2013-2014 budget disclosures - valley central school district

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

BUDGET HEARING

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

MAY 13, 2013 6:00 P.M.

ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

VOTE DATE

MAY 21, 2013 7:00 A.M. - 9:00 P.M.

Valley Central

School District

Proposed Budget

2013-2014

VOTER REGISTRATIONMAY 13, 2013 1:00 P.M. - 8:00 P.M.

INDEX

Page Letter to Residents .................................................................. i-ii Board of Education Elections .................................................. iii Voter Qualifications & Information ........................................... iii Proposed Budget for 2013-2014.............................................. 1A - 6

BOARD OF EDUCATION 2012-2013

Term Expiration President Robert W. Santo 2014 15 Chandler Circle, Montgomery, NY 12549 Vice President Elizabeth Blashka 2014 102 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, NY 12549 Member Joy D. Crist 2015 55 Crist Lane, Walden, NY 12586 Member Chris Ann Harper-O’Connor 2013 20 Van Dale Court, Walden, NY 12586 Member Sonia Lewis 2015 815 Homestead Avenue, Maybrook, NY 12543 Member Steven H. Mosenson 2013 114 Coleman Road, Walden, NY 12586 Member Kevin Reidy 2013

103 Camp Orange Road, Middletown, NY 10941

May 2013 Dear Resident, In the late 90s, the New York State Legislature redefined how school budgets are presented to ensure a better understanding of how tax dollars are spent in local school districts. As a result, Valley Central, along with all other school districts, presents its expenses in three parts with comparative budget figures from the previous year. This format allows voters to view the areas of program, administration and capital against the costs from the prior year. As you review the attached budget, you can see areas that have increased and decreased from the previous year and see the comparative difference among the three areas. A Property Tax Report Card must be prepared and filed with the State and local newspapers. The Six-Day Budget Notice is also required by the State and will be mailed to all District residents following the Budget Hearing. For 2013-2014 the Board is recommending a budget which pierces the tax cap. These revenues with additional state aid, and other cuts and reductions address a significant shortfall which started as $8.1 Million in February as we began the budget process. If this budget fails, approximately $3 Million more in cuts to programs and student opportunities must be found. If the budget fails twice the increase to the levy must be zero causing another $3 Million in cuts or a total of $5 Million over what has already been cut from the instructional and extracurricular program. If the proposed budget is defeated by the voters, the Board of Education has three options: they may resubmit the budget in its original form, submit a revised budget, or adopt a contingency budget. If voters fail to approve the proposed budget on the second vote, the District must adopt a Contingency Budget since two votes are the maximum permitted under current legislation. In a Contingency Budget, the levy for the Contingency Budget year must be zero and may not exceed the levy in the preceding year. Specifically, for the proposed 2013-2014 budget, the Contingency Budget would be reduced by $2,925,544, due to reduction in the use of fund balance. This would mean additional reductions to staffing and programs. Please note that the proposed 2013-2014 tax levy is 5.5% over the state tax cap and therefore requires a 60% majority to pass. This year's budget vote and election will be held on Tuesday, May 21st from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. in each of our five elementary schools.

-i-

The 2013-2014 proposed budget is listed below as Proposition No. 1 .

Proposition No. 1 Total: $92,352,524

This proposition represents the entire budget proposal and includes all expenses relatedto educational programs, basic operation and maintenance needs, and health and safetyissues related to capital projects, benefits, and debt service. This yea/s budget proposalreflects an increase of 2.43o/o over last year's budget and a tax increase of 9.81 o/o, 5.5o/o

over the tax cap. The 2013-2014 spending plan reinforces the District's instructionalprogram. The budget also reflects cost for state and federal mandates.

Copies of the detailed proposed 2013-2014 budget will be available at the AdministrationBuilding and at each school building beginning May 6, 2013. The Budget Hearing isscheduled for 6:00 p.m., Monday, May 13 in the Administration Building.

Thank you for your consideration ofTuesday, May 21st.

Sincerely,

the budget, and please remember to vote on

,r4,/t"/ -/*6Richard M. Hooley, Ed.D.Superintendent of Schools

Robert W. SantoPresident, Board of Education

-ii-

BOARD OF EDUCATION ELECTIONS

To elect three (3) members to the Board of Education as follows: Three (3) members for three (3) year terms commencing July 1, 2013 and expiring June 30, 2016. Vacancies are due to the expiration of terms of Chris Ann Harper-O’Connor, Steven Mosenson and Kevin Reidy. According to Board Policy, vacancies are not considered separate, specific offices, and the nominating petition does not describe any specific vacancy upon the Board of Education for which the candidate is nominated; therefore, candidates are running "at large." Petitions were filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Education at the Administration Building on or before Monday, April 22, 2013, 5:00 p.m. A drawing was held to determine the ballot order and the candidates are listed below:

Frances Fox-Pizzonia Steven H. Mosenson Matthew T. Flanagan Bradley Conklin Joseph Byrne

VOTER QUALIFICATIONS & INFORMATION

A person is entitled to vote at any school meeting (Annual District Election and Budget Vote) for the election of school district officers and upon all other matters which may be brought before such meeting, who is a qualified registered voter in the school district; in order to register, the applicant must meet the following criteria:

• Be a citizen of the United States • Be eighteen (18) years of age or older on May 21, 2013 • Be a resident within the district for a period of not less than thirty (30) days prior to

the Annual District Election and Budget Vote at which he or she offers to vote

No person shall have the right to register for or vote at any school meeting or election who would not be qualified to register for or vote at an election in accordance with the provisions of Section 5-106 of the Election Law. This includes convicted felons and those adjudged mentally incompetent by a court.

Qualified voters may vote on any question brought before any annual or special school meeting. It is not essential that a person be a taxpayer to vote on propositions for raising money by tax on the district. For your convenience, new voter registration is set for Monday, May 13 between 1:00 and 8:00 p.m. at our elementary schools. Any resident who registered and voted at an annual or special district meeting or general election within the last four (4) calendar years will be eligible to vote on Tuesday, May 21, 2013. Questions on voter qualifications can be directed to the Valley Central School District Administration Office at 457-2400, ext. 18122.

-iii-

CATEGORY

2012-2013 2013-2014 2012-2013 2013-2014 2012-2013 2013-2014

Board of Education 77,900 54,900

Central Administration 1,487,630 1,468,598

Central Services 383,875 314,170 4,870,087 4,766,256

Special Items 847,400 888,262 50,000 50,000

Supervision of Instruction 3,481,036 3,346,687

Regular Classroom 31,019,366 30,283,342

Special Education, Special

Schools & Tuition

12,139,322 14,122,281

Instructional Media 1,509,419 1,390,959

Pupil Personnel Services 3,632,181 2,733,150

Co-Curricular and

Interscholastic Sports

742,500 676,712

Transportation 6,055,300 6,290,420

Employee Benefits 1,714,566 1,995,587 17,157,450 18,758,823 1,727,106 1,899,377

Debt Service and Interfund

Transfers

3,270,000 3,313,000

7,992,407 8,068,204 72,255,538 74,255,687 9,917,193 10,028,633

8.86% 8.74% 80.14% 80.40% 11.00% 10.86%

ESTIMATED REVENUES

State Aid (including BOCES) 29,530,000 30,813,012

Property Tax 52,119,582 57,232,512

Fund Balance 6,488,138 2,000,000

Other Receipts:

Other Payments in lieu of taxes 1,610,000 1,590,000

Charges for services 150,000 166,000

Use of Money & Property 90,000 75,000

Sale of Property & Comp. for loss 3,418 0

Refund Prior Years Expenses 40,000 40,000

Unclassified 84,000 0

Interfund Transfer 0 436,000

Medicaid Assistance 50,000 2,027,418 0 2,307,000

92,352,524

VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2013-2014 THREE PART BUDGET, Adopted 4/15/13

ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAM CAPITAL

2012-2013 2013-2014

90,165,138

2012-2013 2013-2014

$90,165,138 $92,352,524

Total Total

CODE BOARD OF EDUCATION 2012-2013

BUDGET

2013-2014

BUDGET

Board of Education

Expenditures incurred by the Board for supplies, travel, meetings, and

conferences.

District Clerk

Expenditures for supplies, postage, servicing of machines and portion

of clerical salary in support of the District Clerk’s office.

District Meeting

New voting machines required add substantial costs. Expenditures for

printing, advertising, payments to election officials, absentee ballots, and

supplies.

Total cost: BOARD OF EDUCATION

CODE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION 2012-2013

BUDGET

2013-2014

BUDGET

Superintendent

Salaries of the Superintendent, Superintendent’s Assistant and negotiated

benefits, equipment, other expenses, and supplies.

Assistant Superintendent for Business

Salaries of the Assistant Superintendent for Business, clerical and

accounting staff, contractual expenses, and supplies.

Auditing Services

Annual Audit by External Auditor, Internal Auditor, and stipend for

Internal Claims Auditor.

District Treasurer

Stipend of Treasurer.

Receiver of Taxes

The T/o Montgomery employs the Receiver of Taxes, but the District

pays a portion of the salary for tax collections in the Towns of Crawford,

Wallkill, Hamptonburgh, and Shawangunk.

Total cost: SUPERINTENDENT AND BUSINESS OFFICE

2012-2013

BUDGET

Legal Services

School District Attorney and other legal fees.

Personnel Administration

Salaries of Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services and Human

Resources and clerical staff, expenditures for supplies, recruiting costs,

and advertising.

Public Information and Services

Budget brochures and newsletters.

Total cost: STAFF

Total cost: CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION

A1310 535,130

A1040 1,000

A1060 63,000

77,900

A1240 319,090

A1010 13,900

Valley Central School District

ADOPTED BUDGET (4/15/13)

13,900

A1330 7,300

939,070

A1320 61,500

A1325 16,050

189,000

A1430 343,560

CODE STAFF

A1420

CODE

A1480 16,000

548,560

1,487,630

511,103

61,500

16,530

7,500

-

41,000

54,900

319,357

552,608

1,468,598

915,990

189,000

355,608

8,000

2013-2014

BUDGET

2013-2014

BUDGET

Page 1


ADOPTED BUDGET (4/15/13) CENTRAL SERVICES 2012-2013

OPERATION and MAINTENANCE BUDGET

Operations of Plant

Salaries of Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds and full-time and

part-time custodial staff (38), equipment, supplies, other expenses,

utilities, professional and technical services, and district-wide service

contracts.

A1621 Maintenance of Plant 688,135

Salaries of full-time and part-time maintenance (5) and grounds staff (3).

Printing supplies

Costs for printing elementary report cards, forms, and district-wide

stationery. Printing student handbooks deleted here.

Data Processing - BOCES

Computer costs for attendance, student scheduling, test scoring, secondary

report cards, and related hardware costs.

Total cost: CENTRAL SERVICES

2012-2013

BUDGET

Insurance

Insurance premiums for fire, auto, liability, vandalism, and student

accident.

School Association Dues

Costs of memberships in state, regional, and county associations.

Refund of Property Taxes

Refund of prior year’s collected taxes due to reductions in assessments

caused by tax grievances.

Administrative Charges - BOCES

District’s portion of BOCES administrative expenses.

Dorm Authority/Rent and Capital Construction Charge

District’s share of the cost of operating and maintaining BOCES

buildings.

Total cost: SPECIAL ITEMS

INSTRUCTION and STAFF DEVELOPMENT 2012-2013

Supervision of Regular Instruction BUDGET

Curriculum Development and Supervision

Salaries of Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, and

clerical staff in administrator's offices, equipment , supplies, and

substantial portion of district staff development.

