1. Edit the text with your own short phrase. The animation is already done for you; just copy and paste the slide into your existing presentation.

2. Local Report Card – Financial Data 73.6% of our revenues were put into classroom instruction 1 st out of 108 districts between 2500 and 4999 students in Ohio $8,324/pupil expenditure v. $9,228/pupil expenditure in Ohio We are headed toward our 4 th year in a row of revenues out-pacing expenditures while settling multi-year contracts with all three bargaining units.

3. Local Report Card – Performance Index FY14 v. FY15 The effect of the new standards and assessments (n = 46) Average PI scores in FY15 were 92.1% of FY14 PI scores Cuyahoga Falls: 98.3 -> 88.9 (90.4%) FY14 v. FY15 The effect as disaggregated by test type (online v. paper/pencil) Paper/Pencil = 94.9% Both = 90.0% (Firelands = 65.1% due to untested students) Online = 92.4% Cuyahoga Falls participated in online testing

4. Accelerated Students FY14 – 2 tests taken  One 3 rd grade student was accelerated to 4 th grade math  One 6 th grade student was accelerated to 7 th grade math Due to changes in the assessment system, improvements in our programming, and to provide greater opportunities, significant improvements were made as you will see on the next slide.

5. Accelerated Students FY15 – 459 tests taken  1 – 4 th grade student accelerated to Math 5  99 - 6 th grade students accelerated to Math 7  4 – 6 th grade students accelerated to Math 8  69 – 7 th grade students accelerated to Math 8  43 – 7 th grade students accelerated to Algebra 1  85 – 8 th grade students accelerated to Algebra 1  26 – 8 th grade students accelerated to Geometry  84 – 9 th grade students accelerated to Geometry  6 – 9 th grade students accelerated to English 10  41 – 8 th grade students accelerated to American History  1 – 9 th grade student accelerated to American History Why are we accelerating kids? We see it as a long-term investment in degree attainment (2 or 4-year degrees) for a greater percentage of our students who have demonstrated the capability. Later, you will see a slide detailing the rate of degree attainment within six years of graduating from high school.

6. Local Report Card - Indicators met Indicators Missed IndicatorReported Proficiency Rate State Average State Indicator 6 th Math46.7%65.4%67% 6 th Reading60.2%70.3%68% 6 th Social Studies 55.8%57.5%56% 7 th Math64.7%65.3%67% 7 th Reading54.5%68.6%68% 8 th Math44.8%53.7%51% 8 th Reading59.3%68.3%68% 8 th Science56.3%62.3%60% Government58.9%59%67% What if we didn’t accelerate students? IndicatorAdjusted Proficiency Rate State Average State Indicator 6 th Math60.9%65.4%67% 6 th Reading60.2%70.3%68% 6 th Social Studies 55.8%57.5%56% 7 th Math67.8%65.3%67% 7 th Reading54.5%68.6%68% 8 th Math50.1%53.7%51% 8 th Reading59.3%68.3%68% 8 th Science56.3%62.3%60% Government58.9%59%67%

7. Summit County Test Type Differences AssessmentPaper/Pencil Average Proficiency Rate Online Proficiency Rate ELA 690.875.1 ELA 787.375.1 ELA 888.373.8 Math 687.073.8 Math 782.279.4 Math 878.065.4

8. Local Report Card – Value Added Changes These results represent academic gains where a different set of standards was being taught and assessed in each of those years. 1-yr result v. 3-yr average – 2015 VA report card measures represent 1-yr VA result. 2014 VA report card results represented a 3-yr average. Change in growth standard calculation – 2015 VA report card measures are based on whether the group of students from the 2014- 2015 school year in the subject areas of math and ELA, grades 4-8, maintained the same relative position with respect to the statewide achievement from the 2013-2014 school year.

9. Local Report Card – Value Added Patrick O’Donnell - The Plain Dealer, Did “keyboarding” trouble kill your state report card grades? Online testing questioned 46 school districts compared: GradePaper/PencilBothOnline A982 B001 C002 D012 F0713

10. Local Report Card – K-3 Literacy FY14 Report Card K-3 ‘Improvement’ Students not ‘On-track’ FY15 Report Card K-3 ‘Improvement’ Students not ‘On-track’ 305/359 = 85.0% ‘A’38/89 = 42.7% ‘D’ So, we reduced the number of K-3 students not ‘On-track’ from 359 at the beginning of 2012-13 school year to 51 in 2014-15 and we received an ‘A’ and a ‘D’?

