2000 Annual School District Meeting - East Troy Middle School

2000 Annual School District Meeting - East Troy Middle School

East Troy Community School 2012-13 Annual Meeting and District Budget Hearing I. II. III. IV. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Election of a Temporary Chairperson Appoint Recording Clerk V. DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS REPORT A. District History, Trends, and Stats

B. Student Achievement C. Additional Data Points Mission Statement Ensuring and providing 21st century learning through: engaged student learning, quality teaching, strong leadership, rigorous coursework, and community service opportunities while demonstrating efficiency and effectiveness for the betterment of the students and community. 21ST C. ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE VISION STATEMENTS

TIME FOR LEARNING REMOVE BARRIERS COMPETENCY BASED EDUCATION LOOK AT OUTCOMES, NOT BEING DEFINED BY GRADE OR AGE SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS/PARENTS/AGENCIES/HIGHER EDUCATION PROVIDE MEANINGFUL, PRACTICAL APPLICATION SKILLS THROUGH ASSIGNMENTS/PROJECTS HIGH QUALITY INSTRUCTION MORE ENGAGEMENT/INTEREST, MEETING THE NEEDS OF ALL LEARNERS UTILIZING RESOURCES, CREATING SELFDIRECTED LEARNERS HIGH LEVELS OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENTS AND STAFF CREATING OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INDIVIDUALIZED EXPERIENCES TO ENCOURAGE

SIX FACETS Student Achievement Quality Teaching / Quality Staff and Strong Instructional Leadership Technology Facilities Operations Community Engagement Dr. Hibner (2011) Goals

Ensuring a year to a year plus of learning growth for each child, each year Ensuring programming opportunities that recognize all talents Ensuring individualized learning by engaging students with a personalized learning environment Employing the highest quality professional staff Adapting facilities for current and future educational needs Demonstrating fiscal responsibility through HEAD COUNT

Headcount includes resident and non-resident students enrolled within the district. Headcount excludes resident students enrolled outside the district and in alternative and special education placements. The enrollment numbers in the following charts are as of September of each year, except for the estimate for the current year. ENROLLMENT HISTORY Estimate for 12-13 4K K-12 1800 1700 1600 1500 0 0 2

0 3 4 0 0 2 0 4 5 0 0 2 0 5 6 0 0

2 0 6 7 0 0 2 0 7 8 0 0 2 0 8 9 0

0 2 1 9 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 2

1 0 2 1 2 3 GENERAL FUND COMPONENT REVENUES 2012-13 SCHOOL YEAR Other; 8% Equaliza tion Aid (STATE); 20% Propert y Taxes (LOCAL) ; 72%

GENERAL FUND COMPONENT EXPENDITURES 2012-13 SCHOOL YEAR Other; 22% Fd 27 Transfer; 6% Salaries & Benefits; 72% GENERAL FUND & FD 27 SALARIES & BENEFITS 2012-13 SCHOOL YEAR Other; 23% Benefits; 23%

Salaries; 54% Salary/Benefit Distribution by Staff FTE Cost in Budget Support Staff Support Staff 20% 34% 56% 9% Teachers

14% Admin/ Supv 66% Teachers Admin/Supv Basic Salary/Benefits Only does not include extra duties. MILL RATE HISTORY (12-13 Estimate) $10.00 $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00

$5.00 See Appendix Rock Valley Athletic Conference 2010-11 Equalized Tax Levy Information for Comparables % Change in Equalized Value History 4 -6 See Appendix WI DPI Analysis of General Aid and Equalization Aid Formula Components for Comparisons to State Increases Mill rate can increase, even when taxes decrease Year 1 $200K

$200K Year 2 $190K $190K School Taxes: $2000 each School Taxes: $1,944 each (2.8% decrease) Mill rate: taxes/property (1,000) $2000/$200 = $10 Mill rate: $1944/$190 = $10.23 2011-12 Tax Levy By Municipality

Villag eTown of of Mukw Eagle onago Villag ;; e of 0.6% 0.5% East Troy; 21.6 % Town TownTown of of of East Troy;Sprin Troy;

15.9 g Town of 51.2 LaGrang % Prairi % e; 1.8% e; See Appendix Tax Bill Analysis for steps to understand the components of a tax bill. 3.9% Town of LaFay ette; 4.5% Report on Student Achievement

