madison-stockbridge valley study data sets 2013

Reorganization Feasibility Study

On Behalf of the

Madison and Stockbridge Valley

Central School Districts

February, 2013

DATA SETS OF THE STUDY

Prepared by: The SES Study Team, LLC

This report was prepared with funds provided by the New York State

Department of State under the local government efficiency grant program.

Purpose of the Study Funded by the NYS Department of State:

To research if the reorganization (through centralization) of the two districts can provide

enhanced educational opportunities and, at the same time, increase efficiencies and lower cost for the overall operations by forming a reorganized school district.

School District Community Advisory Committee Members Appointed by the Respective

Boards of Education to Work with and Advise the SES Study Team in the Preparation of the Feasibility Study

PRIME COMMUNITY

REPRESENTATION SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE

STUDY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

Brayman, Duane Parent Support Services Clark, Jessica Parent/MCS Staff Support Services Cotter, Michele Faculty Student Program Dapson, Samantha Support Staff Finance Davis, Kimberly Parent Student Program Jeffers, Ed Parent Finance LaForce, Eileen Parent Support Services Masker, Dianne Parent Finance Mitchell, Lisa Parent Student Program Nichols, Annett Parent Finance Smith, Doug Parent Support Services Snyder, Jona Parent Student Program Snyder, Kelly Parent Student Program Stolarczyk, Paula Parent Finance

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

Bartlett, Shelia Faculty Rep Program Chapin, Jennie Real Estate Agent Finance Church, Malary Unmarried <30 Program Conklin, Bernard Retired Support Services Couture, Curt Booster Parent Program DeMenezes, Ed Pre-school Parent Finance Hollingsworth, Thomas General Community Support Services Lighthall, Ray Pastor Support Services Marshall, Fred Support Staff Rep Support Services McInerney, John Empty Nester Finance Nolley, Tracie Elementary Parent Program Pokorny, Jay HS Parent Support Services Reed, Norm Elected Leader Finance Shea, William Business Person Finance Usborne, Justiss Student Program

The Boards of Education, the Superintendents, and the SES Study Team sincerely thank the volunteer Joint Community Advisory Committee Members for their time, diligence, collaboration and advice in

the preparation of this study.

The SES Study Team acknowledges and thanks Suzanne Spear and Jay O’Connor of the New York State Education Department as helpful collaborative resources for the study.

Madison Central School District Board of Education Members: Kathy Bridge; William Langbein; Carl Lindberg; James Mitchell (president); Jona Snyder; Stephanie Tanner; Steve Yancey Superintendent of Schools: Perry Dewey The Madison Central School District is located on Route 20 in the heart of rural Madison County. The district, while considered a small, rural district in size of approximately 50 square miles, provides individualized attention for all students, with a focus on preparing them for academic excellence and lifelong learning. Madison has one building which houses approximately 460 students in grades Pre K- 12. The community residents possess a strong belief in education and support the District in positive educational endeavors. The community that supports the District is rural in character comprised of agricultural farms and small businesses. The school places high standards of student achievement and offers a well-rounded variety of instructional programs for students. Madison is a component district of the Madison-Oneida BOCES located in Verona. Madison students participate in a variety of programs including career and technical education, preschool and special education programs. The District is managed by two district level administrators; two building level administrators and three support supervisors. The operating budget for the 2012-13 school year was approximately $8.8 million.

Stockbridge Valley Central School District

Board of Education Members: Jacob Byron (president); Christina Chapin; Lindsey Cross; Thomas Jones; Michael Oot; Barbary Reaves; Charles Wilson Jr. Superintendent of Schools: Dr. Patrick Curtin, Interim The Stockbridge Valley Central School District is located in the eastern portion of Madison and the western perimeter of Oneida County. It is approximately 20 miles from the cities of Syracuse, Utica and Rome. Interstate 90 is in close proximity as well as state highways 5 and 46. The school district is approximately 42 square miles and is primarily residential and agricultural in character. Many of the residents are employed either in, or close to Syracuse, Utica, Rome and Oneida. Commercial and professional services are afforded the residents within the district. Several small family farms are in the district. Industry continues to remain stable within the District. Today the Stockbridge Valley Central School District has approximately 490 Pre K-12 students who are all housed at the building in Munnsville. Stockbridge Valley is also a component district of the Madison-Oneida BOCES and its students also participate in a number of BOCES programs. The District is managed by two district level administrators, two building administrators and two support supervisors. The operating budget for the 2012-13 school year was $10.0 million.

DATA

Data Reference Tools Compiled by the Study, Analyzed by the Joint Community Advisory

Committee, and Posted on the Website of Each School District as the Study Progressed since March 2012

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL OF THE DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS IN THIS DATA SECTION OF THE STUDY WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITES OF

EACH OF THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS MET AND USED THEM TO HELP GUIDE THE STUDY.

SOME OF THE TOOLS POSTED ON THE WEB CONTAINED TYPOGRAPHICAL

CORRECTIONS AND SOME CLARIFICATION OF THE DATA HAS BEEN ADDED SINCE THE POSTING. THEREFORE, IN SOME INSTANCES THE DATA

REFERENCE TOOLS COMPILED HERE ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITES. THERE ARE NO

SUBSTANTIVE DATA/INFORMATION CHANGES, HOWEVER, FROM THE ORIGINAL DATA TOOLS.

DATA

Criteria Used by the Boards of Education to Appoint Community Advisory Committee Members -1- What Questions Should the Community Advisory Joint Committee and the Two District Reorganization Study Address/Answer? -2- Agendas of the Work Session Meetings of the Community Advisory Joint Committee -5- Pupil Enrollment Projection Calculations -24- Federal Census Bureau Demographic Characteristic Estimates for the Two School Districts -52- School District Financial Characteristics/Fiscal Condition Profiles -64- 2011-2012 Grade Level Section Class Sizes -75- Pupil Capacity of Each School Building for Possible Use in a Reorganized School District -79- Summary Results of the 2010 Building Condition Surveys -89- Elements of the Grade Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 6 Program in 2011-2012 -93- Elements of the Grade 7 through Grade 12 Program in 2011-2012 -96- 2011-2012 Program Elements: Interscholastic Athletics, Co-Curricular and Music/Drama -101- 2010-2011 Summary of Elementary and High School Assessment Results -107- National Clearinghouse Data About College Attendance, Persistence, and Attainment -116- Labor Contract Profiles and Full Time Equivalent Cost Data -128- Some Possible ‘What If’ Ideas to Use the Existing School Buildings if the Communities Chose to Reorganize the Two Districts into One -150- A ‘What if’ Picture of a Pupil Transportation Plan -164-

APPENDIX

“Questions and Answers” to Commonly Asked Questions about Timeline and Governance Topics Related to School District Reorganization -169- School District Reorganization Incentive Aid -171- Q and A about the Process with Regard to Personnel when a School District Reorganization Occurs through Centralization -172-

DATA

“Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future.”

SES STUDY TEAM

- 1 -

Criteria used by the Boards to appoint Community Advisory Committee members from those who volunteered in each school district. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL COMMITTEE MEMBERS INCLUDE:

The ability to listen to all sides of an issue and respect the opinions of others. Acknowledged by the community as one who represents a ‘constituency’ within the

respective district. The ability and comfort to accurately convey ideas and information verbally to fellow

community members. The ability to see a 'big picture' yet able to appreciate and understand details with a focus on

the main mission of a school district which is to serve students effectively and with quality as defined by the community.

Believes in transparency of the study work, data and process. Has the willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to attend all (most) meetings in

a timely manner and to contribute to the work of the Committee and study. Has demonstrated a previous interest and involvement in some aspect of the school district

and/or community. Is a resident of the respective school district. Is willing to be accessible to community members to help communicate about the work of

the Committee and the study process. Understands the process of consensus and is willing to work with others to identify and then

support a consensus recommendation. Understands and accepts that recommendations of the Committee are advisory in nature to

the Boards of Education and to the communities of the districts.

DATA


SES STUDY TEAM

- 2 -

What Questions Should a Potential Reorganization Feasibility Study

Address/answer?

COMPILED COLLABORATIVELY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY

BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND THEIR SUPERINTENDENTS AT A WORKSHOP ON

APRIL 12, 2011; AND BY THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THEIR MARCH 26, 2012

WORK MEETING

Joint Community Advisory Committee resource

April 24, 2012

DATA

- 3 -

Educational Program Questions Identified by the Boards of Education and Superintendents

Ranking out of 38 questions identified

Category One: Enhanced/Accelerated/New Offerings/Overall Program Opportunities What kind of increased academic opportunities might be offered? 2 How will we increase academic rigor? 13

Category Two: Specific Programs and Program Questions Would there be more college and Advanced Placement courses available to students? 6 What would our class sizes look like in a new district? 15 Is student achievement affected (up/down)? 20 How would scheduling work-during the day and after school? 21 How will special education programs be coordinated and delivered? 22 What information is collected for enrollment and how are projections determined? 23 Would the Pre-K program be continued? 25

Category Three: Co-Curricular and Athletics Will athletic programs be expanded in a reorganized district? 2 What co-curricular and interscholastic opportunities would there be for kids? 16 Does reorganization limit the opportunities for kids to participate in sports? 25 Financial Issues/Questions Identified by the Boards of Education and Superintendents


Category One: Issues Related to Money/Costs/Taxes What could be cost savings in a reorganized district? 3 What assurances are there from NYS that reorganization aid will be there in the future? 5 What would the tax rates in the reorganized district look like? 7 What will the actual cost savings be in a reorganized district even without incentive aid? 9 Would reorganization incentive aid be affected by the Gap Elimination Adjustment? 10 How would the proposed 2% tax cap affect the budgets of the newly formed district? 11 How does a school district plan for the eventual loss of incentive aid? 14 What would happen to the districts’ fund balances? 18 How is BOCES aid affected in a reorganized district? 19 How is debt service handled in reorganization? 22

Category Two: Labor Relations/Other How will staffing be affected? 2 How are contracts dealt with in a reorganized district? 7 Does the study examine sharing of administrative staff and what might it look like? 12

DATA

- 4 -

Functional Services/Operations Issues/Questions Identified by the Boards of Education and Superintendents


Category One: Student Transportation What would bus routes look like in a reorganized district? 8 Category Two: Facility Questions What would happen to our buildings and would they remain open? 1 What would building maintenance costs be and how much in the new district? 12 Would there be a need for additional buildings? 25

Cultural Questions Ranking

out of 38 questions identified

How might the small school feel be affected by a merged, larger district? 4 How would reorganization affect the student/staff relationships? 15 How could the reorganization of the districts affect the safety of students? 18 How does the reorganized district address colors, mascots, and names? 20

Governance Questions Do the Boards have the ability to determine what are and are not deal breakers? 15 How much interaction does the State Education Department and the Department of State have in the study process?

17

How long would it take for the new district to be up and running? 18 How will each community be represented on the Board of Education? 19 Anything on the horizon from NYS about mandating reorganization? 24

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY AT MARCH 26 COMMITTEE WORK SESSION

How might a merged school district maintain and add to an agriculture course of study for students? What might the arts program look like in a reorganized school district? What happens to the individual funds in student accounts that been raised by fund raisers for those specific clubs/activities? What becomes the basis for the ‘debt limit’ for the reorganized school district since a small portion of the Stockbridge Valley school district falls within the municipal boundaries of Oneida City? Is it possible to contract out transportation services if the districts were to reorganize? How long might the bus rides be for students? What are the current policies in each school district concerning length of bus ride now? How can we make this possible change a positive transition for the kids if the new district comes about?

DATA

- 5 -

AGENDAS OF MEETINGS OF THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

March 26, 2012 – December 12, 2012

“Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future.

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts Objective of the school districts:

The purpose of the feasibility study is to gather information and provide facts and recommendations to the Boards of Education of the Districts regarding the potential reorganization of one or both of the Districts. Options to be considered through the study may include centralization, annexation, formal or informal sharing and cooperation arrangements between the Districts, any other changes that may be authorized by current law or amendments to the law, and no change from the current status.

- 6 -


JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ONE AGENDA

MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members,

please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)

Please set your cell phone to ‘vibrate’ before we begin. Thank you.

A. (6:00) Welcome by a representative from each Board of Education and the Superintendents

SES Study Team: B. (6:10) Overview and Purpose of the Study:


The Study Process: Over a series of working meetings scheduled periodically, the Joint Community Advisory Committee with the help of the SES Study Team will review comprehensive sets of data about the two districts and identify possible opportunities and challenges regarding the reorganization of the school districts into one consolidated, merged school district.

Example Study data topics include: ◊ Demographics of the two districts. ◊ The current ‘fiscal condition profiles’ of each district. ◊ Current property taxes. ◊ Pupil capacities of the existing school buildings. ◊ Building conditions of the existing school buildings. ◊ Current class sizes in delivering the program currently. ◊ The elementary program offerings. ◊ The secondary program offerings. ◊ Co-curricular and athletic offerings. ◊ State student assessment data. ◊ College enrollment data about school district graduates.



- 7 -

◊ How the school districts currently share regionally with other school districts. ◊ Current instructional and instructional support staffing and deployment. ◊ Current expenditures for staffing and program. ◊ Elements of current labor contracts. ◊ Historical retention pattern of staff. ◊ Current expenditures to deliver the educational program separately in the two districts.

C. (6:25:7:10) Introductory Activity: An Opportunity to Meet the Members of the CAC

D. (7:10-7:30) The Role of the Joint Community Advisory Committee/Role of SES Team and Timeline Information:

Each Board of Education has appointed 15 community volunteers to form the Community Advisory Committee for the district. The volunteers from each school district provide a wide representation of the community. The charge to the Joint Community Advisory Committee volunteers is:

To listen to presentations and discussions and provide perspectives and feedback about the data and their analysis during the study process

To advise the consultants on issues related to the study. To help keep district residents informed with accurate information about the study. To promote 3-way communication among school district officials and personnel, the citizens of the districts, and the SES Study Team consultants.

The Boards of Education used the following criteria to appoint the volunteers:

• The ability to listen to all sides of an issue and to respect the opinions of others. • Acknowledged by the community as one who represents a ‘constituency’ within the respective district. • The ability and comfort to accurately convey ideas and information verbally to fellow community

members. • The ability to see a 'big picture' yet able to appreciate and understand details with a focus on the main

mission of a school district which is to serve students effectively and with quality as defined by the community.

• Believes in transparency of the study work, data and process. • Has the willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to attend all (most) meetings in a timely

manner and to contribute to the work of the Committee and study. • Has demonstrated a previous interest and involvement in some aspect of the school district and/or

community. • Is a resident of the respective school district or is a ‘resident’ business owner in the district. • Is willing to be accessible to community members to help communicate about the work of the

Committee and the study process. • Understands the process of consensus and is willing to work with others to identify and then support a

consensus recommendation. • Understands and accepts that recommendations of the Committee are advisory in nature to the Boards of

Education and to the communities of the districts.



- 8 -

The Boards of Education also have appointed each member to serve on one of three subcommittees. Each district has 5 Committee Members serving on each subcommittee. The three subcommittees are: The Educational Program Subcommittee; The Finance, Personnel, and Governance Subcommittee; and the Functional Services/Operations Subcommittee. (red, yellow, blue dots)

THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee focuses on such topics as the K-12 instructional program for children including academic core subjects; special areas and advanced placement and college courses; co-curricular and extracurricular offerings; online, distance learning, and other technologically based instruction; BOCES programming; use of the existing school buildings; and other related program topics they identify.

THE FINANCE, PERSONNEL, AND GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE: This

subcommittee focuses on many ‘what if’ topics that would result depending on the directions the communities take about reorganization. Topics include: personnel, property tax information, state aid revenues, and costs associated with various models of how the district might reorganize. Additionally, information relative to how the new district could be restructured; the makeup of the new school board; process for reorganization; and timeline information in order to help the joint committee better understand the overall impact of a potential reorganization of the district are analyzed and reviewed.

THE FUNCTIONAL SERVICES/OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE: This subcommittee

focuses on such topics as pupil transportation; food service/cafeteria program; building operations and maintenance functions; school business functions and other related topics they identify.

The Role of The SES Study Team (Paul Seversky, Doug Exley, and Sam Shevat): To organize and lead the study process; research, collect and organize various sets of data about the two school districts; listen to citizens and school personnel; document various points of view and perceptions about the data collected and analyzed by the Joint Community Advisory Committee; help ensure public transparency of the work of the study and data compiled; develop and prepare the study document. The SES Study Team will take no formal position about what each district should do or not do with regard to reorganization. The Study Report written by the Study Team-- in an unbiased fashion-- will identify opportunities and challenges that reorganization might provide the two districts.



- 9 -

The Current Timeline for the Study: March-August: scheduled meetings of the Joint Community Advisory

Committee August-September: crafting of the Study Report October: review of the Study Report by the State Education Department and

the Boards of Education By November: public forum meetings in the two communities to present the

Study and engage public discussion

Potential Step After the Study is Completed: Boards of Education decide if an advisory referendum (straw vote) in each

community should be undertaken to determine the point of view of each community about reorganization of the two districts.

Coffee/Tea Break (7:30-7:40)

E. (7:40-8:00) What is “School Reorganization” that is applicable to the two districts of the

study? Reference Tool: “Q and A” about School District Reorganization

Centralization: A new district is created encompassing the entire area of the school districts to be merged. Centralization requires approval, by a majority vote, of the voters in each affected school district. Annexation: Ordered by the Commissioner, a neighboring district is dissolved and becomes part of the annexing district. Annexation to a central school district is subject to a referendum in each district. For there to be a referendum, a petition must be filed within 60 days and the referendum must pass in each district.

F. (8:00-8:15) Questions from the Joint Community Advisory Committee Members at this juncture of tonight’s meeting?

G. (8:15-9:00) Our first task together with the study: Attached is a list of questions that the two Boards of Education and the school district Superintendents identified at a joint planning session in preparation for this reorganization study. Are there are other questions not listed that the Joint Community Advisory Committee and the Study should explore?

H. Meeting Two: April 17, Tuesday; 6:00 – 9:00 p.m. MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT



- 10 -

Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting:

Please remember to sign-in for today’s meeting. Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings.

Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees.

If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets you to all three of us simultaneously.

If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Joint Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the Joint Community Advisory Committee, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publicly be available in the fall. Thank you.

Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community.

Please drive home safely.



- 11 -


JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING TWO AGENDA: TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012

6:00 – 9:00 p.m. MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Community Advisory Committee Members,

please sign in and pick up your nametag and agenda at the front of the room.)


Sub-committees, please sit together: ‘red dot’, Education Committee

‘yellow dot’, Finance/Personnel Committee ‘blue dot’, Support Services

1. (6:00) Welcome to all members not present on March 26th

Please choose a “committee partner.” If one partner cannot attend a meeting, the other partner gets copies of all documents and information used at the meeting to give the absent partner at the next meeting. Thank you.

2. (6:10) Compilation of questions initially developed by both Boards of Education along with

those questions identified and added by the Joint Community Advisory Committee on March 26

“What questions should the Joint Community Advisory Committees and the Reorganization Study address/answer?

3. Set of questions is a tool to make sure the study addresses the topics, and questions important to the Advisory Committee representatives and the Boards of Education.

4. (6:20) Data review, discussion, and analysis

Geographic data ◊ Observations: Opportunities and Challenges

5. Data Reference: Census Demographic Characteristics ◊ Observations: Opportunities and Challenges

6. Data Reference: Enrollment Projection Calculations Observations: Opportunities and Challenges

Data Reference: School Building Pupil Capacities Observations: Opportunities and Challenges

Data Reference: Grade Level Section Sizes 2011-2012 ◊ Observations: Opportunities and Challenges



- 12 -

7. (8:50) Next meeting #3: Wednesday, June 6; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Stockbridge Valley Future Agenda Topics (not necessarily in sequential order): Educational Programs (grades K-12; special education) Labor Relations / contracts Building Use / Condition of buildings Interscholastic athletics / Co-curricular Activities Student Assessments Transportation Financial Information (i.e. Current financial health; budget projections; reorganization incentive aid; property tax estimates) Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting:

• Please remember to sign-in for today’s meeting. • Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. • The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings.


• If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets you to all three of us simultaneously.

• If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Joint Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the Joint Community Advisory Committee, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will be available publicly in the fall. Thank you.





- 13 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MEETING OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES MEETING THREE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, June 6, 2012

6:00 – 9:00 p.m. STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT


please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.) Please set your cell phone to ‘vibrate’ before we begin. Thank you.

Please sit together in in your committees.

‘red dot’, Education Committee ‘yellow dot’, Finance/Personnel Committee

‘blue dot’, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee

F. (6:00) Data Reference: Profile of the Current Grades Kindergarten through grade 6 elementary programs in the two school districts.

Staff Guest Resources for the Community Advisory Committee attending this meeting:

MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY

Jeff DeAngelo, CSE Chair Mary Ann Iritz, Principal Bill Petrilli, Asst. Principal

Mike Lee, Guidance Counselor

Courtney Cameron, Guidance Counselor

Pat Hill, Elementary Teacher

Michele Wright, 3rd Grade Teacher Hilary Passante, 4th Grade Teacher

Perry Dewey, Superintendent Pat Curtin, Interim Superintendent

(6:05-6:20) Scan of data set by the Community Advisory Committees; review in your

subcommittees; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive. (6:20-7:20)

◊ Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts about the grades K-6 program profile.

◊ Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible answers to the questions:



- 14 -

"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced elementary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?

(7:20-7:30) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water.

(7:30-7:45) Scan of the secondary program grades 7-12 data set by the Community Advisory Committees; review in your subcommittees; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive.

(7:45-8:45) ◊ Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts about the

grades 7-12 program profile. ◊ Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible answers to

the questions:

"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced secondary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?

G. (8:50) Meeting four: July; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Madison Central School

We will work with both districts to schedule a date toward the end of July. We will have the districts email committee members as soon as the date is available. Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting:




If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the two Community Advisory Committees, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the winter months. Thank you.





- 15 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING #4 AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012



please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)

Please set your cell phone to ‘vibrate’ before we begin. Thank you. Sub-committees, please sit together:



Staff Guest Resources for the Community Advisory Committee attending this meeting:

A. (6:00) Data References: Student Assessment Report Cards (2007-2011); Summary of Elementary, Middle and High School Assessment Results; Data about High School Graduates since 2003 with Regard to College and the Job Market

B. (6:00-6:30) Scan each Data Set by the Joint Community Advisory Committee; review in your

subcommittees at your tables; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive. You may want to focus your discussion on the questions suggested in each data reference. Other General discussion questions include: What do the data show you? What insights do the data provide about the current program and the students? Are Madison and Stockbridge Valley students ‘prepared’ to meet the changing/shrinking workforce of the future? Are there efforts the communities ought to offer in the schools that lack of funding has prevented? C. (6:30-7:10) Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts.

D. (7:10) Data Reference: Current (2011-2012) Grades 7-12 Interscholastic Athletics; Clubs and

Drama/Music Programs in the two districts

Madison Stockbridge Valley Mike Lee, Athletic Director

Bill Petrilli, Assistant Principal

Chris Harper, Principal

Mary Ann Iritz, Principal

Perry Dewey, Superintendent Pat Curtin, Superintendent



- 16 -

E. (7:10-7:30) Review in subcommittees or at your tables; share and discuss the elements of the secondary athletics and co-curricular profiles of both districts currently.

F. (7:30-7:40) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water. G. (7:40- 8:00) Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts about the

athletic and co-curricular program profiles.

H. (8:00-8:50) Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible answers to the questions. Record ideas by the Study Team.

"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced high school interscholastic athletic and co-curricular opportunities—what could be done to help the programs be even ‘better’? If resources were available through reorganization, then what possible opportunities for these programs could be implemented to benefit the high school pupils of the two-district region?

Joint Committee scan of their June 6 ideas about:

"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced elementary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?

"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced secondary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?

I. Meeting Number 5: Thursday, August 23; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Stockbridge Valley

Upcoming Meeting Topics (Not necessarily in chronological order.) Condition of the Buildings Potential Building Configurations Labor Contracts with Q&A Transportation Review Fiscal Conditions Review ‘What If’ Building Use ‘What If’ Program/Staffing ‘What If’ Transportation ‘What If’ Financials”

Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting: • Please remember to sign-in for today’s meeting. • Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. • The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings.




- 17 -

• If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets you to all three of us simultaneously.

• If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Joint Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the Joint Community Advisory Committee, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will be available publicly in the fall. Thank you.





- 18 -


JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING FIVE AGENDA

THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 2012 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag at the front of the room.)


Please sit together in your subcommittees. ‘red dot’, Education Committee

‘yellow dot’, Finance/Personnel Committee ‘blue dot’, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee

A. (6:00-6:15) Welcome/Review of last meeting information. Questions or ideas

regarding data related to assessment and programming K-12 B. (6:15-7:00) Data References:

◊ Q and A about staff/employment topics related to a reorganization of school districts ◊ Summary of the major elements of the instructional and instructional support contracts

currently in place in the two districts. ◊ Summary of the total 2011-2012 cost per FTE for the various categories of staff

employed by the school district. ◊ Summary of staff turnover in the two school districts since 2007-2008.

In your committee, please review the contract information and write down any questions you have about the contracts; similarities or differences, anything that strikes you as needing clarification?

C. (7:00-7:15) Data Reference: Building Condition Survey D. (7:15-7:25) Time for a cup of coffee or water.

E. (7:25-8:00) “What if” ideas to use the existing school buildings if the communities chose to reorganize the two districts into one.

In your committee, please review the sheet provided that lists the enrollment estimates and assumptions about class sizes along with the pupil capacities of each of the school buildings currently. Please share ideas about what might be the best options to use the



- 19 -

current school buildings to serve pupils Pre-K through grade 12. Talk about possible opportunities and challenges with each option that your committee discusses.

F. (8:00-8:45) Building Options Review and discussion of the possible opportunities and challenges.

G. (8:50) Meeting six: Within the first two weeks of October—as soon as the 2011-2012 audit is ready for the public ; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Madison Central School

Upcoming Meeting Topics (Not necessarily in chronological order.) Fiscal Conditions Review ‘What If’ Building Use ‘What If’ Program/Staffing ‘What If’ Transportation ‘What If’ Financials”

Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting:




If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the two Community Advisory Committees, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the winter months. Thank you.





- 20 -


MEETING OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING SIX AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2012



please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.) Please set your cell phone to ‘vibrate’ before we begin. Thank you.

Sub-committees, please sit together in groups of three or four.



WALKING TOUR OF BUILDING: 5:30-5:55. PLEASE MEET AT THE MAIN OFFICE. C. (6:00-7:30) Data Reference: Building Scenarios Worksheets

In your groups, please review the various building scenarios and list opportunities and challenges for each of the scenarios. (Take time for water and coffee)

Review opportunities and challenges with large group. Rank-ordering process for the scenarios.

Which scenario should the study report as a “prime” scenario for consideration.

D. (7:30-7:45) In large group setting, review Program Ideas re: Elementary and Secondary Programs. Here is the list of opportunities that the Joint CAC identified after the series of program meetings.

Elementary class sizes at elem professional development for staff classroom aides at elem school more support for intervention after school tutoring extra curriculum opportunities for elem more support services more technology at elem level enrichment opportunities for all students

Secondary maintain and improve agriculture program increase offerings for students more extra curricurricular and sports opportunities additional resources to support students additional late bus runs increase career tech opportunities for kids life skills/business program opportunities for students more help with support services enrichment opportunities for all students marching band FFA program continue with more opportunities Fine arts/drama opportunities STEM; comprehensive Science, Technology, English, Math



- 21 -

E. (7:45-8:00) (Revisit Q and A from first meeting.) Committee of the whole discussion

of: Governance: How many board members should there be on the new district’s Board

of Education? What should be the term of office? What personal and professional characteristics would you want to see in the members serving on the new Board of Education?

Ed Law 1801(2) states that the Commissioner of Education designates the name of a newly centralized district in the centralization order. Subject to the commissioner’s approval, school boards of new or reorganized central school districts may select a different name by filing a written request for a name change with the commissioner no later than 14 days before the centralization order is to become effective. (Ed Law 315). What might be an appropriate process to select a new district name to recommend to the commissioner?

What might be an appropriate process to choose school colors and mascot for the reorganized school district?

F. (8:00-9:00) Fiscal Conditions Review: Mr. Pat Powers, CPA, Senior Partner,

D’Archangelo and Co.

G. Meeting seven: Wednesday, December 12, 2012; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Stockbridge Valley Central School

‘What If’ Building Use ‘What If’ Program/Staffing ‘What If’ Transportation ‘What If’ Financials”

Some “House Keeping” for today’s meeting: Please remember to sign-in for today’s meeting. Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the

folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address [email protected] gets you to all three of

us simultaneously. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement

as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the two Community Advisory Committees, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the winter months. Thank you.





- 22 -


JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SEVEN AGENDA

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)


Sub-committees, please sit together in groups of three or four. ‘red dot’, Education Committee

‘yellow dot’, Finance/Personnel Committee ‘blue dot’, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee

(6:00-9:00) Paul, Doug and Sam will present three ‘What if’ Pictures for review and discussion together this evening. They are:

‘What if’ Picture of Pupil Transportatiion ‘What if’ Picture of Program/Staffing

‘What if’ Picture of Financials All of the pictures are based on the analysis and discussion by the Joint Community Advisory Committee of the various data sets researched and presented by the study process over the last six meetings of the Advisory Committee. The key factor that guides all the scenarios is the vision of the student program discussed by the Joint Community Advisory Committee in consultation with the various staff guests from both school districts since March.

Please remember that the three documents present a draft roadmap and a framework to implement the overall student program in existing facilities in a financially prudent and responsible manner. The overriding focus at this stage is to make sure there is enough estimated resource in total to deliver a quality, comprehensive program by a reorganized school district in a responsible and financially prudent manner. In the end, how the estimated resources are used is up to the new district board of education and the community it serves.

The ‘What if’ picture of a financial plan gives a scenario of the financials related to providing the program resources described in the ‘What if’ Program/Staffing Picture and the ‘What if’ Pupil Transportation Plan in total. Specific detail decisions by the board of education at the time of reorganization about how to implement the resources to deliver the program (ex. number of counselors versus number of social workers or specific number of bus routes needed) may or may not follow the scenarios exactly as presented in the ‘What if’ Pictures.



- 23 -

In addition, the specific work assignment of each type of professional and instructional support staff person is a program development task that is addressed if the reorganization process gets to the implementation stage.

Next Step for the Study Team: Based on what we have learned with the Joint Community Advisory Committee since March, the Study Team will draft a study report. The study is sent to the State Education Department for their review and approval. As directed by SED, such a draft study is not a public document. After review and approval by the State Education Department of the study, the Study Team will arrange for public copies of the study and then host a community meeting in each of the two districts to present the findings of the study. After the community meeting presentations of the findings by the Study Team, the Boards of Education enter a phase over a few weeks for community meetings hosted by each Board to discuss the findings and to listen to community perceptions. After this public period, the Boards deliberate to decide if reorganization of the two school districts should be presented to each respective community for an advisory referendum (‘straw vote’) that is a tool to judge interest by the communities to proceed to a binding referendum. We sincerely thank you for your time, collaboration with each other, and your insights about the many sets of data we researched related to the possibility of a reorganization of Madison CS and Stockbridge Valley CS into one school district. We appreciate the hospitality extended to us as three guest outsiders to your communities as you worked on a very important public policy issue about how to serve the young people in both communities in the future. Paul, Doug, Sam SES Study Team



Data: Enrollment Projection Calculations for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees


- 24 -

DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY

ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS

2012-2021

MADISON CS STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

April 2012


- 25 -

Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, Format, and Methodology.

All Rights Reserved.

Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts

provide the study.

SES Study Team


- 26 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of the Enrollment Projection Calculations 1 Variables that May Suggest Adjustments to the Calculated Baseline Enrollment Projections 1 Basic Assumption Guiding the Projection Calculations 1 Methodology to Project Baseline Enrollment Forecasts 2 Limitations of the Calculations Study 3 Data A. Historical Perspective of Annual Enrollments 4 B. Historical Perspective of Annual Live Births in 7 Madison County and in the Enrollment Areas Of the Two School Districts

C. Historical Perspective of the Trend Patterns of 9 the Live Births in Madison County, the “Catchment Area Towns” of Each District, and Within the Attendance Area of Each School District D. Historical Perspective of the Relationship Between 10

Annual Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollments in Each District

E. Kindergarten Enrollment Forecasts 12 F. Baseline K-12 Enrollment Projections for the Two 13 School Districts

G. Summary of Enrollment Projection Data Calculations 18 As they Apply to a Reorganization of the Two Districts Into One K-12 School District

Attachment: Enrollment Projection Calculations 19

DATA


- 27 -

PURPOSE AND USE OF THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS DATA This enrollment projection calculations study provides historical and current enrollment data and suggests

enrollment projection scenarios based on the trending of patterns of historical data. A cohort survival

statistic methodology is used. The calculations provide present and projected pupil enrollments based on

different assumptions about the future. The study enables the school districts to comply with

Commissioner’s Regulation Section 155.1. The Regulation requires long-range planning of program

requirements, pupil capacity of existing facilities, and a plan for repair or modernization of facilities

and/or provision for additional facilities to support the delivery of program. The Regulation outlines that

planning for grades K-6 should be done with a five year view of future enrollments and a ten year view of

future enrollments for grades 7-12.

