East Troy Community School District
2014-15 Annual Meeting and Budget Hearing
I. Call to OrderII. Pledge of AllegianceIII. Election of a Temporary
ChairpersonIV. Appoint Recording Clerk
V. ANNUAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE TO EDUCATION AWARDS
Congratulations and Thank You to:
Meg and Shawn Hunter
VI. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR’S
REPORTA. District History, Trends, and StatsB. Student Achievement C. Additional Data Points
Moving Forward toward the “District of Choice”
Mission Statement: Ensuring and providing 21st century learning
through: engaged student learning, quality teaching, strong leadership,
rigorous coursework, and community service opportunities while
demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness for the betterment of the
students and community.
21ST C. ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEEVISION STATEMENTS
TIME FOR LEARNING – REMOVE BARRIERS COMPETENCY BASED EDUCATION – LOOK AT
OUTCOMES, NOT BEING DEFINED BY GRADE OR AGE
SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS/PARENTS/AGENCIES/HIGHER EDUCATION
PROVIDE MEANINGFUL, PRACTICAL APPLICATION SKILLS THROUGH ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECTS
HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION – MORE ENGAGEMENT/INTEREST, MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS
UTILIZING RESOURCES, CREATING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNERS
HIGH LEVELS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF
CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INDIVIDUALIZED EXPERIENCES TO ENCOURAGE SELF DIRECTED LEARNING
Goals Ensuring a year to a year plus of learning
growth for each child, each year Ensuring programming opportunities through
systems and practices that recognize the talents of each child
Ensuring individualized learning by engaging students with a personalized learning environment
Employing the highest quality professional staff
Adapting facilities for current and future educational needs
Demonstrating fiscal responsibility through efficiency and effectiveness
SIX FACETS
Student Achievement Quality Teaching / Quality Staff and
Strong Instructional Leadership Technology Facilities Operations Community Engagement
Dr. Hibner (2011)
HEAD COUNT
Headcount includes resident and non-resident students enrolled within the district. Headcount excludes resident students enrolled outside the district and in alternative and special education placements.
The enrollment numbers in the following charts are as of September of each year, except for the estimate for the current year.
ENROLLMENT HISTORY Estimate for 14-15
2004
-05
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007
-08
2008
-09
2009
-10
2010
-11
2011
-12
2012
-13
2013
-14
2014
-15
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
K-12 4K
GENERAL FUND COMPONENT REVENUES 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR
Property Taxes (LOCAL)
74%
Equalization Aid (STATE)
19%
Other7%
GENERAL FUND COMPONENT EXPENDITURES 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR
Salaries & Bene-
fits70%
Fd 27 Transfer7%
Other23%
GENERAL FUND & FD 27 SALARIES & BENEFITS 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR
Salaries51%
Benefits25%
Other24%
Salary/Benefit Distribution by Staff
55%
10%
35%
FTE
Support Staff
Teachers
Admin/Supv
65%15%
20%
Cost in Budget
Teachers
Admin/Supv
Support Staff
Basic Salary/Benefits Only – does not include extra duties.
See Appendix “Rock Valley Athletic Conference 2012-13 Equalized Tax Levy Information” for Comparables
MILL RATE HISTORY(14-15 – Estimate)
96-9
7
97-9
8
98-9
9
99-0
0
00-0
1
01-0
2
02-0
3
03-0
4
04-0
5
05-0
6
06-0
7
07-0
8
08-0
9
09-1
0
10-1
1
11-1
2
12-1
3
13-1
4
14-1
5
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
$10.00
$11.00
$9.3
1
$9.2
5
$9.0
3
$8.8
3
$8.0
8 $8.3
5
$8.2
7 $8.5
1
$8.1
7
$7.2
8
$7.0
7 $7.5
3$7
.66
$8.8
5 $9.1
6
$8.8
8
$9.9
9$1
0.21$1
0.55
% Change in Equalized Value History
'04-
05
'05-
06
'06-
07
'07-
08
'08-
09
'09-
10
'10-
11
'11-
12
12-1
3
13-1
4
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
7.27
%
12.7
6%
12.1
9%
4.98
%
8.79
%
-5.5
1%
-0.5
3%
0.30
%
-6.4
7%
-1.6
6%
See Appendix “WI DPI Analysis of General Aid and Equalization Aid Formula Components” for Comparisons to State Increases
Mill rate can increase, even when taxes decrease
Year 1
School Taxes: $2000 each
Mill rate: taxes/property (1,000) $2000/$200 = $10
Year 2
School Taxes: $1,944 each (2.8% decrease)
Mill rate: $1944/$190 = $10.23
$200K $200K $190K $190K
2013-14 Tax Levy By Municipality
See Appendix “Tax Bill Analysis” for steps to understand the components of a tax bill.
