SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD

•
•
D
DANIELLE CALISE, MBA
1 of 224
Download to read offline
“Learning Today – Leading Tomorrow” 112233 yyeeaarrss ooff sseerrvviicciinngg oouurr yyoouutthh aanndd ccoommmmuunniittiieess……
Page 2 of 223 Table of Contents……… BOARD OF TRUSTEES ....................................... 7 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS ............................ 10 MAPS .................................................................. 19 THE STRATEGIC PLAN ..................................... 24 BELIEF STATEMENTS-------------------------------------24 OBJECTIVES ----------------------------------------------25 GOALS -----------------------------------------------------26 SMART GOALS--------------------------------------------26 STRATEGIES ----------------------------------------------27 PARAMETER-----------------------------------------------28 ACTION TEAMS -------------------------------------------29 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT................................. 31 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX – ANNUAL YEARLY PROGRESS------------------------------------------------36 API .............................................................................36 AYP ............................................................................36 Where have our API scores been?.............................37 2006-07 Program Improvement Status ......................38 OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION.....................39 THE FACTS BEHIND SACS ...............................40 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ...............44 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AT OMSD ................48 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS...................................49 2007 – 2008 --------------------------------------------- 50 SITE ALLOCATION FORMULAS-------------------------- 55 Custodial Allocation....................................................55 School Clerk Daily Hours Allocation...........................56 Noon Aide and Certificated Duty Reduction Allocation ...................................................................................57 Discretionary unrestricted allocation...........................58 Flexible spending allocation .......................................58 THE ENCROACHMENT CONCEPT....................60 WHAT IS SPECIAL EDUCATION ------------------------- 60 What is a SELPA?......................................................61 West End SELPA .......................................................62 CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM------------------- 63 TRANSPORTATION --------------------------------------- 63 ADA AND ENROLLMENT TRENDS ...................66 ADA – AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE---------------- 66 ENROLLMENT --------------------------------------------- 68
Page 3 of 223 CBEDS – CALIFORNIA BASIC EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------68 INTERDISTRICT TRANSFER REQUESTS----------------69 DISCUSSION ON ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ............................................................................. 72 REVENUE LIMIT................................................. 78 PROPOSITION 98 SUMMARY IN BRIEF-----------------78 COLA – COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT --------------79 REFRESHER ON THE “EDUCATION DEAL” OF 2004 – 2005......................................................... 80 QUALITY EDUCATION INVESTMENT ACT ...... 80 GASB 45 – OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) ............................................. 83 Where is OMSD on GASB 45?...................................84 NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE.................................. 85 SETTLEMENT INFORMATION A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ---------------------------------------------85 FUNDS BUDGETED ........................................... 87 GENERAL FUND ------------------------------------------88 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ----------------------------- 91 Cafeteria Fund............................................................91 Child Development.....................................................92 Deferred Maintenance................................................92 CAPITAL FACILITIES-------------------------------------- 94 BUILDING AND COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES--------- 94 Building Fund .............................................................94 County School Facilities .............................................94 SITE BUDGETS...................................................95 STAFFING INFORMATION .................................96 ARROYO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------------- 103 Test Scores ..............................................................103 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......103 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................103 Site Budget… ...........................................................104 BERLYN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---------------------- 106 Test Scores ..............................................................106 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......106 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................106 Site Budget...............................................................107 BON VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL------------------- 109 Test Scores ..............................................................109 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......109 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................109 Site Budget...............................................................110
Page 4 of 223 BUENA VISTA ARTS-INTEGRATED SCHOOL--------- 112 Test Scores ..............................................................112 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......112 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................112 Site Budget...............................................................113 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 115 Test Scores ..............................................................115 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......115 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................115 Site Budget...............................................................116 CORONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------------- 118 Test Scores ..............................................................118 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......118 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................118 Site Budget...............................................................119 DEL NORTE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----------------- 121 Test Scores ..............................................................121 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......121 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................121 Site Budget...............................................................122 EDISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------------- 124 Test Scores ..............................................................124 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......124 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................124 Site Budget...............................................................125 EL CAMINO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL------------------ 127 Test Scores ..............................................................127 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......127 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................127 Site Budget...............................................................128 ELDERBERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------- 130 Test Scores ..............................................................130 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......130 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................130 Site Budget...............................................................131 EUCLID ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------------- 133 Test Scores ..............................................................133 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......133 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................133 Site Budget...............................................................134 HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---------------- 136 Test Scores ..............................................................136 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......136 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................136 Site Budget...............................................................137 HAYNES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------------- 139 Test Scores ..............................................................139 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......139 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................139 Site Budget...............................................................140 HOWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 142 Test Scores ..............................................................142 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......142 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................142 Site Budget...............................................................143
Page 5 of 223 KINGSLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------- 145 Test Scores ..............................................................145 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......145 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................145 Site Budget...............................................................146 LEHIGH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------------- 148 Test Scores ..............................................................148 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......148 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................148 Site Budget...............................................................149 LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------------- 151 Test Scores ..............................................................151 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......151 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................151 Site Budget...............................................................152 LINDA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------- 154 Site Budget...............................................................154 MARIPOSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL------------------- 156 Test Scores ..............................................................156 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......156 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................156 Site Budget...............................................................157 MISSION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------------- 159 Test Scores ..............................................................159 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......159 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................159 Site Budget...............................................................160 MONTE VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------- 162 Test Scores ..............................................................162 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......162 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................162 Site Budget...............................................................163 MONTERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------- 165 Test Scores ..............................................................165 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......165 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................165 Site Budget...............................................................166 MORENO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 168 Test Scores ..............................................................168 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......168 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................168 Site Budget...............................................................169 RAMONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------------- 171 Test Scores ..............................................................171 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......171 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................171 Site Budget...............................................................172 SULTANA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 174 Test Scores ..............................................................174 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......174 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................174 Site Budget...............................................................175
Page 6 of 223 VINEYARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------- 177 Test Scores ..............................................................177 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......177 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................177 Site Budget...............................................................178 VISTA GRANDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------- 180 Test Scores ..............................................................180 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......180 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................180 Site Budget...............................................................181 DE ANZA MIDDLE SCHOOL --------------------------- 183 Test Scores ..............................................................183 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......183 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................183 Site Budget...............................................................184 OAKS MIDDLE SCHOOL ------------------------------- 186 Test Scores ..............................................................186 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......186 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................186 Site Budget...............................................................187 SERRANO MIDDLE SCHOOL -------------------------- 189 Test Scores ..............................................................189 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......189 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................189 Site Budget...............................................................190 VERNON MIDDLE SCHOOL ---------------------------- 192 Test Scores ..............................................................192 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......192 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................192 Site Budget...............................................................193 VINA DANKS MIDDLE SCHOOL ----------------------- 195 Test Scores ..............................................................195 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......195 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................195 Site Budget...............................................................196 RAY WILTSEY MIDDLE SCHOOL --------------------- 198 Test Scores ..............................................................198 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......198 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................198 Site Budget...............................................................199 GLOSSARY OF COMMON SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS...............................................................201 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...............208 APPENDIX.........................................................217 RESOURCE LISTING FOR OMSD -------------------- 218
Page 7 of 223 Board of Trustees These are the citizens elected by the community to direct the policies of the Ontario-Montclair School District. Robert Hardy – President Elected in 1987, holds a BA from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and a masters from Cal State Los Angeles. Retired from OMSD in 1984 after teaching at Vina Danks and Vernon middle schools and serving as Assistant Principal of Wiltsey and Vernon middle schools and Principal at Edison and Ramona elementary schools. Bob and his wife Laverne have eight children (Pat, Terry, Kevin, Sharon, Maureen, Mary, Kathy, and Erin), fifteen grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. Doreen McDaniel – Vice President Appointed to the Board of Trustees on January 26, 1995, and elected November 7, 1995. Has served on many district task forces and committees, including year round, new middle school committee, parent advisory, DAC, PTA Council, and began volunteer work in the district in 1988. Mrs. McDaniel and her husband Jeff have resided in the district since 1980 and have three children (Kevin, Eric, and Steven) who have all attended OMSD schools.
Page 8 of 223 Debra Dorst-Porada – Clerk Has been a resident of Ontario since 1983. Has been active in the community serving as an Ontario Planning Commissioner, Ontario-Montclair School District Strategic Planning Committee, Ontario’s Kids Come First Medical Clinic, Ontario Kiwanis, Ontario Heritage Society, San Bernardino County Museum Commissioner, Ontario- Montclair School District Bond Oversight Committee, Ontario Community Block Grant Committee, and Downtown Ontario Revitalization Partnership. Debra has been a registered nurse for 25 years with experience in medical/surgical, critical care, and currently works as a public health nurse. Debra has a bachelor’s degree from Cal State LA and has returned to college to work on her master’s degree. Debra has a 20 year old son, Alex and a fun loving dog named Lincoln. For fun and relaxation Debra enjoys gardening, garage sales, antiques, and politics. J. Steve Garcia – Member Elected in 2001, holds a BA from Cal Poly Pomona, BA from CSU Los Angeles, and a MPA from CSU Fullerton, and MS in School Counseling from the University of La Verne. Mr. Garcia currently works as the Assistant Principal at South El Monte High School in the El Monte Union High School District. Has also worked as a Coordinator of Child Welfare and Attendance, Coordinator for Dropout Prevention, Community College Counselor, and University instructor. A resident of Ontario since 1977, Mr. Garcia and his wife Marcie have three daughters. Mr. Garcia is very active in the district and community. Paul Vincent Avila – Member First elected 1993, served until 2001, re-elected 2005. Retired from 23 years career service as a State Counselor with the Employment Development Department, 6 years with the California Department of Corrections Community Parole Division, and former businessman experience. Vietnam Combat Veteran (1968-1970) 4/47th Mobile Riverine Task Force, 9th Infantry Division United States Army. Graduate: Los Angeles City College: AA, California Sate University San Bernardino: BA English/Creative Writing, Masters of Boardmanship and Masters in Governance, and CSUSB Alumni. Former President of CSEA Eastern District, San Bernardino County's Grand Jurist, and President of Ontario's Hispanic Heritage. Paul, MaryAnne, and five grown children (four sons and one daughter) with own families have been residents of the district for 28 years. Paul is a proven humble servant of the public/community.
Page 9 of 223 District Administration: Dr. Sharon P. McGehee – District Superintendent Leadership is not so much about technique and methods as it is about opening the heart. Leadership is about inspiration -- of oneself and of others. Great leadership is about human experiences, not processes. Leadership is not a formula or a program, it is a human activity that comes from the heart and considers the hearts of others. It is an attitude, not a routine. Lance Secretan Lance H.K. Secretan was born (1939) in Amersham, United Kingdom. Secretan is perhaps best known for his pioneering work in leadership theory and how to inspire teams. Dr. James P. Kidwell – Deputy Superintendent, Human Resources “I trust the time is coming, when the occupation of an instructor to children will be deemed the most honorable of human employment.” Angelina Grimke Angelina Grimke (1805–79), was an American abolitionist and advocate of women's rights. Danielle A. Calise – Assistant Superintendent, Business "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Among 19th century philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place. Dr. Dana K. Griggs – Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services “A consensus is building that the mission of public schools should be Learning for All – Whatever It Takes” Lawrence W. Lezotte Lawrence W. Lezotte served for 18 years as a teacher and an administrator. He collaborated with two colleagues on studies that identified the characteristics of effective schools and became the preeminent spokesperson for the effective schools approach. He worked with educators across the country to improve the quality of education through its implementation. Jill Hammond – Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services “Nothing you do for children is ever wasted.” Garrison Keillor Garrison Keillor (1942) is the author and host of “A Prairie Home Companion.” He is the author of eight books for adults, three for children, as well as being know as a poet, storyteller, and radio personality.
Page 10 of 223 Organizational Charts Here are some brief definitions to help explain what an organizational chart is and why it is important. 1. A graphic representation of how authority and responsibility is distributed within a company or other organization. 2. A chart showing the lines of responsibility between departments of a large organization. 3. A chart showing the hierarchical interrelationships of positions within an organization. 4. It is a management work product consisting of a diagram that documents the composition/structure of an organization or team. What is an organizational chart?
Page 11 of 223 Ontario-Montclair School District Governing Board Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Superintendent Business Services Dr. James P. Kidwell Deputy Superintendent Human Resources Luke Ontiveros Interim - Assistant Superintendent Instruction Lowanna Owens Executive Assistant to Superintendent Jana Dupree Senior Assistant to Superintendent Kathy Tietz Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Theresa Margala Executive Assistant to Deputy Superintendent Kathy Marsh Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Jill Hammond Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Virginia Riley Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Ontario-Montclair School District Organizational Leadership at a Glance
Page 12 of 223 Ontario-Montclair School District Governing Board Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Supt – Business Services Dr. James P. Kidwell Deputy Supt – Human Resources Luke Ontiveros Interim - Assist. Supt - Instruction Laura Steidley Director Fiscal Donna Papapetru Director Nutrition Carol Vernava Director Purchasing & Print Hal Shimmin Director Technology David Walthall Director Craig Misso Director Operations & Facilities Perry Huyck Risk Manager Debi Cockrell Director Cert. Personnel Luke Ontiveros Director Classified Personnel Barbara Mikolasko Director Staff Hector Macias Coordinator Attend & Records Scott Turnbull Principal on Assignment ETS-Support Vicki Bartelt Interim - Director Curric. & Ext Lrng Mina Bartz Director Research & Acct. Vacant Coordinator School Acct. Bill Uyidi Director Pupil Personnel Jill Hammond Assistant Supt – Admin Svcs. Karla Wells Coordinator Curr. & Instr. Principals Linda Rice Principal Advisor Ellen Lugo Principal Advisor Cabinet and Directors
Page 13 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Dr. James P. Kidwell Deputy Supt–Human Resources Debi Cockrell Director Certificated Personnel James Zycheck Interim - Director Classified Personnel Barbara Mikolasko Director Staff Development Hector Macias Coordinator Attend & Records Beverly Foreman Coordinator – Teacher Development BTSA Support Program Providers Dick Archibald-Woodward Coordinator Technology Flavio Medina-Martin Executive Assistant (Confidential) Sally Ainsworth Executive Assistant (Confidential) Theresa Margala Executive Assistant Rosie Iba Executive Assistant Josie Mejia Senior Attendance Technician Lorrie Buchanan Administrative Assistant Human Resources Division
Page 14 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Luke Ontiveros Interim - Assistant Supt - Instruction Scott Turnbull-Principal on Assignment - ETS-Support Vicki Bartelt Interim - Director Curric. & Ext Lrng Mina Bartz Director Research & Acct. Bev Foreman Interim - Coordinator School Acct. Dr. Bill Uyidi Director Pupil Personnel Kathy Marsh Executive Assistant Sherrie Mittan Senior Student Assessment Assistant Roxanne McGowen Interim Executive Assistant Karen Tourangeau Executive Assistant Elena Reyes Administrative Assistant Karla Wells Coordinator Curriculum & Instruction Joni Stallings Administrative Assistant Instructional Services Division
Page 15 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee - Superintendent Jill Hammond – Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Principal Arroyo Elementary School Principal Berlyn Elementary School Principal Bon View Elementary School Principal Buena Vista Integrated Arts Magnet Principal Central Elementary School Principal Corona Elementary School Principal Del Norte Elementary School Principal Edison Elementary School Principal El Camino Elementary School Principal Elderberry Elementary School Principal Euclid Elementary School Principal Hawthorne Elementary School Principal Haynes Elementary School Principal Howard Elementary School Principal Kingsley Elementary School Principal Lehigh Elementary School Principal Lincoln Elementary School Principal Linda Vista School Principal Mariposa Elementary School Principal Mission Elementary School Principal Montera Elementary School Principal Monte Vista Elementary School Principal Moreno Elementary School Principal Ramona Elementary School Principal Sultana Elementary School Principal Vineyard Elementary School Principal Vista Grande Elementary School Virginia Riley - Executive Assistant to Superintendent Administrative Services Division
Page 16 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee - Superintendent Jill Hammond – Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Principal De Anza Middle School Virginia Riley - Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Principal Oaks Middle School Principal Serrano Middle School Principal Vernon Middle School Principal Vina Danks Middle School Principal Wiltsey Middle School Linda Rice – Principal Advisor Ellen Lugo – Principal Advisor Administrative Services Division - continued
Page 17 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Supt – Business Services Laura Steidley Director Fiscal Services Donna Papapetru Director Nutrition Services Carol Vernava Director Purchasing & Print Hal Shimmin Director Information Services Ed Giles Printshop Supervisor David Hodge Warehouse Supervisor Linda Reid Executive Assistant Jay Toma Central Kitchen Manager Kathy Tietz Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Vacant Coordinator Information Services Liz McNevin Accountant Sherrie Bierce Field Supervisor Josie Pena Field Supervisor Myira Millan Accountant Aleli Burgos Accountant Sherrye Loveland Network Administrator Michelle Poirier Executive Assistant Jon Lewis Network Engineer Dan Landon Network Engineer Liz Seymour Accountant Vacant Accountant Jeff Post Data Warehouse Administrator Business Services Division
Page 18 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Supt–Business Services David Walthall Director Transportation Craig Misso Director Operations & Fac. Perry Huyck Risk Management Valinda Johnson Executive Assistant Kathy Tietz Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Pete Peterson Coordinator Facilities Planning Steve Orona Supervisor of Maintenance Sandra Escamilla Supervisor of Grounds Gina Vallejo Executive Assistant Business Services Division - continued
Page 19 of 223 Maps Where do I go to school?
Page 20 of 223
Page 21 of 223
Page 22 of 223
Page 23 of 223
Page 24 of 223 THE STRATEGIC PLAN Belief statements express our fundamental convictions, our values, and our character. They are the underlying foundation of the entire Strategic Plan. WE BELIEVE • Each individual has equal intrinsic worth. • Individuals are responsible for their actions. • Diversity enriches our community. • Democracy thrives through the active participation of an informed citizenry. • High achievement requires high expectations. • Quality education for all is a shared responsibility. • All people are teachers and learners. • Achieving common goals requires cooperation, communication, and commitment. • The education of children demands a commitment to their physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development.
Page 25 of 223 The Mission Statement expresses the unique purpose for which we exist and the specific function we seek to perform. The Mission expresses our loftiest aspirations as a district and defines the ideal we seek to attain for all of our students over time. The mission of the Ontario–Montclair School District: Whatever it takes, we guarantee our commitment to the highest quality education for all students. The motto of the Ontario-Montclair School District: Learning Today – Leading Tomorrow The guiding philosophy of the Ontario- Montclair School District: Continuous Improvement It is through objectives that we express our desired measurable end results. Objectives must be high goals, which the organization strives to achieve. Objectives should help us remember that our task is not finished, our vision is not realized, and our satisfaction is not appropriate as long as one student fails to reach his or her success level. Objectives 1. All students will be proficient or advanced on essential California standards for language arts and math as measured by district and State assessments.
Page 26 of 223 2. All English Language Learners will demonstrate no less than one level of growth annually in English language proficiency as measured by district and State assessments. 3. All students will be proficient or advanced on/in California content standards in science and social studies as measured by State assessments. Goals translate the purpose, values and vision into broad initiatives that the organization will achieve. From them flow objectives and strategies - - the things that people do. 1. All students will be proficient or advanced on essential California standards for Language Arts and Math. 2. All English Learners will become proficient in English Language as measured by district and State assessments. 3. All students, in grades 4-8, will be proficient in California Standards for Science and Social Studies as measured by district and State assessments. Smart Goals Language Arts/Math 1. Students will progress as measured by district benchmark and State assessments. a. Students at “Far Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Below Basic” b. Students at “Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Basic” c. Students at “Basic” will progress in one year to “Proficient”
