,

we do a disservice a majority of our students by locking certain students into

class times that are consistent with the same students. Our Language Arts

program was meant to allow for teachers to “flex” their students between two

teachers at a grade level depending on the content being taught and the pre-

assessment data on the students. What happens with the advanced classes

running is that the students during this time do not flex because the advanced

class is a different content.

If we are truly following and committed to offering a differentiated model of

curriculum, then this type of structure will not work. The only exception to this is

with the Mathematics classes because of the nature of the curriculum and its

structure of building blocks.

○ Addition of sheltered ELL Math course for ELLs classified as Level 1 or 2.

○ Team taught LA courses for ELLs classified as Level 3.

○ Reduction of ELL levels to 1, 2, 3 (elimination of Level 4).


● The change in the overall scheduling model will allow for much more fluidity when it comes to core content delivery. The dedicated blocks of instructional time for core content areas will lend itself to team flexibility in grade level interdisciplinary units.

● Our delivery of interventions under the proposed plan will maximize student time so that students get even more exposure to much needed opportunity areas in their learning. The end result of this will be an increase in student learning and hence, more students attaining their growth goals.


● The addition of an Advisory program coupled with a more comprehensive Character program should translate to a decrease in social and behavioral concerns. Even more importantly, the students will be getting more direct instruction when it comes to appropriate social and behavioral skills, enabling our students to be better prepared for the social issues they face in and out of middle school.


RtI/PBIS:

Background:

● We currently have splintered strengths in all three buildings in regard to RtI

implementation. We are providing reading interventions consistently to students who

are significantly below grade level. We are not currently providing math or writing

intervention. Each building uses their own decision rules to determine who receives

intervention and at what Tier or level of service. We have inconsistent documentation of

the supports students receive. We use a one size fits all approach to intervention

instead of identifying the skill deficit and matching the intervention to the need.

● Currently doing most of the problem solving/intervention at the building level. Grade

level teams are not involved and classroom teachers have little availability to have

ownership in the process. This is not time efficient for meeting student needs. There is a

long wait time to get on the schedule. Without common planning time for teachers we

are restricted to looking at students one by one at the building level.

● We recently created a District RtI team in order to begin the process of streamlining our

RtI services between schools. This team meets regularly and consists of general

education teachers from most grade levels/content areas, specialists from each

building, and administrators. This year the team focused on core curriculum and

implementation integrity. The second half of this year the team’s focus will be on

creating consistent decision rules for determining students in need of intervention,

documentation of supports given, and what interventions are currently available in

district.

Action Plan:

● With the addition of common plan time weekly for K-8 teachers we are able to create a

structure and system of early intervention services at Tier 2. This will provide a more

preventative approach to intervening with students before they reach an intensive level

(Tier 3). Teachers will be trained in the Problem Solving Model, the intervention

continuum available, and how to document student needs, intervention, goals, and

growth.

● In collaboration with the I-RtI Network grant we recently received, we will create

Problem Solving Teams at each grade level, building level, and district to meet student

needs in a more preventative approach that provides intervention as soon as the

student needs it. These teams will allow for fluid movement between Tiers as students


require more, different, or decreased support. Being fluid and flexible is often more

difficult than it sounds, so we are working hard and fast to ensure we are successful.

● Identify and purchase additional interventions that will remediate specific skill deficits

and that will provide a continuum of supports in reading, math, and writing that align

with core curriculum in each area.

● The District RtI team will meet regularly next year to continue the work on

Interventions, Decision Rules, Documentation, Implementation Integrity, and

Sustainability of RtI in the district.

Indicators of Success:

● Each building will have a problem solving team at the grade level (group problem solving

for Tier 2 intervention), building level (individual problem solving for Tier 3 intervention

and leadership for RtI for the building), and district level (provide consistency across the

district, identify continued areas of need, sustainability of RtI).

● Students are offered a continuum of intervention, supports, and services for enrichment

and remediation. Report to be generated for District Leadership Team at the conclusion

of each quarter.

● Consistent decision rules and documentation supports students from grade to grade

and building to building.


LIBRARY SETTING, SERVICES & DELIVERY:

Background:

● Our library model was one of several affected areas from the restructuring of 2010-

2011. In prior years, we had a dedicated and certified staff member in each library

throughout the District. Only one of our certified staff members was Library Certified,

however. School Code indicates that a District must have one certified librarian on staff,

so we were Code compliant but did not feel that having a non-certificated librarian was

the best use for current staff.

● Also considered was the growing class sizes, the need for small group differentiation

and overall budget cuts. This led us to recommend moving certified staff back into

classroom positions, maintaining one certified librarian on staff (overseeing all libraries

throughout the district) and hiring three classified staff members to oversee the day-to-

day operations of the library. There was no change in the overall number of personnel

serving students. We did shift from mostly certified to mostly classified staff, however.

● Also of concern is the amount of content in our Libraries. As the state has discontinued

its obligation to purchase textbooks, the District has picked up that cost (several

hundred thousand dollars). This has come at a cost to library materials.

● In short- the content, structure and personnel were affected in the 2011-2012 school

year. We have fully deployed that action plan. We have no quantitative data to suggest

a negative impact on the number of books checked out, the quality of services as

reported by students or overall literacy instruction. We do, however, have negative

qualitative data to suggest this is not the most desirable model.

Action Plan:

● By staffing the libraries, students are free to check out books when needed during the

majority of school hours. We recognize the staffing may not be optimal- but that it does

serve the overall purpose of having a direct contact in each library.

● Beyond the full staff support, we also ask teachers to coordinate the library experience

for students either directly (being present in the library) or from the classroom with

explicit instruction.

● Library director will oversee District libraries and be scheduled a portion of every day in

order to fulfill those obligations.



● Continue to monitor the number of books checked out by students ● Literacy scores, progress, scale, and growth scores


IV. SPECIAL EDUCATION:

Background:

● Since the start of the year, the focus has been on the results of the Focused Monitoring

report that was completed in June 2011. Sue Shallcross and her team from ISBE

completed a thorough evaluation of our compliance with federal and state special

education law and regulations while also addressing critical performance areas. The ISBE

team identified several positive aspects of our current special education services.

○ District 69 has made a commitment to educating more students with disabilities within district. Students who have been placed in outside facilities are now within district schools and programs.

○ Co-teaching component is expanding across the district. ○ Addition of administrative position at the district level to provide support and

consistency of special education services. ○ Survey responses reflect widespread support for the special education program

and the district’s efforts to include students with disabilities in general education.

○ Staff indicated they felt a part of the decision-making process at IEP meetings.

● The ISBE team also identified several areas in need of improvement. ○ Lack of a special education administrator to coordinate program and delivery of

service resulted in inconsistency within and between schools, insufficient professional development, and lack of understanding and implementation of current practices in special education delivery - Completed

○ District description of special education placement options was a description of RtI tiers – Ongoing

○ District’s emphasis on RtI does not foster a clear understanding or implementation of special education services - Completed

○ Inconsistent encoding and reporting of data to the state reporting system. - Completed

○ Over the past 3 years a steady decrease in the percent of students with disabilities in general education more than 80% of the school day (53.3% to 36.8%). Currently, district 69 has nearly double the amount of students in out of district separate facilities than similar districts (9.3% compared to 5%) - Completed

○ Students with cognitive, learning, emotional, and other health impairments are removed from general education at higher percentages when compared to similar districts in the state - Completed

○ Parent forum indicated that a packet is sent home prior to the meeting that indicates placement, in addition parents reported that the team “just tells you”, and surveys indicated that some parents reported not being active participants in discussions during IEP meetings - Completed


○ Interviews with staff members provided recurrent themes; placement options are limited to either co-teaching in the general education or a placement in instructional settings, confusion regarding RtI being a substitute for Special Education - Completed

○ Pre-IEP meetings occur where the team discusses student progress and recommended placement - Completed

○ Interviews indicated that students identified with behavior problems are placed in instructional rooms because general education faculty do not have the training or ability to deal with these students - Ongoing

○ 26 of 29 IEPs reviewed demonstrated deficiencies in compliance - Completed

● Immediate action items identified by the state are: o Pre-IEP meetings must stop immediately. - Completed o Staff must be aware of their responsibilities for each student within 10 school

days. - Completed o Correction of 26 IEPs that were designated with deficient areas. 100%

compliance mandated. - Completed o Creation of a District Improvement Plan that sets goals in areas of

noncompliance (professional development, continuum of services and placement, and least restrictive environment) with input from administration, general education teachers, special education teachers, and related service personnel. - Ongoing

o Long term compliance indicators that the district must address: o Professional development for certified and paraprofessional staff on providing

services to students with disabilities in the general education setting including the areas of behavior, legal requirements of IEP development and implementation, and current vocabulary in describing special education policies and practices - Completed

o Selection of 20 additional IEPs for review of compliance in February 2012. – Upcoming

o Interviews of district and building administrators and a sample of general and special educators in February 2012. - Upcoming

o District data must improve in the area of restrictive placement by an increase of 10% of students receiving 80% or more of the school day within the general education environment by June 2013 - Completed

● In-district special education classrooms EC-8th grade.

○ Out of district percentage of students in special education was 9.9% in SY 09-10,

9.3% SY 10-11, 12.6% fall 2011, and currently 8.7%.

○ 16 students returned since winter 2011. ○ 2 more transitioning winter 2012. ○ Possibility of 3-5 additional students returning for the 2012-2013 school year.


● Currently the district website does not provide parents with information on support

services provided in the district.

Action Items

● Reallocation of resources to meet Focused Monitoring goals and improve the continuum of special education services to students with disabilities

○ Increase psych to 1.0 FTE per building to facilitate Early Intervention, Transitions, Play Based Assessments, Special Education Meetings, Mental Health services, Section 504 Plans, and Life Threatening Allergies

○ Reduce Social Work by 1.0 FTE for district. The current ratio is 1:299. The

recommendation for social work by the National Association of School Social

Workers is a ration of 1:400. With this reduction the ratio will be 1:358 for the

district.

○ Increased use of the Co-teaching model which provides students with and without special education needs to be supported in the general education environment. No projected increase in staff, reallocation of current staff is necessary.

○ Reduction of 1.0 FTE special education teacher due to the reduction of a self-contained classroom by changing the continuum of special education.

● In-District vs. Out-of-District Services: ○ Recommend the transfer of services to in district for

■ In district special education classrooms to meet the needs of students

with more intensive needs that will 1) provide inclusion opportunities to

students 2) provide services to students in the least restrictive

environment 3) Cost savings

■ Occupational Therapy Services. By hiring in district we will provide greater flexibility to meet student needs, provide motor/sensory intervention, and have a comprehensive team for Play Based Assessments

■ Early Intervention Transition and Play Based Assessment. In district team

will work with families transitioning to public school services at age 3,

consistent team will complete the evaluation, eligibility and plan for early

childhood students, and the same evaluation team will be the service

providers to students identified as eligible for special education.

● Strengthen Home School Connections (Board Goal- Stakeholder Relations) ○ Development of website detailing support services in District 69 that includes

RtI, Section 504, and Special Education

○ Blog that provides current news and information related to these areas relevant

to parents and the community



● Completion of Focused Monitoring goals on or before deadlines set by Illinois State

Board of Education (ongoing) (See Appendix for C9)

● In-district classrooms and teams assess and serve more students than in previous years

(progress check at the conclusion of every year delivered through the Administrative

Board Report)

● Website and blog accessible by parents and community (ongoing)


V. PRESCHOOL PROGRAMMING Background:

● As an administrative team, we wanted to think through any ramifications for our District should the State of Illinois begin defaulting on Early Childhood grant payments. We also must consider the implications should the State decide to no longer offer grant incentives (money) for Preschool programming. Our question was essentially this, “what would the financial implications be for our District if the State no longer funds PreK and we were to close down our programming”?

○ Approximately 7-10 instructional students in special education would need to be outplaced yearly - for 2-3 years of preschool - $22,000 per student for tuition and busing.

○ Approximately 15-20 students outplaced to blended preschool program yearly for 2-3 years - $15,000 per student

What we’ve discovered is that it still remains a better option to maintain current programming should the State no longer fund PreK. The unfortunate reality, however, is that our District will need to secure the funding from current resources. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to allow for an added expense of several hundred thousand dollars and this money would need to be committed from other funds. (See Appendix for C10)

● Preschool for All (PFA) grant change ramifications: As you recall, what was previously an

entitlement turned to a competitive grant last year (Spring of 2011). We were awarded

grant funding (and an excess of roughly 115K from years past). The grant application for

FY13 has not yet been released, but there has been word from the state that the

process will become even more competitive. In order to be considered a “priority 1”

group by the state, we need to move to a 100% state-funded (no tuition-based)

preschool program. This is going to be a cultural shift for our TOPS staff and our

community. In order to have the best chance at securing funding, we need to move to

serving only “at risk” students. (See Appendix for C11)

Action Plan: (Recommendation)

● Spring:

○ Plan A:

■ Wait for grant protocol to be released.

■ We will complete the grant request in the hopes of securing funding for

the 2012-2013 school year as soon as the grant becomes available.

■ We will inform our TOPS staff of potential changes to the grant and

classroom structure and afford any/all professional development

necessary. We will become much less tuition based in our PreK

programming as a result.


■ Inform the parent community of any potential changes and update

frequently.

○ “Plan B”

■ If D 69 is unsuccessful in securing a grant, our program will adjust to that

we can maximize the tuition paying students in order to ensure some

revenue stream for the current programming.

■ We will immediately inform TOPS staff and parent community.

● Summer:

○ Potential re-training of TOPS staff

Indicators of success:

● Secure grant funds for the 2012-2013 school year.

● Maintain viable PreK programs for our students.

● Maintain programs in such a way that we do not send our PreK students to be served in

another program/District.

● Status report to be given in the Fall as grant funds and classrooms become stabilized.


VI. SUMMER SCHOOL:

Rationale:

● Historically, we’ve had variations on a summer school program. This has taken different forms and generally could be seen in two ways. The first vantage point was one where students were being held in summer school in order to be promoted to their next grade level which came about because of their failure in a class. This meant students would have to complete a condensed version of the content they failed. The other vantage point was one where students were enrolled in summer school due to their failure in class but more to do with the students’ poor choices throughout the year and their lack of engagement in school in general. Over the past six months we have been discussing modifications to our approach to summer school due to what is seen as an inadequate system. Rather than enabling students to succeed in a given area of academic difficulty, the program looked more like a punishment for students and was not targeted enough in the skills that students were deficient in. It has become evident that students who need targeted assistance may need academic interventions and/or behavioral interventions. Further discussions have led us to believe that a two-tiered approach to summer school is warranted, this is supported by the research related to retention of students beyond grade three as well as the research behind early interventions.

Recommendation: ● We recommend a summer school program for grades 5-7. The program will focus on

two components: Academic needs and Behavioral needs. ○ The Academic component will be concentrated in the area of literacy and

mathematics. ○ The Behavior component will center around student engagement, motivation,

focus, and behavior in and out of the classroom. Action Plan:

● February/March: In order to come up with a list of potential students, the following

steps will be taken:

1) Grade level teams will go through their grade level class list and indicate whether they have a concern as it relates to these two areas. For this part of the process, “academic concerns” will be defined as vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, number sense, and computation skills. For the Behavior concerns, they will be defined as engagement, focus, motivation, and behavior.

2) The RTI team representative will tally the totals for each area per student. 3) The result will be a numerical indicator in behavior and academics for each

student. 4) Once that list is compiled per grade level, we will look at the bottom 20% of

students and apply a rubric to each area as another indicator of need. 5) The Academic rubric will emanate from GPA (specific to LA and Math), MAP

scores, and AIMSweb/M-Comp.


6) The Behavior rubric will emanate from a teacher survey utilizing a Likert scale for

various behavior components. In addition, office referrals will be used.

● March - Initial Parent and Student Notification.

● April/May - Work with teachers on the program specifics.


● We will measure student achievement before the summer school session using the MAP

scores.

● We will post test at the conclusion of summer school.

● We will compare summer school students to non-summer schooled peers to measure

regression tendencies.


VII. RIGHT AT SCHOOL: (http://www.rightatschool.com/) Background/Rationale:

● Current after-school programming is adequate for student needs. It is provided by the Park District and comes at a relatively low cost to the District. The programming is supervised, usually without incident and enjoyed by many students. It does not offer an opportunity for snacks. It does not offer an opportunity for academic support.

Action Plan:

● Create a second after-school option for kids/families at a similar cost with a slightly different focus. Focus of the program will be greater structure and goal oriented. To date we have:

○ Met with several potential providers

○ Collected literature and performed reference checks

○ Interviewed one provider as an administrative team

○ Performed a site visit

○ Negotiated a tentative agreement

○ Surveyed parents

○ Performed a cost analysis

Recommendation:

● The Board of Education is presented with Right at School as the best option for our students/parents. Upon approval, we will:

○ Spring 2012- Begin working with Right at School and our parent community in order to explain the details, rationale and structure. We will post cost structures for parents.

○ Summer 2012- N/A ○ Fall 2012- enroll students as part of registration for Right at School

programming. ■ Right at School will hire staff (pre-service teachers) and begin

programming

Indicators of Achievement: ● We will track the enrollment in the Park District (SPACE) programming to ascertain the

effect on enrollment ● We will track the enrollment in Right at School programming ● We will track the achievement scores of students enrolled in Right at School against a

control group in order to report our findings during the retreat, Feb. 2013.

http://www.rightatschool.com/









Technology


21st CENTURY LEARNING:

Moodle/Web 2.0:

● Action Plan: ○ Provide ongoing professional development. As there are competing needs for

teachers’ professional development time the majority of hands-on technology related professional development will be provided over the summer break.

○ Continue developing “job aides” and tutorials for on-demand learning for staff.

● Indicators of Achievement ○ Moodle:

■ Increase number of courses offered by staff for students (blended learning, anywhere/anytime access) as measured by both quantity of courses, amount and quality of content, and by staff technology surveys.

● Data will be presented to the Board at the annual planning retreat

with February 2012 setting the benchmark regarding number of

courses/utilization. In addition to the aforementioned

quantitative data I will work to review the quality of the

use/content with school principals. Qualitative data will be

presented in a general summary format.

■ Increased use by school/district for staff members for PLCs, PLNs, and Knowledge-base(s)

○ Web 2.0: ■ Increased integration by staff into student learning opportunities and

assignments as measured by observation and student/staff technology

surveys.

STEM LAB (Project Lead the Way’s Gateway to Technology Program):

Background:

● Gateway to Technology is intended for grades six through eight, is offered as

independent, nine-week units that explore Science Technology Engineering and Math

(STEM) related topics. In the summer of 2010 districts in the area started to install

PTLW Gateway to Technology labs. Therese Block (Applied Technology teacher) and I

researched the PLTW program and contacted districts who had implemented (D219,

D57, D73). In order to prepare students for further exposure to STEM curriculum at

D219 it was determined migrating from our existing program was warranted. In the

winter 2011 it was determined the most cost effective time to migrate would be the

2012-2013 year as it coincided with the hardware replacement cycle. Research indicated


grant funds were available to offset the cost of software, equipment and professional

development. Summer 2011 Paul Bleuher (Principal, LJHS) was in contact with and

conducted a site visit to Oakton Community College’s STEM lab. In the fall 2011 I

submitted an online application to Project Lead the Way indicating D69 was intending to

implement a STEM lab in Fall 2013. Therese Block and I attended a meeting of Township

schools who had installed, or were considering installing the Gateway to Technology

STEM lab.

○ Link to Harvard University Study on PLTW STEM Labs

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosper

ity_Feb2011.pdf

Action Plan:

● Attend meetings with local schools who have implemented Project Lead the Way. (Fall, 2011).

● Site visits of schools at D219, D73 and D57 (Fall, 2011 and Winter 2012).

● Submission of application (January 20, 2012).

● Evaluate existing AP Tech space and equipment for use with new program with double the number of computer stations (Winter 2012).

● Development of multi-year budget for phased deployment and subsequent submission of PLTW Implementation Fund Grant, formally the Kern Family Foundation Grant for STEM implementation (Winter 2012).

● Staff training (Summer 2012, 2013 and 2014).

● 3 year phased implementation (Summers 2012, 2013 and 2014)

Indicators of Achievement: ● Alignment with D219’s Project Lead the Way labs resulting in an increase in the number

of Lincoln students who take Project Lead the Way STEM courses at Niles West High

School (we will contact D219 to see how this is currently tracked and if/when they would

be able to provide this data for reporting purposes).

(See Appendix for T1 - D219 Brochure)

● Feedback from stakeholders - As we phase in the modules students will be surveyed to

elicit feedback relating to their experiences and attitudes toward the STEM curriculum.

In addition Technology, Science and Math staff will be requested to provide anecdotal

information relating to any impact they feel the program may have across the

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf


curriculum. Data obtained from surveys and staff will be reported to the Board at their

regularly scheduled June meetings.

COMMUNICATIONS & COLLABORATION:

Staff Web Pages: Background:

● District 69 has made teacher web pages available to staff for many years with a limited number of staff maintaining them. With the move to our content management system last year (Joomla) we were able to provide teachers anywhere/ anytime access to easy to maintain pages and blogs. To support district goals related to improving communications with stakeholders, staff participating in the 1:1 laptop deployment were required to create and maintain web pages and/or blogs. Many staff not participating in the 1:1 is also now maintaining teacher or team pages. Principals’ roles related to the increase in pages has been significant and in accord with research indicating the school principal is the single most important factor in the level and degree of technology integration there is with the curriculum. Training sessions are being offered for using Joomla to maintain pages and blogs to include what is appropriate for a static teacher page versus what would be better posted to their blogs. Teacher blogs have been named “69 Seconds” whose name was suggested by a parent with the idea that teachers could take 69 seconds a few times a week to provide updates relating to their student activities and learning opportunities. Addresses NETS-T Standards: 3: a,b,c,c and 4: a,b,c,d http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx

Action Plan: ● Provide ongoing training and support (both technical and moral) to staff as they develop

Joomla items for student and parent communications.


● Monitor number of pages staff maintain/develop. An analysis of the increase in the

number of pages to be reported (Board Planning Session 2013).

● Track and report growth by number of teacher maintained pages/blogs and the number

of page hits as identified by the counters for their pages/blogs (counters will be reset

yearly)

● Use of Google Analytics to evaluate web traffic patterns. We will begin by reporting bi-

annually. The reporting period will be modified if it is determined there is a need for

more or less frequent reporting.

http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-teachers/nets-for-teachers-2008.aspx
























Dashboards: Background:

● In order to provide snapshot views of key metrics to stakeholders several educational

implementations of Dashboards for presenting key data were reviewed.

Educational Dashboard Examples

○ D34 (IL) - http://www.glenview34.org/aboutUs/dashboard.asp

○ FISD (Tx) - http://www.friscoisd.org/ly/dashboard/dashboard.asp

○ D123 (IL) - http://www.d123.org/board-of-education/District-Dashboard.cfm

○ D202 (IL) - http://www.eths.k12.il.us/about_eths/data_dashboard.aspx

Following the review of dashboards multiple vendors were identified and trial versions

of their products were obtained and assessed (both fee-based and open source

versions). While the fee-based versions had some ease of use features and included

training the cost was determined to be prohibitive. An open source application was

selected and testing is ongoing.

Action Plan:

● Working with departments to develop dashboards ○ Currently working with Mr. Miller (Operations and Finance) to develop “Finance

and Operations” dashboard elements. (Summer 2012) ○ Begin work with Ms. Vladika (Curriculum and Personnel) to identify elements for

“Curriculum” and/or “Student Performance” dashboard(s) (Summer 2012) ○ Deploy “Curriculum” and/or “Student Performance” dashboard(s) (Fall 2012)

○ Dashboards will be updated annually or semi-annually as appropriate to begin

with.


● Providing key data related to student learning performance, financial health and goals,

and other key metrics that will be identified as measured by informal and formal

feedback (conversations, communications and surveys). Data will be reported to the

Board at the 2013 Board retreat.

● Demonstration of completed Dashboard to the Board of Education (January 2013)

http://www.glenview34.org/aboutUs/dashboard.asp













http://www.friscoisd.org/ly/dashboard/dashboard.asp















http://www.d123.org/board-of-education/District-Dashboard.cfm



















http://www.eths.k12.il.us/about_eths/data_dashboard.aspx






















TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT & SUSTAINABILITY: Core Infrastructure (Network, Wireless, Security and Phones):

Network Switches and Firewall: Background:

● The primary switches which connect schools are approaching 10 years old. The majority

of switches in the schools are a combination of managed and unmanaged switches from

a variety of manufactures. As we have expanded the number of computers and services

in our schools the need to redesign our wide-area-network into separate VLANs that will

improve network performance

(See Appendix for T2 - VLAN Performance Enhancements)

● In addition to the performance enhancements come switches will need to be POE

(Power-Over-Ethernet). These type switches provide power to certain devices via the

network cable, eliminating the need to install power outlets for wireless access points

and security cameras.

Action Plan:

● D69 staff and outside consultants to evaluate current deployment of core devices (Fall 2011).

● Develop infrastructure design (Fall 2011) and criteria for eRate RFP.

● RFP posted on eRate site (January 2012).

● Determine vendor and develop implementation timeline (February - April 2012).

● Implementation and testing (Summer 2012)

○ Indicators of Achievement ■ Improved performance (see VLAN performance enhancements)

■ Decrease in the work orders/support requests related to slow network

speeds and dropped connections (Measured internally).

● Wireless ○ Background: As we continue the shift from desktop computer workstations to

mobile devices the demands on our current wireless infrastructure have exceeded its capabilities. In the Winter of 2011, Priority Level 2 eRate funding was applied for. To date there has been no determination if the project will be funded. We have reapplied for Priority Level 2 eRate funding for wireless at Lincoln and submitted initial applications for Edison and Madison. Regardless of


eRate wireless upgrades at Lincoln have been budgeted for will be completed this summer. eRate requirements and time lines will be adhered to in case funding is later awarded. Existing wireless access points at Lincoln will be used to alleviate wireless access coverage issues at Edison and Madison.