A2020 Supervision of Regular Instruction 3,002,586

Salaries of principals (7), assistant principals (8) and clerical staff

(secretaries), equipment, supplies and other expenses such as postage,

conferences, graduation expenses.

Staff Development

Partial costs for staff development.

Total cost: SUPERVISION OF INSTRUCTION & STAFF DEVELOPMENT 3,622,536 3,346,687

CODE

A1620 4,181,950

5,253,960

CODE SPECIAL ITEMS

A1670.45 26,875

A1680.49 357,000

A1964

&

A1980

50,000

A1981 574,000

A1910 259,900

A1920 13,500

CODE

A2010 478,450

A1989 -

897,400

A2070 141,500

4,119,673

646,583

15,000

50,000

591,362

-

40,650

273,520

2013-2014

BUDGET

281,900

938,262

479,510

2,818,777

48,400

2013-2014

BUDGET

2013-2014

BUDGET

5,080,426

Page 2


ADOPTED BUDGET (4/15/13) 2012-2013

REGULAR CLASSROOM BUDGET

Salaries of Grades K-6 Teachers

Budget reflects cost of teachers with contractual increases. Estimated

10.0 teacher reductions here.

Salaries of Grades 7-12 Teachers

Budget reflects costs of secondary teachers with contractual increases.

Estimated 12.5 teacher reductions here.

Substitute Teaching and Home Teaching

Reflects costs of substitutes.

Regular Classroom Paraprofessionals

Salaries for Paraprofessionals.

Sick-Day Incentives

Attendance incentive for instructional staff.

Classroom Supplies, Equipment and Other Expenses

Supplies, equipment, and contractual costs for instructional purposes.

Foster & Tuition

Tuition paid to other school districts for Valley Central students in foster

care outside of the district..

Textbooks

Includes costs of textbooks for all students.

BOCES

Includes testing, tuition, and some staff development.

Special Education

Salaries of special education teachers and paraprofessionals, equipment,

supplies, special education BOCES services, residential and contracted

tuition, and other expenses.

BOCES - Occupational Education

Educational services for students who attend the vocational programs at

BOCES.

Total cost: REGULAR CLASSROOM

A2110.12 12,063,747

A2110.13 13,113,456

CODE

A2110.18 37,000

A2110 648,135

A2110.14 636,580

A2110.16 1,649,900

A2110.49 183,000

A2250 12,139,322

A2110.471 150,000

A2110.48 300,630

A2280.49 870,000

41,791,770

150,000

300,630

198,640

14,122,281

870,000

42,370,392

11,588,363

12,865,838

368,915

1,353,152

37,000

515,573

2013-2014

BUDGET

Page 3


ADOPTED BUDGET (4/15/13) 2012-2013

BUDGET

Special Schools

Costs to operate Evening H.S., CAS.

Total cost: SPECIAL SCHOOLS

2012-2013

BUDGET

School Library and Audio Visual

Salaries of librarians and clerical staff, library and A/V equipment and

supplies and audio, video and computer repairs.

Computer Assisted Instruction

Computer hardware/software and State aided computer hardware/software

expenditures.

Total cost: INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA

2012-2013

BUDGET

Attendance

Salaries of attendance teacher, clerical staff, supplies, equipment, and

other expenses.

Guidance

Salaries for guidance counselors, clerical staff, equipment, supplies and

other expenses.

Health Services/School Nurses

Salaries of clerical staff and nurses (10), plus additional time for school

nurses at the District’s non public schools, equipment, supplies, and other

expenses. District also pays for health services of district resident private

school students.

Psychological Services

Salaries of psychologists and clerical staff, equipment, supplies, and other

expenses.

Educational Related Support Services

Salaries of student assistance counselors, occupational and physical

therapists, supplies and other expenses.

Speech and Social Work Services

Salaries of speech teachers, supplies, and other expenses.

Pupil Personnel Services - Special Schools

Salaries of Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Services and Human

Resources, Director and Assistant Director of Special Education, office

staff, equipment, supplies, and other expenses.

Total cost: PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES

CODE SPECIAL SCHOOLS

A2330

CODE INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA

A2610

107,000

107,000

1,509,419

CODE PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES

788,079

A2630 721,340

A2815 880,069

A2820 867,500

A2805 83,395

A2810 1,035,023

A2830 423,950

4,750,599

A2823 249,612

A2825 1,211,050

158,520

78,663

1,390,959

966,334

831,714

2013-2014

BUDGET

158,520

756,050

2013-2014

BUDGET

634,909

805,982

287,614

1,185,414

454,140

4,609,861

2013-2014

BUDGET

Page 4


ADOPTED BUDGET (4/15/13) 2012-2013

BUDGET

Co-Curricular Activities

Salaries of chaperones, class advisors and advisors to Yearbook, Student

Newspaper, Student Government, Plays, etc.

Interscholastic Sports, Grades 7-12

Salaries of coaches for interscholastic sports, supplies, uniforms,

equipment reconditioning, officials, dues, entry fees, and expenses for

pool.

Total cost:

CO-CURRICULAR AND INTERSCHOLASTIC SPORTS

2012-2013

BUDGET

District Transportation

Fuel costs.

Contract Transportation

Cost for transportation of pupils to and from the public, non-public and

special education schools.

Total cost: TRANSPORTATION

2012-2013

BUDGET

State Retirement

Civil service employees' retirement costs. A portion of expense paid from

district reserve.

Teachers’ Retirement

District’s share of retirement plan for professional staff.

Social Security

District’s share of Social Security and Medicare for employees.

Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Premiums paid by the District as required by law. District is a member

of a self-funded plan.

Unemployment Insurance

An expense required by State and Federal Law.

Health Insurance

District’s share for health and life insurance premiums. District is a

member of a self-funded plan as well as two other plans.

Dental and Vision Insurance

District’s share for dental and vision plan for employees.

A9070 Accumulated Sick And Vacation Days

Buyback of accumulated retiree sick and vacation days.

Total cost: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

155,000

A2855 587,500

CODE CO-CURRICULAR and INTERSCHOLASTIC SPORTS

A2850

A5510 630,500

A5540.4 5,424,800

742,500

CODE PUPIL TRANSPORTATION

A9010.8 1,100,000

A9020.8 4,872,140

6,055,300

CODE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

A9050.8 365,000

A9060.8 9,450,348

A9030.8 3,717,274

A9040.8 464,836

A9065.8 629,526

20,599,124

2013-2014

BUDGET

517,062

159,650

517,090

170,000

2,024,435

6,132,417

3,483,558

507,394

2013-2014

BUDGET

365,000

9,453,893

676,712

6,290,420

22,653,787

2013-2014

BUDGET

661,915

5,628,505

Page 5


ADOPTED BUDGET (4/15/13) CODE DEBT SERVICE, CAPITAL PROJECTS, BORROWING COSTS and

INTERFUND TRANSFERS

2012-2013

BUDGET

2013-2014

BUDGET

Principal and Interest

Long term debt service and short-term borrowing should State Aid

payments fail to be made by NYS.

Transfer to Special Aid Funds and Cafeteria Fund

Transfer to Federal Fund for the Summer Handicapped Program, and

continued support for student food service.

Transfer to Capital Funds

Not currently used.

Total cost: DEBT SERVICE, CAPITAL PROJECTS, and INTERFUND

TRANSFERS

Change: Total cost: GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION

#REF!

A9710 2,980,000

90,165,138

A9950.9 -

3,270,000

290,000 A9901.95

3,003,000

310,000

-

3,313,000

92,352,524

Page 6


2013-2014 Fiscal Accountability Report

SDL: 4490 LEA: 441301060000

The New York State School Report CardFiscal Accountability Supplement

forValley Central School District (Montgomery)

New York State Education Law and the Commissioner's Regulations require the attachment of the NYS School Report Card to the public school district budget proposal. The regulations require that certain expenditure ratios for general education and special education students be reported and compared with ratios for similar districts and all public schools. The required ratios for this district are reported below.

2010-2011 School Year General Education Special Education

This School District

Similar District Group

Similar District Group Description: Average Need/Resource Capacity

Instructional ExpendituresPupilsExpenditures Per Pupil

$47,871,8784,729

$10,123

$18,377,050775

$23,712

$7,820,663,210798,424$9,795

$3,172,283,304110,978$28,585

Instructional ExpendituresPupilsExpenditures Per Pupil

Instructional ExpendituresPupils

Expenditures Per Pupil

$29,473,160,4062,688,528

$10,963

$12,260,104,540412,226

$29,741

Instructional Expenditures for General Education are K-12 expenditures for classroom instruction (excluding Special Education) plus a pro-ration of building level administrative and instructional support expenditures. These expenditures include amounts for instruction of stu-dents with disabilities in a general-education setting. District expenditures, such as transportation, debt service and district-wide adminis-tration are not included.

The pupil count for General Education is K-12 average daily membership plus K-12 pupils for whom the district pays tuition to another school district. This number represents all pupils, including those classified as having disabilities and those not classified, excluding only students with disabilities placed out of district. For districts in which a county jail is located, this number includes incarcerated youth to whom the district must provide an education program.

Instructional Expenditures for Special Education are K-12 expenditures for students with disabilities (including summer special education expenditures) plus a proration of building-level administrative and instructional support expenditures. District expenditures, such as trans-portation, debt service and district-wide administration are not included.

The pupil count for Special Education is a count of K-12 students with disabilities for the 2010-11 school year plus students for whom thedistrict receives tuition from another district plus students for whom the district pays tuition to another district. Students attending the Stateschools at Rome and Batavia, private placements and out-of-state placements are included.

Total of All School

Districts in NY State

Total of All School Districts in NY State2010-2011 School Year This School

District Similar District

Group

Total Expenditures Per Pupil $17,810 $20,410$18,876

The numbers used to compute the statistics on this page were collected on the State Aid Form A, the State Aid Form F, the School District Annual Financial Report (ST-3), and from the Student Information Repository System (SIRS).

Instructional Expenditures Per Pupil is the simple arithmetic ratio of Instructional Expenditures to Pupils. The total cost of instruction for stu-dents with disabilities may include both general- and special-education expenditures. Special-education services provided in the general- education classroom may benefit students not classified as having disabilities.

Total Expenditures Per Pupil is the simple arithmetic ratio of Total Expenditures to Pupils. Total Expenditures include district expenditures for classroom instruction, as well as expenditures for transportation, debt service, community service and district-wide administration that are not included in the Instructional Expenditure values for General Education and Special Education. As such, the sum of General Educa-tion and Special Education Instructional Expenditures does not equal the Total Expenditures.

SDL: 4490 LEA: 441301060000

The New York State School Report CardInformation about Students with Disabilities

forValley Central School District (Montgomery)

New York State Education Law and the Commissioner's Regulations require the attachment of the NYS School Report Card to the public school district budget proposal. The regulations require reporting students with disabi-lities by the percent of time they are in general education classrooms and the classification rate of students with disabilities. These data are to be compared with percentages for similar districts and all public schools. The re-quired percentages for this district are reported below.

Student Counts as of October 4, 2011 This School District Total of All School

Districts in NY State

Student Placement -- Percent of Time Inside Regular Classroom

Count of Students with

Disabilities

Percentage of Students with

Disabilities


Disabilities

80% or more40% to 79%Less than 40%Separate Settings

31416422931

41.0%21.4%29.9%4.0%

57.3%11.7%22.1%6.1%

The source data for the statistics in this table were reported through the Student Information Repository System (SIRS) and verified in Verification Report 5. The counts are numbers of students reported in the least restrictive environment categories for school-age programs (ages 6-21) on October 4, 2011. The percentages represent the amount of time students with disabilities are in general-education classrooms, regardless of the amount and cost of special education services they receive. Rounding of percentage values may cause them to sum to a number slightly different from 100%.