Town of East Troy49.7%
Town of LaFayette4.8%
Town of LaGrange1.8%
Town of Spring Prairie4.3%
Town of Troy16.6%
Village of East Troy21.4%
Village of Mukwonago0.8% Town of Eagle
0.6%
Report on Student
Achievement
Learning Growth and Attainment
RESULTS - MAP
2005 Norms Study with Northwest Evaluation Association has concluded that a school district is successfully helping students to improve their annual achievement levels, if 50% or more of the students in the District reach their individual targeted growth goal for the school year.
Reading Results (MAP)National Schools in the Top 10%
In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 60-70% of the students reach their growth norm target in reading.
2009 – 2010 (61.5%) 2010 – 2011 (67.7%) 2011 – 2012* (62.7%) 2012 – 2013* (60.6%) 2013 – 2014* (62.1%)
*Began K–8 during 2011-12 / Prior years were grades 2-8
Reading Results (MAP)Above 50% of students Met Targeted Growth
2010-11: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8)
2011-12: 7 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st
grades}
2012-13: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)
2013-14: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)
Reading Results (MAP)Overall Percentage of Students Meeting Targeted
Growth
2009-10: 61.5% (Grades 2 – 8)
2010-11: 67.7% (Grades 2 – 8)
2011-12: 62.7% (K – 8) / 69.0% (Grades 2 – 8)
2012-13: 60.6% (K – 8)
2013-14: 62.1% (K – 8)
Reading Results (MAP)Overall Increase of Percentage of Cohort Meeting
Targeted Growth
2010-11: 4 of 6 (excluding 2nd grade)
2011-12: 3 of 6 (excluding 5K, 1st & 2nd grades) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades}
2012-13: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K)
2013-14: 5 of 8 (excluding 5K)
Reading Results (MAP)Grade Levels Above National Norms
2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 – 9 of 9 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the year. Began K – 8 testing during 2011-12 school year. Prior years were grades 2 – 8.
Actual Attainment v. Benchmark Attainment2011 - 2012 2012 – 2013 2013 - 2014
- - Class of 2026 N/A / N/A /(K) – 159.8 (157.7) {2.1}- Class of 2025 N/A / (K) – 159 (157.7) {1.3} /(1) – 178.5 (176.9) {1.6}- Class of 2024 (K) – 159.7 (155.1) {4.6} / (1) – 178.4 (176.9) {1.5} /(2) – 192.0 (189.6) {2.4} - Class of 2023 (1) – 179.7 (176.9) {2.8} / (2) – 194.6 (189.6) {5.0} /(3) – 203.7 (199.2) {4.5}- Class of 2022 (2) – 192.3 (189.6) {2.7} / (3) – 204.0 (199.2) {4.8} /(4) – 212.0 (206.7) {5.3}- Class of 2021 (3) – 204.6 (199.2) {5.4} / (4) – 210.9 (206.7) {4.2} /(5) – 216.4 (212.3) {4.1}- Class of 2020 (4) – 210.3 (206.7) {3.6} / (5) – 214.9 (212.3) {2.6} /(6) – 217.4 (216.4) {1.0}- Class of 2019 (5) – 217.9 (212.3) {5.6} / (6) – 219.0 (216.4) {2.6} /(7) – 223.4 (219.7) {3.7}- Class of 2018 (6) – 219.7 (216.4) {3.3} / (7) – 224.0 (219.7) {4.3} /(8) – 228.6 (222.4) {6.2}- Class of 2017 (7) – 224.8 (219.7) {5.1} / (8) – 228.9 (222.4) {6.5} /- Class of 2016 (8) – 226.3 (222.4) {3.9} /
Reading Results (WKCE)Overall Percentage of Grade Levels 3-8, & 10,
Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced
2010-11: of 7 grades - 88% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 41.2%
2011-12: of 7 grades - 87% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 42.7%
2012-13: of 7 grades - 45.7% (NAEP
aligned)
2013-14: of 7 grades - 39.7% (NAEP
aligned)
Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year (testing window will be in the spring)
Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year
Reading Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, That Increased Overall
Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced
2010-11: 4 of 6 cohorts*
2011-12: 2 of 6 cohorts*
2012-13: 3 of 6 cohorts*
2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts*
*Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam
2013 – 2014 2012 – 2013 2011 - 2012 10th – 52.9% / 8th – 31.9% 8th – 31.8% / 7th – 38.8% / 6th – 44.2% 7th - 39.9% / 6th – 42.2% / 5th – 46.7% 6th – 33.1% / 5th – 37.4% / 4th – 39.8% 5th – 40.8% / 4th – 38.3% / 3rd – 34.8% 4th – 42.5% / 3rd – 45.7% 3rd – 36.7%
Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year
Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year
Reading Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, Percentage Scoring
Proficient and/or Advanced
Math Results (MAP)National Schools in the Top 10%
In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 65 - 75 percent of the students reach their growth norm target in mathematics.
