Minutes02_September_16_2014

District Accountability Committee (DAC) Minutes – September 16, 2014 The meeting was opened at 9:04 a.m. by Mrs. Karin Reynolds. Welcome Mrs. Reynolds welcomed everyone. She asked members to write their questions or comments on the white notecards if they feel they cannot be addressed at the meeting. Mrs. Reynolds asked any new DAC members to share their name and what school they are associated with. Mrs. Reynolds shared the following chart, showing how federal and state legislation flow through the State Board of Education, Colorado Department of Education, local boards of education, DACs and then SACs. Federal / State Legislation State Board of Education Colorado Department of Education Local Boards of Education DAC SAC Mrs. Reynolds explained that a draft of the meeting minutes will be sent out a few days after each meeting. These minutes are not to be presented to anyone else; they are to be used only by DAC members should they wish to use these notes to share big ideas with their SACs and principals. Notecards Submitted from August 26, 2014 Meeting “Why do we spend money to recruit ‘Highly Qualified’ teachers when we have a large pool of applicants?” We recruit for two primary reasons: (1) to find highly qualified teachers in “hard‐to‐ fill” content areas such as world language, mathematics, engineering, and special education specialists such as speech/language pathologists; (2) to attend college/university recruiting September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 1 of 9
fairs in order to reach out to minority educators who might be interested in teaching our district but may not be aware of our schools, instructional and extra‐curricular programming, etc. or familiar with the Colorado Springs area. “What does it take to get a bond election? Why do we have to wait until 2018?” First, to get on the ballot for a bond election, a resolution identifying such must be approved by the board of education. Prior to approval of a resolution, the board will need to identify projects and project budgets to be included in the ballot question. These two items are pretty straight forward. However, there are two other factors that must be evaluated prior to the above. Does the district have the debt capacity to issue new Bonds (debt) and does the district have the ability to collect tax sufficient to repay bonds (debt) within the existing mill levy cap of 60.216 mills? At this point, projections yield the answer to the first part to be “yes” but the second to be “no.” The same projections anticipate the answer to the second part may change to “yes” by 2018. “How and when will the tax money from marijuana sales be spent/given to schools?” The tax money derived from the sale of marijuana in Colorado is restricted to capital expenditures (per the ballot question). The state chose to allocate these tax revenues to fund the existing Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) program. This program is a competitive matching grant program designed to support capital needs of school districts who could not otherwise fund capital needs. In short, District 20 has applied, but never received grant monies from this program. New DAC Members/Acronyms Update Mrs. Laurie Uddenberg introduced new members and informed the DAC of members no longer on the committee. # 1 2 3 4 # 1 1 Last Name Hoggatt Lujan‐Lindsey Sibley Whitson New to DAC First Name Type Mary Parent Belinda Admin Michael Admin Sean Admin Last Name de la Garza Hutchcraft No Longer on DAC First Name Type Maria Admin Steve Admin Level Elem Elem High High School Frontier Frontier Liberty Air Academy Level High High School Air Academy Liberty September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 2 of 9
2 3 Sloger Sterk Shannon Jenny Teacher Admin Elem Elem Frontier Woodmen‐Roberts A motion was made by Mr. Will Temby to approve the additional members. A second was made by Ms. Shawna Shepherd. The DAC voted unanimously to approve the list of additional members. Mrs. Uddenberg also stated that more acronyms were added to the list and an updated handout is available. Approval of August Minutes Ms. Jackie Walls made a motion to approve the August 26, 2014 minutes. Mr. Christopher Morton seconded the motion. There were no questions, no discussion. The committee unanimously approved the minutes as presented. BOE Liaison Update District Accountability Committee September 16, 2014 Board of Education Update While the weather whims of September remind us that summer break wasn’t all that long ago, the industry and focus of school activities effectively assert that Academy School District 20 (AD20) is well underway. This truism is reflected in today’s District Accountability Committee (DAC) agenda, which features several informational items tied to Superintendent Dr. Mark Hatchell’s 2014‐2015 initiatives shared during the August 26 DAC meeting. Likewise, the Board of Education (BOE)—which meets regularly throughout the year—continues to work in tandem with the administration to support and build upon the vibrant educational foundation and activities directed toward fulfilling our district’s mission. The BOE met September 2 for an instructive retreat during which all five directors attempted to take sample online PARCC tests, spanning elementary to high school grades. The experience was both invaluable and humbling because while we did gain working knowledge of the tests’ form and content, the advanced nature of the subject matter our students are learning was quite revelatory to those of us who have been out of school for multiple decades now. The eye‐opening retreat was followed two days later by the single BOE meeting to occur since our last DAC session. Members of the public are always welcome to attend BOE meetings, of course. All BOE meeting agendas, approved minutes and its official meeting schedule may be found on AD20’s website, too. The high importance AD20 assigns to transparency and communication with its stakeholders as embodied by the DAC is illustrated by the fact that many of the issues currently being discussed and/or presentations received by the BOE are also on DAC agendas. In order to spare you from watching the trailer the same morning you see the movie; i.e., redundancy, I’ll share the few items you won’t be hearing about today or in the near future. September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 3 of 9
