Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Recommendation April 12, 2011

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

What is the financial investment required? 3

Superintendent’s Proposed Budget 4

Comparison to Prior Year 5

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

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

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

Staff Prioritized Budget Reduction Recommendations included in Proposed Budget 9

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

Superintendent’s Recommendation for County Budget Request 11

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

Proposed Budget with Potential Budget Reductions (Tiers1-4) 13

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

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

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

What has been the return on past investments? 17

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

African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend *39n/a30n/a34n/a CMS gaps have narrowed consistently. *Mathematics for reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards. Math Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests) 19

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

African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend *41n/a39n/a37n/a CMS gaps have narrowed consistently. *Reading for reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards. Reading Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests) 21

(without retests) (with retests) Change (without retests) Algebra I* Algebra II* Biology** Civics & Economics* English I* Geometry* Physical Science**n/a US History* Composite *Test standards were raised in **Test standards were raised in Note: Chemistry and Physics were discontinued at the start of the school year End-of-Course Proficiency 22

Algebra I African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a27n/a24n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 23

Algebra II African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a23n/a21n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 24

Biology African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a23n/a21n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 25

Civics & Economics African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a23n/a21n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 26

English I African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a36n/a29n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 27

Geometry African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a23n/a21n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 28

US History African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend n/a27n/a31n/a The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 29

SAT School SystemTotal # Tested % Tested Total# Tested % Tested Total# Tested % Tested Total United States (All Students) ,518, ,530, ,547, North Carolina (All Students) , , , Charlotte- Mecklenburg , , ,

AP Pass Rates Global NC CMS

AP Tests Taken Number of Exams Taken Global2,105,8032,533,4312,736,4452,929,9293,213,225 NC76,57881,15185,37889,34492,334 CMS12,90311,28712,23113,29313,362 32

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

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

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

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

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

Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions 38

Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions 39

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

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

Superintendent’s closing remarks Q & A Conclusion 42

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