The enrollment estimates are projections and not predictions. All enrollment projections for years

further in the future (plus five years) have inherent uncertainties because the assumptions on which they

are based can be affected by changes in human behavior, by the economy, or by other events. The

projections do offer a starting point for analyzing and understanding the elements of future school district

demographic change. The enrollment projection study calculations combined with the values, intuition,

and vision of school district officials and their communities can frame planning discussions as the school

districts project their facilities, staffing and program needs into the future.

VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE FUTURE SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS

The six sources of current and projected school district enrollment are:

• live births within the school district and their eventual kindergarten enrollment in the district; • new household population with children who move to the district; • new population who move to the district who are at child-bearing age and plan to begin a family; • enrollment of students from non-public schools or from home schooling settings; • school program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the school

district in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation; • a change by other public schools, if any, who tuition students to attend the school districts.

DATA


- 28 -

BASIC ASSUMPTION GUIDING THE PROJECTION CALCULATIONS

When using the Cohort Survival Statistic to project future enrollments, it is assumed that the following

variables will continue in the future in a similar manner as they have since 2006 unless data are identified

to the contrary:

the death rate of children the live birth rate migration of students both into and out of the district grade retention patterns residential construction and housing market increase or decrease of local employment opportunities dropout rate graduation rate private school enrollments number of non-residents enrolled on a tuition basis

If there are data to suggest that one or more of the variables listed above will not continue into the near

future of the next five years in the same historical pattern, then the base Cohort Survival Statistic results

are modified to estimate the potential impact the variable(s) may have on future school district

enrollments. As of April 2012, there are no substantial data to suggest the expectation of significant new

population sparked by a growing job market to the enrollment area of the two school districts, and/or a

significant increase of new residential construction that could attract households with school-age children

over the next five years. Also, the death rate of children, the rate of private school enrollments, and the

few numbers of non-resident tuitioned enrollments are not expected to change significantly over the next

five years. School program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the

school districts in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation

may be a variable that might influence future enrollments and should be analyzed if significant

educational program opportunities are added and/or if academic support-intervention services are changed

systemically.

The variable of live births is integral to the methodology used to estimate future kindergarten enrollments.

The enrollment projection calculations are baseline projections in that they analyze two of the six

variables that may influence future enrollments: historic live birth patterns, and historic grade-level

enrollments.

DATA


- 29 -

METHODOLOGY TO PROJECT BASELINE ENROLLMENT FORECASTS Compilation of Data

The study collects the following data to execute the cohort survival statistic to project baseline future

enrollments of each school district:

• Student enrollments by grade level from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 are compiled from data provided by district personnel. All enrolled children including special needs students, temporarily home-bound pupils, and non-resident tuitioned pupils regardless of instructional program are included in the calculations.

• Annual kindergarten class enrollments are compared to the total school district enrollment area live births five years earlier.

• Live birth numbers in the school district since 2002 as reported by the NYS Department of Health are analyzed.

Application of the Baseline Cohort Survival Statistic The cohort survival statistic identifies a ‘percentage of survival’ ratio that describes the relationship of a

grade level enrollment in a given year compared to the grade enrollment in the next lower grade from the

previous year. If a ratio falls below 1.0, the ratio signifies that the enrollment of students in a grade level

decreased or did not ‘survive’ enrollment into the next grade level of the next year. If a ratio rises above

1.0, the ratio then signifies new enrollment has moved to the district or a significant change in grade-to-

grade promotion policy.

Calculating the survival ratios from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 for each of the grade enrollments

provides the basis for a set of average grade-to-grade survival ratios that can be used to estimate future

baseline grade enrollments in the Madison and Stockbridge Valley school districts.

Limitations of the Calculations Study

Future enrollments are positively affected by:

• Added births in the district and the resulting added kindergarten enrollments. • The reductions in private school/home school/charter school enrollments • The increase in the enrollment retention of students through grade 12 as completers of a

diploma program. • A robust employment market that can attract new residents with children and/or who are at

childbearing age. • A robust housing market that can attract new residents with children and/ or who are at

childbearing age. • Increased enrollment of tuitioned students from other school districts.

DATA


- 30 -

Similarly, future enrollment projections can be negatively affected by the antitheses of the same variables.

Therefore, the enrollment projection estimates should be revisited and updated yearly if there are any

major changes in: the assumptions that base the methodology of this study; the annual live birth data for

the district; major shifts in the housing market and employment market opportunities from what has been

expected; changes in the educational program offered; and/or changes in the non-public school, charter

school, or out of school district enrollments by residents of the school districts; or major immediate

changes to the numbers of pupils tuitioned from other school districts.

The Enrollment Projection Calculations provide sets of estimates about future K-12 enrollments ranging

from ‘low’ to ‘high’ based on defined assumptions and historical patterns of population and enrollment

data. It is suggested that the Boards of Education, the school district leadership team and the respective

communities discuss the projection scenarios and come to consensus about what the school district and

the community believe about the local future—will the “glass be filled, half filled or half empty?” with

regard to such items as increased numbers of pupils completing graduation, new residential construction,

the existing residential market, new population to the district, and increased jobs within commuting

distance of the district.

A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS Grades K-12, K-6, and 7-12:

DATA SNAPSHOT District: Net Change of 2006

and 2011 enrollments K-12:

Six-Year Average Enrollment K-12:

Six Year Median Enrollment K-12:

Madison -30; -6.1% 501 502 Stockbridge Valley -52; -9.6% 510 499

District: Net Change of 2006 and 2011 enrollments K-6:

Net Change of 2006 and 2011 enrollments 7-12:

Madison -19; -6.9% -11; -5% Stockbridge Valley -59; -20% +7; 2.8%

Grade Kindergarten: District: Net Change of 2006 and 2011 Kindergarten

Enrollments: Madison +5; +14.3% Stockbridge Valley -8; -17%

DATA


- 31 -

CHART ONE: MADISON CS HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT

2006-2011

496 507 534 508 492 466

y = -6.3143x + 522.6

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T

CHART ONE: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT

2006-2011

544 540489 491 506 492

y = -10.286x + 546.33

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T

DATA


- 32 -

CHART TWO: MADISON CSHISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT

2006-2011

222234

258248

237

211

274

260255255

276273y = -4.7143x + 282

y = -1.6x + 240.6

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12

YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T K-6

7-12

CHART TWO: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CSHISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT

2006-2011

249 253 247257 257 256

295

234236

249242

287 y = -11.914x + 298.87

y = 1.6286x + 247.47

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350

06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T K-6

7-12

DATA


- 33 -

FIGURE FOUR: MADISON KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT 2002-2011

30

38

48

42

3234

39

29

36 35

y = -0.4303x + 38.667

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T

FIGURE FOUR: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT 2002-2011

47

42

31

3941

32

22

37

40 39

y = -0.703x + 40.867

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

YEAR

ENR

OLL

MEN

T

DATA


- 34 -

B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANNUAL LIVE BIRTHS IN MADISON COUNTY AND IN THE ENROLLMENT AREAS OF EACH OF THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

DATA SNAPSHOT Live Births Net Change from 2002 through 2010

Madison County -68; -9.6%

District Enrollment Area: Madison +10; +35.6%

Stockbridge Valley +3; +1.2%

FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AREA

2002-2010

30

21

33

3638 38 38

2830

y = 1.3167x + 25.861

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

YEAR

LIVE

BIR

THS

Will the pattern of the last eight years of live births in the district continue over the next five years?

DATA


- 35 -

FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

ENROLLMENT AREA2002-2010

2624

31

34

30

2628

25

38

y = 0.85x + 24.861

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

YEAR

LIVE

BIR

THS Will the pattern of the

last eight years of live births in the district continue over the next five years?

C. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE TREND PATTERNS OF THE LIVE BIRTHS IN MADISON COUNTY, THE ‘CATCHMENT AREA TOWNS’ OF EACH DISTRICT, AND WITHIN THE ATTENDANCE AREA OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT

MADISON County Madison Stockbridge Valley Pattern slope: -6.733 “Catchment Area of the Towns” where the district is located.

Slope: -.6167

Slope: -.9833

School district enrollment area

Slope: +1.3167 Slope: +.85

DATA


- 36 -

FIGURE THREE: MADISON ENROLLMENT AREA, CATCHMENT AREA, AND MADISON COUNTY BIRTH TRENDS 2002-2010

y = -6.7333x + 747.33

y = -0.6167x + 202.75

y = 1.3167x + 25.861

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675700725750775800825850875900

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

BIR

THS

MADISON COUNTY DISTRICT CATCHMENT AREA FIGURE THREE: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY ENROLLMENT AREA, CATCHMENT

AREA, AND MADISON COUNTY BIRTH TRENDS 2002-2010

y = -6.7333x + 747.33

y = -0.9833x + 329.92

y = 0.85x + 24.861

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350375400425450475500525550575600625650675700725750775800825850875900

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

BIR

THS

MADISON COUNTY DISTRICT CATCHMENT AREA

DATA


- 37 -

D. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNUAL LIVE BIRTHS AND KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS IN EACH DISTRICT

DATA SNAPSHOT

District: Pattern of total live births from 2002-2006 and total kindergarten enrollments five years later 2007-

2011 (K enroll divided by live births in district 5 years earlier):

Average result of yearly comparisons of kindergarten

enrollments and births five years earlier:

Madison 148/173; 1.16 (116%) Ratio of 1.19 (119%) Stockbridge Valley 140/170; 1.21 (121%) Ratio of 1.22 (122%)

COMPARISON K LIVE KIND/YEARS ENROLL BIRTHS BIRTHS

ENROLLMENT RATIOAREA

2007 K STUDENTS TO 2002 BIRTHS 34 28 1.2142862008 K STUDENTS TO 2003 BIRTHS 39 30 1.32009 K STUDENTS TO 2004 BIRTHS 29 21 1.3809522010 K STUDENTS TO 2005 BIRTHS 36 33 1.0909092011 K STUDENTS TO 2006 BIRTHS 35 36 0.972222

TABLE 3

RATIOS OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS (2007-2011)OF THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT

AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER (2002-2006) IN THE ENROLLMENT AREA

OF THE DISTRICT

HISTORICAL LIVE BIRTH RATIOS2007-20101

0.50.60.70.80.9

11.11.21.31.41.51.6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

DATA


- 38 -

FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT

30

38

48

42

3234

39

29

36 35

2830

21

33

38 38

30

3836

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR

NU

MB

ER O

F B

IRTH

S A

ND

PU

PILS

KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER

WILL THE RATIO BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?

COMPARISON K LIVE KIND/YEARS ENROLL BIRTHS BIRTHS

ENROLLMENT RATIOAREA

2007 K STUDENTS TO 2002 BIRTHS 32 25 1.282008 K STUDENTS TO 2003 BIRTHS 22 26 0.8461542009 K STUDENTS TO 2004 BIRTHS 37 24 1.5416672010 K STUDENTS TO 2005 BIRTHS 40 31 1.2903232011 K STUDENTS TO 2006 BIRTHS 39 34 1.147059

TABLE 3

RATIOS OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS (2007-2011)OF THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER (2002-2006) IN THE ENROLLMENT AREA

OF THE DISTRICT

HISTORICAL LIVE BIRTH RATIOS2007-2011

0.50.60.70.80.9

11.11.21.31.41.51.6

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

DATA


- 39 -

FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT

47

42

31

3941

32

22

3740 39

25 2624

31 30

26

38

28

34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR

NU

MB

ER O

F B

IRTH

S A

ND

PU

PILS

KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER

WILL THE RATIO BETWEEN KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?

E. KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT FORECASTS

Estimating future kindergarten enrollments is the most speculative aspect of projecting K-12 enrollments.

However, analyzing historical annual kindergarten enrollments in concert with historical annual live birth

data and patterns do reveal a set of defendable estimates of future kindergarten enrollments. These

estimated future kindergarten enrollments then can be included in the base cohort survival statistic

application to project future K-12 enrollments. Historical kindergarten enrollments of the two school

districts and historical live birth data are analyzed three ways. The three analyses form the basis for three

kindergarten enrollment forecasts for each school district. The three kindergarten forecasts are used to

develop Low, Mid, and a High K-12 enrollment projection calculations for the Madison and Stockbridge

Valley school districts. The nomenclature of low, mid, and high is determined by the estimated total K-6

enrollment five years from now consistent with the planning guidelines in NYS Commissioner’s

Regulation 155.1.

DATA


- 40 -

The three kindergarten enrollment forecasts for each school district are estimated from the analysis of the

historical patterns of live births, kindergarten enrollments, and the ratios of how many pupils enroll in

kindergarten compared to the number who were born five years earlier in the boundaries of the school

district.

One forecast assumes that the overall kindergarten enrollment-to-live-birth ratio for the years 2007

through 2011 is an historically based ratio that is possible to expect in the future. It also assumes that the

historical pattern of live births over the past nine years is possible to expect in the future. A second

forecast assumes that the historical pattern of the kindergarten enrollment-to-live-birth ratios for the years

2007 through 2011 may continue into the future. It also assumes that the historical pattern of live births

over the past six years is possible to expect in the future. The third forecast assumes that future

kindergarten enrollments will follow the pattern of kindergarten enrollments from 2006 through 2011

without reference to live birth trends or kindergarten-to-live-birth ratio patterns.

Forecasted Kindergarten Enrollment Estimate

Madison Stockbridge Valley

Current 2011 Kindergarten

Enrollment

35

39

2012

‘low range’ 37 33 ‘mid range’ 34 36 ‘high range’ 44 38

2013 ‘low range’ 35 32 ‘mid range’ 34 32 ‘high range’ 44 34




DATA


- 41 -

F. BASELINE K-12 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Tables 7A, B, and C in the Figures, Tables, Charts Attachment present Low, Mid, and High range K-12

enrollment projections calculated using forecasted future kindergarten enrollments and the cohort survival

statistic. Each calculation is based on historical K-12 enrollments as reported by the school district for

each of the school years 2006-2007 through 2011-2012. The historical enrollment data are used to

calculate ‘percentage of survival’ ratios for each grade level K-12. The ratios quantify the rate of change

in number of students in a particular grade level compared to the number of students in the next higher

grade level in the following year. The ‘survival ratios’ are averaged for each grade level from 2006-2007

through 2011-2012. The six-year average ratios for each grade level are used to calculate estimated future

grade 1-12 enrollments through 2021-22. DATA SNAPSHOT MADISON CS

Calculation Year Grades K-6

Grades 7-12

CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2011-2012 255 211

2013-2014 254 222 Baseline Cohort Low Range 2016-2017 234 218

2013-2014 250 222 Baseline Cohort

Mid Range 2016-2017 243 218

2013-2014 270 222 Baseline Cohort High Range 2016-2017 291 218

DATA


- 42 -

BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR MADISON CS

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-122012 254 218 473 251 218 470 261 218 4802013 254 222 476 250 222 472 270 222 4922014 243 223 466 245 223 469 268 223 4912015 233 225 458 238 225 462 271 225 4962016 234 218 452 243 218 461 291 218 5082017 225 221 446 240 221 461 303 221 5252018 214 218 432 236 218 454 317 218 5352019 200 221 421 233 217 450 324 228 5522020 187 218 405 229 214 443 332 235 5672021 182 204 385 226 207 432 351 231 581

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-122012 219 109 111 145 108 216 109 111 145 108 226 109 111 145 1082013 215 117 112 144 110 211 117 112 144 110 231 117 112 144 1102014 200 120 120 146 103 203 120 120 146 103 226 120 120 146 1032015 205 112 123 140 102 210 112 123 140 102 244 112 123 140 1022016 198 109 115 145 102 207 109 115 145 102 255 109 115 145 1022017 189 102 112 155 110 204 102 112 155 110 267 102 112 155 1102018 176 113 105 143 113 201 110 105 143 113 272 121 105 143 1132019 164 113 116 143 104 198 109 113 143 104 278 130 124 143 1042020 160 104 116 141 102 194 107 112 141 102 296 131 134 141 1022021 149 98 107 138 97 191 106 110 135 97 305 130 134 146 97

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 6 K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 6 K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 62012 179 108 147 75 73 36 176 105 147 75 73 36 186 115 147 75 73 362013 173 108 147 82 78 39 169 104 147 82 78 39 188 123 147 82 78 392014 172 99 144 70 78 42 175 102 144 70 78 42 198 124 144 70 78 422015 169 93 140 64 84 28 173 101 137 64 84 28 207 124 147 64 84 282016 161 85 149 73 73 36 170 99 144 73 73 36 218 125 165 73 73 362017 150 86 139 75 66 36 168 98 142 72 66 36 221 138 166 82 66 362018 140 80 135 75 75 38 165 96 140 71 75 35 226 143 175 91 75 462019 137 74 126 63 77 36 163 95 138 70 74 35 242 147 177 82 85 462020 127 70 116 59 77 27 160 93 136 69 73 34 250 152 180 82 94 362021 120 66 115 61 66 32 158 92 134 68 72 34 257 156 195 94 85 46

CHART SIX: MADISON CS

GRADES K-6 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2016

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300

PUPI

LS

BASE COHORT LOW RANGE 254 254 243 233 234

BASE COHORT MID RANGE 251 250 245 238 243

BASE COHORT HIGH RANGE 261 270 268 271 291

CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2011 255

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

CU

RR

EN

T EN

RO

LL. 2

010-

2011

DATA


- 43 -

CHART SEVEN: MADISON CS

GRADES 7-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280

PUPI

LS

BASE COHORT LOW RANGE 218 222 223 225 218 221 218 221 218 204

BASE COHORT MID RANGE 218 222 223 225 218 221 218 217 214 207

BASE COHORT HIGH RANGE 218 222 223 225 218 221 218 228 235 231


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

CU

RR

EN

T EN

RO

LLM

EN

T 20

10-2

011

CHART EIGHT: MADISON CS

GRADES K-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021

020406080

100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380400420440460480500520540560580600

PUPI

LS





2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

CU

RR

ENT

EN

RO

LL. 2

010-

2011

DATA SNAPSHOT STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS Calculation Year Grades

K-6 Grades

7-12 CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2011-2012 236 256


Low Range 2016-2017 222 199

2013-2014 230 228 Baseline Cohort Mid Range 2016-2017 252 199


High Range 2016-2017 263 199

DATA


- 44 -

BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-122012 226 252 477 229 252 480 231 252 4822013 227 228 456 230 228 459 234 228 4632014 221 226 446 238 226 463 246 226 4712015 226 200 426 247 200 446 258 200 4572016 222 199 421 252 199 451 263 199 4622017 217 191 408 259 191 450 269 191 4602018 208 187 395 263 187 450 271 187 4592019 203 190 392 271 193 463 275 195 4702020 199 184 383 283 187 470 283 190 4732021 194 189 384 283 206 489 275 214 489

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-122012 198 115 122 164 130 201 115 122 164 130 203 115 122 164 1302013 192 109 116 155 112 195 109 116 155 112 199 109 116 155 1122014 198 90 110 158 115 215 90 110 158 115 223 90 110 158 1152015 195 94 91 138 109 215 94 91 138 109 226 94 91 138 1092016 189 90 95 141 104 220 90 95 141 104 230 90 95 141 1042017 181 104 92 122 99 224 104 92 122 99 233 104 92 122 992018 177 103 106 114 81 230 106 106 114 81 236 108 106 114 812019 173 100 105 119 85 241 103 108 119 85 244 107 110 119 852020 170 93 101 120 82 241 109 104 120 82 237 116 108 120 822021 166 91 95 127 95 252 108 111 130 95 241 116 119 132 95

LOW RANGE PROJECTION MID RANGE PROJECTION HIGH RANGE PROJECTIONYEAR K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 6 K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 6 K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 62012 163 106 119 63 88 27 166 109 119 63 88 27 168 111 119 63 88 272013 170 103 125 58 73 36 173 106 125 58 73 36 177 110 125 58 73 362014 167 96 125 54 67 22 184 113 125 54 67 22 192 121 125 54 67 222015 163 94 132 64 62 32 183 111 135 64 62 32 194 120 137 64 62 322016 154 92 130 68 58 33 184 119 133 68 58 33 195 126 136 68 58 332017 151 90 127 66 69 36 191 116 143 68 69 36 199 118 151 70 69 362018 148 88 119 59 73 30 201 125 138 62 73 33 206 123 148 66 73 352019 144 86 117 58 71 29 200 128 143 71 74 29 198 124 151 77 75 312020 141 84 115 57 64 29 210 131 152 73 67 42 203 125 158 79 71 462021 138 82 112 56 63 28 215 134 150 68 77 31 204 125 150 71 82 34

DATA


- 45 -

CHART SIX: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS GRADES K-6 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT

SCENARIOS 2012-2016

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270

PUPI

LS

BASE COHORT LOW RANGE 226 227 221 226 222

BASE COHORT MID RANGE 229 230 238 247 252

BASE COHORT HIGH RANGE 231 234 246 258 263


2012 2013 2014 2015 2016C

UR

REN

T EN

RO

LL. 2

010-

2011

CHART SEVEN: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

GRADES 7-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280

PUPI

LS





2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

CU

RR

EN

T EN

RO

LLM

ENT

2010

-201

1

CHART EIGHT: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CSGRADES K-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT

SCENARIOS 2012-2021

020406080

100120140160180200220240260280300320340360380400420440460480500

PUPI

LS





2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

CURRENT

ENRO

LL. 2

010-

2011

DATA


- 46 -

G. SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTION DATA CALCULATIONS AS THEY APPLY TO A REORGANIZATION OF THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT

DATA SNAPSHOT Calculation Year Grades

K-6 Grades

7-12 TOTAL GRADES

K-12 FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION

PLANNING CURRENT COMBINED ENROLLMENT OF THE

TWO DISTRICTS

2011-2012 491 467 958

2012-2013 480 470 950 2013-2014 482 450 932 2014-2015 463 449 912 2015-2016 459 425 884

Baseline Cohort Low Range

2016-2017 456 417 873

2012-2013 480 470 950 2013-2014 481 450 931 2014-2015 483 449 932 2015-2016 484 425 909

Baseline Cohort Mid Range

2016-2017 495 417 912

2012-2013 492 470 962 2013-2014 505 450 954 2014-2015 513 449 962 2015-2016 529 425 954

Baseline Cohort High Range

2016-2017 554 417 970

DATA


- 47 -

ATTACHMENT:

DATA


- 48 -

TOWN 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL BIRTHS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY

MADISON COUNTYEATON 38 38 38 41 46 38 41 45 44 3690.35%

MADISON 31 31 26 31 30 34 32 29 31 27549.95%

STOCKBRIDGE 28 27 21 24 28 22 19 25 18 2121.43%

VILLAGE OF MADISON 2 1 2 3 7 5 4 5 2 31100.00%

Oneida CountyAugusta 23 20 21 25 27 29 19 26 32 22279.91%

MARSHALL 21 24 15 21 23 24 23 16 18 1850.33%

Vernon 59 48 64 54 79 56 59 45 39 5030.03%

Percentages refer to the share of residential parcels that are in the Madison School District

TOTAL BIRTHS IN CATCHMENT AREA 202 189 187 199 240 208 197 191 184 1797

NYS HEALTH DEPARTMENT'LIVE BIRTHS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT' 28 30 21 33 36 38 38 30 38 292

DISTRICT/CATCHMENT AREA LIVE BIRTH RATIO 13.86% 15.87% 11.23% 16.58% 15.00% 18.27% 19.29% 15.71% 20.65% 16.25%

6 YEAR RATIO 16.76%MADISON COUNTY

TOTAL BIRTHS 710 739 704 725 744 780 699 680 642 6423

ONEIDA COUNTY TOTAL BIRTHS 2488 2611 2576 2480 2595 2606 2617 2633 2633 23239

DISTRICT/MADISON 3.94% 4.06% 2.98% 4.55% 4.84% 4.87% 5.44% 4.41% 5.92% 4.55%COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATIO 6 YEAR RATIO 4.74%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201130 38 48 42 32 34 39 29 36 35

TABLE 1LIVE BIRTHS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA SERVED BY THE

MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT AS REPORTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

2002-2010

TABLE 2KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT OF THE MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

2002-2011

DATA


- 49 -

TOWN 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL BIRTHS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY

MADISON COUNTYCity of Oneida 127 135 145 150 149 141 138 139 134 1258

8.84%

Village of Munnsville 6 10 8 7 11 5 4 5 6 62100.00%

Eaton 38 38 38 41 46 38 41 45 44 3695.78%

Lincoln 18 20 21 23 20 25 24 19 15 1858.23%

Smithfield 12 17 10 7 17 13 11 14 13 11415.23%

Stockbridge 28 27 21 24 28 22 19 25 18 21298.57%

Oneida CountyAugusta 23 20 21 25 27 29 19 26 32 222

1.34%

Vernon 59 48 64 54 79 56 59 45 39 5030.79%

Percentages refer to the share of residential parcels that are in the Stockbridge Valley School District

TOTAL BIRTHS IN CATCHMENT AREA 311 315 328 331 377 329 315 318 301 2925

NYS HEALTH DEPARTMENT'LIVE BIRTHS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT' 25 26 24 31 34 30 26 38 28 262

DISTRICT/CATCHMENT AREA LIVE BIRTH RATIO 8.04% 8.25% 7.32% 9.37% 9.02% 9.12% 8.25% 11.95% 9.30% 8.96%

6 YEAR RATIO 9.16%MADISON COUNTY

TOTAL BIRTHS 710 739 704 725 744 780 699 680 642 6423

ONEIDA COUNTY TOTAL BIRTHS 2488 2611 2576 2480 2595 2606 2617 2633 2633 23239

DISTRICT/MADISON 3.52% 3.52% 3.41% 4.28% 4.57% 3.85% 3.72% 5.59% 4.36% 4.08%COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATIO 6 YEAR RATIO 4.19%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201147 42 31 39 41 32 22 37 40 39

TABLE 1LIVE BIRTHS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA SERVED BY THE

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT AS REPORTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

2002-2010

TABLE 2KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT OF THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

2002-2011

DATA


- 50 -

MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTYEAR KNDG R 1ST R 2ND R 3RD R 4TH R 5TH R 6TH R 7TH R 8TH R 9TH R 10TH R 11TH R 12TH TOTAL

06-07 32 44 38 39 46 38 37 33 39 40 45 28 37 49607-08 34 1.03 33 0.95 42 0.92 35 1.00 39 1.00 46 1.16 44 1.03 38 1.15 38 1.23 48 1.00 40 0.98 44 0.93 26 50708-09 39 1.03 35 1.12 37 1.00 42 1.06 37 1.03 40 1.00 46 1.09 48 1.08 41 1.03 39 0.92 44 0.98 39 1.07 47 53409-10 29 1.00 39 1.14 40 1.00 37 1.05 44 0.92 34 0.93 37 1.11 51 0.88 42 0.98 40 0.97 38 0.95 42 0.90 35 50810-11 36 0.86 25 1.03 40 0.98 39 1.05 39 0.98 43 0.97 33 0.89 33 0.96 49 0.98 41 0.90 36 0.87 33 1.07 45 49211-12 35 0.94 34 1.12 28 1.05 42 1.05 41 0.92 36 0.91 39 0.97 32 1.12 37 0.92 45 0.95 39 0.83 30 0.85 28 466

Average Ratio 0.973 1.073 0.989 1.042 0.969 0.992 1.018 1.037 1.025 0.948 0.922 0.963

12-13 37 34 36 28 44 40 36 40 33 38 43 36 29 47313-14 35 36 37 36 29 42 39 36 41 34 36 39 35 47614-15 26 34 39 36 38 28 42 40 38 42 32 33 38 46615-16 31 25 37 38 38 36 28 43 42 39 40 30 32 45816-17 28 30 27 36 40 37 36 28 44 43 37 37 29 45217-18 26 27 32 27 38 39 36 37 29 46 40 34 36 44618-19 25 25 29 32 28 37 38 37 38 30 43 37 33 43219-20 23 24 27 29 33 27 36 39 38 39 28 40 36 42120-21 22 22 26 27 30 32 27 37 40 39 37 26 38 40521-22 21 21 24 26 28 29 32 27 38 41 37 34 25 385

TABLE 7-A: LOW RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12


06-07 32 44 38 39 46 38 37 33 39 40 45 28 37 49607-08 34 1.03 33 0.95 42 0.92 35 1.00 39 1.00 46 1.16 44 1.03 38 1.15 38 1.23 48 1.00 40 0.98 44 0.93 26 50708-09 39 1.03 35 1.12 37 1.00 42 1.06 37 1.03 40 1.00 46 1.09 48 1.08 41 1.03 39 0.92 44 0.98 39 1.07 47 53409-10 29 1.00 39 1.14 40 1.00 37 1.05 44 0.92 34 0.93 37 1.11 51 0.88 42 0.98 40 0.97 38 0.95 42 0.90 35 50810-11 36 0.86 25 1.03 40 0.98 39 1.05 39 0.98 43 0.97 33 0.89 33 0.96 49 0.98 41 0.90 36 0.87 33 1.07 45 49211-12 35 0.94 34 1.12 28 1.05 42 1.05 41 0.92 36 0.91 39 0.97 32 1.12 37 0.92 45 0.95 39 0.83 30 0.85 28 466

Average Ratio 0.973 1.073 0.989 1.042 0.969 0.992 1.018 1.037 1.025 0.948 0.922 0.963

12-13 34 34 36 28 44 40 36 40 33 38 43 36 29 47013-14 34 33 37 36 29 42 39 36 41 34 36 39 35 47214-15 33 33 36 36 38 28 42 40 38 42 32 33 38 46915-16 33 32 36 35 38 36 28 43 42 39 40 30 32 46216-17 32 32 34 35 37 37 36 28 44 43 37 37 29 46117-18 32 31 34 34 37 35 36 37 29 46 40 34 36 46118-19 31 31 33 34 36 35 35 37 38 30 43 37 33 45419-20 31 30 33 33 36 34 35 36 38 39 28 40 36 45020-21 30 30 32 33 34 34 34 36 37 39 37 26 38 44321-22 30 29 32 32 34 33 34 35 37 38 37 34 25 432

TABLE 7-B: MID RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12


06-07 32 44 38 39 46 38 37 33 39 40 45 28 37 49607-08 34 1.03 33 0.95 42 0.92 35 1.00 39 1.00 46 1.16 44 1.03 38 1.15 38 1.23 48 1.00 40 0.98 44 0.93 26 50708-09 39 1.03 35 1.12 37 1.00 42 1.06 37 1.03 40 1.00 46 1.09 48 1.08 41 1.03 39 0.92 44 0.98 39 1.07 47 53409-10 29 1.00 39 1.14 40 1.00 37 1.05 44 0.92 34 0.93 37 1.11 51 0.88 42 0.98 40 0.97 38 0.95 42 0.90 35 50810-11 36 0.86 25 1.03 40 0.98 39 1.05 39 0.98 43 0.97 33 0.89 33 0.96 49 0.98 41 0.90 36 0.87 33 1.07 45 49211-12 35 0.94 34 1.12 28 1.05 42 1.05 41 0.92 36 0.91 39 0.97 32 1.12 37 0.92 45 0.95 39 0.83 30 0.85 28 466

Average Ratio 0.973 1.073 0.989 1.042 0.969 0.992 1.018 1.037 1.025 0.948 0.922 0.963

12-13 44 34 36 28 44 40 36 40 33 38 43 36 29 48013-14 44 43 37 36 29 42 39 36 41 34 36 39 35 49214-15 35 43 46 36 38 28 42 40 38 42 32 33 38 49115-16 44 34 46 45 38 36 28 43 42 39 40 30 32 49616-17 46 43 37 45 47 37 36 28 44 43 37 37 29 50817-18 47 45 46 36 47 46 36 37 29 46 40 34 36 52518-19 49 46 48 45 38 46 46 37 38 30 43 37 33 53519-20 50 48 49 48 47 37 46 46 38 39 28 40 36 55220-21 52 49 51 49 50 46 36 46 48 39 37 26 38 56721-22 53 51 52 51 51 48 46 37 48 49 37 34 25 581

TABLE 7-C: HIGH RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12

DATA


- 51 -

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTYEAR KNDG R 1ST R 2ND R 3RD R 4TH R 5TH R 6TH R 7TH R 8TH R 9TH R 10TH R 11TH R 12TH TOTAL

06-07 41 41 37 38 44 49 45 47 43 45 32 41 41 54407-08 32 1.02 42 0.98 40 1.08 40 0.97 37 1.00 44 1.06 52 1.02 46 0.98 46 0.95 41 0.98 44 1.03 33 1.05 43 54008-09 22 1.09 35 0.74 31 1.08 43 0.90 36 0.89 33 0.95 42 0.94 49 0.96 44 0.96 44 0.93 38 0.91 40 0.97 32 48909-10 37 1.09 24 0.94 33 1.00 31 0.95 41 1.03 37 0.94 31 1.10 46 1.04 51 1.05 46 0.93 41 0.84 32 1.03 41 49110-11 40 0.97 36 1.13 27 1.09 36 0.90 28 1.00 41 1.11 41 1.23 38 1.07 49 0.96 49 0.96 44 1.12 46 0.97 31 50611-12 39 0.90 36 0.92 33 0.89 24 1.00 36 0.96 27 1.00 41 1.07 44 0.92 35 1.02 50 0.73 36 1.11 49 0.91 42 492