2014‐2015 Preliminary Enrollment Numbers: Deputy Superintendent Karin Reynolds reported that AD20 registered more than 2,300 new students during the summer, which is not atypical for us. Over 1,300 are at the elementary level (with about 1,000 of those being kindergarteners), 450 are middle school students and 500 are high school students. She cautioned that enrollment numbers are offset by the annual graduation of approximately 1,600 high school seniors each year. It appears likely that the current student count of 24, 688 will slightly exceed last year’s number of 24,489, although this will not be confirmed until the October count. Protecting Students and Staff Using Social Media: A power point addressing the wise utilization of the ever developing world of social media as viewed through the lens of practical and legal considerations was presented by District CIO Shelley Kooser, Director for Legal Relations Pat Richardson and Mrs. Christine Schein, Specialist: Education Technology/Information Literacy. This well‐received report discusses the steps AD20 is taking to educate its students and staff on this ever‐shifting front as well as demonstrates the thought‐process behind District 20’s move from a stance of social media guidelines for staff to the institution of AD20 policy GBEE. A link to view the entire power point is included in BOE minutes for September 4, 2014. A Bridge to Nowhere?: Nothing along those lines seems likely, thank goodness! The anticipated interchange construction on Old Ranch Road and Powers near Pine Creek High School is expected to get underway in November, 2014, according to the latest CDOT advices. Respectfully submitted, Tracey A. Johnson Vice President, AD20 Board of Education Accreditation Subcommittee Report Ms. Heather Cloninger presented. The DAC will review site plans for all schools in November and December. DAC members will be given “homework,” and in order to have consistency in the smaller groups, we hope that all members can attend both the November and December meetings. Accreditation of Schools Mrs. Reynolds presented, and her PowerPoint presentation is at the end of the minutes.  The SIP (School Improvement Plan) is reactionary, it reacts to data.  The site plan is about the whole child, the school’s aspiration, and what we dream for our students.  District 20 is accredited with distinction.  Most of our schools’ plan types are Performance Plans. If our schools were in the Priority Improvement Plans or Turnaround Plans, the state would get heavily involved in the district.  SACs should be reviewing their schools’ site plans prior to the DAC reviewing them. September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 4 of 9





DAC members will receive their “homework” packets in October, and then will review them during the November and December meetings. All schools with the exception of one are “performance” schools. The school that was on “improvement” last year his now a “performance” school, but Academy Online High School is listed as an “improvement” school this year. One reason Academy Online High School (AOHS) is on Improvement is because it is such a small group (thus a small N size), one student can change the data. Mr. Nathan Gorsch, principal at AOHS, also stated that if a student tests in math with AOHS but is primarily enrolled at another school, that student’s data goes with that primary school. A member asked if Discovery Canyon Campus (DCC) would be broken out as three levels next year. Mrs. Reynolds stated yes; DCC will have three school codes so it will be listed as three schools instead of listing all of DCC as just one school. A member asked what policy is referenced in the Absolutes. Mrs. Reynolds stated that there are several policies. For example, guarantees of a viable curriculum, special education services, 504’s, safety, community involvement, professional development, character, etc. These are detailed in the Accreditation Handbook. Fair Campaign Practices Act This item was moved down in the agenda. Mrs. Pat Richardson, Director for Legal Relations, presented information on the Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act and its requirement that no public resources be used to support or oppose a candidate or ballot issue.  School staff members cannot not take any public position supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot issue, but may answer unsolicited questions as long as their answers are unbiased and factual.  Campaign literature will not be sent home with students or displayed in our buildings.  Teachers are expected to remain neutral.  Principals might encourage people to go out and vote.  The Board of Education may pass a resolution or take a position on an issue if they deem it of interest to the local district.  Staff members may use their personal time and personal funds to support/oppose a candidate or a ballot issue.  No district equipment may be used for any campaign business, including district email addresses, computers, or copiers.  A member asked where information can be found about Amendment 68, and if D20 would receive any funding from it. Mrs. Richardson suggested Googling it online as there are many sources out there containing information on the pros and cons. The district could host an informational meeting as long as it presented both sides of the ballot question.  A member asked, legally, how it changes if the Board takes a position. Mrs. Richardson stated that if the Board decides an issue is of local importance on which they want to take a public position, then they could pass a resolution. That would be reflected in the board minutes. 20Alert and other district communication channels could be used to get this information out. September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 5 of 9
Mrs. Reynolds stated that our Board is non‐partisan and they seldom taken a stand on an issue as a group. Mrs. Johnson agreed. TCAP Results Ms. Becky Allan, Director for Assessment, presented, and her PowerPoint presentation is attached at the end of the minutes.  This last year was the last time that TCAP (Transitional Colorado Assessment Program) was administered. The new assessments are CMAS (Colorado Measures for Academic Success) and PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers).  Before, schools would receive testing booklets and students would use pencils to write their answers. Now the testing is online.  Comparing TCAP results with the results from the new tests will be a challenge.  Ms. Allan emphasized that D20 is committed to each and every student. We look at the big picture and the smaller picture; educators in D20 drill down to each student in their classroom.  D20 had the strongest growth scores this past year. We want all students to achieve at a high level, no matter whether they are advanced or struggling. Our job is to grow each student the best that we can.  A member asked why it takes so long to get the data. Ms. Allan speculated that because the tests are so new and lots of steps had to occur such as setting cutpoints, sending data files, etc. She thinks that it will be faster as time goes on. She also stated that not all the questions are multiple choice, and a person still has to score that test.  A member asked about turnaround time. Ms. Allan stated that she has not been given that information yet, and she does not think that using this data turnaround time is a good indicator since it is the first testing. Ms. Allan thinks that the testing in November may give more information regarding typical turnaround time. Graduation Guidelines Task Force Mrs. Reynolds presented, and her PowerPoint presentation is at the end of the minutes.  Mrs. Reynolds stated that Colorado is one of a few states that does not have mandated graduation guidelines.  A member asked about students who are not going to college, and how we will know they are ready. Mrs. Reynolds stated that we have lots of things in place, such as AVP (Area Vocational Program) courses, IB (International Baccalaureate) and AP (Advanced Placement) tests; we use a whole body of evidence and the graduation guidelines approved by the State Board of Education requires such a body of evidence. In regards to Ballot 68, Mr. Tom Gregory, Chief Financial Officer stated that he went to the constitutional language to see what language would be added to the Colorado Constitution if September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 6 of 9
