1. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget Recommendation April 12, 2011

2. 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

3. What is the financial investment required? 3

4. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget 4

5. Comparison to Prior Year 5

6. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget* SOURCES * Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 6

7. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget* USES * Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds 7

8. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget* 8 * Operating Budget only – does not include Capital or Enterprise Funds

9. Staff Prioritized Budget Reduction Recommendations included in 2011-12 Proposed Budget 9

10. Factors Increasing the 2011-12 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.

11. Superintendent’s Recommendation for 2011-12 County Budget Request 11

12. Superintendent’s 2011-12 Proposed Budget (Does not include reductions in Tiers 1-4 totaling $86.8M) 12

13. 2011-12 Proposed Budget with Potential Budget Reductions (Tiers1-4) 13

14. Capital Replacement 2011-12 Proposed Budget Historically funded from state’s Public School Capital Building Fund but since 2006-07 has been funded with County revenues Provides pay-as-you-go funding for systematic and scheduled major repair and replacement of major assets 14

15. Child Nutrition 2011-12 Proposed Budget Child Nutrition serves more than 30,000 breakfasts and 80,000 lunches per day Meal costs have not increased since 2001-02, but the lunch price will increase by 5 cents per meal in 2011-12 due to a Federal requirement 15

16. After School Enrichment Program 2011-12 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

17. What has been the return on past investments? 17

18. 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* 2005-06 2006-072007-082008-092009-10Change Grade 370 7275+5 Grade 46769717476+9 Grade 56869727476+8 Grade 662 656872+10 Grade 75860646871+13 Grade 86263657278+16 Composite6465687275+11 Math Proficiency (without retests) 18

19. African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2005-06*39n/a30n/a34n/a 2009-1030-921-925-9 CMS gaps have narrowed consistently. *Mathematics for 2005-06 reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards. Math Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests) 19

20. Reading Proficiency* 2007-082008-092009-10Change Grade 3565859+3 Grade 4606263+3 Grade 5576063+6 Grade 6586266+8 Grade 7495457+8 Grade 8515761+10 Composite555962+7 Reading Proficiency (without retests) Since the test standards were raised in 2007-08, CMS has increased proficiency at each grade level by between 3 and 10 percentage points. *Percentage of scores at Levels III and IV 20

21. African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2007-08*41n/a39n/a37n/a 2009-1038-337-235-2 CMS gaps have narrowed consistently. *Reading for 2007-08 reflects the state adjustment of minimum proficiency standards. Reading Gap Trends - Grades 3-8 (without retests) 21

22. 2006-072007-082008-09 2009-10 (without retests) 2009-10 (with retests) Change (without retests) Algebra I*7271798287+10 Algebra II*6267767885+16 Biology**637278 84+15 Civics & Economics*6671777883+12 English I*7174768085+9 Geometry*5865737783+19 Physical Science**n/a53616471+11 US History*7174798489+13 Composite6770767985+12 *Test standards were raised in 2006-07 **Test standards were raised in 2007-08 Note: Chemistry and Physics were discontinued at the start of the 2009-10 school year End-of-Course Proficiency 22

23. Algebra I African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2006-0735n/a27n/a24n/a 2009-1024-1115-1218-6 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 23

24. Algebra II African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2007-0831n/a23n/a21n/a 2009-1018-139-1411-10 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 24

25. Biology African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2007-0831n/a23n/a21n/a 2009-1024-721-218-3 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 25

26. Civics & Economics African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2007-0831n/a23n/a21n/a 2009-1024-72220 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 26

27. English I African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2006-0732n/a36n/a29n/a 2009-1022-1022-1420-9 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 27

28. Geometry African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2007-0831n/a23n/a21n/a 2009-1024-714-916-5 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 28

29. US History African-American vs. White Hispanic vs. White Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged Students YearGapGap TrendGapGap TrendGapGap Trend 2005-0639n/a27n/a31n/a 2009-1018-2113-1413-18 The gaps have narrowed in each subgroup. Trends within Subgroups (without retests) 29

30. SAT 2005-062006-072007-082008-092009-10 School SystemTotal # Tested % Tested Total# Tested % Tested Total# Tested % Tested Total United States (All Students) 1518 15111,518,85945.015111,530,12846.015091,547,99047.01509 North Carolina (All Students) 1493 148655,44263.0148957,14763.0148657,84163.01485 Charlotte- Mecklenburg 1476 4,65668.414894,45060.614925,00765.71497 30

31. AP Pass Rates 2005-062006-072007-082008-092009-10 Global6059585958 NC5558 59 CMS4247484951 31

32. AP Tests Taken Number of Exams Taken 2005-062006-072007-082008-092009-10 Global2,105,8032,533,4312,736,4452,929,9293,213,225 NC76,57881,15185,37889,34492,334 CMS12,90311,28712,23113,29313,362 32

33. 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 2005-0654.3% 2006-0767.6% 2007-0878.3% 2008-0989.6% 2009-1094.7% *Metro and Morgan are excluded from these counts because the state identifies them as schools with no ABC status 33

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

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

36. The greatest challenge facing CMS may be this - If we have to cut an additional $86 million* from the 2011-12 budget, it could jeopardize the strong academic progress we’ve made since 2006. 36 *remainder of $101 million in potential cuts previously identified

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

38. Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions 38

39. Staff Prioritized Potential Budget Reductions 39

40. 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

41. 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 2011-12 proposed budget approved May 13 – Board of Education's 2011-12 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 2011-12 Budget Workshop May 26 – Public hearing on Board of County Commissioners’ 2011-12 Budget June 1 – Deadline for notifying administrators of non-renewal June 15 – Deadline for notifying teachers of non-renewal June 21 – FY2011-12 County Operating Budget and 3-year CIP adopted Key Dates 41

42. Superintendent’s closing remarks Q & A Conclusion 42

43. 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