east troy community school district 2014-15 annual meeting and budget hearing

East Troy Community School District

2014-15 Annual Meeting and Budget Hearing

I. Call to OrderII. Pledge of AllegianceIII. Election of a Temporary

ChairpersonIV. Appoint Recording Clerk

V. ANNUAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE TO EDUCATION AWARDS

Congratulations and Thank You to:

Meg and Shawn Hunter

VI. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR’S

REPORTA. District History, Trends, and StatsB. Student Achievement C. Additional Data Points

Moving Forward toward the “District of Choice”

Mission Statement: Ensuring and providing 21st century learning

through: engaged student learning, quality teaching, strong leadership,

rigorous coursework, and community service opportunities while

demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness for the betterment of the

students and community.

21ST C. ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEEVISION STATEMENTS

TIME FOR LEARNING – REMOVE BARRIERS COMPETENCY BASED EDUCATION – LOOK AT

OUTCOMES, NOT BEING DEFINED BY GRADE OR AGE

SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS/PARENTS/AGENCIES/HIGHER EDUCATION

PROVIDE MEANINGFUL, PRACTICAL APPLICATION SKILLS THROUGH ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECTS

HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION – MORE ENGAGEMENT/INTEREST, MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS

UTILIZING RESOURCES, CREATING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNERS

HIGH LEVELS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INDIVIDUALIZED EXPERIENCES TO ENCOURAGE SELF DIRECTED LEARNING

Goals Ensuring a year to a year plus of learning

growth for each child, each year Ensuring programming opportunities through

systems and practices that recognize the talents of each child

Ensuring individualized learning by engaging students with a personalized learning environment

Employing the highest quality professional staff

Adapting facilities for current and future educational needs

Demonstrating fiscal responsibility through efficiency and effectiveness

SIX FACETS

Student Achievement Quality Teaching / Quality Staff and

Strong Instructional Leadership Technology Facilities Operations Community Engagement

Dr. Hibner (2011)

HEAD COUNT

Headcount includes resident and non-resident students enrolled within the district. Headcount excludes resident students enrolled outside the district and in alternative and special education placements.

The enrollment numbers in the following charts are as of September of each year, except for the estimate for the current year.

ENROLLMENT HISTORY Estimate for 14-15

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

2013

-14

2014

-15

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

K-12 4K

GENERAL FUND COMPONENT REVENUES 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR

Property Taxes (LOCAL)

74%

Equalization Aid (STATE)

19%

Other7%

GENERAL FUND COMPONENT EXPENDITURES 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR

Salaries & Bene-

fits70%

Fd 27 Transfer7%

Other23%

GENERAL FUND & FD 27 SALARIES & BENEFITS 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR

Salaries51%

Benefits25%

Other24%

Salary/Benefit Distribution by Staff

55%

10%

35%

FTE

Support Staff

Teachers

Admin/Supv

65%15%

20%

Cost in Budget

Teachers

Admin/Supv

Support Staff

Basic Salary/Benefits Only – does not include extra duties.

See Appendix “Rock Valley Athletic Conference 2012-13 Equalized Tax Levy Information” for Comparables

MILL RATE HISTORY(14-15 – Estimate)

96-9

7

97-9

8

98-9

9

99-0

0

00-0

1

01-0

2

02-0

3

03-0

4

04-0

5

05-0

6

06-0

7

07-0

8

08-0

9

09-1

0

10-1

1

11-1

2

12-1

3

13-1

4

14-1

5

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

$11.00

$9.3

1

$9.2

5

$9.0

3

$8.8

3

$8.0

8 $8.3

5

$8.2

7 $8.5

1

$8.1

7

$7.2

8

$7.0

7 $7.5

3$7

.66

$8.8

5 $9.1

6

$8.8

8

$9.9

9$1

0.21$1

0.55

% Change in Equalized Value History

'04-

05

'05-

06

'06-

07

'07-

08

'08-

09

'09-

10

'10-

11

'11-

12

12-1

3

13-1

4

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

7.27

%

12.7

6%

12.1

9%

4.98

%

8.79

%

-5.5

1%

-0.5

3%

0.30

%

-6.4

7%

-1.6

6%

See Appendix “WI DPI Analysis of General Aid and Equalization Aid Formula Components” for Comparisons to State Increases