Action Plan: ● Develop criteria for eRate RFP (Fall 2011).

● RFP posted on eRate site (January 2012).

● Determine vendor and develop implementation timeline (February - April 2012).



● Improved coverage and performance for wireless technologies. ● Eliminate negative impact dropped wireless connections have on assessment and

learning uses.

Security Cameras: Background:

● The cameras in all three of the buildings are older analog cameras with several being in need of replacement due to poor image quality. With replacement of our schools’ security Network Video Recorders (NVR) we have the ability to deploy additional cameras without expending the systems current configuration.

Action Plan: ● Re-evaluate the deployment of cameras with the purpose of identifying access points

and areas schools have identified as needing camera coverage. This will necessitate the

purchase of additional cameras. (Spring 2012)

● Deploy cameras as identified by need and priority. (Summer 2012)


● Skokie and Morton Grove Police and Fire departments will have view-only access to our cameras via web URLs.

● We will have better coverage school access points and key locations.


Phones: Background:

● Existing phone systems are approximately 10 years old. At Lincoln and Madison phones function as the primary public address system for the schools. Problems associated with the use and management of the systems continues to increase as the systems age. Several years ago when maintenance issues began to increase extended warranties were purchased. As the systems ages the annual cost of the warranties increase (currently approximately $6,000).

Action Plan:

● D69 staff conducted site visits of other district (D219 and D203) as well as a visit to Cisco’s demonstration site to evaluate systems deployments and capabilities. (Fall 2011)

● Develop infrastructure design (Fall 2011) and criteria for RFP.

● Post Phones RFP on our web site and send to vendors (January 2012)

● Determine vendor and evaluate feasibility based on cost of solutions presented (February - March 2012)

● Present to Board of Education for approval in proceeding (April 2012)


Indicators of Achievement: ● Reduced tech support due to issues related to aging systems (e.g. restarts due to lost

direct dialing between systems, site systems not accessible by management software.

● Never experiencing a major phone system outage at one of the schools. Open Source Resources (Joomla, Moodle, Fusion Charts, CM, and Libre Office): Background:

● Technology utilization for both administrative and instructional needs continues to increase.

Action Plan: ● Continue to identify, evaluate, implement and assess open source resources for both

administrative and instructional use for all current and future applications.

● Develop support from administration and staff related to the adoption of open source

technologies prior to implementation (note: at times there may be the need for an

administrative decision to move forward with an open source adoption without support


from a majority when a significant benefit can be realized related to student learning

and/or financial savings).


● New implementations and adoptions will be open source.

● Reduce need to budget new funds for adoptions of software-based technologies.

● Utilization of open source technologies by staff and students as measured by annual

Technology surveys. Data will be reported to the Board at the annual planning retreat.

Note: Due to increased need to monitor implementations and make timely

modifications Technology surveys will be changed from bi-annual to annual.

See Appendix for Winter 2012 Survey Data:

● Staff: o T3 - Madison School o T4 - Edison School o T5 - Lincoln Junior High School

● Students: o T6 - Edison School o T7 - Lincoln Junior High School

● Home: o T8 - District 69 Home/Parent

Appendixes

Integrity Commitment Performance

BUDGET

FY 2012 FY 2013 % chg FY 2014 % chg FY 2015 % chg FY 2016 % chg FY 2017 % chg

LOCAL

Property Taxes $14,844,521 $14,683,277 -1.09% $15,174,524 3.35% $15,567,154 2.59% $16,014,265 2.87% $16,467,466 2.83%

CPPRT $485,000 $445,000 -8.25% $445,000 0.00% $445,000 0.00% $445,000 0.00% $445,000 0.00%

Pupil Activities $47,822 $47,822 0.00% $47,822 0.00% $47,822 0.00% $47,822 0.00% $47,822 0.00%

Other Local Revenue $316,754 $312,510 -1.34% $322,969 3.35% $337,155 4.39% $355,088 5.32% $375,695 5.80%

TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $15,694,097 $15,488,610 -1.31% $15,990,314 3.24% $16,397,131 2.54% $16,862,175 2.84% $17,335,983 2.81%

STATE

General State Aid $0 $1,685,705 $1,853,117 9.93% $1,925,248 3.89% $1,999,924 3.88% $2,007,471 0.38%

Other State Revenue $549,652 $725,000 31.90% $725,000 0.00% $725,000 0.00% $725,000 0.00% $725,000 0.00%

TOTAL STATE REVENUE $549,652 $2,410,705 338.59% $2,578,117 6.94% $2,650,248 2.80% $2,724,924 2.82% $2,732,471 0.28%

TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE $665,998 $741,124 11.28% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00%

FLOW-THROUGH REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $16,909,747 $18,640,438 10.23% $19,309,555 3.59% $19,788,503 2.48% $20,328,222 2.73% $20,809,577 2.37%

REVENUE PROJECTIONS

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Educational Fund - Revenue Analysis

REVENUE BY SOURCE DETAIL - FY 2012

Property Taxes

87.8%

Federal

3.9%

Other State

3.3%

Other Local

5.0%

REVENUE PROJECTION (MILLIONS)

$16.90

$18.60$19.30 $19.80 $20.30 $20.80

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

© 2012 PMA Financial Network, Inc.

Page: 1

2/14/2012 - 9:31 PM All Assumptions have been provided by the District.

ShafferK

Text Box

F1


BUDGET


Salaries $11,183,036 $11,541,118 3.20% $11,690,078 1.29% $11,870,217 1.54% $12,083,927 1.80% $12,301,028 1.80%

Benefits $1,754,739 $2,019,604 15.09% $2,185,634 8.22% $2,368,254 8.36% $2,569,106 8.48% $2,789,589 8.58%

TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS $12,937,775 $13,560,721 4.81% $13,875,712 2.32% $14,238,471 2.61% $14,653,033 2.91% $15,090,617 2.99%

Purchased Services $3,038,390 $3,129,542 3.00% $3,223,428 3.00% $3,320,131 3.00% $3,419,735 3.00% $3,522,327 3.00%

Supplies And Materials $660,427 $1,130,240 71.14% $1,164,147 3.00% $1,199,071 3.00% $1,235,043 3.00% $1,272,095 3.00%

Capital Outlay $45,400 $96,762 113.13% $99,665 3.00% $102,655 3.00% $105,734 3.00% $108,906 3.00%

Other Objects $20,975 $21,604 3.00% $22,252 3.00% $22,920 3.00% $23,608 3.00% $24,316 3.00%

Non-Capitalized Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Termination Benefits $170,000 $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00%

Provision For Contingencies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL ALL OTHER $3,935,192 $4,548,148 15.58% $4,679,492 2.89% $4,814,777 2.89% $4,954,120 2.89% $5,097,644 2.90%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $16,872,967 $18,108,869 7.32% $18,555,204 2.46% $19,053,247 2.68% $19,607,153 2.91% $20,188,261 2.96%

EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Educational Fund - Expenditure Analysis

FY 2012 EXPENDITURES BY OBJECT

Salaries

66.3%

Benefits

10.4%

Capital Outlay

0.3%

Other Objects

0.1%

Termination Benefits

1.0%

Supplies And

Materials

3.9%Purchased Services

18.0%

EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (MILLIONS)

$16.90$18.10 $18.60 $19.10 $19.60

$20.20

$0.0

$5.0

$10.0

$15.0

$20.0

$25.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 2




REVENUE

Local $11,831,722 $11,732,315 -0.84% $12,032,523 2.56% $14,364,638 19.38% $16,531,244 15.08% $15,694,097 -5.06%

State $1,614,193 $1,492,159 -7.56% $1,690,554 13.30% $1,525,145 -9.78% $992,030 -34.96% $549,652 -44.59%

Federal $502,023 $682,348 35.92% $857,358 25.65% $1,807,189 110.79% $1,365,916 -24.42% $665,998 -51.24%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $13,947,938 $13,906,822 -0.29% $14,580,435 4.84% $17,696,972 21.37% $18,889,190 6.74% $16,909,747 -10.48%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $10,136,593 $11,063,334 9.14% $11,922,980 7.77% $12,682,138 6.37% $12,948,558 2.10% $12,937,775 -0.08%

Other $2,578,517 $3,216,811 24.75% $3,790,704 17.84% $3,908,720 3.11% $3,656,300 -6.46% $3,935,192 7.63%


SURPLUS / DEFICIT $1,232,828 ($373,323) ($1,133,249) $1,106,114 $2,284,332 $36,780 A

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/USES

Transfer Among Funds (Net) ($150,000) $0 $1,350,000 $0 $0 $0

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other Financing Sources $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other Financing Uses $0 $0 ($2,229,963) $0 $0 $0

TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES ($150,000) $0 ($879,963) $0 $0 $0 B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $1,082,828 ($373,323) ($2,013,212) $1,106,114 $2,284,332 $36,780 A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $510,384 $1,593,212 $1,219,889 ($793,323) $312,791 $2,597,123

YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $1,593,212 $1,219,889 ($793,323) $312,791 $2,597,123 $2,633,903

FUND BALANCE AS % OF EXPENDITURES 12.53% 8.54% -5.05% 1.89% 15.64% 15.61%

FUND BALANCE AS # OF MONTHS OF EXPEND. 1.50 1.03 (0.61) 0.23 1.88 1.87

ACTUAL REVENUE / EXPENDITURES

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Educational Fund - Historical Summary

BUDGET


Page: 3



Educational Fund - Historical Summary

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69

YEAR END FUND BALANCE (THOUSANDS)

$1,593.20

$1,219.90

($793.30)

$312.80

$2,597.10 $2,633.90

($1,000.0)

($500.0)

$0.0

$500.0

$1,000.0

$1,500.0

$2,000.0

$2,500.0

$3,000.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

FY SURPLUS / DEFICIT

$1,232,828

($373,323)

($1,133,249)

$1,106,114

$2,284,332

$36,780

($1,500,000)

($1,000,000)

($500,000)

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

OTHER FINANCING SOURCES & USES

($150,000)

$0

($879,963)

$0 $0 $0

($1,000,000)

($900,000)

($800,000)

($700,000)

($600,000)

($500,000)

($400,000)

($300,000)

($200,000)

($100,000)

$0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

$14,000,000

$16,000,000

$18,000,000

$20,000,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Revenue Expenditures


Page: 4



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $15,694,097 $15,488,610 -1.31% $15,990,314 3.24% $16,397,131 2.54% $16,862,175 2.84% $17,335,983 2.81%

State $549,652 $2,410,705 338.59% $2,578,117 6.94% $2,650,248 2.80% $2,724,924 2.82% $2,732,471 0.28%

Federal $665,998 $741,124 11.28% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $16,909,747 $18,640,438 10.23% $19,309,555 3.59% $19,788,503 2.48% $20,328,222 2.73% $20,809,577 2.37%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $12,937,775 $13,560,721 4.81% $13,875,712 2.32% $14,238,471 2.61% $14,653,033 2.91% $15,090,617 2.99%

Other $3,935,192 $4,548,148 15.58% $4,679,492 2.89% $4,814,777 2.89% $4,954,120 2.89% $5,097,644 2.90%


SURPLUS / DEFICIT $36,780 $531,569 $754,351 $735,256 $721,069 $621,316 A


Transfer Among Funds (Net) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Other Financing Uses $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $36,780 $531,569 $754,351 $735,256 $721,069 $621,316 A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $2,597,123 $2,633,903 $3,165,472 $3,919,822 $4,655,078 $5,376,147

PROJECTED YEAR END BALANCE $2,633,903 $3,165,472 $3,919,822 $4,655,078 $5,376,147 $5,997,463

FUND BALANCE AS % OF EXPENDITURES 15.61% 17.48% 21.13% 24.43% 27.42% 29.71%

FUND BALANCE AS # OF MONTHS OF EXPEND. 1.87 2.10 2.54 2.93 3.29 3.56

Educational Fund - Projection Summary


REVENUE / EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS


Page: 5



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Educational Fund - Projection Summary

YEAR END FUND BALANCE (MILLIONS)

$2.60

$3.20

$3.90

$4.70

$5.40

$6.00

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$36,780

$531,569

$754,351 $735,256 $721,069

$621,316

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$1

$1

$1

$1

$1

$1

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

REVENUES VS EXPENDITURES

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Revenues Expenditures


Page: 6



BUDGET


LOCAL

Property Taxes $1,955,067 $2,367,175 21.08% $2,452,452 3.60% $2,507,907 2.26% $2,571,753 2.55% $2,636,220 2.51%

Earnings on Investments $16,377 $4,216 -74.26% $8,937 111.98% $13,458 50.59% $19,385 44.04% $24,669 27.26%

Rentals $7,000 $7,000 0.00% $7,000 0.00% $7,000 0.00% $7,000 0.00% $7,000 0.00%

Other Local Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $1,978,444 $2,378,391 20.22% $2,468,389 3.78% $2,528,365 2.43% $2,598,138 2.76% $2,667,888 2.68%

STATE

General State Aid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other State Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL STATE REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


TOTAL REVENUE $1,978,444 $2,378,391 20.22% $2,468,389 3.78% $2,528,365 2.43% $2,598,138 2.76% $2,667,888 2.68%

REVENUE PROJECTIONS

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Operations and Maintenance Fund - Revenue Analysis


Other Local

1.2%

Property Taxes

98.8%


$2.00

$2.40$2.50 $2.50

$2.60$2.70

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 7



BUDGET


Salaries $544,971 $556,415 2.10% $566,153 1.75% $576,060 1.75% $586,141 1.75% $596,399 1.75%

Benefits $106,944 $117,321 9.70% $128,727 9.72% $141,266 9.74% $155,049 9.76% $170,202 9.77%

TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS $651,915 $673,736 3.35% $694,880 3.14% $717,326 3.23% $741,191 3.33% $766,601 3.43%

Purchased Services $660,527 $355,343 -46.20% $366,003 3.00% $376,983 3.00% $388,293 3.00% $399,941 3.00%

Supplies And Materials $443,946 $457,264 3.00% $470,982 3.00% $485,112 3.00% $499,665 3.00% $514,655 3.00%

Capital Outlay $200,000 $125,000 -37.50% $125,000 0.00% $125,000 0.00% $125,000 0.00% $125,000 0.00%

Other Objects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Termination Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Provision For Contingencies $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL ALL OTHER $1,324,473 $937,607 -29.21% $961,985 2.60% $987,095 2.61% $1,012,958 2.62% $1,039,597 2.63%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,976,388 $1,611,343 -18.47% $1,656,865 2.83% $1,704,421 2.87% $1,754,149 2.92% $1,806,198 2.97%

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Operations and Maintenance Fund - Expenditure Analysis



Benefits

5.4%

Salaries

27.6%

Capital Outlay

10.1%Provision For

Contingencies

1.0%

Supplies And

Materials

22.5%

Purchased Services

33.4%


$2.00

$1.60$1.70 $1.70

$1.80 $1.80

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 8




REVENUE

Local $1,273,967 $1,484,536 16.53% $1,762,505 18.72% $2,175,824 23.45% $2,467,746 13.42% $1,978,444 -19.83%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $1,273,967 $1,484,536 16.53% $1,762,505 18.72% $2,175,824 23.45% $2,467,746 13.42% $1,978,444 -19.83%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $620,167 $635,556 2.48% $658,797 3.66% $695,674 5.60% $693,399 -0.33% $651,915 -5.98%

Other $632,892 $730,707 15.46% $1,170,821 60.23% $677,523 -42.13% $708,286 4.54% $1,324,473 87.00%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,253,059 $1,366,263 9.03% $1,829,618 33.91% $1,373,197 -24.95% $1,401,685 2.07% $1,976,388 41.00%

SURPLUS / DEFICIT $20,908 $118,273 ($67,113) $802,627 $1,066,061 $2,056 A


Transfer Among Funds (Net) $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $120,908 $218,273 ($67,113) $802,627 $1,066,061 $2,056 A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $736 $121,644 $339,917 $272,804 $1,075,431 $2,141,492

YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $121,644 $339,917 $272,804 $1,075,431 $2,141,492 $2,143,548




Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Operations and Maintenance Fund - Historical Summary

BUDGET


Page: 9



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Operations and Maintenance Fund - Historical Summary


$121.60

$339.90$272.80

$1,075.40

$2,141.50 $2,143.50

$0.0

$500.0

$1,000.0

$1,500.0

$2,000.0

$2,500.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$20,908

$118,273

($67,113)

$802,627

$1,066,061

$2,056

($200,000)

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$100,000 $100,000

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012



Page: 10



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $1,978,444 $2,378,391 20.22% $2,468,389 3.78% $2,528,365 2.43% $2,598,138 2.76% $2,667,888 2.68%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $1,978,444 $2,378,391 20.22% $2,468,389 3.78% $2,528,365 2.43% $2,598,138 2.76% $2,667,888 2.68%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $651,915 $673,736 3.35% $694,880 3.14% $717,326 3.23% $741,191 3.33% $766,601 3.43%

Other $1,324,473 $937,607 -29.21% $961,985 2.60% $987,095 2.61% $1,012,958 2.62% $1,039,597 2.63%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,976,388 $1,611,343 -18.47% $1,656,865 2.83% $1,704,421 2.87% $1,754,149 2.92% $1,806,198 2.97%



Transfer Among Funds (Net) $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000)

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000) B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $2,056 ($732,953) $811,524 ($676,056) $843,989 ($638,309) A+B







Operations and Maintenance Fund - Projection Summary


Page: 11



Operations and Maintenance Fund - Projection Summary



$2.10

$1.40

$2.20

$1.50

$2.40

$1.80

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$2,056

$767,047$811,524 $823,944 $843,989 $861,691

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0

($1,500,000)

$0

($1,500,000)

$0

($1,500,000)($1,600,000)

($1,400,000)

($1,200,000)

($1,000,000)

($800,000)

($600,000)

($400,000)

($200,000)

$0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017



Page: 12



BUDGET


LOCAL

Property Taxes $507,070 $514,013 1.37% $538,014 4.67% $555,494 3.25% $569,635 2.55% $583,915 2.51%

Transportation Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Other Local Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $522,772 $518,993 -0.72% $548,071 5.60% $570,702 4.13% $589,995 3.38% $609,201 3.26%

STATE

General State Aid $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other State Revenue $0 $430,000 $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00%

TOTAL STATE REVENUE $0 $430,000 $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00%

TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


TOTAL REVENUE $522,772 $948,993 81.53% $978,071 3.06% $1,000,702 2.31% $1,019,995 1.93% $1,039,201 1.88%

REVENUE PROJECTIONS

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Transportation Fund - Revenue Analysis


Other Local

3.0%

Property Taxes

97.0%

REVENUE PROJECTION (THOUSANDS)

$522.80

$949.00 $978.10 $1,000.70 $1,020.00 $1,039.20

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 13



BUDGET


Salaries $7,947 $8,114 2.10% $8,256 1.75% $8,400 1.75% $8,547 1.75% $8,697 1.75%

Benefits $1,156 $1,258 8.75% $1,378 9.61% $1,511 9.64% $1,657 9.66% $1,818 9.68%

TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS $9,103 $9,371 2.94% $9,634 2.80% $9,912 2.88% $10,205 2.96% $10,515 3.04%

Purchased Services $897,368 $924,289 3.00% $952,018 3.00% $980,579 3.00% $1,009,996 3.00% $1,040,296 3.00%

Supplies And Materials $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other Objects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Termination Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


TOTAL ALL OTHER $907,368 $924,289 1.86% $952,018 3.00% $980,579 3.00% $1,009,996 3.00% $1,040,296 3.00%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $916,472 $933,661 1.88% $961,652 3.00% $990,490 3.00% $1,020,201 3.00% $1,050,810 3.00%

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Transportation Fund - Expenditure Analysis



Salaries

0.9%

Benefits

0.1%

Purchased Services

97.9%

Provision For

Contingencies

1.1%

EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (THOUSANDS)

$916.50 $933.70 $961.70$990.50

$1,020.20$1,050.80

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 14




REVENUE

Local $548,925 $518,298 -5.58% $556,627 7.40% $589,942 5.99% $518,672 -12.08% $522,772 0.79%

State $610,734 $372,714 -38.97% $270,647 -27.38% $396,341 46.44% $1,736,308 338.08% $0 #######

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $1,159,659 $891,012 -23.17% $827,274 -7.15% $986,283 19.22% $2,254,980 128.63% $522,772 -76.82%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $6,577 $6,858 4.27% $4,622 -32.60% $4,949 7.07% $7,593 53.42% $9,103 19.89%

Other $837,820 $779,421 -6.97% $1,006,643 29.15% $901,303 -10.46% $951,359 5.55% $907,368 -4.62%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $844,397 $786,279 -6.88% $1,011,265 28.61% $906,252 -10.38% $958,952 5.82% $916,472 -4.43%

SURPLUS / DEFICIT $315,262 $104,733 ($183,991) $80,031 $1,296,028 ($393,699) A



Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $315,262 $104,733 ($183,991) $80,031 $1,296,028 ($393,699) A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $741,212 $1,056,474 $1,161,207 $977,216 $1,057,247 $2,353,275

YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $1,056,474 $1,161,207 $977,216 $1,057,247 $2,353,275 $1,959,576




Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Transportation Fund - Historical Summary

BUDGET


Page: 15



Transportation Fund - Historical Summary



$1,056.50$1,161.20

$977.20$1,057.20

$2,353.30

$1,959.60

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$315,262

$104,733

($183,991)

$80,031

$1,296,028

($393,699)

($600,000)

($400,000)

($200,000)

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0.0

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012



Page: 16



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $522,772 $518,993 -0.72% $548,071 5.60% $570,702 4.13% $589,995 3.38% $609,201 3.26%

State $0 $430,000 $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00% $430,000 0.00%

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $522,772 $948,993 81.53% $978,071 3.06% $1,000,702 2.31% $1,019,995 1.93% $1,039,201 1.88%

EXPENDITURES


Other $907,368 $924,289 1.86% $952,018 3.00% $980,579 3.00% $1,009,996 3.00% $1,040,296 3.00%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $916,472 $933,661 1.88% $961,652 3.00% $990,490 3.00% $1,020,201 3.00% $1,050,810 3.00%

SURPLUS / DEFICIT ($393,699) $15,333 $16,419 $10,211 ($205) ($11,609) A



Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES ($393,699) $15,333 $16,419 $10,211 ($205) ($11,609) A+B







Transportation Fund - Projection Summary


Page: 17



Transportation Fund - Projection Summary



$2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00

$0

$1

$1

$2

$2

$3

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


($393,699)

$15,333 $16,419 $10,211

($205)($11,609)

($450,000)

($400,000)

($350,000)

($300,000)

($250,000)

($200,000)

($150,000)

($100,000)

($50,000)

$0

$50,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0.0

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017



Page: 18




REVENUE

Local $304,948 $408,553 33.97% $424,715 3.96% $510,870 20.29% $343,214 -32.82% $532,597 55.18%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $304,948 $408,553 33.97% $424,715 3.96% $510,870 20.29% $343,214 -32.82% $532,597 55.18%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $339,038 $354,689 4.62% $384,287 8.34% $412,712 7.40% $412,887 0.04% $364,815 -11.64%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $339,038 $354,689 4.62% $384,287 8.34% $412,712 7.40% $412,887 0.04% $364,815 -11.64%

SURPLUS / DEFICIT ($34,090) $53,864 $40,428 $98,158 ($69,673) $167,782 A


Transfer Among Funds (Net) $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $115,910 $53,864 $40,428 $98,158 ($69,673) $167,782 A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $12,837 $128,747 $182,611 $223,039 $321,197 $251,524

YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $128,747 $182,611 $223,039 $321,197 $251,524 $419,306



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund - Historical Summary

ACTUAL REVENUE / EXPENDITURES BUDGET


Page: 19



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund - Historical Summary


$128.70

$182.60

$223.00

$321.20

$251.50

$419.30

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$450

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


($34,090)

$53,864$40,428

$98,158

($69,673)

$167,782

($100,000)

($50,000)

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$150,000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0.0

$20,000.0

$40,000.0

$60,000.0

$80,000.0

$100,000.0

$120,000.0

$140,000.0

$160,000.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012



Page: 20



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $532,597 $480,792 -9.73% $488,503 1.60% $498,120 1.97% $509,394 2.26% $520,216 2.12%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $532,597 $480,792 -9.73% $488,503 1.60% $498,120 1.97% $509,394 2.26% $520,216 2.12%

EXPENDITURES


Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $364,815 $478,501 31.16% $486,106 1.59% $494,259 1.68% $502,995 1.77% $511,879 1.77%




Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $167,782 $2,291 $2,397 $3,861 $6,399 $8,337 A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $251,524 $419,306 $421,597 $423,994 $427,855 $434,254

PROJECTED YEAR END BALANCE $419,306 $421,597 $423,994 $427,855 $434,254 $442,591



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund - Projection Summary



Page: 21



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Municipal Retirement/Social Security Fund - Projection Summary


$419.30$421.60

$424.00

$427.90

$434.30

$442.60

$405

$410

$415

$420

$425

$430

$435

$440

$445

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$167,782

$2,291 $2,397 $3,861 $6,399 $8,337

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0.0

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017



Page: 22




REVENUE

Local $238,478 $261,007 9.45% $327,732 25.56% $317,206 -3.21% $336,945 6.22% $40,782 -87.90%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $238,478 $261,007 9.45% $327,732 25.56% $317,206 -3.21% $336,945 6.22% $40,782 -87.90%

OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES

Transfer Among Funds (Net) ($100,000) ($810,000) ($3,950,000) $0 $0 ($1,391,746)

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $3,803,843 $1,235,000 $0 $3,500,000


Other Financing Uses $0 $0 ($79,706) ($1,338) $0 $0

TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES ($100,000) ($810,000) ($225,863) $1,233,662 $0 $2,108,254


YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $2,571,606 $2,022,613 $2,124,482 $3,675,350 $4,012,295 $6,161,331


Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Working Cash Fund - Historical Summary

BUDGET


Page: 23



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Working Cash Fund - Historical Summary


$2.60

$2.00 $2.10

$3.70$4.00

$6.20

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


($100,000)