School-age Students with Disabilities Classification Rate

2011-12 School Year This School District

Total of All School Districts in NY State

Special Ed Classification Rate 12.8%

This rate is a ratio of the count of school-age students with disabilities (ages 4-21) to the total enrollment of all school-age students in the school district, including students who are parentally placed in nonpublic schools located in the school district. The numerator includes all school-age students for whom a district has Committee on Special Education (CSE) responsibility to ensure the provision of special education services. The denominator includes all school-age students who reside in the district. In the case of parentally placed students in nonpublic schools, it includes the number of students who attend the nonpublic schools located in the school district. Source data are drawn from the SIRS and from the Basic Education Data System (BEDS).

15.2%

Other Settings 28 3.7% 2.8%

Similar District Group


Disabilities

Similar District Group12.1%

58.1%18.8%16.7%

4.1%

2.3%

Similar District Group Description: Average Need/Resource CapacitySimilar District Groups are identified according to the Need-to-Resource-Capacity Index. More information about this categorization is on the Internet at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/2011-12/NeedResourceCapacityIndex.pdf


2011-2012 Report Card

March 25, 2013 Page 1

The New York State Report Card

2011–12

The New York State Report Card is an important part of the Board of Regents’ effort to raise learning standards for all students. It provides information to the public on school/district enrollment and staff, student performance, and other measures of school and district performance. Knowledge gained from the report card on a school’s or district’s strengths and weaknesses can be used to improve instruction and services to students. State assessments are designed to help ensure that all students reach high learning standards. They show whether students are getting the knowledge and skills they need to succeed at the elementary, middle, and commencement levels and beyond. The State requires that students who are not making appropriate progress toward the standards receive academic supports.

This report includes:

1 Profile This section shows comprehensive data relevant to this school’s or district’s learning environment, including information about enrollment, attendance and suspensions, and staff.

2 Student Performance This section shows student performance on standardized assessments at the elementary, middle, and commencement levels.

3 Student Outcomes This section shows outcomes for graduates and non-completers, including post-graduation plans of completers.

For more information: Office of Information and Reporting Services New York State Education Department Room 863 EBA Albany, NY 12234 Email: [email protected]

District VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT(MONTGOMERY)

District ID 44-13-01-06-0000Superintendent RICHARD HOOLEYTelephone (845) 457-2400Grades PK-12, UE, USNeed/ResourceCapacity Category Average Need Districts


1 Profile

Enrollment

Pre-K

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Ungraded Elementary

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Ungraded Secondary

Total K–12

Average Class Size

Common Branch

Grade 8

English

Mathematics

Science

Social Studies

Grade 10

English

Mathematics

Science

Social Studies

Enrollment Information Enrollment counts are as of Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) day, which is typically the first Wednesday of October of the school year. Students who attend BOCES programs on a part-time basis are included in a school’s and district's enrollment. Students who attend BOCES on a full-time basis or who are placed full time by the district in an out-of-district placement are not included in a school’s or district's enrollment. The state public enrollment includes public school districts, charter schools, and NYSED-operated programs. Students classified by districts as "pre-first" are included in first grade counts. Kindergarten and Pre-K counts include half- and full-day students.

Average Class Size Information Average Class Size is the total registration in specified classes divided by the number of those classes with registration. Common Branch refers to self-contained classes in Grades 1–6.

District VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) District ID 44-13-01-06-0000

2009–10 2010–11 2011–1286

327

357

351

340

370

374

372

4

395

378

443

378

387

364

13

4853

87

333

324

354

340

339

370

374

4

386

387

435

418

355

375

16

4810

86

314

322

319

350

323

341

371

25

370

388

421

390

389

334

26

4683

2009–10 2010–11 2011–1221

23

23

20

23

22

22

22

26

22

23

23

20

24

24

23

23

25

22

24

24

24

24

25

23

23

25


1 Profile

Demographic Factors

# % # % # %

Eligible for Free Lunch

Reduced Price Lunch

Limited English Proficient

Racial/Ethnic Origin

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander

White

Multiracial

Attendance and Suspensions

# % # % # %

Annual Attendance Rate

Student Suspensions

Demographic Factors Information Eligible for Free Lunch and Reduced-Price Lunch percentages are determined by dividing the number of approved lunch applicants by the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) enrollment in full-day Kindergarten through Grade 12.

Attendance and Suspensions Information Annual Attendance Rate is determined by dividing the school’s (or district's) total actual attendance by the total possible attendance for a school year. A school’s (or district's) actual attendance is the sum of the number of students in attendance on each day the school (or district's schools) was open during the school year. Possible attendance is the sum of the number of enrolled students who should have been in attendance on each day the school (or schools) was open during the school year. The state’s Annual Attendance Rate is a weighted average of all district-level attendance rates. Student Suspension rate is determined by dividing the number of students who were suspended from school (not including in-school suspensions) for one full day or longer anytime during the school year by the Basic Educational Data System (BEDS) day enrollments for that school year. A student is counted only once, regardless of whether the student was suspended one or more times during the school year.


2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

826

366

45

16

505

720

98

3513

1

17%

8%

1%

0%

10%

15%

2%

72%

0%

847

358

46

16

508

792

90

3396

8

18%

7%

1%

0%

11%

16%

2%

71%

0%

821

381

38

15

488

788

86

3269

37

18%

8%

1%

0%

10%

17%

2%

70%

1%

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

310

95%

6% 323

95%

7% 299

95%

6%


1 Profile

Teacher Qualifications

Total Number of Teachers

Percent with No Valid Teaching Certificate

Percent Teaching Out of Certification

Percent with Fewer than Three Years of Experience

Percentage with Master’s Degree Plus 30 Hours or Doctorate

Total Number of Core Classes

Percent Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in This School*

Percent Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in This District**

Percent Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in High-Poverty Schools Statewide

Percent Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in Low-Poverty Schools Statewide

Total Number of Classes

Percent Taught by Teachers Without Appropriate Certification

*Not available at the district or statewide level. **Not available for charter schools or at the statewide level.

Teacher Turnover Rate

Staff Counts

*Not available at the school level.

Turnover Rate of Teachers with Fewer than Five Years of Experience

Turnover Rate of All Teachers

Total Other Professional Staff

Total Paraprofessionals*

Assistant Principals

Principals

Teacher Qualifications Information The Percent Teaching Out of Certification for public schools is the percent doing so on more than an incidental basis; that is, the percent teaching for more than five periods per week outside certification.

Core Classes are primarily K–6 common branch, English, mathematics, science, social studies, art, music, and foreign languages. To be Highly Qualified, a teacher must have at least a Bachelor’s degree, be certified to teach in the subject area or otherwise in accordance with state standards, and show subject matter competency. In public schools, a teacher who taught one class outside of the certification area(s) is counted as Highly Qualified provided that 1) the teacher had been determined by the school or district through the HOUSSE process or other state-accepted methods to have demonstrated acceptable subject knowledge and teaching skills and 2) the class in question was not the sole assignment reported. Credit for incidental teaching does not extend beyond a single assignment. Independent of Highly Qualified Teacher status, any assignment for which a teacher did not hold a valid certificate still registers as teaching out of certification.

In charter schools, a teacher is counted as Highly Qualified if the teacher has at least a Bachelor’s degree, is certified to teach, and shows subject matter competency. Enabling legislation considers charter school teachers to be certified if they hold any valid teaching certificate. Enabling legislation also permits up to 30 percent (with a maximum of five) of charter school teachers to be without certification and to be considered Highly Qualified if they meet all remaining criteria.

High-poverty and low-poverty schools are those schools in the upper and lower quartiles, respectively, for percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch.

Teacher Turnover Rate Information Teacher Turnover Rate for a specified school year is the number of teachers in that school year who were not teaching in the following school year divided by the number of teachers in the specified school year, expressed as a percentage.

Staff Counts Information Other Professionals includes administrators, guidance counselors, school nurses, psychologists, and other professionals who devote more than half of their time to non-teaching duties.


2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

403

0%

0%

3%

35%

981

N/A

0%

6%

1%

1467

1%

382

0%

0%

3%

41%

881

N/A

0%

5%

0%

1382

0%

371

0%

0%

2%

46%

873

N/A

0%

7%

1%

1340

0%

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11

18%

8%

36%

14%

23%

12%

2009–10 2010–11 2011–12

43

164

8

7

43

144

8

7

41

166

8

7


2 Student Performance

This section contains annual assessment data for students at the elementary, middle, and commencement levels as well as the performance of secondary-level cohorts on standardized achievement assessments.

New York State Testing Program (NYSTP) Assessments The New York State Testing Program assessments are administered in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics in grades 3 through 8. The Performance Level Descriptors for these assessments are provided below:

English Language Arts Level 1: Below Standard Student performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the English language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level. Level 2: Meets Basic Standard Student performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the English language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level. Level 3: Meets Proficiency Standard Student performance demonstrates an understanding of the English language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level. Level 4: Exceeds Proficiency Standard Student performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the English language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level.

Mathematics Level 1: Below Standard Student performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the mathematics content expected at this grade level. Level 2: Meets Basic Standard Student performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the mathematics content expected at this grade level. Level 3: Meets Proficiency Standard Student performance demonstrates an understanding of the mathematics content expected at this grade level. Level 4: Exceeds Proficiency Standard Student performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the mathematics content expected at this grade level. New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) The New York State Alternate Assessments are administered in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics to ungraded students with severe cognitive disabilities whose ages are equivalent to graded students in grades 3 through 8 and secondary level. They are administered in science to students with disabilities age equivalent to graded students in grades 4, 8, and secondary level. And they are administered in social studies at the secondary level only. New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Tests (NYSESLAT) The New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Tests are administered in grades K through 12 to limited English proficient students. Secondary-Level Cohorts A secondary-level cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday in a particular year. The 2008 cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. The 2007 cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008. For more detailed information on cohort definitions, see Secondary-Level Cohort Definitions at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/sirs/.



2 Student Performance 100%

Results by Student Group

Percentage scoring at level(s): Percentage scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals

General-Education Students

Students with Disabilities

English Proficient

Limited English Proficient Economically Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments

Number scoring at level(s): Number scoring at level(s):

2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


Results in Grade 3 English Language Arts

Percentage scoring at level(s):

2-4 3-4 4

NY State PublicPercentage scoring at level(s):

2-4 3-4 4

This District

2012 Mean Score: 6672011 Mean Score: 666

*Range: 644–780 663–780 694–780

88% 91%

64% 61%

7% 5%

86% 87%

56% 56%

7% 5%

Number of Tested Students: 310 226 24300 202 15

2011–12

2010–11

2011–12 School Year 2010–11 School Year

TotalTested

TotalTested

352 88% 64% 7% 330 91% 61% 5%

183

169

136

55

5253

28

290

62350

2121231

352

91%

85%

–83%

85%

–89%

–88%95%

55%––

77%94%

88%

67%

62%

–44%

58%

–68%

–75%74%

18%––

45%74%

64%

8%

5%

–0%

2%

–9%

–0%8%

0%––

2%9%

7%

158

172

236

54

4233

17

271

59326

4110220

1329

92%

90%

–78%

89%

–93%

–100%97%

63%––

85%94%

––

70%

53%

–50%

63%

–63%

–43%69%

24%––

46%69%

––

6%

3%

–6%

2%

–5%

–14%6%

0%––

2%6%

––

NOTESThe – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.* These ranges are for 2011–12 data only. Ranges for 2010–11 data are available in the 2010–11 Accountability and Overview Reports.