Page 27 of 223 d. No student will drop in academic performance in progressing toward or maintaining “Proficient” English Language Learners 1. All students will demonstrate at least one level of growth annually 2. All students will achieve reclassification status within four years of entering the program 3. No student will drop in academic performance in progressing toward or maintaining proficient Science/Social Studies 1. Students will progress as measured by district benchmark and State assessments. a. Students at “Far Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Below Basic” b. Students at “Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Basic” c. Students at “Basic” will progress in one year to “Proficient” d. No student will drop in academic performance in progressing toward or maintaining “Proficient” Strategies are the means for achieving our objectives. They tell us that to be successful in achieving our Mission, we need to do these specific things. Action teams comprised of staff members or members of the community, who volunteer to serve, develop the details for the implementation of each strategy.
Page 28 of 223 1. Align the written, taught, and tested curriculum to support the achievement of our objectives. (Curriculum Alignment) 2. Create an organizational structure, which clarifies roles, decision-making responsibility, and accountability for both district and site personnel and effectively communicate same in writing throughout the system. (Organizational Structure) 3. Design an internal and external communication/engagement system in order to unite all partners in our diverse learning community to assist in achieving our Mission and objectives. (Communication) 4. Create a comprehensive staff development and support system for English Language Learners. (English Language Development) 5. Design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive intervention system to assist students in achieving proficiency in State standards. (Interventions) 6. Create a plan to increase instructional time to assist all students in achieving proficiency on State standards. (Instructional Time) Parameter statements set the boundaries within which we will make the decisions necessary to accomplish our Mission. WE WILL 1. Always base our decisions on what is best for children. 2. Ensure that no new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits justify the costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.
Page 29 of 223 3. No existing program or service will be retained unless it makes an optimal contribution to the system and the benefits justify the cost. 4. Always provide a safe and orderly environment for everyone. 5. Always welcome and actively encourage families and the community to be partners in the education of children. 6. Always treat every individual with respect. 7. Never tolerate any actions or circumstances that degrade any individual. 8. Always conduct ourselves at the highest level of professionalism. 9. Never adopt programs or make decisions that place the district in financial risk. 10. Always provide equal access to the curriculum for all students. 11. Always make decisions which are consistent with the Strategic Plan. 12. Ensure that site based plans are consistent with the Strategic Plan of the district. Action Teams Action team members develop action plans to support identified strategies. Strategy 1: Curriculum Alignment Align the written, taught, and tested curriculum to support the achievement of our objectives.
Page 30 of 223 Strategy 2: Organizational Structure Create an organizational structure which clarifies roles, decision-making responsibility, and accountability for both district and site personnel and effectively communicate same in writing throughout the system. Strategy 3: Communication Design an internal and external communication/engagement system in order to unite all partners in our diverse learning community to assist in achieving our Mission and Objectives. Strategy 4: English Language Learners (ELL) Create a comprehensive staff development and support system for English Language Learners. Strategy 5: Interventions Design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive intervention system to assist students in achieving proficiency in State standards. Strategy 6: Increase Instructional Time Create a plan to increase instructional time to assist all students in achieving proficiency on State standards.
Page 31 of 223 Student Achievement Teaching is only one part of the educational process. In order for educating to be successful, educators, communities, families, and students must know if learning has actually taken place. Assessment and assessment feedback provide an identification of what was learned. Assessment is a reflective instruction process. It provides information about the levels of understanding that students are achieving. Assessments may be formative, norm-reference, criterion-reference, and performance-based; all of which provide important information to students, families, teachers, administration, and the community about student achievement, program effectiveness, and alignment of instruction to identified goals and objectives. There is no one perfect assessment approach. Multiple assessments are necessary; and, when used together, assist in identifying and measuring success and areas in need of further focus. The Strategic Plan for the Ontario-Montclair School District (OMSD) states that we will assess student performance and achievement using multiple measures. The goal of our multiple measure philosophy is to acquire as much information as possible, using a variety of perspectives, and to ensure that students make continuous progress in reaching the expected standards in all curriculum areas.
Page 32 of 223 OMSD utilizes a variety of tools for assessment: 1. The Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) Tests: This is the assessment used for the Reading First Program, a Federal initiative aimed at improving reading instruction in America. This is administered to grades K-6 students at the completion of each theme. 2. CELDT - All students who enroll in a California public K – 12 school for the first time are given a Home Language Survey. By state law and regulation, if the Survey answers indicate a language other than English in the home or in the child’s background, the school must test the student for English language proficiency. As part of initial school enrollment, parents and guardians are required by law to provide the answers to these questions. There is no provision in current state law allowing students not to be assessed through waiver. Special needs students are also required to be screened for English proficiency. a. If the student demonstrates English language proficiency on the test, his/her proficient status is recorded in his/her permanent record. A student identified as Fluent English Proficient enrolls in any program of instruction for which he or she is qualified. If a student demonstrates less than proficient English skills, that status is recorded. The school must offer appropriate instructional assistance to develop English proficiency to each of the English Learner students. The type of assistance offered depends upon the level of
Page 33 of 223 English proficiency, beginning, intermediate or advanced. Except for beginners, the assistance is offered in the home school through special instruction and, depending upon student needs, classroom placement. b. As of May 2001, all California school districts are required to use the new required CEDLT examination for the purpose of determining who is English proficient or limited. The CELDT is published by CTB/McGraw Hill. No other test results can be substituted for this single examination. The CELDT examination has four sections: listening, speaking, reading and writing. c. Historical data on OMSD CELDT scores show a trend of the majority of our students moving into Intermediate and Early Advanced. This data may be viewed at: http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/reports.asp d. Take a look at our latest data:
Page 34 of 223 3. The District Benchmark Tests: These are customized trimester tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics developed specifically for OMSD. They are administered to grades K-8 students. 4. The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: The STAR Program was first authorized in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004 by state law (Education Code Section 60640) to measure how well students are learning the knowledge and skills identified in the California content standards. This is administered to grades 2 to 8 students near the end of the school year. Students are tested in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History. The results of the STAR testing are called the API or Academic performance Index. a. Testing result data may be found at: http://star.cde.ca.gov/ b. Take a look at our latest data…
Page 35 of 223 Remember that API is different than AYP. AYP refers to the growth needed in the proportion of students who achieve state standards of academic proficiency. Schools that receive federal Title I funds to improve learning among disadvantaged children and fail to make AYP for two years in a row are considered in need of improvement and face a range of consequences. Those consequences include offering parental choice of schools and transportation to better-performing schools, providing supplemental help to disadvantaged children and implementing various corrective actions. I think I will build the first Bank of the Moon!!! ON THE
Page 36 of 223 Academic Performance Index – Annual Yearly Progress API – AYP State – Federal API An API is an index (or score) ranging from 200 to 1000 that summarizes a school's or district’s performance based on student results on statewide assessments as previously discussed. AYP The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires all states, school districts and schools to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The goal is to ensure that all students in all schools are at or above the proficiency level in reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year. Under AYP criteria adopted by the State Board of Education, all California school districts, schools, and numerically significant student subgroups within districts and schools must meet the following objectives: Growth in percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in English/language arts and mathematics. Student testing participation rate of at least 95%. Growth on the Academic Performance Index (API). Growth on the high school graduation rate. All schools and districts in the state will receive annual AYP determinations. Additionally, the state must establish annual measurable objectives to measure the progress of their districts, schools, and student subgroups. Individual school site test scores can be viewed in their respective sections of this book.
Page 37 of 223 4 4 24 1 6 25 20062000 2001 2002 2003 20041999 5 6 10 13 16 1 7 15 2 1514 7 9 7 8 12 2 13 15 300-399 400-499 500-599 600-699 700-799 API 20052000 2001 2002 2003 20041999 5 6 10 13 16 1 7 15 2 1514 7 9 7 8 12 2 13 15 300-399 400-499 500-599 600-699 700-799 API 2005 Where have our API scores been?
Page 38 of 223 Not Program Improvement Program Improvement Year 1 Program Improvement Year 2 Program Improvement Year 3 Program Improvement Year 4 Program Improvement Year 5 Program Improvement Year 5 Plus Buena Vista Arroyo Haynes Bon View Corona Mission Berlyn Edison Elderberry Montera Central Kingsley Serrano Middle Euc lid El Camino Vina Danks Middle Del Norte Mariposa De Anza Middle Hawthorne Lehigh Oaks Middle Howard Sultana Ramona Linc oln Vineyard Vernon Middle Monte Vista Wiltsey Middle Moreno Vista Grande 2006-07 Program Improvement Status
Page 39 of 223 Overview and introduction Motto of the budget year: 2007 – 2008 Whatever it takes!! 2006 – 2007 We are always on the path to greatness… Our goal at the Ontario-Montclair School District is student achievement and the empowerment of our families to have an impact on the lives of all of our students. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. By staying informed and involved you directly contribute to the continued success and advancement of our society. By providing you this information we hope that you will take this opportunity to walk the path of student achievement and fiscal health with us, hand in hand, working together to have the best environment for everyone touched by the Ontario-Montclair School District. We thank you for your hard work, dedication, and the endless compassion you show to our students. The “Team” at the Ontario-Montclair School District would like to share our budget and legislative information with our parents, community, and staff. The information presented in this budget booklet is compiled from resources that include, but are not limited to: • School Services of California • Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team • Governor’s Budget Act • Enacted and pending legislation • San Bernardino County Office of Education • Research on various internet web sites I got our money, now what?
Page 39 of 223 Overview and introduction Motto of the budget year: 2007 – 2008 Whatever it takes!! 2006 – 2007 We are always on the path to greatness… Our goal at the Ontario-Montclair School District is student achievement and the empowerment of our families to have an impact on the lives of all of our students. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. By staying informed and involved you directly contribute to the continued success and advancement of our society. By providing you this information we hope that you will take this opportunity to walk the path of student achievement and fiscal health with us, hand in hand, working together to have the best environment for everyone touched by the Ontario-Montclair School District. We thank you for your hard work, dedication, and the endless compassion you show to our students. The “Team” at the Ontario-Montclair School District would like to share our budget and legislative information with our parents, community, and staff. The information presented in this budget booklet is compiled from resources that include, but are not limited to: • School Services of California • Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team • Governor’s Budget Act • Enacted and pending legislation • San Bernardino County Office of Education • Research on various internet web sites I got our money, now what?
Page 40 of 223 Understanding School District Financial Statements School District financial statements are maintained in separate funds with a standard account code structure used across the United States. These are the main components (on the state forms, each category is referenced by these corresponding letters): A. Revenues B. Expenditures C. Excess/Deficiency of Revenues over Expenditures D. Other Financing Sources and Uses E. Net increase or decrease to fund balance F. Fund Balance When evaluating the financial health of a district or an ability to afford a new program, it is important to pay attention to section E, the net increase or decrease to fund balance. If this category is negative for more than one consecutive year for unknown reasons and for on-going expenditures, there is potential fiscal insolvency. The Facts behind SACS SACS stands for Standardized Account Code Structure and was a response to statutes passed in 1993 and 1995 calling for the development of a model of accounting and budget structure. This new structure was implemented in 2001 and was developed to accomplish several fundamental objectives: Better information for the public. Comparability across all school districts within the State and the greater area of the United States. Automate financial statement preparation and other reports such as the report of indirect cost and the report of transportation costs. Compliance with Federal guidelines and reporting requirements, thus increasing California’s opportunities for additional Federal funding. The creation of a logical framework that can be used to determine where education funds come from and how they are used. Our kids are in school and I am trying to figure out how they spend their money. What do all of those numbers mean? Who’s spending what and how are they spending it?
Page 41 of 223 Resource Categories Description Unrestricted Resources Restricted Resources 2000 - 2999 Restricted Revenue Limit Resources - State Defined 3000 - 5999 Federally Restricted Resources - State Defined 6000 - 7999 State Restricted Resources - State Defined 8000 - 8999 Locally Restricted Resources - State Defined 9000 - 9999 Locally Restricted Resources 0000 - 1999 2000 - 9999 THE PARTS DEFINED: Fund – A fund is self-balancing set of financial accounts used to accumulate all detailed information for an overall activity. An example would be the Adult Fund, which is used to account for all revenues, expenditures, liabilities, assets, and equity for the operation of the Adult Education program. Please review the chart to the right to observe the changes to the fund numbers. Resource Resource – Provides the ability to track revenues to their sources. Some of these sources are restricted in nature and have reporting requirements. All activity within each resource must balance the same way the fund must balance. Fund Fund Description 01 General Fund 12 Child Development 13 Cafeteria 14 Deferred Maintenance 21 Building 25 Capital Facilities 35 County School Facilities 40 Special Reserve for Capital Outlay Projects 67 Self Insurance For a listing of specific resources for OMSD please see the Appendix to this book
Page 42 of 223 Management Code – Assists is further identifying a purpose and or place for the expenditure of funds and receipt of revenues. School – Designates the specific site/department within the organization. Goal – This field provides the ability to define objectives within the educational program, special populations serviced, and improve the allocation of direct support costs. Goal Description 0000 Undistributed 0001 - 7999 Instructional Goals 0001 - 0999 Pre-Kindergarten 1000 - 3999 General Education K-12 1100 - 2999 Regular Education 3100 - 3800 Other Education 4110 - 4600 Adult Education 4750 - 4999 Supplemental Education, K-12 5000 - 5999 Special Education 6000 - 6999 ROCP 7100 - 7199 Non-agency 8000 - 9999 Other Goals 8100 Community Service 8500 Child Care and Development Services 8600 County Services to Districts 9000 Other Local Goals
Page 43 of 223 Object Description 1000 - 7999 Expenditures 1000 - 1999 Certificated Salaries 2000 - 2999 Classified Salaries 3000 - 3999 Employee Benefits 4000 - 4999 Books and Supplies 5000 - 5999 Services and Other Operating Expenditures 6000 - 6999 Capital Outlay 7000 - 7999 Other Outgo 8000 - 8999 Revenues 8010 - 8099 Revenue Limit 8100 - 8299 Federal Revenue 8300 - 8599 State Revenue 8600 - 8799 Local Revenue 8800 - 8899 Other Revenue 8910 - 8979 Other Financing Sources 8980 - 8999 Contributions 9000 - 9990 General Ledger Accounts 9110 - 9499 Assets 9500 - 9699 Liabilities 9700 - 9799 Fund Balance 9800 - 9999 Budgetary Control Accounts Description Undefined Instruction Instruction Related Pupil Services Ancilary Services Community Services Enterprise General Administration Plant Services Other Outgo 7000 - 7999 8000 - 8999 3000 - 3999 4000 - 4999 5000 - 5999 6000 - 6999 9000 - 9999 Function 0000 1000 - 1999 2000 - 2999 Function – Defines the activity for which a service or material is acquired. Object codes – Details definition of income, expenditures, liabilities, assets, and balance sheet accounts. These object codes provide us with the ability to group like expenditures.
Page 44 of 223 Budget Development Process The budget development process from a compliance perspective within applicable laws and regulations is governed by two major pieces of legislation: AB 1200 Statutes 1991 Assembly Bill 1200 was signed on October 14, 1991, by Governor Pete Wilson. The legislation, which became effective January 1, 1992, contains a very comprehensive fiscal accountability process for California school districts that govern school district fiscal practices. The legislation imposed major fiscal accountability controls on each school district and county office of education regarding agency budgets and fiscal practices. See especially Education Code sections 1240 et seq. and 42131 et seq. Here is a list of examples of the expanded reporting requirements that became requirements as a part of AB 1200 Budget adoption prior to July 1st of each fiscal year • This document must be Board approved and submitted to the County Office of Education • The County Office of Education has fiscal oversight responsibility and can approve, qualify, or disapprove a districts’ budget Interim Reporting • First Interim is as of October 31st of a fiscal year and is approved by the Board before December 15th of the same fiscal year • Second Interim is as of January 31st of a fiscal year and is approved by the Board before March 15th of the same fiscal year Cash flow reporting accompanying the Interim Reports Unaudited actuals also must receive Board approval in the first part of September following the end of the fiscal year Collective bargaining public disclosure process, which entails a public hearing on the fiscal impact of a proposed bargaining unit agreement
Page 45 of 223 Multi-year projections reflecting fiscal solvency for the current and two subsequent fiscal years AB 2756 A presentation of AB 2756 can be found at: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/fcmat/AB27 560booklet.pdf • Assembly Bill 2756 (Chapter 52 of Ed. Code, 2004) was an urgency measure signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 21, 2004. As an urgency measure, AB 2756 became effective immediately and was an expansion of the existing AB 1200 requirements. Some specific changes include: • The requirement that the CBO/Business Official and the Superintendent personally sign that the district is able to afford a collectively bargained agreement for the current and two subsequent fiscal years • Expanded the Standard and Criteria component of the fiscal reporting piece • Provided an additional approval that the County Office of Education could use when evaluating a districts’ budget – “Conditionally Approved” • Codified the requirement that any reports regarding the districts fiscal solvency be forwarded to the County Office i.e. actuarial reports, special reports sought by School Services, Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, auditors, and or any other consultant • Increased the number of days from 6 to 10 that the district needed to submit disclosure documents to the County Office for review before the local school board could take action on the proposal As a part of the passage of AB 2756, the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, (FCMAT), presented the FCMAT Predictors of School Agencies Needing Intervention.
Page 46 of 223 The following 11 conditions represent those school agency problems most commonly encountered by FCMAT. The presence of any one condition is not necessarily an indication of a school agency in trouble. Unavoidable short- term situations such as key administrative vacancies can result in brief and acceptable periods of exposure to one or more of the following conditions. Exceeding acceptable limits of exposure in one or more of the following conditions is often the blueprint for districts nearing or presently in a crisis situation. 1. Leadership Breakdown* a. Governance crisis** b. Ineffective staff recruitment c. Board micromanagement and special interest groups influencing boards d. Ineffective or no supervision e. Litigation against district 2. Ineffective Communication* a. Staff unrest and morale issues b. Absence of communication to educational community** c. Lack of interagency cooperation** d. Breakdown of internal systems (payroll, position control) 3. Collapse of Infrastructure a. Unhealthful and unsafe facilities and sites b. Deferred maintenance neglected c. Low budget priority d. Local and State citations ignored e. No long-range plan for facility maintenance 4. Inadequate Budget Development* a. Failure to recognize year-to-year trends** b. Flawed ADA projections** c. Failure to maintain reserves** d. Salary and benefits in unrealistic proportions e. Insufficient consideration of long-term bargaining agreement effects** f. Flawed multi-year projections** g. Inaccurate revenue and expenditure estimations** 5. Limited Budget Monitoring* a. Failure to reconcile ledgers b. Poor cash flow analysis and reconciliation** c. Inadequate business systems and controls d. Inattention to COE data e. Failure to review management control reports f. Bargaining agreements beyond state COLA** g. Lawsuit settlements 6. Poor Position Control* a. Identification of each position missing b. Unauthorized hiring c. Budget development process affected d. No integration of position control with payroll** 7. Ineffective Management Information Systems* a. Limited access to timely personnel, payroll, and budget control data and reports** b. Inadequate attention to system life cycles
Page 47 of 223 c. Inadequate communication systems 8. Inattention to Categorical Programs* a. Escalating General Fund encroachment** b. Lack of regular monitoring** c. Illegal expenditures d. Failure to file claims 9. Substantial Long-Term Debt Commitments a. Increased costs of employee health benefits b. Certificates of participation c. Retiree health benefits for employees and spouse d. Expiring parcel taxes dedicated to ongoing costs 10. Human Resource Crisis a. Shortage of staff (administrators, teachers, support, and board) b. Teachers and support staff working out of assignment c. Students/classrooms without teachers d. Administrators coping with daily crisis intervention e. Inadequate staff development 11. Related Issues of Concern a. Local and state audit exceptions b. Disproportionate number of under performing schools c. Staff, parent, and student exodus from the school district d. Public support for public schools decreasing e. Inadequate community participation and communication *Highlights the seven conditions consistently found in each district requesting an emergency loan or dealing with a “fiscal crisis.” ** Represents the 15 conditions that have been found most frequently to indicate fiscal distress and are those referenced in Assembly Bill 2756 (Daucher) and recently amended Education Code Sections 42127 and 42127.6. A full copy of their materials can be found at: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/fcmat/AB27560booklet.pdf. There is much more to the puzzle that outlines the legal requirements of the budget development process and timelines for school districts. This document is meant to provide a brief overview of the requirements and in no way means to provide a detailed review. If you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the office of the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Ms. Danielle A. Calise at (909) 259-2500 or danielle.calise@omsd.k12.ca.us .
Page 48 of 223 Budget Development at OMSD Let us traverse this path together… The budget is simply our educational plan expressed in dollars. The goal is that today’s dollars are spent on today’s students and needs. Fiscal health is vital to the sustainability of successful academic achievement, strong community relationships, and safe working and learning environments. The ability for everyone to see, be a part of, and provide input into our operations builds trust. This is called transparency – meaning everything is “seeable”, nothing is hidden or secret. This is essential to quality trusting relationships. The budget is a living breathing document that is constantly reviewed and amended to accommodate legislative changes as well as the changing needs of our dynamic student population. The budget development process at Ontario- Montclair School District begins with reflection on the district’s Strategic Plan, vision, and goals regarding student achievement and growth, maintaining fiscal health, as well as ensuring a high quality and safe environment for students and staff. The next major step is a comprehensive review of all of the individual components of the larger picture of the financial health of the district. These components include total compensation costs (salaries and benefits combined), staffing requirements based upon projected enrollment, needs assessment, and finally, evaluation and review of the Governor’s proposed budget as presented in January and May of each year. The budgeting for each site’s allocation is a cooperative effort managed and implemented by the site principal in coordination with their administrative and teaching staffs.
Page 49 of 223 Budget Assumptions It is important to note that the information and  assumptions that we gleam from the Governor’s  propose budget, as presented in the May Revise, are  merely estimates and aren’t known factors until  the Budget Act is signed later in the fiscal year.    Please note that the largest source of revenue for school districts comes from student attendance referred to as ADA – Average Daily Attendance. OMSD is declining dramatically in enrollment. Changes must be made to ensure fiscal solvency. Be a part of the plan and forward any and all ideas about ways we can save money to Assistant Superintendent of Business Service, Danielle A. Calise. The Balancing Act Needs – Priorities – Dollars
Page 50 of 223 Specific assumptions used in the development of the budget for the Ontario-Montclair School District are as follows: 2007 – 2008 Closure of Bernt Elementary School Continued declining enrollment o 2007-08 decline 1,000 o 2008-09 decline 750 o 2009-10 decline 750 Revenues estimated based on enrollment estimate of 23,117 (decline of 1,000 pupils). [note: revenue limit funded on greater of current or prior year ADA with some minor adjustments as indicated by the State formula] Staffing estimated based on original enrollment estimate of 23,427 (decline of 750 pupils) Site allocations based on 919 regular ed teachers and 116 special ed teachers for a total of 1,035 teacher FTE Because the decline in enrollment often times causes class size issues, an additional 10 certificated FTE were budgeted in an effort to maintain reasonable class sizes [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE – ESTIMATED AT APPROXIMATELY $830,000] Variance between revenue estimates and staffing results in conservative budget perspective and has a negative effect on fund balance Step and column growth and for both certificated and classified collective bargaining unit staff has been included Implementation of the compensation and classification study as negotiated for the classified bargaining Unit and selected management and confidential employees Continuation of the .75% one time negotiated benefit/salary enhancement provided to all employees in 2006/07 (for a second year) [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE]
Page 51 of 223 COLA on Revenue Limit Other State Revenues 4.53% o OMSD Actual 07-08 COLA 4.524% - $241 o 2008-09 3.7% o 2009-10 2.6% Continued bifurcated COLA on Special Education revenues o State portion of funding will receive the 4.53% COLA but the Federal funds will not o This results in less than COLA growth on total funding thereby worsening the encroachment All formula driven allocations were budgeted One-half of the total outstanding accumulated vacation liability was budgeted for 2007-08 $862,000, with an additional 25% budgeted in each of the two subsequent years on the multi-year projections [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE] Elimination/Reduction of the following positions: o Administrative Assistant to the Director of Fiscal Services o Construction Accountant o Environmental Specialist o Reduced Assistant Principal positions o Reduced Custodial positions o Reduced Certificated Teaching positions Statutory Benefits: o Worker’s Comp rate was budgeted at 2.42% o Unemployment rate was budgeted at 0.05% o PERS at 9.124% o PERS Reduction at 3.2726% with a buyout factor of 16% o FICA at 6.2 0% o MEDICARE at 1.45% ADA is paid based on greater of current or prior year P2 regular and special ed ADA + current year Non Public School ADA o Our Funded ADA in 2007/08 23,029.90 District ADA
Page 52 of 223 88.15 County ADA Total County ADA Transfer equals $469,684 o County Special Ed ADA is budgeted at 86.59 Funded at $5,324.09 o County Community School ADA is budgeted at 1.56 Funded at the district revenue limit amount of $5,558.50 Evaluation of all encroachment programs (for example, Special Education, Class Size Reduction, and Transportation) All Federal, State, and Local categorical programs are budgeted with expenditures equaling revenues (excluding encroachment programs such as Special Education, Class Size Reduction, and Transportation) o New year awards have been estimated conservatively and budgeted less then anticipated due to declining enrollment and the continued cuts at the State level o Carryovers have not been budgeted Second year of a three year technology implementation of Zangle, the student attendance accounting system [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE – ESTIMATED AT $1,000,000] Extended Learning hours budgeted as follows: o (Deficits are the amount of earnings the State will likely not fund due to insufficient appropriations) o All supplemental hours at a rate of $4.08 Core at capped hours of 145,062 no deficit STA R testing at 65,000 hours with a 30% deficit Grades 2-9 programs for pupils who have been retained 370,000 hours with a 25% deficit