($810,000)

($225,863)

$1,233,662

$0

$2,108,254

($1,000,000)

($500,000)

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

TOTAL REVENUE (IN THOUSANDS)

$238.48$261.01

$327.73 $317.21$336.95

$40.78

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


Page: 24



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $40,782 $247,926 507.92% $273,270 10.22% $294,741 7.86% $283,572 -3.79% $301,179 6.21%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $40,782 $247,926 507.92% $273,270 10.22% $294,741 7.86% $283,572 -3.79% $301,179 6.21%

OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES

Transfer Among Funds (Net) ($1,391,746) $0 $0 ($4,000,000) $0 $0

Sale of Bonds $3,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $2,108,254 $0 $0 ($4,000,000) $0 $0



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Working Cash Fund - Projection Summary



Page: 25



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Working Cash Fund - Projection Summary


$6.20 $6.40$6.70

$3.00$3.30

$3.60

$0.0

$1.0

$2.0

$3.0

$4.0

$5.0

$6.0

$7.0

$8.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$2,108,254

$0 $0

($4,000,000)

$0 $0

($5,000,000.0)

($4,000,000.0)

($3,000,000.0)

($2,000,000.0)

($1,000,000.0)

$0.0

$1,000,000.0

$2,000,000.0

$3,000,000.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

TOTAL REVENUE (IN THOUSANDS)

$40.78

$247.93

$273.27$294.74

$283.57$301.18

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 26




REVENUE

Local $0 $0 $61,706 $53,229 -13.74% $46,527 -12.59% $26,490 -43.07%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $0 $0 $61,706 $53,229 -13.74% $46,527 -12.59% $26,490 -43.07%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $0 $0 $72,141 $133,510 85.07% $113,057 -15.32% $160,165 41.67%

Other $0 $0 $191,366 $72,988 -61.86% $122,529 67.88% $129,971 6.07%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $0 $0 $263,507 $206,498 -21.63% $235,586 14.09% $290,137 23.16%

SURPLUS / DEFICIT $0 $0 ($201,801) ($153,269) ($189,059) ($263,647) A



Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Other Financing Uses $0 $0 $2,229,963 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $0 $0 $2,229,963 $0 $0 $0 B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $0 $0 $2,028,162 ($153,269) ($189,059) ($263,647) A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $0 $2,028,162 $1,874,893 $1,685,834

YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $0 $0 $2,028,162 $1,874,893 $1,685,834 $1,422,187

FUND BALANCE AS % OF EXPENDITURES #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 769.68% 907.95% 715.59% 490.18%

FUND BALANCE AS # OF MONTHS OF EXPEND. #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 92.36 108.95 85.87 58.82


Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Tort Fund - Historical Summary

BUDGET


Page: 27



Tort Fund - Historical Analysis



$0.00 $0.00

$2,028.20$1,874.90

$1,685.80

$1,422.20

$0.0

$500.0

$1,000.0

$1,500.0

$2,000.0

$2,500.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0 $0

($201,801)

($153,269)

($189,059)

($263,647)

($300,000.0)

($250,000.0)

($200,000.0)

($150,000.0)

($100,000.0)

($50,000.0)

$0.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0 $0

$2,229,963

$0 $0 $0

$0.0

$500,000.0

$1,000,000.0

$1,500,000.0

$2,000,000.0

$2,500,000.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0.0

$50,000.0

$100,000.0

$150,000.0

$200,000.0

$250,000.0

$300,000.0

$350,000.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012



Page: 28



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $26,490 $85,145 221.43% $167,538 96.77% $170,826 1.96% $189,109 10.70% $206,655 9.28%

State $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $26,490 $85,145 221.43% $167,538 96.77% $170,826 1.96% $189,109 10.70% $206,655 9.28%

EXPENDITURES


Other $129,971 $133,870 3.00% $137,887 3.00% $142,023 3.00% $146,284 3.00% $150,672 3.00%

TOTAL EXPENDITURES $290,137 $310,726 7.10% $319,781 2.91% $329,239 2.96% $339,127 3.00% $349,475 3.05%

SURPLUS / DEFICIT ($263,647) ($225,581) ($152,244) ($158,413) ($150,018) ($142,820) A



Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0




SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES ($263,647) ($225,581) ($152,244) ($158,413) ($150,018) ($142,820) A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $1,685,834 $1,422,187 $1,196,606 $1,044,363 $885,949 $735,932

PROJECTED YEAR END BALANCE $1,422,187 $1,196,606 $1,044,363 $885,949 $735,932 $593,111



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Tort Fund - Projection Summary



Page: 29



Tort Fund - Projection Analysis



$1,422.20

$1,196.60

$1,044.40

$885.90

$735.90

$593.10

$0.0

$200.0

$400.0

$600.0

$800.0

$1,000.0

$1,200.0

$1,400.0

$1,600.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


($263,647)

($225,581)

($152,244) ($158,413)($150,018)

($142,820)

($300,000.0)

($250,000.0)

($200,000.0)

($150,000.0)

($100,000.0)

($50,000.0)

$0.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0.0

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0.0

$50,000.0

$100,000.0

$150,000.0

$200,000.0

$250,000.0

$300,000.0

$350,000.0

$400,000.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017



Page: 30



BUDGET


LOCAL

Property Taxes $17,820,345 $18,029,219 1.17% $18,636,405 3.37% $19,110,517 2.54% $19,645,783 2.80% $20,187,412 2.76%

CPPRT $500,000 $460,000 -8.00% $460,000 0.00% $460,000 0.00% $460,000 0.00% $460,000 0.00%


Other Local Revenue $359,908 $359,908 0.00% $359,908 0.00% $359,908 0.00% $359,908 0.00% $359,908 0.00%

TOTAL LOCAL REVENUE $18,727,910 $18,866,785 0.74% $19,495,278 3.33% $19,994,317 2.56% $20,559,703 2.83% $21,133,288 2.79%

STATE

General State Aid $0 $1,685,705 $1,853,117 9.93% $1,925,248 3.89% $1,999,924 3.88% $2,007,471 0.38%

Other State Revenue $549,652 $1,155,000 110.13% $1,155,000 0.00% $1,155,000 0.00% $1,155,000 0.00% $1,155,000 0.00%

TOTAL STATE REVENUE $549,652 $2,840,705 416.82% $3,008,117 5.89% $3,080,248 2.40% $3,154,924 2.42% $3,162,471 0.24%

TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUE $665,998 $741,124 11.28% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00%


TOTAL REVENUE $19,943,560 $22,448,614 12.56% $23,244,518 3.55% $23,815,689 2.46% $24,455,750 2.69% $25,036,882 2.38%

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Aggregate - Revenue Analysis

REVENUE PROJECTIONS


Property Taxes

89.4%

Federal

3.3%

Other State

2.8%

Other Local

4.6%


19.90

22.4023.20 23.80 24.50 25.00

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 31



BUDGET


Salaries $11,735,954 $12,105,647 3.15% $12,264,487 1.31% $12,454,678 1.55% $12,678,616 1.80% $12,906,124 1.79%

Benefits $2,227,654 $2,616,683 17.46% $2,801,845 7.08% $3,005,289 7.26% $3,228,807 7.44% $3,473,488 7.58%

TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS $13,963,608 $14,722,330 5.43% $15,066,332 2.34% $15,459,967 2.61% $15,907,424 2.89% $16,379,612 2.97%

Purchased Services $4,596,286 $4,409,174 -4.07% $4,541,449 3.00% $4,677,693 3.00% $4,818,024 3.00% $4,962,564 3.00%

Supplies And Materials $1,104,373 $1,587,504 43.75% $1,635,129 3.00% $1,684,183 3.00% $1,734,708 3.00% $1,786,750 3.00%

Capital Outlay $245,400 $221,762 -9.63% $224,665 1.31% $227,655 1.33% $230,734 1.35% $233,906 1.37%

Other Objects $20,975 $21,604 3.00% $22,252 3.00% $22,920 3.00% $23,608 3.00% $24,316 3.00%


Termination Benefits $170,000 $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00% $170,000 0.00%


TOTAL ALL OTHER $6,167,033 $6,410,044 3.94% $6,593,496 2.86% $6,782,451 2.87% $6,977,074 2.87% $7,177,536 2.87%



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Aggregate - Expenditure Analysis


Provision For

Contingencies

0.1%

Benefits

11.1%

Salaries

58.3%

Capital Outlay

1.2%Other Objects

0.1%

Termination Benefits

0.8%

Supplies And

Materials

5.5%Purchased Services

22.8%


$20.10$21.10

$21.70 $22.20$22.90

$23.60

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


Page: 32




REVENUE

Local $13,959,562 $14,143,702 1.32% $14,776,370 4.47% $17,641,274 19.39% $19,860,876 12.58% $18,727,910 -5.70%

State $2,224,927 $1,864,873 -16.18% $1,961,201 5.17% $1,921,486 -2.03% $2,728,338 41.99% $549,652 -79.85%

Federal $502,023 $682,348 35.92% $857,358 25.65% $1,807,189 110.79% $1,365,916 -24.42% $665,998 -51.24%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $16,686,512 $16,690,923 0.03% $17,594,929 5.42% $21,369,949 21.46% $23,955,130 12.10% $19,943,560 -16.75%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $11,102,375 $12,060,437 8.63% $12,970,686 7.55% $13,795,473 6.36% $14,062,437 1.94% $13,963,608 -0.70%

Other $4,049,229 $4,726,939 16.74% $5,968,168 26.26% $5,487,546 -8.05% $5,315,945 -3.13% $6,167,033 16.01%


SURPLUS / DEFICIT $1,534,908 ($96,453) ($1,343,925) $2,086,930 $4,576,748 ($187,081) A


Transfer Among Funds (Net) $100,000 $100,000 $1,350,000 $0 $0 $0

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


Other Financing Uses $0 $0 ($2,229,963) $0 $0 $0

TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $100,000 $100,000 ($879,963) $0 $0 $0 B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES $1,634,908 $3,547 ($2,223,888) $2,086,930 $4,576,748 ($187,081) A+B

BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $1,265,169 $2,900,077 $2,903,624 $679,736 $2,766,666 $7,343,414

YEAR-END FUND BALANCE $2,900,077 $2,903,624 $679,736 $2,766,666 $7,343,414 $7,156,333



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Aggregate - Historical Summary

ACTUAL REVENUE / EXPENDITURES BUDGET


Page: 33



Aggregate - Historical Analysis



$2,900.10 $2,903.60

$679.70

$2,766.70

$7,343.40 $7,156.30

$0.0

$1,000.0

$2,000.0

$3,000.0

$4,000.0

$5,000.0

$6,000.0

$7,000.0

$8,000.0

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$1,534,908

($96,453)

($1,343,925)

$2,086,930

$4,576,748

($187,081)

($2,000,000)

($1,000,000)

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$100,000 $100,000

($879,963)

$0 $0 $0

($1,000,000)

($800,000)

($600,000)

($400,000)

($200,000)

$0

$200,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012


$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012



Page: 34



BUDGET


REVENUE

Local $18,727,910 $18,866,785 0.74% $19,495,278 3.33% $19,994,317 2.56% $20,559,703 2.83% $21,133,288 2.79%

State $549,652 $2,840,705 416.82% $3,008,117 5.89% $3,080,248 2.40% $3,154,924 2.42% $3,162,471 0.24%

Federal $665,998 $741,124 11.28% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00% $741,124 0.00%

Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TOTAL REVENUE $19,943,560 $22,448,614 12.56% $23,244,518 3.55% $23,815,689 2.46% $24,455,750 2.69% $25,036,882 2.38%

EXPENDITURES

Salary and Benefit Costs $13,963,608 $14,722,330 5.43% $15,066,332 2.34% $15,459,967 2.61% $15,907,424 2.89% $16,379,612 2.97%

Other $6,167,033 $6,410,044 3.94% $6,593,496 2.86% $6,782,451 2.87% $6,977,074 2.87% $7,177,536 2.87%


SURPLUS / DEFICIT ($187,081) $1,316,240 $1,584,691 $1,573,272 $1,571,252 $1,479,734 A


Transfer Among Funds (Net) $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000)

Sale of Bonds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0



TOTAL OTHER FIN. SOURCES/USES $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000) $0 ($1,500,000) B

SURPLUS / DEFICIT INCL. OTHER FIN. SOURCES ($187,081) ($183,760) $1,584,691 $73,272 $1,571,252 ($20,266) A+B






Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Aggregate - Projection Summary


Page: 35



Aggregate - Projection Analysis



$7.20 $7.00

$8.60 $8.60

$10.20 $10.20

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


($187,081)

$1,316,240

$1,584,691 $1,573,272 $1,571,252$1,479,734

($400,000)

($200,000)

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0

($1,500,000)

$0

($1,500,000)

$0

($1,500,000)($1,600,000)

($1,400,000)

($1,200,000)

($1,000,000)

($800,000)

($600,000)

($400,000)

($200,000)

$0

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017


$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017



Page: 36



Projected Year-End Balances

(Educational, Operations and Maintenance, Transportation, and IMRF Funds.)

$10,181,521$10,201,787

$8,630,535$8,557,263

$6,972,572$7,343,414 $7,156,333

$2,766,666

$679,736

$2,903,624$2,900,077

($457,644)

($1,148,955)

($4,033,664)

($1,837,371)

$2,919,811

$1,515,438$1,727,347

$3,208,597 $3,132,600

$4,539,090$4,323,962

($6)

($4)

($2)

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

Educational Operations and Maintenance Transportation IMRF

Mil

lio

ns

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FY End Balances Low-Point Balance


Page: 37



Beginning Balance Revenue* Expenditure Surplus / Deficit Estimated FY-End Balance

Educational $2,597,123 $16,909,747 $16,872,967 $36,780 $2,633,903

Operations & Maint. $2,141,492 $1,978,444 $1,976,388 $2,056 $2,143,548

Debt Service $2,494,390 $2,759,566 $2,201,892 $557,674 $3,052,064

Transportation $2,353,275 $522,772 $916,472 ($393,699) $1,959,576

IMRF $251,524 $532,597 $364,815 $167,782 $419,306

Capital Projects $0 $1,391,746 $0 $1,391,746 $1,391,746

Working Cash $4,012,295 $2,149,036 $2,149,036 $6,161,331

Tort $1,685,834 $26,490 $290,137 ($263,647) $1,422,187

Fire Prev. $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Aggregate View - Budget Summary

* Includes Transfers, Sale of Bonds, and Other Financing Sources / Uses of Funds.

FY 2012 - Fund Balance Analysis

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

Educatio

nal

Opera

tions &

Mai

nt.Debt S

ervice

Transp

ortatio

n

IMRF

Capita

l Pro

ject

sW

orkin

g Cas

h

TortFi

re P

rev.

FY 2012 - Fund Surplus/Deficit

($1,000,000)

($500,000)

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

Educatio

nal

Opera

tions &

Mai

nt.Debt S

ervice

Transp

ortatio

n

IMRF

Capita

l Pro

ject

sW

orkin

g Cas

h

TortFi

re P

rev.


Page: 38




Aggregate View - Projection Summary

$7,156,333 $6,972,572

$8,557,263 $8,630,535

$10,181,521$10,201,787

$1,515,438 $1,727,347

$3,208,597 $3,132,600

$4,539,090 $4,323,962

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

Educational Operations and Maintenance Transportation IMRF

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 FY-End Balances Low-Point Balance


Page: 39



Ratio Score Value

Fund Balance to Rev Ratio 0.66 4 1.4 Total Score: 3.35

Exp to Rev Ratio 1.02 3 1.05 Category: Financial Review

Days Cash On Hand 122.70 3 0.3

% of Short Term Borrowing Max Remaining 100.00 4 0.4

% of Long Term Debt Margin Remaining 49.92 2 0.2

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Aggregate View - Projection Summary

Financial Profile Calculation For FY 2012

3.703.80

3.00

3.803.90

3.35

3.80 3.803.70

3.80 3.80

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

0 - Watch - 2.61

2.62 - Early Warning - 3.07

3.08 - Review - 3.53

3.54 - Recognition - 4


Page: 40



TAX YEAR: 2009 2007-2008 Audited ADA 1,515.58

2008 Original EAV $551,682,397 2008-2009 Audited ADA 1,566.00

Foundation Level = 6,119.00 2008 Limiting RATE 2.85150 2009-2010 ADA 1,555.63

2007 Original EAV $517,772,110 Average of Last 3 Year's ADA 1,545.74

2008 Original EAV $551,682,397 2007 OTR 2.85920 2. ADA used for 2009-2010 GSA 1,555.63

Adjustments $0 2008 Extension Limitation Ratio 1.062600 3. 2008 CPPRT (Rec'd in 2009) $474,377.49

A. 2008 Adjusted Real EAV $551,682,397

Prior Year EAV used for GSA Calc $573,639,367 4. Calculation Rate 0.0230

Prior Year EAV*ELR $609,549,191 7. Available Local Resources $13,163,072.62

8. Available Local Resources per ADA $8,461.57 2007: DHS Low Income Count 664.00

EAV Used for GSA Calc $551,682,397 9. Percentage of Foundation Level 1.3828 2008: DHS Low Income Count 740.00

2009: DHS Low Income Count 855.00

1997-1998 Hold Harmless Base $451,716.57 6. District Low Income Concentration 0.4840

10. Foundation Level X ADA $0.00 13. Line 9 minus .93 0.4528 19. FLAT GRANT FORMULA AMOUNT $0.00

11. Available Local Resources $0.00 14. Line 13 divided by .82 0.5521 ($218 x ADA)

12. FOUNDATION FORMULA AMOUNT $0.00 15. Line 14 times .02 0.0110

16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0590

17. Amount per ADA $361.02

18. ALTERNATE FORMULA AMOUNT $561,613.54

If Line 6 < .15 then LIC=355 22. GROSS GSA ENTITLEMENT $561,613.54

Otherwise ((Line 6^2)/2700)+294.25 23. GENERAL STATE AID $1,259,544.65

Total Adjustments $0

LIC Factor $927 Hold Harmless Base $451,717

FY2011 Calculated Poverty Grant Amt $697,931

FY2003 Poverty Grant @ 33% $37,422 Hold Harmless $0

Difference $0

21. POVERTY GRANT $697,931.11 GSA $1,259,544.65


Worksheet for the 2009-2010 Claim Payable in 2010-2011

Section A - Foundation Formula Section B - Alternate Formula Section C - Flat Grant Formula

General State Aid

Section D - Poverty Grant

Complete if Subject to PTELL (Tax Caps)


Page: 41



















16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0590






LIC Factor $1,103 Hold Harmless Base $451,717

FY2012 Calculated Poverty Grant Amt $943,763

FY2003 Poverty Grant @ 0% $0 Hold Harmless $0

21. POVERTY GRANT $943,763.01 GSA $1,508,578.80

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69General State Aid






Page: 42



















16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0626







FY2013 Calculated Poverty Grant Amt $1,175,160

Hold Harmless $0

21. POVERTY GRANT $1,175,159.92 GSA $1,774,426.00


Section C - Flat Grant Formula




Section A - Foundation Formula Section B - Alternate Formula


Page: 43



















16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0635








Hold Harmless $0








Page: 44



















16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0646








Hold Harmless $0








Page: 45



















16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0644








Hold Harmless $0






General State Aid



Page: 46



















16. .07 minus Line 15 0.0651








Hold Harmless $0








Page: 47




General State Aid Foundation Level

5,7345,959 6,119 6,119 6,119 6,119 6,219 6,319 6,419

6,119

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected

General State Aid Revenue (in Thousands)

$753

$938 $973

$1,233

$0

$1,853$1,925

$2,000 $2,007

$1,686

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected


Page: 48



2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK: 78 78 82 83 68 95 95 95 95 95 95

PreK Special Ed: 23 4 3 8 7 11 11 11 11 11 11

K: 125 178 164 161 168 194 199 204 209 214 219

1: 171 141 176 170 175 174 190 194 195 192 198

2: 155 182 157 175 170 175 170 189 189 196 194

3: 145 159 178 165 188 168 176 168 187 189 193

4: 156 149 168 177 171 190 168 174 165 187 187

5: 173 169 168 168 170 192 190 166 173 167 175

6: 174 190 178 171 181 165 189 188 164 173 166

7: 164 181 198 181 168 179 170 188 183 164 164

8: 151 174 197 205 187 179 180 169 171 173 173

SPED Out-of-District 17 33 52 0 0 24 22 20 18 18 18

TOTAL ENROLLMENT: 1,532 1,638 1,721 1,664 1,653 1,746 1,760 1,766 1,760 1,779 1,793

ANNUAL CHANGE: 106 83 -57 -11 93 14 6 -6 19 14

ADA: 1,565 1,578 1,583 1,577 1,596 1,609

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Enrollment Analysis

ACTUAL ENROLLMENT PROJECTED ENROLLMENT


Page: 49



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Enrollment Analysis

ENROLLMENT HISTORY AND PROJECTIONS

1,5321,638

1,7211,664 1,653

1,746 1,760 1,766 1,760 1,779 1,793

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected

ENROLLMENT CHANGE

106

83

(57)

(11)

93

146

(6)

1914

(80)

(60)

(40)

(20)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected


Page: 50



2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK Special Ed: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00

K: 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 24.25 24.25 24.25 24.25 24.25 24.25

1: 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 24.86 24.86 24.86 24.86 24.86 24.86

2: 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00

3: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00

4: 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75

5: 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43

6: 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 27.50 27.50 27.50 27.50 27.50 27.50

7: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80

8: 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80

Applied Tech 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Art 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Drama/Speech 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ELL/Spanish 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Family & Consumer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Health 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LMC 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Music/PE 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nurse 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Psyct/Social Work/Coord 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Special Ed 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Speech Languege 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Title I - LA 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Additional Programming 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSM/NSC 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total FTE: 125.1 128.1 128.1 128.1 128.1 128.1 Average

Staffing Ratio:13.20 13.00 13.04 12.99 13.14 13.25

Certified Staff Assumptions


Certified Staff (FTE) Staffing Ratios


Page: 51



2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK Special Ed: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

K: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

8: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Applied Tech 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Art 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Drama/Speech 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ELL/Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Family & Consumer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Health 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LMC 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Music/PE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nurse 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Psyct/Social Work/Coord 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Special Ed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Speech Languege 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Title I - LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Additional Programming 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CSM/NSC 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FTE change: 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Certified Staff Changes (FTE) - Projections


CERTIFIED STAFF (FTE)

125.1 128.1 128.1 128.1 128.1 128.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected


Page: 52



Levy Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 2.50% 4.10% 0.10% 2.70% 1.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%

EQUALIZED ASSESSED VALUATION $517,772,110 $551,682,397 $554,162,796 $491,074,920 $481,753,422 $472,868,353 $483,325,720 $484,825,720 $486,325,720 $512,142,006 $513,642,006

% CHANGE 6.55% 0.45% -11.38% -1.90% -1.84% 2.21% 0.31% 0.31% 5.31% 0.29%

NEW GROWTH $2,402,366 $1,660,930 $1,826,938 $719,973 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

% OF TOTAL EAV 0.46% 0.30% 0.33% 0.15% 0.10% 0.16% 0.21% 0.31% 0.31% 0.29% 0.29%

EXISTING PROPERTIES $32,249,357 $653,461 ($63,807,849) ($9,821,498) ($9,635,068) $9,457,367 $0 $0 $24,316,286 $0

% OF TOTAL EAV-1YEAR 6.23% 0.12% -11.51% -2.00% -2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 0.00%

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Equalized Assessed Valuation Analysis

Total EAV Analysis (In Millions)

$518$552 $554

$491 $482 $473 $483 $485 $486$512 $514

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected

Total EAV % Change

6.55%

0.45%

-11.38%

-1.90% -1.84%

2.21%

0.31% 0.31%

5.31%

0.29%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected

Existing EAV % Change

6.23%

0.12%

-11.51%

-2.00% -2.00%

2.00%

0.00% 0.00%

5.00%

0.00%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected

New Growth (In Millions)

$2.40

$1.66$1.83

$0.72

$0.5

$0.8

$1.0

$1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected


Page: 53



2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Extension Rate Extension Rate Extension Rate Extension Rate Extension Rate Extension Rate Extension Rate

Education Fund 15,208,364 3.0970 14,665,000 3.0441 14,999,942 3.1721 15,400,456 3.1864 15,860,217 3.2713 16,286,388 3.3489 16,768,835 3.2743

Leasing - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Special Education 242,232 0.0493 242,000 0.0502 249,260 0.0527 255,492 0.0529 261,879 0.0540 268,426 0.0552 275,136 0.0537

Summer School - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Operation & Maintenance Fund 2,287,886 0.4659 2,394,745 0.4971 2,466,587 0.5216 2,528,252 0.5231 2,591,458 0.5345 2,656,244 0.5462 2,722,651 0.5316

Facility Leasing - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Special Education - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Area Vocational Construction - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bond & Interest Fund 3,144,176 0.6403 3,150,000 0.6539 3,150,000 0.6661 3,150,000 0.6517 3,150,000 0.6497 3,150,000 0.6477 3,150,000 0.6151

Area Vocational Construction - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transportation Fund 419,549 0.0854 520,000 0.1079 535,600 0.1133 560,000 0.1159 574,000 0.1184 588,350 0.1210 603,059 0.1178


Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IMRF & Social Security Fund 29,793 0.0061 175,000 0.0363 210,000 0.0444 220,000 0.0455 220,000 0.0454 230,000 0.0473 230,000 0.0449


Social Security/Medicare-Only 61,044 0.0124 310,000 0.0643 260,000 0.0550 270,000 0.0559 270,000 0.0557 280,000 0.0576 280,000 0.0547

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Site and Construction Fund - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Working Cash Fund - - 235,000 0.0488 242,050 0.0512 248,101 0.0513 254,304 0.0525 260,661 0.0536 267,178 0.0522

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tort Fund - - 100 0.0000 165,000 0.0349 165,000 0.0341 169,125 0.0349 200,000 0.0411 205,000 0.0400