TotalTested

TotalTested

New York State Alternate Assessment

(NYSAA): Grade 3 Equivalent11 9 8 5 5 5 5 4

New York State English as a Second Language

Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)†: Grade 30 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A

Total Total

Recently Arrived LEP Students NOT Tested on

the ELA NYSTP: Grade 30 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A

† These counts represent recently arrived LEP students who used the NYSESLAT to fulfill the English language arts participation requirement.





2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


Results in Grade 3 Mathematics


2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 662–770 684–770 707–770

97% 94%

70% 68%

14% 21%

91% 91%

61% 60%

13% 13%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

352 97% 70% 14% 330 94% 68% 21%

183

169

136

55

5253

28

290

62350

2121231

352

96%

98%

–83%

100%

–98%

–100%99%

85%––

92%100%

97%

66%

73%

–53%

55%

–75%

–63%76%

42%––

50%80%

70%

15%

14%

–0%

16%

–16%

–25%18%

0%––

8%18%

14%

158

172

236

53

4234

17

271

59326

4110220

1329

94%

95%

–83%

91%

–97%

–100%98%

78%––

86%98%

––

70%

67%

–56%

58%

–72%

–71%77%

27%––

49%78%

––

18%

23%

–17%

11%

–24%

–14%24%

7%––

10%26%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested


(NYSAA): Grade 3 Equivalent11 11 10 7 5 5 5 3





2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 637–775 671–775 722–775

96% 94%

72%58%

6% 1%

91% 92%

59% 57%

5% 2%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

317 96% 72% 6% 336 94% 58% 1%

153

164

230

55

5223

29

264

53314

3111206

1316

96%

96%

–87%

100%

–97%

–89%99%

81%––

91%99%

––

74%

70%

–70%

67%

–74%

–67%80%

32%––

57%80%

––

8%

4%

–3%

4%

–7%

–0%7%

0%––

2%8%

––

157

179

225

64

7238

9265

71334

2118218

1335

96%

93%

–92%

92%

–95%

100%100%

75%––

92%96%

––

62%

55%

–40%

50%

–61%

89%69%

20%––

47%64%

––

2%

1%

–0%

0%

–2%

0%2%

0%––

0%2%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested


(NYSAA): Grade 4 Equivalent10 10 10 6 4 – – –



Total Total








2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 636–800 676–800 707–800

99% 98%

78% 75%

30% 26%

95% 94%

69% 67%

30% 27%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

318 99% 78% 30% 335 98% 75% 26%

154

164

230

55

5224

29

265

53314

4111207

1317

98%

99%

–97%

100%

–99%

–100%99%

96%––

97%100%

––

75%

80%

–70%

76%

–79%

–78%84%

49%––

68%83%

––

28%

32%

–20%

18%

–33%

–56%34%

8%––

16%37%

––

157

178

225

63

7238

9264

71333

2118217

1334

97%

98%

–96%

95%

–98%

100%100%

90%––

94%100%

––

72%

77%

–68%

75%

–74%

100%82%

48%––

68%78%

––

29%

23%

–12%

24%

–27%

56%31%

7%––

18%30%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested







2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


Results in Grade 4 Science


2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


Range: 45–100 65–100 85–100

99% 99% 96% 94%

74% 71%

97% 98%89% 88%

57% 52%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

318 99% 96% 74% 330 99% 94% 71%

154

164

229

55

5225

29

264

54314

4113205

1317

99%

98%

–97%

100%

–99%

–100%100%

94%––

97%100%

––

96%

96%

–90%

98%

–96%

–100%98%

85%––

93%98%

––

69%

79%

–69%

67%

–76%

–78%80%

48%––

61%81%

––

155

175

225

61

7235

9261

69328

2117213

1329

99%

98%

–96%

95%

–100%

100%100%

94%––

98%99%

––

94%

94%

–80%

92%

–96%

100%98%

80%––

91%96%

––

67%

74%

–64%

69%

–71%

89%77%

48%––

62%76%

––

NOTESThe – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.


TotalTested

TotalTested







2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 648–795 668–795 700–795

92% 92%

60% 54%

2% 1%

89% 89%

58% 54%

5% 4%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

344 92% 60% 2% 369 92% 54% 1%

159

185

223

70

5242

29

268

76342

2133211

1343

94%

91%

–87%

90%

–93%

–100%100%

67%––

89%94%

––

69%

52%

–48%

60%

–61%

–56%73%

14%––

47%68%

––

3%

2%

–0%

1%

–2%

–11%3%

0%––

1%3%

––

185

184

244

67

1255

47306

63366

3133236

1368

96%

89%

––

87%

–94%

89%98%

62%––

86%95%

––

58%

51%

––

49%

–56%

53%63%

13%––

38%64%

––

1%

1%

––

0%

–1%

2%1%

0%––

1%1%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested





Total Total








2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 640–780 676–780 707–780

95% 97%

74% 71%

28%20%

93% 94%

67% 66%

28% 23%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

343 95% 74% 28% 370 97% 71% 20%

159

184

223

70

5241

29

268

75341

2132211

1342

95%

95%

–91%

94%

–95%

–100%98%

83%––

92%97%

––

74%

74%

–70%

69%

–76%

–78%84%

40%––

67%79%

––

33%

24%

–17%

20%

–30%

–56%34%

5%––

22%32%

––

186

184

244

68

1255

47307

63366

4134236

1369

99%

96%

––

96%

–98%

98%100%

86%––

96%98%

––

71%

71%

––

59%

–76%

64%80%

27%––

63%75%

––

24%

16%

––

9%

–22%

26%23%

5%––

13%24%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested







2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 644–785 662–785 694–785

93% 94%

59% 66%

2% 5%

89% 88%

56% 56%

2% 4%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

377 93% 59% 2% 371 94% 66% 5%

190

187

249

72

1252

153

313

64373

4148229

1376

96%

89%

––

83%

–94%

–96%98%

66%––

86%97%

––

64%

54%

––

46%

–63%

–58%68%

14%––

41%71%

––

3%

1%

––

1%

–2%

–2%2%

0%––

1%3%

––

181

190

40

66

11253

112

316

55367

4120251

1370

96%

92%

90%

94%

–94%

–92%97%

73%––

92%95%

––

71%

62%

50%

61%

–72%

–42%72%

31%––

58%70%

––

7%

3%

3%

3%

–6%

–0%5%

0%––

1%6%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested


(NYSAA): Grade 6 Equivalent2 – – – 3 – – –



Total Total








2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 640–780 674–780 700–780

90% 96%

54% 61%

18% 18%

92% 92%

65% 63%

31% 26%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

378 90% 54% 18% 371 96% 61% 18%

192

186

249

74

1251

153

315

63372

6149229

2376

95%

86%

––

86%

–92%

–91%97%

59%91%50%85%94%

––

57%

51%

––

39%

–61%

–42%62%

11%55%0%

38%64%

––

17%

19%

––

8%

–21%

–19%21%

3%18%0%

11%22%

––

182

189

40

65

11254

112

316

55367

4121250

1370

97%

95%

98%

95%

–96%

–92%98%

84%––

95%96%

––

63%

59%

35%

63%

–64%

–67%68%

22%––

53%65%

––

20%

16%

8%

17%

–20%

–25%21%

2%––

7%23%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested


(NYSAA): Grade 6 Equivalent2 – – – 3 – – –





2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 642–790 665–790 698–790

95% 94%

58%50%

2% 2%

92% 91%

52% 48%

4% 4%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

365 95% 58% 2% 387 94% 50% 2%

179

186

43

65

10247

308

57363

2136229

1364

96%

94%

93%

94%

90%96%

99%

72%––

92%97%

––

68%

49%

44%

58%

50%61%

67%

12%––

49%64%

––

3%

1%

0%

2%

0%3%

3%

0%––

0%3%

––

187

200

445

65

10263

14327

60385

2112275

1386

98%

91%

–96%

94%

–95%

86%99%

68%––

93%95%

––

58%

43%

–42%

43%

–53%

50%57%

10%––

33%57%

––

4%

1%

–2%

2%

–3%

0%2%

2%––

0%3%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested


(NYSAA): Grade 7 Equivalent4 – – – 9 9 9 6



Total Total








2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 639–800 670–800 694–800

96% 94%

64% 64%

23% 26%

91% 92%

65% 65%

31% 30%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

365 96% 64% 23% 388 94% 64% 26%

179

186

42

65

10248

307

58363

2135230

1364

96%

95%

98%

97%

90%95%

99%

79%––

94%97%

––

70%

59%

43%

63%

70%68%

72%

24%––

54%70%

––

25%

20%

10%

23%

10%25%

26%

5%––

12%29%

––

188

200

446

65

10263

14328

60385

3113275

1387

96%

92%

–93%

91%

–95%

93%99%

65%––

91%95%

––

68%

60%

–43%

55%

–69%

64%71%

23%––

48%70%

––

31%

22%

–17%

15%

–30%

29%30%

7%––

13%31%

––



TotalTested

TotalTested


(NYSAA): Grade 7 Equivalent4 – – – 9 8 8 3





2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 628–790 658–790 699–790

95% 95%

54% 48%

1% 2%

93% 92%

50% 47%

2% 2%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

387 95% 54% 1% 393 95% 48% 2%

188

199

450

67

9257

13332

55384

3126261

1386

97%

93%

–96%

93%

–96%

85%100%

69%––

91%97%

––

61%

47%

–46%

43%

–58%

62%60%

15%––

35%63%

––

1%

1%

–0%

1%

–0%

8%1%

0%––

0%1%

––

198

195

46

66

11270

347

46389

499

294

393

96%

93%

93%

92%

91%96%

99%

65%––

91%96%

95%

57%

39%

35%

42%

45%52%

53%

13%––

31%54%

48%

3%

0%

2%

0%

0%2%

2%

0%––

0%2%

2%



TotalTested

TotalTested





Total Total








2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4




2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District


*Range: 639–775 674–775 704–775

96% 96%

64% 65%

17% 15%

93% 91%

61% 60%

20% 18%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

385 96% 64% 17% 393 96% 65% 15%

186

199

450

68

9254

13333

52381

4125260

1384

97%

95%

–96%

96%

–96%

92%99%

79%––

92%98%

––

64%

64%

–54%

53%

–69%

54%70%

23%––

50%71%

––

21%

13%

–10%

9%

–19%

31%19%

2%––

2%24%

––

198

195

46

66

11270

347

46389

499

294

393

97%

94%

93%

98%

100%95%

98%

76%––

97%95%

96%

71%

58%

57%

68%

64%65%

70%

22%––

55%68%

65%

17%

13%

7%

8%

45%17%

16%

9%––

7%17%

15%



TotalTested

TotalTested







2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Migrant

Not Migrant

Other Assessments


2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4


Results in Grade 8 Science


2-4 3-4 4


2-4 3-4 4

This District

98% 98%86% 85%

38% 38%

93% 94%

73% 72%

30% 28%


2011–12

2010–11


TotalTested

TotalTested

350 98% 85% 32% 354 97% 83% 31%

167

183

450

62

7227

11296

54346

4123227

1349

98%

97%

–98%

95%

–98%

100%100%

85%––

96%99%

––

87%

83%

–76%

79%

–89%

64%92%

48%––

75%90%

––

33%

32%

–26%

26%

–35%

36%36%

9%––

20%39%

––

175

179

45

65

8236

309

45350

496

258

354

98%

97%

96%

97%

100%98%

99%

84%––

98%97%

97%

86%

81%

82%

77%

88%85%

89%

44%––

71%88%

83%

29%

34%

20%

26%

25%35%

35%

9%––

18%36%

31%

NOTESThe – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.