11. Local Report Card – Graduation Rate Cohort 2014 35 Non-graduates 13 – Students with Disabilities 7 – 5 th year graduates 3 – Still enrolled ESL students 3 – Staying until 22 nd birthday Cohort 2015 37 Non-graduates 9 – Students with Disabilities 8 – ESL 16 – Need less than 5 credits 8 – Truant It is very important that we keep our students in mind when we discuss statistics. When it comes to graduation rate, some of our students need more time to accumulate credits; we do our best to allow those students the time they need.

12. The message? Comparing FY15 assessment data with any previous year is like comparing an apple to a gorilla. Why? Old standards v. Common Core/State Standards Paper/Pencil v. Online The impact of providing greater opportunities to take accelerated assessments; why? End-of-course Exams – not counted in Value-Added Scores Using the 1-yr snapshot for Value-Added impacts the student’s relative position within the grade level, therefore the accelerated student may have been eliminated from the Value-Added calculation in that subject area. The bottom line; we will trade ‘looking good’ on a Report Card that is clearly transitional for the sake of ‘providing opportunities for kids’! Are there opportunities for improvement? Yes! Those opportunities are not being ignored! Will changes continue with the assessment system? Yes! The Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA or ‘No Child Left Behind’) has been reauthorized at the Federal level and PARCC has been eliminated at the State level.

13. National Clearinghouse Data CohortGraduates Enrolled Immediately After HS Graduates w/Degree Attainment w/in 6-yrs 200561%37% 200652%30% 200760%34% 200858%34% 200957%23% 201062%N/A 201157%N/A 201262%N/A 201356%N/A 201454%N/A 201559%N/A Ultimately, degree attainment (2 or 4-year degrees) is the economic driver of a community. It’s this number that we are trying to impact the most. Our current efforts are based on a long-term goal. N/A represents data that has not been calculated yet because the cohort is not six years beyond high school graduation.

14. ACT – Cohort 2015 % who met the PLAN CCR Benchmark % who met the ACT CCR Benchmark Mean PLAN ScoreMean ACT Score English90% (79%)67% (66%)18.6 (17.9)20.9 (20.6) Math45% (41%)41% (42%)19.5 (18.8)20.7 (20.8) Reading56% (49%)50% (46%)18.6 (18.0)22.1 (21.4) Science38% (43%)45% (39%)19.1 (19.3)21.8 (21.1) All Four29% (27%)29% (28%)19.0 (18.5)21.4 (21.0) Cohort 2015 – 234 students took the PLAN test as a sophomore; 213 took the ACT; 136 took both. The table below reflects those who took both and is used to demonstrate growth and to evaluate the program. The percentages in parenthesis reflects the National rate.

15. PSAT8 – Cohort 2020 Met CCR Benchmark - Verbal Met CCR Benchmark - Math Met CCR Benchmark - Both Mean Composite Score Bolich91%53%52%816 Roberts93%42%41%796 District92%48% 808 State87%43% 811 National79%38%37%800

16. Facilities – Survey Monkey 245 Responses to date 42.8% - 30-44 years of age 64.3% - Female 78.7% - Property owners 64.5% - Work outside CFalls 76.5% - Have school-aged children 53.3% - Support school construction 38.8% - One campus on Bolich site 45.1% - Support more, smaller elementary buildings 30.1% - Would change the 7-12 campus setting 70.0% - Are not willing to serve on CF Vision 2020 steering committee This is a snapshot of the data collected to date and should be seen as a conversation-starting not a decision- making set of information.

18. Levy Cycle November 2014 – 7.9 mill Renewal of Operating Levy = $5.79M April 2016 – Next Community Meeting October 2016 – Enrollment Projection Update October 2016 – Master Facilities Plan Decision November 2016 – 9.97 mill Renewal of Operating Levy = $7.23M December 2016 – Resolution of Acceptance January 2017 – OFSC Approval February 2017 – Two Resolutions to Board of Elections May 2017 – Bond Issue November 2017 – 4.75 mill Renewal of Operating Levy = $3.45M Items in red relate to any building project; those items in black relate to operating renewals