Mill rate can increase, even when taxes decrease

Year 1

School Taxes: $2000 each

Mill rate: taxes/property (1,000) $2000/$200 = $10

Year 2

School Taxes: $1,944 each (2.8% decrease)

Mill rate: $1944/$190 = $10.23

$200K $200K $190K $190K

2013-14 Tax Levy By Municipality

See Appendix “Tax Bill Analysis” for steps to understand the components of a tax bill.

Town of East Troy49.7%

Town of LaFayette4.8%

Town of LaGrange1.8%

Town of Spring Prairie4.3%

Town of Troy16.6%

Village of East Troy21.4%

Village of Mukwonago0.8% Town of Eagle

0.6%

Report on Student

Achievement

Learning Growth and Attainment

RESULTS - MAP

2005 Norms Study with Northwest Evaluation Association has concluded that a school district is successfully helping students to improve their annual achievement levels, if 50% or more of the students in the District reach their individual targeted growth goal for the school year.

Reading Results (MAP)National Schools in the Top 10%

In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 60-70% of the students reach their growth norm target in reading.

2009 – 2010 (61.5%) 2010 – 2011 (67.7%) 2011 – 2012* (62.7%) 2012 – 2013* (60.6%) 2013 – 2014* (62.1%)

*Began K–8 during 2011-12 / Prior years were grades 2-8

Reading Results (MAP)Above 50% of students Met Targeted Growth

2010-11: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8)

2011-12: 7 of 9 grade levels (K – 8) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st

grades}

2012-13: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)

2013-14: 9 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)

Reading Results (MAP)Overall Percentage of Students Meeting Targeted

Growth

2009-10: 61.5% (Grades 2 – 8)

2010-11: 67.7% (Grades 2 – 8)

2011-12: 62.7% (K – 8) / 69.0% (Grades 2 – 8)

2012-13: 60.6% (K – 8)

2013-14: 62.1% (K – 8)

Reading Results (MAP)Overall Increase of Percentage of Cohort Meeting

Targeted Growth

2010-11: 4 of 6 (excluding 2nd grade)

2011-12: 3 of 6 (excluding 5K, 1st & 2nd grades) {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades}

2012-13: 3 of 8 (excluding 5K)


Reading Results (MAP)Grade Levels Above National Norms

2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 – 9 of 9 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the year. Began K – 8 testing during 2011-12 school year. Prior years were grades 2 – 8.

Actual Attainment v. Benchmark Attainment2011 - 2012 2012 – 2013 2013 - 2014

- - Class of 2026 N/A / N/A /(K) – 159.8 (157.7) {2.1}- Class of 2025 N/A / (K) – 159 (157.7) {1.3} /(1) – 178.5 (176.9) {1.6}- Class of 2024 (K) – 159.7 (155.1) {4.6} / (1) – 178.4 (176.9) {1.5} /(2) – 192.0 (189.6) {2.4} - Class of 2023 (1) – 179.7 (176.9) {2.8} / (2) – 194.6 (189.6) {5.0} /(3) – 203.7 (199.2) {4.5}- Class of 2022 (2) – 192.3 (189.6) {2.7} / (3) – 204.0 (199.2) {4.8} /(4) – 212.0 (206.7) {5.3}- Class of 2021 (3) – 204.6 (199.2) {5.4} / (4) – 210.9 (206.7) {4.2} /(5) – 216.4 (212.3) {4.1}- Class of 2020 (4) – 210.3 (206.7) {3.6} / (5) – 214.9 (212.3) {2.6} /(6) – 217.4 (216.4) {1.0}- Class of 2019 (5) – 217.9 (212.3) {5.6} / (6) – 219.0 (216.4) {2.6} /(7) – 223.4 (219.7) {3.7}- Class of 2018 (6) – 219.7 (216.4) {3.3} / (7) – 224.0 (219.7) {4.3} /(8) – 228.6 (222.4) {6.2}- Class of 2017 (7) – 224.8 (219.7) {5.1} / (8) – 228.9 (222.4) {6.5} /- Class of 2016 (8) – 226.3 (222.4) {3.9} /