this passes; the language will actually change in the Colorado Constitution. Further information can be found at the end of the minutes. Boundaries Mr. Gregory presented, and his PowerPoint presentation is at the end of the minutes.  Mr. Gregory stated that those who will be impacted by the change in boundaries already know about the change.  The city passed a plan to build 750 detached homes near Pine Creek High School (PCHS). We assume that this development will produce 200‐250 elementary students.  Today, Chinook Trail (CTES) is nearing its capacity, and will run into problems with the 750 homes built in its attendance area.  Before anything occurs with homes being built, a proposal will be presented to the Board in October to change the elementary boundaries. Drawing a line by extending Old Ranch Road out, it is proposed that the area north of that line will be in the Edith Wolford Elementary School (EWES) attendance area. If all the students in the new homes choose to go to their home school, EWES can handle that new enrollment.  This does not change anything for existing families; this really is about people that are not here yet.  A member asked if the feeder system will stay the same, and was told yes.  A member asked if Challenger Middle School can handle that many students. Mr. Gregory explained that all 200 kids will not hit on the same day. It is a revolving process; as elementary students grow up, others move out.  Mr. Gregory stated that the first house probably won’t be built until sometime into 2015 or even 2016.  A member asked if this is approved, is it effective next year. Mr. Gregory stated that if the Board approves this in October, it is effective immediately.  A member asked about the effect on transportation next year; if a student lives in the CTES neighborhood but choices to EWES, would busing be available. Mr. Gregory said yes, and there are some transportation pieces that will change.  A member asked about the K‐12 school. Mr. Gregory stated there had been talk about putting one in the far southeast side of the district. Developers have to work closely with the district because of the impact on schools. Part of the development plan is to build an elementary school just north of PCHS; the question is when, and it depends on development and finances.  A member asked what the maximum time is that we can hold a property for a future school, and Mr. Gregory said forever, and the land is free to the district.  A member asked if the boundary changes just affect elementary and not middle and high schools, and was told yes.  A member asked if CMS will be bumped up on the capital project list to accommodate all the new students. Mr. Gregory cautioned that it is hard to predict enrollment for next year, let alone three to four years from now. September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 7 of 9


A member stated that she was told it takes three to four years to build a new school. Mr. Gregory stated that it takes about two years to build an elementary school, about three years for a middle school, and about four years for a high school. Mrs. Reynolds stated that there will be a public meeting. Mr. Gregory stated it is on September 22nd, 6:30 p.m. in the atrium. Budget Subcommittee Report Ms. Jackie Walls presented.  The budget subcommittee met for the first time last week, and had a great turnout.  The subcommittee walked through the budget process. District Budget Overview Mr. Tom Gregory presented, and his PowerPoint presentation is at the end of the minutes.  Mr. Gregory stated that Part 1 was about where and how the money comes to the district. Part 2 is what the district does with the money.  The Technology, Capital Projects, and Transportation Funds receive money from the General Fund.  The Technology and Transportation Funds receive money from the General Fund, but also other resources.  The School Activity, Grants, Agency, and Bond Funds do not receive money from the General Fund.  The Food Service Fund is the only one that gives money back to the General Fund.  The funds with the “x” are ones that have pooled cash; those dollars sit in the same checking account.  There are four ways to spend a dollar – in a school, not in a school, mandatory, or contractual.  Mr. Gregory provided a handout that breaks down funding for each school.  Schools are given 90% of the projected headcount to start the year. Then, after October Count, the account is trued up.  Principals have discretion over their monies, but they need to stay in their columns. For example, money from the custodial column should be spent on custodial supplies.  A member asked if the technology strand receives more funding, and Mr. Gregory stated no, except for the iPad piece.  A member asked if a principal can choose the technology for his/her school. Mr. Gregory stated they can choose between laptops, towers, tablets, etc., but not the platform. Staff and students have to be able to use the devices in the school.  The Classical Academy (TCA) is seen as one school. TCA receives all the flow through dollars, but then they buy some things back from the district, such as security.  Mr. Gregory stated that the budget subcommittee receives more details.  A member asked what the School Activity Fund can be used for, specifically fundraising dollars. Mr. Gregory stated that it can be anything that is not a long term commitment; it cannot be used to sign a lease or buy teachers. He further stated that it should be spent on whatever the fundraiser was for. September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 8 of 9
Impact Aid Mr. Tom Gregory presented.  Mr. Gregory stated that Public Law 872 created the federal assisted program because of the impact that a major federal installation has on a community. Our federal installation is the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). Before USAFA, the almost 20,000 acres was privately owned and that owner paid property tax. When the federal government purchased the land, it became tax exempt. That purchase removed tax revenue from our community. Our loss was 20%, and this program tries to make up for that loss, but at 4% of what it would be if the land was privately owned.  The district receives over $3 million; this is not enormous, but it would be difficult to do without it.  Mr. Gregory stated that starting October 1, the schools will receive the impact aid survey forms. We encourage all parents to fill out the form, especially those who have some connection with the federal government.  Mr. Gregory stated that parent teacher conference time is a good time to have parents fill out the form. Mrs. Reynolds stated that “homework” will be given out at the next DAC meeting, so she encouraged all to attend. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jean Opitz Jean Opitz Secretary to the Board September 16, 2014 DAC Minutes
Page 9 of 9
Accountabilityand
AccreditationUpdate
District Accountability Committee
September 16, 2014
TheAnnualD‐20ReviewFiveElements
1. Absolutes – (annual cycle – May)
•based on legal and policy requirements and reported via documents at schools and principal/SAC review and signature; TheAnnualD‐20ReviewFiveElements
2. Site Plans – (annual cycle for DAC/SAC review/three year revision cycle)
•The information in the site plan informs action plans in the School Improvement Plan
•Reviewing each school’s attainment of their Site Plans* in October/November (which are closely aligned with the Board Ends policies). *The review is conducted by the District Accountability Committee and subsequently the Board of Education.