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fire Prevention and Safety Fund - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other Tax Levies - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTALS 21,393,044 4.3564 21,691,845 4.5027 22,278,439 4.7113 22,797,301 4.7168 23,350,983 4.8164 23,920,070 4.9185 24,501,858 4.7842

TAX-CAPPED TOTAL 18,248,868 3.7161 18,541,845 3.8488 19,128,439 4.0452 19,647,301 4.0650 20,200,983 4.1666 20,770,070 4.2708 21,351,858 4.1691

2010

Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Extension Analysis and Consumer Price Index Assumptions

Consumer Price Index (CPI) - Levy Years

2.50%

4.10%

0.10%

2.70%

1.50%

2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%

3.00%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected

Total Tax Rate (incl. Bonds)

3.12% 3.25%

3.77%

4.36% 4.50%4.71% 4.72% 4.82% 4.92% 4.78% 4.89%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Actual Projected


Page: 54



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

BA BA+15 MA/BA+40 MA+15 FY12 Retirees FY13 Retirees FY14 Retirees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

YRS. OF EXP STEP SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY SALARY

0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $42,310 $44,087 $47,171 $50,248 $123,058 $103,725 $70,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $43,836 $45,632 $48,711 $51,794 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $45,385 $47,171 $50,248 $53,325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $47,690 $49,733 $53,072 $56,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $49,485 $51,536 $55,119 $58,449 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $51,274 $53,325 $57,168 $60,497 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $53,072 $55,625 $59,224 $62,551 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $54,867 $57,420 $61,270 $64,607 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $56,663 $59,224 $63,321 $66,655 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $58,449 $61,011 $65,375 $68,701 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $60,656 $62,811 $67,429 $70,757 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $64,607 $69,478 $72,808 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $66,403 $71,525 $74,852 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $68,193 $73,577 $77,422 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $70,662 $75,827 $79,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $77,680 $81,526 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $79,724 $84,593 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $84,272 $90,462 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $86,785 $93,159 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0


FY - 2012

Salary Schedule Analysis


Page: 55



Skokie-Morton Grove School District 69Salary Schedule Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


YRS. OF EXP STEP FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE

0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 2 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 1.00 0.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 4 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 6 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 7 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 9 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 10 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 11 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 15 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 16 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19 19 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: 15.00 9.00 47.00 51.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY - 2012


Page: 56




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


YRS. OF EXP STEP Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary Tot. Salary

0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $126,930 $0 $47,171 $0 $123,058 $103,725 $70,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $87,672 $0 $146,133 $51,794 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $45,385 $0 $251,240 $53,325 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $143,070 $49,733 $159,216 $56,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $49,485 $51,536 $496,071 $146,123 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $51,274 $53,325 $343,008 $241,988 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $53,072 $111,250 $177,672 $187,653 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $0 $0 $122,540 $64,607 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $0 $118,448 $63,321 $199,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $0 $122,022 $130,750 $178,623 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $181,968 $0 $0 $424,542 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $0 $69,478 $254,828 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $0 $143,050 $187,130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $0 $0 $309,688 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $0 $227,481 $79,470 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $233,040 $163,052 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $0 $169,186 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $0 $271,386 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $260,355 $745,272 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Salary: $738,856 $506,314 $2,870,526 $3,785,037 $123,058 $103,725 $70,527 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2012

Total FTE: 125.10 Lane Change Costs: $20,000 Total # of Retirees: 1 ERO Costs: $0

Total Salary: $8,198,043 Total Bonus: -$ POST EMPLOYMENT BONUS: $0

FY - 2012


Page: 57




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $43,199 $45,013 $48,162 $51,303 $0 $109,949 $74,759 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $44,757 $46,590 $49,734 $52,882 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $46,338 $48,162 $51,303 $54,445 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $48,691 $50,777 $54,187 $57,591 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $50,524 $52,618 $56,276 $59,676 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $52,351 $54,445 $58,369 $61,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $54,187 $56,793 $60,468 $63,865 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $56,019 $58,626 $62,557 $65,964 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $57,853 $60,468 $64,651 $68,055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $59,676 $62,292 $66,748 $70,144 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $61,930 $64,130 $68,845 $72,243 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $65,964 $70,937 $74,337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $67,797 $73,027 $76,424 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $69,625 $75,122 $79,048 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $72,146 $77,419 $81,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $79,311 $83,238 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $81,398 $86,369 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $86,042 $92,362 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $88,607 $95,115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2013


Page: 58




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 2 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 1.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 4 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 6 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 7 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 9 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 10 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 11 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 15 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 16 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19 19 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: 15.00 13.00 47.00 51.10 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY - 2013


Page: 59




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $129,596 $0 $48,162 $0 $0 $109,949 $74,759 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $89,513 $0 $149,202 $52,882 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $46,338 $192,646 $256,516 $54,445 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $146,074 $50,777 $162,560 $57,591 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $50,524 $52,618 $506,488 $149,191 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $52,351 $54,445 $350,211 $247,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $54,187 $113,586 $181,403 $191,594 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $0 $0 $125,113 $65,964 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $0 $120,935 $64,651 $204,164 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $0 $124,584 $133,496 $182,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $185,789 $0 $0 $433,457 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $0 $70,937 $260,179 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $0 $146,054 $191,060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $0 $0 $316,191 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $0 $232,258 $81,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $237,934 $166,476 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $0 $172,739 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $0 $277,085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $265,822 $760,923 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Salary: $754,372 $709,593 $2,930,807 $3,864,523 $0 $109,949 $74,759 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2013 Change

Total FTE: 128.10 3 Lane Change Costs: 40,000$ Total # of Retirees: 1 ERO Costs: $0

Total Salary: $8,444,002 3.00% Total Bonus: -$ POST EMPLOYMENT BONUS: $0

FY - 2013


Page: 60




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $43,954 $45,801 $49,004 $52,201 $0 $0 $79,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $45,540 $47,406 $50,604 $53,807 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $47,149 $49,004 $52,201 $55,398 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $49,544 $51,666 $55,135 $58,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $51,408 $53,539 $57,261 $60,721 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $53,267 $55,398 $59,390 $62,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $55,135 $57,787 $61,526 $64,982 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $57,000 $59,652 $63,651 $67,118 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $58,865 $61,526 $65,782 $69,246 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $60,721 $63,382 $67,916 $71,371 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $63,014 $65,252 $70,050 $73,507 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $67,118 $72,178 $75,638 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $68,984 $74,305 $77,761 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $70,843 $76,437 $80,431 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $73,408 $78,774 $82,559 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $80,699 $84,695 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $82,823 $87,881 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $87,547 $93,978 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $90,158 $96,780 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2014


Page: 61




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 2 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 4 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 6 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 7 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 9 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 10 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 11 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 15 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 16 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19 19 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: 15.00 14.00 47.00 51.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY - 2014


Page: 62




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $131,863 $0 $49,004 $0 $0 $0 $79,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $91,080 $0 $151,813 $53,807 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $47,149 $245,022 $261,005 $55,398 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $148,631 $51,666 $165,404 $58,598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $51,408 $53,539 $515,352 $151,802 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $53,267 $55,398 $356,340 $251,393 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $55,135 $115,574 $184,578 $194,947 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $0 $0 $127,303 $67,118 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $0 $123,052 $65,782 $207,737 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $0 $126,765 $135,832 $185,565 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $189,041 $0 $0 $441,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $0 $72,178 $264,733 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $0 $148,610 $194,403 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $0 $0 $321,725 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $0 $236,323 $82,559 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $242,098 $169,389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $0 $175,762 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $0 $281,934 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $270,474 $774,239 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Salary: $767,573 $771,015 $2,982,096 $3,932,152 $0 $0 $79,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2014 Change



FY - 2014


Page: 63




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $44,724 $46,602 $49,862 $53,115 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $46,337 $48,235 $51,490 $54,749 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $47,974 $49,862 $53,115 $56,367 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $50,411 $52,570 $56,100 $59,624 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $52,308 $54,476 $58,263 $61,783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $54,199 $56,367 $60,429 $63,948 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $56,100 $58,798 $62,603 $66,119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $57,997 $60,696 $64,765 $68,293 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $59,895 $62,603 $66,933 $70,458 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $61,783 $64,492 $69,104 $72,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $64,116 $66,394 $71,276 $74,794 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $68,293 $73,442 $76,962 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $70,191 $75,605 $79,122 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $72,083 $77,774 $81,839 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $74,693 $80,153 $84,004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $82,111 $86,177 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $84,272 $89,419 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $89,080 $95,623 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $91,736 $98,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2015


Page: 64




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 2 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 1.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 4 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 6 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 7 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 9 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 10 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 11 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 15 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 16 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19 19 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: 15.00 15.00 47.00 51.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY - 2015


Page: 65




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $134,171 $0 $49,862 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $92,673 $0 $154,470 $54,749 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $47,974 $299,172 $265,573 $56,367 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $151,232 $52,570 $168,299 $59,624 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $52,308 $54,476 $524,371 $154,458 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $54,199 $56,367 $362,576 $255,793 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $56,100 $117,597 $187,808 $198,358 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $0 $0 $129,531 $68,293 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $0 $125,205 $66,933 $211,373 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $0 $128,983 $138,209 $188,813 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $192,349 $0 $0 $448,761 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $0 $73,442 $269,365 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $0 $151,211 $197,805 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $0 $0 $327,355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $0 $240,458 $84,004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $246,334 $172,354 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $0 $178,838 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $0 $286,868 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $275,208 $787,788 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Salary: $781,006 $834,370 $3,034,283 $4,000,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2015 Change



FY - 2015


Page: 66




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $45,506 $47,418 $50,735 $54,044 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $47,148 $49,079 $52,391 $55,707 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $48,814 $50,735 $54,044 $57,353 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $51,293 $53,490 $57,081 $60,667 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $53,223 $55,429 $59,283 $62,865 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $55,148 $57,353 $61,487 $65,067 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $57,081 $59,827 $63,698 $67,276 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $59,012 $61,758 $65,899 $69,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $60,944 $63,698 $68,105 $71,691 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $62,865 $65,620 $70,314 $73,891 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $65,238 $67,556 $72,523 $76,102 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $69,488 $74,727 $78,308 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $71,419 $76,928 $80,507 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $73,345 $79,135 $83,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $76,000 $81,555 $85,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $83,548 $87,685 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $85,747 $90,984 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $90,638 $97,296 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $93,341 $100,197 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2016


Page: 67




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 2 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 1.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 4 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 6 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 7 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 9 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 10 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 11 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 15 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 16 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19 19 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: 15.00 15.00 47.00 51.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY - 2016


Page: 68




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $136,519 $0 $50,735 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $94,295 $0 $157,173 $55,707 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $48,814 $304,407 $270,220 $57,353 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $153,878 $53,490 $171,244 $60,667 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $53,223 $55,429 $533,547 $157,161 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $55,148 $57,353 $368,921 $260,269 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $57,081 $119,654 $191,094 $201,829 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $0 $0 $131,797 $69,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $0 $127,396 $68,105 $215,072 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $0 $131,240 $140,628 $192,117 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $195,715 $0 $0 $456,614 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $0 $74,727 $274,079 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $0 $153,857 $201,267 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $0 $0 $333,084 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $0 $244,666 $85,474 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $250,645 $175,370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $0 $181,967 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $0 $291,888 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $280,024 $801,574 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Salary: $794,674 $848,971 $3,087,383 $4,070,982 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2016 Change



FY - 2016


Page: 69




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $46,303 $48,247 $51,622 $54,990 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $47,973 $49,938 $53,308 $56,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $49,668 $51,622 $54,990 $58,357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $52,190 $54,426 $58,080 $61,729 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $54,155 $56,399 $60,320 $63,965 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $56,113 $58,357 $62,563 $66,206 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $58,080 $60,874 $64,813 $68,454 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $60,045 $62,839 $67,052 $70,704 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $62,010 $64,813 $69,296 $72,945 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $63,965 $66,768 $71,544 $75,184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $66,380 $68,738 $73,792 $77,434 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $70,704 $76,035 $79,679 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $72,669 $78,275 $81,916 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $74,628 $80,520 $84,728 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $77,330 $82,983 $86,969 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $85,011 $89,219 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $87,247 $92,576 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $92,225 $98,999 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $94,975 $101,950 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2017


Page: 70




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1 1 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 2 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 3 1.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 4 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 5 1.00 1.00 9.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 6 1.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 7 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8 8 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 9 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

10 10 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

11 11 3.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12 12 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13 13 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

15 15 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 16 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

17 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

19 19 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

23 23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

26 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

27 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

29 29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

30 30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

31 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

33 33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: 15.00 15.00 47.00 51.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FY - 2017


Page: 71




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15



0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

1 1 $138,908 $0 $51,622 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2 2 $95,945 $0 $159,923 $56,682 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

3 3 $49,668 $309,735 $274,949 $58,357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

4 4 $156,571 $54,426 $174,241 $61,729 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

5 5 $54,155 $56,399 $542,884 $159,912 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

6 6 $56,113 $58,357 $375,377 $264,824 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

7 7 $58,080 $121,748 $194,439 $205,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

8 8 $0 $0 $134,104 $70,704 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

9 9 $0 $129,626 $69,296 $218,835 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

10 10 $0 $133,537 $143,089 $195,479 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

11 11 $199,140 $0 $0 $464,605 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

12 12 $0 $0 $76,035 $278,876 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

13 13 $0 $0 $156,549 $204,789 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

14 14 $0 $0 $0 $338,913 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

15 15 $0 $0 $248,948 $86,969 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

16 16 $0 $0 $255,032 $178,439 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

17 17 $0 $0 $0 $185,152 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

18 18 $0 $0 $0 $296,996 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

19 19 $0 $0 $284,924 $815,602 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

20 20 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

21 21 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

22 22 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

23 23 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

24 24 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

25 25 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

26 26 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

27 27 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

28 28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

29 29 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

30 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

31 31 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

32 32 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

33 33 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

34 34 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Salary: $808,580 $863,828 $3,141,412 $4,142,224 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY - 2017 Change



FY - 2017


Page: 72



Total All Counties 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total EAV $517,772,110 $551,682,397 $554,162,796 $491,074,920 $481,753,422 $472,868,353 $483,325,720 $484,825,720 $486,325,720 $512,142,006

New Growth $2,402,366 $1,660,930 $1,826,938 $719,973 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Existing EAV $515,369,744 $550,021,467 $552,335,858 $490,354,947 $481,253,422 $472,118,353 $482,325,720 $483,325,720 $484,825,720 $510,642,006

Assumptions

Total EAV % Increase 18.15% 6.55% 0.45% -11.38% -1.90% -1.84% 2.21% 0.31% 0.31% 5.31%

New Growth $2,402,366 $1,660,930 $1,826,938 $719,973 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000

Existing EAV % Change 17.60% 6.23% 0.12% -11.51% -2.00% -2.00% 2.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00%

DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES 52.00% 48.00%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

TAX COLLECTION RATE 98.00% 98.00% 98.00% 98.00% 98.00% 98.00% 98.00%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 2.50% 4.10% 0.10% 2.70% 1.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

INVESTMENT RATE OF RETURN 0.25% 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25%

GENERAL STATE AID 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Foundation Level: $5,734 $5,959 $6,119 $6,119 $6,119 $6,119 $6,119 $6,219 $6,319 $6,419

Foundation Level Increase: $225 $160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 $100

GSA - Proration %: 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

CPPRT 10.23% -12.33% -16.97% 23.36% -5.08% -8.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

CPPRT Amount: 586,626$ 514,268$ 427,007$ 526,757$ 500,000$ 460,000$ 460,000$ 460,000$ 460,000$ 460,000$

Revenue Assumptions

Summary of Major Assumptions



Page: 73





Educational Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Tuition -23.73% -17.82% -31.82% -11.75% -41.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Tuition Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Food Srvc 8.26% -4.05% -13.25% -1.13% -8.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Food Srvc Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Pupil Activities -13.27% -50.52% 131.22% -38.20% -19.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Pupil Activities Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Textbooks -20.81% 50.78% -96.82% 116.21% 158.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Textbooks Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Other Revenue 711.49% -93.09% 17922.22% 122.11% -73.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Other Revenue Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Special Education -41.28% 23.84% 7.98% 40.42% -46.81% 76.15% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Special Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Career & Technical Education -1.83% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Career & Technical Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Bilingual Education 156.14% -25.07% -2.15% 142.21% -41.64% 18.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Bilingual Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Driver Education 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Driver Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Adult Education 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Adult Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Transportation 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Transportation Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Early Childhood 9.37% -12.21% -14.92% 33.49% -14.60% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Early Childhood Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Reading Improvement Block Grant -2.37% 9.60% -49.49% 0.00% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Reading Improvement Block Grant Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

ADA Block Grant -8.00% 15.71% -86.95% 0.01% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

ADA Block Grant Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Other Restricted Grants In Aid 124.79% -63.72% -28.90% 33.37% -44.36% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other Restricted Grants In Aid Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00


Page: 74





Educational Fund - Assumptions

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Total Unrestricted Grants-In-Aid 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Unrestricted Grants-In-Aid Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Title V -21.98% -97.21% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Title V Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Food Service 27.22% 20.61% 43.50% -8.98% -34.28% 30.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Food Service Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Title I 38.67% -9.31% 77.03% -13.50% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Title I Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Title IV -19.91% 20.53% 2.36% -99.51% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Title IV Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Federal Special Education 601.68% -1.93% 802.32% -84.08% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Federal Special Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Career & Technical Education 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Career & Technical Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Fed.-Adult Education 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Fed.-Adult Education Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Title II -19.18% 40.44% -3.60% -12.85% -27.28% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Total Title II Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Medicaid Matching Funds 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Medicaid Matching Funds Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Other Restricted Grants-In-Aid 111.54% -71.53% 65.52% 31.14% -47.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other Restricted Grants-In-Aid Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Operations and Maintenance Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Rentals: -86.61% -92.85% 12138.83% -10.01% -89.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Rentals: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Contributions and Donations: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Contributions and Donations: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Other Local Revenue: 1.17% 10.85% -100.00% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other Local Revenue: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

State Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

State Revenue: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Federal Revenue: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00


Page: 75





Debt Service Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Other Local Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


State Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Transportation Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Transportation Fees: -53.46% -33.33% -38.33% -45.95% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Transportation Fees: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00



State Revenue: -38.97% -27.38% 46.44% 338.08% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

State Revenue: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $430,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


-6.88% 28.61% -10.38% 5.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Municipal Retirement / Social Security Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017



State Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Capital Projects Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Contributions and Donations: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Contributions and Donations: Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00



State Revenue: -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


% Change of Transportation Expenditures -

Including Amort. Cap. Outlay:


Page: 76





Working Cash Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Other Local Revenue: -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


State Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Tort Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Other Local Revenue: -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


State Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Fire Prevention and Safety Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017



State Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Federal Revenue: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Funds to AggregateEducational Yes

Operations and Maintenance Yes

Debt Service No

Transportation Yes

IMRF Yes

Capital Projects No

Working Cash No

Tort No

Fire Prevention and Safety No


Page: 77





2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK: 78 78 82 83 68 95 95 95 95 95 95

PreK Special Ed: 23 4 3 8 7 11 11 11 11 11 11

K: 125 178 164 161 168 194 199 204 209 214 219

1: 171 141 176 170 175 174 190 194 195 192 198

2: 155 182 157 175 170 175 170 189 189 196 194

3: 145 159 178 165 188 168 176 168 187 189 193

4: 156 149 168 177 171 190 168 174 165 187 187

5: 173 169 168 168 170 192 190 166 173 167 175

6: 174 190 178 171 181 165 189 188 164 173 166

7: 164 181 198 181 168 179 170 188 183 164 164

8: 151 174 197 205 187 179 180 169 171 173 173

SPED Out-of-District 17 33 52 0 0 24 22 20 18 18 18

TOTAL ENROLLMENT: 1532 1638 1721 1664 1653 1746 1760 1766 1760 1779 1793

ANNUAL CHANGE: 106 83 -57 -11 93 14 6 -6 19 14

% CHANGE: 6.92% 5.07% -3.31% -0.66% 5.63% 0.79% 0.33% -0.34% 1.09% 0.80%

ADA: 1314.42 1515.58 1566.00 1555.63 1564.50 1564.50 1577.53 1583.09 1577.40 1595.51 1609.00

DHS Low Income Count: 740.00 855.00 973.00 975.46 1016.08 1024.54 1028.16 1024.46 1036.22 1044.98

Enrollment Assumptions


Page: 78





FTE2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK: 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

PreK Special Ed: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

K: 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

1: 8.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

2: 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

3: 7.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

4: 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

5: 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

6: 5.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

7: 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

8: 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Applied Tech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Art 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Drama/Speech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

ELL/Spanish 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00

Family & Consumer 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Health 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

LMC 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Music/PE 10.60 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

Nurse 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Psyct/Social Work/Coord 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

Special Ed 18.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00

Speech Languege 3.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10

Title I - LA 4.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00

Additional Programming 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSM/NSC 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

FTE: 130.70 125.10 128.10 128.10 128.10 128.10 128.10



Page: 79





STAFFING RATIO2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK: 34.00 47.50 47.50 47.50 47.50 47.50 47.50

PreK Special Ed: 7.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00

K: 21.00 24.25 24.25 24.25 24.25 24.25 24.25

1: 21.88 24.86 24.86 24.86 24.86 24.86 24.86

2: 24.29 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00

3: 26.86 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00 28.00

4: 24.43 23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75 23.75

5: 24.29 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43 27.43

6: 36.20 27.50 27.50 27.50 27.50 27.50 27.50

7: 33.60 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80

8: 37.40 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80 35.80

Applied Tech 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Art 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Drama/Speech 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ELL/Spanish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Family & Consumer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Health 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LMC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Music/PE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nurse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Special Ed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Speech Languege 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Title I - LA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Additional Programming 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSM/NSC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

District Student/Cert. Staff Ratio: 12.13 13.20 13.00 13.04 12.99 13.14 13.25



Page: 80





CHANGE IN CERTIFIED STAFF2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

PreK: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

PreK Special Ed: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

K: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1: 0.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3: 0.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6: 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Applied Tech 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Art 0.00 -2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Drama/Speech 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ELL/Spanish 0.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Family & Consumer 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Health 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LMC 0.00 -2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Music/PE 0.00 -2.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nurse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Special Ed 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Speech Languege 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Title I - LA 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Additional Programming 0.00 -5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

CSM/NSC 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FTE change: 0.00 -5.60 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Page: 81





Salary Assumptions:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Teachers 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Administrators 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Custodians 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Clerical 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Aides 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Transportation 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Extra Duty 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Substitutes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other TRS 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Other 2.10% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Benefits Assumptions

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Employer FICA: 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20% 6.20%

Medicare: 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45%

Employer IMRF: 9.71% 9.95% 9.95% 9.95% 9.95% 9.95%

Employer TRS retirement contribution 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58% 0.58%

Employer THIS (insurance) contribution 0.66% 0.66% 0.66% 0.66% 0.66% 0.66%

Board Paid TRS/THIS: 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% 1.24% 1.24%

Member THIS (insurance) contribution - Teachers 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88%

Paid by Employer? No No No No No No

Member THIS (insurance) contribution - Administrators 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88% 0.88%

Paid by Employer? No No No No No No

Employer TRS contribution on Federally Funded Salaries 25.12% 25.12% 25.12% 25.12% 25.12% 25.12%

Member Retirement Contribution - Teachers: 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40%

Percent paid By Employer: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Is Negotiated TRS part of Salaries? No No No No No No

Member Retirement Contribution - Administrators: 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40%

Percent Paid By Employer: 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40% 9.40%

Is Negotiated TRS part of Salaries? No No No No No No

Health Insurance 0.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%

Health Insurance Cost 10,735$ 11,809$ 12,989$ 14,288$ 15,717$ 17,289$

Dental Insurance 0.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%

Dental Insurance Cost 360$ 378$ 397$ 417$ 438$ 459$

Life Insurance 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Life Insurance Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Disability Insurance 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Disability Insurance Cost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

User Defined Benefit - 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

User Defined Benefit Cost - 3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Other: 0.00% -99.99% 1.27% 1.61% 1.96% 1.96%

Expenditure Assumptions


Page: 82





Educational Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Purchased Services 20.48% 153.05% -58.63% 138.42% 8.35% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

Purchased Services Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Supplies and Materials 48.76% 3.18% -27.69% -13.97% 33.26% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

Supplies and Materials Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $450,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Capital Outlay 129.33% -29.53% 607.78% -42.21% -76.20% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

Capital Outlay Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Other Objects -86.68% 602.89% 1656.32% -90.93% -87.33% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

Other Objects Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Non-Capitalized Equipment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Non-Capitalized Equipment Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Termination Benefits 25.66% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Termination Benefits Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Operations and Maintenance Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Purchased Services 15.60% 107.80% -62.09% 18.62% 142.29% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

Purchased Services Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($325,000.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Supplies and Materials 7.09% 18.63% -27.97% 7.06% 19.07% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

Supplies and Materials Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Capital Outlay 157.94% 22.61% -36.83% 218.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Capital Outlay Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($75,000.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Other Objects 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%




Termination Benefits 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%




Page: 83





Transportation Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Purchased Services -12.28% 32.35% -7.34% 5.55% -5.68% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%


Supplies and Materials -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Capital Outlay 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Capital Outlay Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Other Objects 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Non-Capitalized Equipment -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%




Capital Projects Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Purchased Services 34.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Supplies and Materials 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Capital Outlay 403.40% -100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Capital Outlay Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,391,746.00 ($1,391,746.00) $4,000,000.00 ($4,000,000.00) $0.00

Other Objects 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%








Page: 84





Tort Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Purchased Services 6.07% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%




Capital Outlay 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Other Objects 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%






Fire Prevention and Safety Fund - Assumptions2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Purchased Services -90.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%




Capital Outlay -93.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%


Other Objects 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%








Page: 85


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 3

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Appendixes

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 4

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 7

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 8

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 14

ShafferK

Text Box


Lincoln Junior High School

Language Arts Department 2011-2012

Throughout the 2011-2012 school year, the language arts department has made

many improvements to our curriculum so that it is more effective for our students.