Reading Results (WKCE)Overall Percentage of Grade Levels 3-8, & 10,

Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced

2010-11: of 7 grades - 88% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 41.2%


2012-13: of 7 grades - 45.7% (NAEP

aligned)

2013-14: of 7 grades - 39.7% (NAEP

aligned)

Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year (testing window will be in the spring)

Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year

Reading Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, That Increased Overall

Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced

2010-11: 4 of 6 cohorts*

2011-12: 2 of 6 cohorts*

2012-13: 3 of 6 cohorts*

2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts*

*Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam

2013 – 2014 2012 – 2013 2011 - 2012 10th – 52.9% / 8th – 31.9% 8th – 31.8% / 7th – 38.8% / 6th – 44.2% 7th - 39.9% / 6th – 42.2% / 5th – 46.7% 6th – 33.1% / 5th – 37.4% / 4th – 39.8% 5th – 40.8% / 4th – 38.3% / 3rd – 34.8% 4th – 42.5% / 3rd – 45.7% 3rd – 36.7%


Will change WKCE Reading to Smarter Balanced Assessment during 2014-15 school year

Reading Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, Percentage Scoring

Proficient and/or Advanced

Math Results (MAP)National Schools in the Top 10%

In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 65 - 75 percent of the students reach their growth norm target in mathematics.

2009 – 2010 (64.3%) 2010 – 2011 (61.2%) 2011 – 2012 (75%) *2012 – 2013 (65.5%) *2013 – 2104 (64.3%)*Kindergarten and 1st graders began taking MAP testing.

Math Results (MAP)Overall Percentage of Students Meeting Targeted

Growth

2009-10: 64.3% (Grades 2 – 8)

2010-11: 61.2% (Grades 2 – 8)

2011-12: 75% (Grades 2 – 8)

2012-13: 65.5% (K – 8) / 66.9% (Grades 2 – 8)

2013-14: 64.3% (K – 8)

Math Results (MAP)Above 50% of students Met Targeted Growth

2010-11: 5 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8)

2011-12: 7 of 7 grade levels (2 – 8)

2012-13: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)

{Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades}

2013-14: 8 of 9 grade levels (K – 8)

Math Results (MAP)Overall Increase of Percentage of Cohort

Meeting Targeted Growth

2010-11: 2 of 6*

2011-12: 5 of 6*

2012-13: 0 of 6*

{Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades}


*Number of cohorts excludes 2nd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year

therefore 2nd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam

Math Results (MAP)Grade Levels Above National Norms

2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 7 of 7 grade levels had above the Normative Data Reference

(RIT Scores) at the end of the 2011 – 2012 school year. 8 of 9 for the 2012 – 2013 and 9 of 9 for the 2013 – 2014 school year.

Actual Attainment (Benchmark Attainment) {Difference of Actual & Benchmark}

2011 - 2012 2012 – 2013 2013 - 2014- - Class of 2026 N/A / N/A /(K) – 162.2 (159.1) {3.1}

- Class of 2025 N/A / (K) – 157.9 (159.1) {-1.2} /(1) – 182.1 (179.0) {3.1}- Class of 2024 (K) N/A / (1) – 180.8 (179.0) {1.8} /(2) – 195.6 (191.3) {4.3} - Class of 2023 (1) N/A / (2) – 197.4 (191.3) {6.1} /(3) – 207.1 (203.1) {4.0}- Class of 2022 (2) – 195.3 (191.3) {4.0} / (3) – 207.2 (203.1)) {4.1} /(4) – 221.5 (212.5) {9.0}- Class of 2021 (3) – 208.4 (203.1) {5.3} / (4) – 218.6 (212.5) {6.1} /(5) – 225.2 (221.0) {4.2}- Class of 2020 (4) – 218.3 (212.5) {5.8} / (5) – 225.3 (221.0) {4.3} /(6) – 229.6 (225.6)