TotalTested

TotalTested



Regents Science 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35



Statewide 2010–11 Results on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

% Below Basic % Basic % Proficient % Advanced

Grade 4 Reading

Grade 8 Reading

Grade 4 Mathematics

Grade 8 Mathematics

NOTES *Reporting standards not met. **Rounds to 0.

Statewide 2010–11 NAEP Participation Rates for LEP Students and Students with Disabilities

Participation Rate

Grade 4 Reading



Grade 8 Reading



Grade 4 Mathematics



Grade 8 Mathematics



NOTE

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), developed in 1969, is a nationally representative assessment of the performance of United States’ students in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history. The NAEP assessment is administered to a sampling of schools across New York State. Teachers, principals, parents, policymakers, and researchers use NAEP results to assess progress and develop ways to improve education in the United States. As part of a federal requirement, NYSED is publishing these statewide results on NAEP. There are no consequences for schools, teachers, or students based on NAEP results.


32%

24%

20%

30%

33%

41%

44%

40%

26%

31%

31%

23%

9%

4%

5%

7%

84%

85%

77%

84%

91%

90%

92%

91%



100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Economically Disadvantaged

Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

NOTES


Total Cohort Results in Secondary-Level English LanguageArts after Four Years of Instruction

This District


2-4 3-4 4

NY State Public


2-4 3-4 4

89% 88% 87% 87%

35% 33%

84% 83% 82% 80%

38% 35%2008 Cohort

2007 Cohort

2008 Cohort 2007 Cohort

Numberof Students

Numberof Students

400 89% 87% 35% 430 88% 87% 33%187

2131

4952

6

292

7333

67400

104

296

400

93%

85%–

92%88%

–

88%

100%94%

61%89%

84%

91%

89%

91%

84%–

92%87%

–

86%

100%94%

55%87%

81%

90%

87%

44%

26%–

22%35%

–

37%

43%41%

3%35%

18%

41%

35%

207

2231

3977

5

307

17

373

57427

3101

329

430

89%

87%–

92%88%

–

88%

–71%92%

61%–

–84%

89%

88%

88%

85%–

90%84%

–

87%

–71%91%

56%–

–82%

88%

87%

39%

28%–

15%22%

–

38%

–43%38%

2%–

–26%

36%

33%

The – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.



100%



2–4 3–4 4 2–4 3–4 4

All Students

Female

Male



Hispanic or Latino


White

Multiracial

Small Group Totals



English Proficient


Economically Disadvantaged

Not Disadvantaged

Migrant

Not Migrant

NOTES


Total Cohort Results in Secondary-Level Mathematics afterFour Years of Instruction

This District


2-4 3-4 4

NY State Public


2-4 3-4 4

91% 91% 88% 89%

22% 26%

87% 86% 82% 81%

22% 25%2008 Cohort

2007 Cohort

2008 Cohort 2007 Cohort

Numberof Students

Numberof Students

400 91% 88% 22% 430 91% 89% 26%187

2131

4952

6

292

7333

67400

104

296

400

94%

88%–

90%88%

–

91%

100%96%

63%91%

88%

92%

91%

91%

85%–

88%87%

–

87%

100%95%

49%88%

81%

90%

88%

25%

19%–

10%13%

–

25%

43%26%

1%22%

7%

27%

22%

207

2231

3977

5

307

17

373

57427

3101

329

430

93%

88%–

92%91%

–

91%

–71%95%

63%–

–91%

91%

91%

91%

87%–

90%90%

–

90%

–71%94%

56%–

–89%

89%

89%

30%

22%–

21%16%

–

30%

–29%30%

2%–

–15%

30%

26%

The – symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students,data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.



2008 Total Cohort Results in Secondary-Level Global History and Geography, U.S. History and Government, and Science after Four Years of Instruction

All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities

Coh

ort

Enr

ollm

ent

Percentage of students scoring: C

ohor

t E

nrol

lmen

t

Percentage of students scoring: C

ohor

t E

nrol

lmen

t

Percentage of students scoring:

55-64 65-84 85-100 55-64 65-84 85-100 55-64 65-84 85-100

Global History and Geography

U.S. History and Government

Science

New York State Alternate Assessments (NYSAA) 2011-12

All Students Total

Tested Number of students scoring at Level:

Secondary Level 1 2 3 4

English Language Arts

Mathematics

Social Studies

Science

NOTES The — symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students, data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are

suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.


400

400

400

5%

4%

4%

46%

35%

47%

35%

47%

40%

333

333

333

1%

1%

1%

50%

37%

48%

42%

55%

47%

67

67

67

22%

19%

19%

25%

24%

37%

1%

6%

6%

11

11

11

11

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

3

11

8

10

8



Regents Exams All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities

Total Tested

Percentage of students scoring at or above:

Total Tested


Total Tested


55 65 85 55 65 85 55 65 85

Comprehensive English

Integrated Algebra

Geometry

Algebra 2/Trigonometry

Global History and Geography


Living Environment

Physical Setting/Earth Science

Physical Setting/Chemistry

Physical Setting/Physics

NOTE The — symbol indicates that data for a group of students have been suppressed. If a group has fewer than five students, data for that group and the next smallest group(s) are suppressed to protect the privacy of individual students.


2011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–10

429

448

399374

416

420221

205

227169

188

160

468

457

424

409

357

384431

434

455

373

399

370212

229

247121

104

152

97%

99%

97%95%

95%

95%99%

99%

100%92%

91%

90%

88%

87%

87%

92%

95%

98%95%

96%

94%

90%

90%

89%94%

96%

95%98%

89%

94%

94%

95%

92%87%

89%

90%95%

97%

96%78%

79%

78%

77%

75%

77%

87%

88%

95%91%

89%

84%

79%

76%

79%75%

83%

74%88%

78%

88%

29%

47%

37%20%

24%

23%37%

41%

35%28%

26%

24%

29%

30%

34%

45%

52%

62%44%

43%

34%

43%

34%

34%19%

23%

10%47%

33%

43%

371

407

355312

359

363215

204

222168

187

159

386

397

349

362

314

342378

377

379

329

343

325211

227

245120

104

150

99%

100%

99%100%

99%

99%99%

–

100%–

–

–

94%

92%

95%

97%

98%

99%97%

99%

98%

94%

94%

93%–

–

––

89%

–

96%

98%

96%95%

95%

96%95%

–

96%–

–

–

85%

82%

87%

93%

94%

98%93%

93%

92%

84%

83%

84%–

–

––

78%

–

33%

51%

41%22%

27%

27%37%

–

35%–

–

–

34%

34%

41%

49%

58%

66%47%

48%

40%

48%

38%

38%–

–

––

33%

–

58

41

4462

57

576

1

51

1

1

82

60

75

47

43

4253

57

76

44

56

451

2

21

0

2

86%

88%

84%73%

68%

68%100%

–

100%–

–

–

60%

52%

49%

60%

77%

88%85%

81%

75%

61%

64%

56%–

–

––

–

76%

71%

59%47%

53%

49%100%

–

100%–

–

–

38%

28%

29%

38%

47%

74%74%

61%

46%

43%

36%

42%–

–

––

–

3%

2%

5%5%

4%

0%33%

–

40%–

–

–

5%

7%

4%

9%

9%

24%19%

14%

4%

9%

4%

7%–

–

––

–



Regents Competency Tests All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities

Total Tested Percent Passing:



Mathematics

Science

Reading

Writing

Global Studies




2011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–10

14

11

135

7

129

7

117

6

1237

37

4718

13

15

57%

55%

62%60%

57%

75%67%

29%

82%71%

67%

75%24%

16%

47%44%

54%

40%

0

1

10

0

00

0

00

0

00

3

00

1

0

–

–

–

–

14

10

125

7

129

7

117

6

1237

34

4718

12

15

57%

–

–60%

57%

75%67%

29%

82%71%

67%

75%24%

–

47%44%

–

40%



New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT)

All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities

Total Tested

Percent of students scoring in each performance level:

Total Tested


Total Tested


Beg

in.

Inte

rm.

Adv.

Prof

.

Beg

in.

Inte

rm.

Adv.

Pr

of.

Beg

in.

Inte

rm.

Adv.

Prof

.

Listening and Speaking (Grades K–1)

Reading and Writing (Grades K–1)

Listening and Speaking (Grades 2–4)

Reading and Writing (Grades 2–4)









2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–102011–12

2010–11

2009–10

2011–12

2010–11

2009–10

16

16

11

16

16

11

12

8

13

12

8

13

8

8

9

8

8

9

6

7

10

6

7

105

7

4

5

7

4

0%

0%

0%

0%

13%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

25%

0%

0%

25%

0%

11%

17%

0%

10%

17%

14%

20%0%

0%

–

0%

0%

–

6%

13%

9%

56%

38%

45%

0%

0%

0%

17%

13%

15%

0%

25%

22%

0%

13%

11%

17%

0%

10%

33%

29%

40%0%

0%

–

20%

29%

–

69%

56%

9%

25%

19%

18%

25%

13%

31%

42%

38%

54%

38%

38%

11%

38%

38%

44%

0%

29%

20%

33%

0%

30%60%

43%

–

20%

29%

–

25%

31%

82%

19%

31%

36%

75%

88%

69%

42%

50%

31%

38%

38%

67%

38%

50%

33%

67%

71%

60%

17%

57%

10%40%

57%

–

60%

43%

–

14

13

10

14

13

10

8

7

9

8

7

9

7

7

7

7

7

7

4

6

7

4

6

74

6

4

4

6

4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

2

3

1

2

3

1

4

1

4

4

1

4

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

31

1

0

1

1

0

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

–

–


3 Student Outcomes

High School Completers All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities Number of

Students Percentage of Graduates

Number of Students

Percentage of Graduates

Number of Students

Percentage of Graduates

Total Graduates

Receiving a Regents Diploma

Receiving a Regents Diploma with Advanced Designation

Receiving an Individualized Education Program (IEP) Diploma

NOTE Students receiving Regents diplomas and Regents diplomas with advanced designation are considered graduates; recipients of IEP diplomas are not.

High School Non-completers All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities Number of

Students Percentage of Students

Number of Students

Percentage of Students

Number of Students


Dropped Out

Entered Approved High School Equivalency Preparation Program

Total Non-completers

Post-secondary Plans of 2011–12 Completers All Students General-Education Students Students with Disabilities Number of

Students Percentage of Students

Number of Students


Number of Students


To 4-year College

To 2-year College

To Other Post-secondary

To the Military

To Employment

To Adult Services

To Other Known Plans

Plan Unknown


2011–122010–112009–102011–122010–112009–102011–122010–112009–102011–122010–112009–10

356356372324328331110126127

745

91%92%89%31%35%34%N/AN/AN/A

317324335311309320109125127

000

98%95%96%34%39%38%

393237131911110745

33%59%30%3%3%0%

N/AN/AN/A

2011–122010–112009–102011–122010–112009–102011–122010–112009–10

32414402

13324357

2%2%2%0%0%1%2%2%3%

282932009

282941

2%2%2%0%0%1%2%2%2%

412120244

1416

2%4%4%0%1%1%2%5%5%

154

144

8

8

45

1

3

0

42%

40%

2%

2%

12%

0%

1%

0%

150

126

4

7

30

0

0

0

47%

40%

1%

2%

9%

0%

0%

0%

4

18

4

1

15

1

3

0

9%

39%

9%

2%

33%

2%

7%

0%


2011-2012 Accountability Report

April 25, 2013 1

The New York StateAccountability Report2011-12

DISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLDISTRICT (MONTGOMERY)

DISTRICT ID: 441301060000SUPERINTENDENT: RICHARD HOOLEYPHONE: 845-457-2400

Data in this report are those reported by districts in the Student Information Repository System as of August 24, 2012.