Page 53 of 223 Grades 7-12 remedial program at 275,000 with a deficit of 4% Interest income in the Unrestricted General Fund $2,000,000 Routine Restricted Maintenance Account transfer included at full 3% of combined General Fund expenditures plus other financing uses Continued participation in the Class Size Reduction program, grades K-2 o Estimate of 6,668 eligible pupils o 367 classes o Funding rate of $1,071 per pupil o Combination classes were not budgeted o With the acceptance of the QEIA grant, at those sites where the grant was awarded, the CSR program will be expanded as appropriate. Lottery was budgeted using an estimated Annual ADA of 21,908 (based on a current attendance rate of 99.8% of P2) o Unrestricted Lottery -$118 per ADA o Restricted Lottery -$19 per ADA Instructional Materials was budgeted using the 2006 CBEDS enrollment at $68.89 Contributions: o Res. 1300 – Class Size Reduction $21,471,574 o Res. 3310 – Local Assistance $258,407 o Res. 5810 – After School Sports Program $ 48,000 o Res. 6200 – CSR Facilities $540,000 o Res. 6500 – Special Ed $4,763,054
Page 54 of 223 o Res. 7230 – Transportation, Reg. Ed $321,649 o Res. 7240 – Transportation, Special Ed $217,550 o Res. 8150 – Routine Restricted Maintenance $5,918,567 o Total General Fund Contributions of $12,067,227 to Restricted/Categorical programs Transfers between Categorical funds: o Res. 7394 TIIG Block Grant (the old supplemental) to Res. 7230 Transportation $1,388,628 (representing 100% of the estimated entitlement to transportation) o Res. 7090 mgmt 814 - EIA Bilingual to Res. 7250 mgmt 811 – SBCP $3,109,869 (representing approximately 85% of the estimated EIA, Bilingual Grant Award transferred to SBCP) o Res. 7395 mgmt 899 – School and Library Improvement Block Grant to Res. 7250 mgmt 811 – SBCP $1,561,926 (representing 100% of the School and Library Improvement Block Grant estimated Entitlement transferred to SBCP)
Page 55 of 223 Points Range FTE 1.00 1.50 9.01 2.00 13.01 2.50 17.01 3.00 21.01 3.50 25.01 4.00 29.01 4.50 33.01 5.00 Custodial Allocation Table Site Allocation Formulas Custodial Allocation Total Number of Teachers divided by 6.00 PLUS Total Enrollment Including Preschool divided by 195 PLUS Total Number of Classrooms divided by 10 PLUS Total Building Square Footage divided by 10,000 PLUS Landscape Acreage divided by 5.50 EQUALS Total Points These total points are used to determine the custodial FTE (full time equivalent = number of employees or portions thereof), using the allocation table. (Always round down). Due to declining enrollment and the need to maintain a balanced budget, beginning in 2007-08 the custodial allocations were reduced by .5 full time equivalent (FTE) at most sites and facilities. The estimated budgetary savings is approximately $855,000. This decision was arrived at by a committee of district staff of all levels and is anticipated to be on- going.
Page 56 of 223 Points Hours Per Day 1 4.50 10 8.00 12 8.50 14 9.00 16 9.50 18 10.00 20 10.50 22 11.00 24 11.50 26 12.00 28 12.50 30 13.00 32 13.50 34 14.00 36 14.50 38 15.00 40 15.50 42 16.00 School Clerk Allocation TableSchool Clerk Daily Hours Allocation Total Number of Employees divided by 6 PLUS Total Enrollment Excluding Preschool divided by 130 PLUS Student Mobility/Clerk Impact Index for Prior Year divided by 10 EQUALS Total Points These total points are used to determine the school clerk hours using the allocation table. (Always round down).
Page 57 of 223 Noon Aide and Certificated Duty Reduction Allocation Noon Aide Hours per Day Total Enrollment excluding Preschool Divided by 100 Multiplied by 180 PLUS Additional hours due to special circumstances EQUALS Total Noon Aide Hours Noon Aide Total Allocation Dollars Noon Aide Hours per Day PLUS Additional Hours due to Special Circumstances Multiplied by 180 Multiplied by 9.02 PLUS Certificated Duty Reduction Allocation Total Enrollment Excluding Preschool Multiplied by 4.0 EQUALS Total Dollars Available for Noon Aide Hours and Certificated Duty Reduction
Page 58 of 223 Site Allocation Formulas Discretionary unrestricted allocation Base per school site allocation Multiplied by 436 Assistant Principal FTE (Middle schools and Elementary schools with enrollment greater than 800 are eligible for a full time assistant principal) Multiplied by 109 Per regular teacher allocation Multiplied by 11 EQUALS Total unrestricted discretionary dollars allocation Flexible spending allocation K – 6 enrollment Multiplied by 42 PLUS 6 – 8 enrollment Multiplied by 58 PLUS New class allocation Multiplied by 329 PLUS County Special Education allocation Multiplied by 570 PLUS K – 6 enrollment Multiplied by 7 PLUS 6 – 8 enrollment Multiplied by 14 PLUS Year Round allocation Multiplied by 219 EQUALS Total flexible spending dollars allocation
Page 59 of 223 Noon Aide Hourly Rate= 9.02 Teacher Released Time Rate= 4.00 0252/0652 0502 0503 0504 0504 0504 0504 Custodial Discretionary Funding Flexible Spending Noon Aides Noon Aides Noon Aides Noon Aides FTE DAILY HOURS FTE TOTAL $ TOTAL $ DAILY HOURS OBJ 2920 TOTAL $ OBJ 2929 TOTAL $ TOTAL GROSS 045 Montera 2.50 9.50 1.19 678 31,640 045 5.00 8,118 2,556 10,674 046 Vista Grande 2.00 10.00 1.25 678 26,691 046 5.00 8,118 2,152 10,270 047 Bernt - - - - - 047 - - - (0) 050 Arroyo 2.50 10.50 1.31 711 32,487 050 5.00 8,118 2,652 10,770 051 Berlyn 2.50 11.00 1.38 908 40,425 051 7.00 11,365 3,300 14,665 052 Bon View 2.50 11.00 1.38 733 35,035 052 7.00 11,365 2,860 14,225 053 Buena Vista 2.00 11.50 1.44 590 17,444 053 3.00 4,871 1,424 6,294 054 Central 2.00 10.00 1.25 689 27,881 054 6.00 9,742 2,276 12,017 055 Corona 2.50 11.00 1.38 733 36,309 055 7.00 11,365 2,964 14,329 056 Haynes 3.00 11.00 1.38 908 40,425 056 7.00 11,365 3,300 14,665 058 Del Norte 2.50 11.00 1.38 777 39,528 058 6.00 9,742 3,080 12,821 059 Edison 2.00 10.00 1.25 667 25,186 059 4.00 6,494 2,056 8,550 060 El Camino 2.50 11.50 1.44 864 39,886 060 7.00 11,365 3,256 14,621 061 Elderberry 2.50 11.00 1.38 744 33,467 061 7.00 11,365 2,732 14,097 062 Euclid 2.50 10.50 1.31 809 30,037 062 7.00 11,365 2,452 13,817 063 Hawthorne 2.50 12.00 1.50 897 41,547 063 7.00 11,365 3,252 14,617 064 Howard 2.50 10.00 1.25 711 30,919 064 5.00 8,118 2,524 10,642 065 Kingsley 2.50 12.00 1.50 777 37,877 065 6.00 9,742 3,092 12,834 066 Lehigh 2.50 10.00 1.25 733 34,839 066 7.00 11,365 2,844 14,209 067 Lincoln 5.88 18.50 2.31 546 21,756 067 4.00 6,494 1,776 8,270 068 Linda Vista 2.50 11.50 1.44 612 25,480 068 4.00 6,494 2,080 8,574 070 Mariposa 2.50 11.50 1.44 908 41,832 070 8.00 12,989 3,388 16,377 071 Mission 2.50 11.50 1.44 864 37,142 071 6.00 9,742 3,032 12,774 072 Monte Vista 3.00 11.50 1.44 766 39,507 072 6.00 9,742 3,132 12,874 073 Moreno 4.13 13.00 1.63 689 30,968 073 7.50 12,177 2,528 14,705 074 Ramona 2.50 10.00 1.25 722 33,957 074 6.00 9,742 2,772 12,514 076 Sultana 2.50 11.00 1.38 744 33,859 076 6.00 9,742 2,764 12,506 077 Vineyard 2.00 10.00 1.25 722 33,061 077 6.00 9,742 2,672 12,414 380 De Anza 3.00 11.00 1.38 963 72,720 380 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 381 Wiltsey 3.50 12.00 1.50 985 77,229 381 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 382 Serrano 3.50 11.00 1.38 941 68,184 382 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 383 Vernon 3.50 11.50 1.44 908 65,298 383 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 384 Vina Danks 3.50 11.50 1.44 996 77,184 384 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 385 Oaks 3.50 11.50 1.44 941 69,120 385 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 TOTAL 91.51 370.50 46.38 25,914 1,328,920 191.50 310,919 72,916 383,833 School Clerk 0406/0606 A SITE PERSPECTIVE IN BRIEF…
Page 60 of 223 The Encroachment Concept Is it accounting malarkey, a real problem, or inefficient systems? The term encroachment is used to describe any program that is not self sufficient, meaning that the revenues aren’t enough to cover the costs necessitated by the program. The most common areas where school districts experience this phenomenon are special education, transportation, and class size reduction. What is Special Education The Special Education program is designed to meet the needs of individuals from birth to age 22 who have learning disabilities, developmental disabilities and other physical and mental impairments. Schools are mandated by federal law, the Individuals with Dis abilities Education Act, originally passed in 1975, to serve the needs of these special needs students in the least-restrictive environment as identified in individualized education plans (IEPs). In this context, "least restrictive" means a setting that is closest to a normal classroom with non-disabled children as allowed by whatever accommodations are needed. Under federal law, the instruction must be both free and appropriate, delivered in a manner that permits the child to benefit from the services. Special Education covers services that are related to education, including home-to-school transportation, speech pathology, audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy and counseling. Although both the State and Federal governmental agencies provide some funding, the funding in recent years has been
Page 61 of 223 significantly less than the cost of the required services in the Special Education Program. This shortfall is most commonly referred to as encroachment to the Unrestricted General Fund Resources. These costs generally cannot be totally eliminated, although the District makes every effort to effectively and efficiently manage and control costs. The District must provide programs whether it has the program currently operating within the district or not. In instances where out-of-state residential placement is required for a student, the total costs, including transportation and required visitation costs for the parents, can far exceed the funding provided by the State. Due process and strict adherence to Federal and State guidelines means we provide more protection for our neediest families and thus creates a need for more specialized guidance and assistance. Sadly, this means many of our Special Education dollars are going to attorneys’ fees. It is unfortunate that the high demand and high cost comes at a time of declining enrollment, which together exacerbate the constrained fiscal resources available for the Ontario-Montclair School District. What is a SELPA? In 1977, all school districts were required to form a consortium or geographical region of sufficient size and scope to provide for all the special education service needs of the children residing within the region boundaries and develop a local plan. The Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) is a consortium of participating school districts formed for the purpose of ensuring that quality special education programs and services are available throughout the region to meet the individual needs of special education students. The SELPA is governed by a Board of Directors, which is made up of the superintendents of each participating school district and is chaired by the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. The SELPA is a support service office. The goal of SELPAs is to coordinate services to member districts so that
Page 62 of 223 students with disabilities have equal educational opportunity in the most effective, efficient, and cost effective manner practical. There are 123 SELPAs operating in the State of California. Six SELPAs operate within San Bernardino County, with a total population of 45,664 special needs children: Population data as of April 2007 Reference Education Code 56195 Desert/Mountain SELPA - (760) 242-6333 10,674 special needs students are served Adelanto, Apple Valley, Baker Valley, Barstow, Bear Valley, Helendale, Hesperia, Lucerne Valley, Needles, Oro Grande, Silver Valley, Snowline, Trona, Victor, Victor Valley, and County programs East Valley SELPA - (909) 433-4796 9,250 special needs students are served Colton, Redlands, Rialto, Rim of the World, Yucaipa- Calimesa, and County programs Fontana Unified School District SELPA- (909) 357-5000 4,764 special needs students are served Morongo Unified School District SELPA- (760) 367-9191 1,398 special needs students are served San Bernardino City Unified School District SELPA- (909) 381-1100 5,956 special needs students are served West End SELPA - (909) 481-4547, ext. 255 13,622 special needs students are served Alta Loma, Central, Chaffey, Chino, Cucamonga, Etiwanda, Mt. Baldy, Mountain View, Ontario-Montclair, Upland, and County programs West End SELPA The West End SELPA team works in collaboration with students, parents, school districts, and community agencies to maintain effective communication, provide quality services, and
Page 63 of 223 ensure the provision of appropriate resources that support the education of all students with disabilities. Class Size Reduction Program The Class Size Reduction program was established in 1996 with the intention of improving education, especially in reading and mathematics, of children in kindergarten and grades one through three. The program was enacted through Education Code Sections 52120- 52128.5. The Class Size Reduction Program is said to be an excellent educational model for students, it is also much more expensive on a per student basis than the old 32 to 1 model that had previously existed in California schools for a number of years. None of these cost comparisons take into account the cost of altering facilities and creating new facilities for the new classes that were created by the program. While it was hoped that the funding for the CSR program would be sufficient to cover the entire cost of operation it simply isn’t. While the under funded or encroachment amount is $2.5 million for the program and an additional $.5 million for facilities, this isn’t the true savings that would be realized if the program were to be eliminated as we would still be educating the students, the only difference would be the number of teachers and classrooms that would be required. Transportation Transporting students other than special education students is not a requirement of school districts in the State of California. Education Code - 39800 governs the decision to provide transportation to students. Part 23.5. Transportation. Chapter 1. Transportation Services. Article 1. General Provisions (a) The governing board of any school district may provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever in the judgment of the board the transportation is advisable and good reasons exist therefore. The governing board may purchase or rent and provide for the upkeep, care, and operation of vehicles, or may contract and pay for the transportation of pupils to and from school by common
Page 64 of 223 2 2 3 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 5 2 2 1 184 116 263 206 112 47 8 30 98 33 199 89 70 421 49 114 12 32 266 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arroyo Berlyn BerntBon View Buena Vis ta Central CoronaDe AnzaD elN orte Eculid EdisonElCam inoElderberryHawthorne H aynes How ardKin gsley LeH ig h LincolnLinda VistaM ariposa M issio n M onte VistaM ontera M oreno O aksR am ona Serrano Sultana Vernon Vina D anksVineyard Vista G rande W iltsey 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 # OF BUSES NUMBER OF STUDENTS RIDING Some Transportation Highlights… The number of riders and buses per site! Some of our sites do not need transportation due to current boundaries. carrier or municipally owned transit system, or may contract with and pay responsible private parties for the transportation. These contracts may be made with the parent or guardian of the pupil being transported. A governing board may allow the transportation of preschool or nursery school pupils in school buses owned or operated by the district. A state reimbursement may not be received by a district for the transportation of preschool or nursery school pupils. (b) As used in this article, "municipally owned transit system" means a transit system owned by a city, or by a district created under Part 1 (commencing with Section 24501) of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code. (Added by Stats. 1999, Ch. 646, Sec. 14.) The Ontario-Montclair School District runs an efficient transportation system that focuses on maximizing safety and student attendance while minimizing cost. Our program is run in compliance with all legal requirements and consistent with Board Policy 3541 and Administrative Regulation 3541.1. Walk distances per - Board Policy 3541 Business and Noninstructional Operations At the option of the Board, home to school transportation may be provided to students. The generally recognized distance for transporting students is: Grade level K-3 more than 1 mile Elementary - Remaining grades more than 1 1/2 miles Middle schools more than 2 1/2 miles Minimum distances from schools within which transportation will not be provided shall be measured by the shortest usable and reasonable route from the residence of the student to the nearest point on the boundary of the school campus.
Page 65 of 223 Bus Riders... 2,110 1,725 4,220 3,450 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 OneWayRoundTrip Home - to - School Special Education Total Revenues for program 360,148.00 796,012.00 Number of buses 28.00 19.00 Average number of students bused daily (one way) 746.00 90.00 Total Miles Driven for the year 307,209.00 184,213.00 Expenditures for transportation program: Salaries & Benefits 1,431,023.73 720,675.41 Supplies 279,905.12 54,997.62 Memberships & Conferences 2,031.62 - Insurance 29,518.72 20,030.56 Rentals, Leases, Repairs and noncapatialized improvements 25,086.68 7,811.92 Expense recapture for field trips and services performed for other departments/districts in non use hours (323,955.21) 60.00 Other service contracts 83,514.44 7,204.78 Capital Outlay - Leases (Buses) 141,249.46 Plant maintenance costs 11,379.78 2,150.93 Subtotal Expense 1,679,754.34 812,931.22 Indirect costs - 4.91% of Total Costs 75,540.59 39,914.92 Net total expense 1,755,294.93 852,846.14 Unfunded portion of expense 1,395,146.93 56,834.14 2005-06 Transportation Data from the Unaudited Actual Financial Report Board Approved in September 2006 The cost of providing transportation increases for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to: rising cost of petroleum products, i.e. fuel and oil, parts, repairs, and staff. The costs for providing specialized transportation for our students with special needs is once again an area where staff has little control over the costs associated with this service, as it is driven predominately by the needs of that particular population. The costs are simply rising faster that the revenue is growing, thus creating a pull on already strained resources. Currently there is no cost or fee to any of our bus riders.
Page 66 of 223 A .1% increase in average daily attendance is approximately $126,000 of ongoing money. A 1% improvement in the attendance rate would result in an increase in on-going funding by approximately $1.2 million for every future year. Ratio of ADA to CBEDS Enrollment 94.38% 95.21% 94.70% 94.86% 95.41% 95.45% 94.64% 94.77% 94.52% 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 93.00% 94.00% 95.00% 96.00% 97.00% 98.00% Total CBEDS Total ADA ADA as a % of CBEDS ADA and Enrollment Trends ADA – Average Daily Attendance ADA is equal to the average number of pupils actually attending classes over a span of time. For the majority of our Unrestricted Funding Resource, the benchmark in time is called P2 or Period 2 reporting. This time period is the last complete school month ending prior to April 15 of a school year. History of ADA data…. Not only do students who don’t attend school every day suffer the lost instructional time, the district loses the resources it needs to continue to provide those instructional and operational services our students deserve. As you can see in our Ratio of ADA to CBEDS Enrollment chart, we have experienced some slight variances in our attendance rate. (CBEDS is explained in the coming pages) Each day of lost instruction costs the district approximately $44.80. Each day costs the student valuable instruction time.
Page 67 of 223 History of Average Daily Attendance 2.06% -1.19% 3.18% 1.02% -1.51% -2.82% -3.89% 2.54% 2.12% -3.82% 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 25,000 25,500 26,000 26,500 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 -5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% Total ADA % Change The chart showing the History of Average Daily Attendance and Rate of Attendance Increases or Decreases in Rates over the Prior Year indicates that we are experiencing declining enrollment as well as a reduction in the average number of students attending school on a daily basis. Both of these situations have extreme instructional and financial consequences. The lost instructional time has a direct impact on our students’ test scores as well as a direct, dramatic impact on our financial resources.
Page 68 of 223 Enrollment History and Projections 16,082 16,624 17,026 18,394 19,184 20,120 21,033 21,767 22,355 23,433 23,638 23,611 24,207 24,651 25,115 25,823 26,407 26,983 27,270 27,010 26,293 25,376 24,177 23,177 22,427 21,677 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Projections Enrollment Enrollment is the number of students actually enrolled in a school/program on a particular day regardless if the student was in attendance or not. CBEDS – California Basic Education Data System CBEDS is the statewide system of collecting enrollment and staffing data from all school districts on an “Information Day” each October. The 2006- 07 year will be the first year of transition to a statewide system of collecting student data called California School Information Services (CSIS). This is an attempt to standardized the collection of student information so that this data may be compared at the State level for testing evaluation and that the transfer of this data from site to site or district to district would be easier and students would be placed in their most appropriate courses upon arrival in a new school environment. DECLINING ENROLLEMENT
Page 69 of 223 The reasons given for the transfer requests TotalNumberofStudents,1,619 TotalNumberofStudents,1,540 TotalNumberofStudents,1,524 TotalNumberofStudents,1,520 TotalNumberofStudents,1,519 Day Care, 360 Day Care, 380 Day Care, 425 Day Care, 471 Day Care, 579 Employment, 235 Employment, 292 Employment, 300 Employment, 494 Other, 539 Other, 470 Other, 404 Other, 403 Other, 446 Employment, 230 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 Total Number of Students Day Care Employment Other Transfers Out - What has it cost OMSD 1,119 1,085 1,047 1,0751,083 $5,948,674 $4,966,662 $5,174,475$5,035,520 $4,898,175 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 ADA @ Attendance Rate Lost On-Going Revenue Limit Interdistrict Transfer Requests If a resident of the Ontario-Montclair School District wishes for their child to attend a school outside of district boundaries, the parent/guardian must submit an interdistrict transfer form to the Child Welfare and Attendance office. Transfers are processed, approved or disapproved regularly and forwarded to the requested district. Final approval is made by the requested district. If a student wishes to attend an Ontario-Montclair School and the parent/guardian does not live in district boundaries, the parent/guardian must obtain an interdistrict transfer from their current school district of residence. The interdistrict transfer is required for anyone living outside of the district who wishes to attend. Interdistrict transfers out of the district affect our enrollment and therefore our revenues. For a variety of reasons parents may request a transfer in or out of the Ontario- Montclair School District. Administrative Regulation 5117.1 Students-Interdistrict Attendance Agreements and Education Codes 48204 and 46601.5 provide the legal guidance on transfer criteria.
Page 70 of 223 CBEDs CBEDs P-1 Funded Revenue Base Revenue RL Gain / (Loss) YEAR CBEDs P-1 ADA P-2 ADA vs P-1 vs P-2 vs P-2 Limit per ADA Limit per ADA Due to Attendance $ Variance to Prior Year $ Variance to Funded RL Deficit % 1992/93 22,355 21,866 21,916 97.81% 98.04% 100.23% 2,908.71 3,089.61 94.14% 1993/94 22,897 22,220 22,253 97.04% 97.19% 100.15% 2,894.15 3,150.61 $975,328.55 Variance to Pr. Year: 542 354 337 -0.77% -0.85% -0.08% (14.56)$ (256.46)$ 91.86% 1994/95 23,132 22,588 22,551 97.65% 97.49% 99.84% 2,896.28 3,254.61 $863,091.44 Variance to Pr. Year: 235 368 298 0.60% 0.30% -0.31% 2.13$ (358.33)$ 88.99% 1995/96 23,681 22,990 23,054 97.08% 97.35% 100.28% 3,068.52 3,414.02 $1,543,465.56 Variance to Pr. Year: 549 402 503 -0.57% -0.14% 0.44% 172.24$ (345.50)$ 89.88% 1996/97 24,207 23,514 23,634 97.14% 97.63% 100.51% 3,344.77 3,667.55 $1,939,966.60 Variance to Pr. Year: 526 524 580 0.06% 0.28% 0.23% 276.25$ (322.78)$ 91.20% 1997/98 24,651 23,995 24,121 97.34% 97.85% 100.53% 3,434.14 3,765.55 $1,672,426.18 Variance to Pr. Year: 444 481 487 0.20% 0.22% 0.01% 89.37$ (331.41)$ 91.20% 1998/99 25,151 23,635 23,835 93.97% 94.77% 100.85% 4,056.07 4,131.51 ($1,160,036.02) Variance to Pr. Year: 500 (360) (286) -3.37% -3.08% 0.32% 621.93$ (75.44)$ 98.17% 1999/00 25,824 24,529 24,441 94.99% 94.64% 99.64% 3,896.41 4,189.51 $2,361,224.46 Variance to Pr. Year: 673 894 606 1.01% -0.12% -1.20% (159.66)$ (293.10)$ 93.00% 2000/01 26,407 24,966 24,960 94.54% 94.52% 99.98% 4,321.51 4,321.51 $2,242,863.69 Variance to Pr. Year: 583 437 519 -0.44% -0.12% 0.33% 425.10$ -$ 100.00% 2001/02 26,983 25,746 25,754 95.42% 95.45% 100.03% 4,493.19 4,493.19 $3,567,592.86 Variance to Pr. Year: 576 780 794 0.87% 0.92% 0.06% 171.68$ -$ 100.00% 2002/03 27,270 26,092 26,017 95.68% 95.41% 99.71% 4,577.51 4,577.51 $1,203,885.13 Variance to Pr. Year: 287 346 263 0.26% -0.04% -0.32% 84.32$ -$ 100.00% 2003/04 27,010 25,616 25,623 94.84% 94.86% 100.03% 4,522.53 4,662.51 ($1,781,876.82) Variance to Pr. Year: (260) (476) (394) -0.84% -0.54% 0.31% (54.98)$ (139.98)$ 97.00% 2004/05 26,293 25,038 24,900 95.23% 94.70% 99.45% 4,683.72 4,786.30 ($3,386,329.56) Variance to Pr. Year: (717) (578) (723) 0.39% -0.16% -0.58% 161.19$ (102.58)$ 97.86% ($5,168,206.38) 2005/06 25,376 24,058 23,949 94.81% 94.38% 99.55% 4,943.80 4,988.30 ($4,701,553.80) Variance to Pr. Year: (917) (980) (951) -0.42% -0.33% 0.10% 260.08$ (44.50)$ 99.11% ($9,869,760.18) 2006/07 24,177 23,216 23,018 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,317.50 5,317.50 ($4,948,678.20) Variance to Pr. Year: (1,199) (842) (931) 1.22% 0.83% -0.40% 373.70$ -$ 100.00% ($14,818,438.38) 2007/08 * 23,177 22,255 22,066 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,558.50 5,558.50 ($5,292,118.71) Variance to Pr. Year: (1,000) (960) (952) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 241.00$ -$ 100.00% ($20,110,557.09) 2008/09 * 22,427 21,535 21,352 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,764.16 5,764.16 ($4,115,945.33) Variance to Pr. Year: (750) (720) (714) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 205.66$ -$ 100.00% ($24,226,502.42) 2008/09 * 21,677 20,815 20,638 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,914.03 5,914.03 ($4,222,959.91) Variance to Pr. Year: (750) (720) (714) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 149.87$ -$ 100.00% ($28,449,462.32) Notes: 1) P-1 and P-2 data excludes Special Ed. Programs for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian Schools. 2) 1998/99 Implementation year for excluding Days of Excused and Unexcused Absences in actual ADA. 3) 2001/02 P-1 and P-2 includes one time adjustments for: a) Independent Study (16.76 ADA) b) Allowance of Attendance due to the tragedies of September 11, 2001 (14.88 ADA). 4) 2001/02 Special Ed. Extended Year "divisor" changed from 180 days to 175 days. Projection Estimates ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT CBEDs and ADA Actuals through P-2 of Fiscal 06/07
Page 71 of 223 2,842,429$ 150,000$ Misc Savings ($400 * ADA) 415,200$ Lost Revenue: 5,742,662$ Identified Savings: (3,407,629)$ Deficit amount of lost revenue remaining after identified savings: 2,335,033$ 1,100 students at a staffing ratio of 25.5 requires a reduction of staff of 43 teachers1,100 students @ 94.38% Attendance Rate is an ADA decline of 1,038 at $5,532.43 each - yeilds a marginal revenue loss Proportional Layoff and other savingsIncome Loss (Misc includes an estimate of supplies and materials) 43 teachers @ average salary + benefits per J90 --This is estimated amount of expenditures that would still need to be reduced to make up for the lost revenue. Estimated classified salary savings on custodial time, school clerk hours, and noon duty aides **J90 as of June 2006
Page 72 of 223 From To # of Counties experiencing Declining Enrollment Countywide % of Total Counties % of Enrollment that represents 1996-97 1997-98 20 34.48% 4% 1997-98 1998-99 19 32.76% 4% 1998-99 1999-00 21 36.21% 6% 1999-00 2000-01 22 37.93% 11% 2000-01 2001-02 17 29.31% 13% 2001-02 2002-03 20 34.48% 7% 2002-03 2003-04 31 53.45% 21% 2003-04 2004-05 32 55.17% 59% 2004-05 2005-06 33 56.90% 62% 2005-06 2006-07 31 53.45% 65% Discussion on enrollment projections This first step at estimating our ADA is evaluating how many students we think will enroll in our district. This process is time consuming, uses a lot of assumptions, and is rarely more than an educated guess In order to determine projected enrollment a district must look at a variety of factors. These factors include: The enrollment in surrounding districts and/or surrounding area/neighborhood Enrollment trends throughout the State Population increases and decreases due to growth and migration into and out of the State and local areas Economic stability of the State and local areas Cost of housing in the local area. About 53.45% of school districts in the State of California are facing declining enrollment Population growth for the State of California is projected to increase 15.3% between 2000 and 2010. This is 25.4 % between 1980 and 1990. While there is no one right place to look for an answer, trend data is the most useful information that we have. Here are some more pieces that we look at in an attempt to have accurate projections.
Page 73 of 223 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Alta Lom a Elem entary C entralElem entary C haffey JointUnion H igh C hino Valley U nified C olton JointUnified C ucam onga Elem entary Etiw anda Elem entaryFontana U nified M ountain View Elem entary O ntario-M ontclairElem entary R ialto U nified San Bernardino C ity U nifiedUpland Unified 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Closer to Home - What is enrollment doing around us? Why are we the steepest decline? --Be careful, the bars might look better than the reality... Declining Declining Growing Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Growing Statewide Actual CBEDS Enrollment in our Local Counties Note: Orange and Los Angeles Counties are Declining Overall and San Bernardino is added to the list in 2006-07 LOSANGELES,1,549,833 LOSANGELES,1,583,283 LOSANGELES,1,617,764 LOSANGELES,1,650,948 LOSANGELES,1,681,787 LOSANGELES,1,711,034 LOSANGELES,1,736,338 LOSANGELES,1,742,873 LOSANGELES,1,734,125 LOSANGELES,1,673,317 LOSANGELES,1,708,064 ORANGE , 503,836 ORANGE , 510,114 ORANGE , 513,744 ORANGE , 515,464 ORANGE , 512,105 ORANGE , 503,351 ORANGE , 494,178ORANGE , 483,360ORANGE , 471,404ORANGE , 458,489ORANGE , 442,927 RIVERSIDE , 413,059 RIVERSIDE , 395,183 RIVERSIDE , 380,964 RIVERSIDE , 349,607 RIVERSIDE , 364,857RIVERSIDE , 333,330RIVERSIDE , 319,910RIVERSIDE , 307,055RIVERSIDE , 295,229RIVERSIDE , 285,516RIVERSIDE , 277,321 SAN BERN., 427,414 SAN BERN., 427,631 SAN BERN., 423,780 SAN BERN., 419,084 SAN BERN., 407,228SAN BERN., 394,096SAN BERN., 380,830 SAN BERN., 373,896 SAN BERN., 364,942 SAN BERN., 356,204 SAN BERN., 347,061 750,000 1,250,000 1,750,000 2,250,000 2,750,000 3,250,000 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Statewide Enrollment and Annual % Change by Year 5,612,965 5,727,303 5,844,111 5,951,612 6,147,375 6,244,732 6,298,774 6,312,103 6,353,079 6,050,895 6,322,098 1.84% -0.16% 0.65% 1.67% 2.04% 2.04% 1.59% 1.58% 0.87% 0.37% 5,400,000 5,500,000 5,600,000 5,700,000 5,800,000 5,900,000 6,000,000 6,100,000 6,200,000 6,300,000 6,400,000 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% California Annual % Change in Enrollment for California The rate of change in enrollment shows the statewide enrollment slowing dramatically until the 2005- 06 year wherein we see an overall decline. A rebound in 2006-07???
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD
Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD

Recommended

Final feasiblity reprtmarina
Final feasiblity reprtmarinaFinal feasiblity reprtmarina
Final feasiblity reprtmarinaanil sharma
 
The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012
The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012
The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012blueC 802
 
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08Eve Pastor, CPA, CGMA
 
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09Eve Pastor, CPA, CGMA
 
Uba Annual report 2008
Uba Annual report 2008Uba Annual report 2008
Uba Annual report 2008Michael Olafusi
 
Greggs Financial Analysis
Greggs Financial AnalysisGreggs Financial Analysis
Greggs Financial AnalysisYang Luo
 
dte_4q06_supp
dte_4q06_suppdte_4q06_supp
dte_4q06_suppfinance41
 
Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1
Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1
Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1saluddarren
 

Recommended

Final feasiblity reprtmarina
Final feasiblity reprtmarinaFinal feasiblity reprtmarina
Final feasiblity reprtmarinaanil sharma
 
The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012
The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012
The us-contact-center-decision-makers-guide-2012blueC 802
 
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY07-08Eve Pastor, CPA, CGMA
 
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09
ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReportFY08-09Eve Pastor, CPA, CGMA
 
Uba Annual report 2008
Uba Annual report 2008Uba Annual report 2008
Uba Annual report 2008Michael Olafusi
 
Greggs Financial Analysis
Greggs Financial AnalysisGreggs Financial Analysis
Greggs Financial AnalysisYang Luo
 
dte_4q06_supp
dte_4q06_suppdte_4q06_supp
dte_4q06_suppfinance41
 
Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1
Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1
Gsfp accounting procedures_manual1saluddarren
 
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007No to mining in Palawan
 
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxygreat atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxyfinance33
 
Improving access to quality health care final
Improving access to quality health care finalImproving access to quality health care final
Improving access to quality health care finalMPCA
 
CEI China Port Development Report 210
CEI China Port Development Report 210CEI China Port Development Report 210
CEI China Port Development Report 210China Economic Indicator
 
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementfinance24
 
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...Dr Lendy Spires
 
PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012
PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012
PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012Honolulu Civil Beat
 
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)Finnoula Taylor
 
Pollution banque mondiale
Pollution banque mondialePollution banque mondiale
Pollution banque mondialeDaniel BASTIEN
 
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General InformationZimbrick Buick/GMC West
 
TimeWatch RPG preview
TimeWatch RPG previewTimeWatch RPG preview
TimeWatch RPG previewGeekNative
 
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014StopHermosaBeachOil
 
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122returnant
 
merck Proxy Statements2006
merck Proxy Statements2006merck Proxy Statements2006
merck Proxy Statements2006finance11
 
Ccpea im master-august-2006
Ccpea im master-august-2006Ccpea im master-august-2006
Ccpea im master-august-2006ClientCasework2012
 
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2finance41
 
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan UpdatedVibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updatedvibhu chauhan
 
C 80 final
C 80 finalC 80 final
C 80 finalMark Goorwah
 
TEACHING EL_SINGAPORE
TEACHING EL_SINGAPORETEACHING EL_SINGAPORE
TEACHING EL_SINGAPOREPrasetyandaru Pirenantyo
 
protfolio_pp48.compressed
protfolio_pp48.compressedprotfolio_pp48.compressed
protfolio_pp48.compressedruiqing ding
 
Article - Bond Issue 130203
Article - Bond Issue 130203Article - Bond Issue 130203
Article - Bond Issue 130203Ahmed Ibrahim
 
keyboard and mouse events in python
keyboard and mouse events in pythonkeyboard and mouse events in python
keyboard and mouse events in pythonRashedAlF
 

More Related Content

What's hot

Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007No to mining in Palawan
 
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxygreat atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxyfinance33
 
Improving access to quality health care final
Improving access to quality health care finalImproving access to quality health care final
Improving access to quality health care finalMPCA
 
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementfinance24
 
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...Dr Lendy Spires
 
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)Finnoula Taylor
 
Pollution banque mondiale
Pollution banque mondialePollution banque mondiale
Pollution banque mondialeDaniel BASTIEN
 
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General InformationZimbrick Buick/GMC West
 
TimeWatch RPG preview
TimeWatch RPG previewTimeWatch RPG preview
TimeWatch RPG previewGeekNative
 
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014StopHermosaBeachOil
 
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122returnant
 
merck Proxy Statements2006
merck Proxy Statements2006merck Proxy Statements2006
merck Proxy Statements2006finance11
 
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2finance41
 

What's hot (16)

Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
Report on Field Investigation - Alpha Project, Palawan - September 2007
 
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxygreat atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
great atlantic & pacific tea 2006_proxy
 
Improving access to quality health care final
Improving access to quality health care finalImproving access to quality health care final
Improving access to quality health care final
 
CEI China Port Development Report 210
CEI China Port Development Report 210CEI China Port Development Report 210
CEI China Port Development Report 210
 
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
 
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
Project Implementation Review of the NEPAD Infrastructure Short Term Action P...
 
PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012
PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012
PMOC Readiness Report Oct 2012
 
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
Taylor IARU report on building certification schemes pdf (1)
 
Pollution banque mondiale
Pollution banque mondialePollution banque mondiale
Pollution banque mondiale
 
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
2011 GMC Light Duty Upfitter Wisconsin - General Information
 
TimeWatch RPG preview
TimeWatch RPG previewTimeWatch RPG preview
TimeWatch RPG preview
 
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
Hermosa Beach - Cost Benefit Analysis 2014
 
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
Agata ni43 101-dmc090122
 
merck Proxy Statements2006
merck Proxy Statements2006merck Proxy Statements2006
merck Proxy Statements2006
 
Ccpea im master-august-2006
Ccpea im master-august-2006Ccpea im master-august-2006
Ccpea im master-august-2006
 
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
DTE_Q12008_Supp_v2
 

Viewers also liked

Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan UpdatedVibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updatedvibhu chauhan
 
protfolio_pp48.compressed
protfolio_pp48.compressedprotfolio_pp48.compressed
protfolio_pp48.compressedruiqing ding
 
Article - Bond Issue 130203
Article - Bond Issue 130203Article - Bond Issue 130203
Article - Bond Issue 130203Ahmed Ibrahim
 
keyboard and mouse events in python
keyboard and mouse events in pythonkeyboard and mouse events in python
keyboard and mouse events in pythonRashedAlF
 
Architectural color and light - Questions to Consider
Architectural color and light - Questions to ConsiderArchitectural color and light - Questions to Consider
Architectural color and light - Questions to ConsiderPaula McHugh
 
General journal
General journalGeneral journal
General journalZahid Ali
 
Sportsmanship javier y txetxu
Sportsmanship javier y txetxuSportsmanship javier y txetxu
Sportsmanship javier y txetxualiciasch2014
 
Blanding's Turtle Management Plan
Blanding's Turtle Management PlanBlanding's Turtle Management Plan
Blanding's Turtle Management PlanCarlye Morris
 
Los procesos mentales tarea 2
Los procesos mentales tarea 2Los procesos mentales tarea 2
Los procesos mentales tarea 2naidaguirreb
 
Sportsmaship aleka y nora
Sportsmaship aleka y noraSportsmaship aleka y nora
Sportsmaship aleka y noraaliciasch2014
 
Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016
Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016
Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016Vinuppriya Selvaraj
 
Mau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, Alzheimer
Mau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, AlzheimerMau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, Alzheimer
Mau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, Alzheimerroderick631
 

Viewers also liked (20)

Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan UpdatedVibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
Vibhu Kunwar Chauhan Updated
 
C 80 final
C 80 finalC 80 final
C 80 final
 
TEACHING EL_SINGAPORE
TEACHING EL_SINGAPORETEACHING EL_SINGAPORE
TEACHING EL_SINGAPORE
 
protfolio_pp48.compressed
protfolio_pp48.compressedprotfolio_pp48.compressed
protfolio_pp48.compressed
 
Article - Bond Issue 130203
Article - Bond Issue 130203Article - Bond Issue 130203
Article - Bond Issue 130203
 
keyboard and mouse events in python
keyboard and mouse events in pythonkeyboard and mouse events in python
keyboard and mouse events in python
 
Architectural color and light - Questions to Consider
Architectural color and light - Questions to ConsiderArchitectural color and light - Questions to Consider
Architectural color and light - Questions to Consider
 
Ahmed_Mohamed CV
Ahmed_Mohamed CVAhmed_Mohamed CV
Ahmed_Mohamed CV
 
General journal
General journalGeneral journal
General journal
 
Julia y Africa P.E.
Julia y Africa P.E.Julia y Africa P.E.
Julia y Africa P.E.
 