2009 – 2010 (64.3%) 2010 – 2011 (61.2%) 2011 – 2012 (75%) *2012 – 2013 (65.5%) *2013 – 2104 (64.3%)*Kindergarten and 1st graders began taking MAP testing.
Math Results (MAP)Overall Percentage of Students Meeting Targeted
Growth
2009-10: 64.3% (Grades 2 – 8)
2010-11: 61.2% (Grades 2 – 8)
2011-12: 75% (Grades 2 – 8)
2012-13: 65.5% (K – 8) / 66.9% (Grades 2 – 8)
2013-14: 64.3% (K – 8)
Math Results (MAP)Above 50% of students Met Targeted Growth
2010-11: 5 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8)
2011-12: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8)
2012-13: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)
{Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades}
2013-14: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)
Math Results (MAP)Overall Increase of Percentage of Cohort
Meeting Targeted Growth
2010-11: 2 of 6*
2011-12: 5 of 6*
2012-13: 0 of 6*
{Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades}
2013-14: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K)
*Number of cohorts excludes 2nd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year
therefore 2nd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam
Math Results (MAP)Grade Levels Above National Norms
2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 7 of 7 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference
(RIT Scores) at the end of the 2011 – 2012 school year. 8 of 9 for the 2012 – 2013 and 9 of 9 for the 2013 – 2014 school year.
Actual Attainment (Benchmark Attainment) {Difference of Actual & Benchmark}
2011 - 2012 2012 – 2013 2013 - 2014- - Class of 2026 N/A / N/A /(K) – 162.2 (159.1) {3.1}
- Class of 2025 N/A / (K) – 157.9 (159.1) {-1.2} /(1) – 182.1 (179.0) {3.1}- Class of 2024 (K) N/A / (1) – 180.8 (179.0) {1.8} /(2) – 195.6 (191.3) {4.3} - Class of 2023 (1) N/A / (2) – 197.4 (191.3) {6.1} /(3) – 207.1 (203.1) {4.0}- Class of 2022 (2) – 195.3 (191.3) {4.0} / (3) – 207.2 (203.1)) {4.1} /(4) – 221.5 (212.5) {9.0}- Class of 2021 (3) – 208.4 (203.1) {5.3} / (4) – 218.6 (212.5) {6.1} /(5) – 225.2 (221.0) {4.2}- Class of 2020 (4) – 218.3 (212.5) {5.8} / (5) – 225.3 (221.0) {4.3} /(6) – 229.6 (225.6)
{4.0}- Class of 2019 (5) – 230.3 (221.0) {9.3} / (6) – 231.9 (225.6) {6.3} /(7) – 237.8 (230.5) {7.3}- Class of 2018 (6) – 231.7 (225.6) {6.1} / (7) – 235.6 (230.5) {5.1} /(8) – 239.5 (234.5) {5.0}- Class of 2017 (7) – 237.3 (230.5) {6.8} / (8) – 241.4 (234.5) {6.9} /- Class of 2016 (8) – 240 (234.5) {5.5} /
Began K-8 testing during 2012-13 school year. Prior years were grades 2-8.