As we move to prepare ourselves for the Common Core, our curriculum will continue

to evolve to meet our students’ needs. Below are some of the changes we have made

as a department:

Common Core: Summer Work included integrating the Common Core

standards in reading and completing a Gap Analysis for each grade level.

Reader’s Journey: Each grade level replaced one Prentice Hall Literature unit

with a correlated unit in Reader’s Journey. Reader’s Journey is a novel-based

program by Pearson using the Grant Wiggins Understanding by Design model.

The common,, formative, benchmark assessment was used in each of these

units, just as it is in PHLit. Reader’s Journey is also aligned with the Common

Core.

Writing Coach: The writing component in PHLit was replaced with Writing

Coach this year in all three grades. Writing Coach by Pearson is an innovative,

digital, and personalized writing program that teaches students the writing

process while using the six traits effectively. Eighth grade has fully

implemented Writing Coach, and sixth and seventh grades are working

toward full implementation for the 2012-2013 school year. Writing Coach is

also aligned with the Common Core.

Peer Observations: We have created an observation form to use and have

begun observing each other in the language arts department. We are finding

that this provides each of us with valuable information and ideas to help

improve our lessons.

Independent Reading: Each grade level has monthly/quarterly book reports

or projects for independent reading books, with appropriate students’ lexiles.

Honors: Skills are taught through more novel studies which lend themselves

to higher level and more analytical thinking. In preparation for Honors

English at the high school, classics are read and studied applying skills in

more depth. Students also read independently; the requirement in eighth

grade is 1000 pages per quarter with analytical assessments for each book

read. In seventh grade, they are reading one classic per quarter and

completing the Reading Skills Thinking Exercises.

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 17

Prentice Hall Writing Coach: A Writing Curriculum by Pearson

Features and Benefits

Good writing skills are important for students to succeed. Between writing sections on

standardized tests and communicating digitally through e-mail and other electronic media, the

ability to write clearly, concisely, and intelligently can carry students a long way in college and in

life.

Writing Coach is a digitally driven grammar and writing program that improves students’ skills in

Grades 6–12.

What else is Writing Coach?

It’s Personalized

Writing Coach gives your students personalized, detailed feedback on the strengths and

weaknesses of their writing. It is the only program that uses a paragraph scorer as well as an

essay scorer so that your struggling students who aren’t ready to write larger pieces can receive

the same productive feedback as the rest of the class.

It’s Flexible

Writing Coach only has a few components that work together as a comprehensive writing

program or a seamless complement to any literature anthologies, novels, or other language arts

program you might be using.

It’s Manageable

The best way for your students to become better writers is to spend more time writing. The

problem is, the more time they spend writing, the more time you need to spend grading and

assessing. Writing Coach does the time-consuming work for you by grading all of your students’

writing examples and providing personalized feedback. This lets you spend more time teaching

and a whole lot less time grading.

It’s Engaging

Writing Coach provides targeted writing feedback in an online format that works for your digital

natives. Plus, your students will receive extensive experience communicating in today’s digital

world with skills instruction in writing e-mails and blogs, evaluating material on the Internet, and

developing multimedia presentations.

It’s Comprehensive

Writing Coach is more than just a writing program. It’s a complete language arts program that

provides personalized grammar instruction as well. Writing Coach uses your students’ writing

examples to diagnose strengths and weaknesses in their grammar and supports them with

grammar instruction and remediation.

The Reader's Journey

The Reader's Journey is an innovative novel-based Language Arts program dedicated to making

students lifelong readers. The program was developed using Grant Wiggins's Understanding by

Design model - a common sense approach for connecting curriculum, instruction and assessment

so students develop deep understanding every day.

Designed for today’s middle school classroom, The Reader's Journey is a standards-based

program that combines the flexibility of a leveled library with the comprehensive curriculum

coverage that has been a hallmark of Prentice Hall language arts programs.

With six different novels at various reading levels per unit, this program gives you unmatched

flexibility in meeting the needs of all learners. You may also choose to select titles from your

own library! Student Work Texts are colorful and captivating and sharpen reading, writing,

grammar, vocabulary and communication skills. A full array of teaching support is available to

ensure success for both teacher and student. Enjoy the journey!

Learn more about Understanding by Design.

http://www.pearsonubd.com/index.html

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 17

ShafferK

Text Box


Influences on Mathematics Textbook Selection: What Really Matters?

Julie Koehler Zeringue Deborah Spencer

June Mark Katherine Schwinden

K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center Education Development Center

Newton, MA

Paper presented at the NCTM Research Pre-session

April 2010 San Diego, CA

Draft – Do not quote without permission of the authors. For more information about this work, please contact Julie Zeringue at [email protected].

Education Development Center Inc., 2010 page 2

Researchers have long been in agreement that instructional materials matter (Begle, 1973; Begle, 1979; Driscoll, 1980; Glidden, 1991; McKnight et al., 1987; Porter, 1989; Robitaille & Travers, 1992; Schmidt, McKnight, & Raizen, 1997; Tyson, 1997; Usiskin, 1985). Four decades ago, the School Mathematics Study Group provided this summation of the National Longitudinal Study of Mathematical Abilities: “If a mathematical topic is in the text, then students do learn it. If the topic is not in the text, then, on average, students do not learn it” (Begle, 1973, p. 209). The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) showed that this pattern endures; the performance of U.S. eighth graders was notably different on different topic areas, and those differences could be linked to differences in emphasis in instructional materials. The correlation between topics that were covered in the textbook and what teachers actually taught was a stunning .95. One of the important findings of TIMSS is “…that the curriculum itself —what is taught—makes a huge difference” (Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan, 2002, p. 12, authors’ italics).

Instructional materials can play a defining role in mathematics classrooms, affecting both what and how teachers teach (National Research Council, 2002; Reys, Reys, Lapan, & Holliday, 2003; Van Zoest & Bohl, 2002). Ball and Cohen (1996) explain this influence: “Unlike frameworks, objectives, assessments, and other mechanisms that seek to guide curriculum, instructional materials are concrete and daily. They are the stuff of lessons and units, of what teachers and students do… Not only are curriculum materials well positioned to influence individual teachers’ work but, unlike many other innovations, textbooks are already ‘scaled up’ and part of the routine of schools. They have ‘reach’ in the system” (p. 6). When ignored, instructional materials can become a stumbling block. Schmidt (2002) cautions against efforts to improve instruction that are isolated from efforts to improve instructional materials: “If we pretend that the textbook doesn’t exist—and conduct professional development in ways that assume teachers will implement an entirely different approach to content than the texts take—believe me, the textbook will win” (p. 18). To successfully strengthen mathematics instruction, school districts must consider how materials will play a part.

Reys, Reys, and Chavez (2004) also describe the powerful influence of textbooks in the classroom and the impact of materials on instruction. However, they also note that textbook authors and publishers are developing materials in a country where local control, both at the district and state level, make it difficult to standardize content. In addition, financial considerations can greatly affect the decisions of publishers, as well as the content of the materials. Given the influence of instructional materials and the variation in content and presentation of this content, the authors recommend giving careful thought to their selection. The selection of instructional materials is not only critical because of the influence of these materials on the teaching and learning of mathematics but also because instructional materials can become a critical piece in a district’s plan to advance the quality of students’ mathematics learning. The selection of new mathematics instructional materials occurs in school districts every six to eight years (Finn, Ravitch, & Whitman, 2004; Reys & Reys, 2006) and provides an occasion for a conversation about the mathematics program and its improvement. In all but the most superficial selection processes, administrators and teachers have a conversation about the intentions of the mathematics program, ways in which they would like it to improve, and how various materials would support the achievement of those goals (Spencer, Mark, Zeringue, & Schwinden, in press). The selection process is an opportunity to direct some financial resources toward program improvement in mathematics, one that few districts intend to squander. And, in fact, over the past decade many school districts across the country have centered their program


improvement efforts on the adoption and use of instructional materials well aligned to state standards (Mark, Spencer, Zeringue, & Schwinden, 2010). These district-level improvement efforts are, in many cases, a response to increased accountability for student outcomes in mathematics and are intended to ensure that all students are exposed to high-quality mathematics content and instruction. Selection processes are complicated, though, because in reality, program improvement is only one of the outcomes considered. The selection process is not just a process of curriculum decision-making; it is also a purchasing process, a human resources process, and a political process. Administrators and teachers choosing new mathematics materials also consider:

• The information available about the effectiveness of new materials under consideration and the supports necessary for using them well. It is not easy to discriminate among programs in terms of quality, given the limited research on effectiveness, the potential bias in the information provided by publishers, and the vast amount of material in each program (making them difficult to review comprehensively in limited committee time).

• The resources available to the district. The resources needed are financial (to support the purchase of books, ancillary materials, and professional development), time (classroom time for mathematics instruction; time available for professional development), and expertise (of the teachers; also, expertise available on the new materials themselves).

• The support for change among the various stakeholders. Because the adoption of new mathematics instructional materials (particularly the adoption of materials that are substantively different from those used prior) may require some changes in classroom practice, teachers, principals, and district-level administrators must commit to supporting those changes. Parents are also important stakeholders in this process.

Although bodies of research exist looking at the effects of mathematics instructional materials on student achievement, the role of materials in the classroom, and the mediating effects of teachers in using mathematics textbooks, substantially less is known about how districts choose mathematics textbooks and what factors affect these choices. Given the influence of textbooks and the increased attention to the adoption of materials as an improvement strategy, how districts negotiate the process of selecting instructional materials and what considerations matter most when making choices about these materials is of growing concern. In this paper, we report on a study conducted by Education Development Center (EDC)1 investigating curricular decision-making, with particular attention to the factors that mattered most to districts when selecting mathematics instructional materials. The research questions that guided this work include:

• What processes do school districts use in selecting mathematics textbooks?

• What factors shape curriculum decisions in K-12 mathematics? • How does textbook selection differ in state-adoption and open-territory states?

• What research do curriculum leaders find most useful in textbook selection? • What questions about mathematics textbooks do decision-makers need answered?

1 The authors are grateful for the National Science Foundation’s support, as part of an applied research project (Grant No. ESI-0454022). Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.


This paper reports primarily on the second of these research questions, paying specific attention to the most significant factors affecting curriculum leaders’ and selection committees’ decisions when deciding which mathematics instructional materials would be the best fit for their districts. However, we also touch on other aspects of our research questions. Before delving into these influences, and illustrating how these factors are intertwined and play out in districts, we review our data collection efforts, with a particular focus on the deliberate choices we made in selecting states and the potential effects of state context on materials selection. Data Collection

In order to understand the complexities and realities of how districts select mathematics instructional materials, we began investigating these questions by conducting in-depth interviews with over 150 K–12 mathematics curriculum decision-makers representing districts in eight states. These states – Colorado, Louisiana, Maine, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia – were carefully chosen to investigate curriculum decision-making in a variety of state-adoption and open-territory states across the country. Districts selected for interviews within each state reflected a range of characteristics in terms of performance level, geographic region, percent of students in poverty, size, and instructional materials used.

Our interviewees were, in most cases, the person in each district directly responsible for overseeing the selection of new mathematics textbooks.2 Interviewers sought to understand curriculum decision-making processes in various settings, to identify the decisions curriculum leaders make, and to identify the role various sources of information play in those decisions. We were particularly interested in curriculum leaders’ use of research, in light of national calls for a broader perspective on the research needed to properly evaluate instructional materials in mathematics (National Research Council, 2004). The qualitative data gathered in these interviews was then supplemented by other sources, including a survey of the members of the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, a series of surveys of curriculum leaders nationally, conducted by our partners at Inverness Research Associates, an investigation of state-level documents and websites, and a review of the relevant literature. This data was analyzed first for each state individually to identify themes and hypotheses. We then looked across states to identify a set of claims in six key areas, including factors that influence mathematics textbook decisions and curriculum leaders’ use of research and resources. We then coded each interview, as well as the survey results, organizing the data available to confirm or disconfirm each possible claim. However for the purposes of this paper, we will only be reporting data from our interviews. In designing our study, both in our construction of our sample and in the design utilized for conducting an analysis of the data, we paid very careful attention to state context. Given the clear differences in textbook selection procedures and policies in state-adoption and open-territory states, we felt it was essential to better understand how state context affected the decisions made by curriculum leaders and selection committees. In the section below, we describe what it means to be an open-territory or state-adoption state and offer a brief overview of how state context

2 Our interviewees were typically mathematics supervisors, curriculum coordinators, department chairs, and assistant superintendents. For simplicity’s sake, throughout this article we refer to these interviewees collectively as “curriculum leaders” though none held this title officially.


affects textbook selection. (For further discussion of this issue see Zeringue, Spencer, Schwinden, & Mark, 2008.)

The state context for textbook selection Statewide adoption of textbooks dates back to the late nineteenth century when some states – many in the south – wanted to influence textbook content, make access to textbooks more uniform to address the challenges for transient populations, and standardize costs for districts (Farr & Tulley, 1985).3 States typically characterized as state-adoption states are those states that control textbook selection by providing state funding for purchase of materials on an approved state list, by establishing the timing of the adoption cycle and by providing regulations that local districts must follow. Even though these are shared features of state-adoption states, there is a wide range of how these influences play out in each state. (See Zeringue, et al., 2008 for examples of the range of contexts within state-adoption states.)

Although the widely used and accepted term is adoption state (Farr & Tulley, 1985; Watts-Taffe, 2006), Stern (2006) makes the distinction between adoption states and states that refer to themselves as recommendation states (e.g., Idaho, Utah, Virginia), in which districts select from a recommended list provided by the state. While there is no penalty for selecting materials not on these lists, funding is still connected to purchasing from the recommended list. For the purposes of this article, states that link funding to lists provided from the state, influence timing of the adoption cycle, and offer some guidelines about the process will all be referred to as state-adoption states.

Using the above definition, twenty-one states in the United States are state-adoption states. While there is general agreement in the literature about what constitutes an adoption state (Farr & Tulley, 1985; Finn, Ravitch & Whitman, 2004; Watts-Taffe, 2006; Zinth, 2005), there is slight variation in the number, ranging from 20 to 22, of states deemed state-adoption states. The lack of consensus focuses mainly on the designation for the states of Illinois and Nevada. Illinois does provide textbooks to districts free of charge through the Textbook Loan Program, however, it does not determine a list of approved materials;4 districts or schools are free to select programs without restriction from the state. In Nevada, district committees recommend textbooks to the State Board of Education for adoption and the state funds the purchases.5 Because Nevada retains some control over which materials are approved for selection, and Illinois does not, for the purpose of this study, we list Illinois as open territory, and Nevada as state adoption. This results in a list of twenty-one state adoption states.

The remaining twenty-nine states are considered open-territory6 states, which means that the choice of instructional materials is unrestricted by the state, and decisions about funding and timing of adoptions are made locally, at the district or school level. In open-territory states, states

3 Many critics argue the merits of statewide adoption, believing the process marred by censorship and the textbook market controlled by the largest adoption states. A discussion of these issues can be found in Ansary (2004), Finn, Ravitch, & Whitman (2004), and Tyson-Bernstein (1988). 4 In 2009, budget cuts resulted in an elimination of funding for the Textbook Loan Program (TLP) in fiscal year 2010. However, the TLP continues to operate. (http://webprod1.isbe.net/illinoistextbookloanprogram/aspapps/Default.asp) 5 (http://nde.doe.nv.gov/Resources_TextbookAdoption.htm) 6 Open-territory state is the term used by Finn, Ravitch, & Whitman (2004) and the one we have chosen to use, but it is also common to see the term open state (Watts-Taffe, 2006) to refer to this group of states.


neither dictate what materials districts must select nor do they fund the purchase of mathematics instructional materials. Although the state does not provide funding for textbooks, they may provide other resources that affect textbook selection. In fact, there is a wide variation in the role of the state in open-territory states, with some states having characteristics resembling that of state-adoption states and other states still highly reliant on local decision-making with little or no involvement from the state. (See Zeringue et al., 2008 for examples of the range of contexts within open-territory states.) See Figure 1 for a map of state-adoption and open-territory states. Figure 1

Although the literature on textbook adoption is limited, a common thread is the discussion of the policies in state-adoption and open-territory states and how influences from the state have the potential to have an impact on the choices made at the district and classroom level. In these times of increased accountability, where districts are looking to materials selection as a way to improve their mathematics program and ultimately increase student achievement, understanding this role of state context as an influence on the mathematics selection process is critical. State context factors into many of the design decisions made by curriculum leaders, but what factors matter most for districts when selecting instructional materials? In the section below, we share the influences that ultimately led to why districts selected particular materials. Additionally, we illustrate how these factors may play out differently depending on state context.

Findings: What Really Matters in Selecting Mathematics Instructional Materials Across states and districts, we found many commonalities in districts’ processes for choosing new instructional materials in mathematics. The process most commonly used involved assembling a selection committee with a representative group of teachers that acted as the primary decision-makers.


Figure 2: Phases of a typical selection process

In a typical district, committee members prepare for the selection process by reviewing such information as state or district data and relevant articles. They then narrow the program options by creating a “short list” of programs for analysis, evaluating those options in detail using established criteria and then deciding on a recommendation, by consensus or by official vote. (See Figure 2.) We did also find, however, key variations on the process, most notably in relation to the role of the curriculum leader, and in the extent to which the process was formalized. In the analyses of these processes, we found five key factors that matter most when districts are selecting mathematics instructional materials. These include:

• The degree of alignment of the candidate materials with state standards and tests; • The anticipated level of teacher acceptance of the materials under consideration;

• The advocacy of a curriculum leader(s) for a particular approach or set of materials; • A committee’s evaluation of the quality of the materials being reviewed (usually based

on an established set of criteria); and • Additional information about the materials such as, data about student performance,

reviews from trusted sources, and advice from neighboring districts. In the section below we discuss each of these factors. This section is followed by a collection of district stories, drawn from our interviews, that illustrate how these factors interact within the context of a district’s process for choosing new instructional materials.

Alignment with state standards and tests Curriculum leaders—in both state-adoption and open-territory states—emphasized the importance of choosing instructional materials that aligned with their state standards and were consistent with their state tests. An overwhelming majority of curriculum leaders (97%) mentioned or described attention to state standards and tests in their selection process. More than half (60%) of our interviewees designed their selection processes to include an “alignment check” to ensure that the materials being considered were well aligned to state standards. This


ranged from a cursory look—Does this textbook align with the general direction of our state standards?—to a much more detailed analysis. Some districts did their own analysis to look at depth of coverage of a particular topic (e.g., functions) or to examine a concept that was particularly weak for their students (e.g., division of fractions), whereas some districts in state adoption states relied solely on the state’s approval of materials as evidence of alignment. This attention to state standards and tests largely resulted from increased accountability for student learning at the state level and districts’ needs to meet the requirement of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. NCLB demanded greater accountability for students’ learning and called for research-based evidence to support the choice of mathematics textbooks. Revised state standards included grade-level expectations (Reys, 2006) and measured outcomes for students in grades 3–10 along with consequences for under-performance (consistent with NCLB) thereby increasing the importance of aligning mathematics programs with state standards.

Another way in which accountability pressures influenced the selection process was in districts in our study moving toward greater centralized decision-making about mathematics materials. More than three-quarters of districts in our study provided evidence of this shift. This move was most evident in districts that historically allowed schools (or even teachers) to choose mathematics textbooks independently; most such districts in our sample now require common materials be used across all schools. Districts that have always made a centralized decision but have, in the past, allowed teachers to make individual choices about the extent to which they use the selected textbooks, reported introducing mechanisms such as pacing guides, curriculum maps, and common unit and yearly assessments that hold teachers accountable for using the adopted materials.

Teacher acceptance of the materials When districts choose new instructional materials, teacher input into the selection, as well as the anticipated level of acceptance for the materials when implemented, matters. Curriculum leaders we interviewed cited various reasons for including teachers, both in the design of the process and in planning for implementation. Ninety-four percent of our interviews were coded as including some teacher input in the process, and 82% of our interviewees reported teacher committees as an element of the selection process. Teacher input and acceptance played a significant role in the selection for three central reasons:

• A belief that teachers, as the educational experts, should decide on the materials used in classroom. This belief stems from the view that since teachers are the instructional experts, they should have final say in the materials they use in their classrooms.

• Teacher input is mandated by district or board policies. This requirement took a few different forms: the design of the process to include teachers through a committee, piloting of materials, or a teacher vote on choice of materials.

• Teacher input in the selection of materials is viewed as important in preparing for the successful implementation of materials. Concerns about fidelity of use and teacher buy-in prompted leaders to involve teachers in the process.

Attention to teachers’ experience using the materials was also reflected through the inclusion of “ease of use” elements among the criteria for evaluation, such as whether the materials were teacher-friendly or had additional assessment resources and other desirable ancillaries.


Teachers’ comfort with the choices being considered was particularly an issue if any of the options represented a significant change in practice. For example, materials developed with support from the National Science Foundation, such as Everyday Mathematics, Connected Mathematics, and Core-Plus, were seen by interviewees as requiring a shift in approach to content and pedagogy for many teachers. While many districts in our study had adopted such materials, some curriculum leaders we interviewed expressed reluctance to choose textbooks that required significant change in instructional practices, fearing that implementation would suffer from lack of teacher interest, commitment, or knowledge. This consideration sometimes meant that curriculum leaders ultimately accepted materials that were less satisfying for their identified programmatic needs, in exchange for an expected higher degree of teachers’ commitment and use. As one curriculum leader described the phenomenon, “There are times where our needs, and the programs that support them, are just too radical and it’s just too much change. And so, when folks have a voice [in the process], they can resist the radical change through that voice. And sometimes, that’s probably saved us. And other times, it’s actually hindered.”

In fact, according the literature, when selecting mathematics instructional materials, districts must give careful thought to how the materials will be used and adapted by teachers. In an analysis of how middle school teachers used the district-adopted textbook, Tarr, Chávez, Reys, and Reys (2006) found that the textbook influenced what was taught in the classroom, but teachers took liberty in moving and omitting content and certain content, such as number operation, received greater emphasis than was proportional to what was included in the text. In a related set of studies (Chávez, Grouws, Tarr, Ross, & McNaught, 2009; Chval, Chávez, Reys, & Tarr, 2009; McNaught, Tarr, & Grouws, 2008) that looked at curriculum implementation, the authors again found that teachers omit lessons and/or units from the textbooks and also make use of supplemental materials. However, the results also suggested that teachers tended to be more faithful to the content of the textbooks than to the instructional approach suggested in the materials.

According to our findings, when selecting materials, curriculum leaders and selection committees do consider teacher readiness to use the materials, the content teachers are likely to teach, how teachers will teach the content and what district and school supports need to be in place to ensure the strongest implementation possible. If these factors are not considered in the selection process the implementation of the materials is likely to be even more difficult. Advocacy for a particular approach or set of materials In our study, we found that a substantial minority of the curriculum leaders we interviewed played a role in advocating for specific materials or a particular instructional approach, and ultimately their advocacy greatly influenced textbook selections. It was a key factor in at least 30% of the selection decisions in our study. In most of these instances (93%), it was the curriculum leader—a mathematics director, curriculum coordinator, or assistant superintendent—who advocated for specific materials or a type of materials.

Curriculum leaders who chose to champion a particular program or perspective did so in different phases of the selection process, from preparation to the final decision. Many leaders used the preparation phase to showcase a specific instructional approach, or develop criteria targeting a certain program or type of program. Curriculum leaders also chose to only include materials that represented a particular instructional approach (e.g., only NSF-funded instructional materials) or handpicked the subset of textbooks to be included on the “short list.” Advocacy for


a specific program was also evident in the final decisions, where 12% of curriculum leaders actually chose the instructional materials to be adopted by the district.

Not all curriculum leaders felt that advocating for a particular perspective, materials or instructional approach was an option. Some curriculum leaders described local or state policies that specifically prohibited such advocacy. Other leaders believed it was critical to avoid any perceptions of bias and chose to remain neutral in an attempt to maximize teacher input into the decision. We also found evidence that some states played a targeted advocacy role in district selection decisions (beyond the role of that played by textbook lists in state adoption state) either by encouraging the use of particular programs in their state standards (11% of interviewees), or through state Department of Education advocacy for certain programs (8%). Other ways in which states exerted an influence on selection decisions were by providing professional development programs, by providing an influential alignment document or recommended list of materials, or by issuing new state tests, standards, or graduation requirements (thus necessitating a change in instructional materials). Evaluation of the quality of the materials

In many districts, the selection committee’s evaluation of the quality of the materials under consideration influenced what they ultimately selected. Committee evaluations of the quality of the materials were usually guided by a set of criteria and in at least two-thirds of the districts were codified into an evaluation form, checklist, or rubric. The use of a formal, established rubric was somewhat more common in the state-adoption (80%) than in the open-territory states. The intention of the rubric was to make the evaluation process more objective, consistent and rational, and to convey district beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning. Curriculum leaders in our study described the established criteria as a mechanism they used to keep the committee focused, and to ensure that committee members were not distracted by supplementary materials or physical features of the materials. The use of a rubric also provided selection committees with numeric, seemingly more “objective” data to support their ultimate decision. In developing their criteria, districts often collected rubrics from other sources and revised them to reflect their specific needs. What specific criteria were included on rubrics? Our data suggest that the primary criteria used by selection committees to evaluate the materials were:

• the alignment to state and national mathematics standards, • the quality of important mathematical content,

• the materials’ pedagogical or instructional approaches, and • the organization of the materials including supplementary materials.

Among the criteria used, the most frequently mentioned were the evaluation of the materials’ alignment with standards (consistent with our earlier description of the importance of state standards) and the quality of mathematics content. When describing the attention to pedagogical approach, curriculum leaders in our study emphasized the importance of ease of use for teachers and a balanced instructional approach. Other criteria mentioned included the professional development requirements for the program and the availability of materials for parents.