Comp.Law published.
Comp.Law published.Comp.Law published.
Comp.Law published.
 
Sportsmanship javier y txetxu
Sportsmanship javier y txetxuSportsmanship javier y txetxu
Sportsmanship javier y txetxu
 
Blanding's Turtle Management Plan
Blanding's Turtle Management PlanBlanding's Turtle Management Plan
Blanding's Turtle Management Plan
 
Los procesos mentales tarea 2
Los procesos mentales tarea 2Los procesos mentales tarea 2
Los procesos mentales tarea 2
 
C 66 Report
C 66 ReportC 66 Report
C 66 Report
 
Asmaa
AsmaaAsmaa
Asmaa
 
Sportsmaship aleka y nora
Sportsmaship aleka y noraSportsmaship aleka y nora
Sportsmaship aleka y nora
 
Jaime y Badar
Jaime y BadarJaime y Badar
Jaime y Badar
 
Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016
Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016
Talent Mappers_Corporate Presentation 2016
 
Mau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, Alzheimer
Mau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, AlzheimerMau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, Alzheimer
Mau quên, trí nhớ kém là tiền đề của suy giảm trí nhớ, Alzheimer
 

Similar to Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD

California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011 California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011 California College San Diego
 
Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011ScottC4
 
Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011 Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011 Stevens-Henager College
 
CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011 CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011 CollegeAmerica
 
CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011DavidM4
 
California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011MichaelB4
 
Principles-of-Financial-Accounting.pdf
Principles-of-Financial-Accounting.pdfPrinciples-of-Financial-Accounting.pdf
Principles-of-Financial-Accounting.pdfEdenAlemu3
 
Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...
Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...
Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...João Paulo Simões
 
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementfinance24
 
GNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementfinance24
 
Supply chain management
Supply chain managementSupply chain management
Supply chain managementShwe Zin
 
WCB swing gear bearing solution
WCB swing gear bearing solutionWCB swing gear bearing solution
WCB swing gear bearing solutionWen Chen
 
SF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdf
SF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdfSF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdf
SF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdfRahulRupela3
 
100 toeic preparation_tests
100 toeic preparation_tests100 toeic preparation_tests
100 toeic preparation_testsMs Hoa TOEIC
 
100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtests100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtestsHương Maruco
 
100 toeic preparation tests
100 toeic preparation tests100 toeic preparation tests
100 toeic preparation testsdkhanhle
 
100 toeic preparation_tests_5976
100 toeic preparation_tests_5976100 toeic preparation_tests_5976
100 toeic preparation_tests_5976Phuong Trương
 
100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtests100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtestsTrinh Dinh
 

Similar to Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD (20)

California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011 California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Course Catalog 2010-2011
 
Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens Henager College Catalog 2010-2011
 
Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011 Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011
Stevens-Henager College Course Catalog 2010-2011
 
CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011 CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Course Catalog 2010-2011
 
CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011
CollegeAmerica Catalog 2010-2011
 
California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011
California College San Diego Catalog 2010-2011
 
Total Syllabus 2018 (Considered as approved syllabus)
Total Syllabus 2018 (Considered as approved syllabus)Total Syllabus 2018 (Considered as approved syllabus)
Total Syllabus 2018 (Considered as approved syllabus)
 
Principles-of-Financial-Accounting.pdf
Principles-of-Financial-Accounting.pdfPrinciples-of-Financial-Accounting.pdf
Principles-of-Financial-Accounting.pdf
 
Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...
Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...
Commercial Agriculture Investment Guide: The Northern Savannah Zone of Ghana ...
 
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNW Q4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
 
GNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplementGNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
GNWQ4-07%20%20GNW%20financial%20supplement
 
Supply chain management
Supply chain managementSupply chain management
Supply chain management
 
WCB swing gear bearing solution
WCB swing gear bearing solutionWCB swing gear bearing solution
WCB swing gear bearing solution
 
SF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdf
SF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdfSF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdf
SF_Goal_Management_Implementation_en.pdf
 
100 toeic preparation_tests
100 toeic preparation_tests100 toeic preparation_tests
100 toeic preparation_tests
 
100 s
100 s100 s
100 s
 
100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtests100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtests
 
100 toeic preparation tests
100 toeic preparation tests100 toeic preparation tests
100 toeic preparation tests
 
100 toeic preparation_tests_5976
100 toeic preparation_tests_5976100 toeic preparation_tests_5976
100 toeic preparation_tests_5976
 
100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtests100toeicpreparationtests
100toeicpreparationtests
 

