Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation

1. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation April 12, 2011

2. Align resources to support Strategic Plan 2014 Keep strong academic focus coupled with data driven decision making Recognize and plan for the impact of the economic environment and employ sound fiscal management – respond to signals from state and local sources that funding may be limited Acknowledge uncertainty regarding expected funding levels from all sources, but be prepared for the worst Request funding from County for growth and sustaining operations Pay for Strategic Plan 2014 initiatives through budget reductions or redirections Establish flexibility in the budget to allow for various reduction levels Framework for Budget Development 2

3. What is the financial investment required? 3

4. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget 4

5. Comparison to Prior Year 5

6. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget* SOURCES * Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 6

7. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget* USES * Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 7

8. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget* * Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 8

9. Staff Prioritized Budget Reduction Recommendations included in 2011-12 Proposed Budget 9

10. Factors Increasing the 2011-12 Proposed Budget * Estimate based on an average teacher salary. Exact amount varies based on individual position salary. ** Estimated increase does not include any impact for changes that may occur with passing of Senate Bill 8. *** Previously shared cost with DSS. 10

11. Superintendent’s Recommendation for 2011-12 County Budget Request 11

12. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget (Does not include reductions in Tiers 1-4 totaling $86.8M) 12

13. 2011-12 Proposed Budget with Potential Budget Reductions (Tiers1-4) 13

14. Capital Replacement 2011-12 Proposed Budget • Historically funded from state’s Public School Capital Building Fund but since 2006-07 has been funded with County revenues • Provides pay-as-you-go funding for systematic and scheduled major repair and replacement of major assets 14

15. Child Nutrition 2011-12 Proposed Budget • Child Nutrition serves more than 30,000 breakfasts and 80,000 lunches per day • Meal costs have not increased since 2001-02, but the lunch price will increase by 5 cents per meal in 2011-12 due to a Federal requirement 15

16. After School Enrichment Program 2011-12 Proposed Budget • Total program fee for Before School and After School programs will increase $5 from $81 to $86 per week for participation both the before school and after school programs. • Fees will vary based on end of the day bell schedule: • 2:45-3:15: After School $56 and Before School increase from $25 to $30 per week • 3:30-3:45: After School decrease from $56 to $45 and Before School increase from $25 to $41 per week • 4:15: After School decrease from $56 to $30 and Before School increase from $25 to $56 per week 16

17. What has been the return on past investments? 17

18. Math Proficiency (without retests) Over the past 4 years, CMS has increased proficiency at each grade level by between 5 and 16 percentage points. *Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV 18

19. Math Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests) CMS gaps have narrowed consistently. *Mathematics for 2005-06 reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards. 19

20. Reading Proficiency (without retests) Since the test standards were raised in 2007-08, CMS has increased proficiency at each grade level by between 3 and 10 percentage points. *Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV 20

21. Reading Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests) CMS gaps have narrowed consistently. *Reading for 2007-08 reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards. 21

22. End-of-Course Proficiency *Test standards were raised in 2006-07 **Test standards were raised in 2007-08 Note: Chemistry and Physics were discontinued at the start of the 2009-10 school year 22

23. Algebra I Trends within Subgroups (without retests) The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 23

24. Algebra II Trends within Subgroups (without retests) The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 24

25. Biology Trends within Subgroups (without retests) The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 25

26. Civics & Economics Trends within Subgroups (without retests) The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 26

27. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) English I The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 27

28. Geometry Trends within Subgroups (without retests) The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 28

29. US History Trends within Subgroups (without retests) The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. 29

30. SAT 30

31. AP Pass Rates 31

32. AP Tests Taken 32

33. Strategic Plan 2010: High Academic Achievement Goal: “Eighty percent of schools will make expected or high growth on ABCs.” *Metro and Morgan are excluded from these counts because the state identifies them as schools with no ABC status 33

34. ABC Results – All Schools *Metro and Morgan are excluded from these counts because the state identifies them as schools with no ABC status 34

35. What is the risk of further reductions in our community’s investment? 35

36. The greatest challenge facing CMS may be this -If we have to cut an additional $86 million* from the 2011-12 budget, it could jeopardize the strong academic progress we’ve made since 2006. *remainder of $101 million in potential cuts previously identified 36

37. What This Means for CMS (as estimated January 2011) 37

38. Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions 38

39. Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions 39

40. Key Points • We do not want to lose ground we have fought so hard to gain • We will continue to put resources into the initiatives and strategies that have helped us increase academic achievement • We are making progress – but it’s critical that resources do not shrink to the point we stop making progress • We have much more work to do – but continued reductions in funding will affect our ability to move students forward and reach SP2014 goals 40

41. Key Dates • April/May – Begin notifying at-will employees affected by RIF • April 26 – Public hearing on Superintendent’s Budget Recommendation • April 27 – Board work session • May 1 – Deadline for notifying administrators of superintendent’s intent to non- renew contracts • May 10 – Board of Education's 2011-12 proposed budget approved • May 13 – Board of Education's 2011-12 proposed budget delivered to County Manager • May 15 – Deadline for notifying teachers of superintendent’s intent to non-renew • May 17 – County Manager’s Recommended Operating and Capital Budgets presented to Board of County Commissioners • May 24 – Board of County Commissioners 2011-12 Budget Workshop • May 26 – Public hearing on Board of County Commissioners’ 2011-12 Budget • June 1 – Deadline for notifying administrators of non-renewal • June 15 – Deadline for notifying teachers of non-renewal • June 21 – FY2011-12 County Operating Budget and 3-year CIP adopted 41

42. Superintendent’s closing remarks Q & A Conclusion 42

43. Key Points • We do not want to lose ground we have fought so hard to gain • We will continue to put resources into the initiatives and strategies that have helped us increase academic achievement • We are making progress – but it’s critical that resources do not shrink to the point we stop making progress • We have much more work to do – but continued reductions in funding will affect our ability to move students forward and reach SP2014 goals 43