Average Ratio 1.016 0.940 1.027 0.946 0.977 1.013 1.072 0.992 0.987 0.906 1.004 0.985

12-13 33 40 34 34 23 35 27 44 44 35 45 36 48 47713-14 32 34 37 35 32 22 36 29 44 43 31 45 36 45614-15 32 33 32 38 33 31 22 38 29 43 39 31 45 44615-16 31 33 31 32 36 32 32 24 38 29 39 39 31 42616-17 30 32 31 31 31 35 33 34 24 37 26 39 39 42117-18 30 30 30 31 30 30 36 35 34 24 34 26 39 40818-19 29 30 29 30 30 29 30 38 35 33 21 34 26 39519-20 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 32 38 34 30 21 33 39220-21 28 28 28 29 28 28 29 31 32 38 31 30 21 38321-22 27 28 27 28 28 27 28 31 31 32 34 31 30 384

TABLE 7-A: LOW RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12


06-07 41 41 37 38 44 49 45 47 43 45 32 41 41 54407-08 32 1.02 42 0.98 40 1.08 40 0.97 37 1.00 44 1.06 52 1.02 46 0.98 46 0.95 41 0.98 44 1.03 33 1.05 43 54008-09 22 1.09 35 0.74 31 1.08 43 0.90 36 0.89 33 0.95 42 0.94 49 0.96 44 0.96 44 0.93 38 0.91 40 0.97 32 48909-10 37 1.09 24 0.94 33 1.00 31 0.95 41 1.03 37 0.94 31 1.10 46 1.04 51 1.05 46 0.93 41 0.84 32 1.03 41 49110-11 40 0.97 36 1.13 27 1.09 36 0.90 28 1.00 41 1.11 41 1.23 38 1.07 49 0.96 49 0.96 44 1.12 46 0.97 31 50611-12 39 0.90 36 0.92 33 0.89 24 1.00 36 0.96 27 1.00 41 1.07 44 0.92 35 1.02 50 0.73 36 1.11 49 0.91 42 492

Average Ratio 1.016 0.940 1.027 0.946 0.977 1.013 1.072 0.992 0.987 0.906 1.004 0.985

12-13 36 40 34 34 23 35 27 44 44 35 45 36 48 48013-14 32 37 37 35 32 22 36 29 44 43 31 45 36 45914-15 46 33 34 38 33 31 22 38 29 43 39 31 45 46315-16 34 47 31 35 36 32 32 24 38 29 39 39 31 44616-17 41 35 44 31 33 35 33 34 24 37 26 39 39 45117-18 42 42 32 45 30 33 36 35 34 24 34 26 39 45018-19 43 43 39 33 43 29 33 38 35 33 21 34 26 45019-20 44 44 40 40 32 42 29 35 38 34 30 21 33 46320-21 45 45 41 41 38 31 42 31 35 38 31 30 21 47021-22 46 46 42 42 39 37 31 45 31 35 34 31 30 489

TABLE 7-B: MID RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12


06-07 41 41 37 38 44 49 45 47 43 45 32 41 41 54407-08 32 1.02 42 0.98 40 1.08 40 0.97 37 1.00 44 1.06 52 1.02 46 0.98 46 0.95 41 0.98 44 1.03 33 1.05 43 54008-09 22 1.09 35 0.74 31 1.08 43 0.90 36 0.89 33 0.95 42 0.94 49 0.96 44 0.96 44 0.93 38 0.91 40 0.97 32 48909-10 37 1.09 24 0.94 33 1.00 31 0.95 41 1.03 37 0.94 31 1.10 46 1.04 51 1.05 46 0.93 41 0.84 32 1.03 41 49110-11 40 0.97 36 1.13 27 1.09 36 0.90 28 1.00 41 1.11 41 1.23 38 1.07 49 0.96 49 0.96 44 1.12 46 0.97 31 50611-12 39 0.90 36 0.92 33 0.89 24 1.00 36 0.96 27 1.00 41 1.07 44 0.92 35 1.02 50 0.73 36 1.11 49 0.91 42 492

Average Ratio 1.016 0.940 1.027 0.946 0.977 1.013 1.072 0.992 0.987 0.906 1.004 0.985

12-13 38 40 34 34 23 35 27 44 44 35 45 36 48 48213-14 34 39 37 35 32 22 36 29 44 43 31 45 36 46314-15 50 35 36 38 33 31 22 38 29 43 39 31 45 47115-16 37 51 32 37 36 32 32 24 38 29 39 39 31 45716-17 41 38 48 33 35 35 33 34 24 37 26 39 39 46217-18 41 42 35 49 32 34 36 35 34 24 34 26 39 46018-19 42 42 39 36 46 31 35 38 35 33 21 34 26 45919-20 42 43 39 40 34 45 31 37 38 34 30 21 33 47020-21 42 43 40 40 38 34 46 33 37 38 31 30 21 47321-22 42 43 40 41 38 37 34 49 33 37 34 31 30 489

TABLE 7-C: HIGH RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12



- 52 -

DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEE:

FEDERAL CENSUS BUREAU DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC

ESTIMATES 2006-2010

MADISON CS

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

April 2012

Data: Federal Census 2006-2010 Demographic Estimates for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees

- 53 -

SOURCE OF DATA: Federal Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey

5-Year Estimates

Page 1: Selected Demographic Estimates (Sex and Age, Race, Housing Units..)

Page 3: Selected Social Characteristics (Education, Marital Status,

Relationships, Grandparents..) Page 6: Selected Economic Characteristics (Income, Occupation,

Commuting to Work..)

Page 9: Selected Housing Characteristics (Occupancy and Structure, Housing Value..)

To maintain confidentiality, the Census Bureau applies statistical procedures that introduce some uncertainty into data for geographic areas with small population groups. The data in this table contain sampling error and nonsampling error. Each demographic characteristic has a corresponding Margin of Error. The margin of error is the difference between an estimate and its upper or lower confidence bound. All American Community Survey margins of error are based on a 90 percent confidence level. The margins of error are not reported in this discussion tool due to space considerations. The demographic estimates are reported here to encourage community discussion about possible similarities and differences in characteristics of the Madison and Stockbridge Valley school districts. The compilation of the Census data is to help the community and school leaders discuss and suggest insights about the school districts and the communities they serve as part of the long-term planning effort of the school districts. Additional information on the design and methodology of the American Community Survey, including data collection and processing, can be found at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/methodology main/

Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, and Format


Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.

SES Study Team



- 54 -

Demographic 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Demographic Characteristics Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Total population 3,083 3,231 Male 1,507 48.9% 1,641 50.8% Female 1,576 51.1% 1,590 49.2% Under 5 years 205 6.6% 326 10.1% 5 to 9 years 142 4.6% 252 7.8% 10 to 14 years 158 5.1% 201 6.2% 15 to 19 years 167 5.4% 223 6.9% 20 to 24 years 118 3.8% 213 6.6% 25 to 34 years 316 10.2% 330 10.2% 35 to 44 years 474 15.4% 480 14.9% 45 to 54 years 485 15.7% 515 15.9% 55 to 59 years 294 9.5% 211 6.5% 60 to 64 years 192 6.2% 85 2.6% 65 to 74 years 371 12.0% 208 6.4% 75 to 84 years 146 4.7% 173 5.4% 85 years and over 15 0.5% 14 0.4% Median age (years) 44.2 (X) 37.6 (X) 18 years and over 2,462 79.9% 2,316 71.7% 21 years and over 2,370 76.9% 2,187 67.7% 62 years and over 649 21.1% 444 13.7% 65 years and over 532 17.3% 395 12.2% 18 years and over 2,462 2,462 2,316 2,316 Male 1,227 49.8% 1,172 50.6% Female 1,235 50.2% 1,144 49.4% 65 years and over 532 532 395 395 Male 240 45.1% 179 45.3% Female 292 54.9% 216 54.7% RACE Total population 3,083 3,083 3,231 3,231 One race 3,066 99.4% 3,105 96.1% Two or more races 17 0.6% 126 3.9% One race 3,066 99.4% 3,105 96.1% White 3,033 98.4% 3,053 94.5% Black or African American 11 0.4% 0 0.0% American Indian and Alaska Native 0 0.0% 50 1.5% Cherokee tribal grouping 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Chippewa tribal grouping 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Navajo tribal grouping 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sioux tribal grouping 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Asian 13 0.4% 2 0.1% Asian Indian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Chinese 0 0.0% 2 0.1% Filipino 6 0.2% 0 0.0% Japanese 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Korean 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Vietnamese 3 0.1% 0 0.0% Other Asian 4 0.1% 0 0.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Native Hawaiian 0 0.0% 0 0.0%



- 55 -

Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Demographic Characteristics Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Guamanian or Chamorro 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Samoan 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Some other race 9 0.3% 0 0.0% Two or more races 17 0.6% 126 3.9% White and Black or African American 0 0.0% 124 3.8% White and American Indian and Alaska Native 0 0.0% 2 0.1% White and Asian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native

17 0.6% 0 0.0%

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races

Total population 3,083 3,083 3,231 3,231 White 3,033 98.4% 3,179 98.4% Black or African American 28 0.9% 124 3.8% American Indian and Alaska Native 17 0.6% 52 1.6% Asian 13 0.4% 2 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Some other race 9 0.3% 0 0.0% HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population 3,083 3,083 3,231 3,231 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 35 1.1% 0 0.0% Mexican 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Puerto Rican 18 0.6% 0 0.0% Cuban 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Other Hispanic or Latino 17 0.6% 0 0.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 3,048 98.9% 3,231 100.0% White alone 3,001 97.3% 3,053 94.5% Black or African American alone 11 0.4% 0 0.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 0.0% 50 1.5% Asian alone 13 0.4% 2 0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Some other race alone 6 0.2% 0 0.0% Two or more races 17 0.6% 126 3.9% Two races including Some other race 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races

17 0.6% 126 3.9%

Total housing units 1,441 (X) 1,272 (X)



- 56 -

Selected Social Characteristics 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Selected Social Characteristics Estimate Percent Estimate Percent

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 Family households (families) 844 62.4% 846 72.6% With own children under 18 years 320 23.7% 399 34.2% Married-couple family 710 52.5% 621 53.3% With own children under 18 years 266 19.7% 211 18.1% Male householder, no wife present, family 33 2.4% 103 8.8% With own children under 18 years 12 0.9% 91 7.8% Female householder, no husband present, family 101 7.5% 122 10.5% With own children under 18 years 42 3.1% 97 8.3% Nonfamily households 508 37.6% 319 27.4% Householder living alone 392 29.0% 230 19.7% 65 years and over 132 9.8% 84 7.2% Households with one or more people under 18 years 351 26.0% 427 36.7% Households with one or more people 65 years and over 428 31.7% 277 23.8% Average household size 2.28 (X) 2.77 (X) Average family size 2.84 (X) 3.10 (X) RELATIONSHIP Population in households 3,083 3,083 3,231 3,231 Householder 1,352 43.9% 1,165 36.1% Spouse 716 23.2% 622 19.3% Child 779 25.3% 1,018 31.5% Other relatives 60 1.9% 139 4.3% Nonrelatives 176 5.7% 287 8.9% Unmarried partner 117 3.8% 147 4.5% MARITAL STATUS Males 15 years and over 1,280 1,280 1,266 1,266 Never married 340 26.6% 389 30.7% Now married, except separated 726 56.7% 670 52.9% Separated 17 1.3% 50 3.9% Widowed 15 1.2% 23 1.8% Divorced 182 14.2% 134 10.6% Females 15 years and over 1,298 1,298 1,186 1,186 Never married 308 23.7% 320 27.0% Now married, except separated 710 54.7% 625 52.7% Separated 14 1.1% 58 4.9% Widowed 161 12.4% 55 4.6% Divorced 105 8.1% 128 10.8% FERTILITY Number of women 15 to 50 years old who had a birth in the past 12 months

24 24 37 37

Unmarried women (widowed, divorced, and never married)

5 20.8% 0 0.0%

Per 1,000 unmarried women 17 (X) 0 (X) Per 1,000 women 15 to 50 years old 36 (X) 49 (X)



- 57 -

Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Selected Social Characteristics Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Per 1,000 women 15 to 19 years old 0 (X) 0 (X) Per 1,000 women 20 to 34 years old 118 (X) 159 (X) Per 1,000 women 35 to 50 years old 0 (X) 0 (X) GRANDPARENTS Number of grandparents living with own grandchildren under 18 years

37 37 47 47

Responsible for grandchildren 20 54.1% 7 14.9% Years responsible for grandchildren Less than 1 year 8 21.6% 2 4.3% 1 or 2 years 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 or 4 years 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 5 or more years 12 32.4% 5 10.6% Number of grandparents responsible for own grandchildren under 18 years

20 20 7 7

Who are female 10 50.0% 1 14.3% Who are married 20 100.0% 2 28.6% EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Population 25 years and over 2,293 2,293 2,016 2,016 Less than 9th grade 64 2.8% 60 3.0% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 254 11.1% 209 10.4% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 1,027 44.8% 902 44.7% Some college, no degree 338 14.7% 312 15.5% Associate's degree 298 13.0% 309 15.3% Bachelor's degree 138 6.0% 139 6.9% Graduate or professional degree 174 7.6% 85 4.2% Percent high school graduate or higher (X) 86.1% (X) 86.7% Percent bachelor's degree or higher (X) 13.6% (X) 11.1% VETERAN STATUS Civilian population 18 years and over 2,456 2,456 2,316 2,316 Civilian veterans 248 10.1% 251 10.8% RESIDENCE 1 YEAR AGO Population 1 year and over 3,072 3,072 3,191 3,191 Same house 2,890 94.1% 2,832 88.7% Different house in the U.S. 182 5.9% 359 11.3% Same county 83 2.7% 158 5.0% Different county 99 3.2% 201 6.3% Same state 93 3.0% 27 0.8% Different state 6 0.2% 174 5.5% Abroad 0 0.0% 0 0.0% PLACE OF BIRTH Total population 3,083 3,083 3,231 3,231 Native 3,047 98.8% 3,219 99.6% Born in United States 3,032 98.3% 3,198 99.0% State of residence 2,714 88.0% 2,926 90.6% Different state 318 10.3% 272 8.4% Born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island areas, or born abroad to American parent(s)

15 0.5% 21 0.6%

Foreign born 36 1.2% 12 0.4% U.S. CITIZENSHIP STATUS Foreign-born population 36 36 12 12 Naturalized U.S. citizen 19 52.8% 8 66.7% Not a U.S. citizen 17 47.2% 4 33.3%



- 58 -

Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Selected Social Characteristics Estimate Percent Estimate Percent YEAR OF ENTRY Population born outside the United States 51 51 33 33 Native 15 15 21 21 Entered 2000 or later 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Entered before 2000 15 100.0% 21 100.0% Foreign born 36 36 12 12 Entered 2000 or later 4 11.1% 0 0.0% Entered before 2000 32 88.9% 12 100.0% WORLD REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN Foreign-born population, excluding population born at sea

36 36 12 12

Europe 9 25.0% 0 0.0% Asia 10 27.8% 1 8.3% Africa 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Oceania 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Latin America 17 47.2% 0 0.0% Northern America 0 0.0% 11 91.7% LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME Population 5 years and over 2,878 2,878 2,905 2,905 English only 2,767 96.1% 2,849 98.1% Language other than English 111 3.9% 56 1.9% Speak English less than "very well" 57 2.0% 26 0.9% Spanish 31 1.1% 36 1.2% Speak English less than "very well" 23 0.8% 13 0.4% Other Indo-European languages 57 2.0% 13 0.4% Speak English less than "very well" 34 1.2% 12 0.4% Asian and Pacific Islander languages 23 0.8% 1 0.0% Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.0% 1 0.0% Other languages 0 0.0% 6 0.2% Speak English less than "very well" 0 0.0% 0 0.0% ANCESTRY Total population 3,083 3,083 3,231 3,231 American 331 10.7% 384 11.9% Arab 16 0.5% 0 0.0% Czech 13 0.4% 3 0.1% Danish 55 1.8% 0 0.0% Dutch 140 4.5% 132 4.1% English 736 23.9% 446 13.8% French (except Basque) 206 6.7% 164 5.1% French Canadian 83 2.7% 82 2.5% German 813 26.4% 597 18.5% Greek 0 0.0% 22 0.7% Hungarian 0 0.0% 7 0.2% Irish 706 22.9% 648 20.1% Italian 189 6.1% 309 9.6% Lithuanian 7 0.2% 0 0.0% Norwegian 25 0.8% 22 0.7% Polish 177 5.7% 232 7.2% Portuguese 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Russian 6 0.2% 2 0.1% Scotch-Irish 47 1.5% 26 0.8% Scottish 75 2.4% 51 1.6%



- 59 -

Slovak 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Subsaharan African 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Swedish 15 0.5% 11 0.3% Swiss 26 0.8% 21 0.6% Ukrainian 4 0.1% 28 0.9% Welsh 148 4.8% 118 3.7% West Indian (excluding Hispanic origin groups) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Selected Economic Characteristics 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Selected Economic Characteristics Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent Estimate Percent EMPLOYMENT STATUS Population 16 years and over 2,533 2,533 2,420 2,420 In labor force 1,757 69.4% 1,679 69.4% Civilian labor force 1,751 69.1% 1,679 69.4% Employed 1,684 66.5% 1,593 65.8% Unemployed 67 2.6% 86 3.6% Armed Forces 6 0.2% 0 0.0% Not in labor force 776 30.6% 741 30.6% Civilian labor force 1,751 1,751 1,679 1,679 Percent Unemployed (X) 3.8% (X) 5.1% Females 16 years and over 1,266 1,266 1,176 1,176 In labor force 829 65.5% 764 65.0% Civilian labor force 829 65.5% 764 65.0% Employed 812 64.1% 717 61.0% Own children under 6 years 222 222 362 362 All parents in family in labor force 129 58.1% 218 60.2% Own children 6 to 17 years 362 362 497 497 All parents in family in labor force 307 84.8% 385 77.5% COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 years and over 1,674 1,674 1,541 1,541 Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 1,240 74.1% 1,276 82.8% Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 186 11.1% 145 9.4% Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Walked 58 3.5% 23 1.5% Other means 28 1.7% 19 1.2% Worked at home 162 9.7% 78 5.1% Mean travel time to work (minutes) 25.6 (X) 21.0 (X) OCCUPATION Civilian employed population 16 years and over 1,684 1,684 1,593 1,593 Management, business, science, and arts occupations 494 29.3% 490 30.8% Service occupations 316 18.8% 287 18.0% Sales and office occupations 407 24.2% 313 19.6% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 302 17.9% 201 12.6% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 165 9.8% 302 19.0% INDUSTRY Civilian employed population 16 years and over 1,684 1,684 1,593 1,593 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 173 10.3% 129 8.1% Construction 193 11.5% 161 10.1% Manufacturing 189 11.2% 213 13.4% Wholesale trade 16 1.0% 32 2.0%



- 60 -

Selected Economic Characteristics Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Retail trade 141 8.4% 214 13.4% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 74 4.4% 51 3.2% Information 16 1.0% 8 0.5% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 66 3.9% 30 1.9% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services

67 4.0% 83 5.2%

Educational services, and health care and social assistance 461 27.4% 419 26.3% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 162 9.6% 159 10.0% Other services, except public administration 64 3.8% 46 2.9% Public administration 62 3.7% 48 3.0% CLASS OF WORKER Civilian employed population 16 years and over 1,684 1,684 1,593 1,593 Private wage and salary workers 1,184 70.3% 1,211 76.0% Government workers 233 13.8% 215 13.5% Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers 239 14.2% 160 10.0% Unpaid family workers 28 1.7% 7 0.4% INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Total households 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 Less than $10,000 116 8.6% 115 9.9% $10,000 to $14,999 77 5.7% 57 4.9% $15,000 to $24,999 160 11.8% 84 7.2% $25,000 to $34,999 253 18.7% 193 16.6% $35,000 to $49,999 210 15.5% 205 17.6% $50,000 to $74,999 180 13.3% 235 20.2% $75,000 to $99,999 198 14.6% 155 13.3% $100,000 to $149,999 131 9.7% 86 7.4% $150,000 to $199,999 0 0.0% 19 1.6% $200,000 or more 27 2.0% 16 1.4% Median household income (dollars) 40,202 (X) 47,063 (X) Mean household income (dollars) 55,377 (X) 53,530 (X) With earnings 1,059 78.3% 916 78.6% Mean earnings (dollars) 55,565 (X) 56,869 (X) With Social Security 496 36.7% 325 27.9% Mean Social Security income (dollars) 15,235 (X) 16,588 (X) With retirement income 312 23.1% 204 17.5% Mean retirement income (dollars) 21,277 (X) 12,125 (X) With Supplemental Security Income 37 2.7% 43 3.7% Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) 5,086 (X) 5,921 (X) With cash public assistance income 20 1.5% 12 1.0% Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) 2,635 (X) 3,833 (X) With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12 months 30 2.2% 49 4.2% Families 844 844 846 846 Less than $10,000 36 4.3% 49 5.8% $10,000 to $14,999 18 2.1% 37 4.4% $15,000 to $24,999 86 10.2% 53 6.3% $25,000 to $34,999 142 16.8% 146 17.3% $35,000 to $49,999 130 15.4% 169 20.0% $50,000 to $74,999 127 15.0% 175 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 155 18.4% 122 14.4% $100,000 to $149,999 123 14.6% 60 7.1% $150,000 to $199,999 0 0.0% 19 2.2% $200,000 or more 27 3.2% 16 1.9%



- 61 -

Selected Economic Characteristics Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Median family income (dollars) 52,500 (X) 48,278 (X) Mean family income (dollars) 67,797 (X) 57,529 (X) Per capita income (dollars) 24,591 (X) 19,899 (X) Nonfamily households 508 508 319 319 Median nonfamily income (dollars) 27,500 (X) 26,741 (X) Mean nonfamily income (dollars) 33,100 (X) 33,442 (X) Median earnings for workers (dollars) 25,753 (X) 27,161 (X) Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers (dollars) 38,190 (X) 33,474 (X) Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars) 37,037 (X) 28,333 (X) PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL All families (X) 8.1% (X) 11.0% With related children under 18 years (X) 14.7% (X) 18.7% With related children under 5 years only (X) 18.4% (X) 33.0% Married couple families (X) 5.5% (X) 3.2% With related children under 18 years (X) 8.0% (X) 3.1% With related children under 5 years only (X) 20.2% (X) 0.0% Families with female householder, no husband present (X) 16.8% (X) 45.1% With related children under 18 years (X) 28.8% (X) 52.4% With related children under 5 years only (X) 0.0% (X) 75.0% All people (X) 11.3% (X) 16.4% Under 18 years (X) 14.5% (X) 28.7% Related children under 18 years (X) 14.5% (X) 28.0% Related children under 5 years (X) 11.7% (X) 51.2% Related children 5 to 17 years (X) 15.9% (X) 14.9% 18 years and over (X) 10.4% (X) 11.5% 18 to 64 years (X) 10.9% (X) 11.0% 65 years and over (X) 8.6% (X) 13.9% People in families (X) 8.3% (X) 14.3% Unrelated individuals 15 years and over (X) 21.9% (X) 25.3%

Housing 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Selected Housing Characteristics Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent Estimate Percent HOUSING OCCUPANCY Total housing units 1,441 1,441 1,272 1,272 Occupied housing units 1,352 93.8% 1,165 91.6% Vacant housing units 89 6.2% 107 8.4% Homeowner vacancy rate 0.0 (X) 0.6 (X) Rental vacancy rate 3.0 (X) 2.5 (X) UNITS IN STRUCTURE Total housing units 1,441 1,441 1,272 1,272 1-unit, detached 1,071 74.3% 869 68.3% 1-unit, attached 7 0.5% 23 1.8% 2 units 47 3.3% 32 2.5% 3 or 4 units 68 4.7% 45 3.5% 5 to 9 units 8 0.6% 11 0.9% 10 to 19 units 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 20 or more units 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Mobile home 240 16.7% 292 23.0%



- 62 -

Selected Housing Characteristics Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Boat, RV, van, etc. 0 0.0% 0 0.0% YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Total housing units 1,441 1,441 1,272 1,272 Built 2005 or later 16 1.1% 14 1.1% Built 2000 to 2004 39 2.7% 81 6.4% Built 1990 to 1999 116 8.0% 158 12.4% Built 1980 to 1989 223 15.5% 210 16.5% Built 1970 to 1979 188 13.0% 103 8.1% Built 1960 to 1969 51 3.5% 38 3.0% Built 1950 to 1959 79 5.5% 99 7.8% Built 1940 to 1949 18 1.2% 67 5.3% Built 1939 or earlier 711 49.3% 502 39.5% ROOMS Total housing units 1,441 1,441 1,272 1,272 1 room 0 0.0% 14 1.1% 2 rooms 0 0.0% 5 0.4% 3 rooms 77 5.3% 72 5.7% 4 rooms 202 14.0% 186 14.6% 5 rooms 239 16.6% 278 21.9% 6 rooms 247 17.1% 278 21.9% 7 rooms 270 18.7% 170 13.4% 8 rooms 216 15.0% 153 12.0% 9 rooms or more 190 13.2% 116 9.1% Median rooms 6.3 (X) 5.8 (X) BEDROOMS Total housing units 1,441 1,441 1,272 1,272 No bedroom 0 0.0% 14 1.1% 1 bedroom 68 4.7% 77 6.1% 2 bedrooms 423 29.4% 377 29.6% 3 bedrooms 577 40.0% 567 44.6% 4 bedrooms 331 23.0% 162 12.7% 5 or more bedrooms 42 2.9% 75 5.9% HOUSING TENURE Occupied housing units 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 Owner-occupied 1,122 83.0% 933 80.1% Renter-occupied 230 17.0% 232 19.9% Average household size of owner-occupied unit 2.40 (X) 2.69 (X) Average household size of renter-occupied unit 1.69 (X) 3.10 (X) YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Occupied housing units 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 Moved in 2005 or later 230 17.0% 236 20.3% Moved in 2000 to 2004 301 22.3% 265 22.7% Moved in 1990 to 1999 423 31.3% 373 32.0% Moved in 1980 to 1989 177 13.1% 171 14.7% Moved in 1970 to 1979 100 7.4% 48 4.1% Moved in 1969 or earlier 121 8.9% 72 6.2% VEHICLES AVAILABLE Occupied housing units 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 No vehicles available 53 3.9% 63 5.4% 1 vehicle available 536 39.6% 314 27.0% 2 vehicles available 576 42.6% 515 44.2% 3 or more vehicles available 187 13.8% 273 23.4%



- 63 -

Selected Housing Characteristics

Madison Central Stockbridge Valley

Estimate Percent Estimate Percent HOUSE HEATING FUEL Occupied housing units 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 Utility gas 15 1.1% 31 2.7% Bottled, tank, or LP gas 184 13.6% 223 19.1% Electricity 71 5.3% 58 5.0% Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 864 63.9% 652 56.0% Coal or coke 32 2.4% 27 2.3% Wood 168 12.4% 133 11.4% Solar energy 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Other fuel 12 0.9% 41 3.5% No fuel used 6 0.4% 0 0.0% SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS Occupied housing units 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0 0.0% 3 0.3% Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0 0.0% 0 0.0% No telephone service available 22 1.6% 36 3.1% OCCUPANTS PER ROOM Occupied housing units 1,352 1,352 1,165 1,165 1.00 or less 1,350 99.9% 1,139 97.8% 1.01 to 1.50 0 0.0% 18 1.5% 1.51 or more 2 0.1% 8 0.7% VALUE Owner-occupied units 1,122 1,122 933 933 Less than $50,000 115 10.2% 182 19.5% $50,000 to $99,999 491 43.8% 372 39.9% $100,000 to $149,999 342 30.5% 233 25.0% $150,000 to $199,999 102 9.1% 75 8.0% $200,000 to $299,999 33 2.9% 41 4.4% $300,000 to $499,999 39 3.5% 30 3.2% $500,000 to $999,999 0 0.0% 0 0.0% $1,000,000 or more 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Median (dollars) 96,000 (X) 86,200 (X) MORTGAGE STATUS Owner-occupied units 1,122 1,122 933 933 Housing units with a mortgage 677 60.3% 574 61.5% Housing units without a mortgage 445 39.7% 359 38.5%

“Cus

tom

tool

s and

rese

arch

to a

id a

scho

ol d

istr

ict i

n de

finin

g a

visi

on a

nd

deci

sion

opt

ions

for s

ervi

ng st

uden

ts in

the

futu

re.”

- 64

-

D

AT

A F

OR

DIS

CU

SSIO

N B

Y T

HE

JO

INT

C

OM

MM

UN

ITY

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIT

TE

E:

SCH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

T F

INA

NC

IAL

C

HA

RA

CT

ER

IST

ICS/

EL

EM

EN

TS

PRO

FIL

E

2011

-201

2 SC

HO

OL

YE

AR

MA

DIS

ON

CS

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

S

Oct

ober

201

2

“Cus

tom

tool

s and

rese

arch

to a

id a

scho

ol d

istr

ict i

n de

finin

g a

visi

on a

nd

deci

sion

opt

ions

for s

ervi

ng st

uden

ts in

the

futu

re.”

- 65

-

Mad

ison

and

Sto

ckbr

idge

Val

ley

Cen

tral

Sch

ool D

istr

icts

FIN

AN

CIA

L C

ON

DIT

ION

CH

AR

AC

TE

RIS

TIC

S Sc

hool

Dis

trict

fina

ncia

l hea

lth is

dep

ende

nt o

n a

num

ber o

f iss

ues.

In th

e cu

rren

t eco

nom

ic e

nviro

nmen

t the

scho

ol d

istri

ct n

eeds

to b

e ab

le to

ab

sorb

Sta

te A

id d

ecre

ases

and

incr

easi

ng e

xpen

ditu

res w

hile

mai

ntai

ning

a so

und

educ

atio

nal p

rogr

am.

Som

e in

dica

tors

of f

inan

cial

hea

lth th

at a

re u

sed

to e

valu

ate

a sc

hool

dis

trict

s con

ditio

n ar

e as

follo

ws:

• Fu

nd b

alan

ce, i

nclu

ding

rese

rves

•

Exce

ss o

f rev

enue

s ove

r exp

endi

ture

s •

How

relia

nt is

the

scho

ol d

istri

ct o

n St

ate

aid?

•

Exce

ss a

ppro

pria

tion

of fu

nd b

alan

ce

• C

ompa

rison

of b

udge

ted

reve

nues

and

exp

endi

ture

s to

actu

al

• Sc

hool

Lun

ch su

bsid

ies?

•

Stat

us o

f tax

cer

tiora

ri or

any

litig

atio

n ou

tsta

ndin

g SO

ME

OV

ERA

LL M

AJO

R O

BSE

RV

ATI

ON

S :

•

Bot

h di

stric

ts m

aint

ain

fund

bal

ance

by

not a

utom

atic

ally

spe

ndin

g al

l of a

ppro

ved

appr

opria

tions

. Bot

h di

stric

ts h

ave

exce

ss re

venu

es

com

pare

d to

bud

gete

d ex

pend

iture

s with

in a

5 to

10%

rang

e w

hich

is a

ccep

tabl

e.

• M

adis

on’s

ann

ual e

xpen

se fo

r ret

iree

heal

th in

sura

nce

is a

bout

72%

hig

her t

han

it is

for S

tock

brid

ge V

alle

y.

• B

oth

dist

ricts

are

com

para

ble

(with

in 3

%) i

n ex

pens

es fo

r gen

eral

supp

ort,

inst

ruct

ion

and

empl

oyee

ben

efits

. •

Bot

h di

stric

ts c

ombi

ned

rece

ive

abou

t $11

0,00

0 in

win

d po

wer

pay

men

ts a

nnua

lly.

• St

ockb

ridge

has

an

ongo

ing

coop

erat

ive

fuel

pur

chas

e ar

rang

emen

t with

the

Tow

n.

• B

oth

dist

ricts

hav

e si

mila

r to

tal r

eser

ves

to o

ffse

t fut

ure

expe

nditu

res

and/

or r

educ

tions

in s

tate

aid

($2

.2 m

illio

n fo

r M

adis

on; $

2.1

mill

ion

for S

tock

brid

ge V

alle

y).

• B

oth

dist

ricts

eac

h ha

ve a

bout

$1

mill

ion

of u

nres

trict

ed fu

nd b

alan

ce.

How

ever

, in

the

2012

-201

3 bu

dget

, Mad

ison

app

ropr

iate

d $3

80

thou

sand

to re

duce

taxe

s; a

nd S

tock

brid

ge a

ppro

pria

ted

$650

thou

sand

to re

duce

taxe

s. T

his p

atte

rn m

ay n

ot b

e su

stai

nabl

e if

all o

f the

ex

pend

iture

s of a

n ap

prov

ed b

udge

t in

a gi

ven

year

are

exp

ende

d.

• B

oth

dist

ricts

are

hig

hly

depe

nden

t on

Stat

e A

id R

even

ues.