On May 29, 2012, the United States Department of Education (USDE)approved New York's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) waiver.This waiver provides New York with increased flexibility to help close theachievement gap and assist students in becoming college and career ready.New York's waiver introduced a system of identifying districts and/or schoolsas Reward, Focus, or Priority, based on performance in English languagearts (ELA), mathematics, and science at the elementary/middle level and inELA, mathematics, and graduation rate at the secondary level. Moreinformation on the waiver is available athttp://www.p12.nysed.gov/esea-waiver/.

Data in The New York State Accountability Report are those used to determinePerformance Indices (PIs) and make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)determinations which, in turn, are used to assist in identifying districts andschools as Reward, Focus, and Priority. Explanations of how the data are usedto make the determinations are available athttp://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/ESEAMaterials.html.

More Information:Office of AccountabilityNew York State Education Department55 Hanson PlaceBrooklyn, NY 11217Email: [email protected]

April 25, 2013 2

Adequate Yearly Progress and Performance IndicesPerformance Indices (PIs) and Unweighted Combined PIs are used to determine if a district or school is Priority orFocus. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for accountability groups (all students, racial/ethnic groups, students withdisabilities, limited English proficient students, and economically disadvantaged students) and PIs for accountabilitygroups and non-AYP groups (non-racial/ethnic groups, general-education students, English proficient students, noteconomically disadvantaged students, male and female students, and migrant and non-migrant students) are used todetermine if a district or school is Reward or a school requires a Local Assistance Plan. For more information, seehttp://www.p12.nysed.gov/accountability/documents/NYSESEAFlexibilityWaiver_REVISED.pdf

Adequate Yearly Progress

In accordance with federal and State laws, the New York State Education Department must determine and report onthe performance of students in the following areas:

1) Elementary/middle-level (grades 3 - 8) English Language Arts (ELA)2) Elementary/middle-level (grades 3 - 8) Mathematics3) Elementary/middle-level (grades 4 and 8) Science4) Secondary-level (grades 9-12) ELA5) Secondary-level (grades 9-12) Mathematics6) Graduation Rate

This performance is determined by identifying whether or not a district or school made "Adequate Yearly Progress"(AYP). AYP indicates satisfactory progress by a district or a school toward the goal of proficiency for all students. InELA, mathematics, and science, AYP is determined by comparing the percentage of students tested and theperformance of tested students against defined standards. In graduation rate, AYP is determined by comparing thepercentage of students graduating against defined standards.

Standards for English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science

Participation: In ELA and mathematics, 95% of students in each accountability group with 40 or more membersmust be tested to meet the participation criterion. In science, 80% must be tested.Performance: In ELA and mathematics, a calculated measure of performance called the "Performance Index" (PI)for each accountability group with 30 or more members must equal or exceed a preset objective called an "EffectiveAnnual Measurable Objective" (EAMO) or a safety net objective called a "Safe Harbor Target." In science, thecriterion for performance is the same but the safety net is referred to as a "Progress Target."

Districts and schools must meet both the participation and performance criteria for all groups with sufficient numbersto make AYP.

Standards for Graduation Rate

Districts and schools with secondary-level grades are also held to certain standards for the percentage of studentswho graduated. To make AYP in graduation rate, every accountability group with 30 or more members must makeAYP. For a group to make AYP, the graduation rate of the 4-year graduation-rate total cohort or the 5-yeargraduation-rate total cohort must equal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard of 80% or the group's ProgressTarget. A cohort is a group of students who entered grade 9 anywhere in a particular school year. Graduation ratesfor these cohorts are then determined 4 and 5 years after the students first enter grade 9.

For more information on how AYP and PIs are determined, see "Determining AYP in 2011-12" under UnderstandingAccountability in New York State at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/.

April 25, 2013 3

Elementary/Middle-Level ELA: AYPDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Adequate Yearly Progress: In elementary/middle-level (grades 3 - 8) English language arts (ELA), districts and schools must meetboth the participation and performance criteria to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Participation: To meet the participation criterion, at least 95% of students in each accountability group with 40 or more members mustbe tested on an appropriate ELA assessment.

Performance: To meet the performance criterion, the Performance Index (PI) of students in each accountability group with 30 or moremembers must be equal to or greater than the Effective Annual Measurable Objective (EAMO) or the Safe Harbor Target.

All accountability groups met the participation and performance criteria (made AYP): YES

Student Group Made AYPAll Students ✔American Indian or Alaska Native ―Black or African American ✔Hispanic or Latino ✔Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ✔White ✔Multiracial ―Students With Disabilities ✔Limited English Proficient ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔

✔ Made AYP✘ Did not make AYP― There were not enough students to make an AYPdetermination

April 25, 2013 4

Elementary/Middle-Level ELA: ParticipationDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 40 or more members tested at least 95% of students enrolled during thetest administration period: YESElementary/Middle-Level (Grades 3 - 8) English Language Arts (ELA) Participation Results

Student Group Tested95%

Students Enrolled Duringthe Test Administration

Period

Enrolled Studentswith Valid Test

Scores

Percent of EnrolledStudents with Valid

Test ScoresAll Students ✔ 2198 2196 100%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 12 ― ―Black or African American ✔ 236 236 100%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 393 393 100%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other PacificIslander ― 35 ― ―

White ✔ 1515 1513 100%Multiracial ― 7 ― ―Students With Disabilities ✔ 417 417 100%Limited English Proficient ― 20 ― ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔ 804 803 100%

✔ At least 95% of students enrolled during the test administration period were tested.✘ Less than 95% of students enrolled during the test administration period were tested.― There were fewer than 40 students enrolled during the test administration period.

Medically Excused:Students who were excused from testing for medical reasons in accordance with federal No Child Left Behind guidance are notincluded in these calculations.

April 25, 2013 5

Elementary/Middle-Level ELA: PerformanceDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members had a PI greater than or equal to the EAMO or SafeHarbor Target: YESElementary/Middle-Level (Grades 3 - 8) English Language Arts (ELA) Performance Results

StudentGroup

PI >=EAMO

orSafe

HarborTarget

TestedStudentsEnrolledon BEDS

Day

Performance at Levels

PI

Objectives

StudentsScoringLevel 1

On Track

StudentsScoringLevel 1NOT OnTrack


On Track




EAMOSafe

HarborTarget

All Students ✔ 2139 0 138 52 644 1224 81 157 148 148AmericanIndian orAlaska Native

― 12 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

Black or AfricanAmerican ✔ 230 0 19 5 88 116 2 145 123 123

Hispanic orLatino ✔ 370 0 33 9 122 196 10 149 126 126

Asian or NativeHawaiian/OtherPacific Islander

✔ 35 0 2 0 7 24 2 169 149 149

White ✔ 1487 0 81 38 419 882 67 161 161 161Multiracial ― 5 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―Students WithDisabilities ✔ 430✝ 0✝ 114✝ 17✝ 197✝ 88✝ 14✝ 101✝ 96 96

Limited EnglishProficient ― 13 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

EconomicallyDisadvantaged ✔ 759 0 87 21 302 334 15 137 130 130

✔ Performance Index is equal to or greater than Effective Annual Measurable Objective.✘ Performance Index is less than Effective Annual Measurable Objective and Safe Harbor Target.― There were fewer than 30 tested students enrolled on BEDS day and during the test administration period.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.

BEDS Day (Basic Educational Data System Day): BEDS Day is the first Wednesday in October of the school year.

On/Off Track Performance: Students who score at Level 1 or 2 and are on track to proficiency are those who have shownsignificant growth over their performance the previous year. Those not on track to proficiency have not shown significant growth.

Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that groupperformed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to six performance levels:Level 1 On Track, Level 1 Not On Track, Level 2 On Track, Level 2 Not On Track, Level 3, and Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levelsand the following equation: ([2(Count at Level 1 On Track) + Count at Level 2 Not On Track + 2(Count at Level 2 On Track) + 2(Countat Level 3) + 2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Tested Students]) × 100

Effective Annual Measurable Objective (EAMO): The EAMO is the PI value that each accountability group of a given size within adistrict or school is expected to achieve to meet the performance criterion. The EAMO table is available athttp://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/ under the header "Annual Measurable Objectives."

Safe Harbor Target: Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to meet the performance criterion for accountability groups whose PIsare less than their EAMOs. The 2011-12 Safe Harbor Target is calculated using the following formula: 2010-11 PI + (200 - the 2010-11PI) × 0.10.

April 25, 2013 6

Elementary/Middle-Level Math: AYPDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Adequate Yearly Progress: In elementary/middle-level (grades 3 - 8) mathematics, districts and schools must meet both theparticipation and performance criteria to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Participation: To meet the participation criterion, at least 95% of students in each accountability group with 40 or more members mustbe tested on an appropriate math assessment.


All accountability groups met the participation and performance criteria (made AYP): NO

Student Group Made AYPAll Students ✔American Indian or Alaska Native ―Black or African American ✔Hispanic or Latino ✔Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ✔White ✘Multiracial ―Students With Disabilities ✔Limited English Proficient ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔


April 25, 2013 7

Elementary/Middle-Level Math: ParticipationDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 40 or more members tested at least 95% of students enrolled during thetest administration period: YESElementary/Middle-Level (Grades 3 - 8) Math Participation Results


Students Enrolled Duringthe Test Administration

Period

Enrolled Studentswith Valid Test

Scores

Percent of EnrolledStudents with Valid

Test ScoresAll Students ✔ 2198 2191 100%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 12 ― ―Black or African American ✔ 235 235 100%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 393 393 100%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other PacificIslander ― 35 ― ―




April 25, 2013 8

Elementary/Middle-Level Math: PerformanceDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members had a PI greater than or equal to the EAMO or SafeHarbor Target: NOElementary/Middle-Level (Grades 3 - 8) Math Performance Results

StudentGroup

PI >=EAMO

orSafe

HarborTarget


Day


PI

Objectives


On Track



On Track




EAMOSafe

HarborTarget

All Students ✔ 2135 0 90 29 577 972 467 165 162 162AmericanIndian orAlaska Native

― 12 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

Black or AfricanAmerican ✔ 230 0 14 6 87 93 30 150 135 135

Hispanic orLatino ✔ 370 0 13 8 126 163 60 159 144 144


✔ 35 0 1 1 7 11 15 174 169 169

White ✘ 1483 0 60 14 350 700 359 168 171 171Multiracial ― 5 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―Students WithDisabilities ✔ 426✝ 0✝ 71✝ 17✝ 186✝ 118✝ 34✝ 123✝ 117 117

Limited EnglishProficient ― 13 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

EconomicallyDisadvantaged ✔ 755 0 55 13 267 320 100 150 147 147

✔ Performance Index is equal to or greater than Effective Annual Measurable Objective.✘ Performance Index is less than Effective Annual Measurable Objective and Safe Harbor Target.― There were fewer than 30 tested students enrolled on BEDS day and during the test administration period.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.



Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that groupperformed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to six performance levels:Level 1 On Track, Level 1 Not On Track, Level 2 On Track, Level 2 Not On Track, Level 3, and Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levelsand the following equation: ([2(Count at Level 1 On Track) + Count at Level 2 Not On Track + 2(Count at Level 2 On Track) + 2(Countat Level 3) + 2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Tested Students]) × 100


Safe Harbor Target: Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to meet the performance criterion for accountability groups whose PIsare less than their EAMOs. The 2011-12 Safe Harbor Target is calculated using the following formula: 2010-11 PI + (200 - the 2010-11PI) × 0.10.

April 25, 2013 9

Elementary/Middle-Level Science: AYPDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Adequate Yearly Progress: In elementary/middle-level (grades 4 & 8) science, districts and schools must meet both the participationand performance criteria to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Participation: To meet the participation criterion, at least 80% of students in each accountability group with 40 or more members mustbe tested on an appropriate science assessment.

