1 / 115

Bartlesville Board of Education

Bartlesville Board of Education. Special Meeting: Monday, May 2, 2011. Third Grade CRT. (Math). Third Grade CRT. (Reading). Fourth Grade CRT. (Math). Fourth Grade CRT. (Reading). Fifth Grade CRT. (Math). Fifth Grade CRT. (Reading). Fifth Grade CRT. (Science). Fifth Grade CRT.

tana
Download Presentation

Bartlesville Board of Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bartlesville Board of Education Special Meeting: Monday, May 2, 2011

  2. Third Grade CRT (Math)

  3. Third Grade CRT (Reading)

  4. Fourth Grade CRT (Math)

  5. Fourth Grade CRT (Reading)

  6. Fifth Grade CRT (Math)

  7. Fifth Grade CRT (Reading)

  8. Fifth Grade CRT (Science)

  9. Fifth Grade CRT (Social Studies)

  10. Fifth Grade CRT (Writing Composition)

  11. Sixth Grade CRT (Math)

  12. Sixth Grade CRT (Reading)

  13. Seventh Grade CRT (Math)

  14. Seventh Grade CRT (Reading)

  15. Seventh Grade CRT (Geography)

  16. Eighth Grade CRT (Math)

  17. Eighth Grade CRT (Reading)

  18. Eighth Grade CRT (Science)

  19. Eighth Grade CRT (U.S. History)

  20. Eighth Grade CRT (Writing Composition)

  21. End of Instruction Testing Series (English 2)

  22. End of Instruction Testing Series (English 3)

  23. End of Instruction Testing Series (Algebra 1)

  24. End of Instruction Testing Series (Geometry)

  25. End of Instruction Testing Series (Algebra 2)

  26. End of Instruction Testing Series (U.S. History)

  27. End of Instruction Testing Series (Biology)

  28. API Score Comparison: BPSD Enjoys 54-Point Gain from 2009 to ‘10 (This chart compares the Bartlesville Public School District’s overall API scores – by utilizing the “new” cut scores - from the last two years .)

  29. 2009 API Scores: Oklahoma’s 32 Largest School Districts Edmond – 1450 12. Broken Arrow – 1368 23. Lawton - 1292 Jenks – 1424 13. Durant – 1361 24. Sapulpa - 1291 14. Union – 1344 25. Guthrie - 1290 15. Tahlequah – 1341 26. Enid - 1277 16. Altus – 1328 27. Coweta - 1274 17. Choctaw/Nicoma Park – 1317 28. Duncan - 1272 18. Midwest City/Del City – 1316 29. Tulsa - 1162 19. Sand Springs - 1311 30. Muskogee - 1158 Bartlesville - 1381 20. Ponca City - 1307 31. Oklahoma City - 1137 9. Yukon – 1381 20. Putnam City – 1307 32. Western Heights - 1072 11. Mustang - 1373 22. Shawnee - 1299 Moore – 1401 Norman – 1400 Owasso – 1397 Stillwater – 1388 Claremore – 1387 Bixby – 1385

  30. 2010 API Scores: Oklahoma’s 32 Largest School Districts Edmond – 1346 12. Broken Arrow - 1194 23. Ponca City - 1098 Jenks – 1298 13. Durant - 1169 24. Sapulpa - 1097 Bartlesville - 1285 14. Union - 1166 25. Coweta - 1075 Norman – 1258 15. Tahlequah - 1147 26. Shawnee - 1062 Moore - 1257 16. Altus - 1143 27. Duncan - 1057 5. Owasso - 1257 17. Sand Springs - 1141 28. Enid - 1030 Yukon - 1252 18. Putnam City – 1124 29. Muskogee - 928 Stillwater - 1246 19. Choctaw/Nicoma Park – 1119 30. Tulsa - 920 Bixby – 1243 20. Guthrie – 1114 31. Oklahoma City - 896 Claremore – 1219 20. Mid West City/Del City – 1114 32. Western Heights - 735 Mustang - 1214 22. Lawton - 1098

  31. What Makes Us Successful? • Small Class Sizes • Periodic Assessments to Measure Progress • Individualized Remediation for Students • Continuous Supports in Place • for Individual Students

  32. Federal Stimulus Funds Received by BPSD (These are funds received in the last three years)

  33. Projecting Ahead for BPSD’s Fund Balance

  34. Questions from Citizens

  35. 1. Has the district looked at the option of going to a four-day school week instead of the current five-day plan? Could cost savings be realized through such a plan? What are the arguments for and against such a plan?

  36. 2. Would a slight increase in local ad valorem taxes ease some of the Bartlesville Public School District’s budget pains and perhaps alleviate the need to close Oak Park Elementary School? What about increasing taxes throughout the state to help create additional revenue to ease the burden on common education and other state-funded agencies in Oklahoma?

  37. (Note: For years 2001-11)

  38. Sales Tax Proceeds (All hinges on the ballot and how it is worded.) Municipalities may support any public school system located in whole or in part within the corporate limits of themunicipality or any public school system located outside and completely surrounded by the corporate limits of themunicipality, including without limitation by the expenditure of municipal revenues for construction or improvement ofpublic school facilities. In furtherance of municipal support for any public school system, as authorized by this section, the municipal governing body may take all actions necessary to effectuate such support. (11-22-159) A municipal sales tax ordinance which provides that tax proceeds shall be distributed to two public school districtswith school buildings or other facilities within city limits, but omits to provide for a third district that has no schoolbuildings or other facilities within city limits, is presumptively constitutional. January 28, 2005 (AG Op. No. 05-2) Money raised by a municipality for the benefit of local schools may lawfully be expended for general revenue itemsof day-to-day school operations, including teacher salaries. However, any municipal ordinance levying a sales taxfor a special purpose must specify the purpose for which the tax will be used. February 13, 2003 (AG Op. No. 03-6). Statute is constitutional. Levy of sales tax to benefit school district is valid public purpose. Grimes v. City ofOklahoma City, 2002 OK 47

  39. Bond Proceeds Bond proceeds may only be used for capital improvements, supplies, and equipment; no staff salaries.  Salaries as part of a construction project or purchased services related to capital improvements are allowed. Source: Oklahoma School Laws; Rick Smith, Municipal Finance

  40. 3. Where are the funds that the state is cutting from common education going? Weren’t more funds for common education supposed to be generated by the lottery?

  41. 4. Voters passed school bond issues in 2001 (for $30.5 million) and 2007 (for $29.95 million). Why can’t some of that money be used to save Oak Park? Could a special bond issue be proposed to help offset the budget challenges which the district is currently facing?

  42. 5. The BPSD was expected to realize savings by closing the Will Rogers Early Childhood Center a year early. Were these savings realized, and if so, how was the money used?

  43. 6. Please go into detail as to exactly how the estimated $600,000 in cost savings – on an annual basis – will be realized by closing Oak Park Elementary School. Aren’t most of the projected savings in the area of staffing? Doesn’t the plan include not having to have a reduction in force? Though cost savings will be realized by closing Oak Park, won’t some additional costs be added, such as those which will come from transporting Oak Park students to their new school? How do these costs affect the budget picture?

  44. 7. What other plans were considered for budget relief in addition to the option of closing Oak Park? How much input was sought from the community in regard to these plans?

More Related