(63%

by

Mad

ison

; 73%

by

Stoc

kbrid

ge V

alle

y)

• B

oth

dist

ricts

hav

e se

lf-su

stai

ning

scho

ol lu

nch

fund

s tha

t do

not r

equi

re g

ener

al fu

nd e

xpen

ditu

re to

kee

p so

lven

t.


- 66 -

6/30/2012 6/30/2011Increase

(Decrease) %Fund Balance

3,201 3,135 66 2.1%Restricted 1,894 1,997 (103) -5.2%Unreserved

Assigned 701 527 174 33.0%Unassigned 606 611 (5) -0.8%

Revenues8,308 8,398 (90) -1.1%

Real Estate Taxes and STAR 2,929 2,797 132 4.7%State Aid 5,209 5,120 89 1.7%Federal Aid - 202 (202) -100.0%Miscellaneous & Other 118 193 (75) -38.9%Charges for Services 52 86 (34) -39.5%

ExpendituresTotal 8,185 8,445 (260) -3.1%

General Support 1,043 1,132 (89) -7.9%Operation of Plant - Non-instructional Salaries 131 126 5 4.0%Operation of Plant - Contractual and Other 222 250 (28) -11.2%Maintenance of Plant - Contractual and Other 38 68 (30) -44.1%Maintenance of Plant - Materials and Supplies 46 54 (8) -14.8%

Instruction 3,483 3,721 (238) -6.4%Teacher Salaries, Full Day Kindergarten - 3 445 474 (29) -6.1%Teacher Salaries, 4 - 6 305 394 (89) -22.6%Teacher Salaries, 7 - 12 750 788 (38) -4.8%Substitute Teacher Salaries 100 87 13 14.9%Student With Special Needs - Instructional Salaries 139 73 66 90.4%Student With Special Needs - BOCES Services 529 722 (193) -26.7%Occupational Ed. (9-12) - BOCES Services 214 184 30 16.3%Computer Assisted Instruction - BOCES Services 21 20 1 5.0%

Transportation (includes 'cash' for bus pruchases both years) 625 546 79 14.5%

Employee Benefits 2,058 2,038 20 1.0%State Retirement 113 52 61 117.3%Teachers' Retirement 268 213 55 25.8%Social Security 226 221 5 2.3%Hospital, Medical, and Dental Insurance 1,394 1,379 15 1.1%

Debt Service 976 1,008 (32) -3.2%

Transfers (101) (3) (98)

Net Excess Revenues (Expenditures) 22 (50) 72

Total

Total

Madison Central School District Financial Summary


- 66 -

6/30/2012 6/30/2011Increase

(Decrease) %Fund Balance

3,111 3,045 66 2.2%Restricted 1,953 2,517 (564) -22.4%Unreserved

Assigned 816 190 626 329.5%Unassigned 342 338 4 1.2%

Revenues9,120 9,415 (295) -3.1%

Real Estate Taxes and STAR 2,157 2,150 7 0.3%State Aid 6,654 6,789 (135) -2.0%Federal Aid 37 180 (143) -79.5%Miscellaneous & Others 181 260 (79) -30.4%Charges for services 91 35 56 157.0%

Transfers (2) (2) - 0.0%

ExpendituresTotal 9,052 9,441 (389) -4.1%

General Support 1,154 1,146 8 0.7%Operation of Plant - Non-instructional Salaries 182 192 (10) -5.2%Operation of Plant - Contractual and Other 221 251 (30) -12.0%Maintenance of Plant - Contractual and Other 26 19 7 36.8%

Instruction 3,925 4,193 (268) -6.4%Teacher Salaries, Full Day Kindergarten - 3 474 476 (2) -0.4%Teacher Salaries, 4 - 6 312 431 (119) -27.6%Teacher Salaries, 7 - 12 828 956 (128) -13.4%Substitute Teacher Salaries 63 37 26 70.3%Students With Special Needs - Instructional Salaries 121 101 20 19.8%Students With Special Needs - BOCES 540 635 (95) -15.0%Occupational Education (Grades 9-12) - Instructional Salaries 183 177 6 3%Computer Assisted Inst. - BOCES 101 90 11 12%

Transportation (includes 'cash' for bus purchases in 2010-2011) 567 768 (201) -26.2%

Employee Benefits 1,945 1,887 58 3.1%State Retirement 90 87 3 3.4%Teachers' Retirement 273 235 38 16.2%Social Security 244 258 (14) -5.4%Hospital, Medical, & Dental Insurance 1,304 1,270 34 2.7%

Debt Service (in both years used 'un-needed' tax cert reserve 1,461 1,447 14 1.0%pay construction BANS in order to reduce long-term debt)

Net Revenues (Expenditures) 66 (28) 94

Stockbridge Valley Central School District Financial Summary

Total

Total

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 67

-

9Su

b-to

tal G

ener

al S

uppo

rt, In

stru

ctio

n, a

nd

Empl

oyee

Ben

efits

6,5

84,3

96

7,

024,

591

10%

Tot

al G

ener

al S

uppo

rt, In

stru

ctio

n, a

nd

Empl

oyee

Ben

efits

of T

otal

80.4

577

.59

16.1

4Su

bseq

uent

yea

rs d

ebt s

ervi

ce fo

r Sto

ckbr

idge

will

be

appr

oxim

atel

y $1

,250

,000

, or 1

3.8%

of 2

012

expe

nditu

res.

% D

ebt S

ervi

ce o

f Tot

al11

.92

12 1397

5,50

11,

461,

517

147 1181 2 3 6

Gen

eral

Sup

port

1,04

3,40

01,

154,

155

12.7

512

.75

Inst

ruct

ion

3,48

2,59

33,

924,

938

EXPE

ND

ITU

RES

FOR

THE

YEA

R EN

DED

JUN

E 30

, 201

2

4 5

% T

rans

porta

tion

of T

otal

7.63

6.26

Mad

ison

per

cent

age

is 5

.2 w

ithou

t bus

pur

chas

es.

566,

950

Mad

ison

incl

udes

$19

4,06

6 in

bus

pur

chas

es. W

ithou

t bus

es tr

ansp

orta

tion

is $

430,

769.

9,05

3,05

8

Fina

ncia

l Cha

ract

eris

tic/ E

lem

ent

Mad

ison

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

% G

ener

al S

uppo

rt of

Tot

al

% In

stru

ctio

n of

Tot

al42

.55

43.3

5

Incl

udes

$47

2,70

8 in

con

stru

ctio

n B

AN

rede

emed

from

app

ropr

iatio

ns.

Seria

l bon

d is

sued

for $

4,92

3,69

9.D

ebt S

ervi

ce

Obs

erva

tion/

Item

s to

note

or c

onsi

der:

Exp

endi

ture

s (20

12):

Tran

spor

tatio

n62

4,83

5

21.4

9

Bot

h di

stric

t exp

endi

ture

s wer

e lo

wer

in 2

012

from

201

1 (3

.1%

and

4.1

%,

resp

ectiv

ely)

.

Empl

oyee

Ben

efits

2,05

8,40

31,

945,

498

Tot

al8,

184,

732

% E

mpl

oyee

Ben

efits

of T

otal

25.1

5

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 68

-

EXPE

ND

ITU

RES

FOR

TH

E YE

AR

EN

DED

JU

NE

30, 2

012

MA

DIS

ON

CE

NT

RA

L S

CH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

TE

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

SG

ener

al S

uppo

rt13

%

Inst

ruct

ion

42%

Empl

oyee

B

enef

its25

%

Tran

spor

tatio

n8%

Deb

t Ser

vice

12%

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

EN

TR

AL

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

ES

Gen

eral

Sup

port

13%

Inst

ruct

ion

44%

Empl

oyee

B

enef

its21

%

Tran

spor

tatio

n6%

Deb

t Ser

vice

16%

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 69

-

Fina

ncia

l Cha

ract

eris

tic/

Ele

men

tM

adis

onSt

ockb

ridg

e V

alle

yO

bser

vatio

n/Ite

ms

to n

ote

or c

onsi

der:

***M

isce

llane

ous

and

Oth

ers

cont

ains

: Mis

cella

neou

s, U

se o

f Mon

ey a

nd P

rope

rty

and

Sale

of P

rope

rty

and

Com

pens

atio

n fo

r Lo

ss

11M

isce

llane

ous

& O

ther

s11

7,50

724

1,46

0St

ockb

ridge

incl

udes

$29

,812

in T

own

fuel

reim

burs

emen

ts a

nd $

43,9

56 in

ad

ditio

nal r

efun

d of

prio

r yea

rs e

xpen

ses.

10%

Ser

vice

Cha

rges

of T

otal

0.62

0.34

Rev

enue

s (2

012)

:

9C

harg

es fo

r Ser

vice

s51

,872

30,7

18

8

REV

ENU

ESFO

R T

HE

YEA

R E

ND

ED J

UN

E 30

, 201

2

1 2 3 4

Tot

al8,

307,

863

Mad

ison

incl

udes

$78

,691

in w

indp

ower

pay

men

ts, S

tock

brid

ge $

30,8

59.

5 6 7

Rea

l Pro

perty

Tax

es a

nd T

ax It

ems

(incl

udin

g ST

AR

)2,

929,

492

2,15

6,85

8

9,12

0,38

5

% S

tate

Aid

of T

otal

62.6

972

.96

Mad

ison

is m

ore

depe

nden

t on

Rea

l Pro

perty

Tax

es.

% R

eal P

rope

rty T

axes

of

Tot

al35

.26

23.6

5

% F

eder

al A

id o

f Tot

al0.

010.

41

Fede

ral A

id48

237

,110

Med

icai

d as

sist

ance

.

Stat

e A

id5,

208,

510

6,65

4,23

9

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 70

-

REV

ENU

ESFO

R T

HE

YEA

R E

ND

ED J

UN

E 30

, 201

2

MA

DIS

ON

CE

NT

RA

L S

CH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

TR

EV

EN

UE

SR

eal

Prop

erty

Tax

esan

d Ta

x Ite

ms

(incl

udin

g ST

AR

)35

%

Stat

e A

id63

%

Fede

ral A

id0%

Cha

rges

for S

ervi

ces

1%M

isce

llane

ous

&

Oth

ers

1%

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

EN

TR

AL

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

RE

VE

NU

ES

Rea

l Pro

perty

Tax

es

and

Tax

Item

s (in

clud

ing

STA

R)

24%

Stat

e A

id73

%

Fede

ral A

id0%

Cha

rges

fo

r Ser

vice

s1%

Mis

cella

neou

s &

Oth

ers

3%

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 71

-

Fin

anci

al C

hara

cter

isti

c/ E

lem

ent

Mad

ison

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

Obs

erva

tion/

Item

s to

not

e or

con

side

r:

FUN

D B

ALA

NC

EA

S O

F JU

NE

30, 2

012

20 21

Tot

al U

nres

tirct

ed:

7 8 9 10 2513 14 15 16 18 19 22 24

Une

mpl

oym

ent I

nsur

ance

1

96,8

70

2

34,9

16

Res

tric

ted:

5 6

Prop

erty

Los

s an

d Li

abili

ty

432

,302

Em

ploy

ee B

enef

it A

ccru

ed L

iabi

lity

Res

erve

7

99,8

89

Cap

ital R

eser

ve (V

oter

app

rova

l req

uire

d to

es

tabl

ish

and

fund

)

4

4,02

6

1 2 3 4

Unr

eser

ved

Und

esig

nate

d F

und

Bal

ance

(Sub

ject

to

4.0%

of s

ubse

quen

t yea

r's b

udge

t)

7.40

%

11 12

App

ropr

iate

d Fu

nd B

alan

ce to

Red

uce

Tax

es in

20

12-1

3

3

14,0

44

Rep

air R

eser

ve (V

oter

app

rova

l req

uire

d to

fund

, pu

blic

hea

ring

to s

pend

)

5

0,00

0

3

00,0

00

5

09,7

55

3

01,0

54

Tax

Red

uctio

n

Mad

ison

has

exc

ess

mon

ies

over

com

pens

ated

abs

ence

s.

Tax

Cer

tiora

ri

9

0,00

0

Man

dato

ry R

eser

ve F

und

Wor

ker's

Com

pens

atio

n

Em

ploy

ees'

Ret

irem

ent C

ontr

ibut

ions

3

31,1

83

2

27,6

84

3

20,8

86

1

66,4

19 M

adis

on in

clud

es $

215,

000

for s

peci

al n

eeds

tuiti

on,

Stoc

kbri

dge

incl

udes

$15

1,05

5 fo

r tra

nspo

rtat

ion.

Deb

t Ser

vice

Fun

d B

alan

ce -

2012

713,

978

190,

186

Tot

al R

eser

ves

2,2

15,1

56

Res

tric

ted

27.0

6%23

.40%

Unr

estr

ictd

:

Fun

d B

alan

ce a

s a

% o

f 201

2 E

xpen

ditu

res

Bot

h di

stri

cts

have

a h

igh

perc

enta

ge o

f res

erve

s to

ex

pend

iture

s.

986,

171

Insu

ranc

e

1

4,99

0

Enc

umbr

ance

s (P

urch

ase

Ord

ers

Still

Ope

n)

Unr

estr

icte

d A

ppro

pria

ted

to R

educ

e T

axes

in 2

012-

134.

65%

7.18

%

Unr

estr

icte

d U

ndes

igna

ted

380,

449

650,

000

991,

979

Tot

al u

nres

tric

ted

appr

oxim

atel

y th

e sa

me.

3.78

%

605,

722

341,

979

2,1

18,8

62 St

ockb

ridg

e m

ore

relia

nt o

n fu

nd b

alan

ce in

bud

get.

Mad

ison

is o

ver t

he 4

.0%

fund

bal

ance

lim

it.

23A

ppro

pria

ted

Fund

Bal

ance

for O

ther

Pur

pose

s

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 72

-

FUN

D B

ALA

NCE

FOR

TH

E YE

AR

EN

DED

JU

NE

30, 2

012

MA

DIS

ON

CE

NT

RA

L S

CH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

TFU

ND

BA

LA

NC

E

0%

0%0%

0%

Tota

lR

eser

ves

50%

App

ropr

iate

d Fu

nd

Bal

ance

to R

educ

e Ta

xes

in 2

012-

1311

%Tota

l Unr

estir

cted

:28

% STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

EN

TR

AL

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

FUN

D B

AL

AN

CE

0%

0%0%

0%

Tota

l Res

erve

s57

%

App

ropr

iate

d Fu

nd B

alan

ce to

R

educ

e T

axes

in

2011

-12

20%

Tota

l Unr

estir

cted

:26

%

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 73

-

Fina

ncia

l Cha

ract

eris

tic/ E

lem

ent

Mad

ison

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

Obs

erva

tion/

Item

s to

not

e or

con

side

r:

118 9 101

Deb

t Per

Stu

dent

580

839

Estim

ated

Aid

Per

Stu

dent

10,5

74

15

,947

2 3 4

713,

978

190,

186

Fund

s A

vaila

ble:

12

OU

TSTA

ND

ING

DEB

TA

S O

F JU

NE

30, 2

012

5 6 7

Net

Deb

t Per

Stu

dent

(1,0

21)

450

Mus

t be

used

to p

ay fu

ture

deb

t ser

vice

ex

pens

e.D

ebt S

ervi

ce F

und

Fund

s A

vaila

ble

Per S

tude

nt1,

601

389

Incl

udes

10%

bui

ldin

g in

cent

ive

aid.

Tota

l Est

imat

ed D

ebt P

er S

tude

nt11

,154

16,7

87

Bui

ldin

g A

id %

94.8

%95

.0%

Tota

l Est

imat

ed D

ebt

4,97

4,53

78,

208,

699

Mad

ison

has

net

fixe

d as

sets

of $

9,90

9,00

0.

Stoc

kbrid

ge h

as n

et fi

xed

asse

ts o

f $1

8,33

8,00

0.

Ant

icip

ated

Bon

ding

on

Proj

ects

Thes

e en

rollm

ent n

umbe

rs a

re fr

om 2

010-

2011

.

Seria

l Bon

ds D

ue a

t 6-3

0-12

4,

974,

537

8,20

8,69

9

Enro

llmen

t

446

489

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 74

-

Mad

ison

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

1G

ener

al F

und

Exce

ss R

even

ues O

ver E

xpen

ditu

res L

ast T

wo

Yea

rs?

2011

- N

o

2012

- Y

es20

11 -

No

20

12 -

Yes

Bot

h di

stric

ts h

ad e

xces

s exp

endi

ture

s in

2011

whi

ch

cam

e ou

t of f

und

bala

nce

($46

,530

for M

adis

on,

$26,

449

for S

tock

brid

ge).

2St

ate

and

Fede

ral A

id /

Tota

l Rev

enue

62.7

0%73

.37%

Stoc

kbrid

ge m

ore

depe

nden

t on

Stat

e A

id a

s a re

venu

e.

3K

-12

Publ

ic S

choo

l Enr

ollm

ent i

nclu

ding

Cha

rter S

choo

ls44

648

9Th

ese

enro

llmen

t num

bers

are

from

201

0-20

11.

4G

ener

al F

und

Expe

nditu

res p

er P

upil

$18,

351

$18,

513

Am

ount

s con

siste

nt.

5D

ebt S

ervi

ce a

s a %

of E

xpen

ditu

res

11.9

2%16

.14%

Stoc

kbrid

ge d

ebt s

ervi

ce is

hig

her d

ue to

new

bui

ldin

g co

nstru

ctio

n an

d m

ore

reno

vatio

ns. H

owev

er,

Stoc

kbrid

ge fi

xed

asse

ts n

et o

f dep

reci

atio

n ar

e al

so

high

er.

6Pe

rcen

t of U

nexp

ende

d 20

12 B

udge

t8.

3%7.

3%

7Pe

rcen

t of R

even

ue U

nder

Bud

get

-2.9

%

820

12 E

xces

s (D

efic

it) R

even

ues a

nd E

xpen

ditu

res t

o B

udge

t5.

5%7.

3%

9%

of P

upils

Elig

ible

for F

ree/

Red

uced

Pric

e Lu

nche

s 46

.0%

45.4

%Th

e nu

mbe

rs u

sed

to d

eriv

e th

ese

perc

enta

ges w

ere

take

n fro

m 2

010-

2011

.

10Sc

hool

Lun

ch F

und

Bal

ance

at J

une

30, 2

012

$25,

573

$94,

507

Mad

ison

had

a n

et lo

ss in

201

2 of

$8,

554.

11Sc

hool

Lun

ch S

ubsi

dy fr

om G

ener

al F

und?

No

No

12O

ther

Pos

t-Em

ploy

men

t Ben

efits

$588

,893

$341

,086

Hea

lth in

sura

nce

for p

rem

ium

s ret

irees

.

13To

tal M

edic

al In

sura

nce

expe

nse.

$1,3

94,2

01$1

,304

,194

Am

ount

s inc

lude

retir

ee p

rem

ium

s.

FIN

AN

CIA

L H

EALT

H C

OM

PARI

SON

AS

OF

JUN

E 30

, 201

2

IND

ICA

TO

RS

SCH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

TO

BSE

RV

AT

ION

S


C. SES STUDY TEAM

- 75 -

DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION

ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2011


April 2012



- 76 -

2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OCTOBER 1, 2011

GRADE LEVEL Madison Elementary Stockbridge Valley Elementary

17 18 17 16 PRE-K

12 PRE-K Range 17 12-18

PRE-K Average 17 16

17 20 KINDERGARTEN18 19

K Range 17-18 19-20 K Average 18 20

17 17 GRADE 117 19

GRADE 1 Range 17 17-19 GRADE 1 Average 17 18

14 17 GRADE 214 16

GRADE 2 Range 14 16-17 GRADE 2 Average 14 17

21 12 GRADE 321 12

GRADE 3 Range 21 12 GRADE 3 Average 21 12

20 17 GRADE 421 18

GRADE 4 Range 20-21 17-18 GRADE 4 Average 21 18

18 27 GRADE 518


GRADE LEVEL 21 20 GRADE 618 19




- 77 -

2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR GRADES 7-12 ENGLISH CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2011

*Please note that each district has senior students who achieve their senior English requirement as part of their Career Technical Education Program at the Madison-Oneida BOCES and not at the home school.

ENGLISH CLASSES GRADE LEVEL Madison High School

Stockbridge Valley

High School 15 18 GRADE 713 24


15 16 GRADE 818 17


24 22 GRADE 922 26


14 20 GRADE 1016 19


21 24 GRADE 119 25


GRADE 12* 20 16




- 78 -

TEACHER CONTRACT LANGUAGE REFERENCES TO CLASS SIZE

Madison CS

There are no specific sections of Board Policy or clauses/pages in the contract with the Faculty Association.

Stockbridge Valley CS

Page 9H of the contract with the Stockbridge Valley Teacher Association states: The class size for each elementary teacher should not exceed 25 pupils per class. If the average class size for an elementary grade level exceeds 25, an aide will be made available to assist those classroom teachers affected for a period of time deemed reasonable by those teachers. Page 9I of the contract with the Stockbridge Valley Teacher Association states: The class size for each instructional period in Grades 7-12 should not exceed 30 pupils with supervisory periods limited to 40 pupils per teacher. The District realizes these numbers to be excessive for optimum educational achievement, and will strive to keep the classes below these levels.



- 79 -


COMMITTEE:

AVAILABLE PUPIL CAPACITY OF EACH SCHOOL BUILDING FOR

POSSIBLE USE IN A REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT


April 2012

Data: Initial Overall View of the Pupil Capacity of Each Existing School Building

- 80 -

Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, and Format


Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.

SES Study Team

DATA

- 81 -

SOURCE OF DATA: Inventory of each instructional and instructional support space by each principal/superintendent based on how the space is used to deliver the kindergarten through grade twelve educational program in 2011-2012.

Classrooms used to deliver pre-kindergarten and pre-school are also included.

ASSUMPTIONS: The method and assumptions for estimating pupil capacity per existing school

building for potential use by a reorganized school district includes:

The pupil capacity analysis is based on delivering instruction with the following class size goals:

Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-School) 18 pupils Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils Grades 2 and 3: 22 pupils Grades 4, 5, and 6: 24 pupils Grades 7-12: 25 pupils

(Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for such specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the board)-and 25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a classroom will host class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less specialized.)

Spaces now designated for instructional support are generally assumed to continue for instructional support.

Pre-kindergarten and pre-school are assumed to continue to be a part of the program. State Education Department guidelines are applied in calculating the number of pupils

that a specific type of classroom should serve. Unassigned pupil capacity is planned for in each school building to allow for flexibility in

delivering the program and/or to add an instructional support function or additional programs not now in place.

The analysis, at the present time, does not include renting classrooms to the BOCES to host consortium shared programs.

Current spaces used for central administration are not ‘re-claimed’ for instructional program pupil capacity at this time.

It is assumed for this pupil capacity analysis that there are no renovations to change existing space or the building of new additional space.

DATA

- 82 -

ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR A REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Calculation Year Grades

K-6 Grades

7-12 TOTAL GRADES


PLANNING CURRENT COMBINED

ENROLLMENT OF THE TWO DISTRICTS

2011-2012

491 467 958

2012-2013 480 470 950 2013-2014 482 450 932 2014-2015 463 449 912 2015-2016 459 425 884


2016-2017 456 417 873

2012-2013 480 470 950 2013-2014 481 450 931 2014-2015 483 449 932 2015-2016 484 425 909


2016-2017 495 417 912

2012-2013 492 470 962 2013-2014 505 450 954 2014-2015 513 449 962 2015-2016 529 425 954


2016-2017 554 417 970

DATA

- 83 -

Madison K-6 Pupil Capacity

Stockbridge K-6 Pupil Capacity

Madison 7-12 Pupil Capacity

Stockbridge 7-12 Pupil Capacity

336 312 363 375 Pre-K/Pre-School: 18 (36 half day)

Pre-K/Pre-School: 54 (108 half day)

Total K-6 Pupil Capacity Currently Available:

Total 7-12 Pupil Capacity Currently Available:

648 738 Anticipated K-6 Pupil Capacity Need

in five years: Anticipated 7-12 Pupil Capacity Need

in five years: 456-554 417

DISTRICT: MADISON

EXISTING K-6 ELEMENTARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION:

Use or Subject Size (Sq. ft.) Minimum standard elementary class sq. footage is 770.

Number of Existing Rooms (SED pupil capacity rating each):

Number of Grade level classes with assumed Class Size Goals:

Pre-K: 18 K and gr. 1: 20

Gr. 2 and 3: 22 Gr. 4,5,6: 24

Special ed: 12:1:1

Pupil Capacity Calculated Based on Assumed Class Size Goals

Plus 1000’ 1 Pre-K: Half-day 36 900’ to 999’ 10 1 Full day 18 770’ to 899’ 4 700’ to 769’ 0 K-1: Below 700’ 0 4 80 Grades 2-3: 4 88 Grades 4-6: 6 144 Special Needs self-contained: 460’* 1 768’ 1 2 24 *denotes below standard square footage

Pre-K to 6th (over 550 square feet)

Total Grade level

Instructional Rooms

15

15

Special Needs 2 (12:1:1) 2 ESTIMATED NET K-6 PUPIL CAPACITY 336 pupils

EXISTING ELEMENTARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity) Computer Lab 1120 Art 616 K-12 Stage 1196

DATA

- 84 -

Vocal music Occupational Therapy

K-12 Cafeteria 3216

Instrumental music Physical Therapy

Library K-12 2204 Speech

528

School psychologist

Gym 3800 of 7600 Reading 240 Social worker 221 Reading 256 Resource 288 (Existing offices, faculty work rooms, nurse, storage, operations and maintenance spaces, bathrooms, kitchen, locker rooms and similar spaces are assumed to be continued as used.)

DISTRICT: MADISON

EXISTING 7-12 SECONDARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION Use or Subject No. of rooms Size (Sq. Ft.) Square feet per

pupil station; maximum pupil stations (SED Building Aid Guidelines)

Functional Pupil Capacity Assumed Class Size Goal of 25 pupils per classroom or SED guideline, which ever is smaller.

Pupil Capacity by SED guidelines to determine Building Aid Units

1 720 Ag shop and CR 1 1512

75 sq ft = 20 max

1 736 Art

45 sq ft = 25 max

Business Ed

35 sq ft = 24 max

Computer CR

35 sq. ft = 24 max

Distributive Ed

50 sq ft = 20 max

Keyboarding

35 sq ft = 24 max

1 1054 Home & Careers

50 sq ft = 24 max

Music: Classroom 25 sq ft = 30

max

Instrumental 1 1050 25 sq ft x .4 Vocal 1 768 20 sq ft x .4

1 588 Technology 1 1800

75 sq ft = 24 max

Mech. Drawing & CAD

35 sq ft = 25 max

Science: General

30 sq ft = 30 max

1 896 Earth

30 sq ft = 30 max

1 1200 Biology (Living Environment)

50 sq ft = 24 max

Chemistry 1 840 50 sq ft =

DATA

- 85 -

24 max Physics

50 sq ft = 24 max

Library 2204 Reading Rm 900

25 sq ft max of 15% ps-ic

Phys Ed: 1st station- up to 500 pupils

1 3800 48 x 66 (3168) max 30

2nd station- 501 – 1000 pupils

48 x 66 (3168) max 30

Each additional- 500 pupils or fraction

36 x 52 (1872) Max 30

Pool Max 30 Study Hall if so

designated 16.5 sq ft max of 40% ps ic

Use or Subject No. of rooms Size (Sq. Ft.) Square feet per pupil station; maximum pupil stations (SED Building Aid Guidelines)



4-math 840 736

26 sq. ft = 30 max

720 806 4-English/foreign language

1440

1344 1260 340 2-social studies 414

Interchangeable Classrooms

420 State Education Department capacity methodology for a junior/senior high school having 25 or fewer teaching stations:

1. Ascertain the total number of teaching stations used only for English, social studies, mathematics, languages, health education and general or early science (not biology or physics).

2. Multiply this total by 33. 11 x 33

EQUALS TOTAL PUPIL CAPACITY OF THE 7-12 portion of the SCHOOL BUILDING: 363 EXISTING SECONDARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity) Computer lab 645 Guidance X Auditorium Special Needs Resource Rooms

320 Cafeteria K-12 x

K-12 Faculty workroom x

DATA

- 86 -

DISTRICT: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY

EXISTING K-6 ELEMENTARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION:

Use or Subject Size (Sq. ft.) Minimum standard elementary class sq. footage is 770.

Number of Existing Rooms (SED pupil capacity rating each):

Number of Grade level classes with assumed Class Size Goals:

Pre-K: 18 K and gr. 1: 20

Gr. 2 and 3: 22 Gr. 4,5,6: 24

Special ed: 12:1:1

Pupil Capacity Calculated Based on Assumed Class Size Goals

Plus 1000’ 0 Pre-K and Pre-school: Half-day 108 900’ to 999’ 3 3 Full day 54 770’ to 899’ 14 700’ to 769’ 0 K-1: Below 700’ 0 4 80 Grades 2-3: 4 88 Grades 4-6: 5 120 Unassigned classroom: 1 24 Special Needs self-contained:

Pre-K to 6th (over 550 square feet)

Total Grade level

Instructional Rooms

17

17

Special Needs 0 0 ESTIMATED NET K-6 PUPIL CAPACITY 312 pupils

Computer Lab 806 Y Program 535 Art 922 Conference room 529 Stage x Vocal music Occupational

Therapy

Cafeteria K-12 3196

Instrumental music Physical Therapy

Library 924 Speech School psychologist

Gym 3815 Reading Social worker Public Library 816 ELA Resource 819 Math Resource 810 (Existing offices, faculty work rooms, nurse, storage, operations and maintenance spaces, bathrooms, kitchen, locker rooms and similar spaces are assumed to be continued as used.)

DATA

- 87 -

DISTRICT: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY

EXISTING 7-12 SECONDARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION Use or Subject No. of rooms Size (Sq. Ft.) Square feet per

pupil station; maximum pupil stations (SED Building Aid Guidelines)



1 771 Ag shop and CR 1 1801

75 sq ft = 20 max

1 944 Art

45 sq ft = 25 max

1 805 Business Ed

35 sq ft = 24 max

Computer CR

35 sq. ft = 24 max

Distributive Ed

50 sq ft = 20 max

Keyboarding

35 sq ft = 24 max

1 1205 Home & Careers

50 sq ft = 24 max

Music: Classroom 25 sq ft = 30

max

Instrumental 1 1180 25 sq ft x .4 Vocal 1 815 20 sq ft x .4

1 873 Technology

75 sq ft = 24 max

Mech. Drawing & CAD

35 sq ft = 25 max

Science: General

30 sq ft = 30 max

1 1260 Earth

30 sq ft = 30 max

1 1205 Biology (Living Environment)

50 sq ft = 24 max

1 1187 Chemistry

50 sq ft = 24 max

Physics

50 sq ft = 24 max

Library 1251 600 Reading Rm

25 sq ft max of 15% ps-ic

Phys Ed: 1st station- up to 500 pupils

1 8538 48 x 66 (3168) max 30

2nd station- 501 – 1000 pupils

48 x 66 (3168) max 30

Each additional- 36 x 52 (1872)

DATA

- 88 -

500 pupils or fraction Max 30 Pool Max 30

Study Hall if so designated

16.5 sq ft max of 40% ps ic

Use or Subject No. of rooms Size (Sq. Ft.) Square feet per pupil station; maximum pupil stations (SED Building Aid Guidelines)



3-math 805 803

26 sq. ft = 30 max

807 3-English/foreign language

810

810 839 3-social studies 810 810

Interchangeable Classrooms

815 Health 810 State Education Department capacity methodology for a junior/senior high school having 25 or fewer teaching stations:

3. Ascertain the total number of teaching stations used only for English, social studies, mathematics, languages, health education and general or early science (not biology or physics).

4. Multiply this total by 33. 11 x 33

EQUALS TOTAL PUPIL CAPACITY OF THE 7-12 portion of the SCHOOL BUILDING: 363 Special Education: 12:1:1; 541’ (below standard square footage) 12 EXISTING SECONDARY SPACES “reserved” FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity) Computer lab 839 Guidance 455 K-12Auditorium 3480 Stage 1740 Computer lab 639 In-school suspension 232 Cafeteria -12 x Special Needs Resource

810 K-12 Faculty workroom 660

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

C

. SE

S S

TUD

Y T

EA

M

-- 8

9 --

DA

TA

FO

R D

ISC

USS

ION

BY

TH

E J

OIN

T C

OM

MM

UN

ITY

A

DV

ISO

RY

CO

MM

ITT

EE

:

SUM

MA

RY

RE

SUL

TS

OF

TH

E 2

010-

11

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ND

ITIO

N S

UR

VE

YS

(BC

S)

M

AD

ISO

N C

S ST

OC

KB

RID

GE

VA

LL

EY

CS

Augu

st 2

012

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

C

. SE

S S

TUD

Y T

EA

M

-- 9

0 --

SUM

MA

RY

OF

TH

E 2

010-

11

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

SUR

VE

YS

Mad

ison

St

ockb

ridg

e V

alle

y

B

uild

ing:

Pr

eK-1

2 B

uild

ing

K-1

2 B

uild

ing

Item

s jud

ged

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y:

(The

re a

re n

o ‘n

on-fu

nctio

ning

’ or ‘

criti

cal f

ailu

re’

item

s ide

ntifi

ed in

the

surv

ey.)