Performance: To meet the performance criterion, the Performance Index (PI) of students in each accountability group with 30 or moremembers must be equal to or greater than the Effective Annual Measurable Objective (EAMO) or the Progress Target.


Student Group Made AYPAll Students ✔American Indian or Alaska Native ―Black or African American ✔Hispanic or Latino ✔Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ―White ✔Multiracial ―Students With Disabilities ✔Limited English Proficient ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔


April 25, 2013 10

Elementary/Middle-Level Science: ParticipationDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 40 or more members tested at least 80% of students enrolled during thetest administration period: YESElementary/Middle-Level (Grades 4 & 8) Science Participation Results


Students EnrolledDuring the Test

Administration Period

EnrolledStudents with

Valid Test Scores

Percent of EnrolledStudents with

Valid Test ScoresAll Students ✔ 733 728 99%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 7 ― ―Black or African American ✔ 81 81 100%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 128 126 98%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other PacificIslander ― 14 ― ―




April 25, 2013 11

Elementary/Middle-Level Science: PerformanceDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members had a PI greater than or equal to the EAMO orProgress Target: YESElementary/Middle-Level (Grades 4 & 8) Science Performance Results

Student GroupPI >=

EAMO orProgressTarget


Day


PI

Objectives





EAMO ProgressTarget

All Students ✔ 709 9 53 246 401 190 175 175American Indian orAlaska Native ― 7 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

Black or AfricanAmerican ✔ 79 1 13 30 35 181 150 150

Hispanic or Latino ✔ 120 3 11 48 58 186 156 156Asian or NativeHawaiian/OtherPacific Islander

― 14 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

White ✔ 487 5 25 163 294 193 186 186Multiracial ― 2 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―Students WithDisabilities ✔ 138✝ 9✝ 27✝ 47✝ 55✝ 167✝ 145 145

Limited EnglishProficient ― 6 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

EconomicallyDisadvantaged ✔ 238 5 30 98 105 183 161 161

✔ Performance Index is equal to or greater than Effective Annual Measurable Objective.✘ Performance Index is less than Effective Annual Measurable Objective and Progress Target.― There were fewer than 30 tested students enrolled on BEDS day and during the test administration period.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.



Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that groupperformed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to four performance levels,from Level 1 to Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levels and the following equation: ([(Count at Level 2) + 2(Count at Level 3) +2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Tested Students]) × 100


Progress Target: A Progress Target provides an alternate means to meet the performance criterion for accountability groups whosePIs are less than their EAMOs. The 2011-12 Progress Target is calculated by adding 1 point to the previous year's PI.

April 25, 2013 12

Secondary-Level ELA: AYPDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Adequate Yearly Progress: In secondary-level English language arts (ELA), districts and schools must meet both the participation andperformance criteria to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Participation: To meet the participation criterion, at least 95% of students in each accountability group with 40 or more members mustbe tested on an appropriate ELA assessment.


All accountability groups met the participation and performance criteria (made AYP): NO

Student Group Made AYPAll Students ✔American Indian or Alaska Native ―Black or African American ✔Hispanic or Latino ✔Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ―White ✘Multiracial ―Students With Disabilities ✔Limited English Proficient ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔


April 25, 2013 13

Secondary-Level ELA: ParticipationDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 40 or more members tested at least 95% of 12th graders: YESSecondary-Level English Language Arts (ELA) Participation Results

Student Group Tested 95% 12th Graders 12th Graders withValid Test Scores

Percent of 12th Graderswith Valid Test Scores

All Students ✔ 347 347 100%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 1 ― ―Black or African American ✔ 43 43 100%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 44 44 100%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ― 5 ― ―White ✔ 254 254 100%Multiracial ― 0 ― ―Students With Disabilities ― 38 ― ―Limited English Proficient ― 0 ― ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔ 84 84 100%

✔ At least 95% of 12th graders were tested.✘ Less than 95% of 12th graders were tested.― There were fewer than 40 12th graders in the group.

April 25, 2013 14

Secondary-Level ELA: PerformanceDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members had a PI greater than or equal to the EAMO or SafeHarbor Target: NOSecondary-Level English Language Arts (ELA) Performance Results

StudentGroup

PI >=EAMO

orSafe

HarborTarget

2008Accountability

CohortMembers


PI

Objectives

StudentsScoring at

AccountabilityLevel 1

StudentsScoring at


StudentsScoring at


StudentsScoring at


EAMOSafe

HarborTarget

All Students ✔ 358 13 95 195 55 166 153 153AmericanIndian orAlaska Native

― 1 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

Black orAfricanAmerican

✔ 42 0 15 23 4 164 119 119

Hispanic orLatino ✔ 44 2 11 26 5 166 122 122


― 5 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

White ✘ 266 11 68 142 45 166 167 167Multiracial ― 0 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―Students WithDisabilities ✔ 51✝ 8✝ 29✝ 13✝ 1✝ 112✝ 84 84



✔ Performance Index is equal to or greater than Effective Annual Measurable Objective.✘ Performance Index is less than Effective Annual Measurable Objective and Safe Harbor Target.― There were fewer than 30 tested students in the 2008 accountability cohort.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.

2008 Accountability Cohort: The 2008 Accountability Cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere betweenJuly 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the2008-09 school year. Results for these students are captured as of June 30, 2012. A more detailed definition of this cohort is availablein "Secondary-Level Cohort Definitions" at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/sirs/.

Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that groupperformed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to four performance levels,from Level 1 to Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levels and the following equation: ([(Count at Level 2) + 2(Count at Level 3) +2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Cohort Members]) × 100


Safe Harbor Target: Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to meet the performance criterion for accountability groups whose PIsare less than their EAMOs. The 2011-12 Safe Harbor Target is calculated using the following formula: 2010-11 PI + (200 - the 2010-11PI) × 0.10

April 25, 2013 15

Secondary-Level Math: AYPDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Adequate Yearly Progress: In secondary-level mathematics, districts and schools must meet both the participation and performancecriteria to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

Participation: To meet the participation criterion, at least 95% of students in each accountability group with 40 or more members mustbe tested on an appropriate math assessment.





April 25, 2013 16

Secondary-Level Math: ParticipationDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 40 or more members tested at least 95% of 12th graders: YESSecondary-Level Math Participation Results

Student Group Tested 95% 12th Graders 12th Graders withValid Test Scores

Percent of 12th Graderswith Valid Test Scores

All Students ✔ 347 347 100%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 1 ― ―Black or African American ✔ 43 43 100%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 44 44 100%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ― 5 ― ―White ✔ 254 254 100%Multiracial ― 0 ― ―Students With Disabilities ― 38 ― ―Limited English Proficient ― 0 ― ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔ 84 84 100%

✔ At least 95% of 12th graders were tested.✘ Less than 95% of 12th graders were tested.― There were fewer than 40 12th graders in the group.

April 25, 2013 17

Secondary-Level Math: PerformanceDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members had a PI greater than or equal to the EAMO or SafeHarbor Target: YESSecondary-Level Math Performance Results

StudentGroup

PI >=EAMO

orSafe

HarborTarget

2008Accountability

CohortMembers


PI

Objectives

StudentsScoring at


StudentsScoring at


StudentsScoring at


StudentsScoring at


EAMOSafe

HarborTarget

All Students ✔ 358 15 168 126 49 145 130 130AmericanIndian orAlaska Native

― 1 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

Black orAfricanAmerican

✔ 42 2 29 10 1 121 88 88

Hispanic orLatino ✔ 44 2 23 17 2 139 93 93


― 5 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―

White ✔ 266 11 114 96 45 149 147 147Multiracial ― 0 ― ― ― ― ― ― ―Students WithDisabilities ✔ 51✝ 12✝ 33✝ 3✝ 3✝ 88✝ 69 69



✔ Performance Index is equal to or greater than Effective Annual Measurable Objective.✘ Performance Index is less than Effective Annual Measurable Objective and Safe Harbor Target.― There were fewer than 30 tested students in the 2008 accountability cohort.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.

2008 Accountability Cohort: The 2008 Accountability Cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere betweenJuly 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 or, in the case of ungraded students with disabilities, reached their seventeenth birthday during the2008-09 school year. Results for these students are captured as of June 30, 2012. A more detailed definition of this cohort is availablein "Secondary-Level Cohort Definitions" at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/sirs/.

Performance Index (PI): A PI is a value from 0 to 200 that is assigned to an accountability group, indicating how that groupperformed on a required State test (or approved alternative). Student scores on the tests are converted to four performance levels,from Level 1 to Level 4. A PI is calculated using the levels and the following equation: ([(Count at Level 2) + 2(Count at Level 3) +2(Count at Level 4)] ÷ [Count of Cohort Members]) × 100


Safe Harbor Target: Safe Harbor provides an alternate means to meet the performance criterion for accountability groups whose PIsare less than their EAMOs. The 2011-12 Safe Harbor Target is calculated using the following formula: 2010-11 PI + (200 - the 2010-11PI) × 0.10

April 25, 2013 18

Unweighted Combined ELA and Math PIsDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Unweighted Combined ELA and Math Performance Indices (PIs)

The unweighted combined ELA and math Performance Index (PI) is the sum of the PIs for all measures for which the school/district has 30or more students in the group divided by the number of measures for which the school/district has 30 or more students in the group. Forexample, EM ELA = 150, EM Math = 180, HS ELA = 140, HS Math = 160: (150 + 180 + 140 + 160) ÷ 4 = 157.5 = 158.

Student GroupElementary/Middle-Level

ELA PI

Elementary/Middle-Level

Math PISecondary-Level

ELA PISecondary-Level

Math PIUnweightedCombined PI

All Students 157 165 166 145 158American Indian or AlaskaNative ― ― ― ― ―

Black or African American 145 150 164 121 145Hispanic or Latino 149 159 166 139 153Asian or NativeHawaiian/Other PacificIslander

169 174 ― ― 172

White 161 168 166 149 161Multiracial ― ― ― ― ―Students With Disabilities 101 123 112 88 106Limited English Proficient ― ― ― ― ―EconomicallyDisadvantaged 137 150 152 126 141

― There was not enough students to determine a Performance Index.

April 25, 2013 19

Graduation Rate: AYPDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

Adequate Yearly Progress: To make AYP in graduation rate, every accountability group with 30 or more members must make AYP. Fora group to make AYP, the graduation rate of the 4-year graduation-rate total cohort OR the 5-year graduation-rate total cohort mustequal or exceed the Graduation-Rate Standard of 80% or the group's Progress Target.

All accountability groups made AYP: YES



April 25, 2013 20

Graduation Rate: 4-Year Graduation-Rate Total CohortDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members met the graduation-rate criterion for the four-yeargraduation-rate total cohort: NOFour-Year Graduation-Rate Total Cohort

Student GroupMet

Graduation-Rate

Criterion

2007 Four-Year

Graduation-Rate Total

Cohort

Number ofGraduates

GraduationRate

StateStandard

ProgressTarget

All Students ✔ 430 361 84% 80% 80%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 1 ― ― ― ―Black or African American ✔ 39 32 82% 80% 80%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 77 67 87% 80% 80%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ― 5 ― ― ― ―White ✔ 307 257 84% 80% 80%Multiracial ― 1 ― ― ― ―Students With Disabilities ✘ 65✝ 39✝ 60%✝ 80% 67%Limited English Proficient ― 3 ― ― ― ―Economically Disadvantaged ✘ 102 77 75% 80% 80%

✔ Graduation rate is equal to or greater than the State Standard or the group's Progress Target.✘ Graduation rate is less than the State Standard and the group's Progress Target.― There were fewer than 30 students in the cohort.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.