TheAnnualD‐20ReviewFiveElements
3. Student Achievement and Growth (annual cycle)
•As determined by CSAP/TCAP data; TheAnnualD‐20ReviewFiveElements:
4. Unified Improvement Plan/School Improvement Plan – (annual cycle)
•The information in the SIP informs changes needed in the site plan.
•Reviewing * each school’s UIP/SIP in November – aligned with site plans and SPF’s/DPF’s. TheAnnualD‐20ReviewFiveElements
5. External Review Process (Three year cycle)
District&SchoolPerformance
Frameworks
Through the Colorado Educational Accountability Act of 2009 (SB09‐163)…
• CDE annually evaluates districts and schools based on student performance outcomes.
• All districts receive a District Performance Framework (DPF). This determines their accreditation rating.
• All schools receive a School Performance Framework (SPF). This determines their school plan types.
• Provide a common framework through which to understand performance and focus improvement efforts.
Accreditation&PlanTypes
• District Accreditation designations:
• Accredited with Distinction (10%)
• Accredited (50%)
• Accredited with Improvement Plan (25%)
• Accredited with Priority Improvement Plan (10%)
• Accredited with Turnaround Plan (5%)
• School plan types:
• Performance Plan (60%)
• Improvement Plan (25%)
• Priority Improvement Plan (10%)
• Turnaround Plan (5%)
• Reminder – State accredits districts, and districts accredit schools.
PerformanceIndicators&Data(H/EM)
Performance Indicator
Performance Data
Weight
Academic Achievement
TCAP/CoAlt % proficient and advanced (reading, mathematics, writing, and science)
15%/ 25%
Academic Growth
Median and adequate student growth percentile (reading, mathematics and writing) on TCAP and CELApro (English language proficiency)
35%/ 50%
Academic Growth Gaps
Median and adequate student growth
percentile in reading, mathematics and writing for disaggregated groups on TCAP
15%/25%
Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
Graduation Rate, Dropout Rate, Average
Colorado ACT Composite Score, Disaggregated Graduation Rate
35%/NA
UnifiedImprovementPlans
• Based on the data from the district and school performance frameworks, the district and each school writes an improvement plan.
• Review of plans by SACs and the DAC.
• Plans are submitted to CDE and posted on Schoolview.org in the spring.
DACSitePlanandSIPReviews
• DAC will begin to review in October with a homework assignment and a video prelude. • Small group work in November and December – your 100% involvement is crucial to this process.
PlanTypesfor2012
•CDE Plan Types Assignments for D‐20 Schools – to be reported to the BOE on 10/2/14
PlanTypes
School Name ACADEMY ENDEAVOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ACADEMY INTERNATIONAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AIR ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL
ACADEMY ONLINE HIGH SCHOOL
ASPEN VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL
ANTELOPE TRAILS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CHALLENGER MIDDLE SCHOOL
CHINOOK TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
THE CLASSICAL ACADEMY CHARTER
THE CLASSICAL ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL
THE CLASSICAL ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL
DISCOVERY CANYON CAMPUS SCHOOL
DOUGLASS VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
EAGLEVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL
EDITH WOLFORD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
EXPLORER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FOOTHILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FRONTIER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
HIGH PLAINS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL
MOUNTAIN RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL
MOUNTAIN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PINE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL
PIONEER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
PRAIRIE HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RAMPART HIGH SCHOOL
RANCH CREEK ELEMENTARY
ROCKRIMMON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TCA COLLEGE PATHWAYS
THE DA VINCI ACADEMY SCHOOL
TIMBERVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL
WOODMEN‐ROBERTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
2013 SPF Plan Type
Performance
Performance
Performance
Improvement
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Questions?
• Refer to the D‐20 Accreditation and Accountability Guidelines for Schools – found on the website at the following link:
http://www.asd20.org/Documents/Accreditati
on%20Handbook%20%20‐%20Feb%202014.pdf
• Or, go to the homepage then to the District/School Accountability Accreditation tab on left then to Accreditation Handbook on left.
FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES ACT REMINDERS
Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act does not allow public resources
to be used to support or oppose a candidate or ballot issue.
School district employees may not:




Conduct campaign activities while “on duty.” Wearing political buttons or attire that
promotes a candidate or a ballot issue while in the classroom with students could be
perceived as “indoctrination” and is discouraged. When teaching controversial
issues, teachers must remain neutral and present all sides.
Use any district equipment or supplies for campaign related work, including copiers,
fax machines, telephones, district email.
Display any political bias while at work, and when teaching controversial issues, must
remain neutral and present all sides.
Send campaign literature home with students.
School district employees may:



Respond with factual information to unsolicited questions about state and local
ballot issues.
Use personal funds and personal time to urge electors to vote for or against an issue.
Use school newsletters to announce a candidate forum or to publish the date of the
election and urge patrons to participate in the political process.
Candidates or campaign committees may distribute materials in a school at locations
designated by the principal during a public meeting or event so long as such distribution
does not interfere with the meeting or event.
The Board of Education may pass a resolution and/or take a position of advocacy on state
and local ballot issues.
Fair Campaign Practices Act, Colorado Revised Statutes 1-45-101, et. seq.
*** ELECTION DAY: November 4, 2014 ***
9/16/2014
Academy District 20 DAC
September 16, 2014
Becky Allan, Director for Assessment





In 2014, Academy 20 students tested in TCAP
reading, writing, and math.
Students in 5th and 8th grades tested in CMAS science
and those results are expected in the fall of 2014.