Data, reviews, and advice Districts in our study also considered information that went beyond the committee’s review of the materials. Curriculum leaders and committee members turned to relevant literature, to knowledgeable and trusted sources of information, to results from piloting, and to advice from similar districts in making their selections. Nearly 80% of curriculum leaders indicated using such resources or research at some juncture of the process to gather data about the use, effectiveness, and acceptance of the materials under consideration, and the data gathered from these sources was a significant influence on the choice of textbooks in more than half of our interviews. Districts used many of the aforementioned resources to collect data about potential mathematics programs in framing the short list of materials for consideration or in preparation for making a final decision. We also found that curriculum leaders gathered a substantial amount of information to set the stage for the selection process. It was in this preparation phase that curriculum leaders discussed the research literature, including articles on student learning of mathematics and curriculum selection. Curriculum leaders viewed this phase as an opportunity to orient the committee regarding high quality teaching and learning in mathematics and best practices, and as a chance to lay the groundwork for the other phases. As curriculum leaders discussed the research and resources used to gather data to inform the selection process and eventual decision, it became evident that much of the information they relied upon was not just from peer-reviewed scientific research published in journals. What we found was that curriculum leaders were seeking information from trusted sources, individuals or organizations that were considered knowledgeable to identify “top” mathematics materials. These sources included regional and national organizations, state departments of education, and professional networks. Expert reviews, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s (2000) Project 2061 textbook evaluations or analyses of textbook alignment to state standards, were used to identify short lists of high-quality mathematics textbooks.

In open-territory states one of the most trusted resources was data from “districts like us” — neighboring or demographically similar districts. Almost half of our curriculum leaders contacted colleagues in other districts to discover which programs they should be seriously considering. Conducting site visits was another way for curriculum leaders to gain information about the alignment of a particular program with the state test, and to access others’ experiences using the programs to support student learning. Information gathered from these trusted sources offered curriculum leaders opportunities to identify instructional materials that might help districts improve their mathematics achievement, and to learn more directly about the use of these programs in preparation for implementation. These trusted sources were ultimately influential in districts’ decision-making.

District Stories: Illustrations of the Selection Factors in Context The stories below illustrate the influences, or factors, that were most critical in districts’ processes for selecting mathematics instructional materials in our study. As you read through these examples, you will notice not only differences in the processes themselves, but also see which factors mattered most in the districts’ selections and how these factors interacted.


Alder Brook School District7 Alder Brook is a suburban district in an open-territory state. As director of curriculum, Robert Evanston facilitates a selection process that reflects the main characteristics of a typical process. In this district, materials are reviewed and selected according to a predetermined adoption schedule. A committee composed of teachers makes the final decision, although they work closely with the curriculum leader. In our interview with him, Robert described this process.

Robert Evanston, Director of Curriculum Alder Brook School District

We were on a five-year cycle. When it’s math’s year, around October, I would call the textbook companies. We get a vendor list, vendors that are approved through the state. I would tell them to send their samples to my schools, and I asked them not to send them until around the end of January, so we’d get through Christmas.

I would meet with the staff of each building and say, “You’ll be getting these samples. Be looking at them. Have some dialogue.” Most of our schools had common planning time at grade levels, and they would meet, really, without my guidance, as a grade level, just getting some input. Then we had a math textbook committee, with a representative from each grade. When I had a district meeting, the math representative would come with their colleagues’ opinions.

Usually, when we got together as a math committee, we would have three or four choices to look at. The teachers had already weeded out some that were not comprehensive, when they looked at them on their own. Then each grade level will have a little form and look at, say, Numeration. How would you score that according to that standard? Numeration. Was it completely covered? Or was it just barely there? Each company got a score for each standard. Then you’d see which textbook had the most complete coverage.

Then, our district has what we call power standards. Even though the state gave us indicators, the district chose power indicators, and these were ones that the teachers felt the kids had to have before they go to the next grade. We wanted to make sure that those power indicators were not just covered, but covered in depth in the text. Our power standards might be different than the district next to us, because we had to look at our data, our student data. Their strengths and weaknesses. So you have those, and then they look at the text to see, “Are the power standards covered in depth? What kind of instruction do they suggest?”

Because, as much as I dislike it, there are some teachers who look at the textbook as their bible. It’s just a guide, not your bible. But we wanted to make sure that they had good instructional strategies there, and that they were explained well. Then we would also have to look at the assessment. What assessment pieces came with it? You know, was it just basic factual things? Was there some real world connection? Higher level thinking? All that stuff: Was it teacher friendly? Was it student friendly? Were the graphics pretty, because you know, kids like colorful things. Did it have a lot of student engagement? And we also had to look at, was there integration with writing? What professional development is going to be needed, to get teachers to be able to implement this series? There were a lot of factors that they had to look at.

Then, the textbook representatives would come in, and they would meet with the committee.

I usually let the teachers decide, as long they could show me on the little forms that they would fill out, it does cover their indicators, and it does have, you know, multiple kinds of assessment, student engagement, integration of the writing, you know… I respect their opinion. Because I always felt like, if they had a buy-in with it, they’re going to do a better job than if I just said, “No, you’re not getting that. You’re getting this.” Now if they picked a book just because it had a lot of pictures, and if it didn’t meet the criteria that we had set, I didn’t hesitate to say no.

7 (The names of all individuals and school districts have been changed.)


This story offers an example of a process influenced by several major factors, including teacher acceptance, the use of criteria, and the use of data. Teacher acceptance is a consistent theme throughout the process, from the earliest stage, when all teachers are encouraged to “have some dialogue,” through the work with the math committee, and ending with the selection of the materials. The importance of the role of teacher acceptance is also evident in Robert’s remark, “I always felt that if they had buy-in with it, they’re going to do a better job than if I just said, “No, you’re not getting that…” This remark also reveals Robert’s attitude about his role in the process, in which he assumes a more neutral stance, while reserving the right to veto unacceptable materials. His advocacy, therefore, is not a strong influence in the choice of materials. The use of criteria and the use of research and resources as factors are also in evidence, both in the use of the alignment check against state standards and in the reliance of district test data to check alignment with the district power standards.

Slippery Creek School District Hope Lange is the curriculum coordinator in Slippery Creek, a small rural district. Hope’s account of the selection process in her district offers an example of a process in which the administrator plays a more prominent role. In fact, in this example, Hope is highly involved and influential in the process. Her approach emphasizes the selection of materials that will support improvements to the mathematics program. Although a committee of teachers does play a substantial role in this process, Hope’s decision to review only NSF-funded materials limited their choices. Hope described her approach to this selection process.

Hope Lange, Curriculum Coordinator Slippery Creek County School District

Last year was my first as curriculum coordinator, and I practically stroked out at what they were using for math. I thought, “Oh, my goodness. How am I going to fix this?” Primarily, the teachers “do math.” They don’t understand math; they do math. It’s all standard algorithm. They assess kids using photocopied, multiple choice, bubble tests. There’s very little hands-on. Kids don’t conceptually understand. They have no fluidity of thinking about math. I had been involved in setting up a selection process for a new math program a few years ago in my former district. I had done a lot of research and knew what to look for.

I had a math curriculum committee, with grade level representatives. So we had a K rep, a one rep, etc. And basically we talked about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, and I was very blunt. I used state test scores to show that we were in trouble mathematically. We went to the data, and I said, “Woo, folks. We’re walking this thin edge of barely meeting.” For me, there was the real concern about math instruction. But my entry point was the state test scores.

Then I went to the state department of education and talked to the mathematics curriculum specialist. I was trying to figure out, maybe I should get some [replacement] units out to the people to get them in to looking at math differently. The specialist said, “I wouldn’t start with [those] if you’ve got people who don’t understand math.” Then I got to thinking. And I was talking to some people from a local math and science collaborative, and I just said, “Why don’t we just pilot the best of the best out there?” And they suggested that I look at NSF-supported series. And then we piloted this year. We [piloted two of the programs]; we were unable to pilot [a third], because they were in the middle of a rewrite.

And I was trying to think of how to structure this so that I didn’t have to get into, “This is my agenda.” So I basically told people that I went to the math collaborative and the Department of Education, and they suggested I look at standards-based programs that had been reviewed by National Science Foundation. I know the work’s not real new anymore, but it gave me something to hold onto. And I really had no agenda, once we put that parameter around what they were looking at.


The teachers piloted the materials. Then we had a math curriculum committee meeting. I was so prepared. I had this wonderful process for evaluating stuff. And people just said, “[The first program] is just too hard to implement. It’s too language-heavy.” But the people who tried [the second program] loved it. It’s got all the bells and whistles for ease of implementation. They said, “We’re ready to make a decision.” So next year we’re going to be instituting [the second program].

I’m trying to lay some groundwork for major change, and we’re getting there. I don’t hammer it to death. I just say it like it’s a fact: “We’re troubled mathematically.” So people know that. They may not believe it, but they’ve heard it enough to know that it’s a belief system here. What I’m seeing—and my perceptions may not be accurate, because staff know I’m a proponent of the change—but what I’m seeing is acceptance.

This story offers a strong example of a process influenced both by the advocacy of the leader and other major factors. Hope’s willingness to narrow the committee’s choices stands in contrast to those of other leaders (like Robert) who assume a more neutral stance. The factors of use of research and resources are evident throughout the story, both in the reliance on state test data as an “entry point” into the discussion, and Hope’s decision to seek the opinions of “trusted sources” in the department of education and local math collaborative.

Garden City School District Garden City is a mid-sized district in a state that has a state-adoption process for instructional materials. Susan Hall is the K-12 mathematics coordinator for the district, and organizes a process for selecting new instructional materials for mathematics that is similar to many others in the state. In talking about her selection process, Susan shared the following story.

Susan Hall, K–12 Mathematics Coordinator Garden City Public Schools

We have teacher committees for different levels. We had a grades 6–8 committee. We had an Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2 committee. We had a pre-calc, and calculus, and stats committee. We use the criteria form developed by one of the university-based state resource centers as a reference. We study the texts in detail. And then we looked at textbooks only to see how they correlated with the state standards. We documented all of that. After that was done, then we looked somewhat at ancillaries and supplemental materials that came with the books. After that we narrowed it down to the top three choices. Then the publishers were called. We have a closed adoption, which means that the publishers are not allowed to go out and visit the teachers or talk to them. So the publishers are then called to present on the top three choices. And then we narrowed it down to our first choice.

At central office we were not members of the committee nor did we vote. Because I just think it needs to be a teacher’s decision. They are teaching from the book and they are using the materials. It gives them more ownership. That it wasn’t somebody else that’s not teaching everyday in a classroom making the decision for them. The math specialists at central office pretty much ran those meetings and did the work. Their role was to facilitate, to organize, to make sure to keep everyone on task. But in no way to influence their decisions.

From experience I’ve gone through many different situations and it’s just very important to remain neutral from my end. And to let the teachers decide, but to give them the tools that they need so they’ll make sure they’ve done a good evaluation. I think the ultimate choice is the teacher’s. They are going to use those materials. And they’re in the rooms every day with the kids and so they’ve got a lot of knowledge. And it’s interesting to see so many different opinions. And you know it’s interesting to see the politics of what plays out.


I didn’t have any expectations of what they would choose, because the instructional materials that I looked at this time were all pretty similar. There was some debate, I think they discussed some of the pedagogy that was in the books. I can’t give you a lot of detail on that because I wasn’t in those meetings.

In this story, clearly one of the key factors was teacher acceptance of the materials. The curriculum leader shared her perspective about how important it is for teachers to have ownership of the decision, and for the process to respect their classroom knowledge and expertise. In this district, not only was it important for teachers to provide input on the decision, the curriculum leader and central office staff remained neutral in the decision-making process. Another critical factor in this district’s story was the alignment of the materials to state standards and tests. In fact, the first step in the district’s review process was to determine how well instructional materials programs under consideration correlated with their state standards. Also evident in this district’s process was the use of an established set of criteria to evaluate the quality of the materials. This district reached out to their local university resource center to obtain these criteria and access resources to support their selection process. Springfield High School Springfield, a very rural school district with a small mathematics department, has an informal approach to choosing mathematics materials. High school teacher Tanya Moeller reviews textbook choices with her colleague in the mathematics department, Sue Marsh, and together they decide on the books they will use in each course they teach. Describing what happened in her high school, Tanya recounted the following process.

Tanya Moeller, High School Teacher Springfield Public Schools

We kind of made our own criteria, what we liked about the books. We then came to each other with three books that we really liked. And then we’d explain why. In the end, we both sort of, nodded our heads, and we thought this one book was the way to go. We won’t buy the books for a few months, so I may, over the summer, take a second look at some, just to make sure that we are getting the top dog, the best fit.

This is a very rural district, with a forty-five percent Hispanic population. And a few years ago, the district had some difficulty, particularly with the state exam. I think we were ranking towards the bottom. And last year, we’re seeing some genuine progress. At least in math. Around February is when we started working on the actual adoption for the main high school math courses: Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, in particular. I teach currently Algebra II, Geometry and Calculus. Those three courses. And Sue, our other math teacher, is teaching both sections of Algebra I. She has predominantly the Algebra I course, and she’s taking care of the College Trig or College Algebra. Both of us were involved.

The principal got the ball rolling by just calling several companies, and bringing in as many samples as he possibly could. I think, in all, I reviewed maybe about eight or nine Algebra II books, maybe the same number of Geometry books. And he gave us some time to just isolate ourselves a little bit, and just take a good look. He didn’t give us real criteria, but we kind of made our own criteria. What we liked about the books. Just came up with a really crude rating system of what we liked about the books.

For me, it was readability. I’m not too much of a fan of very busy web-page like flashy books. Of course, spiraling. And just all-around, readability. What types of problems? Maybe, the format. Like, for instance, what we really liked about one publisher’s text was the idea that they had worked out examples in the back of the book. That we could possibly include as homework. And academic rigor, which was one of the recommendations the state department of education gave us this year. You know, across the board, in all subjects. So, we kept that in mind.


We then each came to each other with three books that we really liked. We narrowed it down. There’s a few of them that I just simply found unbearable to look through. I didn’t spend too much time looking through those, and we narrowed it down to three, then we narrowed it down to two. In the end, we both thought this one book was the way to go.

Although Springfield High School has a very informal process for selecting the textbooks for their high school mathematics courses, this story still reflects a number of the key decision-making factors that are described earlier in this paper. The two mathematics teachers, Tanya and Sue, have a tremendous amount of input into the choice of texts, and ultimately the two of them are the decision makers. In addition, while not working from a rubric or a written set of criteria, these teachers do indeed develop criteria such as readability, academic rigor, and the presence of worked-out examples to guide their close examination of their choices. While not prominent in the story, the district’s disappointing results on a previous state exam and the desire for improvement also influenced the selection process.

Across this set of district vignettes, we can see that the selection process looks somewhat different in these varied district contexts. Yet the set of selection factors that influence the choice of instructional materials that we identified in our research (e.g., alignment to state standards and tests, use of established criteria) are evident in many districts’ selection processes. Within any individual district, there may be a factor that plays a more prominent role — for example, in one district a curriculum leader may advocate strongly for a particular approach or set of materials — but more often, a combination of critical factors appears across the stories. In each district, usually there are a number of influences at play and they interact in different ways, depending on the context of the district and often, the state context. Discussion of Findings

Instructional materials do not stand alone: they must be carefully aligned with other elements of practice and policy at the district and school level to provide teachers with the coherent instructional guidance (Spillane, 1998) needed to enact the materials’ vision for classroom practice (Boyd et al., 2003; Briars & Resnick, 2000; Char, 2004; Lord et al., 2000; Schoenfeld, 2002; Stein & Coburn, 2008; Swafford & Langrall, 2008). Ensuring the adopted materials are used and used well is a significant challenge.

The selection of materials is often seen as separate from the implementation of the materials; implementation is thought of as what happens once the materials have been chosen, purchased, and put in place in the classroom. But, based on our findings, we would argue that selection and implementation are more connected; what happens in the selection process affects and prepares for the implementation. Selection is the first step, and a critical one, toward successful implementation of new materials that support program improvement. The elements of a successful implementation – teacher and administrator commitment to use, professional learning opportunities, the alignment of materials with the district scope and sequence and related assessments, classroom support for the use and adaptation of materials – all begin in selection. (See Figure 3.)


Figure 3: The Stages of Implementation

In our own study, we found that school districts vary in the degree to which they provide and align all the supports necessary for coherent implementation (Mark, et al., 2010). But we also found the factors that matter most in selection do reflect consideration of the important elements of implementation. When discussing the selection process, the factors curriculum leaders revealed as important did suggest they were thinking ahead to implementation. We found that in the selection process, as individuals or committees consider each set of materials, they engage in a series of activities connected to future use of the materials, and these activities reflect the key factors we have described in this paper.

• They consider the strengths and weaknesses of the materials according to a particular set of criteria that include indicators of instructional quality.

• They evaluate the alignment of those materials to important benchmarks expressed in their state or district standards or state tests.

• They consider the degree to which teachers will be required to adapt their classroom practices to use the new materials well, and the (often expensive) supports that will be necessary for teachers to do so effectively.

• They consider the vision for mathematics education in the district (usually, as represented by the vision of a mathematics coordinator, assistant superintendent, or other mathematics leadership group) and whether the materials align with that vision.

• They collect and consider the information available about each program, including research on materials effectiveness, evaluations of programs done by other entities, use of materials by nearby districts, as well as the related effects on their state tests and what trusted sources outside the district (e.g., regional resource centers) have to say about the quality of the materials.

The data curriculum leaders and teacher committees gather, and the conversations they have about the quality of the materials, their degree of alignment to important benchmarks, and the supports needed for successful implementation serve not only to help them choose the most


appropriate program to purchase, but also provide the initial information that helps to form a plan for implementation.

Conclusion As curriculum leaders and selection committees engage in the process of choosing mathematics instructional materials, it is evident that even when the design of the process varies, there is a common set of factors that matter most. In this era of accountability, the role of state standards and tests in affecting selection decisions cannot be overlooked. Yet, in our study consideration of alignment to state standards and tests was just one of the primary factors garnering the attention of curriculum leaders and selection committees. As the district stories illustrate, there were other key factors in play (e.g., teacher acceptance, criteria) that ultimately affected which textbook districts choose. In almost all of our interviews, these influences were intertwined and reflected the complexity of the selection process. Furthermore, we found that the careful attention given to these factors exemplified how the selection process affects and helps prepare for the implementation of the new mathematics materials. Thinking about the selection process separately from implementation undervalues the work that occurs as districts make selection decisions. Instead, the selection process should be thought of as the first step in implementation, and as part of an overall strategy to improve a district’s mathematics program.

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 20

ShafferK

Text Box



References American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000). Middle grade mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Ansary, T. (2004). The muddle machine: Confessions of a textbook editor. Edutopia, 2, 30–34. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–8, 14.

Begle, E. (1973). Some Lessons Learned by SMSG. The Mathematics Teacher 66(3), 207-214. Begle, E. (1979). Critical variables in mathematics education: Findings from a survey of the empirical literature. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

Boyd, S., Banilower, E., Pasley, J., & Weiss, I. (2003). Progress and pitfalls: A cross-site look at local systemic change through teacher enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

Briars, D. & Resnick, L. (2000). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of Standards-based school improvement. CSE Technical Report 528. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA.

Char, C. (2004). Engaging schools in Standards-based mathematics: Evaluation of the building capacity for change program. Report prepared for the ARC Center at COMAP (Consortium for Mathematics and its Applications), Lexington, MA. Chávez, Ó., Grouws, D., A., Tarr, J., E., Ross, D., J., & McNaught, M., D. (2009). Mathematics curriculum implementation and linear functions in secondary mathematics: Results from the comparing options in secondary mathematics project. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Chval, K. B., Chávez, Ó., Reys, B. J., & Tarr, J. (2009). Considerations and limitations related to conceptualizing and measuring textbook integrity. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd, (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp.70-84). New York: Routledge. Driscoll, M. J. (1980). The teacher and the textbook. In M. J. Driscoll (Ed.), Research within reach: Elementary school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Farr, R., & Tulley, M. A. (1985). Do adoption committees perpetuate mediocre textbooks? Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 467–481.

Finn, C. E., Ravitch, D., & Whitman, D. (2004). The mad, mad world of textbook adoption. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Glidden, P.L. (1991). Teachers’ reasons for instructional decisions. The Mathematics Teacher, 84, 610–614.


Lord, B., Miller, B., Mark, J., Spencer, D., Briars, D., Raith, M. L. & Downs, R. (2000). Curriculum implementation and changes in teachers’ practice. Chicago, IL: Spencer Foundation Research on School Reform Initiative. Mark, J., Spencer, D., Zeringue, J. K., & Schwinden, K. (2010). How do districts choose mathematics textbooks? In B. Reys & R. Reys (Eds.), The K–12 mathematics curriculum: Issues, trends, and future directions (Vol. 72, pp. 199-212). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. McKnight, C., Crosswhite, F., Dossey, J., Kifer, E., Swafford, J., Travers, K., and Cooney, T. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.

McNaught, M., D., Tarr, J., E., & Grouws, D., A. (2008). Assessing curriculum implementation: Insights from the comparing options in secondary mathematics: Investigating curriculum (COSMIC) project. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

National Research Council (2002). Investigating the influence of Standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. I. Weiss, M. Knapp, K. Hollweg, & G. Burrill (Eds.) Committee on Understanding the Influence of Standards in K–12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Porter, A. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics, Educational Researcher 18(5), 9-15. Reys, B. J. (Ed.). (2006). The intended mathematics curriculum as represented in state-level curriculum standards: Consensus or confusion? Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (2006). The development and publication of elementary mathematics textbooks: Let the buyer beware! Phi Delta Kappan, 87(5), 377–383. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chávez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 61–66. Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., & Holliday, G. (2003). Assessing the impact of Standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74-95.

Robitaille, D., & Travers, K. (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 687-709). New York, NY: MacMillan. Schmidt, W. (2002). The benefit to subject-matter knowledge. American Educator, 26(2), 18.

Schmidt, W., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 10-26, 47-48.

Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.


Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31, 13–25.

Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63. Spencer, D., Mark, J., Zeringue, J. K., & Schwinden, K. (in press). Curriculum leadership in selecting mathematics materials. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership. Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583-626. Stern, C. (2006). TAAF Textbook Adoption Study: An Update. Paper presented at the Text and Academic Authors Association. from http://www.taaonline.net/convention/2006_handouts.html <http://www.taaonline.net/convention/2006_handouts.html>

Swafford, J. O., & Langrall, C. W. (2008). When things go wrong in curriculum implementation. In M. Meyer & C. W. Langrall (Eds.), A decade of middle school mathematics curriculum implementation: Lessons learned from the Show-Me project (pp. 115-124). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Tarr, J. E., Chávez, O., Reys, R. E., & Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to enacted curricula: Intermediary role of middle school mathematics in shaping students’ opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106(4), 191-201. Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America’s textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. Usiskin, Z. (1985). We need another revolution in secondary school mathematics. In C. R. Hirsch (Ed.), The secondary school mathematics curriculum: 1985 yearbook (pp. 1–21). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Van Zoest, L., & Bohl, J. (2002). The role of reform curricular materials in an internship: The case of Alice and Gregory. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 5(3), 265-288.

Watts-Taffe, S. (2006). Textbook selection and respect for diversity in the United States. In E. Roberts-Schweitzer (Ed.), Promoting social cohesion through education: Case studies and tools for using textbooks and curricula (pp. 107–119). World Bank Publications. Zeringue, J. K., Spencer, D., Schwinden, K., & Mark, J. (2008, April). The demands of state context on mathematics materials selection. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Pre-session, Salt Lake City, UT.

Zinth, K. (2005). State Textbook Adoption. Retrieved December 15, 2008, from https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/57/75/5775.htm<https://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/57/75/5775.htm>

Activity with Influences on Mathematics Textbook Selection: What Really Matters?

Group 1: Laura, Lauren, Tina

Group 2: Joey, Serina, Marla

Group 3: Paul, Jen, Gerry, Kaitlin

Group 4: Julie, Holly, Kara

Work with your group to answer the following questions. Include information from the study as well

as personal experience.

1. Look at page 2. To what did TIMSS attribute their study findings (Math performance of U.S.

8th graders was notably different on different topic areas)? Do you see this happening in your

grade level or school now?

2. On page 3, the researchers talk about the support for change among various stakeholders.

Read the description of this support and then explain where you think our stakeholders are in

regard to support for change in Math instruction/programs.

a) Students

b) Teachers

c) Administration

d) Community/Parents

3. Look at page 7. In the middle of the page, the researchers give 5 key factors involved in

selecting Math instructional materials. How would your group rank these factors (order of

importance for our district in choosing a series)? “1” is most important and “5” is least

important.

a) The degree of alignment of the materials to Common Core standards _______

b) The anticipated level of teacher acceptance of materials _______

c) The advocacy of the curriculum leader for a particular series _______

d) The committee’s evaluation of the quality of the materials _______

e) Additional info about materials _______

4. There are three interviews in the packet (pages 12-16). Read each one and talk about what

you liked and didn’t like about the process for each district.

a) Alder Brook School District:

b) Slippery Creek County School District:

c) Garden City Public Schools:

d) Springfield Public Schools:

Please appoint a spokesperson for your group and be ready to share your group’s thoughts!