2007 Four-Year Graduation-Rate Total CohortThe 2007 four-year graduation-rate total cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere between July 1, 2007 andJune 30, 2008. Four-year graduation-rate results for these students are captured as of August 31, 2011.

Graduation RateThe graduate rate for the 2007 four-year graduation-rate total cohort is the percentage of cohort members who earned a local orRegents diploma by August 31, 2011.

Progress TargetThe Progress Target for the 2007 four-year graduation-rate total cohort is a 10% gap reduction in the graduation rate of the 2006four-year graduation-rate total cohort as of August 31, 2010. The following equation is used to determine the 2007 four-yeargraduation-rate total cohort progress target:[(80 - the graduation rate of the 2006 four-year graduation-rate total cohort) x 0.1] + the graduation rate of the 2006 four-yeargraduation-rate total cohort

April 25, 2013 21

Graduation Rate: 5-Year Graduation-Rate Total CohortDISTRICT: VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (MONTGOMERY) DISTRICT ID: 441301060000

All accountability groups with 30 or more members met the graduation-rate criterion for the five-yeargraduation-rate total cohort: YESFive-Year Graduation-Rate Total Cohort

Student GroupMet

Graduation-Rate

Criterion

2006 Five-Year

Graduation-Rate Total

Cohort

Number ofGraduates

GraduationRate

StateStandard

ProgressTarget

All Students ✔ 409 357 87% 80% 80%American Indian or Alaska Native ― 0 ― ― ― ―Black or African American ✔ 46 38 83% 80% 80%Hispanic or Latino ✔ 55 49 89% 80% 80%Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander ― 6 ― ― ― ―White ✔ 302 264 87% 80% 80%Multiracial ― 0 ― ― ― ―Students With Disabilities ✔ 52✝ 36✝ 69%✝ 80% 69%Limited English Proficient ― 0 ― ― ― ―Economically Disadvantaged ✔ 95 80 84% 80% 80%

✔ Graduation rate is equal to or greater than the State Standard or the group's Progress Target.✘ Graduation rate is less than the State Standard and the group's Progress Target.― There were fewer than 30 students in the cohort.✝ Includes former students with disabilities because the number of students with disabilities in the current year is equal to or greaterthan 30.

2006 Five-Year Graduation-Rate Total CohortThe 2006 five-year graduation-rate total cohort consists of all students who first entered grade 9 anywhere between July 1, 2006 andJune 30, 2007. Five-year graduation-rate results for these students are captured as of August 31, 2011.

Graduation RateThe graduate rate for the 2006 five-year graduation-rate total cohort is the percentage of cohort members who earned a local orRegents diploma by August 31, 2011.

Progress TargetThe Progress Target for the 2006 five-year graduation-rate total cohort is a 20% gap reduction in the graduation rate of the 2005five-year graduation-rate total cohort as of June 30, 2010. The following equation is used to determine the 2006 five-yeargraduation-rate total cohort progress target:[(80 - the graduation rate of the 2005 five-year graduation-rate total cohort) x 0.2] + the graduation rate of the 2005 five-yeargraduation-rate total cohort


2012-2013 Property Tax Report Card

New York State Education Department State Aid Management System (SAMS) Page I ofl

Property Tax Report Card4/1301 - VALLEY CSD (MONTGOME

2012-2013 - Page 1

Revision - as of 041261201312:58 PM

lmportant Note: Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011 requires school districts to report data elements necessary tocalculate a Property Tax Levy Limit. Data elements for the Property Tax Report Card have been renamed andredefined in accordance with these changes. Please see http:/lwww.p12.nvsed.qov/mqtserv/propertvtax/taxcap/for additional guidance.

School District Contact Person:

School District Telephone Number:

Form Due - April27,2013

Budgeted2012-13

(A)

ProposedBudget 2013-14

(B)

PercentChange

(c)

Total Proposed Spending

Total Proposed School Year TaxLevy, lncluding Tax Levy to SupportLibrary DebtlPermissible Exclusions to the SchoolTax Levy LimitProposed School Year Tax Levy, Notlncluding Levy for PermissibleExclusions or Levy to SupportLibrary DebtSchool Tax Levy Limit2Difference (positive value requires60.0% voter approval)Public School Enrollment

Consumer Price lndex

lroJ6t13s ----llsrJ1r,ss, --l

l+rr/r, ------llEr6rqoe3--_--l

51,620,083

0

,777

W{sssr,3srs,sr,sr4-----1

W,n ,sir----]

1,462,236

,770,276

2.43

9.81

%

%

W21868:004 :

Fs55----l :2:55. o

Er--1uI All proposed levies should exclude any prior year reserve for excess tax levy, including interest.

2 For 2013-11, includes any carryover from 2012-13 and excludes any tax levy for library debt or prior year reserve forexcess tax levy, including interest.

Actuaf 2012-'|.3(D)

Estimated 2013-14(E)

Adjusted Restricted Fund Balance

Assigned Appropriated FundBalanceAdjusted Unrestricted Fund Balance

Adjusted Unrestricted Fund BalanceasaPercent ofthe Total Budget

5J26,314

,546,758

1,638,492

|s52631t---llr^ooo,ooo-----l

fi**t9 _12.80 %%

httos://eservices.nvsed.sov/sams/nrintForm.do?method:nrinfForm&.fsld:Ri0&serrmenfKev:1166QQ54Q6 4n6Do11


2013-2014 Administrative Compensation Disclosure

New York State Education Department State Aid Management System (SAMS)

Salary: Administrative Compensation lnformation 2012-2013 - Page 1

441301 - VALLEY CSD (MONTGOME Revision - as of 041261201312:54PM

Submittal Form for Estimated Salaries in the Budget for the 201 3-2014 School Year(Form Due - May 13,2013)

Sections 1608 and 1716 ofthe Education Law(Please read the instructions and definitions before completing this form.)

Page I of5

Title Salary Employee Benefits OtherRemuneration

1. rintendent of Schools

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT

PRINCIPAL

PRINCIPAL

PRINCIPALDRINCIPAL

)RINCIPAL

f IRECTOR

)IRECTOR

)IRECTOR

]IRECTOR

\SSISTANT PRINCIPAL

\SSISTANT PRINCIPAL

Wl4sr-----l F32o+-------l tt,r58---------l

Associate, Assistant and Deputy Superintendents(Example Titles: Associate Superintendent for lnstruction, Deputy Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent for

Business, etc.)

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.'10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

178,441

146,880

135,000

1 59,346

143.731

141 ,480

Itr2r5 -_lFfigs ------1

FnA;-------1Fnno-------1ttu6,rt-----l133,221

128,715

l41,116 *-----l

F4186------l42,000

48,000

45,000

45,000

45,000

43,000

36,000

36,000

36,000

36,000

30,000

29,000

796

ttooo ------lFsoo

------__-.'

ilaoo-------lbsoo ---l1,600

2 900

2,800

2,800

2,800

2,800

2,800

2.700

httos:l/eservices.nvsed.sov/sams/nrintForm.do?mefhod:nrintForm&fsTd:R76&seomentKerz:l ?66QQ{?R? t.D6/)fi1't'


2011-2012 Exempt Property Report

oz o< c,a :.; '<!

oo +4,

!r (,)i

6: 'of o o o 3

g$ tr

oJ

o€o 6'

oJo

=. o (')

zfn

eox

e

3E

3(D

5 J

s 6' :l-r m o ltl z -{ n -

55S

5@

@@

!('r

(roN

5500

{ {

alI

I X

9o

q,

=0,

I a

E;

o m

oq

i:m

tto

x =

fo

oU'

: ds

f,o o= ai. o o +

@m

!>>

zma

0,-n

no4

Ro

@,6

>=

iH;;

E;T

F9n

Uis

X

ou)

6 n1

o 64 <

(.1

m-l

n

n v

v >

>

v,T

I

I Q

9S

F F

F i

f E

s s

r a

iq(,

(,r{

(,r- (t O (J

r

m .o c g !'3 Xo ;

e.3

S

rnie

9q,

o

-' ,^

':r

m-'

oooo

o -:

rEfi

FE

3o

f o,

cLi.5

N!3

=o

t, (,

'J

NF

E

;."

J gT

{ de

'A

<t,/

'(t'

I d

5 JO

cDr

.Olt E#

m-

x= OL 33 SF g;

-{ 9 !L o o o o o 8g SE

b=' o ir FE

o\J'

-<o6

PE

6=--

f

bA

JO 5-lr

{ oog

l* m

Fx+ 9E

N

N

EB

o a

6'a

-E -

E

BE

=,q

;=

{{o.

rcl)c

o=$o

t a-

AE

; F

O)(

'(Jlr

.!o

mB

xo o= :+eo

N p

9'

8f(o

5(ro

=5A

(,56

5A (00(

o

-lO{

iobi

D50

$

(, @(t

r(t

q6 3tr

io LO Oo E; ;s oo ?5 :'o id€

OL .o

= N o CL tr 9. =(o o c =o 3 ! o o o ql (o o o g c !D { o m x o T' o o = o CL o 5 o A' - o o o o 3 o d o q) * o ; q, = o o 5' o o 0, x o o o t o o !t A' 3 o o

3 o c r o s 0, =. tt c q, E 6- o ! 0, 3 o o 5' o c o 0, x o o

! 0) (o o o

(,1C

) z

=:

e ;

O=

=

.

oo.<

!

oa6

iicL

U)

+

oor

c=|>

;-v

HF

4 €

NZ

:l

ta

€=

6 Xo

o =

s 5

s 5

c)m

ox66

O!A

O(r

(,

o

1\)

;-=

5 5

o o

"€f, o

U) o o o' :. OJ (,) s N o t- r m o m z { n r

i {

u, I

o o

<o

a,

t *0

)i

6 g;

o m

og

6Er1

- m

!ox

=,f,

o oo

: is

=o

o= de.

o o -

urm

rr>

zm

>zm

a gX

3ta4

" dE

@,6

>=

*

iHfr

i 5

S;T

Fgr

Uio

N

odE

?i

YO

m-

n

n a

n >

>

oT

T !

c)

c5

'J

) J

r --

r r

r S

. O

=s

s s

X

=.o

uEq;

€e

r- (, o (,l

m lt tr A, il 6v

,cL

8 d fiq

E

9x3

fi a:

Eon

4*cL

Y

o,:+

:'N

F

l€

N!r

oT

.i 3F

igr

El

-b

3sO

t@

'Y

tor

=o

$= =l

EF

,g; (,

,|+

55 (oo(

0(, @

(rJc

tr

eO 50r

o> =o

10 ;8 aDo-

;PV

e =

q69

Llro

c:(D

o6iz >! !r

= S

9N o\-o

-(,.,

fisE

o--ib

boF

-o{A

{J

{ o gm

El

x: Eb

!N ao ocL

-g s

* 3

;f-o

-5

-o)

-oo

-O

(rO

)-.lO

(r(r

o)o

O)(

,rO

rJ=

NN

o ct

)oo _(

t Jo

{\t

(t

('{o

{

! om

Fxo O

J2- =o:- 8.S

Pi$

9P

F8i

E8

6{o

{io

bio

505

g q o an t, o cr o o o .ct g N o cl = 9. GI o C ii o t o 5 o o f !, (ct o o ET c !e o m x o 3 It t, J o J o o o o 0, F o =' o o o 2. C

L o A' * o -= ! 0t 3 o f o 5' o tr o q, x o o o o o !t t 3 o o

o tr E: t g o o 3. o o I

3 o c f F o, = :< t, ;i. A' s o o E' t, 3 o f o = o c o q, x o o

! G)

(o o o

2013-2014 budget disclosures - valley central school district

Documents