Est $

70,0

00 ie

: Poi

ntin

g of

ext

erio

r wal

ls

($30

,000

)

Est $

482,

000

ie: M

ain

park

ing

area

s ($4

20,0

00);

side

wal

ks ($

42,0

00);

com

mon

are

a ca

rpet

($20

,000

)

Estim

ated

cap

ital c

onst

ruct

ion

ex

pens

es a

ntic

ipat

ed th

roug

h

2015

-201

6 in

clud

ing

“Ite

ms j

udge

d un

satis

fact

ory”

Est $

100,

000

ie: r

epai

r ext

erio

r wal

ls ($

70,0

00)

Est $

2,52

7,00

0 ie

: cat

ch b

asin

($15

,000

); pl

aygr

ound

($

14,0

00);

tenn

is c

ourts

($12

0,00

0); r

econ

stru

ct

firep

roof

ing

($18

,000

); lo

cker

s ($1

6,00

0); r

epla

ce d

oor

hing

es ($

44,0

00);

stai

r tre

ads (

$17,

000)

; ele

vato

r VC

T ($

1000

); lig

htin

g fix

ture

s ($1

5,00

0); w

all b

eam

su

ppor

ts ($

30,0

00);

repl

ace

roof

($1,

501,

000)

; caf

eter

ia

air h

andl

ing

unit

($75

,000

); up

grad

e fir

e al

arm

syst

em

($70

,000

); up

grad

e sm

oke

dete

ctio

n ($

80,0

00)

Bui

ldin

g:

A

g L

ab F

acili

ty

Item

s jud

ged

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y:

(The

re a

re n

o ‘n

on-fu

nctio

ning

’ or ‘

criti

cal f

ailu

re’

item

s ide

ntifi

ed in

the

surv

ey.)

Non

e

Estim

ated

cap

ital c

onst

ruct

ion

ex

pens

es a

ntic

ipat

ed th

roug

h

2015

-201

6 in

clud

ing

“Ite

ms j

udge

d un

satis

fact

ory”

Est $

184,

000

ie: f

ence

nea

r pro

pane

tank

($30

00);

side

wal

k do

or p

ads (

$100

0); b

oile

r doo

r ($2

000)

; in

terio

r ele

ctric

al o

utle

ts ($

20,0

00) a

nd c

ontro

ls

($25

,000

); re

plac

e ex

terio

r doo

rs ($

14,0

00) &

win

dow

s ($

6000

); re

plac

e so

me

roof

pan

els (

$20,

000)

; add

se

cond

boi

ler (

$30,

000)

; sm

oke

dete

ctio

n sy

stem

($

8000

); up

grad

e em

erge

ncy

light

ing

($10

,000

); ac

cess

ibili

ty ($

35,0

00)

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

C

. SE

S S

TUD

Y T

EA

M

-- 9

1 --

SUM

MA

RY

OF

TH

E 2

010-

11

BU

ILD

ING

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

SUR

VE

YS

Mad

ison

St

ockb

ridg

e V

alle

y

Bui

ldin

g:

Bus

Gar

age

(200

1)

Bus

gar

age

Item

s jud

ged

unsa

tisfa

ctor

y:

(The

re a

re n

o ‘n

on-fu

nctio

ning

’ or ‘

criti

cal f

ailu

re’

item

s ide

ntifi

ed in

the

surv

ey.)

Est $

3000

(sid

ewal

ks)

N

one

Es

timat

ed c

apita

l con

stru

ctio

n

expe

nses

ant

icip

ated

thro

ugh

20

15-2

016

incl

udin

g

“Ite

ms j

udge

d un

satis

fact

ory”

Non

e

Est $

180,

000

ie: u

pgra

de e

lect

rical

pan

el b

oard

($

26,0

00);

upgr

ade

light

ing

($18

,000

); re

pair

was

h ba

y ($

3000

); re

plac

e O

H d

oors

($30

,000

); re

plac

e w

indo

w

($20

00);

reco

at ro

of ($

25,0

00);

repi

pe b

oile

r ($4

000)

; bo

iler s

witc

h ($

3000

); up

grad

e ex

haus

t sys

tem

($

60,0

00);

emer

genc

y lig

hts (

$900

0)

DA

TA

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

C

. SE

S S

TUD

Y T

EA

M

-- 9

2 --

The

Bui

ldin

g C

ondi

tion

Surv

ey (B

CS)

is a

faci

lity

revi

ew p

roce

ss to

be

cond

ucte

d ev

ery

five

year

s as r

equi

red

by th

e N

ew Y

ork

Stat

e Ed

ucat

ion

Dep

artm

ent.

A li

cens

ed a

rchi

tect

or e

ngin

eer h

as c

ompl

eted

the

surv

ey fo

r eac

h of

the

build

ings

with

in th

e tw

o sc

hool

dis

trict

s of t

he st

udy.

The

re

are

114

item

s on

the

surv

ey.

The

vario

us c

ateg

orie

s of i

tem

s inc

lude

que

stio

ns a

bout

:

Spac

e ad

equa

cy

Si

te u

tiliti

es a

nd fe

atur

es

Su

bstru

ctur

e (e

x. fo

unda

tion)

Bui

ldin

g en

velo

pe

In

terio

r spa

ces

Plum

bing

H

eatin

g, v

entil

atio

n, a

nd a

ir co

nditi

onin

g sy

stem

s Fi

re sa

fety

syst

ems

Acc

essi

bilit

y En

viro

nmen

t/com

fort/

heal

th

Indo

or a

ir qu

ality

R

elat

ion

with

the

Am

eric

an R

ed C

ross

and

em

erge

ncy

shel

ter u

se

The

info

rmat

ion

liste

d ab

ove

is a

sum

mar

y of

exa

mpl

es o

btai

ned

from

the

Bui

ldin

g C

ondi

tion

Surv

eys (

BC

S) c

ompl

eted

dur

ing

the

2010

-11

scho

ol

year

as p

repa

red

by th

e ar

chite

cts a

nd fo

rwar

ded

to S

ED b

y th

e D

istri

cts.

For a

com

plet

e B

uild

ing

Con

ditio

n Su

rvey

that

was

file

d w

ith th

e SE

D,

plea

se c

onta

ct th

e re

spec

tive

dist

rict o

ffic

e. P

leas

e no

te th

at it

is p

ossi

ble

that

som

e of

thes

e ite

ms m

ay h

ave

been

add

ress

ed b

y th

e di

stric

t afte

r the

B

CS

was

file

d.

The

item

s of t

he B

uild

ing

Con

ditio

n Su

rvey

are

rate

d by

the

engi

neer

/arc

hite

ct u

sing

the

follo

win

g sc

ale:

Ex

celle

nt:

Syst

em is

in n

ew o

r lik

e-ne

w c

ondi

tion

and

func

tioni

ng o

ptim

ally

; onl

y ro

utin

e m

aint

enan

ce a

nd re

pair

is n

eede

d.

Satis

fact

ory:

S

yste

m fu

nctio

ning

relia

bly;

rout

ine

mai

nten

ance

and

repa

ir ne

eded

. U

nsat

isfa

ctor

y:

Sy

stem

is fu

nctio

ning

unr

elia

bly

or h

as e

xcee

ded

its u

sefu

l life

. R

epai

r or r

epla

cem

ent o

f som

e or

all

com

pone

nts i

s nee

ded.

N

on-F

unct

ioni

ng:

Syst

em is

non

-fun

ctio

ning

, not

func

tioni

ng a

s des

igne

d, o

r is u

nrel

iabl

e in

way

s tha

t cou

ld e

ndan

ger o

ccup

ant h

ealth

and

/or s

afet

y.

Rep

air o

r rep

lace

men

t of s

ome

or a

ll co

mpo

nent

s is n

eede

d.

Crit

ical

Fai

lure

:

Sam

e at

‘non

-fun

ctio

ning

’ with

the

addi

tion

that

the

cond

ition

of a

t lea

st o

ne c

ompo

nent

is so

poo

r tha

t at l

east

par

t of t

he

build

ing

or g

roun

ds sh

ould

not

be

occu

pied

pen

ding

nee

ded

repa

irs/re

plac

emen

t or s

ome

or a

ll co

mpo

nent

s is n

eede

d

DATA


c.SES STUDY TEAM

- 93 -

DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMMUNITY ADVISORY

COMMITTEES:

PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES

PRE-KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE SIX PROGRAM DELIVERED

IN THE SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012

MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL

SCHOOLS

DATA

- 94 -

ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE SIX PROGRAM

DELIVERED CURRENTLY Program Element

Madison Elementary Program Stockbridge Valley Elementary Program

Pre-Grade level transitions

Pre-K

One am and one pm with appx 17 per class. One FTE teacher and one FTE teacher assistant. Strong support for this program; MCS transports the students.

Run by BOCES-Full day program

K-6 Core Two sections at each grade level. Whenever possible, classes are balanced. Teachers and administrators analyze individual differences, learning styles, and teacher expectations when looking at placing students.

Traditional grade level; decisions regarding students and grade level transitions are based upon academic success, behavior, teacher input, peer interaction, and special needs issues

Combined/ Multi-Age Offerings

Madison uses a traditional grade level configuration, but is considering different instructional models for the future.

SV uses a traditional grade level configuration for instruction

Enrichment Provided by teachers. Summer program for enrichment is provided by Title I funds for a total of 12 school days.

Team-Teaching Options

Art 2X per week Shared w/HS business teacher (2 sections/day @elem)

Vocal Music General Music usually 2X week, 5/6 chorus, small groups and lessons begin in 7th grade

1 section e/o day shared w/7/8

Instrumental Music

Lessons and Band for grades 5/6 1 section e/o day shared w/7/8-Lessons and Band for students in grades 5/6

Physical Education

2X per week for primary and 3X for intermediate (grades 3-6)

Total of 10 sections of PE; all three staff members are shared with the HS

Library, Media 1FTE for K-12. Scheduled classes for library instruction; typically 2 times per week

Shared librarian with HS

Guidance Counseling

K-12 counselor assists social worker with elementary students. (Counselor is also the Athletic Director)

Handled by staff, Principal, and Social Worker as available

Social Worker 1FTE for K-12, CSW BOCES service-provides social work and counseling as needed

Resource Officer

Psychologist BOCES service shared with SV BOCES service-shared with Madison Program Element


Psychiatric Foreign Language

English as a Second Language

Reading Instruction

See remedial reading. Regular reading instruction provided by classroom teacher

Response To Intervention (RTI) is used to identify students who need differentiated instruction. AIMS-WEB assessments are used to benchmark elementary

DATA

- 95 -

students appx every 10 weeks. Speech (non-special needs pupils)

Not normally; services for mandated IEP students .5FTE is purchased through BOCES-deals mostly with IEP mandated speech services, although does speech improvement on a case by case basis

Speech/special needs

Provided on a contract basis through BOCES Provided on a contract basis through BOCES; .5FTE

Remedial Reading

2FTE’s serve K-6 reading and writing See reading instruction

Remedial Math 1FTE for grades 1-8 See reading instruction Remedial Writing

See above under reading See reading instruction

Health Services 1 K-12 nurse; grade 4 receives health instruction 1X week

1 K-12 nurse

Physical Therapy

Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis

Occupational Therapy

Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis

Resource Room for special needs pupils

Indirect consultant, direct consultant, and resource room services are offered K-12. 1FTE for K-5, 1FTE 6-8, and 1FTE for 9-12

Inclusionary model of instruction for students is used, although there is a 12:1:1 in house program that only pulls students out for math. Primarily used for 7-9 students.

Special needs-self-contained classrooms

2 autistic students are served in the home district. 1 12:1:1 Preschool student is served at SV and one student is served at UCP

BOCES special ed classroom; center based.

Special needs-integrated

Inclusionary model Inclusionary model

Specialized Academic Programs:

Primary Mental Health

Assisted by Madison County Mental Health Services as needed

Assisted by Madison County Mental Health Services as needed

Elementary Odyssey of the Mind

Program Element


Student Council Have had in the past-first year w/out it in the elementary school

Intramurals 5th and 6th grades, three 5 week sessions, T/Th after school with a late bus provided

Art Club Other Extra Curricular

Soccer, Biddy Ball, Little League and Pee Wee Wrestling are all offered after school and are community sponsored

Drama Club for 4th-6th grades, Spelling Bee for 5th/6th graders, FFA-6th grade students

Yearbook Lap top carts available for classes Computer Lab available Computer Lab available

DATA

- 96 -

DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE

COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES:

PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE

GRADES 7-12 PROGRAM DELIVERED

IN THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR

MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS

June 2012

DA

TA

- 9

7 -

EL

EM

EN

TS

OF

TH

E G

RA

DE

S 7-

12 P

RO

GR

AM

DE

LIV

ER

ED

CU

RR

EN

TL

Y

Prog

ram

E

lem

ents

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y

Eng

lish

7 2

sect

ions

2

sect

ions

SS

7

2 se

ctio

ns

2 se

ctio

ns

Mat

h 7

2 se

ctio

ns fo

r gen

ed

and

½ se

ctio

n fo

r 12:

1:1

mat

h in

stru

ctio

n 2

sect

ions

of r

egul

ar e

d an

d on

e of

adv

ance

d as

wel

l as 1

sect

ion

of 1

2:1:

m

ath

inst

ruct

ion

Scie

nce

7 2

sect

ions

2

sect

ions

E

nglis

h 8

2 se

ctio

ns (s

ame

teac

her f

or 7

th g

rade

-this

hol

ds fo

r all

core

cl

asse

s at g

rade

s 7/8

) 2

sect

ions

SS 8

2

sect

ions

2

sect

ions

M

ath

8 2

sect

ions

2

sect

ions

and

1 se

ctio

n of

12:

1:1

Scie

nce

8 2

sect

ions

for g

en e

d an

d ½

sect

ion

for 1

2:1:

1 m

ath

inst

ruct

ion

2 se

ctio

ns

Oth

er G

r 8

Tec

hnol

ogy

Tech

is ta

ught

at b

oth

grad

es 7

and

8 a

long

with

Agr

icul

ture

for

grad

es 7

and

8 (1

sect

ion

for e

ach

grad

e) a

nd C

aree

rs-2

sect

ions

Te

ch 8

2 se

ctio

ns, L

ibra

ry M

edia

Ski

lls g

rade

s 7/8

2 se

ctio

ns a

nd

Com

pute

r Tec

hnol

ogy

2 se

ctio

ns

Hea

lth

2 se

ctio

ns a

t gra

de 8

taug

ht v

ia B

OC

ES in

stru

ctor

H

ealth

7 fo

r ½ c

redi

t-2 se

ctio

ns

Art

A

rt in

stru

ctio

n at

gra

des 7

and

8, 1

sect

ion

of e

ach

Art

7 1

sect

ion

ever

y 10

wee

ks, A

rt 8

1 se

ctio

n ev

ery

10 w

eeks

L

angu

age

2 se

ctio

ns a

t 7th g

rade

and

2 se

ctio

ns a

t 8th

gra

de

Span

ish

7 an

d Sp

anis

h 8,

2 se

ctio

ns o

f eac

h

Phys

ical

E

duca

tion

2 st

aff t

each

1 se

ctio

n ea

ch a

t the

7th

and

8th

gra

de le

vels

3

staf

f tea

ch g

rade

s 7/8

PE

Hom

e an

d C

aree

rs

7th g

rade

2 se

ctio

ns

FCS

grad

e 6

2 se

ctio

ns fo

r a ½

cre

dit,

FCS

7 1

sect

ion

ever

y 10

wks

for ¼

cr

edit

and

FCS

8 sa

me

as 7

In

stru

men

tal

Mus

ic

8th g

rade

, 2 se

ctio

ns

7/8

Ban

d pl

us le

sson

s

Voc

al M

usic

7/8

Cho

rus,

Mus

ic 7

1 se

ctio

n ev

ery

10 w

eeks

, Mus

ic 8

1 se

ctio

n ev

ery

10

wee

ks

9-12

Eng

lish

2 se

ctio

ns o

f 9/1

0/11

and

1 se

ctio

n of

Eng

lish

12 a

s wel

l as o

ne

sect

ion

of S

ocio

logy

En

glis

h 9,

10,

11

2 se

ctio

ns o

f eac

h, E

nglis

h 12

has

1 se

ctio

n, a

lso

AIS

En

glis

h, P

ract

ices

of A

cade

mic

Writ

ing

and

Intro

duct

ion

to Is

sues

of

Crit

ical

Rea

ding

9-

12 S

S SS

9 a

nd 1

0 w

ith 2

sect

ions

eac

h, U

S H

ist,

2 se

ctio

ns, a

nd o

ne

sect

ion

of G

over

nmen

t SS

9 a

nd 1

0 5

sect

ions

, US

His

tory

2 se

ctio

ns, G

over

nmen

t and

Ec

onom

ics,

US

His

tory

2, P

sych

olog

y, H

isto

ry th

roug

h Fi

lm a

nd

Ant

hrop

olog

y Pr

ogra

m

Ele

men

ts

MA

DIS

ON

ST

OC

KB

RID

GE

VA

LL

EY

9-12

Mat

h Pr

e al

gebr

a, In

tro A

lgeb

ra, A

lgeb

ra II

, Geo

met

ry, A

pplie

d G

eom

etry

, Pre

-Cal

c an

d C

alcu

lus,

Mat

h 11

/12

Pre-

Alg

ebra

, Alg

ebra

, Geo

met

ry, A

lgeb

ra 2

/Trig

, Mat

h To

pics

, Sen

ior

Mat

h, P

re-C

alc,

Cal

culu

s, A

IS M

ath

9-12

Sci

ence

B

iolo

gy, F

ield

Nat

ural

His

tory

, Che

mis

try, P

hysi

cs, F

oren

sics

B

iolo

gy, C

hem

istry

, For

ensi

cs, S

cien

ce T

hrou

gh H

isto

ry, P

hysi

cs,

Ast

rono

my,

Pla

net E

arth

, Myt

h-B

uste

rs, E

arth

Sci

ence

DA

TA

- 9

8 -

Bus

ines

s B

usin

ess M

anag

emen

t and

Bus

ines

s Int

erns

hip

C

aree

r and

Fin

anci

al M

anag

emen

t, A

ccou

ntin

g, D

eskt

op P

ublis

hing

Tec

hnol

ogy

Man

ufac

turin

g Sy

stem

s, A

rchi

tect

ural

Dra

win

g, M

echa

nica

l Sy

stem

s and

Woo

d Te

ch

Car

eer a

nd F

inan

cial

Mgm

t, W

ood

Wor

king

Hea

lth

1 se

ctio

n av

aila

ble

HS

Hea

lth

Lan

guag

e Sp

anis

h II

and

Spa

nish

III

Span

ish

I, II

, III

Ph

ysic

al

Edu

catio

n 2

teac

hers

for t

otal

of 6

sect

ions

2F

TE’s

for 5

sect

ions

eac

h

Hom

e an

d C

aree

rs

1 se

ctio

n of

FC

S is

ava

ilabl

e En

trepr

eneu

rshi

p, In

tern

atio

nal F

oods

, Clo

thin

g an

d H

ousi

ng, H

uman

D

evel

opm

ent,

Food

Sci

ence

In

stru

men

tal

Mus

ic

1 se

ctio

n 9-

12 B

and

plus

less

ons

Voc

al M

usic

1

sect

ion

9-12

Cho

rus

Art

St

udio

Art,

Adv

ance

d A

rt, a

nd In

depe

nden

t Art

Stud

y A

dver

tisin

g, S

tudi

o A

rt, D

igita

l Pho

togr

aphy

, Illu

stra

tion

and

Des

ign,

D

raw

ing

and

Pain

ting

Car

eer

and

Tec

hnic

al

Prog

ram

s

B

acky

ard

Ag,

Wild

life,

Intro

to H

ortic

ultu

re, A

g M

echa

nics

, En

viro

nmen

tal S

cien

ce, B

asic

Ag,

Ag

Prod

uctio

n, E

quin

e Sc

ienc

e

Adv

ance

d Pl

acem

ent

Cou

rses

Oth

er

Opp

ortu

nitie

s, ex

co

llege

spon

sore

d pr

ogra

ms

Dua

l Cre

dit C

ours

e O

ffer

ings

: En

glis

h 10

1, M

usic

The

ory,

Cal

culu

s, A

dvan

ced

Bio

, A

stro

nom

y

Intro

to Is

sues

of C

ritic

al R

eadi

ng (S

UPA

), Pr

actic

es o

f Aca

dem

ic W

ritin

g (S

UPA

), U

s His

t 1 (S

UPA

), U

S H

ist 2

(SU

PA),

Cal

culu

s (M

VC

C),

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sci

ence

(Mor

risvi

lle),

Ag

Mec

hani

cs (M

orris

ville

), A

nthr

opol

ogy,

Ani

mal

Sci

ence

(Mor

risvi

lle),

Ag

Bus

ines

s (M

orris

ville

)

Cou

rses

pro

vide

d by

te

leco

nfer

enci

ng

or o

ther

dis

tanc

e le

arni

ng

prog

ram

s

Prog

ram

E

lem

ents

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y

Lis

t of S

ingl

eton

s by

Sub

ject

Nam

e w

ith le

ss th

an 1

4 pu

pils

enr

olle

d

Ast

rono

my-

12, E

nglis

h 10

1-13

, Soc

iolo

gy-1

1, F

oren

sic

Scie

nce-

9, M

anuf

actu

ring

Syst

ems-

10, T

ech

Dra

win

g-13

, Ph

ysic

s-8,

Woo

d Te

ch-6

, Tra

ns S

yste

ms-

10, A

gri-B

usin

ess-

7,

Bus

ines

s Mgm

t-12,

App

lied

Geo

met

ry-1

1, In

tro to

Ag

Skill

s-6,

A

lg/T

rig-5

, Fie

ld a

nd N

atur

al S

cien

ce-1

1, A

nim

al S

cien

ce-7

, A

dvan

ced

Bio

-7, C

alc-

10, D

ram

a-12

, Mus

ic T

heor

y-6,

FC

S-10

Inte

grat

ed A

lg (1

2:1:

1)-2

, Pre

-Alg

ebra

(12:

1:1)

-4, D

raw

ing

and

Pain

ting-

9, A

dver

tisin

g an

d D

esig

n-9,

Art

Inte

rnsh

ip-1

, Illu

stra

tion

and

Des

ign-

6,

Dig

ital P

hoto

grap

hy-4

, WR

T 10

5 Pr

actic

es o

f Aca

dem

ic W

ritin

g-5,

Intro

to

Issu

es o

f Crit

ical

Writ

ing-

5, In

tro to

Issu

es o

f Crit

ical

Rea

ding

-5,

Span

ish

I-12

DA

TA

- 9

9 -

Clu

bs

Sr C

lass

-28-

stip

end

Jr. C

lass

-29-

stip

end

Soph

Cla

ss-3

0-st

ipen

d St

uden

t Cou

ncil-

20-S

Te

chno

logy

-46-

durin

g sc

hool

FF

A-6

5-S

FFA

-30-

S (G

rade

s 7/8

) N

HS-

10-S

N

JHS-

11-S

Y

earb

ook-

25-S

D

ram

a C

lub-

30-S

Jr

Cho

rus-

45-D

urin

g Sc

hool

Sr

Cho

rus-

45-D

urin

g Sc

hool

A

rt C

lub-

30-D

urin

g Sc

hool

Sp

orts

Clu

b-11

6 SA

DD

-Dur

ing

Scho

ol-1

0

Stud

ent C

ounc

il-27

-Stip

end

HS

FFA

-80-

S Jr

Hig

h FF

A-3

5-S

NH

S-27

-S

NJH

S-24

-S

Yea

rboo

k-17

-S

Scie

nce

Clu

b-38

-S

Mat

h C

lub-

25-S

Sp

ellin

g B

ee-1

7-S

Fres

h C

lass

-50-

S So

ph C

lass

-39-

S Jr

Cla

ss-4

8-S

Sr C

lass

-44-

S M

ulti-

Cul

tura

l Clu

b-12

-S

Teen

Inst

itute

-S

Col

or G

uard

-5-S

Intr

amur

al

Spor

ts M

/F

Inte

rsch

olas

tic

Spor

ts M

/F

See

char

t on

Spor

ts P

rogr

ams

See

char

t on

spor

ts p

rogr

ams

Mus

ic D

ram

a M

arch

ing

Ban

d-40

-S

Jazz

Ban

d-18

-Bef

ore

Scho

ol

Sele

ct C

horu

s-17

-Bef

ore

Scho

ol

Cha

mbe

r Ban

k-7-

Bef

ore

Scho

ol

Elem

enta

ry M

usic

al-3

5-In

Sch

ool

Mar

chin

g B

and-

30-S

M

ixed

Cho

rus-

26-S

SV

CS

Sing

ers S

elec

t Cho

rus-

18-S

C

once

rt C

hoir-

In S

choo

l-46

Dra

ma

Clu

b-45

-S

Win

d En

sem

ble-

26-I

n Sc

hool

Sy

mph

ony

Ban

d-20

-In

Scho

ol

Elem

enta

ry B

and-

5/6-

33-I

n Sc

hool

Ja

zz B

and-

10-I

n Sc

hool

C

omm

unity

Cho

rus-

42-E

veni

ngs

Dru

mlin

e-S

Spee

ch

Con

tract

ed th

roug

h B

OC

ES

Con

tract

ed th

roug

h B

OC

ES, .

5 FT

E Pr

ogra

m

Ele

men

ts

MA

DIS

ON

ST

OC

KB

RID

GE

VA

LL

EY

Cou

nsel

ing

1 FT

E G

uida

nce

Cou

nsel

or fo

r K-1

2 C

ontra

cted

thro

ugh

BO

CES

, .6

FTE

Res

ourc

e R

oom

In

dire

ct a

nd D

irect

con

sulta

nt se

rvic

es a

nd re

sour

ce ro

om a

re

offe

red

K-1

2. 1

FTE

for 6

-8 a

nd 1

FTE

for 9

-12

Bes

ides

the

12:1

:1 w

ith a

Mat

h Fo

cus,

all c

lass

es a

re b

uilt

arou

nd

an in

clus

ion

mod

el

Phys

ical

The

rapy

C

ase

by C

ase

cont

ract

ed th

roug

h B

OC

ES

BO

CES

, 1 h

our p

er w

eek

Occ

upat

iona

l T

hera

py

Cas

e by

Cas

e co

ntra

cted

thro

ugh

BO

CES

B

OC

ES, .

2 FT

E

Psyc

holo

gist

B

OC

ES c

ontra

cted

shar

ed w

ith S

V

BO

CES

, .4

FTE

Psyc

hiat

rist

DA

TA

- 1

00 -

Soci

al W

orke

r 1F

TE S

ocia

l Wor

ker

BO

CES

, .4F

TE

Self-

Con

tain

ed

2 12

:1:1

cla

sses

on

site

12

:1:1

on

site

O

ut o

f Dis

tric

t O

ppor

tuni

ties

1 12

:1:1

at B

OC

ES a

s wel

l as a

n 8:

1:1

UC

P se

rves

1 st

uden

t 12

:1:1

at B

OC

ES c

ente

r

N

ote:

AIS

serv

ices

are

pro

vide

d w

ithin

the

sche

dule

by

gene

ral

ed te

ache

rs

DA

TA

- 1

01 -

D

AT

A F

OR

DIS

CU

SSIO

N B

Y T

HE

JO

INT

C

OM

MM

UN

ITY

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIT

TE

ES:

CU

RR

EN

T 2

011-

2012

PR

OG

RA

M E

LE

ME

NT

S:

GR

AD

ES

7-12

INT

ER

SCH

OL

AST

IC A

TH

LE

TIC

S C

LU

BS

AN

D D

RA

MA

/MU

SIC

MA

DIS

ON

CS

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

S

July

201

2

DA

TA

- 1

02 -

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y

SP

EC

IFIC

GR

AD

ES

7-12

IN

TE

RSC

HO

LA

STIC

AT

HL

ET

IC

AC

TIV

ITY

N

UM

BE

RS

OF

PUPI

LS

WH

O P

AR

TIC

IPA

TE

Pr

ovid

ed in

201

0-11

pr

ogra

m a

nd n

ot in

20

11-1

2 pr

ogra

m (x

)

Mod

Soc

cer

– B

oys

16

15

JV

Soc

cer

– B

oys

No

Prog

ram

16

Var

sity

Soc

cer

– B

oys

19

23

M

od F

B

5 @

Wat

ervi

lle

No

Prog

ram

JV F

B

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty F

B

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

M

od X

C –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

XC

– B

oys

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

JV

Ten

nis –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

Ten

nis –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Mod

Bas

ketb

all -

Boy

s 15

(com

bine

d as

7/8

team

) 17

(com

bine

d as

7/8

team

)

7th G

rade

BB

– B

oys

X

X

8th

Gra

de B

B –

Boy

s

X

X

JV B

B –

Boy

s 11

12

Var

sity

BB

– B

oys

10

13

JV

Vol

leyb

all –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

Vol

leyb

all –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Mod

Wre

stlin

g 4

@ M

EC

S N

o Pr

ogra

m

JV

Wre

stlin

g N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

Wre

stlin

g 5

@ M

EC

S N

o Pr

ogra

m

M

od B

owlin

g –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

JV B

owlin

g –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

Bow

ling

– B

oys

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty In

door

Tra

ck

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

M

od B

aseb

all

15

24

JV

BB

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

BB

15

16

Mod

Tra

ck –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

DA

TA

- 1

03 -

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E

VA

LL

EY

SPE

CIF

IC G

RA

DE

S 7-

12

INT

ER

SCH

OL

AST

IC A

TH

LE

TIC

A

CT

IVIT

Y

N

UM

BE

RS

OF

PUPI

LS

WH

O P

AR

TIC

IPA

TE

Pr

ovid

ed in

201

0-11

pr

ogra

m a

nd n

ot in

20

11-1

2 pr

ogra

m (x

)

Var

sity

Tra

ck –

Boy

s N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Gol

f 1

@ W

ater

ville

13

(boy

s and

gir

ls)

M

od S

occe

r –

Gir

ls

16

14

JV

Soc

cer

– G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

15

V

arsi

ty S

occe

r –

Gir

ls

18

15

M

od C

ross

Cou

ntry

– G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

XC

– G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Mod

Fie

ld H

ocke

y N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

JV F

ield

Hoc

key

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty F

ield

Hoc

key

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty T

enni

s – G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Mod

Vol

leyb

all –

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

23

7th G

r V

olle

ybal

l – G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

12

8th

Gr

Vol

leyb

all –

Gir

l N

o Pr

ogra

m

11

JV

Vol

leyb

all –

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

10

Var

sity

Vol

leyb

all -

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

11

Che

erle

adin

g –

Fall

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

M

od B

aske

tbal

l – G

irls

15

(com

bine

d 7/

8)

14 (c

ombi

ned

7/8)

7th G

rade

BB

– G

irls

X

X

8th G

rade

BB

– G

irls

X

X

JV B

aske

tbal

l – G

irls

13

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty B

B –

Gir

ls

11

8

Mod

Bow

ling

– G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

JV B

owlin

g –

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty B

owlin

g –

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

JV

Che

erle

adin

g –

Win

ter

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty C

heer

lead

ing

– W

inte

r 9

16

DA

TA

- 1

04 -

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E

VA

LL

EY

SPE

CIF

IC G

RA

DE

S 7-

12

INT

ER

SCH

OL

AST

IC A

TH

LE

TIC

A

CT

IVIT

Y

N

UM

BE

RS

OF

PUPI

LS

WH

O P

AR

TIC

IPA

TE

Pr

ovid

ed in

201

0-11

pr

ogra

m a

nd n

ot in

20

11-1

2 pr

ogra

m (x

) V

arsi

ty In

door

Tra

ck -

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

M

od S

oftb

all

17

23

JV

SB

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Var

sity

SB

15

13

Mod

Tra

ck –

Gir

ls

No

Prog

ram

N

o Pr

ogra

m

V

arsi

ty T

rack

– G

irls

N

o Pr

ogra

m

No

Prog

ram

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

Tea

ms

19 (4

with

oth

er sc

hool

s)

25

T

otal

Num

ber

of P

AR

TIC

IPA

NT

S-

DU

PLIC

AT

ED

CO

UN

T

230

325

2011

-201

2 to

tal g

rade

s 7-

12 e

nrol

lmen

t und

uplic

ated

cou

nt

24

9

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E

VA

LL

EY

Pr

ovid

ed in

201

0 -1

1 pr

ogra

m a

nd n

ot in

20

11-1

2 pr

ogra

m (x

) C

lubs

18

1 M

usic

Dra

ma

4

*N

UM

BER

DEN

OTE

S TH

E N

UM

BER

OF

PUPI

LS W

HO

PA

RTI

CIP

ATE

.