After 18 years of CSAP/TCAP assessments, these are
the last results to be analyzed and reported out.
Beginning in the 14-15 school year, students will take
CMAS and PARCC assessments.
These new assessments will result in new baselines,
making comparisons to past years very difficult.
1
9/16/2014






After two years of excellent gains, Academy 20 TCAP scores
show solid results in 2014.
D20 is the highest achieving large district in Colorado for the
6th year in a row.
The percentage of proficient and advanced increased or was
stable on 15 of 24 subject area tests - strong scores for an
already high achieving district and following strong scores in
2012 and 2013.
Students with disabilities (IEPs) posted overall gains at the
elementary, middle, and high school levels in %PA as
compared to 2013.
Secondary Math showed gains, increasing or stable on 5 tests
and declining on 0 tests. This is the third consecutive year of
solid gains in secondary math – this has been an instructional
focus for the district.
D20 exceeded cohort growth expectations on all 9
content/level tests (MGP > 50th percentile).
Compared to 2013 TCAP
 The percentage of proficient and advanced increased
or was stable on 15 of 24 subject area tests.
 Elementary students showed slight declines in %PA
on reading and declines in writing and math.
 Middle school students showed gains in math, were
stable in writing, and showed declines in reading.
 For the second consecutive year, high school gains in
%PA were especially impressive with students
increasing or stable on all high school tests.
2
9/16/2014





Our overall TCAP achievement results are strong as
compared to large school districts statewide.
Academy 20 is Accredited with Distinction for the 5th straight
year.
Academy 20 remains the highest achieving large district in
Colorado for the 6th straight year.
Academy 20 percentages for proficient and advanced (%PA)
ranked #1 among large districts on 12 of 24 tests.
Academy 20 percentages of proficient and advanced were in
the top two for 21 of 24 tests.
Academy 20 %PA exceeded state percentages on each of the
24 tests by an average of 16%.




Students with disabilities (IEPs) increased or
were stable on 17 of 24 tests, with elementary,
middle, and high school levels each posting overall
gains in %PA as compared to 2013.
African American students increased or were
stable on 14 tests and declined on 10 tests. African
American students made especially solid gains at
the middle and high school levels.
Hispanic students increased or were stable on 16
tests and declined on 8 tests. The gains for
Hispanic students were especially strong at the
high school level.
Economically disadvantaged students showed
increasing or stable performance on 16 of 24 tests.
3
9/16/2014

Our overall 2014 TCAP scores reflect strong
academic growth.
 On all 9 level (E/M/H) subject tests our students
exceeded cohort growth expectations.
 Strong growth is especially notable for an already
high performing school district and following
outstanding years for 2012 and 2013 TCAP.
Note: MGP, median growth percentile, is a measure of the middle percentile ranking
as each student’s growth is compared against that of students with similar prior year
performance.
Overall 2014 TCAP MGPs remain strong as compared to
our historical trends.
Median Growth Percentiles
Reading
MS
HS
HS
ES
Math
MS
HS
54
54
53
48
53
53
52
52
51
45
49
53
52
48
55
52
51
54
52
53
54
53
51
55
56
53
53
55
51
52
55
ACADEMY 20
ES
ES
2010
54
54
49
52
2011
50
49
48
2012
53
53
52
2013
52
53
2014
54
51
Writing
MS
4
Graduations Requirements and Guidelines
District Accountability Update
September 16, 2014
How Did We Get Here?
 2007: The General Assembly adopted H.B. 07‐1118 – a process for developing statewide high school graduation guidelines. Pursuant to the legislation, the Governor’s Graduation Guidelines Council was formed.
 2008: The Council presented their initial recommendations to the State Board, focusing on the need for clearer, more rigorous standards at every grade level. A system of standards and assessments from preschool through postsecondary education was developed.  2012: New Graduation Guidelines convened to build on the recommendations of the original council. The council met monthly to develop recommendations for the State Board of Education’s consideration.  2013: The State Board adopted the Colorado High School Graduation Guidelines and formed Graduation Guideline Work Groups.
Purpose of the Guidelines …
•1. To articulate Colorado’s shared beliefs about the value and meaning of a high school diploma; and
•2. To outline the minimum components, expectations and responsibilities of local districts and the state to support students in attaining their high school diploma. Broad Timeline
Changes will begin within three years—when 2014‐15 sixth graders start ninth grade in fall 2017. They will be the first class to graduate after demonstrating their readiness for college and careers.  When Colorado students enter ninth grade starting in fall 2017, they must begin showing what they know in English, math, science, and social studies in order to graduate prepared for college and careers. They may select from a list of options to demonstrate competency. Options may be fulfilled any time during their high school career and could include:  Earning minimum scores on state and national tests  Completing rigorous learning projects guided by a faculty mentor  Passing college‐level courses taken during high school  Receiving professional certifications During 2014‐2015
•Districts will enter the first phase of Graduation Guidelines implementation, which include utilization of Colorado’s Academic Standards, demonstrations of 21st Century Skills, and ICAP as a college and career planning tool. Adopted Guidelines Include …
• Per CRS 22‐2‐106:
 Alignment with the description of postsecondary and workforce readiness;  Alignment with the postsecondary academic admission standards for public four‐year institutions;  Recognition of multiple and diverse pathways to a diploma;  Articulation through a standards‐based education system;  Attainment of skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century; and  Importance of academic and career planning. And …
The guidelines articulate minimum competency levels in math, English, science, and social studies for entrance to workforce, armed forces, and postsecondary education. CONGRATULATIONS!! AND THANK YOU!!
YOUR FINE WORK WITH SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS WAS IMPRESSIVE – EVEN BETTER THAT YEAR ONE!!