Community Based Budget Booklet OMSD

  • 1. “Learning Today – Leading Tomorrow” 112233 yyeeaarrss ooff sseerrvviicciinngg oouurr yyoouutthh aanndd ccoommmmuunniittiieess……
  • 2. Page 2 of 223 Table of Contents……… BOARD OF TRUSTEES ....................................... 7 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS ............................ 10 MAPS .................................................................. 19 THE STRATEGIC PLAN ..................................... 24 BELIEF STATEMENTS-------------------------------------24 OBJECTIVES ----------------------------------------------25 GOALS -----------------------------------------------------26 SMART GOALS--------------------------------------------26 STRATEGIES ----------------------------------------------27 PARAMETER-----------------------------------------------28 ACTION TEAMS -------------------------------------------29 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT................................. 31 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE INDEX – ANNUAL YEARLY PROGRESS------------------------------------------------36 API .............................................................................36 AYP ............................................................................36 Where have our API scores been?.............................37 2006-07 Program Improvement Status ......................38 OVERVIEW AND INTRODUCTION.....................39 THE FACTS BEHIND SACS ...............................40 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ...............44 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AT OMSD ................48 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS...................................49 2007 – 2008 --------------------------------------------- 50 SITE ALLOCATION FORMULAS-------------------------- 55 Custodial Allocation....................................................55 School Clerk Daily Hours Allocation...........................56 Noon Aide and Certificated Duty Reduction Allocation ...................................................................................57 Discretionary unrestricted allocation...........................58 Flexible spending allocation .......................................58 THE ENCROACHMENT CONCEPT....................60 WHAT IS SPECIAL EDUCATION ------------------------- 60 What is a SELPA?......................................................61 West End SELPA .......................................................62 CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAM------------------- 63 TRANSPORTATION --------------------------------------- 63 ADA AND ENROLLMENT TRENDS ...................66 ADA – AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE---------------- 66 ENROLLMENT --------------------------------------------- 68
  • 3. Page 3 of 223 CBEDS – CALIFORNIA BASIC EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------68 INTERDISTRICT TRANSFER REQUESTS----------------69 DISCUSSION ON ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS ............................................................................. 72 REVENUE LIMIT................................................. 78 PROPOSITION 98 SUMMARY IN BRIEF-----------------78 COLA – COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT --------------79 REFRESHER ON THE “EDUCATION DEAL” OF 2004 – 2005......................................................... 80 QUALITY EDUCATION INVESTMENT ACT ...... 80 GASB 45 – OTHER POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (OPEB) ............................................. 83 Where is OMSD on GASB 45?...................................84 NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE.................................. 85 SETTLEMENT INFORMATION A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ---------------------------------------------85 FUNDS BUDGETED ........................................... 87 GENERAL FUND ------------------------------------------88 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ----------------------------- 91 Cafeteria Fund............................................................91 Child Development.....................................................92 Deferred Maintenance................................................92 CAPITAL FACILITIES-------------------------------------- 94 BUILDING AND COUNTY SCHOOL FACILITIES--------- 94 Building Fund .............................................................94 County School Facilities .............................................94 SITE BUDGETS...................................................95 STAFFING INFORMATION .................................96 ARROYO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------------- 103 Test Scores ..............................................................103 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......103 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................103 Site Budget… ...........................................................104 BERLYN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---------------------- 106 Test Scores ..............................................................106 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......106 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................106 Site Budget...............................................................107 BON VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL------------------- 109 Test Scores ..............................................................109 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......109 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................109 Site Budget...............................................................110
  • 4. Page 4 of 223 BUENA VISTA ARTS-INTEGRATED SCHOOL--------- 112 Test Scores ..............................................................112 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......112 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................112 Site Budget...............................................................113 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 115 Test Scores ..............................................................115 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......115 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................115 Site Budget...............................................................116 CORONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------------- 118 Test Scores ..............................................................118 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......118 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................118 Site Budget...............................................................119 DEL NORTE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ----------------- 121 Test Scores ..............................................................121 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......121 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................121 Site Budget...............................................................122 EDISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------------- 124 Test Scores ..............................................................124 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......124 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................124 Site Budget...............................................................125 EL CAMINO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL------------------ 127 Test Scores ..............................................................127 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......127 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................127 Site Budget...............................................................128 ELDERBERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------- 130 Test Scores ..............................................................130 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......130 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................130 Site Budget...............................................................131 EUCLID ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------------- 133 Test Scores ..............................................................133 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......133 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................133 Site Budget...............................................................134 HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---------------- 136 Test Scores ..............................................................136 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......136 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................136 Site Budget...............................................................137 HAYNES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------------- 139 Test Scores ..............................................................139 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......139 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................139 Site Budget...............................................................140 HOWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 142 Test Scores ..............................................................142 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......142 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................142 Site Budget...............................................................143
  • 5. Page 5 of 223 KINGSLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------- 145 Test Scores ..............................................................145 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......145 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................145 Site Budget...............................................................146 LEHIGH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------------- 148 Test Scores ..............................................................148 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......148 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................148 Site Budget...............................................................149 LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------------- 151 Test Scores ..............................................................151 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......151 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................151 Site Budget...............................................................152 LINDA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ---------------- 154 Site Budget...............................................................154 MARIPOSA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL------------------- 156 Test Scores ..............................................................156 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......156 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................156 Site Budget...............................................................157 MISSION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL --------------------- 159 Test Scores ..............................................................159 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......159 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................159 Site Budget...............................................................160 MONTE VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------- 162 Test Scores ..............................................................162 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......162 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................162 Site Budget...............................................................163 MONTERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------- 165 Test Scores ..............................................................165 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......165 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................165 Site Budget...............................................................166 MORENO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 168 Test Scores ..............................................................168 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......168 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................168 Site Budget...............................................................169 RAMONA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--------------------- 171 Test Scores ..............................................................171 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......171 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................171 Site Budget...............................................................172 SULTANA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -------------------- 174 Test Scores ..............................................................174 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......174 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................174 Site Budget...............................................................175
  • 6. Page 6 of 223 VINEYARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------------- 177 Test Scores ..............................................................177 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......177 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................177 Site Budget...............................................................178 VISTA GRANDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ------------- 180 Test Scores ..............................................................180 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......180 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................180 Site Budget...............................................................181 DE ANZA MIDDLE SCHOOL --------------------------- 183 Test Scores ..............................................................183 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......183 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................183 Site Budget...............................................................184 OAKS MIDDLE SCHOOL ------------------------------- 186 Test Scores ..............................................................186 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......186 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................186 Site Budget...............................................................187 SERRANO MIDDLE SCHOOL -------------------------- 189 Test Scores ..............................................................189 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......189 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................189 Site Budget...............................................................190 VERNON MIDDLE SCHOOL ---------------------------- 192 Test Scores ..............................................................192 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......192 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................192 Site Budget...............................................................193 VINA DANKS MIDDLE SCHOOL ----------------------- 195 Test Scores ..............................................................195 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......195 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................195 Site Budget...............................................................196 RAY WILTSEY MIDDLE SCHOOL --------------------- 198 Test Scores ..............................................................198 API – Academic Performance Index - Scores.......198 AYP – Annual Yearly Progress.............................198 Site Budget...............................................................199 GLOSSARY OF COMMON SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS...............................................................201 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...............208 APPENDIX.........................................................217 RESOURCE LISTING FOR OMSD -------------------- 218
  • 7. Page 7 of 223 Board of Trustees These are the citizens elected by the community to direct the policies of the Ontario-Montclair School District. Robert Hardy – President Elected in 1987, holds a BA from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and a masters from Cal State Los Angeles. Retired from OMSD in 1984 after teaching at Vina Danks and Vernon middle schools and serving as Assistant Principal of Wiltsey and Vernon middle schools and Principal at Edison and Ramona elementary schools. Bob and his wife Laverne have eight children (Pat, Terry, Kevin, Sharon, Maureen, Mary, Kathy, and Erin), fifteen grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. Doreen McDaniel – Vice President Appointed to the Board of Trustees on January 26, 1995, and elected November 7, 1995. Has served on many district task forces and committees, including year round, new middle school committee, parent advisory, DAC, PTA Council, and began volunteer work in the district in 1988. Mrs. McDaniel and her husband Jeff have resided in the district since 1980 and have three children (Kevin, Eric, and Steven) who have all attended OMSD schools.
  • 8. Page 8 of 223 Debra Dorst-Porada – Clerk Has been a resident of Ontario since 1983. Has been active in the community serving as an Ontario Planning Commissioner, Ontario-Montclair School District Strategic Planning Committee, Ontario’s Kids Come First Medical Clinic, Ontario Kiwanis, Ontario Heritage Society, San Bernardino County Museum Commissioner, Ontario- Montclair School District Bond Oversight Committee, Ontario Community Block Grant Committee, and Downtown Ontario Revitalization Partnership. Debra has been a registered nurse for 25 years with experience in medical/surgical, critical care, and currently works as a public health nurse. Debra has a bachelor’s degree from Cal State LA and has returned to college to work on her master’s degree. Debra has a 20 year old son, Alex and a fun loving dog named Lincoln. For fun and relaxation Debra enjoys gardening, garage sales, antiques, and politics. J. Steve Garcia – Member Elected in 2001, holds a BA from Cal Poly Pomona, BA from CSU Los Angeles, and a MPA from CSU Fullerton, and MS in School Counseling from the University of La Verne. Mr. Garcia currently works as the Assistant Principal at South El Monte High School in the El Monte Union High School District. Has also worked as a Coordinator of Child Welfare and Attendance, Coordinator for Dropout Prevention, Community College Counselor, and University instructor. A resident of Ontario since 1977, Mr. Garcia and his wife Marcie have three daughters. Mr. Garcia is very active in the district and community. Paul Vincent Avila – Member First elected 1993, served until 2001, re-elected 2005. Retired from 23 years career service as a State Counselor with the Employment Development Department, 6 years with the California Department of Corrections Community Parole Division, and former businessman experience. Vietnam Combat Veteran (1968-1970) 4/47th Mobile Riverine Task Force, 9th Infantry Division United States Army. Graduate: Los Angeles City College: AA, California Sate University San Bernardino: BA English/Creative Writing, Masters of Boardmanship and Masters in Governance, and CSUSB Alumni. Former President of CSEA Eastern District, San Bernardino County's Grand Jurist, and President of Ontario's Hispanic Heritage. Paul, MaryAnne, and five grown children (four sons and one daughter) with own families have been residents of the district for 28 years. Paul is a proven humble servant of the public/community.
  • 9. Page 9 of 223 District Administration: Dr. Sharon P. McGehee – District Superintendent Leadership is not so much about technique and methods as it is about opening the heart. Leadership is about inspiration -- of oneself and of others. Great leadership is about human experiences, not processes. Leadership is not a formula or a program, it is a human activity that comes from the heart and considers the hearts of others. It is an attitude, not a routine. Lance Secretan Lance H.K. Secretan was born (1939) in Amersham, United Kingdom. Secretan is perhaps best known for his pioneering work in leadership theory and how to inspire teams. Dr. James P. Kidwell – Deputy Superintendent, Human Resources “I trust the time is coming, when the occupation of an instructor to children will be deemed the most honorable of human employment.” Angelina Grimke Angelina Grimke (1805–79), was an American abolitionist and advocate of women's rights. Danielle A. Calise – Assistant Superintendent, Business "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Among 19th century philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer was among the first to contend that at its core, the universe is not a rational place. Dr. Dana K. Griggs – Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services “A consensus is building that the mission of public schools should be Learning for All – Whatever It Takes” Lawrence W. Lezotte Lawrence W. Lezotte served for 18 years as a teacher and an administrator. He collaborated with two colleagues on studies that identified the characteristics of effective schools and became the preeminent spokesperson for the effective schools approach. He worked with educators across the country to improve the quality of education through its implementation. Jill Hammond – Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services “Nothing you do for children is ever wasted.” Garrison Keillor Garrison Keillor (1942) is the author and host of “A Prairie Home Companion.” He is the author of eight books for adults, three for children, as well as being know as a poet, storyteller, and radio personality.
  • 10. Page 10 of 223 Organizational Charts Here are some brief definitions to help explain what an organizational chart is and why it is important. 1. A graphic representation of how authority and responsibility is distributed within a company or other organization. 2. A chart showing the lines of responsibility between departments of a large organization. 3. A chart showing the hierarchical interrelationships of positions within an organization. 4. It is a management work product consisting of a diagram that documents the composition/structure of an organization or team. What is an organizational chart?
  • 11. Page 11 of 223 Ontario-Montclair School District Governing Board Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Superintendent Business Services Dr. James P. Kidwell Deputy Superintendent Human Resources Luke Ontiveros Interim - Assistant Superintendent Instruction Lowanna Owens Executive Assistant to Superintendent Jana Dupree Senior Assistant to Superintendent Kathy Tietz Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Theresa Margala Executive Assistant to Deputy Superintendent Kathy Marsh Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Jill Hammond Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Virginia Riley Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Ontario-Montclair School District Organizational Leadership at a Glance
  • 12. Page 12 of 223 Ontario-Montclair School District Governing Board Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Supt – Business Services Dr. James P. Kidwell Deputy Supt – Human Resources Luke Ontiveros Interim - Assist. Supt - Instruction Laura Steidley Director Fiscal Donna Papapetru Director Nutrition Carol Vernava Director Purchasing & Print Hal Shimmin Director Technology David Walthall Director Craig Misso Director Operations & Facilities Perry Huyck Risk Manager Debi Cockrell Director Cert. Personnel Luke Ontiveros Director Classified Personnel Barbara Mikolasko Director Staff Hector Macias Coordinator Attend & Records Scott Turnbull Principal on Assignment ETS-Support Vicki Bartelt Interim - Director Curric. & Ext Lrng Mina Bartz Director Research & Acct. Vacant Coordinator School Acct. Bill Uyidi Director Pupil Personnel Jill Hammond Assistant Supt – Admin Svcs. Karla Wells Coordinator Curr. & Instr. Principals Linda Rice Principal Advisor Ellen Lugo Principal Advisor Cabinet and Directors
  • 13. Page 13 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Dr. James P. Kidwell Deputy Supt–Human Resources Debi Cockrell Director Certificated Personnel James Zycheck Interim - Director Classified Personnel Barbara Mikolasko Director Staff Development Hector Macias Coordinator Attend & Records Beverly Foreman Coordinator – Teacher Development BTSA Support Program Providers Dick Archibald-Woodward Coordinator Technology Flavio Medina-Martin Executive Assistant (Confidential) Sally Ainsworth Executive Assistant (Confidential) Theresa Margala Executive Assistant Rosie Iba Executive Assistant Josie Mejia Senior Attendance Technician Lorrie Buchanan Administrative Assistant Human Resources Division
  • 14. Page 14 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Luke Ontiveros Interim - Assistant Supt - Instruction Scott Turnbull-Principal on Assignment - ETS-Support Vicki Bartelt Interim - Director Curric. & Ext Lrng Mina Bartz Director Research & Acct. Bev Foreman Interim - Coordinator School Acct. Dr. Bill Uyidi Director Pupil Personnel Kathy Marsh Executive Assistant Sherrie Mittan Senior Student Assessment Assistant Roxanne McGowen Interim Executive Assistant Karen Tourangeau Executive Assistant Elena Reyes Administrative Assistant Karla Wells Coordinator Curriculum & Instruction Joni Stallings Administrative Assistant Instructional Services Division
  • 15. Page 15 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee - Superintendent Jill Hammond – Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Principal Arroyo Elementary School Principal Berlyn Elementary School Principal Bon View Elementary School Principal Buena Vista Integrated Arts Magnet Principal Central Elementary School Principal Corona Elementary School Principal Del Norte Elementary School Principal Edison Elementary School Principal El Camino Elementary School Principal Elderberry Elementary School Principal Euclid Elementary School Principal Hawthorne Elementary School Principal Haynes Elementary School Principal Howard Elementary School Principal Kingsley Elementary School Principal Lehigh Elementary School Principal Lincoln Elementary School Principal Linda Vista School Principal Mariposa Elementary School Principal Mission Elementary School Principal Montera Elementary School Principal Monte Vista Elementary School Principal Moreno Elementary School Principal Ramona Elementary School Principal Sultana Elementary School Principal Vineyard Elementary School Principal Vista Grande Elementary School Virginia Riley - Executive Assistant to Superintendent Administrative Services Division
  • 16. Page 16 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee - Superintendent Jill Hammond – Assistant Superintendent Administrative Services Principal De Anza Middle School Virginia Riley - Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Principal Oaks Middle School Principal Serrano Middle School Principal Vernon Middle School Principal Vina Danks Middle School Principal Wiltsey Middle School Linda Rice – Principal Advisor Ellen Lugo – Principal Advisor Administrative Services Division - continued
  • 17. Page 17 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Supt – Business Services Laura Steidley Director Fiscal Services Donna Papapetru Director Nutrition Services Carol Vernava Director Purchasing & Print Hal Shimmin Director Information Services Ed Giles Printshop Supervisor David Hodge Warehouse Supervisor Linda Reid Executive Assistant Jay Toma Central Kitchen Manager Kathy Tietz Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Vacant Coordinator Information Services Liz McNevin Accountant Sherrie Bierce Field Supervisor Josie Pena Field Supervisor Myira Millan Accountant Aleli Burgos Accountant Sherrye Loveland Network Administrator Michelle Poirier Executive Assistant Jon Lewis Network Engineer Dan Landon Network Engineer Liz Seymour Accountant Vacant Accountant Jeff Post Data Warehouse Administrator Business Services Division
  • 18. Page 18 of 223 Dr. Sharon P. McGehee Superintendent Danielle A. Calise Assistant Supt–Business Services David Walthall Director Transportation Craig Misso Director Operations & Fac. Perry Huyck Risk Management Valinda Johnson Executive Assistant Kathy Tietz Executive Assistant to Assistant Superintendent Pete Peterson Coordinator Facilities Planning Steve Orona Supervisor of Maintenance Sandra Escamilla Supervisor of Grounds Gina Vallejo Executive Assistant Business Services Division - continued
  • 19. Page 19 of 223 Maps Where do I go to school?
  • 20. Page 20 of 223
  • 21. Page 21 of 223
  • 22. Page 22 of 223
  • 23. Page 23 of 223
  • 24. Page 24 of 223 THE STRATEGIC PLAN Belief statements express our fundamental convictions, our values, and our character. They are the underlying foundation of the entire Strategic Plan. WE BELIEVE • Each individual has equal intrinsic worth. • Individuals are responsible for their actions. • Diversity enriches our community. • Democracy thrives through the active participation of an informed citizenry. • High achievement requires high expectations. • Quality education for all is a shared responsibility. • All people are teachers and learners. • Achieving common goals requires cooperation, communication, and commitment. • The education of children demands a commitment to their physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development.
  • 25. Page 25 of 223 The Mission Statement expresses the unique purpose for which we exist and the specific function we seek to perform. The Mission expresses our loftiest aspirations as a district and defines the ideal we seek to attain for all of our students over time. The mission of the Ontario–Montclair School District: Whatever it takes, we guarantee our commitment to the highest quality education for all students. The motto of the Ontario-Montclair School District: Learning Today – Leading Tomorrow The guiding philosophy of the Ontario- Montclair School District: Continuous Improvement It is through objectives that we express our desired measurable end results. Objectives must be high goals, which the organization strives to achieve. Objectives should help us remember that our task is not finished, our vision is not realized, and our satisfaction is not appropriate as long as one student fails to reach his or her success level. Objectives 1. All students will be proficient or advanced on essential California standards for language arts and math as measured by district and State assessments.
  • 26. Page 26 of 223 2. All English Language Learners will demonstrate no less than one level of growth annually in English language proficiency as measured by district and State assessments. 3. All students will be proficient or advanced on/in California content standards in science and social studies as measured by State assessments. Goals translate the purpose, values and vision into broad initiatives that the organization will achieve. From them flow objectives and strategies - - the things that people do. 1. All students will be proficient or advanced on essential California standards for Language Arts and Math. 2. All English Learners will become proficient in English Language as measured by district and State assessments. 3. All students, in grades 4-8, will be proficient in California Standards for Science and Social Studies as measured by district and State assessments. Smart Goals Language Arts/Math 1. Students will progress as measured by district benchmark and State assessments. a. Students at “Far Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Below Basic” b. Students at “Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Basic” c. Students at “Basic” will progress in one year to “Proficient”