DA

TA

- 1

05 -

INT

ER

SCH

OL

AST

IC A

ND

CO

-CU

RR

ICU

LA

R P

RO

GR

AM

CO

STS

FOR

201

1-20

12

IN

TE

RSC

HO

LA

STIC

AT

HL

ET

ICS

2011

-201

2 M

AD

ISO

NST

OC

KB

RID

GE

V

AL

LE

Y

Tota

l num

ber o

f pai

d ST

IPEN

D p

ositi

ons i

n 20

11-2

012

16

25

Tota

l $ o

f pai

d st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$49,

356

$68,

158

Tota

l FIC

A p

aid

on st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$3,7

75

$5,2

14

Tota

l ret

irem

ent p

aid

on st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$4,2

50

$5,8

75

TOTA

L PE

RSO

NN

EL E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

2011

-201

2 $5

7,38

1 $7

9,24

7 T

OTA

L A

THLE

TIC

SU

PPLI

ES, E

QU

IPM

ENT,

FEE

S FO

R IN

TER

SCH

OLA

STIC

ATH

LETI

CS

2011

-201

2 $7

,385

$1

7,76

2 TO

TAL

BU

SIN

G C

OST

S FO

R IN

TER

SCH

OLA

STIC

ATH

LETI

CS

2011

-201

2 $1

2,08

8 $1

3,88

6 TO

TAL

CO

STS

FOR

OFF

ICIA

LS 2

011-

2012

$1

7,09

6 $1

8,47

5 T

OT

AL

CO

STS

INT

ER

SCH

OL

AST

IC A

TH

LE

TIC

S 20

11-2

012

$93,

950

$1

29,3

70

20

11-2

012

tota

l gra

des

7-12

enr

ollm

ent u

ndup

licat

ed c

ount

20

0

249

Per p

upil

expe

nditu

re 2

0112

012

$470

$5

19

Tot

al N

umbe

r of

IN

TE

RSC

HO

LA

STIC

AT

HL

ET

ICS

PAR

TIC

IPA

NT

S- D

UPL

ICA

TE

D C

OU

NT

23

0 32

5 Pe

r In

ters

chol

astic

ath

letic

par

ticip

ant e

xpen

ditu

re 2

011-

2012

$4

08

$398

C

O-C

UR

RIC

UL

AR

PR

OG

RA

M

(NO

T IN

CL

UD

ING

MU

SIC

AN

D D

RA

MA

) 201

1-20

12

MA

DIS

ON

ST

OC

KB

RID

GE

V

AL

LE

Y

Tota

l num

ber o

f pai

d ST

IPEN

D p

ositi

ons i

n 20

11-2

012

8 16

To

tal $

of p

aid

stip

ends

in 2

011-

2012

$1

0,01

5 $3

2,59

2 To

tal F

ICA

pai

d on

stip

ends

in 2

011-

2012

$7

66

$2,4

93

Tota

l ret

irem

ent p

aid

on st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$862

$2

,809

TO

TAL

PER

SON

NEL

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E 20

11-2

012

$11,

643

$37,

894

TO

TAL

SUPP

LIES

, EQ

UIP

MEN

T, F

EES

FOR

CO

-CU

RR

ICU

LAR

201

1-20

12

$0

$243

3 SU

BT

OT

AL

CO

STS

CO

-CU

RR

ICU

LA

R 2

011-

2012

: $1

1,64

3 $4

0,32

7

DA

TA

- 1

06 -

MU

SIC

AN

D D

RA

MA

CO

-CU

RR

ICU

LA

R P

RO

GR

AM

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E

VA

LL

EY

To

tal n

umbe

r of p

aid

STIP

END

pos

ition

s in

2011

-201

2 2

20

Tota

l $ o

f pai

d st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$3,2

84

$12,

092

Tota

l FIC

A p

aid

on st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$251

$6

23

Tota

l ret

irem

ent p

aid

on st

ipen

ds in

201

1-20

12

$190

$7

02

TOTA

L PE

RSO

NN

EL E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

2011

-201

2 $3

,725

$1

3,41

7 T

OTA

L M

USI

C A

ND

DR

AM

A C

O-C

UR

RIC

ULA

R S

UPP

LIES

, EQ

UIP

MEN

T, F

EES

FOR

201

1-20

12

0 $9

,658

T

OT

AL

BU

SIN

G C

OST

S FO

R C

O-C

UR

RIC

UL

AR

and

MU

SIC

AN

D D

RA

MA

201

1-20

12

$535

$8

,722

T

OT

AL

CO

STS

CO

-CU

RR

ICU

LA

R a

nd M

USI

C A

ND

DR

AM

A C

O-C

UR

RIC

UL

AR

201

1-20

12:

$15,

903

$63,

402

20

11-2

012

tota

l gra

des

7-12

enr

ollm

ent u

ndup

licat

ed c

ount

20

0 24

9

Per p

upil

2011

-201

2 $7

9.52

$2

54.6

3

DATA

- 107 -


COMMITTEE:

2007-2011 STUDENT REPORT CARDS: SUMMARY OF

ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE & HIGH SCHOOL

ASSESSMENT RESULTS

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS MADISON CS

JULY, 2012

DATA

- 108 -

Performance on the State assessments in English Language Arts (ELA),

mathematics, and science at the elementary and middle levels is reported in terms of mean

scores and the percentage of tested students scoring at or above Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4.

About the Performance Level Descriptors

Level 1: Not Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance does not demonstrate an

understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.

Level 2: Partially Meeting Learning Standards.

Student performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the content expected

in the subject and grade level.

Level 3: Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance demonstrates an understanding of the content expected

in the subject and grade level.

Level 4: Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction. Student performance demonstrates a

thorough understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.

DATA

- 109 -

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT

LEVELS *

2010-11 2009-10

TEST NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

GR 3 ELA 38 97 68 0 31 94 65 29

GR 3 MATH 38 95 63 3 31 97 68 26

GR 4 ELA 25 100 64 0 41 95 39 2

GR 4 MATH 25 100 64 16 41 98 51 15

GR 4 SCIENCE 25 100 100 72 41 98 98 76

GR 5 ELA 40 93 50 3 37 97 51 8

GR 5 MATH 40 98 60 13 37 97 54 14

GR 6 ELA 39 97 64 3 32 91 56 0

GR 6 MATH 39 92 38 10 32 94 69 19

GR 7 ELA 38 92 34 0 46 93 52 13

GR 7 MATH 38 95 61 16 46 91 72 35

GR 8 ELA 49 92 27 2 49 92 27 4

GR 8 MATH 49 96 63 8 49 90 41 4

GR 8 SCI 49 96 73 27 48 98 73 15 2008-09 2007-08

TEST NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

GR 3 ELA 42 95 81 7 42 95 81 12

GR 3 MATH 43 100 95 23 39 95 95 23

GR 4 ELA 37 95 78 3 40 88 45 0

GR 4 MATH 38 92 92 32 38 89 74 8

GR 4 SCI 38 97 95 84 37 97 89 43

GR 5 ELA 35 94 77 6 45 93 76 11

GR 5 MATH 34 97 91 12 45 93 78 13

GR 6 ELA 45 100 82 9 50 100 74 0

GR 6 MATH 45 98 89 9 48 96 79 4

GR 7 ELA 46 100 83 7 48 98 81 2

GR 7 MATH 47 100 91 17 48 100 92 31

GR 8 ELA 45 100 67 0 46 98 65 4

GR 8 MATH 45 100 91 18 47 98 87 21

GR 8 SCI 45 100 84 22 46 100 96 46 * New York State Education Department Accountability & Overview Report NO. TESTED = ALL STUDENTS

DATA

- 110 -

MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS *

2010-11 2009-10

TEST NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

GR 3 ELA 38 92 47 5 35 86 54 9

GR 3 MATH 38 95 42 5 35 83 37 14

GR 4 ELA 34 85 59 9 43 91 56 0

GR 4 MATH 34 88 71 41 43 98 56 19

GR 4 SCIENCE 33 100 88 48 43 100 95 44

GR 5 ELA 39 90 62 13 32 91 56 13

GR 5 MATH 39 90 62 10 32 88 44 13

GR 6 ELA 29 93 66 0 37 84 62 11

GR 6 MATH 29 93 62 24 37 92 62 22

GR 7 ELA 36 92 56 6 48 98 60 13

GR 7 MATH 35 91 63 23 49 98 67 14

GR 8 ELA 45 98 60 0 36 86 44 3

GR 8 MATH 45 87 31 2 36 92 61 6

GR 8 SCI 45 100 87 22 34 91 88 15 2008-09 2007-08

TEST NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

GR 3 ELA 41 93 76 7 35 94 77 14

GR 3 MATH 41 100 98 17 35 97 94 26

GR 4 ELA 34 100 82 12 39 92 67 10

GR 4 MATH 34 88 74 29 40 90 75 23

GR 4 SCI 34 100 94 44 41 100 88 39

GR 5 ELA 40 100 88 23 45 100 89 0

GR 5 MATH 40 98 80 13 46 98 72 7

GR 6 ELA 45 100 100 0 41 98 63 0

GR 6 MATH 46 100 87 7 40 93 73 3

GR 7 ELA 42 100 76 5 32 100 78 3

GR 7 MATH 41 100 95 15 34 100 91 32

GR 8 ELA 34 100 74 6 34 94 38 0

GR 8 MATH 34 100 91 18 35 83 77 11

GR 8 SCI 34 100 88 24 34 94 82 18 * New York State Education Department Accountability & Overview Report NO. TESTED = ALL STUDENTS

DATA

- 111 -

MADISON – STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY HIGH SCHOOL REGENTS EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE *

NUMBER TESTED

% AT OR ABOVE 55

% AT OR ABOVE 65

% AT OR ABOVE 85

REGENTS

YEAR

MADISON SV MADISON SV MADISON SV MADISON SV 10-11 30 43 87 100 80 98 40 56 09-10 38 37 95 97 92 92 32 49

COMPREHEN. ENGLISH

08-09 34 40 100 98 91 90 32 23 10-11 39 42 92 93 85 93 5 5 09-10 20 46 100 98 95 98 10 28

INTEGRATED ALGEBRA

08-09 49 39 98 100 88 95 12 23 10-11 8 20 63 79 63 65 13 15 09-10 19 14 79 75 79 79 11 36

ALGEBRA 2/ TRIG

08-09 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 10-11 10 29 90 100 70 100 30 31 09-10 18 29 100 97 94 93 28 34

GEOMETRY

08-09 37 0 70 - 51 - 8 - 10-11 36 43 81 93 75 86 31 51 09-10 32 44 94 98 75 98 31 59

GLOBAL HISTORY

08-09 46 41 93 95 87 90 22 44 10-11 26 44 100 98 92 95 50 70 09-10 40 33 93 100 90 97 38 61

US HISTORY & GOV. 08-09 34 41 100 100 91 95 44 46

10-11 37 44 100 100 95 89 38 25 09-10 32 80 84 99 78 99 38 46

LIVING ENVIRON.

08-09 37 36 92 92 89 89 35 28 10-11 27 33 93 100 89 97 44 61 09-10 22 4 100 - 100 - 55 -

EARTH SCIENCE

08-09 30 45 100 87 90 80 37 29 10-11 12 21 92 95 75 81 25 24 09-10 15 12 93 100 67 83 13 0

CHEMISTRY

08-09 25 15 84 100 60 80 20 0 10-11 4 7 - 100 - 57 - 0 09-10 13 8 85 88 62 75 15 13

PHYSICS

08-09 8 8 88 100 50 88 25 25 10-11 19 17 100 100 100 88 47 41 09-10 11 12 100 100 100 100 55 33

SPANISH

08-09 13 16 100 100 100 100 62 19 10-11 0 0 09-10 0 0

FRENCH

08-09 0 0 * From New York State Education Department Report Cards Comprehensive Information Report

DATA

- 112 -

MADISON – STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY FEASIBILITY STUDY

HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMAS ^ YEAR OF

GRAD DIPLOMA TYPE MADISON

STOCKBRIDGE

VALLEY

2010-11 TOTAL GRADUATES 40 29 REGENTS 34 (85%) 28 (97%) REGENTS ADVANCED DISTINCTION 9 (23%) 7 (24 %) IEP 1 NA 2 NA APPROVED HS EQUIVALENT PREP 0 0 2009-10 TOTAL GRADUATES 34 41 REGENTS 31 (91%) 39 (95%) REGENTS ADVANCED DISTINCTION 11 (32%) 16 (39%) IEP 0 NA 0 NA APPROVED HS EQUIVALENT PREP 0 0 2008-09 TOTAL GRADUATES 46 31 REGENTS 39 (85%) 29 (94%) REGENTS ADVANCED DISTINCTION 10 (22%) 12 (39%) IEP 0 NA 1 NA APPROVED HS EQUIVALENT PREP 1 1

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES * YEAR ** COHORT COUNT

MADISON STOCKBRIDGE

VALLEY

2007 ALL STUDENTS 38 42 (2003 COHORT) GRADUATION

RATE % 92% 90%


RATE % 83% 88%


RATE % 100% 86%


RATE % 83% 91%

^ From New York Education Department Comprehensive Information Reports * From New York Education Department Report Cards Accountability & Overview Reports ** Percentage of the Cohort that earned a local or Regents diploma by August 31 four years later

SAMPLE OF POST SECONDARY PURSUITS

DATA

- 113 -

MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL 2009-2012 GRADUATES 2009-2012 Military Vocational Two-year Schools Four-year Colleges

Army Marines Coast Guard

None SUNY Morrisville SUNY Alfred Herkimer CC Onondaga CC Mohawk Valley CC Ohio Technical Coll Lincoln Tech Finger Lakes CC Tompkins Cortland CC St Elizabeth Nursing Art Institute of America

SUNY Cortland SUNY IT SUNY Oneonta SUNY Plattsburgh Clarkson University Clark University Wells College Roberts Wesleyan Wagner College Cornell University LeMoyne College Rochester Institute of Technology Paul Smiths St Lawrence University Elmira College Albany School of Pharmacy Gannon University Hobart/William Smith Utica College University of Rochester

SAMPLE OF POST SECONDARY PURSUITS

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL 2009-2012 GRADUATES 2009-2012 Military Vocational Two-year Schools Four-year Colleges

ROTC - Air Force ROTC - Navy Air Force Marines

OHM BOCES Universal Tech Institute

Onondaga CC SUNY Alfred Mohawk Valley CC SUNY Morrisville SUNY Cobleskill Herkimer CCC Finger Lakes CC Paul Smiths Utica School of Commerce Monroe CC

Keuka College Cazenovia College SUNY New Paltz Clarkson Univ SUNY Canton SUNY Potsdam SUNY IT SUNY Buffalo SUNY Brockport Savannah College Art and Design Utica College SUNY Oneonta SUNY Cortland SUNY Maritime Rochester Institute of Technology St John Fisher LeMoyne College

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

DATA

- 114 -

What instructional programs are in place now that address helping students achieve at least a 3 or 4 on the State Assessments? What other instructional programs not now in place could help increase the number of students who achieve at least a 3 or 4 on the State Assessments? What instructional programs are in place now that address helping students achieve a high school diploma? What other instructional programs not now in place could help increase the number of students who achieve a high school diploma? What other instructional programs not now in place could help students have the skill sets and goal setting skills to consider a higher education opportunity after high school graduation? What other instructional programs not now in place could help the students—who choose not to pursue higher education options after high school graduation—have marketable employability skills for the work place as a major part of their high school programs for graduation? What added high school learning opportunities might increase the success of reducing the number of high school graduates who do not return to a college program after their freshman year? What added high school learning opportunities might increase the success of the current efforts to:

Enlarge the range of higher education options that are academically considered for attendance by high school graduates of both school districts?

Enlarge the range of higher education options that are financially considered for attendance by high school graduates of both school districts?

DATA

- 115 -

Prepared by the SES Study Team on August 2, 2012

STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS *--FOLLOWING ARE THE ANNUAL RESULTS OF THE BASE STUDENT

POPULATION YEAR OF 2007-2008 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PUPILS YEAR –TO-YEAR

MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS THOSE IN THE BASE YEAR OF 2007-2008)

MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY

TEST YEAR NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

NO. TESTED

LEVEL 2-4

LEVEL 3-4

LEVEL 4

GR 3 ELA 07-08 35 94% 77% 14% 42 95% 81% 12%

GR 3 MATH 07-08 35 97% 94% 26% 39 95% 95% 23%

GR 4 ELA 08-09 34 100% 82% 12% 37 95% 78% 3%

GR 4 MATH 08-09 34 88% 74% 29% 38 92% 92% 32%

GR 4 SCIENCE 08-09 34 100% 94% 44% 38 97% 95% 84%

GR 5 ELA 09-10 32 91% 56% 13% 37 97% 51% 8%

GR 5 MATH 09-10 32 88% 44% 13% 37 97% 54% 14%

GR 6 ELA 10-11 29 93% 66% 0% 39 97% 64% 3%

GR 6 MATH 10-11 29 93% 62% 24% 39 92% 38% 10% * New York State Education Department Accountability & Overview Report NO. TESTED = ALL STUDENTS

DATA

- 116 -

DATA

- 117 -

DATA

- 118 -

DATA

- 119 -

DATA

- 120 -

DATA

- 121 -

DATA

- 122 -

DATA

- 123 -

DATA

- 124 -

DATA

- 125 -

DATA

- 126 -

DATA

- 127 -

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

S

ES

STU

DY

TE

AM

- 128

-

DA

TA

FO

R D

ISC

USS

ION

BY

TH

E

C

OM

MM

UN

ITY

AD

VIS

OR

Y C

OM

MIT

TE

ES:

◊ ‘Q

AN

D A

’ AB

OU

T T

HE

PR

OC

ESS

WIT

H R

EG

AR

D T

O P

ER

SON

NE

L W

HE

N A

SC

HO

OL

DIS

TR

ICT

R

EO

RG

AN

IZA

TIO

N O

CC

UR

S T

HR

OU

GH

CO

NSO

LID

AT

ION

◊ PR

OFI

LE

OF

MA

JOR

EL

EM

EN

TS

OF

INST

RU

CT

ION

AL

AN

D IN

STR

UC

TIO

NA

L S

UPP

OR

T L

AB

OR

C

ON

TR

AC

TS

IN P

LA

CE

IN T

HE

TW

O D

IST

RIC

TS

FO

R T

HE

201

2-20

13 S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

R

◊

TO

TA

L F

UL

L T

IME

EQ

UIV

AL

EN

T P

ER

SON

NE

L E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

S B

Y E

AC

H S

CH

OO

L D

IST

RIC

T

BE

NC

HM

AR

KE

D T

O T

HE

201

1-20

12 S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

R

◊ A

VE

RA

GE

TO

TA

L F

UL

L T

IME

EQ

UIV

AL

EN

T P

ER

SON

NE

L E

XPE

ND

ITU

RE

S A

CR

OSS

BO

TH

SC

HO

OL

D

IST

RIC

TS

BE

NC

HM

AR

KE

D T

O T

HE

201

1-20

12 S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

R

◊

FUL

L T

IME

EQ

UIV

AL

EN

T O

F ST

AFF

WH

O H

AV

E L

EFT

TH

E D

IST

RIC

TS

FOR

AL

L R

EA

SON

S E

XC

EPT

R

ED

UC

TIO

N IN

FO

RC

E F

OR

TH

E S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

RS

2007

-200

8 T

HR

OU

GH

201

0-20

11

MA

DIS

ON

CS

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

S

Augu

st 2

012

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

S

ES

STU

DY

TE

AM

- 129

-

C

opyr

ight

201

2 A

s to

Ori

gina

l Tex

t, an

d Fo

rmat

A

ll R

ight

s Res

erve

d

Aut

hori

zed

in p

erpe

tuity

for

the

excl

usiv

e us

e fo

r pl

anni

ng b

y th

e M

adis

on a

nd S

tock

brid

ge V

alle

y C

entr

al S

choo

l Dis

tric

ts,

thei

r Su

peri

nten

dent

s and

by

all g

over

nmen

t age

ncie

s to

whi

ch th

e di

stri

cts p

rovi

de th

e st

udy.

Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district.


- 130 -

Labor Relations Implications Of School District Reorganization

(August, 2012)

The following information is based on guidance materials from the State Education Department and general principles of public sector employment law. This document does not contain legal advice and should not be considered a legal opinion. For legal advice, the districts should contact their respective attorney counsels. 1. Q: If two or more school districts reorganize into one school district, what happens to the employees of

the former school districts?

Each teacher employed by a former school district becomes an employee of the new school district. Employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law by a former school district may have varying rights in the new school district, depending on their civil service class (competitive, non-competitive, labor, etc.).

2. Q: What happens to the collective bargaining agreements of the former school districts? The contracts end. The terms of those agreements may become elements of new agreements with the new

school district. The new school district and the new bargaining units’ bargaining agents must make a good faith effort to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements. While new collective bargaining agreements are negotiated, the provisions of the previous contracts are used by the new district.

3. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of teachers? Teachers are credited with seniority earned within a particular tenure area. When school districts

centralize, the seniority lists are merged so that the new school district has only one seniority list per tenure area.

4. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law? Competitive class employees are credited with seniority in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Other

employees may have seniority rights set forth in their collective bargaining agreements. 5. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer teachers? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce teaching positions on the basis of seniority

within a particular tenure area. If a teaching position is abolished, the affected individual is placed on a preferred eligible list for a period of seven years.

6. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer civil service employees? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce competitive class positions on the basis of

seniority as set forth in the Civil Service Law. Current collective agreements that cover civil service employees may have additional reduction in force references.

7. Q: What happens to the administrators of the former school districts? Although the guidance materials from the State Education Department specifically reference the seniority

rights of teachers only, there is some reason to believe the seniority rights of school administrators may be



- 131 -

handled in a similar manner. In addition, since school administrator tenure areas may vary from district to district, the actual impact of these rights by individual job title/role is a case-by-case analysis.

8. Q: What happens to the superintendents of the former school districts? Superintendents of the former districts do not have any statutory rights to that position in the new district.

The new school district board of education may select its own new superintendent. When the superintendent of a district included in the reorganization has a current employment contract, that contract becomes an obligation of the newly reorganized school district. If the newly reorganized district determines not to employ the superintendent of a former school district, the new district may discharge the contractual obligation by paying the salary which he or she would have earned, less any income obtained from employment elsewhere during the term of the contract.

9. Q: What happens to the retirement benefits of the employees of the former school districts? Retirement benefits associated with the retirement system remain unchanged. Retirement benefits

associated with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement are governed by the terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. Individuals who are already retired from a school district may have certain retiree health insurance protections contained in Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009. Chapter 504 prohibits reduction of health insurance for retirees and their dependents unless there is a corresponding reduction of benefits or contributions for the corresponding group of active employees.

10. Q: Are there other considerations relating to labor relations?

When two or more school districts reorganize into a new school district, it is possible that the local bargaining units are represented by different bargaining agents. It is important for the school districts and local bargaining units to work with their labor relations experts.

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 132

-

PRO

FIL

E O

F M

AJO

R E

LE

ME

NT

S O

F A

LL

INST

RU

CT

ION

AL

LA

BO

R C

ON

TR

AC

TS

IN P

LA

CE

IN B

OT

H

DIS

TR

ICT

S FO

R T

HE

201

2-20

13 S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

R A

S O

F A

UG

UST

201

2

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: H

ours

per

Day

N

ot to

exc

eed

7 ho

urs a

nd 2

0 m

inut

es

8 a.

m. t

o 3:

16 p

.m. (

7 ho

urs 1

6 m

inut

es);

on d

ays i

mm

edia

tely

pr

eced

ing

vaca

tion,

the

day

will

last

un

til th

e la

st re

gula

rly sc

hedu

led

perio

d (2

:34)

for t

hat d

ay

Tea

cher

Loa

d

Ele

men

tary

U

ndiv

ided

50

min

ute

plan

ning

pe

riod

per d

ay, a

n ad

ditio

nal 5

0 m

inut

e pl

anni

ng p

erio

d pe

r wee

k,

and

a 30

min

ute

colla

bora

tive

plan

ning

per

iod

per d

ay; d

uty-

free

30

min

ute

lunc

h; n

o te

ache

r sc

hedu

led

mor

e th

an 3

hou

rs a

nd 2

0 m

inut

es w

ithou

t lun

ch o

r pre

p pe

riodD

uty-

free

lunc

h of

at l

east

30

min

utes

; at

leas

t one

pre

p pe

riod

per d

ay;

subj

ect t

o su

perin

tend

ent a

ppro

val,

may

be

gran

ted

four

½ d

ays p

er y

ear

for p

urpo

se o

f sta

ff-d

evel

opm

ent,

grad

e-le

vel p

lann

ing

and/

or

curr

icul

um d

evel

opm

ent

Seco

ndar

y U

ndiv

ided

50

min

ute

plan

ning

pe

riod

per d

ay, a

n ad

ditio

nal 5

0 m

inut

e pl

anni

ng p

erio

d pe

r wee

k,

and

a 30

min

ute

colla

bora

tive

plan

ning

per

iod

per d

ay; d

uty-

free

30

min

ute

lunc

h; N

ot re

quire

d to

te

ach

mor

e th

an 6

cla

sses

of 5

0 m

inut

es e

ach

day;

requ

ired

to

supe

rvis

e on

e 50

min

ute

stud

y ha

ll or

in-s

choo

l sus

pens

ion

supe

rvis

ion

if le

ss th

an 6

teac

hing

ass

ignm

ents

th

at d

ay

Dut

y-fr

ee lu

nch

of a

t lea

st 3

0 m

inut

es;

elem

enta

ry te

ache

rs h

ave

at le

ast o

ne

prep

arat

ion

perio

d ea

ch d

ay; h

igh

scho

ol te

ache

rs h

ave

six

teac

hing

cl

ass a

ssig

nmen

ts a

nd a

t lea

st te

n pr

epar

atio

n pe

riods

eac

h w

eek

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 133

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: Su

bstit

ute

Vol

unte

er

Teac

hers

will

rece

ive

$20

an h

our o

r a

frac

tion

ther

eof (

i.e.,

$10

for 3

0 m

inut

es)

In th

e el

emen

tary

, tea

cher

s will

re

ceiv

e $3

5 pe

r pla

nnin

g pe

riod

to

subs

titut

e (4

0 m

inut

es) w

ith a

max

. pa

ymen

t of $

100,

if th

e si

tuat

ion

calls

fo

r ext

ende

d co

vera

ge; I

n th

e hi

gh

scho

ol, t

each

ers w

ill re

ceiv

e $3

5 fo

r on

e pe

riod

of 3

8 to

43

min

utes

.

Vac

anci

es

Perm

anen

t ful

l-tim

e pr

ofes

sion

al

posi

tions

will

be

post

ed o

n a

bulle

tin

boar

d in

the

teac

her’

s roo

m a

nd a

no

tice

sent

to th

e A

ssoc

iatio

n Pr

esid

ent;

the

dist

rict g

ives

co

nsid

erat

ion

to: (

in o

rder

) (1)

pr

ofes

sion

al b

ackg

roun

d, (2

) ex

perie

nce,

(3) a

ttain

men

ts o

f the

ap

plic

ant,

(4) s

enio

rity;

if n

o ap

plic

ants

foun

d, th

e le

ast s

enio

r te

ache

r in

the

affe

cted

tenu

re a

rea

will

fill

the

vaca

ncy

Post

ed in

the

Dis

trict

for 5

wor

king

da

ys; i

nter

este

d em

ploy

ees s

hall

notif

y th

e D

istri

ct in

writ

ing;

pos

tings

sh

all b

e in

the

Dis

trict

off

ice

and

staf

f ro

om; A

ssoc

iatio

n Pr

esid

ent s

hall

also

be

pro

vide

d a

copy

Tra

nsfe

rs

V

olun

tary

No

late

r tha

n M

arch

1, a

teac

her

desi

ring

a ch

ange

shal

l file

a w

ritte

n st

atem

ent r

eque

stin

g a

chan

ge;

requ

ests

are

hon

ored

bas

ed o

n qu

alifi

catio

ns, c

ertif

icat

ion,

bes

t in

tere

sts o

f the

Dis

trict

and

av

aila

bilit

y

Invo

lunt

ary

N

o te

ache

r sha

ll be

invo

lunt

arily

tra

nsfe

rred

or r

eass

igne

d ou

t of h

is/h

er

tenu

re a

rea

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 134

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: L

ayof

fs

The

Dis

trict

shal

l giv

e an

em

ploy

ee

a 60

cal

enda

r day

writ

ten

notic

e if

his/

her p

ositi

on is

to b

e ab

olis

hed

or

redu

ced;

em

ploy

ee sh

all b

e ab

le to

co

nver

t sic

k da

ys in

to a

seve

ranc

e st

ipen

d at

the

rate

of $

25 p

er d

ay.

Lea

ves

Si

ck D

ays/

Acc

umul

atio

n A

ll te

ache

rs w

ill re

ceiv

e 12

day

s of

sick

leav

e ea

ch S

epte

mbe

r; do

ctor

an

d de

ntis

t app

oint

men

ts w

ill b

e ch

arge

d ag

ains

t sic

k le

ave

(up

to

max

. of 2

84)

For r

easo

ns o

f per

sona

l illn

ess,

inju

ry

or m

edic

al e

xam

inat

ions

, tea

cher

s are

gi

ven

12 d

ays p

er y

ear;

50%

of

accu

mul

ated

sick

day

s, or

30

per y

ear

(whi

chev

er is

gre

ater

) may

be

used

for

fam

ily il

lnes

s; c

ontin

uous

sick

leav

e in

exc

ess o

f 3 d

ays m

ay re

quire

a

doct

or’s

not

e st

atin

g te

ache

r is a

ble

to

retu

rn to

wor

k

Ber

eave

men

t U

p to

5 d

ays l

eave

with

pay

per

yea

r m

ay b

e us

ed fo

r a d

eath

in th

e im

med

iate

fam

ily (w

ill n

ot b

e de

duct

ed fr

om si

ck le

ave)

; if

addi

tiona

l lea

ve n

eede

d, m

ay b

e gr

ante

d up

to 3

day

s at

Supe

rinte

nden

t’s d

iscr

etio

n

An

addi

tiona

l 5 d

ays p

er o

ccur

renc

e w

ill b

e al

low

ed w

ithou

t los

s of p

ay fo

r a

deat

h in

the

imm

edia

te fa

mily

; ad

ditio

nal d

ays m

ay b

e us

ed (u

p to

3)

from

acc

umul

ated

sick

leav

e w

ith

Supe

rinte

nden

t app

rova

l

Rel

igio

us O

bser

vanc

e

Teac

hers

are

allo

wed

up

to 3

day

s per

sc

hool

yea

r with

out l

oss o

f pay

for

days

of r

elig

ious

obs

erva

nce

of th

eir

faith

whe

n sc

hool

is in

sess

ion

(day

s m

ust a

ppea

r on

Com

mis

sion

er o

f Ed

ucat

ion’

s cal

enda

r as p

ossi

ble

days

of

Rel

igio

us O

bser

vanc

e)

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 135

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: E

mer

genc

y L

eave

Le

ave

with

pay

, not

to e

xcee

d 8

days

pe

r yea

r for

em

erge

ncy

cata

stro

phe

(imm

edia

te fa

mily

sick

ness

, fire

, ac

cide

nt, f

lood

, maj

or c

atas

troph

e,

impa

ssab

le ro

ads,

etc.

); pr

oof m

ay

be re

quire

d. (d

educ

ted

from

ac

cum

ulat

ed si

ck d

ays)

Pers

onal

3

days

of p

aid

pers

onal

leav

e av

aila

ble

to a

ll fu

ll-tim

e un

it em

ploy

ees p

er y

ear;

adm

inis

tratio

n m

ay re

ques

t a re

ason

; oth

er

empl

oyee

s will

be

give

n pe

rson

al

leav

e in

dire

ct p

ropo

rtion

to a

mou

nt

of w

ork

time

3 da

ys o

f per

sona

l lea

ve p

er y

ear (

1 of

th

ese

days

will

requ

ire n

o re

ason

); un

used

per

sona

l day

s will

acc

umul

ate

as u

nuse

d si

ck ti

me

Unp

aid

Lea

ve

A c

ertif

ied

teac

her w

ith te

nure

may

re

ques

t up

to 2

yea

rs le

ave

with

out

pay

and

shal

l inc

lude

the

reas

on fo

r th

e le

ave;

the

Boa

rd h

as th

e so

le a

nd

excl

usiv

e di

scre

tion

to g

rant

or d

eny

the

leav

e

A c

ertif

ied

teac

her o

r tea

chin

g as

sist

ant m

ay re

ques

t in

writ

ing

a le

ave

with

out p

ay a

nd in

clud

e th

e re

ason

; lea

ves s

houl

d no

t exc

eed

1 ye

ar a

nd w

ill b

egin

at t

he e

nd o

f the

se

mes

ter;

max

leav

e tim

e gr

ante

d un

der t

his p

rovi

sion

is 2

yea

rs;

insu

ranc

e co

vera

ge a

vaila

ble

at h

is/h

er

own

expe

nse

Mat

erni

ty/C

hild

rea

ring

Fo

r pre

gnan

cy d

isab

ility

, tea

cher

m

ay u

se n

orm

al a

ccru

ed si

ck le

ave

(may

be

used

for r

eque

sted

leav

e pr

ior t

o pr

egna

ncy

disa

bilit

y);

unpa

id le

aves

of a

bsen

ce fo

r chi

ld

rear

ing

will

com

men

ce o

n th

e da

te

follo

win

g th

e la

st d

ay o

f pre

gnan

cy

disa

bilit

y, o

r on

the

date

of a

dopt

ion;

60

day

s not

ice

requ

ired

for u

npai

d le

ave

and

not f

or m

ore

than

2 y

ears

A te

ache

r who

is p

regn

ant m

ay

requ

est,

and

is e

ntitl

ed to

a m

axim

um

leav

e of

2 y

ears

at a

nytim

e be

twee

n th

e co

mm

ence

men

t of h

er p

regn

ancy

an

d on

e ye

ar a

fter a

chi

ld is

bor

n to

he

r. Th

e te

ache

r may

use

sick

tim

e fo

r th

e pe

riod

of ti

me

her p

hysi

cian

de

ems t

hat a

med

ical

dis

abili

ty e

xist

s. A

dopt

ion

entit

les a

teac

her t

o a

leav

e up

to 2

yea

rs; c

hild

rear

ing

leav

e w

ill

be g

rant

ed fo

r eith

er p

aren

t, re

gard

less

of

the

age

of th

e ch

ild.