{4.0}- Class of 2019 (5) – 230.3 (221.0) {9.3} / (6) – 231.9 (225.6) {6.3} /(7) – 237.8 (230.5) {7.3}- Class of 2018 (6) – 231.7 (225.6) {6.1} / (7) – 235.6 (230.5) {5.1} /(8) – 239.5 (234.5) {5.0}- Class of 2017 (7) – 237.3 (230.5) {6.8} / (8) – 241.4 (234.5) {6.9} /- Class of 2016 (8) – 240 (234.5) {5.5} /

Began K-8 testing during 2012-13 school year. Prior years were grades 2-8.

Math Results (WKCE)Overall Percentage of Grade Levels 3-8, &

10, Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced

2010-11: of 7 grades - 86% Retroactively NAEP aligned: 59%


2012-13: of 7 grades – 59.4% (NAEP aligned)

2013-14: of 7 grades – 56.6% (NAEP aligned)Began using NAEP scales during 2012-13 school year


Math Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, That Increased Overall

Percentage Scoring Proficient and/or Advanced

2010-11: 1 of 6 cohorts*

2011-12: 4 of 6 cohorts*

2012-13: 2 of 6 cohorts*

2013-14: 2 of 6 cohorts* *Number of cohorts excludes 3rd grade. Overall growth percentage based on previous year

therefore 3rd grade is not included in the statistic since second grade does not take exam

Math Results (WKCE)Cohorts 4-8, & 10, Percentage Scoring

Proficient and/or Advanced

2013 – 2014 2012 – 2013 2011 - 2012 10th – 60.4% / 8th – 50.0% 8th – 48.6% / 7th – 52.6% / 6th – 57.5% 7th - 57.1% / 6th – 77.2% / 5th – 68.6% 6th – 52.3% / 5th – 60.9% / 4th – 54.0% 5th – 55.2% / 4th – 60.8% / 3rd – 62.6% 4th – 59.4% / 3rd – 58.1% 3rd – 63.4%



EPAS Results (ACT)East Troy Scores and Participation Rate

GradYear

Reading English Math ScienceComposit

e

Participation

Rate

2008 22.6 21.4 21.5 22.1 22.0 55.6

2009 22.4 20.8 21.4 22.1 21.9 61.2

2010 22.8 21.9 21.9 22.5 22.4 65.1

2011 22.7 21.1 21.8 22.4 22.2 62.3

2012 22.5 21.4 21.0 22.6 22.1 70.6

2013 22.7 21.6 22.2 23.3 22.6 74.6

2014* 22.6 22.4 22.4 22.9 22.7 60.5

*2013-14 data is approximate. Data will be certified Spring 2015.

EPAS Results (ACT)District Comparison

District2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14*

Score % Score % Score % Score %

Surrounding Districts

Burlington 22.4 56.8 22.3 58.1 22.3 58.2 22.3 54.3

Elkhorn 21.8 59.6 20.9 62.6 22.1 66.7 21.8 60.8

Mukwonago 23.4 66.7 23.3 69.2 23.6 73.0 23.7 73.8

Whitewater 21.7 63.8 21.7 63.6 22.7 47.8 23.8 45.8

East Troy 22.2 62.3 22.1 70.6 22.6 74.6 22.7 60.5

Other

Local

Districts

Arrowhead 24.8 81.7 25.0 83.2 24.6 82.0 24.8 83.1

Elmbrook 25.2 85.5 25.4 84.5 24.9 87.4 25.0 83.5

Kettle Moraine 23.9 81.0 24.1 80.3 23.8 82.8 23.8 84.5

Mequon-Thiensville

25.7 82.4 25.2 79.7 25.0 85.9 26.0 87.5

Waterford 22.9 71.1 22.6 68.7 23.1 79.1 22.9 68.9

Waukesha 22.9 56.3 22.5 57.1 22.7 54.5 22.4 57.8 Score = Average Composite ACT Score

% = Participation Rate

*2013-14 data is approximate. Data will be certified Spring 2015.

EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2018): 2014-15 Grade 9

8th Gr Explore (2013-14)


e

ACT Benchmark 16 13 17 18 16

East Troy Avg. Score 15.5 15.6 16.6 17.5 16.4

National Avg. 14.6 14.7 15.5 16.6 15.5



e

Projected Score* 18.0-18.5 18.1-18.6 19.1-19.6 20.0-20.5 18.9-19.4


*East Troy projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.

10th Gr Plan (2015-16)Reading English Math Science

Composite

Projected Score* 20.5-21.5 20.6-21.6 21.6-22.6 22.5-23.5 21.4-22.4

ACT Benchmark 18 15 19 20 18ACT (2016-17)


e

Projected Score* 23.0-24.5 23.1-24.6 24.1-25.6 25.0-26.5 23.9-25.4





e



National Avg. 14.6 14.7 15.5 16.6 15.59th Gr Explore (2013-14)


e

Projected Score* 18.4-18.9 18.2-18.7 18.9-19.4 20.2-20.7 19-19.5



National Avg. 15.4 15.7 16.3 17.1 16.2

ET Growth 8th to 9th 1.0 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.210th Gr Plan (2014-15)


e

Projected Score* 20.9-21.9 20.7-21.7 21.4-22.4 22.7-21.7 21.5-22.5

ACT Benchmark 18 15 19 20 18ACT (2015-16)


e

Projected Score* 23.4-24.9 23.2-24.7 23.9-25.4 25.2-26.7 24-25.5


*Projected score based on 2.5-3.0 points of growth per year.


8th Gr Explore (2011-12) Reading English Math Science Composite


East Troy Avg. Score 14.4 15 16.3 16.8 15.7

National Avg. 14.6 14.7 15.5 16.6 15.5

9th Gr Explore (2012-13) Reading English Math Science Composite

Projected Score* 16.9-17.4 17.5-18.0 18.8-19.3 19.3-19.8 18.2-18.7



National Avg. 15.4 15.7 16.3 17.1 16.2

ET Growth 8th to 9th 1.8 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.6

ACT Reading English Math Science Composite

Projected Score 21.9-23.4 22.5-24.0 23.8-25.3 24.3-25.8 23.2-24.7

10th Gr Plan (2013-14) Reading English Math Science Composite

Projected Score* 19.4-20.4 20.0-21.0 21.3-22.3 21.8-22.8 20.7-21.7



National Avg. 16.7 16.2 17.6 17.8 17.2

ET Growth 8th to 9th 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.5 1.7





e



National Avg. 15.4 15.7 16.3 17.1 16.2

10th Gr Plan (2012-13)


e

Projected Score* 19.8-20.3 19.9-20.4 20.2-20.7 21.1-21.6 20.4-20.9



National Avg. 16.9 16.4 17.9 18 17.5

ET Growth 9th to 10th 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.9 1.7

Retired ACT (2013-14)


e

Projected Score* 22.3-23.3 22.4-23.4 22.7-23.7 23.6-24.6 22.9-23.9

Benchmark 22 18 22 23 21


ET Growth 10th to 11th 0.8 -0.2 0.2 -1.0 0.0


EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort (Class of 2014): 2013-14 Graduates



e



National Avg. 15.3 15.5 16.3 16.5 16.1

10th Gr Plan (2011-12)


e

Projected Score* 18.7-19.2 19.5-20.0 19.9-20.4 20.9-21.4 19.8-20.3



National Avg. 16.9 16.4 17.9 18 17.5

ET Growth 9th to 10th 2.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.5

Retired ACT (2012-13)


e

Projected Score* 21.2-22.2 22.0-23.0 22.4-23.4 23.4-24.4 22.3-23.3

Benchmark 21 18 22 24 21


ET Growth 10th to 11th 0.4 -0.3 0.0 -0.3 0.3


EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort - Percent Met or Exceeded Benchmark

Class of 20182014-15 Grade 9

Reading English Math Science Composite

ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat ET Nat


46% 36% 71% 68% 47% 36% 50 37%


TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA

10th Gr Plan (2015-16)