Math Results (WKCE)Overall Percentage of Grade Levels 3-8, &
10, Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced
2010-11: of 7 grades - 86% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 59%
2011-12: of 7 grades - 88% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 57.7%
2012-13: of 7 grades – 59.4% (NAEP aligned)
2013-14: of 7 grades – 56.6% (NAEP aligned)Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year
Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year
Math Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, That Increased Overall
Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced
2010-11: 1 of 6 cohorts*
2011-12: 4 of 6 cohorts*
2012-13: 2 of 6 cohorts*
2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts* *Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year
therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam
Math Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, Percentage Scoring
Proficient and/or Advanced
2013 – 2014 2012 – 2013 2011 - 2012 10th – 60.4% / 8th – 50.0% 8th – 48.6% / 7th – 52.6% / 6th – 57.5% 7th - 57.1% / 6th – 77.2% / 5th – 68.6% 6th – 52.3% / 5th – 60.9% / 4th – 54.0% 5th – 55.2% / 4th – 60.8% / 3rd – 62.6% 4th – 59.4% / 3rd – 58.1% 3rd – 63.4%
Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year
Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year
EPAS Results (ACT)East Troy Scores and Participation Rate
GradYear
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Participation
Rate
2008 22.6 21.4 21.5 22.1 22.0 55.6
2009 22.4 20.8 21.4 22.1 21.9 61.2
2010 22.8 21.9 21.9 22.5 22.4 65.1
2011 22.7 21.1 21.8 22.4 22.2 62.3
2012 22.5 21.4 21.0 22.6 22.1 70.6
2013 22.7 21.6 22.2 23.3 22.6 74.6
2014* 22.6 22.4 22.4 22.9 22.7 60.5
*2013-14 data is approximate. Data will be certified Spring 2015.
EPAS Results (ACT)District Comparison
District2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14*
Score % Score % Score % Score %
Surrounding Districts
Burlington 22.4 56.8 22.3 58.1 22.3 58.2 22.3 54.3
Elkhorn 21.8 59.6 20.9 62.6 22.1 66.7 21.8 60.8
Mukwonago 23.4 66.7 23.3 69.2 23.6 73.0 23.7 73.8
Whitewater 21.7 63.8 21.7 63.6 22.7 47.8 23.8 45.8
East Troy 22.2 62.3 22.1 70.6 22.6 74.6 22.7 60.5
Other
Local
Districts
Arrowhead 24.8 81.7 25.0 83.2 24.6 82.0 24.8 83.1
Elmbrook 25.2 85.5 25.4 84.5 24.9 87.4 25.0 83.5
Kettle Moraine 23.9 81.0 24.1 80.3 23.8 82.8 23.8 84.5
Mequon-Thiensville
25.7 82.4 25.2 79.7 25.0 85.9 26.0 87.5
Waterford 22.9 71.1 22.6 68.7 23.1 79.1 22.9 68.9
Waukesha 22.9 56.3 22.5 57.1 22.7 54.5 22.4 57.8 Score = Average Composite ACT Score
% = Participation Rate
*2013-14 data is approximate. Data will be certified Spring 2015.
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2018): 2014-15 Grade 9
8th Gr Explore (2013-14)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
ACT Benchmark 16 13 17 18 16
East Troy Avg. Score 15.5 15.6 16.6 17.5 16.4
National Avg. 14.6 14.7 15.5 16.6 15.5
9th Gr Explore (2014-15)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 18.0-18.5 18.1-18.6 19.1-19.6 20.0-20.5 18.9-19.4
ACT Benchmark 17 14 17 19 17
*East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.