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 20

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 27

ShafferK

Text Box


Mas

ter

Sch

edu

le

Mad

iso

n S

cho

ol 2

012-

2013

8:4

5 A

M

8:5

0 A

M

8:5

5 A

M

9:0

0 A

M

9:0

5 A

M

9:1

0 A

M

9:1

5 A

M

9:2

0 A

M

9:2

5 A

M

9:3

0 A

M

9:3

5 A

M

9:4

0 A

M

9:4

5 A

M

9:5

0 A

M

9:5

5 A

M

10:0

0 A

M

10:0

5 A

M

10:1

0 A

M

10:1

5 A

M

10:2

0 A

M

10:2

5 A

M

10:3

0 A

M

10:3

5 A

M

10:4

0 A

M

10:4

5 A

M

10:5

0 A

M

10:5

5 A

M

11:0

0 A

M

11:0

5 A

M

11:1

0 A

M

11:1

5 A

M

11:2

0 A

M

11:2

5 A

M

11:3

0 A

M

11:3

5 A

M

11:4

0 A

M

11:4

5 A

M

11:5

0 A

M

11:5

5 A

M

12:0

0 P

M

12:0

5 P

M

12:1

0 P

M

12:1

5 P

M

12:2

0 P

M

12:2

5 P

M

12:3

0 P

M

12:3

5 P

M

12:4

0 P

M

12:4

5 P

M

12:5

0 P

M

12:5

5 P

M

1:0

0 P

M

1:0

5 P

M

1:1

0 P

M

1:1

5 P

M

1:2

0 P

M

1:2

5 P

M

1:3

0 P

M

1:3

5 P

M

1:4

0 P

M

1:4

5 P

M

1:5

0 P

M

1:5

5 P

M

2:0

0 P

M

2:0

5 P

M

2:1

0 P

M

2:1

5 P

M

2:2

0 P

M

2:2

5 P

M

2:3

0 P

M

2:3

5 P

M

2:4

0 P

M

2:4

5 P

M

2:5

0 P

M

2:5

5 P

M

3:0

0 P

M

3:0

5 P

M

3:1

0 P

M

3:1

5 P

M

Math Block: First Math Block: KG

Reading/ Lang Arts: Second Reading/ Lang Arts Block: KG

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M Math Block: First Math Block: KG

T Math Block: First Math Block: KG

W Math Block: First Math Block: KG

TH Math Block: First Math Block: KG

F Math Block: First Math Block: KG

M Reading/ Lang Arts: Second

T Reading/ Lang Arts: Second

W Reading/ Lang Arts: Second

TH Reading/ Lang Arts: Second

F Reading/ Lang Arts: Second

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

pre-k

k1

k2

k3

k4

k5

k6

k7

k8

PIE: Prevention

Intervention

Enrichment

first-5,6first-3,4

first-3,4

first-5,6

first-7,8

first-9

first-1,2

first-7,8

first-9

first-1,2

first-3,4

first-1,2

first-3,4

first-5,6

first-7,8

first-9

first-5,6

first-7,8

first-9

first-1,2

k6

k7

k3

k4k5

KG Lunch/ Planning

Second RecessKG Recess First Recess

First Lunch/ Planning Second Lunch/ Planning

sec-3,4

Math Block: Second

Reading/ Language Arts Block: First

k9

k5

Rea

din

g

Spec

ialis

tR

ead

ing

Spec

ialis

t

k8

PE

Mu

sic

LMC

Dir

ecto

rR

ead

ing

Spec

ialis

t

KG Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

k1

k2

k9

k3

k4

k5

k6

k7

sec-1,2

sec-3,4

sec-5,6

sec-7,8

sec-7,8

sec-9

sec-9

sec-5,6

sec-7,8

sec-3,4

sec-1,2

Mat

h S

pec

ialis

t First Planning

First Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

KG Planning

pre-k

Math Block: Second

Math Block: Second

Math Block: Second

Math Block: Second

Math Block: Second

k9

k8

k9






Second Planning

Second Planning

Second Planning

Second Planning

Second Planning

First Planning

First Planning

First Planning

First Planning

sec-9

sec-1,2

sec-3,4 sec-5,6

sec-5,6

sec-7,8

sec-9

sec-1,2

Reading/ Lang Arts Block: KG





First Planning

First Planning

k2

k8

k1

k3

k6

k7

k2

k1

k4

pre-k

Second Planning

Second Planning

Second Planning

Second Planning

Second Planning

First Planning

First Planning

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 28

ShafferK

Text Box


7:5

0 A

M

7:5

5 A

M

8:0

0 A

M

8:0

5 A

M

8:1

0 A

M

8:1

5 A

M

8:2

0 A

M

8:2

5 A

M

8:3

0 A

M

8:3

5 A

M

8:4

0 A

M

8:4

5 A

M

8:5

0 A

M

8:5

5 A

M

9:0

0 A

M

9:0

5 A

M

9:1

0 A

M

9:1

5 A

M

9:2

0 A

M

9:2

5 A

M

9:3

0 A

M

9:3

5 A

M

9:4

0 A

M

9:4

5 A

M

9:5

0 A

M

9:5

5 A

M

10

:00

AM

10

:05

AM

10

:10

AM

10

:15

AM

10

:20

AM

10

:25

AM

10

:30

AM

10

:35

AM

10

:40

AM

10

:45

AM

10

:50

AM

10

:55

AM

11

:00

AM

11

:05

AM

11

:10

AM

11

:15

AM

11

:20

AM

11

:25

AM

11

:30

AM

11

:35

AM

11

:40

AM

11

:45

AM

11

:50

AM

11

:55

AM

12

:00

PM

12

:05

PM

12

:10

PM

12

:15

PM

12

:20

PM

12

:25

PM

12

:30

PM

12

:35

PM

12

:40

PM

12

:45

PM

12

:50

PM

12

:55

PM

1:0

0 P

M

1:0

5 P

M

1:1

0 P

M

1:1

5 P

M

1:2

0 P

M

1:2

5 P

M

1:3

0 P

M

1:3

5 P

M

1:4

0 P

M

1:4

5 P

M

1:5

0 P

M

1:5

5 P

M

2:0

0 P

M

2:0

5 P

M

2:1

0 P

M

2:1

5 P

M

2:2

0 P

M

2:2

5 P

M

2:3

0 A

M

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

M

T

W

TH

F

Int. Orchestra

Beg. Orchestra

Beg. Band

Int. Band

Ban

d/O

rch

estr

a

Int. Orchestra

Beg. BandPrep Prep

4th Writing

4th Writing

Intervention

Intervention

4th Writing

4th Writing

4th Writing

4th Writing

4th Writing

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

5th Writing5th Math Block 5th Writing5th Math Block 5th Writing5th Math Block 5th Writing5th Math Block 5th Writing

CPT

4th Math BlockMat

h

spec

ialis

t?

3rd Math Block 4th Math Block

3rd Math Block

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

Res

ou

rce

4th CPT

4th CPT

4th CPT

4th CPT


3rd Math Block

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

4th Math Block


5th Math Block

@ MadisonLunch and Prep

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

3rd Literacy Block

4th Writing

4th Writing

4th Writing

Intervention

Intervention

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

3rd Flex

4th Literacy Block

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

Rea

din

g

Spec

ialis

t

5th Literacy Block

5th Literacy Block

Rea

din

g

Spec

ialis

t

5th Literacy Block

Rea

din

g

Spec

ialis

t

CPT

CPT

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

CPT

5th Literacy Block

5th Literacy Block

3rd Grade

3rd Grade

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

1 1 1

Dra

ma

CPT

CPT

CPT

5th Literacy Block

5th Literacy Block

5th Literacy Block

5th Literacy Block

5th Literacy Block

3rd Grade

3rd Grade

3rd Grade

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

4th Literacy Block

2

2 2 2

LMC

3 3 3

1 1 1

5 5 5

5

4 4 4

3 3 32 2

Mu

sic

2

4

3

3 3 3 3 3 4

15 5 5 5 5

4 4 5

51 2 2 2 1 5

4 12 3 3 3 2 1

P.E

.

3 4 4 4 3 2

5 1 1 1 5 4

4 5 5 5 4 3

Mas

ter

Sch

edu

le

Ed

iso

n S

cho

ol

20

12

-20

13

3rd Literacy Block B 3rd Math Block 3rd Lunch 3rd Recess

3 3 3

2 2 2

Art

4th Math Block 4th Recess

5 5 5

4 4 4

3rd CPT

4

2

Intervention

Intervention

3

4th Writing

Intervention

3rd Literacy Block AScience/SS 3rd Writing Block

4th Sci/SS

1

1 1

23

4

5

1

5th Sci/SS 5th Writing

4th Flex 4th CPT Lit Block A Lit Block B

5th Literacy Block 5th Literacy Block 5th CPT 5th Flex

4th Lunch5th Math Block 5th Lunch 5th Recess

1

5

2

4th Lessons

4th CPT

3rd Grade Reading Intervention

3

1 1 1 1 1 2

2 2 2 2

4 4

Beg. Orchestra

5

Int. Band

Intervention

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

3rd Writing Block

4th CPT CPT4th CPT CPT4th CPT CPT4th CPT CPT4th CPT CPT

Study Hall

4 4 4

3rd Literacy Block

5

Band - Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 30

ShafferK

Text Box


2012-138:25-

8:438:46-9:26 9:29-10:09 10:11-10:51

10:54-11:24(6)

10:54-11:34

11:27-12:07 (6)

11:37-12:07 (7)

11:37-12:17 (8)

12:20-12:50 (8)

12:10-12:5012:53-1:33 1:36-2:16 2:19-3:00

Room ADV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Grade 6 LA LA PLAN LUNCH LA LA TEAM PLAN LA LA

Grade 6 LA LA PLAN LUNCH LA LA TEAM PLAN LA LA

NEW STAFF M M PLAN LUNCH M M TEAM PLAN M M

Grade 6 SCI SCI PLAN LUNCH SCI SCI TEAM PLAN SCI SCI

Grade 6 M M PLAN LUNCH M M TEAM PLAN M M

Grade 6 SS SS PLAN LUNCH SS SS TEAM PLAN SS SS

Grade 7 LA LA LA PLAN LUNCH LA LA LA TEAM PLAN

Grade 7 LA LA LA PLAN LUNCH LA LA LA TEAM PLAN

Grade 7 SS SS SS PLAN LUNCH SS SS SS TEAM PLAN

Grade 7 SCI SCI SCI PLAN LUNCH SCI SCI SCI TEAM PLAN

Grade 7 M M M PLAN LUNCH M M M TEAM PLAN

Grade 8 LA LA LA LA PLAN LUNCH LA TEAM PLAN LA

Grade 8 ---- LA LA LA LA PLAN LUNCH LA TEAM PLAN LA

NEW STAFF PLAN M M M M-INT LUNCH M TEAM PLAN M

Grade 8 SCI SCI SCI SCI PLAN LUNCH SCI TEAM PLAN SCI

Grade 8 M M M M PLAN LUNCH M TEAM PLAN M

Grade 8 SS SS SS SS PLAN LUNCH SS TEAM PLAN SS

Math-INT PLAN TEAM PLAN M-INT M-INT M-1/2 LUNCH M-INT M-INT M-INT

ELL LA-1 PLAN CT-LA CT-LA LUNCH CT-LA CT-LA TEAM PLAN SS-2

ELL LA-2 SS-1 SCI-1 SCI-2 PLAN LUNCH TEAM PLAN CT-LA CT-LA

Reading-INT PLAN TEAM PLAN RD-INT RD-INT RD-INT LUNCH RD-INT RD-INT RD-INT

6 CT-LA CT-LA RESOURCE PLAN CT-M SST TEAM PLAN CT-SS CT-SCI

7 CT- LA CT- LA CT- SS RESOURCE PLAN SST CT- SCI CT- M TEAM PLAN

8 CT -LA CT -LA CT-M CT- SS RESOURCE SST PLAN TEAM PLAN CT -SCI

Inst LA LA MATH TEAM PLAN PLAN SST SKILL BUILD SKILL BUILD SKILL BUILD

Trans PLAN CT-M SST TEAM PLAN

Funct PLAN SST TEAM PLAN

PE PE PE PE PE LUNCH PLAN PE PE-A PE

PE PE PE PLAN LUNCH PE PE TEAM PLAN PE PE

PE PE PE PE PLAN LUNCH PE PE PE TEAM PLAN

Drama DRA PLAN DRA LUNCH DRA DRA TEAM PLAN

Music PLAN TEAM PLAN MUS MUS LUNCH MUS MUS

Stem PLAN TEAM PLAN STEM STEM STEM LUNCH STEM STEM STEM

Spanish PLAN TEAM PLAN RD-INT SPAN SPAN LUNCH RD-INT SPAN SPAN

FCS PLAN TEAM PLAN FCS FCS FCS LUNCH FCS FCS FCS

Art ART ART TEAM PLAN LUNCH ART PLAN ART

Band

Orchestra

18 minutes of Advisory

Notes

Band/Chorus/Orchestra

held in zero hour (7:30-

8:20)

Music Teacher day (7:15-

2:00)***

Interventions lined up

against exploratory

classes

6-190; 7-172; 8-185

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 32

ShafferK

Text Box


District EE Code Data for ages 6-14

* Does not include Early Childhood or 5 year old kindergarten students

2008-2011

2011-2012

Focused Monitoring Goal: 46.8% of students in general education 80% or more of the day (EE Code 01) by June 2013.

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

% of Time Inside the General Classroom

Se

pa

rate

Fa

cil

ity


Sep

ara

te

Fa

cilit

y


Sep

ara

te

Fa

cilit

y

> 80% 40-79% <40% > 80% 40-79% <40% > 80% 40-79% <40%

District 41.9 22.5 25.7 9.9 36.8 28.6 25.3 9.3 43.3 21.7 25.6 9.4

Cooperative 51.7 26.7 14.1 7.5 51.3 27.9 12.8 8.0 51.2 29.6 11.7 7.5

All Elem. Districts

58.3 20.9 16.0 4.9 58.7 20.7 15.5 5.0 58.9 20.9 14.9 5.3

SPP State Target

>49.3 <19.3 <4.58 >49.6 <18.9 <4.25 >49.9 <18.5 <3.90

Oct. 2011 (Official) Dec. 2011 (Official) March 2012 (Projected) June 2012


Se

pa

rate

Fa

cil

ity


Sep

ara

te

Fa

cilit

y % of Time Inside the

General Classroom

Sep

ara

te

Fa

cilit

y


Se

pa

rate

Fa

cil

ity

> 80% 40-79% <40% > 80% 40-79% <40% > 80% 40-79% <40% > 80% 40-

79% <40%

District

42.5

24.7

20.1

12.6

48.0

28.9

14.5

8.7

48

30

15

7

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 43

ShafferK

Text Box


For the rest of this year – no more tuition spots should be filled.Next year – Per the grant, we must fill positions with at‐risk students. We will only have tuition spots if we have exhausted all options of filling positions with state funded.Out of district students are eligible to qualify as state funded students for the preschool. Concerns are with the community and removing tuition students with the history of the program and what we built. Unfortunately, the program cannot be funded without the grant. The grant stipulations drive the eligibility for the program.

More set decisions will be after the March Board Meeting regarding special education services and classrooms for next year.

For the current tuition students – we will need to rescreen to see if they are eligible for state funded slots for next year. Send this checklist home with the reenrollment form.

The checklist for eligibility samples in the Preschool Binder are useful, specifically pg. 31.

The preschool team will integrate the parent form on page 33 and 34 with the current form being used. Also, the confidentiality form should be completed.

1

Rescreen all students with the checklist. Need to then rank them based on their need.

The team may want to draft a letter, and think of appropriate wording to inform families and community.

f h ld b b l ( h l d ) h dIf a child is going to be absent long term (20 school days?) they need to be disenrolled and may lose their spot in the program. Holidays not counted. – Chelsey will verify the actual days and report back.

For now for grant funded (tentative):4 sections – 2 teachersAll d 5 d k 180 dAll students are 5 days per week – 180 days.22 slots in each section for IEP2 Integration IEP slots

For now for instructional (tentative):2 sections – 1 teacherAll t d t 5 d k 180 d

2

All students are 5 days per week – 180 days.

No fees are collected for next year since all students (IEP included) are state funded.

One option involves adding an additional classroom. Is this an option for next year?

Many factors are still up in the air. We should plan that sections will remain the same for next year.

Next year is the 10th anniversary! Let’s plan celebrations!

When does the grant money need to be spent? April is preferred.

Follow Up: The team is going to look at options for screening/home visits at the end of the year and the beginning of the year. Place for a motor room will be investigated as well.Laura will follow up to find out the timeline for the grant.Preschool team will look at options for doing registration during kdg. Registration.Preschool team will look into options for collaboration across other preschools for all.One idea is to collaborate with other preschools during parent support group or

3

activities.Paperwork and packets need to be revised based on the regulations from the grant.

15

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 44

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 44

ShafferK

Text Box


ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 51

ShafferK

Text Box


Benefits of VLAN Performance Enhancements: Since broadcast frames are targeted and processed by all devices, creating smaller domains can reduce overhead and limit resource utilization. Only those workstations in need of receiving specific broadcast or multicast traffic can exist on the domain, preventing other devices from receiving unnecessary traffic. The use of VLANs to create broadcast domains also eliminates the need for routers to handle this function, permitting operation at lower latencies compared to routers under heavy load. Workgroups: A VLAN can be created to accommodate groups of users who will be communicating among themselves at high volume, reducing the impact on all other workstations. These user workstations do not have to be physically moved or located near one another, since the workgroup is virtual and created within the switching software. Of course, some shared devices such as printers or scanners require physical access, and their placement may pose a challenge if workgroup clients are located in different buildings. Another challenge when creating workgroups is the location and physical architecture of servers, which may be centralized in a single area for security and backup purposes. If servers cannot be placed on more than one VLAN, a router would be required to allow other VLANs to access the server resources, adding overhead and expense. Ease of Administration: Much of the cost associated with network additions and relocations can be saved through the use of VLANs. Workstations can be shifted from one workgroup or department to another without installing new network cabling and reconfiguring hubs or routers. At the same time, the advantages of software administration are somewhat offset by the complexities of managing and maintaining the virtual workgroups. Information Security: VLANs can be used to create secure user groups and prevent others outside of the broadcast domain from

receiving sensitive data. They can also be used to enhance firewall functions and restrict network access for one or more users.

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 54

ShafferK

Text Box


2/16/2012

1

Madison Teacher Tech Survey

Skokie/Morton Grove District 69

Winter 2012

Gender

Male0%

Percent

Female100%

Choice Count Percentage of Sample Answering

Male 0 0.0%

Female 22 100.0%

2/16/2012

2

Grade

Pre‐Kindergarten

Resource3%

12%

Kindergarten26%

Second Grade21%

Arts 3% Other

9%

First Grade26%

Type of Computer Access

N tb k

Tablet7%

Desktop

Laptop33%

Netbook0%

7%

p60%

2/16/2012

3

Comfort Using HardwareN/A Uncomfortable Moderately Comfortable At Ease Using

8 9 10

5

3

1

3

7

32

4

83

8

4

5

3

2

8

6

7

3

8

10

21

17

3

14

52

17

8

12

8

18

9

3

19

1 2 31

31

5

1 1 1 100 1 2

0 003 2

Comfort Using Software

N/A Uncomfortable Moderately Comfortable At Ease Using

792

0

4

7 6

13

8 5 2

1

3

1320

5

11 12 13

8

12

3

0 0 13

0 00

4 26

2

2/16/2012

4

Applications Used w/ Students

Not Familiar With Never Occasionally Often

79

6 6 7 6 68

6

7

912

14

1214

7

8

6

54

2

03

1

8

52

02 1 0 0 0

20

6 6 6 64

District Moodle Server

I am aware District 69 has a Moodle server I have used the District's Moodle

I have participated in a Moodle courses I use Moodle as a teacher with my students

42%

25%

2%

p p y

31%

2/16/2012

5

Prepared to Use D69 Technology

0%

very prepared somewhat prepared somewhat unprepared very unprepared

23%

9%

0%

68%

Access to Tech/Resources Needs Met

Completely Met Somewhat Met Somewhat Unmet Completely Unmet

18

1416

14

811 11

1

53

3

6

6 6

0 1 0 3

4

2 2

22

2 13 2 2

2/16/2012

6

Frequency of Use (Subscriptions)

Daily Several times a week Once a week Several times a month Once a month I don't use

3

1

1

2 3

2

914

22

12

16

9

5 6

18

1 0 0

8

0 0

4

02 2 11

3 2

02 21 0

Technology “Attitude”

012

0 1 24 4 4

Agree Disagree No Opinion

1821

19

8

16 16 16 16

11

6

31 1 1

74 4 4

2/16/2012

7

Dedicated Teacher Computer

Yes No

10%

90%

Technology is Reliable

Yes No

5%

95%

2/16/2012

8

I Maintain a School Webpage

Yes No Being developed

29%24%

47%

Tasks (Easier Using Tech)

• ‐writing reports ‐communicating with co‐workers and parents ‐accessing IEPs for meetings ‐creating group lessons

• Lesson Plans, newsletters, and webpage, , p g

• lesson plans and videos of real world activities or events.

• developing lesson plans and preparing for the week using remote desktop.

• It is easier to show smaller books on the smartboard with the document camera. Using the flip cam to create a portfolio is helpful not only to the student and myself, but the parents as well. The SmartBoardgives me access to the internet and additional programs that help my students learn and increase their interest.

• Lesson planning

• Lesson Planning, Lesson creation, team communication, Teaching

• I use it for all aspects of my day.

• Teaching letter identification, getting students to interact with literature through technology

• Parent communication

• Communication IEPs

• Lesson plans, research, web sites for use with students,

• data collection word documents teacher created assignments google pictures/visuals for teaching

• Children viewing the SMARTBoard for activities used in the classroom.

2/16/2012

9

Does Lack of Tech Impact You

• No

• No

• yes but it can't be helped at the momentyes, but it can t be helped at the moment

• no

• I don't feel there is a lack of technology resources.

• I would like to be able to access my smart board documents directly from the remote server and be able to save my changes directly to my documents. This would really be helpful in the case I am absent and need to save something into the SUBS folder as well.

• no

• no, I have the resources

• Probably...kids love the visuals that the smart board provide, as well as the fun interactive piece.

• No

• no

• n/a

• no

• Sometimes‐being part of team meetings without access to personal laptop is difficult at times and same for going home and needing to work on paperwork can't get done.

Technology Staff Development (Needed)

• N/A

• Smart Table training for prek teachers

• I need Smartboard trainingI need Smartboard training.

• i would like to have a training in how to develop my own webpage. i wasn't ready last year, but i think iwill be able to do it this summer.

• I feel I have been well prepared to use the technology used in our district. Perhaps having some dedicated time to look over the different software that we have available would be helpful, but I don't think we need to dedicate a lot of time to that.

• Web page training.

• More opportunities/time to work on classroom websites/blogs.

• workshop sharing and discussing websites and smart board lesson ideas

• Open for any

• I would like a training to learn how to make better graphs on excel based on the data I collect

• moodle, building webpages,

• Smartboard taining for those of us who do not have smartboards in our rooms, Microsoft Excel,Word and Powerpoint,

• LEXIA Excel graphing

2/16/2012

10

Needed Technology/Resources

• Not sure of any I need that I don't have already.

• I would like to see Boardmaker in more classrooms due to ELL and Special Education students needing more visuals.

• I haven't found any hardware or software that we don't have.

• I would like classrooms to be able to have a notepad or soemthign of the sort for studnet use. I'd like to let them use technology for reading purposes during daily 5 activities.

• LEXIA ( it is just currently being started at Edison and has a few students using it here) It is a great self‐paced, independent, differentiated, program. It is student friendly.

Preferred Learning Style

group sessions individual instruction/assistance job aides

55%38%

7%


55%

2/16/2012

11

Would Attend Summer Trainings

Yes No

11%

89%

Best time for Tech Prof. Dev.

June July August

39%32%

29%

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 57

ShafferK

Text Box


2/16/2012

1

Edison Teacher Tech Survey


Winter 2012

Gender

Male Female

11%

89%


Male 2 10.5%

Female 17 89.5%

2/16/2012

2

Grade

Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Gifted Arts (music/drama/art) Resource Other

23%

7%

23%

17%

23%0%

7%


Desktop Laptop Netbook Tablet

50%

25%

6%


19%

2/16/2012

3

Comfort Using Hardware

4 5


5 6 54

52

6

0 2

1

2

2

4

5

7

5

3

2

43

2

1

5

618 18

4

10

65

15

12 12 11

16

11

7

18

10

12

13

4

1 12

00

0

10 2

12

00

1 1



12

5

1

0

2

7

65 0

0

212

19

7

1212

14

7

13

7

0 1 02

53

10

5

1

12

01

6

2/16/2012

4



5

4

6

6

11

5 66 4

97

67

3

75 4

10

2 24 5

04

6 6

1

47

42

5 4 3 4 5


I am aware District 69 has a Moodle server I have used the District's Moodle server

I have participated in a Moodle course I use Moodle as a teacher with my students

46%

26%

5%


23%

2/16/2012

5


0%


45%

50%

0%

5%

50%


1


13 1315 14

2 20

0

6

4

35

0 0 04

4

8

2

5

4 4 4

2 3

7

3

4

13 3

4

2/16/2012

6

Frequency of Use (Subscriptions)Daily Several times a week Once a week Several times a month Once a month I don't use

5

3

1

5 3

6

8

13 1416

9

14

0 0 0 0 1 0

31 0 0

2

0

11 0

0

0

0 2

0

2

1

5 3

4

5


1 0 021 2 2 2 2 2


17 18 18

9

1815

11

16

00

9

03

3

22

6

2/16/2012

7


Yes No

5%

95%


Yes No

5%

95%

2/16/2012

8



16%

11%

73%

Tasks (Easier Using Tech)• Instruction, research to support instruction and curriculum

• wonderful tool for presentations, simulations and virtual tours

• ‐able to communicate with team, especially when at home‐ ‐able to take work home with me after school, so that I can pick up my own kids and work when they are in bed

• Making presentations for students that allow students to manipulate data and get more involved in the learning process. Technology allows me to help build prior knowledge and expand my students' knowledge base. Technology allows me to progress monitor my students quickly and with less paperwork. TEchnology allows me to access materials that other teachers have created so that I do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time.

• teaching all subjects

• My whole job basically.

• I am able to project music on the screen. This way I can make sure that both the students and I are looking at the same material. I am able to explain difficult concepts, such as key signatures and rhythms, in a much more effective way. I am also able to show videos of both professional and amateur groups performing music we are learning.

• lesson design, lesson plans, gradebook, bringing current events into the classroom, enriching "teachable moments", smoother transitions (music, tasks typed up ahead of time, timers)

d l• grades, lessons, instruction

• Lessons are more visual for students.

• Planning for differentiation in my classroom and communicating with parents and other staff members is made easier with technology.

• Teacher resources

• lesson planning and delivery, test design and grading, data collection/analysis, parent communication

• grading, instructions

• Instruction with the SB

2/16/2012

9

Does Lack of Tech Impact You

• Somewhat...it would be nice to have more student computers to be used for interventions during independent practice times.