  • 27. Page 27 of 223 d. No student will drop in academic performance in progressing toward or maintaining “Proficient” English Language Learners 1. All students will demonstrate at least one level of growth annually 2. All students will achieve reclassification status within four years of entering the program 3. No student will drop in academic performance in progressing toward or maintaining proficient Science/Social Studies 1. Students will progress as measured by district benchmark and State assessments. a. Students at “Far Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Below Basic” b. Students at “Below Basic” will progress in one year to “Basic” c. Students at “Basic” will progress in one year to “Proficient” d. No student will drop in academic performance in progressing toward or maintaining “Proficient” Strategies are the means for achieving our objectives. They tell us that to be successful in achieving our Mission, we need to do these specific things. Action teams comprised of staff members or members of the community, who volunteer to serve, develop the details for the implementation of each strategy.
  • 28. Page 28 of 223 1. Align the written, taught, and tested curriculum to support the achievement of our objectives. (Curriculum Alignment) 2. Create an organizational structure, which clarifies roles, decision-making responsibility, and accountability for both district and site personnel and effectively communicate same in writing throughout the system. (Organizational Structure) 3. Design an internal and external communication/engagement system in order to unite all partners in our diverse learning community to assist in achieving our Mission and objectives. (Communication) 4. Create a comprehensive staff development and support system for English Language Learners. (English Language Development) 5. Design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive intervention system to assist students in achieving proficiency in State standards. (Interventions) 6. Create a plan to increase instructional time to assist all students in achieving proficiency on State standards. (Instructional Time) Parameter statements set the boundaries within which we will make the decisions necessary to accomplish our Mission. WE WILL 1. Always base our decisions on what is best for children. 2. Ensure that no new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits justify the costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.
  • 29. Page 29 of 223 3. No existing program or service will be retained unless it makes an optimal contribution to the system and the benefits justify the cost. 4. Always provide a safe and orderly environment for everyone. 5. Always welcome and actively encourage families and the community to be partners in the education of children. 6. Always treat every individual with respect. 7. Never tolerate any actions or circumstances that degrade any individual. 8. Always conduct ourselves at the highest level of professionalism. 9. Never adopt programs or make decisions that place the district in financial risk. 10. Always provide equal access to the curriculum for all students. 11. Always make decisions which are consistent with the Strategic Plan. 12. Ensure that site based plans are consistent with the Strategic Plan of the district. Action Teams Action team members develop action plans to support identified strategies. Strategy 1: Curriculum Alignment Align the written, taught, and tested curriculum to support the achievement of our objectives.
  • 30. Page 30 of 223 Strategy 2: Organizational Structure Create an organizational structure which clarifies roles, decision-making responsibility, and accountability for both district and site personnel and effectively communicate same in writing throughout the system. Strategy 3: Communication Design an internal and external communication/engagement system in order to unite all partners in our diverse learning community to assist in achieving our Mission and Objectives. Strategy 4: English Language Learners (ELL) Create a comprehensive staff development and support system for English Language Learners. Strategy 5: Interventions Design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive intervention system to assist students in achieving proficiency in State standards. Strategy 6: Increase Instructional Time Create a plan to increase instructional time to assist all students in achieving proficiency on State standards.
  • 31. Page 31 of 223 Student Achievement Teaching is only one part of the educational process. In order for educating to be successful, educators, communities, families, and students must know if learning has actually taken place. Assessment and assessment feedback provide an identification of what was learned. Assessment is a reflective instruction process. It provides information about the levels of understanding that students are achieving. Assessments may be formative, norm-reference, criterion-reference, and performance-based; all of which provide important information to students, families, teachers, administration, and the community about student achievement, program effectiveness, and alignment of instruction to identified goals and objectives. There is no one perfect assessment approach. Multiple assessments are necessary; and, when used together, assist in identifying and measuring success and areas in need of further focus. The Strategic Plan for the Ontario-Montclair School District (OMSD) states that we will assess student performance and achievement using multiple measures. The goal of our multiple measure philosophy is to acquire as much information as possible, using a variety of perspectives, and to ensure that students make continuous progress in reaching the expected standards in all curriculum areas.
  • 32. Page 32 of 223 OMSD utilizes a variety of tools for assessment: 1. The Sacramento County Office of Education (SCOE) Tests: This is the assessment used for the Reading First Program, a Federal initiative aimed at improving reading instruction in America. This is administered to grades K-6 students at the completion of each theme. 2. CELDT - All students who enroll in a California public K – 12 school for the first time are given a Home Language Survey. By state law and regulation, if the Survey answers indicate a language other than English in the home or in the child’s background, the school must test the student for English language proficiency. As part of initial school enrollment, parents and guardians are required by law to provide the answers to these questions. There is no provision in current state law allowing students not to be assessed through waiver. Special needs students are also required to be screened for English proficiency. a. If the student demonstrates English language proficiency on the test, his/her proficient status is recorded in his/her permanent record. A student identified as Fluent English Proficient enrolls in any program of instruction for which he or she is qualified. If a student demonstrates less than proficient English skills, that status is recorded. The school must offer appropriate instructional assistance to develop English proficiency to each of the English Learner students. The type of assistance offered depends upon the level of
  • 33. Page 33 of 223 English proficiency, beginning, intermediate or advanced. Except for beginners, the assistance is offered in the home school through special instruction and, depending upon student needs, classroom placement. b. As of May 2001, all California school districts are required to use the new required CEDLT examination for the purpose of determining who is English proficient or limited. The CELDT is published by CTB/McGraw Hill. No other test results can be substituted for this single examination. The CELDT examination has four sections: listening, speaking, reading and writing. c. Historical data on OMSD CELDT scores show a trend of the majority of our students moving into Intermediate and Early Advanced. This data may be viewed at: http://celdt.cde.ca.gov/reports.asp d. Take a look at our latest data:
  • 34. Page 34 of 223 3. The District Benchmark Tests: These are customized trimester tests in English Language Arts and Mathematics developed specifically for OMSD. They are administered to grades K-8 students. 4. The Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: The STAR Program was first authorized in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004 by state law (Education Code Section 60640) to measure how well students are learning the knowledge and skills identified in the California content standards. This is administered to grades 2 to 8 students near the end of the school year. Students are tested in English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History. The results of the STAR testing are called the API or Academic performance Index. a. Testing result data may be found at: http://star.cde.ca.gov/ b. Take a look at our latest data…
  • 35. Page 35 of 223 Remember that API is different than AYP. AYP refers to the growth needed in the proportion of students who achieve state standards of academic proficiency. Schools that receive federal Title I funds to improve learning among disadvantaged children and fail to make AYP for two years in a row are considered in need of improvement and face a range of consequences. Those consequences include offering parental choice of schools and transportation to better-performing schools, providing supplemental help to disadvantaged children and implementing various corrective actions. I think I will build the first Bank of the Moon!!! ON THE
  • 36. Page 36 of 223 Academic Performance Index – Annual Yearly Progress API – AYP State – Federal API An API is an index (or score) ranging from 200 to 1000 that summarizes a school's or district’s performance based on student results on statewide assessments as previously discussed. AYP The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires all states, school districts and schools to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The goal is to ensure that all students in all schools are at or above the proficiency level in reading/language arts and mathematics by the 2013-14 school year. Under AYP criteria adopted by the State Board of Education, all California school districts, schools, and numerically significant student subgroups within districts and schools must meet the following objectives: Growth in percentage of students meeting or exceeding state standards in English/language arts and mathematics. Student testing participation rate of at least 95%. Growth on the Academic Performance Index (API). Growth on the high school graduation rate. All schools and districts in the state will receive annual AYP determinations. Additionally, the state must establish annual measurable objectives to measure the progress of their districts, schools, and student subgroups. Individual school site test scores can be viewed in their respective sections of this book.
  • 37. Page 37 of 223 4 4 24 1 6 25 20062000 2001 2002 2003 20041999 5 6 10 13 16 1 7 15 2 1514 7 9 7 8 12 2 13 15 300-399 400-499 500-599 600-699 700-799 API 20052000 2001 2002 2003 20041999 5 6 10 13 16 1 7 15 2 1514 7 9 7 8 12 2 13 15 300-399 400-499 500-599 600-699 700-799 API 2005 Where have our API scores been?
  • 38. Page 38 of 223 Not Program Improvement Program Improvement Year 1 Program Improvement Year 2 Program Improvement Year 3 Program Improvement Year 4 Program Improvement Year 5 Program Improvement Year 5 Plus Buena Vista Arroyo Haynes Bon View Corona Mission Berlyn Edison Elderberry Montera Central Kingsley Serrano Middle Euc lid El Camino Vina Danks Middle Del Norte Mariposa De Anza Middle Hawthorne Lehigh Oaks Middle Howard Sultana Ramona Linc oln Vineyard Vernon Middle Monte Vista Wiltsey Middle Moreno Vista Grande 2006-07 Program Improvement Status
  • 39. Page 39 of 223 Overview and introduction Motto of the budget year: 2007 – 2008 Whatever it takes!! 2006 – 2007 We are always on the path to greatness… Our goal at the Ontario-Montclair School District is student achievement and the empowerment of our families to have an impact on the lives of all of our students. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. By staying informed and involved you directly contribute to the continued success and advancement of our society. By providing you this information we hope that you will take this opportunity to walk the path of student achievement and fiscal health with us, hand in hand, working together to have the best environment for everyone touched by the Ontario-Montclair School District. We thank you for your hard work, dedication, and the endless compassion you show to our students. The “Team” at the Ontario-Montclair School District would like to share our budget and legislative information with our parents, community, and staff. The information presented in this budget booklet is compiled from resources that include, but are not limited to: • School Services of California • Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team • Governor’s Budget Act • Enacted and pending legislation • San Bernardino County Office of Education • Research on various internet web sites I got our money, now what?
  • 40. Page 39 of 223 Overview and introduction Motto of the budget year: 2007 – 2008 Whatever it takes!! 2006 – 2007 We are always on the path to greatness… Our goal at the Ontario-Montclair School District is student achievement and the empowerment of our families to have an impact on the lives of all of our students. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. By staying informed and involved you directly contribute to the continued success and advancement of our society. By providing you this information we hope that you will take this opportunity to walk the path of student achievement and fiscal health with us, hand in hand, working together to have the best environment for everyone touched by the Ontario-Montclair School District. We thank you for your hard work, dedication, and the endless compassion you show to our students. The “Team” at the Ontario-Montclair School District would like to share our budget and legislative information with our parents, community, and staff. The information presented in this budget booklet is compiled from resources that include, but are not limited to: • School Services of California • Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team • Governor’s Budget Act • Enacted and pending legislation • San Bernardino County Office of Education • Research on various internet web sites I got our money, now what?
  • 41. Page 40 of 223 Understanding School District Financial Statements School District financial statements are maintained in separate funds with a standard account code structure used across the United States. These are the main components (on the state forms, each category is referenced by these corresponding letters): A. Revenues B. Expenditures C. Excess/Deficiency of Revenues over Expenditures D. Other Financing Sources and Uses E. Net increase or decrease to fund balance F. Fund Balance When evaluating the financial health of a district or an ability to afford a new program, it is important to pay attention to section E, the net increase or decrease to fund balance. If this category is negative for more than one consecutive year for unknown reasons and for on-going expenditures, there is potential fiscal insolvency. The Facts behind SACS SACS stands for Standardized Account Code Structure and was a response to statutes passed in 1993 and 1995 calling for the development of a model of accounting and budget structure. This new structure was implemented in 2001 and was developed to accomplish several fundamental objectives: Better information for the public. Comparability across all school districts within the State and the greater area of the United States. Automate financial statement preparation and other reports such as the report of indirect cost and the report of transportation costs. Compliance with Federal guidelines and reporting requirements, thus increasing California’s opportunities for additional Federal funding. The creation of a logical framework that can be used to determine where education funds come from and how they are used. Our kids are in school and I am trying to figure out how they spend their money. What do all of those numbers mean? Who’s spending what and how are they spending it?
  • 42. Page 41 of 223 Resource Categories Description Unrestricted Resources Restricted Resources 2000 - 2999 Restricted Revenue Limit Resources - State Defined 3000 - 5999 Federally Restricted Resources - State Defined 6000 - 7999 State Restricted Resources - State Defined 8000 - 8999 Locally Restricted Resources - State Defined 9000 - 9999 Locally Restricted Resources 0000 - 1999 2000 - 9999 THE PARTS DEFINED: Fund – A fund is self-balancing set of financial accounts used to accumulate all detailed information for an overall activity. An example would be the Adult Fund, which is used to account for all revenues, expenditures, liabilities, assets, and equity for the operation of the Adult Education program. Please review the chart to the right to observe the changes to the fund numbers. Resource Resource – Provides the ability to track revenues to their sources. Some of these sources are restricted in nature and have reporting requirements. All activity within each resource must balance the same way the fund must balance. Fund Fund Description 01 General Fund 12 Child Development 13 Cafeteria 14 Deferred Maintenance 21 Building 25 Capital Facilities 35 County School Facilities 40 Special Reserve for Capital Outlay Projects 67 Self Insurance For a listing of specific resources for OMSD please see the Appendix to this book
  • 43. Page 42 of 223 Management Code – Assists is further identifying a purpose and or place for the expenditure of funds and receipt of revenues. School – Designates the specific site/department within the organization. Goal – This field provides the ability to define objectives within the educational program, special populations serviced, and improve the allocation of direct support costs. Goal Description 0000 Undistributed 0001 - 7999 Instructional Goals 0001 - 0999 Pre-Kindergarten 1000 - 3999 General Education K-12 1100 - 2999 Regular Education 3100 - 3800 Other Education 4110 - 4600 Adult Education 4750 - 4999 Supplemental Education, K-12 5000 - 5999 Special Education 6000 - 6999 ROCP 7100 - 7199 Non-agency 8000 - 9999 Other Goals 8100 Community Service 8500 Child Care and Development Services 8600 County Services to Districts 9000 Other Local Goals
  • 44. Page 43 of 223 Object Description 1000 - 7999 Expenditures 1000 - 1999 Certificated Salaries 2000 - 2999 Classified Salaries 3000 - 3999 Employee Benefits 4000 - 4999 Books and Supplies 5000 - 5999 Services and Other Operating Expenditures 6000 - 6999 Capital Outlay 7000 - 7999 Other Outgo 8000 - 8999 Revenues 8010 - 8099 Revenue Limit 8100 - 8299 Federal Revenue 8300 - 8599 State Revenue 8600 - 8799 Local Revenue 8800 - 8899 Other Revenue 8910 - 8979 Other Financing Sources 8980 - 8999 Contributions 9000 - 9990 General Ledger Accounts 9110 - 9499 Assets 9500 - 9699 Liabilities 9700 - 9799 Fund Balance 9800 - 9999 Budgetary Control Accounts Description Undefined Instruction Instruction Related Pupil Services Ancilary Services Community Services Enterprise General Administration Plant Services Other Outgo 7000 - 7999 8000 - 8999 3000 - 3999 4000 - 4999 5000 - 5999 6000 - 6999 9000 - 9999 Function 0000 1000 - 1999 2000 - 2999 Function – Defines the activity for which a service or material is acquired. Object codes – Details definition of income, expenditures, liabilities, assets, and balance sheet accounts. These object codes provide us with the ability to group like expenditures.
  • 45. Page 44 of 223 Budget Development Process The budget development process from a compliance perspective within applicable laws and regulations is governed by two major pieces of legislation: AB 1200 Statutes 1991 Assembly Bill 1200 was signed on October 14, 1991, by Governor Pete Wilson. The legislation, which became effective January 1, 1992, contains a very comprehensive fiscal accountability process for California school districts that govern school district fiscal practices. The legislation imposed major fiscal accountability controls on each school district and county office of education regarding agency budgets and fiscal practices. See especially Education Code sections 1240 et seq. and 42131 et seq. Here is a list of examples of the expanded reporting requirements that became requirements as a part of AB 1200 Budget adoption prior to July 1st of each fiscal year • This document must be Board approved and submitted to the County Office of Education • The County Office of Education has fiscal oversight responsibility and can approve, qualify, or disapprove a districts’ budget Interim Reporting • First Interim is as of October 31st of a fiscal year and is approved by the Board before December 15th of the same fiscal year • Second Interim is as of January 31st of a fiscal year and is approved by the Board before March 15th of the same fiscal year Cash flow reporting accompanying the Interim Reports Unaudited actuals also must receive Board approval in the first part of September following the end of the fiscal year Collective bargaining public disclosure process, which entails a public hearing on the fiscal impact of a proposed bargaining unit agreement
  • 46. Page 45 of 223 Multi-year projections reflecting fiscal solvency for the current and two subsequent fiscal years AB 2756 A presentation of AB 2756 can be found at: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/fcmat/AB27 560booklet.pdf • Assembly Bill 2756 (Chapter 52 of Ed. Code, 2004) was an urgency measure signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 21, 2004. As an urgency measure, AB 2756 became effective immediately and was an expansion of the existing AB 1200 requirements. Some specific changes include: • The requirement that the CBO/Business Official and the Superintendent personally sign that the district is able to afford a collectively bargained agreement for the current and two subsequent fiscal years • Expanded the Standard and Criteria component of the fiscal reporting piece • Provided an additional approval that the County Office of Education could use when evaluating a districts’ budget – “Conditionally Approved” • Codified the requirement that any reports regarding the districts fiscal solvency be forwarded to the County Office i.e. actuarial reports, special reports sought by School Services, Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, auditors, and or any other consultant • Increased the number of days from 6 to 10 that the district needed to submit disclosure documents to the County Office for review before the local school board could take action on the proposal As a part of the passage of AB 2756, the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team, (FCMAT), presented the FCMAT Predictors of School Agencies Needing Intervention.
  • 47. Page 46 of 223 The following 11 conditions represent those school agency problems most commonly encountered by FCMAT. The presence of any one condition is not necessarily an indication of a school agency in trouble. Unavoidable short- term situations such as key administrative vacancies can result in brief and acceptable periods of exposure to one or more of the following conditions. Exceeding acceptable limits of exposure in one or more of the following conditions is often the blueprint for districts nearing or presently in a crisis situation. 1. Leadership Breakdown* a. Governance crisis** b. Ineffective staff recruitment c. Board micromanagement and special interest groups influencing boards d. Ineffective or no supervision e. Litigation against district 2. Ineffective Communication* a. Staff unrest and morale issues b. Absence of communication to educational community** c. Lack of interagency cooperation** d. Breakdown of internal systems (payroll, position control) 3. Collapse of Infrastructure a. Unhealthful and unsafe facilities and sites b. Deferred maintenance neglected c. Low budget priority d. Local and State citations ignored e. No long-range plan for facility maintenance 4. Inadequate Budget Development* a. Failure to recognize year-to-year trends** b. Flawed ADA projections** c. Failure to maintain reserves** d. Salary and benefits in unrealistic proportions e. Insufficient consideration of long-term bargaining agreement effects** f. Flawed multi-year projections** g. Inaccurate revenue and expenditure estimations** 5. Limited Budget Monitoring* a. Failure to reconcile ledgers b. Poor cash flow analysis and reconciliation** c. Inadequate business systems and controls d. Inattention to COE data e. Failure to review management control reports f. Bargaining agreements beyond state COLA** g. Lawsuit settlements 6. Poor Position Control* a. Identification of each position missing b. Unauthorized hiring c. Budget development process affected d. No integration of position control with payroll** 7. Ineffective Management Information Systems* a. Limited access to timely personnel, payroll, and budget control data and reports** b. Inadequate attention to system life cycles
  • 48. Page 47 of 223 c. Inadequate communication systems 8. Inattention to Categorical Programs* a. Escalating General Fund encroachment** b. Lack of regular monitoring** c. Illegal expenditures d. Failure to file claims 9. Substantial Long-Term Debt Commitments a. Increased costs of employee health benefits b. Certificates of participation c. Retiree health benefits for employees and spouse d. Expiring parcel taxes dedicated to ongoing costs 10. Human Resource Crisis a. Shortage of staff (administrators, teachers, support, and board) b. Teachers and support staff working out of assignment c. Students/classrooms without teachers d. Administrators coping with daily crisis intervention e. Inadequate staff development 11. Related Issues of Concern a. Local and state audit exceptions b. Disproportionate number of under performing schools c. Staff, parent, and student exodus from the school district d. Public support for public schools decreasing e. Inadequate community participation and communication *Highlights the seven conditions consistently found in each district requesting an emergency loan or dealing with a “fiscal crisis.” ** Represents the 15 conditions that have been found most frequently to indicate fiscal distress and are those referenced in Assembly Bill 2756 (Daucher) and recently amended Education Code Sections 42127 and 42127.6. A full copy of their materials can be found at: http://wwwstatic.kern.org/gems/fcmat/AB27560booklet.pdf. There is much more to the puzzle that outlines the legal requirements of the budget development process and timelines for school districts. This document is meant to provide a brief overview of the requirements and in no way means to provide a detailed review. If you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the office of the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, Ms. Danielle A. Calise at (909) 259-2500 or danielle.calise@omsd.k12.ca.us .
  • 49. Page 48 of 223 Budget Development at OMSD Let us traverse this path together… The budget is simply our educational plan expressed in dollars. The goal is that today’s dollars are spent on today’s students and needs. Fiscal health is vital to the sustainability of successful academic achievement, strong community relationships, and safe working and learning environments. The ability for everyone to see, be a part of, and provide input into our operations builds trust. This is called transparency – meaning everything is “seeable”, nothing is hidden or secret. This is essential to quality trusting relationships. The budget is a living breathing document that is constantly reviewed and amended to accommodate legislative changes as well as the changing needs of our dynamic student population. The budget development process at Ontario- Montclair School District begins with reflection on the district’s Strategic Plan, vision, and goals regarding student achievement and growth, maintaining fiscal health, as well as ensuring a high quality and safe environment for students and staff. The next major step is a comprehensive review of all of the individual components of the larger picture of the financial health of the district. These components include total compensation costs (salaries and benefits combined), staffing requirements based upon projected enrollment, needs assessment, and finally, evaluation and review of the Governor’s proposed budget as presented in January and May of each year. The budgeting for each site’s allocation is a cooperative effort managed and implemented by the site principal in coordination with their administrative and teaching staffs.
  • 50. Page 49 of 223 Budget Assumptions It is important to note that the information and  assumptions that we gleam from the Governor’s  propose budget, as presented in the May Revise, are  merely estimates and aren’t known factors until  the Budget Act is signed later in the fiscal year.    Please note that the largest source of revenue for school districts comes from student attendance referred to as ADA – Average Daily Attendance. OMSD is declining dramatically in enrollment. Changes must be made to ensure fiscal solvency. Be a part of the plan and forward any and all ideas about ways we can save money to Assistant Superintendent of Business Service, Danielle A. Calise. The Balancing Act Needs – Priorities – Dollars
  • 51. Page 50 of 223 Specific assumptions used in the development of the budget for the Ontario-Montclair School District are as follows: 2007 – 2008 Closure of Bernt Elementary School Continued declining enrollment o 2007-08 decline 1,000 o 2008-09 decline 750 o 2009-10 decline 750 Revenues estimated based on enrollment estimate of 23,117 (decline of 1,000 pupils). [note: revenue limit funded on greater of current or prior year ADA with some minor adjustments as indicated by the State formula] Staffing estimated based on original enrollment estimate of 23,427 (decline of 750 pupils) Site allocations based on 919 regular ed teachers and 116 special ed teachers for a total of 1,035 teacher FTE Because the decline in enrollment often times causes class size issues, an additional 10 certificated FTE were budgeted in an effort to maintain reasonable class sizes [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE – ESTIMATED AT APPROXIMATELY $830,000] Variance between revenue estimates and staffing results in conservative budget perspective and has a negative effect on fund balance Step and column growth and for both certificated and classified collective bargaining unit staff has been included Implementation of the compensation and classification study as negotiated for the classified bargaining Unit and selected management and confidential employees Continuation of the .75% one time negotiated benefit/salary enhancement provided to all employees in 2006/07 (for a second year) [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE]
  • 52. Page 51 of 223 COLA on Revenue Limit Other State Revenues 4.53% o OMSD Actual 07-08 COLA 4.524% - $241 o 2008-09 3.7% o 2009-10 2.6% Continued bifurcated COLA on Special Education revenues o State portion of funding will receive the 4.53% COLA but the Federal funds will not o This results in less than COLA growth on total funding thereby worsening the encroachment All formula driven allocations were budgeted One-half of the total outstanding accumulated vacation liability was budgeted for 2007-08 $862,000, with an additional 25% budgeted in each of the two subsequent years on the multi-year projections [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE] Elimination/Reduction of the following positions: o Administrative Assistant to the Director of Fiscal Services o Construction Accountant o Environmental Specialist o Reduced Assistant Principal positions o Reduced Custodial positions o Reduced Certificated Teaching positions Statutory Benefits: o Worker’s Comp rate was budgeted at 2.42% o Unemployment rate was budgeted at 0.05% o PERS at 9.124% o PERS Reduction at 3.2726% with a buyout factor of 16% o FICA at 6.2 0% o MEDICARE at 1.45% ADA is paid based on greater of current or prior year P2 regular and special ed ADA + current year Non Public School ADA o Our Funded ADA in 2007/08 23,029.90 District ADA
  • 53. Page 52 of 223 88.15 County ADA Total County ADA Transfer equals $469,684 o County Special Ed ADA is budgeted at 86.59 Funded at $5,324.09 o County Community School ADA is budgeted at 1.56 Funded at the district revenue limit amount of $5,558.50 Evaluation of all encroachment programs (for example, Special Education, Class Size Reduction, and Transportation) All Federal, State, and Local categorical programs are budgeted with expenditures equaling revenues (excluding encroachment programs such as Special Education, Class Size Reduction, and Transportation) o New year awards have been estimated conservatively and budgeted less then anticipated due to declining enrollment and the continued cuts at the State level o Carryovers have not been budgeted Second year of a three year technology implementation of Zangle, the student attendance accounting system [KNOWN ONE TIME EXPENSE – ESTIMATED AT $1,000,000] Extended Learning hours budgeted as follows: o (Deficits are the amount of earnings the State will likely not fund due to insufficient appropriations) o All supplemental hours at a rate of $4.08 Core at capped hours of 145,062 no deficit STA R testing at 65,000 hours with a 30% deficit Grades 2-9 programs for pupils who have been retained 370,000 hours with a 25% deficit