Membership
•
Stephanie Austgen, AAHS English Teacher
•
Kolette Back, PCHS High School Principal
•
Becky Bieshaar PCHS Special Education Teacher and Cohort VI member
•
Shannon Castle, LHS Special Education Teacher and Cohort VI member
•
Tracie Cormaney RHS Assistant Principal
•
Diane Forsythe, Director for Career and Technical Education
•
Dan Hinkin DCCHS Social Studies Teacher
•
Karen Hinkin RHS Counselor
•
Koryn Kessler, PHES teacher and Cohort VI member
•
Rosie Kroeker LHS Counselor
•
Ruthi Manning‐Freeman, Assistant Director for Talented and Gifted Education
•
Clark Maxon, Director for Curriculum and Instruction
•
Holly Meacham LHS Assistant Principal
•
Bridget O'Connor PCHS Interventionist and Cohort VI member
•
Dan Olson, AAHS Assistant Principal
•
Richard Moothart, Learning Services TOSA and Online Teacher
•
Molly Reagan, TMS teacher and Cohort VI member
•
Karin Reynolds, Deputy Superintendent, Facilitator
•
Gwen Rodriguez DCCHS Parent
•
Mario Romero, DCCMS Principal
•
Stephen Scott, WRES teacher and Cohort VI member
•
Brett Smith, TMS Principal
•
Rhonda Spradling AOHS Teacher on Special Assignment
•
Melissa Wagner, MRMS Assistant Principal
•
Nancy White, 21st Century Learning and Innovation Specialist
•
Laurie Uddenberg, DAC Chair, parent
•
Lacy Ullmann, AAHS Parent
Existing District Boundary Map
1
Planned New Development
2
Current Chinook Trail Attendance Boundary
3
Proposed Boundary Change
4
Revised District Boundary Map
5
Colorado School Finance
2014‐15
PART 2
1
District 20 Funds
2014‐15
Tech. Fund
School Activity Fund
Agency Fund
Grants Fund
General Fund
Capital Projects Fund
Bond Fund
Transp.
Fund
Food Service Fund
= pooled cash
2
District 20 Expenditures
2014‐15
FY 2014-2015 Adopted Budget
Expenditures and Transfers by Program
Direct Instruction,
Student & Staff
Support
72.5%
General
Administration
1.0%
Technology Fund
2.4%
Transportation Fund
2.6%
Capital Reserve
Capital Projects…
Maintenance,
Operations &…
Other Services
0.3%
Risk Management
1.6%
Total Appropriated Expenditures and Transfers
Total Appropriated Reserves
Total General Fund Appropriation
Business
Administration
1.2%
School
Administration
7.5%
Central Services
0.8%
$197,657,292
34,593,190
$232,250,482
3
District 20 Expenditures
2014‐15
FY 2014-2015 Adopted Budget
Expenditures and Transfers by Object
Teacher Salaries
& Benefits
49.75%
Administrator
Salaries &
Benefits
6.79%
Technology Fund
2.40%
Professional
Salaries &
Benefits
1.10%
Transportation
Fund
2.60%
Capital Reserve
Capital Project
Fund
1.20%
Charter School
12.69%
Capital Outlay &
Other Expenses
0.30%
Supplies &
Materials
5.49%
Classified
Salaries &
Benefits
12.49%
Purchased
Services
5.19%
Total Appropriated Expenditures and Transfers
Total Appropriated Reserves
Total General Fund Appropriations
$197,657,292
34,593,190
$232,250,482
4
District 20 Expenditures
2014‐15
General Fund Expenditures Financial Transparency:
1. www.asd20.org
2. Select “Financial Transparency” (left margin)
3. Scroll to and select “Fiscal Year: 2014‐15” 4. Select “Category: District Budgets”
5. Select “2014‐15 Adopted Budget”
6. See Pages 72‐114 of document for program and object expenditure information.
5
District 20 Expenditures
2014‐15
FY2014-2015 Budget
Budgets by School and Non-School
Mandatory vs. Non-mandatory
100.00%
90.00%
See pages 78‐81 of Adopted Budget for detail
80.00%
70.00%
12.33%
Percent
60.00%
of
Budget 50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
63.15%
20.00%
8.58%
10.00%
15.94%
0.00%
Non-mandates
Mandates
Schools
12.33%
63.15%
Non-Schools
8.58%
15.94%
6
District 20 School ES Allocations
General Fund Per Pupil Allocations
FY2014-2015 Budget
Elementary Schools
2014-2015 90% ORIGINAL ALLOCATION
Combined Per
Pupil Allocation Textbooks
$156.50
#
School
Projected Head
Count used for
Allocation
90% of Project
Initial
Head Count
Allocation
used for
(Program 0010)
Allocation
118
122
113
130
530
115
127
111
114
125
112
117
123
116
132
121
126
129
Academy Endeavour
Academy International
Antelope Trails
Chinook Trail
Discovery Canyon
Douglass Valley
Edith Wolford
Explorer
Foothills
Frontier
High Plains
Mountain View
Pioneer
Prairie Hills
Ranch Creek
Rockrimmon
School in the Woods
The da Vinci Academy
604
619
507
527
483
390
350
478
443
410
358
524
419
504
443
350
78
399
544
557
456
474
435
351
315
430
399
369
322
472
377
454
399
315
70
359
128
Woodmen-Roberts
350
315
Total Elementary Schools
85,136
87,171
71,364
74,181
68,078
54,932
49,298
67,295
62,444
57,749
50,393
73,868
59,001
71,051
62,444
49,298