TBA TBA TBA TBA TBAClass of 20172014-15 Grade 10




52% 46% 76% 68% 45% 36% 27% 16% 61%


54% 36 75% 67 55% 33 45% 31 65%

10th Gr Plan (2014-15)

TBA TBA TBA TBA TBAClass of 20162014-15 Grade 11




44% 51% 68% 83% 42% 38% 19% 27% 27%


53% 49% 75% 83% 51% 54% 42% 48% 61%

10th Gr Plan (2013-14)

49% 40% 84% 64% 55% 36% 49% 40% 65%

EPAS Results (Explore, Plan, ACT)Cohort - Percent Met or Exceeded Benchmark

Class of 20152014-15 Grade 12




NA NA NA NA NA


63% 45% 80% 67% 40% 33% 33% 21%

10th Gr Plan (2012-13)Class of 2014

2013-14 Graduates




NA NA NA NA NA


50% 43% 80% 64% 46% 37% 27% 17%

10th Gr Plan (2011-12)

69% 50% 82% 66% 48% 39% 36% 22%

School Perceptions SurveyGrade 12 – Percent Strongly Agree and Agree

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009

Do not feel part of the school 26.05 19.7 25.37 25.00 18.26 17.07

Disruptive behavior in class 43.60 28.90 44.02 24.07 26.96 22.76

No access to technology IN school 11.75 17.70 30.59 21.29 7.82 4.87

Worry about my safety at school 6.72 3.00 7.46 8.33 3.47 6.50

School does not offer courses I want 41.17 39.35 44.02 50.92 32.86 37.39

Classes are irrelevant 56.30 52.33 50.74 51.85 55.65 36.58

Poor study habits 68.90 53.37 61.19 62.00 47.82 54.47

Classes poorly taught 75.63 71.96 73.88 70.37 77.39 64.47

Teachers had high expectations of me 79.82 89.00 80.58 78.7 88.69 87.80

School is boring 70.58 57.93 58.94 71.29 66.94 63.40

I enjoy being at school 45.37 51.39 58.94 51.84 51.29 60.97

Learning can be fun 80.66 95.32 80.59 80.54 81.73 84.55

School Perceptions SurveyGrade 12 – Preferred Instructional Methods

Which two instructional methods help you to be engaged and maximize your

learning?2013-14 2012-13

Project Based Assignments (hands on activities) 64.03% 58.11%

Direct Instruction 50.03% N/A

Cooperative Learning/Working with fellow classmates 70.17% 77.0%

Using More Technology 58.77% 52.13%

Homework 21.92% 17.09%


2014 2013

I feel safe at school 80.69 88.59

Bullying was not a problem at school 65.78 71.55

The school does a good job trying to prevent bullying from happening 44.24 61.39

School does not offer courses I want 51.37 33.02

My classes were interesting 50.87 72.52

Poor study habits 40.36 34.82

No access to technology in school 33.92 19.64

Using technology made learning fun 81.07 80.69

Using technology helped me learn 79.27 76.06

My teacher allowed me to use technology on a daily basis to assist with my learning

31.48 40.17

Classes poorly taught 64.22 44.64

School is boring 72.80 60.33

I enjoy being at school 45.12 63.15

Learning can be fun 60.51 81.03

I feel fully prepared for high school 73.57 86.48


Three methods you would like teachers to use more often to assist and enhance your

learning.2013-14 2012-13




Using more technology 58.77% 52.13%

Homework 21.92% 17.09%


2014 2013

I feel safe at school 91.60 87.26

Bullying was a problem at school 22.89 37.26

The school does a good job trying to prevent bullying from happening 68.74 74.76

School does not offer courses I want 36.64 45.04

Poor study habits 19.08 19.81

No access to technology in school 24.02 28.03

Using technology made learning fun 94.64 95.45

Using technology helped me learn more 88.84 89.18

My teacher allowed me to use technology on a daily basis to assist with my learning

62.49 61.68

Classes poorly taught 23.66 12.62

School is boring 51.5 47.7

I enjoy being at school 53.02 58.92

Learning can be fun 68.49 77.27

I feel fully prepared for middle school 81.53 80.9


Three methods you would like teachers to use more often to assist and enhance your

learning.2013-14 2012-13




Using more technology 70.22% 79.81%

Homework/Worksheets 19.84% 15.59%

Additional Results

District Data Points – attendance, truancy rate, drop out rate, suspensions, expulsions, retention rate, high school completion rates, open enrollment students, home-schooled students, ELL students, gifted and talented, special education, extra-curricular, etc.

PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventional Strategies)

YRBS (Youth Risk Behavior Survey) School Perceptions Senior Survey

VII. TREASURER’S REPORT –

2013-14

Budgeted Unaudited VarianceEXPENDITURES

General Fund 17,884,708 17,529,276 (355,432)

Special Education Fund 1,871,719 1,789,611 (82,108)

Debt Service Funds 2,241,110 2,273,257 32,147

REVENUES

General Fund 17,479,922 17,581,668 101,746

Special Education Fund 1,871,719 1,789,611 (82,108)

Debt Service Fund 1,829,627 1,829,734 107

Total fund balance increase of $52,392

VIII. PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET

14-15 Key Aspects of REVENUES

STATE BUDGET – per pupil revenue limit increase of $75 with matching $75 increase per pupil state aid provision (@$150 currently)

What this means: Projected Revenue Limit on July 1 w/out new transfers of $203,608: $16,407,959; $150 aid = $255,200 1.35% overall revenue increase $16,662,459 total is still less than 2009-10

levels State aid DPI July 1 projection: decrease of -

10.26% Overall levy: $15,052,714 (5.03%) Mill rate: 10.55 (3.31%)

14-15 Key Aspects of Shortfall

Projected Shortfall: $308,000 original With additions to budget the shortfall

increased to $577,000 Largest Budget reductions:

Health insurance renewal – 4% renewal rather than an originally projected 10% increase & EE contribution increase to 9% = $199,173

Decrease of two elementary grades by 2 sections - $163,000

IX. BUDGET HEARING

By S. 65.90 Wis. Stats, common school districts must hold the public budget hearing at the time and place of the annual meeting.

Residents have an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget.

School District Funds

10 General Fund

-Used to record district financial activities for current operations, except those activities required to be accounted for in separate funds.


20 Special Project Funds

21 Special Revenue Trust Fund

Gift / Donations Fund – prudent when project directed by donation will cross fiscal years.

27 Special Education Fund

Exceptional Educational Needs/Federal Handicapped/Other Special Projects


30 Debt Service Funds

Irrepealable debt tax levy and related revenues.

Principal, interest, and related long-term debt retirement.

38 Non-referendum Approved Debt Service (within the revenue limit)

39 Referendum Approved Debt Service


50 Food Service Fund

Federal regulations require separate accounting for Food Service.

Fund deficit must be eliminated through transfer from the General Fund.

Fund balance must be retained for use in Food Service.


70 Trust Funds

These funds are used to account for assets held by the district in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations, or other governments.

East Troy utilizes this fund for its scholarship donations.


80 Community Service Fund

Fund established through S. 120.13 and 120.61, Wis. Stats. Allows a school board to permit use of district property for civic purposes.

Examples of activities could include adult education, community recreation programs, and/or day care services.

Act 20 created new requirements for this Fund, including no increases in the levy from 2012-13 unless by referendum, and reporting requirements such as including the expenditure

report attached to the budget hearing documents.

LONG TERM DEBTAs of September 1, 2014

Remaining principal on Fund 38 - $541,283 (Debt Expires 9/19/2018).

Remaining principal on Fund 39 - $2,705,000 (Debt Expires 3/1/2018).

RESOLUTIONS(Last page of booklet)

X. Resolution A: Adoption of Tax Levy

XI. Resolution B: Salaries for Board of Education Members

XII. Resolution C: Set Date and Time for 2015 Annual Meeting

XIII. NEW BUSINESS

XIV. ADJOURN

east troy community school district 2014-15 annual meeting and budget hearing

Documents