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 136

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: In

sura

nce

Pl

ans

Exce

llus P

PO p

lan

Em

ploy

ee’s

%/c

aps

Less

than

3 y

ears

of e

mpl

oym

ent i

n M

adis

on C

SD: b

oard

con

tribu

tes

90%

for i

ndiv

idua

l cov

erag

e an

d 65

% fo

r fam

ily; f

or te

ache

rs in

the

4th fu

ll ye

ar o

f em

ploy

men

t: B

oard

co

ntrib

utes

95%

for i

ndiv

idua

l co

vera

ge a

nd 9

0% fo

r fam

ily

cove

rage

.

Effe

ctiv

e 7/

1/12

the

Dis

trict

will

pay

88

% o

f an

indi

vidu

al p

lan

and

88%

of

a fa

mily

pla

n w

ith th

e em

ploy

ee

payi

ng 1

2% o

f the

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

indi

vidu

al a

nd fa

mily

pla

n pr

emiu

ms.

For

uni

t mem

bers

hire

d pr

ior t

o 7/

1/12

, the

em

ploy

ee

resp

onsi

bilit

y w

ill n

ot e

xcee

d $8

00 fo

r an

indi

vidu

al p

lan

and

$120

0 fo

r a

fam

ily p

lan

prem

ium

Part

-Tim

e em

ploy

ee c

over

age

Cov

erag

e fo

r any

uni

t mem

ber

empl

oyed

mor

e th

an 2

0% b

ut le

ss

than

100

% sh

all b

e pr

orat

ed b

ased

on

the

FTE

of th

e in

divi

dual

Rx

co-p

ays

$10

for T

ier 1

(unl

ess t

he c

ost i

s ac

tual

ly le

ss);

$20

for T

ier 2

pr

efer

red

bran

d na

me;

$35

for T

ier 3

no

n-pr

efer

red

bran

d na

me;

mai

l or

der c

o-pa

ys sh

all b

e 2

co-p

ays f

or

a 90

-day

supp

ly ($

20; $

40; $

70)

$10/

$20/

$35

and

two

copa

ys fo

r 90

day

supp

ly fo

r mai

l ord

er

Opt

-out

M

ust p

rovi

de p

roof

of a

ltern

ativ

e co

vera

ge; m

ust o

pt-o

ut n

o la

ter t

han

Jan

15th; o

pt-o

ut a

mou

nt is

$90

0 fo

r in

divi

dual

and

$2,

400

for f

amily

; if 7

or

mor

e m

embe

rs e

lect

to o

pt-o

ut in

a

give

n ye

ar, t

hen

the

amou

nts w

ill

be $

1,00

0 in

divi

dual

and

$3,

000

fam

ily

Mus

t pro

vide

pro

of o

f alte

rnat

ive

cove

rage

; mus

t opt

-out

bef

ore

Sept

embe

r 1; s

tipen

d is

$1,

250

for

indi

vidu

al a

nd $

2,50

0 fo

r fam

ily; p

aid

annu

ally

in a

lum

p su

m

Flex

Pla

n ye

s ye

s

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 137

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: R

etir

ees

If m

embe

rs o

f the

hea

lth p

lan

for a

t le

ast 1

0 ye

ars,

shal

l hav

e th

eir h

ealth

co

vera

ge c

ontin

ued

into

retir

emen

t; sa

me

perc

enta

ges o

f con

tribu

tion;

re

imbu

rsem

ent o

f Med

icar

e pr

emiu

ms t

o el

igib

le

empl

oyee

s/re

tiree

s; m

ay c

ontin

ue

thei

r den

tal i

nsur

ance

at s

ame

cont

ribut

ion

Dis

trict

will

pay

80%

of t

he in

divi

dual

he

alth

insu

ranc

e pr

emiu

m fo

r ret

irees

; re

tiree

will

pay

20%

. For

the

fam

ily

plan

, the

Dis

trict

will

pro

vide

the

plan

w

ith th

e re

tiree

pay

ing

45%

of t

he

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

cost

of t

he

indi

vidu

al a

nd th

e fa

mily

pla

n; D

enta

l an

d vi

sion

pla

n co

sts w

ill b

e de

term

ined

in th

e sa

me

man

ner a

s he

alth

insu

ranc

e

Vis

ion

Opt

ion

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

Dis

trict

’s

Dav

is V

isio

n Pl

an; D

istri

ct w

ill

cont

ribut

e 50

%

Dis

trict

will

pay

100

% o

f the

in

divi

dual

and

fam

ily v

isio

n pl

an.

Den

tal

Dis

trict

agr

ees t

o co

ntrib

ute

a m

axim

um o

f $16

0 pe

r yea

r per

pa

rtici

patin

g em

ploy

ee fo

r ind

ivid

ual

cove

rage

and

$60

tow

ards

fam

ily

cove

rage

Dis

trict

will

pay

100

% o

f the

in

divi

dual

pre

miu

m fo

r Den

tal P

lan

A.

Den

tal P

lus i

s ava

ilabl

e to

uni

t m

embe

rs; t

he c

ost t

o em

ploy

ee is

the

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

Plus

and

Pla

n A

. Th

e fa

mily

insu

ranc

e pr

emiu

m fo

r D

enta

l Pla

n A

will

be

paid

by

the

dist

rict a

t the

Indi

vidu

al p

rem

ium

rate

.

Hea

lth E

xpen

se r

eim

burs

emen

t M

itiga

tion

Pool

of $

15,0

00 to

off

set

addi

tiona

l cos

ts a

bove

the

co-p

ays

Miti

gatio

n Po

ol o

f $15

,000

to o

ffse

t ad

ditio

nal c

osts

abo

ve th

e co

-pay

s w

ith a

n ad

ditio

nal $

5000

on

7/1/

13 if

th

e po

ol is

less

than

$50

00

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 138

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: R

etir

emen

t Ben

efit

Mus

t hav

e se

rved

a m

inim

um o

f 10

cont

inuo

us y

ears

in M

adis

on C

SD

and

retir

e un

der t

he N

YS

Teac

hers

’ R

etire

men

t Pla

n; m

ust g

ive

writ

ten

notic

e by

Oct

1st; q

ualif

ied

teac

hers

sh

all r

ecei

ve a

tota

l dol

lar a

mou

nt

prio

r to

dedu

ctio

ns e

qual

to ½

of

his/

her r

egul

ar a

nnua

l sal

ary

for

his/

her l

ast f

isca

l yea

r of

empl

oym

ent (

cap

of $

31,0

00),

plus

$6

0 pe

r day

of u

nuse

d si

ck le

ave

(max

. 284

)

A te

ache

r who

not

ifies

the

Dis

trict

by

the

first

day

of s

choo

l in

Febr

uary

that

he

/she

will

retir

e at

the

end

of th

e sc

hool

yea

r will

rece

ive

a $5

,000

bo

nus;

mus

t hav

e 20

yea

rs o

f ser

vice

, gi

ve a

n irr

evoc

able

resi

gnat

ion

lette

r, an

d th

e bo

nus i

s pay

able

in Ju

ly

$100

per

day

of u

nuse

d si

ck le

ave

up

to 2

25 d

ays a

ccum

ulat

ed.

Dis

tanc

e L

earn

ing

ye

s

Star

ting

Sala

ry

2012

-201

3 20

12-2

013

B

1 32

,740

38

,160

B2

33,7

31

38,6

60

B

3 34

,722

39

,175

B4

35,7

12

40,1

05

B

5 36

,703

40

,668

M1

37,6

92

43,3

68

M

2 38

,683

44

,596

M3

39,6

74

45,7

40

M

4 40

,664

46

,451

M5

41,6

53

47,1

63

M

6 42

,642

49

,059

(3%

off

step

incr

ease

)

Mas

ters

deg

ree

+ $1

,384

+

$600

Lon

gevi

ty

5

year

s +

$1,2

45

Aft

er 7

yea

rs

+

$475

Aft

er 1

0 ye

ars

+ $1

,245

+

$525

Aft

er 1

5 ye

ars

+ $1

,245

+

$525

Aft

er 2

0 ye

ars

+ $1

,245

+

$575

Aft

er 2

5 ye

ars

+ $1

,245

+

$650

Aft

er 2

9 ye

ars

+$

3,33

3 (n

on-c

umul

ativ

e)

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 139

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2010

- 20

13

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2011

-201

4 O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: A

fter

30

year

s +

$1,2

45

+ $1

,300

+$3,

333

non-

cum

ulat

ive

A

fter

31

year

s

+$3,

333

(non

-cum

ulat

ive)

Aft

er 3

2 ye

ars

+

$10,

000

A

fter

33

year

s

Rev

erts

to th

e af

ter 3

0 ye

ars b

enef

it an

d re

mai

ns th

ere.

C.A

.S.,

Doc

tora

te, N

atio

nal B

oard

C

ertif

icat

ion

+ $1

,058

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 140

-

PRO

FIL

E O

F M

AJO

R E

LE

ME

NT

S O

F A

LL

INST

RU

CT

ION

AL

SU

PPO

RT

LA

BO

R C

ON

TR

AC

TS

IN P

LA

CE

IN T

HE

T

WO

DIS

TR

ICT

S FO

R T

HE

201

2-20

13 S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

R

C

ontr

act E

lem

ent

Mad

ison

20

11 -

2014

St

ockb

ridg

e V

alle

y 20

10 -

2013

O

bser

vatio

ns/I

tem

s to

note

or

cons

ider

: L

EA

VE

S

Sick

12 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

12 si

ck d

ays p

er y

ear c

umul

ativ

e to

284

O

ne d

ay p

er fu

ll m

onth

of

empl

oym

ent,

cum

ulat

ive

to 2

30

10 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

12 si

ck d

ays p

er y

ear c

umul

ativ

e to

284

O

ne d

ay p

er fu

ll m

onth

of

empl

oym

ent,

cum

ulat

ive

to 2

10

Pers

onal

Lea

ve

12

mon

th e

mpl

oyee

s 3

days

of p

aid

pers

onal

leav

e gr

ante

d to

all

full-

time

unit

empl

oyee

s; c

usto

dial

staf

f re

quire

d to

wor

k sn

ow d

ays w

ill

be p

rovi

ded

an a

dditi

onal

pe

rson

al d

ay fo

r eve

ry 2

snow

da

ys w

orke

d (u

p to

2 p

erso

nal

days

)

Up

to 5

day

s

10 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

3 d

ays t

o ea

ch fu

ll-tim

e un

it em

ploy

ee

Up

to 3

day

s

Ber

eave

men

t Lea

ve

Up

to 3

day

s with

pay

per

yea

r fo

r a d

eath

in th

e im

med

iate

fa

mily

(not

ded

ucte

d fr

om si

ck

leav

e)

3 da

ys p

er o

ccur

renc

e fo

r im

med

iate

fam

ily m

embe

rs; a

n ad

ditio

nal 5

day

s may

be

gran

ted

with

per

mis

sion

Em

erge

ncy

Lea

ve

Up

to 8

day

s with

pay

may

be

take

n fo

r em

erge

ncy

cata

stro

phes

(im

med

iate

fam

ily si

ckne

ss,

flood

, fire

, acc

iden

t, im

pass

able

ro

ads,

etc.

)

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 141

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2011

- 20

14

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2010

- 20

13

Obs

erva

tions

/Ite

ms t

o no

te o

r co

nsid

er:

Unp

aid

Lea

ve

May

requ

est a

n un

paid

leav

e fo

r ch

ildca

re (i

n w

ritin

g, a

t lea

st 3

0 da

ys p

rior)

; up

to 1

yea

r upo

n re

com

men

datio

n of

su

perin

tend

ent a

nd b

oard

ap

prov

al; o

ther

leav

es m

ay b

e gr

ante

d up

on a

ppro

val

Empl

oyee

s may

requ

est u

npai

d le

ave

in w

ritin

g –

gran

ted

at th

e di

scre

tion

of su

perin

tend

ent a

nd

the

boar

d; d

istri

ct sh

all g

rant

un

paid

mat

erni

ty le

ave

for n

o lo

nger

than

6 m

onth

s (re

ques

ted

30 d

ays p

rior)

PAID

HO

LID

AY

S

12 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

13 p

aid

holid

ays (

14 if

the

Dis

trict

cel

ebra

tes b

oth

Was

hing

ton

and

Linc

oln’

s B

irthd

ay)

13 p

aid

holid

ays

10 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

All

unit

empl

oyee

s ent

itled

to 9

pa

id h

olid

ays (

10 if

the

dist

rict

cele

brat

es b

oth

Was

hing

ton

and

Linc

oln’

s birt

hday

)

Follo

w th

e sc

hool

cal

enda

r

VA

CA

TIO

NS

12

mon

th e

mpl

oyee

s

One

yea

r in

dist

rict 1

2 m

onth

em

ploy

ees r

ecei

ve 2

w

eeks

vac

atio

n; 1

1 m

onth

em

ploy

ees r

ecei

ve 9

day

s

10 d

ays

2 –

6 co

ntin

uous

12

mon

th e

mpl

oyee

s rec

eive

plu

s on

e da

y fo

r eac

h ye

ar o

ver o

ne u

p to

a m

axim

um o

f 5 d

ays;

11

mon

th e

mpl

oyee

s rec

eive

9 d

ays

plus

one

for e

ach

year

ove

r one

up

to a

max

imum

of f

ive

2 ye

ars –

10

days

; 3

year

s – 1

0 da

ys;

4 ye

ars –

10

days

; 5

year

s – 1

0 da

ys;

6 ye

ars –

11

days

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 142

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2011

- 20

14

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2010

- 20

13

Obs

erva

tions

/Ite

ms t

o no

te o

r co

nsid

er:

7 –

10 c

ontin

uous

yea

rs 12

mon

th e

mpl

oyee

s rec

eive

th

ree

wee

ks; 1

1 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

rece

ive

14 d

ays

7 ye

ars –

12

days

; 8

year

s – 1

3 da

ys;

9 ye

ars –

14

days

; 10

yea

rs –

15

days

Ove

r 10

year

s 12

mon

th e

mpl

oyee

s rec

eive

th

ree

wee

ks p

lus o

ne d

ay fo

r eac

h ye

ar o

ver 1

0 up

to a

max

imum

of

5; 1

1 m

onth

em

ploy

ees r

ecei

ve

14 d

ays p

lus o

ne d

ay fo

r eac

h ye

ar o

ver 1

0 up

to a

max

imum

of

5

11 y

ears

– 1

6 da

ys;

12 y

ears

– 1

7 da

ys;

13 y

ears

– 1

8 da

ys;

14 y

ears

– 1

9 da

ys;

15 +

yea

rs –

20

days

10 m

onth

em

ploy

ees

No

paid

vac

atio

n N

o pa

id v

acat

ion

D

istr

ict R

etir

emen

t Ben

efit

Mus

t hav

e se

rved

at l

east

10

cont

inuo

us y

ears

of s

ervi

ce

imm

edia

tely

prio

r; m

ust g

ive

writ

ten

notic

e to

supe

rinte

nden

t on

or b

efor

e O

ct 1

st o

f the

yea

r pr

ior;

lum

p-su

m p

aym

ent o

f $35

pe

r day

for e

ach

day

of

accu

mul

ated

sick

leav

e

If e

mpl

oyee

has

serv

ed 1

0 co

ntin

uous

yea

rs, a

nd th

ey

indi

cate

thei

r int

entio

n to

retir

e 60

day

s or m

ore

prio

r to

thei

r re

tirem

ent,

they

will

be

entit

led

to

a sa

lary

incr

ease

that

yea

r equ

al

to 2

% o

f the

ir cu

rren

t sal

ary

mul

tiplie

d by

the

num

ber o

f yea

rs

wor

ked;

if th

e em

ploy

ee h

as

accr

ued

mor

e th

an 5

0 si

ck d

ays,

the

dist

rict w

ill p

ay $

25 p

er

accr

ued

sick

day

to b

e pl

aced

in

an a

ccou

nt a

nd u

sed

tow

ards

the

paym

ent o

f the

retir

ee’s

hea

lth

insu

ranc

e pr

emiu

ms

NY

S R

etir

emen

t 1/

60th

Non

-con

tribu

tory

pla

n 75

-C

Ti

er I

and

II e

mpl

oyee

s – p

lan

75i;

tier I

II e

mpl

oyee

s – a

rticl

e 14

; tie

r IV

em

ploy

ees –

arti

cle

15; t

ier V

em

ploy

ees –

arti

cle

22

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 143

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2011

- 20

14

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2010

- 20

13

Obs

erva

tions

/Ite

ms t

o no

te o

r co

nsid

er:

HE

AL

TH

INSU

RA

NC

E

Pl

an

Mad

ison

-One

ida-

Her

kim

er

Con

sorti

um P

lan

Mad

ison

-One

ida-

Her

kim

er

Con

sorti

um P

lan

Dis

tric

t’s C

ontr

ibut

ion

For e

mpl

oyee

s hire

d be

fore

1/

21/9

9, th

e bo

ard

will

con

tribu

te

95%

of i

ndiv

idua

l cov

erag

e an

d 90

% o

f fam

ily c

over

age;

for

empl

oyee

s hire

d af

ter 1

/21/

99,

mus

t wor

k 15

hou

rs o

r mor

e on

a

wee

kly

basi

s, th

e bo

ard

will

co

ntrib

ute

90%

of i

ndiv

idua

l co

vera

ge a

nd 6

5% o

f fam

ily

cove

rage

for e

mpl

oyee

s with

less

th

an 3

yea

rs fu

ll tim

e em

ploy

men

t. Fo

r em

ploy

ees w

ith

mor

e th

an 3

yea

rs e

mpl

oym

ent,

the

boar

d w

ill c

ontri

bute

90%

of

fam

ily c

over

age.

Em

ploy

ees

hire

d af

ter M

arch

1, 2

006

mus

t w

ork

20 h

ours

per

wee

k to

re

ceiv

e co

vera

ge.

All

empl

oyee

s, ex

cept

tra

nspo

rtatio

n an

d fo

od se

rvic

e em

ploy

ees,

wor

king

50%

or m

ore

of th

e de

fined

wor

k da

y fo

r the

ir jo

b cl

assi

ficat

ion

are

elig

ible

for

bene

fits;

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d fo

od

serv

ice

empl

oyee

s mus

t wor

k 20

ho

urs p

er w

eek

on a

regu

lar b

asis

to

be

elig

ible

; dis

trict

con

tribu

tes

90%

of t

he in

divi

dual

pre

miu

m

and

90%

of t

he d

iffer

ence

be

twee

n th

e fa

mily

and

indi

vidu

al

cove

rage

. Fo

r em

ploy

ees h

ired

prio

r to

7/1/

10, p

rem

ium

co

ntrib

utio

ns w

ill n

ot e

xcee

d $6

00 fo

r and

indi

vidu

al p

lan

and

$850

for a

fam

ily p

lan.

Rx

co-p

ay

$10

for t

ier 1

gen

eric

dru

gs, $

20

for t

ier 2

pre

ferr

ed b

rand

nam

e dr

ugs a

nd $

35 fo

r non

-pre

ferr

ed

bran

d na

me

drug

s; m

ail o

rder

sh

all b

e 2

co-p

ays f

or a

90

day

supp

ly ($

20 fo

r tie

r 1, $

40 fo

r tie

r 2,

$70

for t

ier 3

)

3 tie

r pla

n: $

5/$1

5/$3

0

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 144

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2011

- 20

14

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2010

- 20

13

Obs

erva

tions

/Ite

ms t

o no

te o

r co

nsid

er:

Den

tal

Empl

oyee

s hire

d on

or a

fter

Sept

embe

r 1, 1

992

who

wor

k m

ore

than

15

hour

s/w

eek

are

elig

ible

for a

max

imum

co

ntrib

utio

n of

$16

0 fo

r in

divi

dual

and

an

addi

tiona

l $60

fo

r fam

ily c

over

age.

Dis

trict

will

cov

er 1

00%

of t

he

indi

vidu

al d

enta

l pla

n A

pr

emiu

m; f

amily

cov

erag

e fo

r de

ntal

pla

n A

will

be

paid

at t

he

sam

e ra

te a

s ind

ivid

ual;

Den

tal

Plan

+ is

als

o av

aila

ble

at th

e em

ploy

ees o

ptio

n bu

t will

Dis

trict

w

ill p

ay th

e sa

me

as fo

r pla

n A

.

Vis

ion

D

istri

ct w

ill p

ay 1

00%

of

indi

vidu

al a

nd fa

mily

vis

ion

plan

.

Rx

Rei

mbu

rsem

ent

Miti

gatio

n po

ol o

f $9,

000

fund

ed

annu

ally

on

July

1 (n

ot to

exc

eed

$10,

000)

; if t

otal

is b

elow

$9,

000,

al

l rec

eipt

s will

be

reim

burs

ed

Dis

trict

est

ablis

hed

a $7

,500

re

imbu

rsem

ent a

ccou

nt to

cov

er

the

diff

eren

ce b

etw

een

the

curr

ent

3 tie

r co-

pays

($5/

$15/

$30)

and

th

e ol

d 2

tier s

yste

m ($

5/$1

0); t

ier

1 co

-pay

s will

not

be

cove

red;

tier

2

drug

s will

be

reim

burs

ed $

5 an

d tie

r 3 d

rugs

will

be

reim

burs

ed

$20;

the

acco

unt w

ill re

mai

n un

til

the

mon

ies a

re e

xhau

sted

Ret

iree

s

Ret

irees

pay

45%

of d

iffer

ence

be

twee

n in

divi

dual

and

fam

ily

prem

ium

s ann

ually

Opt

-out

$7

50 fo

r ind

ivid

ual c

over

age;

$1

,500

for f

amily

cov

erag

e $1

,250

for i

ndiv

idua

l cov

erag

e;

$2,5

00 fo

r fam

ily c

over

age

Star

ting

Rat

es: h

ourl

y/sa

lary

20

12 -

2013

20

12 -

2013

Bus

Driv

er

$14.

43 –

$15

.21

$13.

55 –

$15

.98

C

lean

er

$10.

76 –

$11

.49

$9.0

0 - $

11.0

3

Food

Ser

vice

Hel

per

$10.

76 –

$11

.49

$9.0

0 - $

11.7

9

Teac

her A

ide/

Mon

itor

$10.

76 –

$11

.49

$9.0

0 - $

12.3

2

Off

ice

Ass

ista

nt 1

/ Tea

cher

Aid

e $1

0.76

– $

11.4

9

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 145

-

Con

trac

t Ele

men

t M

adis

on

2011

- 20

14

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

2010

- 20

13

Obs

erva

tions

/Ite

ms t

o no

te o

r co

nsid

er:

Typi

st

$11.

16 –

$11

.70

Coo

k-M

anag

er

$28,

948

– $3

1,53

4 $1

6.20

Scho

ol N

urse

$2

7,28

7 –

$28,

726

$27,

983

- $46

,018

Hea

d C

lean

er

$23,

491

– $2

4,74

1 $4

5,73

9

Off

ice

Ass

ista

nt II

$1

3.10

– $

13.7

9 $2

5,68

8 - $

26,8

03

B

uild

ing

Mai

nten

ance

Mec

hani

c $2

8,31

3 –

$30,

902

Cus

todi

an

$1

2.43

- $1

8.01

Hea

d B

us D

river

$41,

275

L

onge

vity

aw

ard/

stip

end

A

fter 1

0 fu

ll ye

ars

$250

$1

25

A

fter 1

5 fu

ll ye

ars

$475

A

fter 2

0 fu

ll ye

ars

$700

A

fter 2

5 fu

ll ye

ars

$925

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 146

-

FU

LL

TIM

E E

QU

IVA

LE

NT

TO

TA

L N

UM

BE

RS

OF

STA

FF A

ND

TH

E

TO

TA

L F

TE

PE

RSO

NN

EL

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

ES

BE

NC

HM

AR

KE

D T

O T

HE

201

1-20

12 S

CH

OO

L Y

EA

R

To

tal p

erso

nnel

exp

endi

ture

s for

eac

h st

aff s

egm

ent c

ateg

ory

equa

ls th

e to

tal o

f sal

ary,

em

ploy

er F

ICA

cost

s, em

ploy

er h

ealth

insu

ranc

e co

sts,

empl

oyer

retir

emen

t cos

ts, a

nd a

ny o

ther

ben

efits

(if a

ny).

Ple

ase

note

that

the

diffe

renc

es in

cos

t per

FTE

per

staf

f cat

egor

y is

pri

mar

ily d

ue

to th

e lo

ngev

ity d

iffer

ence

s of v

ario

us F

TE’s

at e

ach

resp

ectiv

e sc

hool

dis

tric

t; th

e di

ffere

nt re

tirem

ent ‘

tier’

an

FTE

falls

und

er b

ased

on

wha

t st

ate

‘tier

’ was

in p

lace

at t

ime

of h

ire;

alo

ng w

ith c

ontr

actu

al p

ay g

uide

lines

.

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y

STA

FF

SEG

ME

NT

T

OT

AL

FT

E’S

T

OT

AL

$

2011

-201

2 C

OST

PE

R F

TE

T

OT

AL

FT

E’S

T

OT

AL

$

2011

-201

2 C

OST

PE

R F

TE

Pr

e-K

thro

ugh

grad

e 6

cert

ified

teac

hers

(i

nclu

ding

cou

nsel

ors,

nurs

es a

nd si

mila

r oth

ers)

: 27

$1

,780

,183

$65,

933

16

.9

$1,2

83,7

91

$75,

964

Gra

de 7

-12

cert

ified

teac

hers

(inc

ludi

ng c

ouns

elor

s, nu

rses

and

sim

ilar o

ther

s):

18

.36

$1,2

51,1

41

$68,

145

26

.1

$1,8

84,5

50

$72,

205

Gra

des K

-12:

T

each

er A

ssis

tant

s (ce

rtifi

ed)

6 $2

18,2

28

$36,

371

6 $2

20,1

37

$36,

690

Tea

cher

Aid

es (c

ivil

serv

ice

payr

oll)

/ Mon

itors

2.

5 $6

7,71

0 $2

7,08

4 1

$24,

067

$24,

067

Gra

des K

-12:

O

T/PT

(civ

il se

rvic

e pa

yrol

l)

ST

AFF

SE

GM

EN

T

TO

TA

L

FTE

’S

TO

TA

L $

20

11-2

012

CO

ST

PER

FT

E

TO

TA

L

FTE

’S

TO

TA

L $

20

11-2

012

CO

ST

PER

FT

E

Soc

ial w

orke

r (ci

vil s

ervi

ce p

ayro

ll)

Nur

se (c

ivil

serv

ice

payr

oll)

1 $5

3,71

5 $5

3,71

5

K-1

2 ce

rtifi

ed a

dmin

istra

tors

: In

clud

e al

l dis

trict

adm

inis

trato

rs in

clud

ing

th

e bu

sine

ss o

ffic

ial i

f she

/he

serv

es

in a

civ

il se

rvic

e po

sitio

n

2 $2

54,5

30

$127

,265

4 $4

94,0

50

$123

,513

O

n C

ivil

Serv

ice

payr

oll:

(CO

NSI

DE

RE

D F

TE

’S)

Supe

rvis

ors o

f any

supp

ort f

unct

ion

3 $1

67,5

80

$55,

860

2 $1

34,0

92

$67,

046

Bus

driv

ers

6 $2

06,1

28

$34,

355

12

$360

,331

$3

0,02

8 B

us a

ides

1 $3

1,91

5 $3

1,91

5 Sc

hool

lunc

h w

orke

rs

2 $5

9,61

2 $2

9,80

6 3

$89,

202

$29,

734

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd M

aint

enan

ce w

orke

rs

4 $1

71,9

36

$42,

984

6 $2

61,9

13

$43,

652

Secr

etar

ies

4 $1

51,3

49

$37,

837

5 $2

46,3

48

$49,

270

Bus

ines

s Off

ice

staf

f oth

er th

an se

cret

aria

l

$95,

445

$95,

445

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 147

-

OR

bus

ines

s off

icia

l 1

Tech

nolo

gy su

ppor

t sta

ff

1

$79,

351

$79,

351

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y

STA

FF

SEG

ME

NT

T

OT

AL

W

OR

K

HO

UR

S

TO

TA

L $

20

11-2

012

CO

ST

PER

FT

E

TO

TA

L

FTE

’S

TO

TA

L $

20

11-2

012

CO

ST

PER

hou

r

CO

NSI

DE

RE

D H

OU

RL

Y E

MPL

OY

EE

S O

N

CIV

IL S

ER

VIC

E P

AY

RO

LL

B

us d

river

s

B

us a

ides

Sc

hool

lunc

h w

orke

rs

Part-

time

clea

ners

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 148

-

Sum

mar

y of

FT

E P

erso

nnel

Cos

ts B

ench

mar

ked

to 2

011-

2012

in th

e M

adis

on a

nd S

tock

brid

ge V

alle

y C

entr

al S

choo

l Dis

tric

ts

STA

FF

SEG

ME

NT

A

vera

ge

FTE

Cos

t Pr

e-K

thro

ugh

grad

e 6

cert

ified

teac

hers

(inc

ludi

ng c

ouns

elor

s, nu

rses

and

sim

ilar o

ther

s):

$69,

794

Gra

de 7

-12

cert

ified

teac

hers

(inc

ludi

ng c

ouns

elor

s, nu

rses

and

sim

ilar o

ther

s):

$70,

528

G

rade

s K-1

2:

Teac

her A

ssis

tant

s (ce

rtifi

ed)

$36,

530

Teac

her A

ides

(civ

il se

rvic

e pa

yrol

l) $2

6,22

2

Gra

des K

-12:

O

T/PT

(civ

il se

rvic

e pa

yrol

l)

Soci

al w

orke

r (ci

vil s

ervi

ce p

ayro

ll)

N

urse

(civ

il se

rvic

e pa

yrol

l) $5

3,71

5

K-1

2 ce

rtifi

ed a

dmin

istra

tors

: A

ll di

stric

t adm

inis

trato

rs in

clud

ing

the

busi

ness

off

icia

l if s

he/h

e se

rves

in a

civ

il se

rvic

e po

sitio

n $1

24,7

63

On

Civ

il Se

rvic

e pa

yrol

l: (C

ON

SID

ER

ED

FT

E’S

) Su

perv

isor

s of a

ny su

ppor

t fun

ctio

n $6

0,33

4 B

us d

river

s $3

1,47

0 B

us a

ides

$3

1,91

5 Sc

hool

lunc

h w

orke

rs

$29,

763

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd M

aint

enan

ce w

orke

rs

$43,

385

Secr

etar

ies

$44,

189

Bus

ines

s Off

ice

staf

f oth

er th

an se

cret

aria

l OR

bus

ines

s off

icia

l $9

5,44

5 Te

chno

logy

supp

ort s

taff

$7

9,35

1

CO

NSI

DE

RE

D H

OU

RL

Y E

MPL

OY

EE

S O

N C

IVIL

SE

RV

ICE

PA

YR

OL

L

Bus

driv

ers

B

us a

ides

Scho

ol lu

nch

wor

kers

Part-

time

clea

ners

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 149

-

FT

E N

UM

BE

RS

OF

STA

FF W

HO

HA

VE

LE

FT T

HE

DIS

TR

ICT

S FO

R A

LL

RE

ASO

NS

EX

CE

PT R

ED

UC

TIO

N IN

FO

RC

E

M

AD

ISO

N

STO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

2007-2008

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

2007-2008

STA

FF S

EG

ME

NT

TO

TAL

OV

ER

4 Y

EA

RS

Pre-

K th

roug

h gr

ade

6 ce

rtifi

ed te

ache

rs (i

nclu

ding

c

ouns

elor

s, nu

rses

and

sim

ilar o

ther

s)

1

1

2

1 1

6

Gra

de 7

-12

cert

ified

teac

hers

(inc

ludi

ng c

ouns

elor

s, n

urse

s and

sim

ilar o

ther

s):

1.5

3.5

3 1

2 2

13

Gra

des K

-12:

T

each

er A

ssis

tant

s (ce

rtifi

ed)

1

1

2 T

each

er A

ides

(civ

il se

rvic

e)

2

2 G

rade

s K-1

2:

OT/

PT (c

ivil

serv

ice)

Soc

ial w

orke

r (ci

vil s

ervi

ce)

N

urse

(civ

il se

rvic

e)

K

-12

cert

ified

adm

inis

trato

rs:

1

2 1

4 C

ivil

Serv

ice:

S

uper

viso

rs o

f any

supp

ort f

unct

ion

1

1

2 B

us d

river

s

2 1

3

Bus

aid

es

S

choo

l lun

ch w

orke

rs

.4

.4

.8

Ope

ratio

ns a

nd M

aint

enan

ce w

orke

rs

1

1 1

3 S

ecre

tarie

s 1

1

2

Bus

ines

s Off

ice

not s

ecre

taria

l

Tec

hnol

ogy

supp

ort s

taff



- 150 -

WORKING DOCUMENT OF THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

SOME POSSIBLE ‘WHAT IF’ IDEAS TO USE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDINGS IF THE COMMUNITIES CHOSE TO REORGANIZE

THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE


August, 2012



- 151 -

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Sizes of School Districts in the Madison-Oneida BOCES in square miles:

One

ida

Stoc

kbrid

ge

Val

ley

Mad

ison

Ham

ilton

Can

asto

ta

Mor

risvi

lle-E

aton

Reo

rgan

ized

di

stri

ct o

f M

adis

on a

nd

Stoc

kbri

dge

Val

ley

VV

S

Rom

e

Cam

den

36.06 42.50 50.22 55.31 56.41 76.89 92.72 95.19 99.07 303.38

Potential size of reorganized district made up of Madison and Stockbridge: 92.72 square miles.