10,955
56,184
$42.50
Initial
Allocation
(Program
0095)
23,120
23,673
19,380
20,145
18,488
14,918
13,388
18,275
16,958
15,683
13,685
20,060
16,023
19,295
16,958
13,388
2,975
15,258
2014-2015 100% ORIGINAL ALLOCATION
Science Kits
Total
Athletics
Athletics
Snow Removal
Custodial
$5
Remaining
Initial Allocation Allocation
(Program 0095) Received after
Certified Count
2,720
2,785
2,280
2,370
2,175
1,755
1,575
2,150
1,995
1,845
1,610
2,360
1,885
2,270
1,995
1,575
350
1,795
12,240
12,647
10,404
10,812
9,791
7,955
7,139
9,792
8,975
8,363
7,344
10,608
8,567
10,200
8,975
7,139
1,632
8,159
Amount
$12.50/hr x 6
100% of
Estimated
TOTAL Initial
snow days x 6
Allocation
Allocation after
Allocation
hrs/day:
(Program 2620)
Certified Count
(Program 2620)
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
1,000
5,500
116,926
119,579
98,974
102,646
94,691
77,555
70,211
93,670
87,347
81,227
71,638
102,238
82,859
98,566
87,347
70,211
15,730
79,187
129,166
132,226
109,378
113,458
104,482
85,510
77,350
103,462
96,322
89,590
78,982
112,846
91,426
108,766
96,322
77,350
17,362
87,346
49,298
13,388
1,575
7,139
450
5,500
70,211
77,350
1,160,140
315,058
37,065
167,881
8,550
100,000
1,620,813
1,788,694
7
District 20 School MS Allocations
General Fund Per Pupil Allocations
FY2014-2015 Budget
Middle Schools
2014-2015 90% ORIGINAL ALLOCATION
Combined Per
Pupil Allocation Textbooks
$184.50
#
School
$47.50
Projected Head 90% of Project
Initial Allocation
Initial
Count used for Head Count used
(Program 0020) Allocation
Allocation
for Allocation
2014-2015 100% ORIGINAL ALLOCATION
Science Kits
Total
Athletics
Athletics
Snow Removal
Custodial
N/A
Remaining
Allocation
Received after
Certified Count
Amount
$12.50/hr x 6
100% of
Estimated
TOTAL Initial
snow days x 8
Allocation
Allocation after
Allocation
hrs/day:
(Program 2620)
Certified Count
(Program 2620)
235
Challenger
792
713
131,549
33,868
18,327
600
12,000
178,017
530
Discovery Canyon
888
799
147,416
37,953
20,647
600
11,000
196,969
217,616
238
Eagleview
988
889
164,021
42,228
22,967
600
12,000
218,849
241,816
237
Mountain Ridge
1,120
1,008
185,976
47,880
25,984
600
12,000
246,456
272,439
233
Timberview
989
890
164,205
42,275
22,968
600
12,000
219,080
242,048
245
Alternative Middle School
58
52
Total Middle Schools
196,344
9,594
2,470
1,392
-
-
12,064
13,456
802,761
206,674
112,285
3,000
59,000
1,071,435
1,183,719
8
District 20 School HS Allocations
General Fund Per Pupil Allocations
FY2014-2015 Budget
High Schools
2014-2015 90% ORIGINAL ALLOCATION
Combined Per
Pupil Allocation Textbooks
$222.50
#
School
$47.50
2014-2015 100% ORIGINAL ALLOCATION
Science Kits
Total
Athletics
Athletics
Remaining
Allocation
Received after
Certified Count
HS Athletic
Program
Support
(Program
1800)
Athletic
Supervision
(Program
2234)
Snow Removal
Custodial
N/A
Projected Head 90% of Project
Initial Allocation
Initial
Count used for Head Count used
(Program 0030) Allocation
allocation
for allocation
Amount
$12.50/hr x 6
100% of
Estimated
TOTAL Initial
snow days x 12
Allocation
Allocation after
Allocation
hrs/day:
(Program 2620)
Certified Count
(Program 2620)
342Air Academy
1,426
1,283
285,468
60,943
38,609
51,100
18,770
900
22,000
439,181
477,790
345Aspen Valley
350
315
70,088
14,963
9,449
-
-
900
6,000
91,951
101,400
530Discovery Canyon
1,104
994
221,165
47,215
29,700
42,400
18,770
900
22,000
352,450
382,150
344Liberty
1,595
1,436
319,510
68,210
42,930
47,400
18,770
900
32,000
486,790
529,719
346Pine Creek
1,525
1,373
305,493
65,218
41,039
51,100
18,770
900
22,000
463,481
504,520
343Rampart
1,541
1,387
308,608
65,883
41,579
47,400
18,770
900
32,000
473,561
515,140
1,510,332
322,432
203,306
239,400
93,850
5,400
136,000
2,307,414
2,510,719
Total High Schools
-
IB Allocations (Program 0071)
TOTAL SCHOOL
ALLOCATIONS
$
3,473,233
844,164
37,065
483,472
239,400
93,850
16,950
295,000
203,500
$ 5,203,162
$
203,500
$ 5,686,632
9
District 20 Technology
2014‐15
School Allocations (Technology Fund)
#
School
118Academy Endeavour
122Academy International
113Antelope Trails
130Chinook Trail
530Discovery Canyon
115Douglass Valley
127Edith Wolford
111Explorer
114Foothills
125Frontier
112High Plains
102HSA students Elementary
117Mountain View
123Pioneer
116Prairie Hills
132Ranch Creek
121Rockrimmon
126School in the Woods
129The da Vinci Academy
128Woodmen-Roberts
Total Elementary Schools
#
School
245Alternative Middle School
235Challenger
530Discovery Canyon
238Eagleview
102HSA students Middle School
237Mountain Ridge
233Timberview
Total Middle Schools