10th Gr Plan (2015-16)Reading English Math Science
Composite
Projected Score* 20.5-21.5 20.6-21.6 21.6-22.6 22.5-23.5 21.4-22.4
ACT Benchmark 18 15 19 20 18ACT (2016-17)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 23.0-24.5 23.1-24.6 24.1-25.6 25.0-26.5 23.9-25.4
ACT Benchmark 22 18 22 23 21
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2017): 2014-15 Grade 10
8th Gr Explore (2012-13)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
ACT Benchmark 15 13 17 20 16
East Troy Avg. Score 15.9 15.7 16.4 17.7 16.5
National Avg. 14.6 14.7 15.5 16.6 15.59th Gr Explore (2013-14)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 18.4-18.9 18.2-18.7 18.9-19.4 20.2-20.7 19-19.5
ACT Benchmark 17 14 17 19 17
East Troy Avg. Score 16.9 17.3 17.6 18.4 17.7
National Avg. 15.4 15.7 16.3 17.1 16.2
ET Growth 8th to 9th 1.0 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.210th Gr Plan (2014-15)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 20.9-21.9 20.7-21.7 21.4-22.4 22.7-21.7 21.5-22.5
ACT Benchmark 18 15 19 20 18ACT (2015-16)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 23.4-24.9 23.2-24.7 23.9-25.4 25.2-26.7 24-25.5
ACT Benchmark 22 18 22 23 21
*Projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2016): 2014-15 Grade 11
8th Gr Explore (2011-12) Reading English Math Science Composite
ACT Benchmark 15 13 17 20 16
East Troy Avg. Score 14.4 15 16.3 16.8 15.7
National Avg. 14.6 14.7 15.5 16.6 15.5
9th Gr Explore (2012-13) Reading English Math Science Composite
Projected Score* 16.9-17.4 17.5-18.0 18.8-19.3 19.3-19.8 18.2-18.7
ACT Benchmark 16 14 18 20 17
East Troy Avg. Score 16.2 16.7 17.4 18.4 17.3
National Avg. 15.4 15.7 16.3 17.1 16.2
ET Growth 8th to 9th 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.6
ACT Reading English Math Science Composite
Projected Score 21.9-23.4 22.5-24.0 23.8-25.3 24.3-25.8 23.2-24.7
10th Gr Plan (2013-14) Reading English Math Science Composite
Projected Score* 19.4-20.4 20.0-21.0 21.3-22.3 21.8-22.8 20.7-21.7
ACT Benchmark 18 15 19 20 18
East Troy Avg. Score 18.0 18.0 19.5 19.9 19.0
National Avg. 16.7 16.2 17.6 17.8 17.2
ET Growth 8th to 9th 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.5 1.7
*East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2015): 2014-15 Grade 12
9th Gr Explore (2011-12)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
ACT Benchmark 16 14 18 20 17
East Troy Avg. Score 17.3 17.4 17.7 18.6 17.9
National Avg. 15.4 15.7 16.3 17.1 16.2
10th Gr Plan (2012-13)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 19.8-20.3 19.9-20.4 20.2-20.7 21.1-21.6 20.4-20.9
ACT Benchmark 17 15 19 21 18
East Troy Avg. Score 18.8 18.8 19.8 20.5 19.6
National Avg. 16.9 16.4 17.9 18 17.5
ET Growth 9th to 10th 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.7
Retired ACT (2013-14)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 22.3-23.3 22.4-23.4 22.7-23.7 23.6-24.6 22.9-23.9
Benchmark 22 18 22 23 21
East Troy Avg. Score 19.6 18.6 20.0 19.5 19.6
ET Growth 10th to 11th 0.8 -0.2 0.2 -1.0 0.0
*East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2014): 2013-14 Graduates
9th Gr Explore (2010-11)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
ACT Benchmark 16 14 18 20 17
East Troy Avg. Score 16.2 17.0 17.4 18.4 17.3
National Avg. 15.3 15.5 16.3 16.5 16.1
10th Gr Plan (2011-12)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 18.7-19.2 19.5-20.0 19.9-20.4 20.9-21.4 19.8-20.3
ACT Benchmark 17 15 19 21 18
East Troy Avg. Score 18.4 18.0 19.0 19.4 18.8
National Avg. 16.9 16.4 17.9 18 17.5
ET Growth 9th to 10th 2.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.5
Retired ACT (2012-13)
Reading English Math ScienceComposit
e
Projected Score* 21.2-22.2 22.0-23.0 22.4-23.4 23.4-24.4 22.3-23.3
Benchmark 21 18 22 24 21
East Troy Avg. Score 18.8 17.7 19.0 19.1 18.8
ET Growth 10th to 11th 0.4 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.3
*East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort - Percent Met or Exceeded Benchmark
Class of 20182014-15 Grade 9
Reading English Math Science Composite
ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat
8th Gr Explore (2013-14)
46% 36% 71% 68% 47% 36% 50 37%
9th Gr Explore (2014-15)
TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA
10th Gr Plan (2015-16)
TBA TBA TBA TBA TBAClass of 20172014-15 Grade 10
Reading English Math Science Composite
ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat
8th Gr Explore (2012-13)
52% 46% 76% 68% 45% 36% 27% 16% 61%
9th Gr Explore (2013-14)
54% 36 75% 67 55% 33 45% 31 65%
10th Gr Plan (2014-15)
TBA TBA TBA TBA TBAClass of 20162014-15 Grade 11
Reading English Math Science Composite
ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat
8th Gr Explore (2011-12)
44% 51% 68% 83% 42% 38% 19% 27% 27%
9th Gr Explore (2012-13)
53% 49% 75% 83% 51% 54% 42% 48% 61%
10th Gr Plan (2013-14)
49% 40% 84% 64% 55% 36% 49% 40% 65%
EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort - Percent Met or Exceeded Benchmark
Class of 20152014-15 Grade 12
Reading English Math Science Composite
ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat
8th Gr Explore (2010-11)
NA NA NA NA NA
9th Gr Explore (2011-12)
63% 45% 80% 67% 40% 33% 33% 21%
10th Gr Plan (2012-13)Class of 2014
2013-14 Graduates
Reading English Math Science Composite
ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat
8th Gr Explore (2009-10)
NA NA NA NA NA
9th Gr Explore (2010-11)
50% 43% 80% 64% 46% 37% 27% 17%
10th Gr Plan (2011-12)
69% 50% 82% 66% 48% 39% 36% 22%
School Perceptions SurveyGrade 12 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009
Do not feel part of the school 26.05 19.7 25.37 25.00 18.26 17.07
Disruptive behavior in class 43.60 28.90 44.02 24.07 26.96 22.76
No access to technology IN school 11.75 17.70 30.59 21.29 7.82 4.87
Worry about my safety at school 6.72 3.00 7.46 8.33 3.47 6.50
School does not offer courses I want 41.17 39.35 44.02 50.92 32.86 37.39
Classes are irrelevant 56.30 52.33 50.74 51.85 55.65 36.58
Poor study habits 68.90 53.37 61.19 62.00 47.82 54.47
Classes poorly taught 75.63 71.96 73.88 70.37 77.39 64.47
Teachers had high expectations of me 79.82 89.00 80.58 78.7 88.69 87.80
School is boring 70.58 57.93 58.94 71.29 66.94 63.40
I enjoy being at school 45.37 51.39 58.94 51.84 51.29 60.97
Learning can be fun 80.66 95.32 80.59 80.54 81.73 84.55
School Perceptions SurveyGrade 12 – Preferred Instructional Methods
Which two instructional methods help you to be engaged and maximize your
learning?2013-14 2012-13
Project Based Assignments (hands on activities) 64.03% 58.11%
Direct Instruction 50.03% N/A
Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates 70.17% 77.0%
Using More Technology 58.77% 52.13%
Homework 21.92% 17.09%
School Perceptions SurveyGrade 8 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree
2014 2013
I feel safe at school 80.69 88.59
Bullying was not a problem at school 65.78 71.55
The school does a good job trying to prevent bullying from happening 44.24 61.39
School does not offer courses I want 51.37 33.02
My classes were interesting 50.87 72.52
Poor study habits 40.36 34.82
No access to technology in school 33.92 19.64
Using technology made learning fun 81.07 80.69
Using technology helped me learn 79.27 76.06
My teacher allowed me to use technology on a daily basis to assist with my learning
31.48 40.17
Classes poorly taught 64.22 44.64
School is boring 72.80 60.33
I enjoy being at school 45.12 63.15
Learning can be fun 60.51 81.03
I feel fully prepared for high school 73.57 86.48
School Perceptions SurveyGrade 8 – Preferred Instructional Methods
Three methods you would like teachers to use more often to assist and enhance your
learning.2013-14 2012-13
Project Based Assignments (hands on activities) 64.3% 58.11%
Direct Instruction 44.73% N/A
Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates 70.17% 77.00%
Using more technology 58.77% 52.13%
Homework 21.92% 17.09%
School Perceptions SurveyGrade 5 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree
2014 2013
I feel safe at school 91.60 87.26
Bullying was a problem at school 22.89 37.26
The school does a good job trying to prevent bullying from happening 68.74 74.76
School does not offer courses I want 36.64 45.04
Poor study habits 19.08 19.81
No access to technology in school 24.02 28.03
Using technology made learning fun 94.64 95.45
Using technology helped me learn more 88.84 89.18
My teacher allowed me to use technology on a daily basis to assist with my learning
62.49 61.68
Classes poorly taught 23.66 12.62
School is boring 51.5 47.7
I enjoy being at school 53.02 58.92
Learning can be fun 68.49 77.27
I feel fully prepared for middle school 81.53 80.9
School Perceptions SurveyGrade 5 – Preferred Instructional Methods
Three methods you would like teachers to use more often to assist and enhance your
learning.2013-14 2012-13
Project Based Assignments (hands on activities) 70.99% 67.88%
Direct Instruction 32.06% N/A
Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates 70.22% 80.73%
Using more technology 70.22% 79.81%
Homework/Worksheets 19.84% 15.59%
Additional Results
District Data Points – attendance, truancy rate, drop out rate, suspensions, expulsions, retention rate, high school completion rates, open enrollment students, home-schooled students, ELL students, gifted and talented, special education, extra-curricular, etc.
PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventional Strategies)
YRBS (Youth Risk Behavior Survey) School Perceptions Senior Survey
VII. TREASURER’S REPORT –
2013-14
Budgeted Unaudited VarianceEXPENDITURES
General Fund 17,884,708 17,529,276 (355,432)
Special Education Fund 1,871,719 1,789,611 (82,108)
Debt Service Funds 2,241,110 2,273,257 32,147
REVENUES
General Fund 17,479,922 17,581,668 101,746
Special Education Fund 1,871,719 1,789,611 (82,108)
Debt Service Fund 1,829,627 1,829,734 107
Total fund balance increase of $52,392
VIII. PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET
14-15 Key Aspects of REVENUES
STATE BUDGET – per pupil revenue limit increase of $75 with matching $75 increase per pupil state aid provision (@$150 currently)
What this means: Projected Revenue Limit on July 1 w/out new transfers of $203,608: $16,407,959; $150 aid = $255,200 1.35% overall revenue increase $16,662,459 total is still less than 2009-10
levels State aid DPI July 1 projection: decrease of -
10.26% Overall levy: $15,052,714 (5.03%) Mill rate: 10.55 (3.31%)
14-15 Key Aspects of Shortfall
Projected Shortfall: $308,000 original With additions to budget the shortfall
increased to $577,000 Largest Budget reductions:
Health insurance renewal – 4% renewal rather than an originally projected 10% increase & EE contribution increase to 9% = $199,173
Decrease of two elementary grades by 2 sections - $163,000
IX. BUDGET HEARING
By S. 65.90 Wis. Stats, common school districts must hold the public budget hearing at the time and place of the annual meeting.
Residents have an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget.
School District Funds
10 General Fund
-Used to record district financial activities for current operations, except those activities required to be accounted for in separate funds.
School District Funds
20 Special Project Funds
21 Special Revenue Trust Fund
Gift / Donations Fund – prudent when project directed by donation will cross fiscal years.
27 Special Education Fund
Exceptional Educational Needs/Federal Handicapped/Other Special Projects
School District Funds
30 Debt Service Funds
Irrepealable debt tax levy and related revenues.
Principal, interest, and related long-term debt retirement.
38 Non-referendum Approved Debt Service (within the revenue limit)
39 Referendum Approved Debt Service
School District Funds
50 Food Service Fund
Federal regulations require separate accounting for Food Service.
Fund deficit must be eliminated through transfer from the General Fund.
Fund balance must be retained for use in Food Service.
School District Funds
70 Trust Funds
These funds are used to account for assets held by the district in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations, or other governments.
East Troy utilizes this fund for its scholarship donations.
School District Funds
80 Community Service Fund
Fund established through S. 120.13 and 120.61, Wis. Stats. Allows a school board to permit use of district property for civic purposes.
Examples of activities could include adult education, community recreation programs, and/or day care services.
Act 20 created new requirements for this Fund, including no increases in the levy from 2012-13 unless by referendum, and reporting requirements such as including the expenditure
report attached to the budget hearing documents.
LONG TERM DEBTAs of September 1, 2014
Remaining principal on Fund 38 - $541,283 (Debt Expires 9/19/2018).
Remaining principal on Fund 39 - $2,705,000 (Debt Expires 3/1/2018).
RESOLUTIONS(Last page of booklet)
X. Resolution A: Adoption of Tax Levy
XI. Resolution B: Salaries for Board of Education Members
XII. Resolution C: Set Date and Time for 2015 Annual Meeting
XIII. NEW BUSINESS
XIV. ADJOURN