• Yes. Technology is such an integral part of our world today. The more technology the better.gy g p y gy

• no

• I would like to see more desktop or laptop computers for use with programs like Lexia and Read Live. The netbooks are so small that it makes using the programs more difficult to use. I am happy to have this technology, but would love to have larger screens for the students.

• no

• I would not be able to do my job without my laptop.

• Not any more. Thank you for getting me some!

• No. Currently, I am able to get the help I need by going to others who have used whatever it is I am trying to learn how to do. We rely on each other.

• no

• It is hard to do research projects with the lack of technology.

• No! We have so many wonderful resources available for our use. I feel that there is always something new we can try with our students.

• I need the projector in both buildings I work in mounted to the ceiling and ready to use.

• no, I feel our district provides us with more technology and tech training than other districts.

• Yes, I am very dependent on the SB now


• How excel can be used to support classroom data collection.

• ‐Embarrasing, but I still need to learn Excel. I've been through trainings several times, but the whole thing still escapes me. I'd love to figure out how to make simple graphs and charts.

• I'd like to build a better, more attractive webpage. I'm sure that I could schedule some time to do this, but it's difficult tofind time during the day or afterschool with an already tight schedule.

• NA currently

• This does not relate to the question above but I thought I should pass along my opinions regarding the new laptops. As I am VERY grateful to have a new laptop, I am surprised at how often it freezes on me. With it being new, I do not think this should be an issue. However, it is. This happens about once a day, particularly when I am trying to save PDF documents. It wastes a lot of time during the day. At my old district, we used Macs I did not run into this issue. Also, at different timesduring the day, I sometimes do not have access to the shared drive and sometimes I do. I do not understand this. I know this information has nothing to do with the survey but I felt the need to write it anyways. Thanks!

• I liked the summer workshops and some of the one on one sessions I have had. I would have liked to have more training on basic things such as copying documents. I spent many hours typing lyrics into word documents, only to find out much later that much of this material is available free on line. I also learned much later how to scan an image (musical notation) into a file, so that I can show it to the students.

• Remote access at home. Staff web pages

• Google Docs training

• We page design.

• I would like more support developing my class web page.

• I am still not confident in excel but I don't use it enough to go to a workshop

2/16/2012

10


• I would love the use of tablets. They are so small and can be used for a number of purposes.

• ‐Megan Aseltine bought for us the Fujitsu Scan Snap scanner, which allows docs to be scanned, and instantly convered to a pdf. THe scan snap hooks right up to the lap top/computer, so there is no need to y p p g p p p/ p ,copy/email the copy/wait. I'd love to have this hooked up, and get Dragon Naturally speaking‐We could make this a portable system for kids with writing disabilities‐

• Lexia at Madison school. I do not understand why this is offered at Lincoln and Edison when its original purpose was to focus on early literacy skills. Also, FastMath for the same reason but for basic math facts. NWEA MAP for 2nd graders. I do not know how reliable 3rd grade data will be if that is their first exposure to MAP.

• Presentation hardware in al rooms.

• IPads or some other other application based tablet where students could be assigned individual educational apps to target their needs. This would help individualize independent work time and would allow for goal focused differentiation/intervention.g



50%

8%

42%

2/16/2012

11


Yes No

16%

84%


June July August

33%

43%

June July August

24%

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 57

ShafferK

Text Box


2/16/2012

1

Lincoln Teacher Tech Suvey


Winter 2012

Gender

Male Female

19%

81%


Male 4 19.0%

Female 17 81.0%

2/16/2012

2

GradeSixth ‐ Eighth Sixth Grade Resource Seventh Grade Resource

Eighth Grade Resource Sixth ‐ Eighth Grade Resource Mathematics

Social Studies Language Arts Science

24%

0%5%

3%

3%

16%

Arts (music/drama/art) Resource Other

Choice Count

Sixth ‐ Eighth 9

Sixth Grade Resource 0

Seventh Grade Resource 2

Eighth Grade Resource 2

Sixth ‐ Eighth Grade Resource 0

M th ti 35%

5%

0%8%

10%13%

13% Mathematics 3

Social Studies 4

Language Arts 5

Science 5

Arts (music/drama/art) 1

Resource 1

Other 6



38%13%

13%

36%

2/16/2012

3

Comfort Using Hardware

N/A Uncomfortable Moderately Comfortable At Ease using

6 46

6

4

1

44

1917

9

13

6

10

1815

13 12

1917

15

21

1 02 2

5 6

0 02 2

0 0 0 00

0

4

01 2

2 3

0 0 1 01 4

6

2

4

14

5

0


NA Uncomfortable Moderately Comfortable At Ease Using

7

57

7

20

10

1312

1816 17

10

0 0 02 1 1

0 00

42

00 0

0

4

1

5

23

4

2/16/2012

4


12 20 0 1 0

3 2


6 5 5 4

99

15

4

14

5

77

7

4 5

9

4

13

10

8 10

2 2

53 2

5 53 3 2

4 31


I am aware District 69 has a Moodle server I have used the District's Moodle server


33%

25%

16%

26%

25%

2/16/2012

5


0%


43%

10%

0%

47%


3 12

03 1

21

01

0

31 1 2


17

9

1817

9

1011

10 10

45 5

5

31

2 3

2/16/2012

6

Frequency of Use (Subscriptions)

Daily Several times a week Once a week Several times a month Once a month I don't use

10

4

2

2

4

4

9

1620

18

19

0 0 0 0 0 00

31 0 1 0

102

00

00

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0


30

30

00 0

42 2

0 02


1821

17

5

1618

2119

3

0

14

33 04

2/16/2012

7


Yes No

5%

95%


Yes No

11%

89%

2/16/2012

8



0%10%

90%

Tasks (Easier Using Tech)

• Scheduling Communication Grading

• lesson plans, Smart Notebook slides, communication with students/parents/colleagues, grading

• Communicating with parentsCommunicating with parents

• Teacher‐centered instruction Demonstration

• grades, interactive lessons, better ability to model and check student work; creating, givng, and taking tests,

• lessons, grades, communication with parents

• Explaining difficult concepts such as rhythms and key signatures. I can also show the students performances of pieces we are studying.

• IEP's Lesson Plans

• Checking emails, working on files for work, using excel and word document, uploading plans via moodle.

• Meeting needs of students different learning stylesg g y

• IEPs, scheduling apointments, preparing reports

• Grading, teaching, communicating with parents, to name a few

• Webquests, Jigsaw Activities, Simulations, Collaboration‐Forums

• Creating & Grading Assessments with smart response

• um, everything

• Lessons related to utilizing the Smart Board

• Grading! Bringing the 'real world' into the classroom via virtual tours, etc.

2/16/2012

9

Does Lack of Tech Impact You• Yes

• Yes. Since almost everything we do is related to technology, the most common being the way we deliver lessons, it would not be effective is I didn't have this available.

• No, but if we had 1:1 computers we could use our textbooks to the fullest, the way they were intended

• I would love to have a mobile cart or lab for small classes like sped or ELL. I feel bad using a lab for 8 computers and with anetbook set of 10 or so allocated to small classes we would never have to use a whole lab for just a few computers.j p

• I rely very heavily on SMARTBoard access, as all my lessons are now Notebook based. Not having access has (when there have been tech glitches)kept me from being able to present the information effectively. Since we don't really use chalkboards anymore, even just writing or brainstorming is very difficult w/o a SMARTBoard to write on!

• Not necessarily the lack of resources, but the lack of time to learn to effectively use the resources that we have.

• No, I feel that I have all the technology resources I need at this time.

• No, because I finally got some. I also use MOODLE with all of my students, which has helped them to become better musicians. They are clearly practicing more because they sound better and learn new music faster.

• It such a pain having to access smartnotebook at home. I have to send to my yahoo account, then work and save, and resend to my work account. It is not effective and wastes my time. I wish it was easier like in the past.

• Somewhat. Lack of ability to get into lab and/or reliability of wifi/net boos/laptops actually charged properly & working can productivity of class.

• In my role, no, I am not limited by technology

• No.

• I would love 1 to 1 for students

• Yes‐computer labs and often mobile carts too are tied up for 3 weeks at a time 3 times a year for MAP testing. Frequent connectivity problems with mobile carts prevents me from planning to use them‐not reliable

• no

• no

• I don't use alot because I don't feel that comfortable with it

• I would like the students to spend more time on computers in order to differentiate their learning experience.

• Yes. My dept is the ONLY one at my school that doesn't have a smartboard.


• Times when seminars are given. To many conflict with after school activities.

• I'm not sure how to asnwer this question.

• I would like to use Moodle with my current class‐‐need time to just sit down and do it with others and with i t il bl if I d itassistance available if I need it.

• more moodle training (hands on), more joomla training (hands on),

• Moodle

• GoogleDocs (so everyone is on same page)‐‐especially how to share safely.

• What are things you can do with technology ‐ like a “here are some cool thing you might want to use/do" session. *Trainings in summer months are challenging due to child care arrangements. I would try to attend. It is frustrating to be penalized for inability to attend trainings in the summer that require me to make complicated and/or costly arrangements for my kids. I would be more interested in having information/ directions available so that I could attempt to learn things on my own.

• ANY time a new tech. expectation is placed on us, I would prefer training first and not just occasional after school times.

• More on google docs and moodle and not on our own time

• we are not making good use of google docs.

• Offering "check ins" with us, giving us a chance to work on various tech things with support available as we work

• More basic moodle, google docs.

• Not sure, but it seems every time I attend a staff development I've already figured it out and feel like I'm wasting my time. Development needs to be more timely... before a full roll out is done.

2/16/2012

10


• Don' t know.

• I'm not sure how to asnwer this question.

• I attended a session at the NICE Mini‐Conference this weekend about using QR codes I'd like to tryI attended a session at the NICE Mini‐Conference this weekend about using QR codes. I d like to try integrating them as motivators for students...but since students can't carry around SMART phones during the day (to be able to scan the codes), it isn't practical at the moment at school. I would like to try using QR codes possibly on my webpage or as a part of a blog about books.

• tablets (for teachers & students)

• more tablet use ‐ rather than texts, apps

• not sure

• Textbooks on netbooks. Science books, by their very nature are out of date the minute they are printed. A digital textbook is usually more up to date.



46%

11%


43%

2/16/2012

11


Yes No

5%

95%


June July August

31%

45%

24%

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 57

ShafferK

Text Box


2/16/2012

1

Edison Student Tech Survey


Winter 2012

Grade

Third Fourth Fifth

32%35%

33%

Choice Count

Third 157

Fourth 163

Fifth 173

2/16/2012

2

Gender

Female Male

52%

48%

Does family have home computer?

Yes No

4%

96%

2/16/2012

3

I use a computer to help with homework.

Yes No

48%

52%

Frequency of computer use at home.

Never Monthly Weekly Daily Anytime

5%3%

15%

14%63%

2/16/2012

4

High Speed Internet at Home?

Yes No

22%

78%

Favorite School Web Site

2/16/2012

5

Favorite Site When at Home

WiFi at Home

Yes No I'm not sure

62%

29%

62%9%

2/16/2012

6

Other places computers are used.

357

257 257217217

174

School Public Library Relative's House Friend's House other

Home access to…

276

66144

259

118

355

215139

2/16/2012

7

Has Personal Cell Phone

Yes No

49%

51%

Cell Phone Features

Calls only Calls and Texting Smartphone with Internet

37%36%

27%

2/16/2012

8

Computer Use at Home (Weekly)

Little or no time Less than 30 minutes 30 ‐ 60 minutes

1 ‐ 2 hours 2 ‐ 4 hours Over 4 hours

14%

16%13%

14%

26%

17%

Computer Use at School (Weekly)



8%

31%

11%

3% 3%

44%

2/16/2012

9

Tech Use in Core Classes

Several times a day Daily Weekly Seldom Never

45%16%

9%5%

25%

Normally Used in Core Classes…

by myself as part of a group or team

both by myself and as part of a group... I do not use technology in my core classes

30%

30%

10%

30%

2/16/2012

10

Core Teachers Assign Work Requiring Use of Tech

Never Seldom Sometimes Frequently Always

23%

11%

9%

9%

48%

Classes Where Tech Used This Year

231 246213

292

13512893

43

135

2/16/2012

11

Locations I Used Tech for School Work

346281

385332

215

1456

Have Accounts for…

176

47

112

196 192

79

175

4719

2/16/2012

12

Local Library Cards

I have a library card (live in Skokie) I have a library card (live in M.G.)

I DO NOT have a library card (live in Skokie) I DO NOT have a library card (live in M.G.)

13%

11%

2%3%

I don't know which

71%

How often I use tech to…

Never Once or twice a year Monthly Weekly Almost daily

13779

323

195257

224 253

161

41

37

50

52

13890

47

6161

65

47

53

62

26 97 79

88

5457

102

153

115118

5540 34

153

7277

85234

151184

37 23 33

171

8245

80

1879

3441

2/16/2012

13

I need help when…

23

Always Sometimes Rarely Never Expert (can help others)

60151

85 90

164

107136 143

101 65 97 38

95147 124

79

7323 51

143

60

Degree of agreement with…Disagree No Opinion Agree

77 39 63 88 47 77 102

11076

131139

117 91

174

306378

299 266329 325

217

2/16/2012

14

Having a SMART board helps me learn.

Yes No

4%

96%

Core Classes Statement

10 18 2414 26 8 7 30 18 40 38

Almost always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

294

168

264

134 101

226

102 97

127

150

118

174

141

136

127 127

48

120

85154

161

88

148 155

1029

18 2460

25

76 76

26 30 18 40 38

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 57

ShafferK

Text Box


2/16/2012

1

Lincoln Student Tech Survey


Winter 2012

Grade

Sixth Seventh Eighth

25%

37%

38%Choice Count

Sixth 111

Seventh 169

Eighth 165

2/16/2012

2

Gender

Female Male

51%

49%

Does family have home computer?

3%

Yes No

3%

97%

2/16/2012

3

I use a computer to help with homework.

Yes No

14%

86%

Frequency of computer use at home.

1%

Never Monthly Weekly Daily Anytime

4%

1%

6%

25%

64%

2/16/2012

4

High Speed Internet at Home?

Yes No

17%

83%

Favorite School Web Site

2/16/2012

5

Favorite Site (At Home)

WiFi at Home

Yes No I'm not sure

9%

13%

78%

2/16/2012

6

Other places computers are used.

375

302 287 301

145

School Public Library Relative's House Friend's House other

Home access to…

385

101176

336

199

396

293

77

2/16/2012

7

Has Personal Cell Phone

Yes No

14%

86%

Cell Phone Features

Calls only Calls and Texting Smartphone with Internet

10%

40%

50%

40%

2/16/2012

8

Computer Use at Home (Weekly)



5%7%

14%

28%

24%22%

Computer Use at School (Weekly)



18%

34%

7%

2% 3%

36%

34%

2/16/2012

9

Tech Use in Core Classes

2%

Several times a day Daily Weekly Seldom Never

12%

23%

32%

%

31%

Normally Used in Core Classes…

by myself as part of a group or team

both by myself and as part of a group... I do not use technology in my core classes

44%42%

3%

11%

2/16/2012

10

Core Teachers Assign Work Requiring Use of Tech

Never Seldom Sometimes Frequently Always

9%

14%21%

6%

50%

Classes Where Teach Used This Year

393 386 390 405

126

13

15190

2/16/2012

11

Other Classes Requiring Use of Tech

Locations I Used Tech for School Work

351 333397

116

371

113

223

2/16/2012

12

Have Accounts for…

338

122

240297

376 365

12259

95

Local Library Cards

I have a library card (live in Skokie) I have a library card (live in M.G)

I DO NOT have a library card (live in Skokie) I DO NOT have a library card (live in M.G.)

15%

13%

0% 2%

I don't know which

70%

2/16/2012

13

How often I use tech to…

2338 15 19 42

Never Once or twice a year Monthly Weekly Almost daily

12 14 9

158

2594 81

157

7540 18 6

96

181

150

12

48

95

6665

29 54

70201 136

69

120

87

97168

77

137

83

2346

128

100

64

101

160

307239

38 19

230

9642

106

12 14 9 25 66 12

I need help when…

38

Always Sometimes Rarely Never Expert (can help others)

21 49 70113

136

9647

88

146

11028

54

76

68

52

169

38

153248

21 49 1870

2/16/2012

14

Degree of agreement with…Disagree No Opinion Agree

10045 36 59 43

113 119

118

86 95138

96

122163

227314 314

248306

210163

Having a SMART board helps me learn.

Yes No

10%

90%

2/16/2012

15

Core Classes Statement

85

27 5958 65

861

551 44 20

51 67 116

217 12 4 8 5 7 34 35 21 17

Almost always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

318

63

238

3672

203

11054 62

216

85

139

139

151

177

157

149

132 107

126170 199147 101

157139

6567 116

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 57

ShafferK

Text Box


2/16/2012

1

Home Technology Survey


Winter 2012

Have Children in Schools

Madison Edison Lincoln

38%30%

Madison Edison Lincoln

32%

2/16/2012

2

Do you have a home computer?

1%

Yes No

1%

99%Choice Count

Yes 158

No 2

Number of Computers in Home

1 2 3 4 or more

25%

26%

16%

33%

2/16/2012

3

Question ComputerPurchase

buy within the next 1 year. buy within the next 2 years. no intention to buy a computer.

29%

0%0%

71%

Supervision Software on ComputerYes No Not to my knowledge

49%

25%

26%

2/16/2012

4

Has Internet Connection at Home

2%

Yes No

2%

98%

Internet Connection Speed

3%

Dialup Connection Broadband (Cable or DSL connection)

3%

97%

2/16/2012

5

WiFi in Home

1%

Yes No No, but planning to install by next school year

9%

1%

90%

My Child has the following…

56

23

4550

24

2/16/2012

6

Student Has Personal eMail (by grade)

87

Choice Count

No 87

KDG 0

1 7

2 4

3 3

4 2

5 15

0 7 4 3 215 13 18 18

No KDG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6 13

7 18

8 18

Have you eMailed your child’s teacher?

Yes No

14%

86%

2/16/2012

7

Have you eMailed anadministrator?

Yes No

56%

44%

Accessed info on district web site?

Yes No

12%

88%

2/16/2012

8

Student daily home computer use

Not at all Less than 1 hour 1 to 2 hours 3 hours or more

9%

34%

6%

51%

My child uses home computer for…

113136

7244 42

2/16/2012

9

Have any of your children been cyber bullied?

3%

Yes No

3%

97%

I’ve accessed the following on the District’s web site.

81 90

12296 106 114

62 69

2612

2/16/2012

10

Other info accessed on web site

• school registration info

• Home Logic

• Don't rememberDon t remember

• homelogic

• home logic if that's part of it

• homelogic and moodle

• weather, announcement

• Able to access Treasures link to do add'l work, esp. if child is sick & missing school.

• Contact info

• Payment of fees/lunch account fund

• Teacher's home page for Brain pop

I’ve accessed HomeLogic for…Yes No

59 47 59 70 81 68

5864

7568

6673

2/16/2012

11

Will use HomeLogic to pay in future?

Yes No Not Sure

10%

25%

65%

Liked Mail‐in Registration

Yes No

11%

89%

2/16/2012

12

Computers in child’s school are adequate?

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree No Opinion

24%

8%

1%

20%

47%

Software meets his/her needs


18%

7%0%

25%

50%

2/16/2012

13

My child is provided opportunities to use technology at school


25%

4%1%

10%

60%

Child has access to computer outside of school?

1% 3%


57%

35%

4% 1% 3%

2/16/2012

14

Child uses home computer for school projects?


40%8%

3% 12%

37%

I assist my child using computer for school projects.


28%

11%

0%

17%

44%

2/16/2012

15

Need for 1:1 at LJHS

Yes No

52%

48%

Should students be allowed to bring their own device (tech) to school?

Yes Yes but concerned that many don't have No

14%

49%

37%

2/16/2012

16

If allowed to bring device to school I would buy for my child.

Yes, I'm likely to buy No, it is the school's responsibility

No, I don't feel it is appropriate Unsure, I don't know at this time

29%35%

, pp p ,

15%

21%

District 69 does a good job of using technology to communicate?No Opinion Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

5%6%

6%29%

54%

2/16/2012

17

Would you participate in a recycling day?

Yes No Uncertain

52%

42%

6%

Question Comments

• The e‐mailed communications are OK, but the website is very out‐of‐date and almost useless, not to mention hard to navigate.

• My child is in first grade. It seemed that the tech use was higher in Kindergarten, particularly with the y g g g , p ySMART Board. I don't hear about the students using computers or laptops from either my child or the teacher/school, so it was difficult to gauge my answers here. I'm not sure if there isn't a great deal happening or if I am unaware of it.

• It would be helpful if the district could broker an agreement with a computer company to get computers for student use for less money (paid for by parents).

• With the idea of providing a mobile computer being brought to school...my concern is theft of the device, corruption of the device ‐ viruses, etc., how many kids would be without one b/c parents can't afford it, potential of breakage, potential opening to cyberbullying. We have to take into affect how do we monitor what the kids are doing on the computers. Parents have a hard enough time monitoring one or two kids at home ‐ how can teachers monitor 24 or more at one time?

• This survey was difficult to respond to since my older daughter is now at Niles West and my only District 69 student is in pre‐school. I work in the technology field and i'm not sure that technology is the key to a good education. Maybe as they get to Jr. High, but certainly not in elementary school.

2/16/2012

18

Question Comments (Continued)

• I think the district could better use technology. Many teachers at the primary building do not even have a web page, some teachers do and some do not. The main school web page could be better too! The should list spirit days for the school, or have upcoming school events listed. the blog page recaps things but it would be a great resource to have everything listed on the main school page. Additionally homelogic is fine for paying fees, but is there are many districts that use power school which is quite easy to navigate, I'm curious as to figuring out the benefits of home logic as of yet. Home logic is not useful for kindergartners in any other way than for paying fees. As for computers do the kids have access to computer carts? Maybe per subject area. I have a kindergartener and by no means would I send him in with an I pad or computer and I would guess that question is directed towards Jr high students, but maybe having subject area carts, or grade level carts that kids can use. I would love for my child to be using technology! But it is really unfortunate that only some teachers have web pages and not everyone. It could be such a useful tool but it does not seem to be being used as best as it can be.

• This sounds like it is mostly for Lincoln, but I certainly think the Edison and Madison kids could use more time on the computers Also they need to learn to type!!!time on the computers. Also, they need to learn to type!!!

• This is our fourth year in the district and I feel the website has improved greatly. However, I feel there should be a "volunteer" or "How parents can help" section where volunteer opportunities are explained, upcoming fundraiser events are listed, even things that the school collects (box tops, ink cartridges, etc. ) all on one page. I feel like we get so many separate e‐mails it is very hard to remember them all.


• (1) I was not aware they had organized any recycling event in the past. (2) I am expecting my son to get a laptop from District 219 in 9th grade. I bought my daughter one because she missed the onset of that policy.

• I do not want to buy a computer for junior high when they get one for free at the high school

• I would like to see the teachers pages updated more. Maybe have weekly highlights on the school webpage.

• I am beginning to feel that there is actually too much technology for the students. They seem to be losing the ability to sit, pay attention, focus and have quiet thoughts.

• The listserv is good, but I had to ask to be put on it. I'm sure some families aren't even aware of it. I find the web pages, excluding those from individual teachers, are usually out of date, or don't include much information about important events or news from the principals and administration.

• From the glimpses I've had of D69 tech, it seemed pretty good. My kids are pretty young, though, and I work in tech professionally; IMO, I can give them the exposure they need at home, and I would ratherwork in tech professionally; IMO, I can give them the exposure they need at home, and I would rather their school time was spent working on other areas. Thanks for asking.

• I am not sure about the 1:1 deployment. It seems that many kids @ Lincoln would already have phones, and possibly smart phones, which would, in essence, give them that use. They will be receiving their own device @ Niles West. "need" vs. "want"?

2/16/2012

19


• I wish 2ond graders will have acsess to computer every week in school under supervision of there teachers.

• Parents should be given more control over what type of emails they receive. Newsgroups, similar to Yahoo g yp y g p ,Newsgroups, would be great tool for teachers to use. It gives teachers control on who they allow to subscribe to their group, centralized location for their journals, communications, paperwork/homework that they send home; hence, parents would have access to students homework anytime. It's also a great tools for input/communication from/withing other parents, but the teacher still has control on what parents could post on the newsgroups. At the end of the school year, all the parents from the outgoing class could be removed from the newsgroup by the teacher; the parents of incoming students could now be added.

• I am not sure how good the computers are or how the computer based work is at Madison.

• My fear for BYOD is maturity of the student leaving it unattended and theft not trusting people in this enocomy at this time. Otherwise I am for it.

• Please note I have tried to send email via the District website to 2 separate teachers/administrators at different times and I did not receive a reply from either teacher (Music Teacher at Madison and Curriculum Director). I don't think the email went through to the teacher even though I received an emailed copy. Please look into this matter. Thnx


• It would be nice if parents received email notifications when the lunch accounts run low.

• Thank You

• Not sure about the 1:1 deployment vs BYOD issue ‐my oldest child is only in 2nd grade so I just don'tNot sure about the 1:1 deployment vs. BYOD issue ‐my oldest child is only in 2nd grade, so I just don t know enough about why mobile computers would or would not be needed for every student at the Jr. High level.

• All teacher in the district should be required to maintain a web page detailing the weeks events, homework assignments and supplemental resource materials for students and parents.

• I am not in a position financially to buy a computer or pay for the monthly internet bill.

• Provide all students a safe environment and technology

• I like what you do with every student in school. Thank you very much.

• School should provide students with their own device. Not all parents have jobs and can afford devices for their children. That is why my child does not have.

ShafferK

Text Box

Return to Page 57

ShafferK

Text Box


2012 planning retreat

Documents

board planning session

minimum fund balance

board members

adequate fund balance

projected fund balance

board attorney

planning retreat

fund balance goal discussion