#
School
352Academy On-line High School
342Air Academy
345Aspen Valley
530Discovery Canyon
344Liberty
346Pine Creek
343Rampart
347Expulsion
Total High Schools
TOTAL SCHOOL ALLOCATIONS
2014-2015 Certified Projected
FPC
Head Count
568.0
604.0
555.5
619.0
471.0
507.0
467.5
527.0
462.5
483.0
349.0
390.0
272.5
350.0
446.0
478.0
402.0
443.0
385.0
410.0
321.5
358.0
109.0
235.0
520.0
524.0
389.0
419.0
467.0
504.0
421.5
443.0
343.0
350.0
78.0
78.0
397.0
399.0
318.5
350.0
7,743.5
2014-2015 Certified Projected
FPC
Head Count
53.0
58.0
752.5
792.0
875.0
888.0
948.5
988.0
43.0
99.0
1,116.5
1,120.0
1,045.0
989.0
4,833.5
2014-2015 Certified Projected
FPC
Head Count
40.0
34.0
1,411.0
1,426.0
94.0
350.0
1,012.5
1,104.0
1,590.0
1,595.0
1,474.0
1,525.0
1,524.0
1,541.0
$60.00 PP
Technology
Funding
36,240
37,140
30,420
31,620
28,980
23,400
21,000
28,680
26,580
24,600
21,480
14,100
31,440
25,140
30,240
26,580
21,000
4,680
23,940
21,000
508,260
Technology
Funding
3,480
47,520
53,280
59,280
5,940
67,200
59,340
296,040
Technology
Funding
2,040
85,560
21,000
66,240
95,700
91,500
92,460
90% Funding CARRY FORWARD
32,616
1,156
33,426
161
27,378
548
28,458
1,212
26,082
3,296
21,060
1,856
18,900
453
25,812
2,111
23,922
844
22,140
2,436
19,332
2,880
12,690
28,296
199
22,626
543
27,216
1,055
23,922
2,034
18,900
1,968
4,212
152
21,546
83
18,900
562
457,434
23,549
90% Funding CARRY FORWARD
3,132
585
42,768
1,310
47,952
3,348
53,352
3,688
5,346
60,480
2,526
53,406
23,743
266,436
35,200
90% Funding CARRY FORWARD
1,836
77,004
2,543
18,900
960
59,616
3,174
86,130
4,163
82,350
2,870
83,214
4,209
1,323
7,145.5
454,500
409,050
19,242
19,722.5
1,258,800
1,132,920
77,991
10
District 20 Charter (TCA)
2014‐15
The Classical Academy (TCA)
School Finance for Funding/Accounting
State/Local Share for School Finance
Gross Per Pupil Revenue
LESS Required Reductions:
State Budget Negative Factor
Rescission for School Finance Staff (.03%)
Total Per Pupil Reductions
Net Per Pupil Revenue
Funded Pupil Count
College Pathways On-line (PPR TBD)
Kindergarten
TCA Cottage (Part-Time) Less Kindergarten
College Pathways (Part-Time and Full-Time)
1st - 12th grades
Total FPC
Total Enrollment
School Finance Program Revenue
Other Revenue flow through (est.)
2008 Mill Levy Override
1999 Mill Levy Override
Restructuring Grants
Capital Contruction Grant (State)
English Language Learners, ELL (State)
Special Ed Revenue (state)
Impact Aid (estimate)
Other Revenue from General Fund (est.)
Revenue from General Fund
2013-14
Mid Year
2014-15
Adopted
Variance
$7,466.79
$7,466.79
$7,669.31
$7,669.31
$202.52
$202.52
($1,154.19)
(2.25)
($1,156.44)
($1,009.41)
(2.25)
($1,011.66)
$144.78
0.00
$144.78
$6,310.35
$6,657.65
$347.30
160.0
132.5
426.5
2,558.0
3,277.0
3,615.0
253.5
160.0
132.5
173.0
2,558.0
3,277.0
3,615.0
253.5
(253.5)
-
$20,679,017 $21,817,119 $1,138,102
1,584,639
412,500
450,000
159,811
50,000
1,765,374
412,500
450,000
336,200
16,000
159,811
50,000
180,735
336,200
16,000
-
2,656,950
3,189,885
532,935
23,335,967
25,007,004
1,671,037
233,232
233,232
Total Revenue
23,569,199
25,240,236
Less: Annual Intercept Payment Amount
$3,795,384
$3,795,384
$0
Total Revenue
19,773,815
21,444,852
1,671,037
268,649
268,649
19,505,166
21,176,203
Revenue from Federal IDEA (non-ARRA)
1,671,037
Buyback Services
-Annual Services
Total Buyback Services
Net Revenue Available for Operations
1,671,037
11
District 20 Staffing
District Resource Allocations (FTE)
Actual Allocations for FY 2013-2014
District Wide Employee Counts
Administration (100)
Teachers (200)
117.0
1,324.2
Support Serviced Instruction/Certified Library/Media (200)
34.6
Support Services Students/Counselors/Deans (200)
99.2
Support Services Instruction/Classified Library/Media (400)
16.3
Instructional Para Professionals (400)
372.9
Instructional Support Services (400)
65.3
Staff Specialists (300)
63.6
Office/Admin Support (500)
225.7
Crafts/Trades/Services (600)
346.5
Total District Staff
2,665.2
12
District 20 Staffing
District Resource Allocations (FTE)
Actual Allocations for FY 2013-2014
Crafts/Trades/Services (600)
13.00%
Administration (100) 4.39%
Office/Admin Support (500)
8.47%
Staff Specialists (300) 2.38%
Teachers (200) 49.69%
Instructional Support
Services (400) 2.45%
Instructional Para
Professionals (400) 13.99%
Support Services
Instruction/Classified
Library/Media (400) 0.61%
Support Serviced
Instruction/Certified
Library/Media (200) 1.30%
Support Services
Students/Counselors/Deans
(200) 3.72%
13
Colorado School Finance
2014‐15
END of PART 2
14