District Advisory Committee

1. District Advisory Committee Activity Report and the District Budget Reduction Plan Review January 20, 2009

2. DAC Activity Report • School Improvement Plans • Winter Forum

3. School Improvement Plans “Review and make recommendations to the BoE concerning high, but achievable, goals and objectives for the improvement of education in each school that are submitted by the School Advisory Councils.” • Learning Improvement Goals • Ends Statements & Learning Goals Alignment • SIPs Focus Areas • Budget Reduction Prioritization Linkage

4. School Improvement Plans “Review and make recommendations to the BoE concerning high, but achievable, goals and objectives for the improvement of education in each school that are submitted by the School Advisory Councils.” • Re-assess SIP Central for Improvements • Design a SIP “Ends/LG” Matrix • Year to yearassessment/trends • Formal report to Board of Education in April 2009

5. 2008-2009 Learning Improvement Goals • Reading, Writing & Math…Prominent Focus • Learning Goal #2 & CSAP Measurement • Learning Goal #1…Positive Behavior(PBS) • Learning Goal #3…Technology Application • SIPs are Generally Aligned with End Statement & Learning Goals

6. Winter Forum Tuesday, February 10, 2009 “The purpose of the DAC is to encourage and provide opportunities for parents and community members to become informed about and to be involved in the planning and evaluation of the School District’s instructional program and quality improvement processes.” • Regional Forums • Castle Rock • Highlands Ranch • Parker Area • BoE, DOS & DAC Representatives Hosting • Agenda Topics • SIPs Compliance & Best Practices • DAC/SAC Relationship & Communication: Defining Roles • Post Budget Reduction Priorities: Flexible Funding

7. District Budget Reduction andPrioritization Plan “After attempting to consult with the SACs, make recommendations to the Board relative to prioritization of expenditures of school district moneys.” • District Advisory Committee Report • Overview • Assessment & Due Diligence • Conclusions

8. District Advisory CommitteeOverview DAC Charge We interpreted our BoE charge as one of assessing whether or not the District’s Budget Reduction Proposal is “reasonable as presented” along with providing any appropriate comments regarding prioritization and innovative ideas.

9. District Advisory CommitteeOverview • Criteria • We attempted to frame our thinking within the spirit of the Superintendent’s primary criteria. • Maintain a world class educational opportunity • Minimize impact on the classroom • Ensure the financial strength of the District • Our prioritization work was further defined by the BoE End Statement and District Student Learning Goals.

10. District Advisory CommitteeAssessment • SAC Engagement • DAC members attended approximately 25 SAC meetings where budget reduction brainstorming was the primary agenda item. We established regional e-mail networks of communication with our SAC/DAC liaisons • Each DAC member has feeder/charters responsibility • SAC/community members present at DAC meetings

11. Common SAC Themes “We really don’t understand school finance. Just tell us how this impacts our children and the quality of their education.” • Minimize classroom impact • Maintain quality: Academic standards and focus on reading, writing and math • The open budget reduction and prioritization process was applauded • Appreciation of early focus on non-academic structural reductions • G&T/Discovery parents were organized

12. DAC Due Diligence • Criteria • BoE End Statement, District Learning Goals, Superintendent’s themes and DAC Bylaws • DCSD Budget Office “big picture” macro presentation of the operating budget • CFO Discussion • Funding streams • Initial Reduction Proposal: Structural emphasis

13. DAC Due Diligence • Criteria • Superintendent • Internal engagement • Primary criteria for outcome of budget reductions • SACs • SAC meeting engagement • Feeder templates of brainstorming priorities • Survey Review (5,310 responses as of January 13, 2009)

14. DAC Final Discussion and Survey • Section A: • Reasonable as presented versus criteria? (Yes) • Flexible Funding & Local Decision Making (Yes) • Structural vs. Programmatic Initial Approach • DAC confirmed this as appropriate and generally consistent with SAC feedback • Committee discussion expressed some concern over class size increases and graduation requirement reductions...areas for potential tweaking • Section B: “Bricks and clicks” Continue the integration of technology in the classroom and distance learning to enhance the efficiency model.

15. Section C: Untouchables Prioritization • Each committee member was asked to prioritize their top five “untouchables”. This list represents the aggregate conclusion of the committee. • Literacy Intervention • K-8 Gifted & Talented • High School S.T.A.R. Labs program • Elementary Instrumental Music • Elementary World Languages • Some debate ensued on the inclusion of World Languages as our SAC experience indicated this was not a high priority for retention. However, BoE ends seem consistent with inclusion on this list.

16. DAC Conclusions • Thoughtful Approach: The DAC believes this budget reduction and prioritization process demonstrated an inclusive process and a school district focused on the proper priorities to accomplish our ends.

17. DAC Conclusions • Recommendation: The District Advisory Committee voted unanimously (January 13, 2009…By 6 of the 9 voting members present) to accept the District’s Two Year Budget Reduction Plan as reasonable in its present form for Board of Education consideration.

18. District Advisory Committee THANK YOU