  • 54. Page 53 of 223 Grades 7-12 remedial program at 275,000 with a deficit of 4% Interest income in the Unrestricted General Fund $2,000,000 Routine Restricted Maintenance Account transfer included at full 3% of combined General Fund expenditures plus other financing uses Continued participation in the Class Size Reduction program, grades K-2 o Estimate of 6,668 eligible pupils o 367 classes o Funding rate of $1,071 per pupil o Combination classes were not budgeted o With the acceptance of the QEIA grant, at those sites where the grant was awarded, the CSR program will be expanded as appropriate. Lottery was budgeted using an estimated Annual ADA of 21,908 (based on a current attendance rate of 99.8% of P2) o Unrestricted Lottery -$118 per ADA o Restricted Lottery -$19 per ADA Instructional Materials was budgeted using the 2006 CBEDS enrollment at $68.89 Contributions: o Res. 1300 – Class Size Reduction $21,471,574 o Res. 3310 – Local Assistance $258,407 o Res. 5810 – After School Sports Program $ 48,000 o Res. 6200 – CSR Facilities $540,000 o Res. 6500 – Special Ed $4,763,054
  • 55. Page 54 of 223 o Res. 7230 – Transportation, Reg. Ed $321,649 o Res. 7240 – Transportation, Special Ed $217,550 o Res. 8150 – Routine Restricted Maintenance $5,918,567 o Total General Fund Contributions of $12,067,227 to Restricted/Categorical programs Transfers between Categorical funds: o Res. 7394 TIIG Block Grant (the old supplemental) to Res. 7230 Transportation $1,388,628 (representing 100% of the estimated entitlement to transportation) o Res. 7090 mgmt 814 - EIA Bilingual to Res. 7250 mgmt 811 – SBCP $3,109,869 (representing approximately 85% of the estimated EIA, Bilingual Grant Award transferred to SBCP) o Res. 7395 mgmt 899 – School and Library Improvement Block Grant to Res. 7250 mgmt 811 – SBCP $1,561,926 (representing 100% of the School and Library Improvement Block Grant estimated Entitlement transferred to SBCP)
  • 56. Page 55 of 223 Points Range FTE 1.00 1.50 9.01 2.00 13.01 2.50 17.01 3.00 21.01 3.50 25.01 4.00 29.01 4.50 33.01 5.00 Custodial Allocation Table Site Allocation Formulas Custodial Allocation Total Number of Teachers divided by 6.00 PLUS Total Enrollment Including Preschool divided by 195 PLUS Total Number of Classrooms divided by 10 PLUS Total Building Square Footage divided by 10,000 PLUS Landscape Acreage divided by 5.50 EQUALS Total Points These total points are used to determine the custodial FTE (full time equivalent = number of employees or portions thereof), using the allocation table. (Always round down). Due to declining enrollment and the need to maintain a balanced budget, beginning in 2007-08 the custodial allocations were reduced by .5 full time equivalent (FTE) at most sites and facilities. The estimated budgetary savings is approximately $855,000. This decision was arrived at by a committee of district staff of all levels and is anticipated to be on- going.
  • 57. Page 56 of 223 Points Hours Per Day 1 4.50 10 8.00 12 8.50 14 9.00 16 9.50 18 10.00 20 10.50 22 11.00 24 11.50 26 12.00 28 12.50 30 13.00 32 13.50 34 14.00 36 14.50 38 15.00 40 15.50 42 16.00 School Clerk Allocation TableSchool Clerk Daily Hours Allocation Total Number of Employees divided by 6 PLUS Total Enrollment Excluding Preschool divided by 130 PLUS Student Mobility/Clerk Impact Index for Prior Year divided by 10 EQUALS Total Points These total points are used to determine the school clerk hours using the allocation table. (Always round down).
  • 58. Page 57 of 223 Noon Aide and Certificated Duty Reduction Allocation Noon Aide Hours per Day Total Enrollment excluding Preschool Divided by 100 Multiplied by 180 PLUS Additional hours due to special circumstances EQUALS Total Noon Aide Hours Noon Aide Total Allocation Dollars Noon Aide Hours per Day PLUS Additional Hours due to Special Circumstances Multiplied by 180 Multiplied by 9.02 PLUS Certificated Duty Reduction Allocation Total Enrollment Excluding Preschool Multiplied by 4.0 EQUALS Total Dollars Available for Noon Aide Hours and Certificated Duty Reduction
  • 59. Page 58 of 223 Site Allocation Formulas Discretionary unrestricted allocation Base per school site allocation Multiplied by 436 Assistant Principal FTE (Middle schools and Elementary schools with enrollment greater than 800 are eligible for a full time assistant principal) Multiplied by 109 Per regular teacher allocation Multiplied by 11 EQUALS Total unrestricted discretionary dollars allocation Flexible spending allocation K – 6 enrollment Multiplied by 42 PLUS 6 – 8 enrollment Multiplied by 58 PLUS New class allocation Multiplied by 329 PLUS County Special Education allocation Multiplied by 570 PLUS K – 6 enrollment Multiplied by 7 PLUS 6 – 8 enrollment Multiplied by 14 PLUS Year Round allocation Multiplied by 219 EQUALS Total flexible spending dollars allocation
  • 60. Page 59 of 223 Noon Aide Hourly Rate= 9.02 Teacher Released Time Rate= 4.00 0252/0652 0502 0503 0504 0504 0504 0504 Custodial Discretionary Funding Flexible Spending Noon Aides Noon Aides Noon Aides Noon Aides FTE DAILY HOURS FTE TOTAL $ TOTAL $ DAILY HOURS OBJ 2920 TOTAL $ OBJ 2929 TOTAL $ TOTAL GROSS 045 Montera 2.50 9.50 1.19 678 31,640 045 5.00 8,118 2,556 10,674 046 Vista Grande 2.00 10.00 1.25 678 26,691 046 5.00 8,118 2,152 10,270 047 Bernt - - - - - 047 - - - (0) 050 Arroyo 2.50 10.50 1.31 711 32,487 050 5.00 8,118 2,652 10,770 051 Berlyn 2.50 11.00 1.38 908 40,425 051 7.00 11,365 3,300 14,665 052 Bon View 2.50 11.00 1.38 733 35,035 052 7.00 11,365 2,860 14,225 053 Buena Vista 2.00 11.50 1.44 590 17,444 053 3.00 4,871 1,424 6,294 054 Central 2.00 10.00 1.25 689 27,881 054 6.00 9,742 2,276 12,017 055 Corona 2.50 11.00 1.38 733 36,309 055 7.00 11,365 2,964 14,329 056 Haynes 3.00 11.00 1.38 908 40,425 056 7.00 11,365 3,300 14,665 058 Del Norte 2.50 11.00 1.38 777 39,528 058 6.00 9,742 3,080 12,821 059 Edison 2.00 10.00 1.25 667 25,186 059 4.00 6,494 2,056 8,550 060 El Camino 2.50 11.50 1.44 864 39,886 060 7.00 11,365 3,256 14,621 061 Elderberry 2.50 11.00 1.38 744 33,467 061 7.00 11,365 2,732 14,097 062 Euclid 2.50 10.50 1.31 809 30,037 062 7.00 11,365 2,452 13,817 063 Hawthorne 2.50 12.00 1.50 897 41,547 063 7.00 11,365 3,252 14,617 064 Howard 2.50 10.00 1.25 711 30,919 064 5.00 8,118 2,524 10,642 065 Kingsley 2.50 12.00 1.50 777 37,877 065 6.00 9,742 3,092 12,834 066 Lehigh 2.50 10.00 1.25 733 34,839 066 7.00 11,365 2,844 14,209 067 Lincoln 5.88 18.50 2.31 546 21,756 067 4.00 6,494 1,776 8,270 068 Linda Vista 2.50 11.50 1.44 612 25,480 068 4.00 6,494 2,080 8,574 070 Mariposa 2.50 11.50 1.44 908 41,832 070 8.00 12,989 3,388 16,377 071 Mission 2.50 11.50 1.44 864 37,142 071 6.00 9,742 3,032 12,774 072 Monte Vista 3.00 11.50 1.44 766 39,507 072 6.00 9,742 3,132 12,874 073 Moreno 4.13 13.00 1.63 689 30,968 073 7.50 12,177 2,528 14,705 074 Ramona 2.50 10.00 1.25 722 33,957 074 6.00 9,742 2,772 12,514 076 Sultana 2.50 11.00 1.38 744 33,859 076 6.00 9,742 2,764 12,506 077 Vineyard 2.00 10.00 1.25 722 33,061 077 6.00 9,742 2,672 12,414 380 De Anza 3.00 11.00 1.38 963 72,720 380 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 381 Wiltsey 3.50 12.00 1.50 985 77,229 381 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 382 Serrano 3.50 11.00 1.38 941 68,184 382 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 383 Vernon 3.50 11.50 1.44 908 65,298 383 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 384 Vina Danks 3.50 11.50 1.44 996 77,184 384 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 385 Oaks 3.50 11.50 1.44 941 69,120 385 5.00 8,118 n/a 8,118 TOTAL 91.51 370.50 46.38 25,914 1,328,920 191.50 310,919 72,916 383,833 School Clerk 0406/0606 A SITE PERSPECTIVE IN BRIEF…
  • 61. Page 60 of 223 The Encroachment Concept Is it accounting malarkey, a real problem, or inefficient systems? The term encroachment is used to describe any program that is not self sufficient, meaning that the revenues aren’t enough to cover the costs necessitated by the program. The most common areas where school districts experience this phenomenon are special education, transportation, and class size reduction. What is Special Education The Special Education program is designed to meet the needs of individuals from birth to age 22 who have learning disabilities, developmental disabilities and other physical and mental impairments. Schools are mandated by federal law, the Individuals with Dis abilities Education Act, originally passed in 1975, to serve the needs of these special needs students in the least-restrictive environment as identified in individualized education plans (IEPs). In this context, "least restrictive" means a setting that is closest to a normal classroom with non-disabled children as allowed by whatever accommodations are needed. Under federal law, the instruction must be both free and appropriate, delivered in a manner that permits the child to benefit from the services. Special Education covers services that are related to education, including home-to-school transportation, speech pathology, audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy and counseling. Although both the State and Federal governmental agencies provide some funding, the funding in recent years has been
  • 62. Page 61 of 223 significantly less than the cost of the required services in the Special Education Program. This shortfall is most commonly referred to as encroachment to the Unrestricted General Fund Resources. These costs generally cannot be totally eliminated, although the District makes every effort to effectively and efficiently manage and control costs. The District must provide programs whether it has the program currently operating within the district or not. In instances where out-of-state residential placement is required for a student, the total costs, including transportation and required visitation costs for the parents, can far exceed the funding provided by the State. Due process and strict adherence to Federal and State guidelines means we provide more protection for our neediest families and thus creates a need for more specialized guidance and assistance. Sadly, this means many of our Special Education dollars are going to attorneys’ fees. It is unfortunate that the high demand and high cost comes at a time of declining enrollment, which together exacerbate the constrained fiscal resources available for the Ontario-Montclair School District. What is a SELPA? In 1977, all school districts were required to form a consortium or geographical region of sufficient size and scope to provide for all the special education service needs of the children residing within the region boundaries and develop a local plan. The Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) is a consortium of participating school districts formed for the purpose of ensuring that quality special education programs and services are available throughout the region to meet the individual needs of special education students. The SELPA is governed by a Board of Directors, which is made up of the superintendents of each participating school district and is chaired by the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. The SELPA is a support service office. The goal of SELPAs is to coordinate services to member districts so that
  • 63. Page 62 of 223 students with disabilities have equal educational opportunity in the most effective, efficient, and cost effective manner practical. There are 123 SELPAs operating in the State of California. Six SELPAs operate within San Bernardino County, with a total population of 45,664 special needs children: Population data as of April 2007 Reference Education Code 56195 Desert/Mountain SELPA - (760) 242-6333 10,674 special needs students are served Adelanto, Apple Valley, Baker Valley, Barstow, Bear Valley, Helendale, Hesperia, Lucerne Valley, Needles, Oro Grande, Silver Valley, Snowline, Trona, Victor, Victor Valley, and County programs East Valley SELPA - (909) 433-4796 9,250 special needs students are served Colton, Redlands, Rialto, Rim of the World, Yucaipa- Calimesa, and County programs Fontana Unified School District SELPA- (909) 357-5000 4,764 special needs students are served Morongo Unified School District SELPA- (760) 367-9191 1,398 special needs students are served San Bernardino City Unified School District SELPA- (909) 381-1100 5,956 special needs students are served West End SELPA - (909) 481-4547, ext. 255 13,622 special needs students are served Alta Loma, Central, Chaffey, Chino, Cucamonga, Etiwanda, Mt. Baldy, Mountain View, Ontario-Montclair, Upland, and County programs West End SELPA The West End SELPA team works in collaboration with students, parents, school districts, and community agencies to maintain effective communication, provide quality services, and
  • 64. Page 63 of 223 ensure the provision of appropriate resources that support the education of all students with disabilities. Class Size Reduction Program The Class Size Reduction program was established in 1996 with the intention of improving education, especially in reading and mathematics, of children in kindergarten and grades one through three. The program was enacted through Education Code Sections 52120- 52128.5. The Class Size Reduction Program is said to be an excellent educational model for students, it is also much more expensive on a per student basis than the old 32 to 1 model that had previously existed in California schools for a number of years. None of these cost comparisons take into account the cost of altering facilities and creating new facilities for the new classes that were created by the program. While it was hoped that the funding for the CSR program would be sufficient to cover the entire cost of operation it simply isn’t. While the under funded or encroachment amount is $2.5 million for the program and an additional $.5 million for facilities, this isn’t the true savings that would be realized if the program were to be eliminated as we would still be educating the students, the only difference would be the number of teachers and classrooms that would be required. Transportation Transporting students other than special education students is not a requirement of school districts in the State of California. Education Code - 39800 governs the decision to provide transportation to students. Part 23.5. Transportation. Chapter 1. Transportation Services. Article 1. General Provisions (a) The governing board of any school district may provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever in the judgment of the board the transportation is advisable and good reasons exist therefore. The governing board may purchase or rent and provide for the upkeep, care, and operation of vehicles, or may contract and pay for the transportation of pupils to and from school by common
  • 65. Page 64 of 223 2 2 3 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 5 2 2 1 184 116 263 206 112 47 8 30 98 33 199 89 70 421 49 114 12 32 266 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arroyo Berlyn BerntBon View Buena Vis ta Central CoronaDe AnzaD elN orte Eculid EdisonElCam inoElderberryHawthorne H aynes How ardKin gsley LeH ig h LincolnLinda VistaM ariposa M issio n M onte VistaM ontera M oreno O aksR am ona Serrano Sultana Vernon Vina D anksVineyard Vista G rande W iltsey 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 # OF BUSES NUMBER OF STUDENTS RIDING Some Transportation Highlights… The number of riders and buses per site! Some of our sites do not need transportation due to current boundaries. carrier or municipally owned transit system, or may contract with and pay responsible private parties for the transportation. These contracts may be made with the parent or guardian of the pupil being transported. A governing board may allow the transportation of preschool or nursery school pupils in school buses owned or operated by the district. A state reimbursement may not be received by a district for the transportation of preschool or nursery school pupils. (b) As used in this article, "municipally owned transit system" means a transit system owned by a city, or by a district created under Part 1 (commencing with Section 24501) of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code. (Added by Stats. 1999, Ch. 646, Sec. 14.) The Ontario-Montclair School District runs an efficient transportation system that focuses on maximizing safety and student attendance while minimizing cost. Our program is run in compliance with all legal requirements and consistent with Board Policy 3541 and Administrative Regulation 3541.1. Walk distances per - Board Policy 3541 Business and Noninstructional Operations At the option of the Board, home to school transportation may be provided to students. The generally recognized distance for transporting students is: Grade level K-3 more than 1 mile Elementary - Remaining grades more than 1 1/2 miles Middle schools more than 2 1/2 miles Minimum distances from schools within which transportation will not be provided shall be measured by the shortest usable and reasonable route from the residence of the student to the nearest point on the boundary of the school campus.
  • 66. Page 65 of 223 Bus Riders... 2,110 1,725 4,220 3,450 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 OneWayRoundTrip Home - to - School Special Education Total Revenues for program 360,148.00 796,012.00 Number of buses 28.00 19.00 Average number of students bused daily (one way) 746.00 90.00 Total Miles Driven for the year 307,209.00 184,213.00 Expenditures for transportation program: Salaries & Benefits 1,431,023.73 720,675.41 Supplies 279,905.12 54,997.62 Memberships & Conferences 2,031.62 - Insurance 29,518.72 20,030.56 Rentals, Leases, Repairs and noncapatialized improvements 25,086.68 7,811.92 Expense recapture for field trips and services performed for other departments/districts in non use hours (323,955.21) 60.00 Other service contracts 83,514.44 7,204.78 Capital Outlay - Leases (Buses) 141,249.46 Plant maintenance costs 11,379.78 2,150.93 Subtotal Expense 1,679,754.34 812,931.22 Indirect costs - 4.91% of Total Costs 75,540.59 39,914.92 Net total expense 1,755,294.93 852,846.14 Unfunded portion of expense 1,395,146.93 56,834.14 2005-06 Transportation Data from the Unaudited Actual Financial Report Board Approved in September 2006 The cost of providing transportation increases for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to: rising cost of petroleum products, i.e. fuel and oil, parts, repairs, and staff. The costs for providing specialized transportation for our students with special needs is once again an area where staff has little control over the costs associated with this service, as it is driven predominately by the needs of that particular population. The costs are simply rising faster that the revenue is growing, thus creating a pull on already strained resources. Currently there is no cost or fee to any of our bus riders.
  • 67. Page 66 of 223 A .1% increase in average daily attendance is approximately $126,000 of ongoing money. A 1% improvement in the attendance rate would result in an increase in on-going funding by approximately $1.2 million for every future year. Ratio of ADA to CBEDS Enrollment 94.38% 95.21% 94.70% 94.86% 95.41% 95.45% 94.64% 94.77% 94.52% 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 93.00% 94.00% 95.00% 96.00% 97.00% 98.00% Total CBEDS Total ADA ADA as a % of CBEDS ADA and Enrollment Trends ADA – Average Daily Attendance ADA is equal to the average number of pupils actually attending classes over a span of time. For the majority of our Unrestricted Funding Resource, the benchmark in time is called P2 or Period 2 reporting. This time period is the last complete school month ending prior to April 15 of a school year. History of ADA data…. Not only do students who don’t attend school every day suffer the lost instructional time, the district loses the resources it needs to continue to provide those instructional and operational services our students deserve. As you can see in our Ratio of ADA to CBEDS Enrollment chart, we have experienced some slight variances in our attendance rate. (CBEDS is explained in the coming pages) Each day of lost instruction costs the district approximately $44.80. Each day costs the student valuable instruction time.
  • 68. Page 67 of 223 History of Average Daily Attendance 2.06% -1.19% 3.18% 1.02% -1.51% -2.82% -3.89% 2.54% 2.12% -3.82% 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 25,000 25,500 26,000 26,500 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 -5.00% -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% Total ADA % Change The chart showing the History of Average Daily Attendance and Rate of Attendance Increases or Decreases in Rates over the Prior Year indicates that we are experiencing declining enrollment as well as a reduction in the average number of students attending school on a daily basis. Both of these situations have extreme instructional and financial consequences. The lost instructional time has a direct impact on our students’ test scores as well as a direct, dramatic impact on our financial resources.
  • 69. Page 68 of 223 Enrollment History and Projections 16,082 16,624 17,026 18,394 19,184 20,120 21,033 21,767 22,355 23,433 23,638 23,611 24,207 24,651 25,115 25,823 26,407 26,983 27,270 27,010 26,293 25,376 24,177 23,177 22,427 21,677 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Projections Enrollment Enrollment is the number of students actually enrolled in a school/program on a particular day regardless if the student was in attendance or not. CBEDS – California Basic Education Data System CBEDS is the statewide system of collecting enrollment and staffing data from all school districts on an “Information Day” each October. The 2006- 07 year will be the first year of transition to a statewide system of collecting student data called California School Information Services (CSIS). This is an attempt to standardized the collection of student information so that this data may be compared at the State level for testing evaluation and that the transfer of this data from site to site or district to district would be easier and students would be placed in their most appropriate courses upon arrival in a new school environment. DECLINING ENROLLEMENT
  • 70. Page 69 of 223 The reasons given for the transfer requests TotalNumberofStudents,1,619 TotalNumberofStudents,1,540 TotalNumberofStudents,1,524 TotalNumberofStudents,1,520 TotalNumberofStudents,1,519 Day Care, 360 Day Care, 380 Day Care, 425 Day Care, 471 Day Care, 579 Employment, 235 Employment, 292 Employment, 300 Employment, 494 Other, 539 Other, 470 Other, 404 Other, 403 Other, 446 Employment, 230 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted Release Approved Transfer Accepted 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 Total Number of Students Day Care Employment Other Transfers Out - What has it cost OMSD 1,119 1,085 1,047 1,0751,083 $5,948,674 $4,966,662 $5,174,475$5,035,520 $4,898,175 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 ADA @ Attendance Rate Lost On-Going Revenue Limit Interdistrict Transfer Requests If a resident of the Ontario-Montclair School District wishes for their child to attend a school outside of district boundaries, the parent/guardian must submit an interdistrict transfer form to the Child Welfare and Attendance office. Transfers are processed, approved or disapproved regularly and forwarded to the requested district. Final approval is made by the requested district. If a student wishes to attend an Ontario-Montclair School and the parent/guardian does not live in district boundaries, the parent/guardian must obtain an interdistrict transfer from their current school district of residence. The interdistrict transfer is required for anyone living outside of the district who wishes to attend. Interdistrict transfers out of the district affect our enrollment and therefore our revenues. For a variety of reasons parents may request a transfer in or out of the Ontario- Montclair School District. Administrative Regulation 5117.1 Students-Interdistrict Attendance Agreements and Education Codes 48204 and 46601.5 provide the legal guidance on transfer criteria.
  • 71. Page 70 of 223 CBEDs CBEDs P-1 Funded Revenue Base Revenue RL Gain / (Loss) YEAR CBEDs P-1 ADA P-2 ADA vs P-1 vs P-2 vs P-2 Limit per ADA Limit per ADA Due to Attendance $ Variance to Prior Year $ Variance to Funded RL Deficit % 1992/93 22,355 21,866 21,916 97.81% 98.04% 100.23% 2,908.71 3,089.61 94.14% 1993/94 22,897 22,220 22,253 97.04% 97.19% 100.15% 2,894.15 3,150.61 $975,328.55 Variance to Pr. Year: 542 354 337 -0.77% -0.85% -0.08% (14.56)$ (256.46)$ 91.86% 1994/95 23,132 22,588 22,551 97.65% 97.49% 99.84% 2,896.28 3,254.61 $863,091.44 Variance to Pr. Year: 235 368 298 0.60% 0.30% -0.31% 2.13$ (358.33)$ 88.99% 1995/96 23,681 22,990 23,054 97.08% 97.35% 100.28% 3,068.52 3,414.02 $1,543,465.56 Variance to Pr. Year: 549 402 503 -0.57% -0.14% 0.44% 172.24$ (345.50)$ 89.88% 1996/97 24,207 23,514 23,634 97.14% 97.63% 100.51% 3,344.77 3,667.55 $1,939,966.60 Variance to Pr. Year: 526 524 580 0.06% 0.28% 0.23% 276.25$ (322.78)$ 91.20% 1997/98 24,651 23,995 24,121 97.34% 97.85% 100.53% 3,434.14 3,765.55 $1,672,426.18 Variance to Pr. Year: 444 481 487 0.20% 0.22% 0.01% 89.37$ (331.41)$ 91.20% 1998/99 25,151 23,635 23,835 93.97% 94.77% 100.85% 4,056.07 4,131.51 ($1,160,036.02) Variance to Pr. Year: 500 (360) (286) -3.37% -3.08% 0.32% 621.93$ (75.44)$ 98.17% 1999/00 25,824 24,529 24,441 94.99% 94.64% 99.64% 3,896.41 4,189.51 $2,361,224.46 Variance to Pr. Year: 673 894 606 1.01% -0.12% -1.20% (159.66)$ (293.10)$ 93.00% 2000/01 26,407 24,966 24,960 94.54% 94.52% 99.98% 4,321.51 4,321.51 $2,242,863.69 Variance to Pr. Year: 583 437 519 -0.44% -0.12% 0.33% 425.10$ -$ 100.00% 2001/02 26,983 25,746 25,754 95.42% 95.45% 100.03% 4,493.19 4,493.19 $3,567,592.86 Variance to Pr. Year: 576 780 794 0.87% 0.92% 0.06% 171.68$ -$ 100.00% 2002/03 27,270 26,092 26,017 95.68% 95.41% 99.71% 4,577.51 4,577.51 $1,203,885.13 Variance to Pr. Year: 287 346 263 0.26% -0.04% -0.32% 84.32$ -$ 100.00% 2003/04 27,010 25,616 25,623 94.84% 94.86% 100.03% 4,522.53 4,662.51 ($1,781,876.82) Variance to Pr. Year: (260) (476) (394) -0.84% -0.54% 0.31% (54.98)$ (139.98)$ 97.00% 2004/05 26,293 25,038 24,900 95.23% 94.70% 99.45% 4,683.72 4,786.30 ($3,386,329.56) Variance to Pr. Year: (717) (578) (723) 0.39% -0.16% -0.58% 161.19$ (102.58)$ 97.86% ($5,168,206.38) 2005/06 25,376 24,058 23,949 94.81% 94.38% 99.55% 4,943.80 4,988.30 ($4,701,553.80) Variance to Pr. Year: (917) (980) (951) -0.42% -0.33% 0.10% 260.08$ (44.50)$ 99.11% ($9,869,760.18) 2006/07 24,177 23,216 23,018 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,317.50 5,317.50 ($4,948,678.20) Variance to Pr. Year: (1,199) (842) (931) 1.22% 0.83% -0.40% 373.70$ -$ 100.00% ($14,818,438.38) 2007/08 * 23,177 22,255 22,066 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,558.50 5,558.50 ($5,292,118.71) Variance to Pr. Year: (1,000) (960) (952) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 241.00$ -$ 100.00% ($20,110,557.09) 2008/09 * 22,427 21,535 21,352 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,764.16 5,764.16 ($4,115,945.33) Variance to Pr. Year: (750) (720) (714) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 205.66$ -$ 100.00% ($24,226,502.42) 2008/09 * 21,677 20,815 20,638 96.02% 95.21% 99.15% 5,914.03 5,914.03 ($4,222,959.91) Variance to Pr. Year: (750) (720) (714) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 149.87$ -$ 100.00% ($28,449,462.32) Notes: 1) P-1 and P-2 data excludes Special Ed. Programs for Non-Public, Non-Sectarian Schools. 2) 1998/99 Implementation year for excluding Days of Excused and Unexcused Absences in actual ADA. 3) 2001/02 P-1 and P-2 includes one time adjustments for: a) Independent Study (16.76 ADA) b) Allowance of Attendance due to the tragedies of September 11, 2001 (14.88 ADA). 4) 2001/02 Special Ed. Extended Year "divisor" changed from 180 days to 175 days. Projection Estimates ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT CBEDs and ADA Actuals through P-2 of Fiscal 06/07
  • 72. Page 71 of 223 2,842,429$ 150,000$ Misc Savings ($400 * ADA) 415,200$ Lost Revenue: 5,742,662$ Identified Savings: (3,407,629)$ Deficit amount of lost revenue remaining after identified savings: 2,335,033$ 1,100 students at a staffing ratio of 25.5 requires a reduction of staff of 43 teachers1,100 students @ 94.38% Attendance Rate is an ADA decline of 1,038 at $5,532.43 each - yeilds a marginal revenue loss Proportional Layoff and other savingsIncome Loss (Misc includes an estimate of supplies and materials) 43 teachers @ average salary + benefits per J90 --This is estimated amount of expenditures that would still need to be reduced to make up for the lost revenue. Estimated classified salary savings on custodial time, school clerk hours, and noon duty aides **J90 as of June 2006
  • 73. Page 72 of 223 From To # of Counties experiencing Declining Enrollment Countywide % of Total Counties % of Enrollment that represents 1996-97 1997-98 20 34.48% 4% 1997-98 1998-99 19 32.76% 4% 1998-99 1999-00 21 36.21% 6% 1999-00 2000-01 22 37.93% 11% 2000-01 2001-02 17 29.31% 13% 2001-02 2002-03 20 34.48% 7% 2002-03 2003-04 31 53.45% 21% 2003-04 2004-05 32 55.17% 59% 2004-05 2005-06 33 56.90% 62% 2005-06 2006-07 31 53.45% 65% Discussion on enrollment projections This first step at estimating our ADA is evaluating how many students we think will enroll in our district. This process is time consuming, uses a lot of assumptions, and is rarely more than an educated guess In order to determine projected enrollment a district must look at a variety of factors. These factors include: The enrollment in surrounding districts and/or surrounding area/neighborhood Enrollment trends throughout the State Population increases and decreases due to growth and migration into and out of the State and local areas Economic stability of the State and local areas Cost of housing in the local area. About 53.45% of school districts in the State of California are facing declining enrollment Population growth for the State of California is projected to increase 15.3% between 2000 and 2010. This is 25.4 % between 1980 and 1990. While there is no one right place to look for an answer, trend data is the most useful information that we have. Here are some more pieces that we look at in an attempt to have accurate projections.
  • 74. Page 73 of 223 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 Alta Lom a Elem entary C entralElem entary C haffey JointUnion H igh C hino Valley U nified C olton JointUnified C ucam onga Elem entary Etiw anda Elem entaryFontana U nified M ountain View Elem entary O ntario-M ontclairElem entary R ialto U nified San Bernardino C ity U nifiedUpland Unified 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Closer to Home - What is enrollment doing around us? Why are we the steepest decline? --Be careful, the bars might look better than the reality... Declining Declining Growing Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Declining Growing Statewide Actual CBEDS Enrollment in our Local Counties Note: Orange and Los Angeles Counties are Declining Overall and San Bernardino is added to the list in 2006-07 LOSANGELES,1,549,833 LOSANGELES,1,583,283 LOSANGELES,1,617,764 LOSANGELES,1,650,948 LOSANGELES,1,681,787 LOSANGELES,1,711,034 LOSANGELES,1,736,338 LOSANGELES,1,742,873 LOSANGELES,1,734,125 LOSANGELES,1,673,317 LOSANGELES,1,708,064 ORANGE , 503,836 ORANGE , 510,114 ORANGE , 513,744 ORANGE , 515,464 ORANGE , 512,105 ORANGE , 503,351 ORANGE , 494,178ORANGE , 483,360ORANGE , 471,404ORANGE , 458,489ORANGE , 442,927 RIVERSIDE , 413,059 RIVERSIDE , 395,183 RIVERSIDE , 380,964 RIVERSIDE , 349,607 RIVERSIDE , 364,857RIVERSIDE , 333,330RIVERSIDE , 319,910RIVERSIDE , 307,055RIVERSIDE , 295,229RIVERSIDE , 285,516RIVERSIDE , 277,321 SAN BERN., 427,414 SAN BERN., 427,631 SAN BERN., 423,780 SAN BERN., 419,084 SAN BERN., 407,228SAN BERN., 394,096SAN BERN., 380,830 SAN BERN., 373,896 SAN BERN., 364,942 SAN BERN., 356,204 SAN BERN., 347,061 750,000 1,250,000 1,750,000 2,250,000 2,750,000 3,250,000 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Statewide Enrollment and Annual % Change by Year 5,612,965 5,727,303 5,844,111 5,951,612 6,147,375 6,244,732 6,298,774 6,312,103 6,353,079 6,050,895 6,322,098 1.84% -0.16% 0.65% 1.67% 2.04% 2.04% 1.59% 1.58% 0.87% 0.37% 5,400,000 5,500,000 5,600,000 5,700,000 5,800,000 5,900,000 6,000,000 6,100,000 6,200,000 6,300,000 6,400,000 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 -0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% California Annual % Change in Enrollment for California The rate of change in enrollment shows the statewide enrollment slowing dramatically until the 2005- 06 year wherein we see an overall decline. A rebound in 2006-07???