Distance between the school district campus in Munnsville and in Madison: 10.43 miles

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 152

-

B

AS

E C

OH

OR

T E

NR

OL

LM

EN

T P

RO

JEC

TIO

NS

SU

MM

AR

Y F

OR

MA

DIS

ON

CS

LO

W R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

MID

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NH

IGH

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NY

EA

RK

-67-

12

T

OT

AL

K-1

2K

-67-

12

TO

TA

L K

-12

K-6

7-12

T

OT

AL

K-1

220

1225

42

18

473

25

12

18

470

26

12

18

480

2013

25

42

22

476

25

02

22

472

27

02

22

492

2014

24

32

23

466

24

52

23

469

26

82

23

491

2015

23

32

25

458

23

82

25

462

27

12

25

496

2016

23

42

18

452

24

32

18

461

29

12

18

508

2017

22

52

21

446

24

02

21

461

30

32

21

525

2018

21

42

18

432

23

62

18

454

31

72

18

535

2019

20

02

21

421

23

32

17

450

32

42

28

552

2020

18

72

18

405

22

92

14

443

33

22

35

567

2021

18

22

04

385

22

62

07

432

35

12

31

581

LO

W R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

MID

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NH

IGH

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NY

EA

RK

-56-

87-

99-

1210

-12

K-5

6-8

7-9

9-12

10-1

2K

-56-

87-

99-

1210

-12

2012

21

91

09

11

11

45

10

82

16

10

91

11

14

51

08

22

61

09

11

11

45

10

820

1321

51

17

11

21

44

11

02

11

11

71

12

14

41

10

23

11

17

11

21

44

11

020

1420

01

20

12

01

46

10

32

03

12

01

20

14

61

03

22

61

20

12

01

46

10

320

1520

51

12

12

31

40

10

22

10

11

21

23

14

01

02

24

41

12

12

31

40

10

220

1619

81

09

11

51

45

10

22

07

10

91

15

14

51

02

25

51

09

11

51

45

10

220

1718

91

02

11

21

55

11

02

04

10

21

12

15

51

10

26

71

02

11

21

55

11

020

1817

61

13

10

51

43

11

32

01

11

01

05

14

31

13

27

21

21

10

51

43

11

320

1916

41

13

11

61

43

10

41

98

10

91

13

14

31

04

27

81

30

12

41

43

10

420

2016

01

04

11

61

41

10

21

94

10

71

12

14

11

02

29

61

31

13

41

41

10

220

2114

99

81

07

13

89

71

91

10

61

10

13

59

73

05

13

01

34

14

69

7

LO

W R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

MID

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

N

H

IGH

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NY

EA

RK

-4K

-23-

65-

67-

86

K-4

K-2

3-6

5-6

7-8

6K

-4K

-23-

65-

67-

86

2012

17

91

08

14

77

57

33

61

76

10

51

47

75

73

36

18

61

15

14

77

57

33

620

1317

31

08

14

78

27

83

91

69

10

41

47

82

78

39

18

81

23

14

78

27

83

920

1417

29

91

44

70

78

42

17

51

02

14

47

07

84

21

98

12

41

44

70

78

42

2015

16

99

31

40

64

84

28

17

31

01

13

76

48

42

82

07

12

41

47

64

84

28

2016

16

18

51

49

73

73

36

17

09

91

44

73

73

36

21

81

25

16

57

37

33

620

1715

08

61

39

75

66

36

16

89

81

42

72

66

36

22

11

38

16

68

26

63

620

1814

08

01

35

75

75

38

16

59

61

40

71

75

35

22

61

43

17

59

17

54

620

1913

77

41

26

63

77

36

16

39

51

38

70

74

35

24

21

47

17

78

28

54

620

2012

77

01

16

59

77

27

16

09

31

36

69

73

34

25

01

52

18

08

29

43

620

2112

06

61

15

61

66

32

15

89

21

34

68

72

34

25

71

56

19

59

48

54

6

Wor

king

tool

of t

he C

omm

unity

Adv

isor

y C

omm

ittee

s to

iden

tify

and

revi

ew v

ario

us o

ptio

ns to

del

iver

the

Pre

-K th

roug

h G

rade

12

prog

ram

in a

reor

gani

zed

scho

ol d

istri

ct.

“Cus

tom

tool

s an

d re

sear

ch to

aid

a s

choo

l dis

trict

in d

efin

ing

a vi

sion

and

de

cisi

on o

ptio

ns fo

r ser

ving

stu

dent

s in

the

futu

re.”

- 153

-

B

AS

E C

OH

OR

T E

NR

OL

LM

EN

T P

RO

JEC

TIO

NS

SU

MM

AR

Y F

OR

S

TO

CK

BR

IDG

E V

AL

LE

Y C

SL

OW

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NM

ID R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

HIG

H R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

YE

AR

K-6

7-12

TO

TA

L K

-12

K-6

7-12

T

OT

AL

K-1

2K

-67-

12

TO

TA

L K

-12

2012

22

62

52

477

22

92

52

480

23

12

52

482

2013

22

72

28

456

23

02

28

459

23

42

28

463

2014

22

12

26

446

23

82

26

463

24

62

26

471

2015

22

62

00

426

24

72

00

446

25

82

00

457

2016

22

21

99

421

25

21

99

451

26

31

99

462

2017

21

71

91

408

25

91

91

450

26

91

91

460

2018

20

81

87

395

26

31

87

450

27

11

87

459

2019

20

31

90

392

27

11

93

463

27

51

95

470

2020

19

91

84

383

28

31

87

470

28

31

90

473

2021

19

41

89

384

28

32

06

489

27

52

14

489

LO

W R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

MID

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NH

IGH

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NY

EA

RK

-56-

87-

99-

1210

-12

K-5

6-8

7-9

9-12

10-1

2K

-56-

87-

99-

1210

-12

2012

19

81

15

12

21

64

13

02

01

11

51

22

16

41

30

20

31

15

12

21

64

13

020

131

92

10

91

16

15

51

12

19

51

09

11

61

55

11

21

99

10

91

16

15

51

12

2014

19

89

01

10

15

81

15

21

59

01

10

15

81

15

22

39

01

10

15

81

15

2015

19

59

49

11

38

10

92

15

94

91

13

81

09

22

69

49

11

38

10

920

161

89

90

95

14

11

04

22

09

09

51

41

10

42

30

90

95

14

11

04

2017

18

11

04

92

12

29

92

24

10

49

21

22

99

23

31

04

92

12

29

920

181

77

10

31

06

11

48

12

30

10

61

06

11

48

12

36

10

81

06

11

48

120

191

73

10

01

05

11

98

52

41

10

31

08

11

98

52

44

10

71

10

11

98

520

201

70

93

10

11

20

82

24

11

09

10

41

20

82

23

71

16

10

81

20

82

2021

16

69

19

51

27

95

25

21

08

11

11

30

95

24

11

16

11

91

32

95

LO

W R

AN

GE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

MID

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

N

H

IGH

RA

NG

E P

RO

JEC

TIO

NY

EA

RK

-4K

-23-

65-

67-

86

K-4

K-2

3-6

5-6

7-8

6K

-4K

-23-

65-

67-

86

2012

16

31

06

11

96

38

82

71

66

10

91

19

63

88

27

16

81

11

11

96

38

82

720

131

70

10

31

25

58

73

36

17

31

06

12

55

87

33

61

77

11

01

25

58

73

36

2014

16

79

61

25

54

67

22

18

41

13

12

55

46

72

21

92

12

11

25

54

67

22

2015

16

39

41

32

64

62

32

18

31

11

13

56

46

23

21

94

12

01

37

64

62

32

2016

15

49

21

30

68

58

33

18

41

19

13

36

85

83

31

95

12

61

36

68

58

33

2017

15

19

01

27

66

69

36

19

11

16

14

36

86

93

61

99

11

81

51

70

69

36

2018

14

88

81

19

59

73

30

20

11

25

13

86

27

33

32

06

12

31

48

66

73

35

2019

14

48

61

17

58

71

29

20

01

28

14

37

17

42

91

98

12

41

51

77

75

31

2020

14

18

41

15

57

64

29

21

01

31

15

27

36

74

22

03

12

51

58

79

71

46

2021

13

88

21

12

56

63

28

21

51

34

15

06

87

73

12

04

12

51

50

71

82

34



- 154 -

ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR A REORGANIZED SCHOOL

DISTRICT

DATA SNAPSHOT Calculation Year Grades

K-6 Grades

7-12 TOTAL GRADES


PLANNING CURRENT COMBINED ENROLLMENT OF THE

TWO DISTRICTS

2011-2012 491 467 958

2012-2013 480 470 950 2013-2014 482 450 932 2014-2015 463 449 912 2015-2016 459 425 884


2016-2017 456 417 873

2012-2013 480 470 950 2013-2014 481 450 931 2014-2015 483 449 932 2015-2016 484 425 909


2016-2017 495 417 912

2012-2013 492 470 962 2013-2014 505 450 954 2014-2015 513 449 962 2015-2016 529 425 954


2016-2017 554 417 970



- 155 -

ASSUMPTIONS:

The method and assumptions for estimating pupil capacity per existing school

building for potential use by a reorganized school district includes:

The pupil capacity analysis is based on delivering instruction with the following class size goals: Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-School) 18 pupils Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils Grades 2 and 3: 22 pupils Grades 4, 5, and 6: 24 pupils Grades 7-12: 25 pupils

(Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for such specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the board)-and 25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a classroom will host class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less specialized.)

Spaces now designated for instructional support are generally assumed to continue for instructional support.

Pre-kindergarten and pre-school are assumed to continue to be a part of the program. State Education Department guidelines are applied in calculating the number of pupils that a

specific type of classroom should serve. Unassigned pupil capacity is planned for in each school building to allow for flexibility in

delivering the program and/or to add an instructional support function or additional programs not now in place.

The analysis, at the present time, does not include renting classrooms to the BOCES to host consortium shared programs.

Current spaces used for central administration are not ‘re-claimed’ for instructional program pupil capacity at this time.

It is assumed for this pupil capacity analysis that there are no renovations to change existing space or the building of new additional space.

Madison K-6

Pupil Capacity Stockbridge K-6 Pupil Capacity

Madison 7-12 Pupil Capacity

Stockbridge 7-12 Pupil Capacity

336 312 363 375 Pre-K/Pre-School: 18 (36 half day)

Pre-K/Pre-School: 54 (108 half day)

Total K-6 Pupil Capacity Currently Available:

Total 7-12 Pupil Capacity Currently Available:

648 738 Anticipated K-6 Pupil Capacity Need

in five years: Anticipated 7-12 Pupil Capacity Need

in five years: 456-554 417



- 156 -

“WHAT MIGHT IT LOOK LIKE” SCENARIOS TO USE EXISTING BUILDING RESOURCES

TO SERVE AN ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT OF 456-554 K-6 PUPILS AND AT LEAST 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS IN A REORGANIZED DISTRICT COMPRISED OF CONSOLIDATING THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THE STUDY

Note: Listed randomly with no qualitative judgment of each option.

OPTION A

Pre-K through grade all at the Madison building;

Grades 7-12 all at the Stockbridge building

ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years

ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years

MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE

VALLEY PUPIL CAPACITY

EST. ENROLL.

Pre-K through six 699 554 Grades 7-12 687 417

TOTALS: 699 554 TOTALS: 687 417 Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program:

145

Estimated available unassigned pupil

capacity

Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program:

270


capacity

OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS OPTION CHALLENGES OF THIS OPTION



- 157 -

OPTION B

Pre-K-5 at Madison building; Pre-K-5 at Stockbridge building;

6-8 all at Madison building;

9-12 all at Stockbridge building



MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.

K-5 336 256 K-5 312 230 6-8 363 199 9-12 375 286


244


capacity


171


capacity




- 158 -

OPTION C






MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.

K-4 218 K-4 312 195 5-6

699

141 7-12 375 417


340


capacity


75


capacity




- 159 -

OPTION D






MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.

K-4 336 218 K-4 312 195 5-8 363 272 9-12 375 286


209


capacity


206


capacity




- 160 -

OPTION E






MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.

K-4 336 218 K-4 312 195 5-7 363 206 8-12 375 352


275


capacity


140


capacity




- 161 -

OPTION



MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.

TOTALS: TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program:


capacity



capacity




- 162 -

OPTION



MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.



capacity



capacity




- 163 -

OPTION



MADISON PUPIL

CAPACITY EST.

ENROLL. STOCKBRIDGE


EST. ENROLL.



capacity



capacity



- 164 -

A ‘What if’ Picture of a Pupil Transportation Plan for a Reorganized

School District Based on the Prime Building Use and Grade Configuration

Option Identified by the Joint Community Advisory Committee

(Including school day times, transportation times, and bus runs)

MADISON CS

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

December 2012

DATA


- 165 -

Current Profile of Student Instructional Day and Bus Transportation:

Preliminary Framework Plan for School Day Times, Transportation Times, and Bus Run Resources in a Reorganization of the Districts into One

Assumptions: All Pre-K through grade 5 pupils attend the elementary school within the original school district

‘attendance zone’. However, parents who wish to have their elementary children attend an elementary school of the newly reorganized school district that is closer to their home may request that attendance at their discretion.

The goal is to reduce the current longest ride of a child on a bus which is 60 minutes.

Smaller (less than 66 passenger) buses will probably be used to transport pupils who currently live at the most outer limits of the current school district geographic boundaries.

All pupils receive bus transportation in the two districts currently. The assumption is that the same service is provided in a reorganized school district. The current practice of door-to-door and/or centralized pick up points is expected to continue contingent on pupil safety considerations and characteristics at specific locations.

It is expected that the reorganized school district continues the current practice of helping families as well as they can with transportation to day care locations depending upon the number of available seats on specific bus routes.

It is suggested that existing routes with existing drivers be provided for at least the first year (or longer) of the reorganized district. Starting for year 2, study if there can be some combining of routing where boundaries of the two attendance zones are very close and/or redevelopment of some routes will reduce time for pupils to be on a bus.

It is a goal to ensure arrival and departure of Vocational Technical students at the BOCES center in Verona is closer to arrival and departure times of other students from other school districts thus maximizing the instructional time available at the Vocational Center for students.

Please note that outlined below is one possible comprehensive scenario to provide transportation in a reorganized school district taking into account the assumptions listed above. The scenario described

Madison Stockbridge Valley Current Elementary Student Day

8:10 – 2:58 (6 hours, 48 minutes)

8:05 – 2:34 (6 hours, 29 minutes)

Current Secondary Student Day

8:10 – 2:58 (6 hours, 48 minutes)

8:05 – 2:34 (6 hours, 29 minutes)

First student pickup time Combined K-12 routes

(6:02 Special Education to outside of district)

xxxx

(6:10 Special Education to outside of district)

7:03

Total number of bus runs currently:

10 in the A.M. 10 in the P.M.

11 in the A.M. 11 in the P.M.

Teacher Day currently begins: 7:40 8:00 Length of Teacher Day: 7 hours and 20 minutes 7 hours and 16 minutes

DATA


- 166 -

below is used as an element of the ‘What if’ financials picture for a reorganized school district and it is described here to give the communities a preliminary idea of what the student day and transportation may look like. Another transportation scenario includes the creation of all new routes across the total geographical area that would be served by the combining of Madison and Stockbridge Valley. Such a second scenario is suggested to be reviewed during the first 12 months of the new school district. However, if a reorganization was approved by the communities, the new district certainly could consider a total new routing pattern to use from day one of the new school district.

Preliminary student instructional day schedule in a reorganized school district:

Grades preK-5

Madison Elementary 8:45 - 3:30 6 hours, 45 minutes

Grades 6-8 Middle School at the Madison Building 8:45 - 3:30 6 hours, 45 minutes

Grades preK-5

Stockbridge Valley Elementary

8:45 - 3:30 6 hours, 45 minutes

Grades 9-12 High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building

7:45 - 2:30

6 hours, 45 minutes

The preliminary transportation framework has the following bus runs:

MORNING BEFORE SCHOOL DAY Madison

Attendance Zone

Est. Number of Routes/buses

Stockbridge Valley

Attendance Zone


PreK-5 First pick-up 7:40

First pick-up 7:40 8 to Stockbridge Valley Elementary

Grades 6-8

First pick-up 7:40

6 to Madison Elementary and

Middle School at Madison

First pick-up 7:40 5 --the same buses that transported the grades 9-12 from the Madison Attendance Zone to the High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building will

transport to the Middle School at Madison

Grades 9-12

First pick-up 6:40

5 to High School at Stockbridge Valley

Building

First pick-up 6:40 8 to the High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building

AFTERNOON END OF SCHOOL DAY TO HOME Madison

Attendance Zone


Stockbridge Valley Attendance

Zone


PreK-5 Dismissal 3:30 Dismissal 3:30 8 Grades 6-8

Dismissal 3:30 6

Dismissal 3:30 5 --the same buses that transported the grades 9-12 from the High School at the Stockbridge Valley

Building back home to the Madison attendance zone Grades 9-12

Dismissal 2:30 5 Dismissal 2:30 8

DATA


- 167 -

Current Arrival and Departure Times of Vocational Technical Students at the Vocational Center in Verona: MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY Time that the BOCES expects AM pupils arrive at the center

8:20-8:45

Time that MADISON AM pupils arrive at the center

8:40

Time that STOCKBRIDGE AM pupils arrive at the center

8:30

Time that the BOCES expects AM pupils to leave the center

10:55-11:15

Time that MADISON AM pupils leave the center

10:55

Time that STOCKBRIDGE AM pupils leave the center

11:05

Time that the BOCES expects PM pupils to arrive at the center

12:00-12:10

Time that MADISON PM pupils arrive at the center

12:05

Time that STOCKBRIDGE PM pupils arrive at the center

12:00

Time that the BOCES expects PM pupils to leave the center

1:45-2:10

Time that MADISON PM pupils leave the center

2:10

Time that STOCKBRIDGE PM pupils leave the center

2:00

Late bus runs for co-curricular Grades 4-12; Monday through Friday: Madison Attendance Area 6 routes Stockbridge Valley Attendance Area 8 routes

Currently, late buses are provided one out of five days in Madison; three out of five days at Stockbridge Valley. Current combined bus fleet for AM and PM before school and after school runs:

Currently: Buses Spare buses Madison 16 2 Stockbridge Valley 12 5

Estimated Cost and Revenue Basis for Transportation: Current Number of Bus Runs Collectively by the Two Districts:

Estimated Number of Bus Routes for Initial Planning by a Reorganized School District:

21 AM pickup 21 PM take home

Equal 21 round trips

32 AM pickup 32 PM take home

Equal 32 round trips

Estimated transportation cost basis:

The following are the total costs per round trip bus route by each of the districts for 2012-2013: Madison Stockbridge Valley $46,016 $49,023

Where the estimates come from: The total transportation budget NOT INCLUDING SPECIAL RUNS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS PUPILS, FIELD TRIPS, VOCATIONAL CENTER RUNS, ATHLETIC AND CO-CURRICULAR RUNS which can vary yearly based on student programs and needs; divide that resulting expenditure number by the number of roundtrip bus runs to and from school in 2012-2013.

DATA


- 168 -

Average cost for per bus route run round trip plus 10% for inflation and the cost of fuel for budget planning for 2014-2015:

Madison attendance area bus route roundtrip estimate: $50,618 Stockbridge Valley attendance area bus route roundtrip estimate: $53,925

Transportation State Aid: Transportation aid from the State of New York equals 90% of all approved expenses.

The transportation aid currently received by Madison CS is 89.91% and Stockbridge Valley receives 89.88% for all transportation expenses submitted for approval by the State. Therefore, the

local taxpayer cost currently for each round trip bus run in Madison CS is $4,643 and the local taxpayer cost currently for each round trip run in Stockbridge Valley is $4,961.

Estimated Cost to Achieve the Preliminary Transportation Framework Plan for bus transportation to and from school in a reorganized district made up of Madison CS and Stockbridge Valley CS (includes 10% inflation over 2012-2013): Madison CS, without reorganization:

Stockbridge Valley, without reorganization:

Estimated Total Cost Both Districts Annually:

Estimated Transportation Aid Received in Total Annually: (Estimated State Aid % equals 89.88%)

Estimated Net Local Taxpayer Cost in Total Annually: (Estimated 10.12%)

10 round trips

$50,618 each

11 round trips

$53,925 each

$1,099,355 $988,252 $111,103

1 late bus route per week

$816 3 late bus routes per week

$11,189 $12,005 $10,791 $1,214

ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR 2014-2015: $1,111,360 $999,043 $112,317Estimated Transportation ‘to and from School’ Expenditure in a Reorganized District Made up of

Madison and Stockbridge Valley combined: Estimated

Total Cost Annually:

Estimated Transportation Aid Received Annually: (Estimated State Aid % equals 89.88%)

Estimated Net Local Taxpayer Cost Annually: (Estimated 10.12%)

11 round trips

$50,618 each

21 round trips

$53,925 each

$1,689,223 $1,518,274 $170,949

Estimated 12 late bus routes for co-curricular Monday through Friday

$55,546 $49,925 $5,621

ESTIMATED TOTALS: $1,744,769 $1,568,198 $176,571Estimated net difference in cost of the

transportation to and from school expenditure of the two districts separately and combined through

reorganization: +$633,409 +$569,155 +$64,254

APPENDIX


- 169 -

“QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS”

TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

Question #1: What happens when the study is completed? Answer#1: Upon completion, the draft study is then forwarded to the State Education Department (SED) for review. After review by the department (two-three weeks) the study is returned to the consultants to make any changes as recommended by SED. Once finalized, a community meeting is scheduled in each school district when the findings of the study are presented by the SES Study Team. Question #2: What do the Boards have to do next? Answer #2: After the presentation of the findings of the study, each Board decides how to provide a series of meetings and opportunities for the communities to discuss the findings with the respective Boards over a series of weeks. SED enters the process at this time. After the public comment/discussion period, each Board decides by vote to move forward, or not, with an advisory referendum (‘straw vote’) by each community. If both Boards vote to go to an advisory referendum within each community, the ‘straw vote’ is scheduled. If either Board chooses not to have an advisory referendum, the study process ends. Question #3: If there is an advisory referendum in both communities, what is the next step after the vote? Answer #3: If either community advises ‘no’ in the 'straw' vote, the study process ends. If both communities in the straw vote advises ‘yes, then each Board decides whether to go to a formal or 'statutory referendum' of the community or not. If one Board decides not to proceed to a formal vote, the study process ends. Both Boards, by formal resolution and through supporting documentation from the BOCES District Superintendent, may request the Commissioner to authorize the formation of a new centralized district. The Commissioner’s Order laying out the new district is posted in the respective districts. Next, the Boards submit Statutory Petitions requesting the Commissioner to call a special meeting to vote on the proposed centralization. The State Education Department guides the Boards over the next series of steps. There are two petitions: A) Petition signed by 100 qualified voters (or 10% of the student enrollment of the proposed combined district) requesting Commissioner to call a special meeting of the combined district to vote on centralization. B) Second Petition signed by 100 qualified voters (or 10% of the student enrollment) for each district to be designated as a special election district requesting the Commissioner establish an alternative voting site in each such district. The Commissioner then issues an order calling for a special meeting in each district for a 'statutory referendum.' Legal notices must be provided regarding the special vote and information must be provided for absentee ballots. The referendum is then held in each district voting on the centralization proposition, the number of board members to serve in each district and the term of office of the members. The referendum must pass in both districts in order for the process to continue. Question #4: What happens next, assuming a positive vote to reorganize occurs? Answer #4: The Commissioner orders a special meeting to be held to elect a new Board of Education. Notice is posted at least 10 days prior to vote. Candidates for the new Board obtain petitions through the

APPENDIX


- 170 -

BOCES District Superintendent. The District Superintendent determines placement on the ballots for voting and absentee ballots are prepared. The special meeting is held to elect the new Board of Education of the newly centralized district. Question #5: When does the new district begin business? Answer #5: This happens very quickly. The BOCES District Superintendent holds an organizational meeting; members take oath of office and prepare for new school year. Of most importance is the development of the budget and holding a special meeting to vote on the new budget. The new district officially begins operation on July 1, 2014. Question #6: What if one of the districts voted not to centralize? How would this affect the other district and could they still move forward? Answer #6: If one of the districts decided not to move forward, the reorganization process is terminated. Question #7: How long can the study be used if there is an initial negative vote? Answer #7: If the two districts decided to move forward at a later date, the study is usually considered useable by the districts for one year. GOVERNANCE The following are excerpts from a Guide to the Reorganization of School Districts in New York State. A complete version can be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/sch_dist_org/GuideToReorganizationOfSchoolDistricts.htm

CENTRALIZATION OF DISTRICTS AND GOVERNANCE

This form of reorganization has been the most common. The procedures for centralization provide that a new school district be created encompassing the entire area of the school districts to be merged. The new central district becomes operational only after the centralization order is approved by the qualified voters in each school district included in the centralization. If each district approves the order by a majority vote, the new district will begin operation on July 1, following the vote. If approval of the order is defeated in any district included in the proposed centralization, the new district is not created, and the question may not be voted upon again for one year.

If the order is presented a second time, and is approved, the new district begins operation. If the order is defeated a second time — or if it is not brought to referendum within two years of the initial referendum — then the original order becomes null and void.

New Board of Education for the New District: The new district is governed by a board of education comprising five, seven or nine members. The new board is elected at a special meeting called by the Commissioner of Education after the new district is approved at referendum. The number of board members (5,7 or 9) and their term of office (3,4 or 5 years) may be voted upon at the same time as the referendum on establishing the district, or may be decided at a separate meeting.

The boards of education of the districts included in the centralization continue their responsibilities until the new district begins operation and the business affairs of their former districts have been completed, usually August 1.

APPENDIX


- 171 -

REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE AID

REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE OPERATING AID

Districts: Base Aid as per SED (GEN report line 75):

Districts: Madison $1,879,984Districts: Stockbridge Valley $2,384,984

Total base $4,264,968

Anticipated first year of consolidation: 2014-2015Therefore, last of 14 years of incentive aid: 2027-2028

MERGER YEAR TOTAL BASE AID INCENTIVE AID % EST. INCENTIVE2014-2015 $4,264,968 40% $1,705,987

2 $4,264,968 40% $1,705,9873 $4,264,968 40% $1,705,9874 $4,264,968 40% $1,705,9875 $4,264,968 40% $1,705,987 Total est.first five years: $8,529,9366 $4,264,968 36% $1,535,3887 $4,264,968 32% $1,364,7908 $4,264,968 28% $1,194,1919 $4,264,968 24% $1,023,592

10 $4,264,968 20% $852,99411 $4,264,968 16% $682,39512 $4,264,968 12% $511,79613 $4,264,968 8% $341,19714 $4,264,968 4% $170,599 Total est. incentive aid

2028-2029 0% $0 over 14 years: $16,206,878

APPENDIX


- 172 -

Labor Relations Implications Of School District Reorganization

(August, 2012)

The following information is based on guidance materials from the State Education Department and general principles of public sector employment law. This document does not contain legal advice and should not be considered a legal opinion. For legal advice, the districts should contact their respective attorney counsels. 1. Q: If two or more school districts reorganize into one school district, what happens to the employees of

the former school districts?

Each teacher employed by a former school district becomes an employee of the new school district. Employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law by a former school district may have varying rights in the new school district, depending on their civil service class (competitive, non-competitive, labor, etc.).

2. Q: What happens to the collective bargaining agreements of the former school districts? The contracts end. The terms of those agreements may become elements of new agreements with the new

school district. The new school district and the new bargaining units’ bargaining agents must make a good faith effort to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements. While new collective bargaining agreements are negotiated, the provisions of the previous contracts are used by the new district.

3. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of teachers? Teachers are credited with seniority earned within a particular tenure area. When school districts

centralize, the seniority lists are merged so that the new school district has only one seniority list per tenure area.

4. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law? Competitive class employees are credited with seniority in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Other

employees may have seniority rights set forth in their collective bargaining agreements. 5. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer teachers? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce teaching positions on the basis of seniority

within a particular tenure area. If a teaching position is abolished, the affected individual is placed on a preferred eligible list for a period of seven years.

6. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer civil service employees? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce competitive class positions on the basis of

seniority as set forth in the Civil Service Law. Current collective agreements that cover civil service employees may have additional reduction in force references.

7. Q: What happens to the administrators of the former school districts?

APPENDIX


- 173 -

Although the guidance materials from the State Education Department specifically reference the seniority rights of teachers only, there is some reason to believe the seniority rights of school administrators may be handled in a similar manner. In addition, since school administrator tenure areas may vary from district to district, the actual impact of these rights by individual job title/role is a case-by-case analysis.

8. Q: What happens to the superintendents of the former school districts? Superintendents of the former districts do not have any statutory rights to that position in the new district.

The new school district board of education may select its own new superintendent. When the superintendent of a district included in the reorganization has a current employment contract, that contract becomes an obligation of the newly reorganized school district. If the newly reorganized district determines not to employ the superintendent of a former school district, the new district may discharge the contractual obligation by paying the salary which he or she would have earned, less any income obtained from employment elsewhere during the term of the contract.

9. Q: What happens to the retirement benefits of the employees of the former school districts? Retirement benefits associated with the retirement system remain unchanged. Retirement benefits

associated with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement are governed by the terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. Individuals who are already retired from a school district may have certain retiree health insurance protections contained in Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009. Chapter 504 prohibits reduction of health insurance for retirees and their dependents unless there is a corresponding reduction of benefits or contributions for the corresponding group of active employees.

10. Q: Are there other considerations relating to labor relations?

When two or more school districts reorganize into a new school district, it is possible that the local bargaining units are represented by different bargaining agents. It is important for the school districts and local bargaining units to work with their labor relations experts.

The Feasibility Study contains original text, concepts and formats crafted by the SES Study Team, LLC.

"Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future."

Dr. Paul M. Seversky Mr. Doug A. Exley Mr. Sam A. Shevat

The SES Study Team focuses its work on customized studies that deal with identifying opportunities to provide quality educational programs more effectively and in a cost-effective manner. The major areas of the Team’s services are school reorganization through centralization analyses, and the identification and analysis of collaborative functional sharing opportunities between school districts.

The SES Study Team, in an impartial manner, provides research, direction and facilitation through a guided process. The study process emphasizes a data-driven analysis and community involvement to identify possible options to serve pupils in the future.

The common elements followed by the Team to achieve customized studies include:

• A focus on answering a set of questions by school district and community stakeholders; • Inclusion of, and sensitivity to, all points of view from the communities involved; • An approach that begins with the collection of data, a review of major findings, sharing of perceptions,

recommendations based upon challenges and opportunities, and the modeling of potential options; • The central role of school district instructional, instructional support, and administrative staff in providing

comprehensive data for the study to use to answer the study question(s) posed by the client district(s); • Public transparency of the work and data developed, compiled, and analyzed by the Study Team; • The creation of a study report that becomes the prime useable tool by members of the communities as they decide how

best to educate their children in the future.

The Study Team brings a combined 105 years of public education experience to working with and helping school districts identify options in serving pupils and their communities. Each team member has served as a teacher, principal and superintendent of a K-12 school district. Doug and Sam each has served as a superintendent of a reorganized district through centralization. Paul has served as a superintendent of a district that explored reorganization and in a regional capacity as a Deputy District Superintendent of a BOCES. Sam has worked for a college to administer programs for public school pupils; Paul has taught graduate level courses in educational administration for 23 years; and Doug serves as a council member at a local university. The Study Team Members have provided consultant services to public school districts since 1998.

Contact the SES Study Team to discuss your school district's specific study project. Paul.Seversky at ses-studyteam dot org Doug.Exley at ses-studyteam dot org Sam.Shevat at ses-studyteam dot org

madison-stockbridge valley study data sets 2013

Documents