ACADEMIC Sustaining and increasing our focus on student learning / ACCOMPLISHMENTS achievement

Increasing our focus on quality assessment practices/quality feedback Began summer assessment opportunities to increase collective capacity Began Technology Tuesdays Increasing global awareness; especially at our elementary levels Moving toward implementation of PLTW to provide STEM opportunities Updating our webpage to communicate more successfully with all stakeholders Continuing to increase technology opportunities that enhance learning opportunities for all staff and reiterate our desire to be more efficient. Developed personnel policies that absolutely keeps our focus on becoming the district of choice Moving toward providing a personalized learning environment that is relevant and meaningful to each and every child Continuation of virtual course offerings and assessing implementation of more course offerings RESULTS LEARNING GROWTH AND ATTAINMENT

HIGH GROWTH / HIGH ATTAINMENT LOW GROWTH / HIGH ATTAINMENT HIGH GROWTH / LOW ATTAINMENT LOW GROWTH / LOW ATTAINMENT RESULTS - MAP 2005 Norms Study with Northwest Evaluation Association has concluded that a school district is successfully helping students to improve their annual achievement levels, if 50% or more of the students in the District reach their individual targeted growth goal for the school year.

RESULTS Reading 7 of 7 grade levels (2 8) had above 50% of students meet targeted growth for 2010 2011 school year per MAP results. Reading 7 of 9 grade levels (K 8) had above 50% of students meet targeted growth for 2011 2012 school year per MAP results. {Began taking MAP testing for K and 1st grades} RESULTS

Reading 2009 2010 school year our overall percentage was 61.5% of students (Grades 2 8) met their typical growth target. Reading - 2010 2011 school year our overall percentage was 67.7% (Grades 2 8) per MAP results. Reading 2011 2012 school year our overall percentage was 62.7% (K 8) / Grades 2 8 our percentage was 69%. REMINDER In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 60 - 70 percent of the students reach their growth norm target in reading. 2009 2010 (61.5%) 2010 2011 (67.7%) 2011 2012 (62.7%) *Grades K 8 for 2011 2012 school year

RESULTS Reading of 7 grades ( 3- 8 and 10), overall percentage of students scoring proficient and or advanced on WKCE was 88% for 2010 2011 school year. Reading of 7 grades (3 8 and 10), overall percentage of students scoring proficient and or advanced on WKCE was 87% for 2011 2012 RESULTS of COHORT Reading (2010 2011) of 6 grades (excluding 2nd grade) 4 of 6 cohorts

increased their overall percentage of students meeting norm target growth per MAP. Reading (2011 2012) of 6 grades (excluding 2nd, 1st and Kindergarten), 3 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage of students meeting norm target growth per MAP. *First and kindergarten took MAP testing for first time during 2011 2012 RESULTS of COHORT INCREASING OR DECREASING? Current 4th graders (2012 2013) > 2nd Grade 76% / 3rd Grade 72% Current 5th graders > 2nd Grade 50.4% / 3rd Grade 62.6% / 4th Grade 72.1%

Current 6th graders > 3rd Grade 71% / 4th Grade 75.6% / 5th Grade 70.6% Current 7th graders > 4th Grade 71% / 5th Grade 59.3% / 6th Grade 66.1% Current 8th graders > 5th Grade 69.4% / 6th Grade 58.9% / 7th Grade 65.6% Current 9th graders > 6th Grade 55.1% / 7th Grade 75.3% / 8th Grade 58.4% RESULTS of COHORT

Reading (2010 2011) of 6 grades (4 8 and 10), 4 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage meeting attainment for proficiency and or advanced per WKCE. Reading (2011 2012) of 6 grades (4 8 and 10), 2 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage meeting attainment for proficiency and or advanced per WKCE (excluding 3rd grade) RESULTS of COHORT Increasing or Decreasing? {AYP 87} Current 4th grade (2012 2013) > 3rd graders 80.2 (Meet AYP No)

Current 5th grade > 3rd graders 79.1 / 4th graders 85.0 (Meet AYP No) Current 6th grade > 3rd graders 82.8 / 4th graders 84.0 / 5th graders 90.7 Current 7th grade > 4th graders 81.5 / 5th graders 90.6 / 6th graders 82.3 (Meet AYP No) Current 8th grade > 5th graders 89.6 / 6th graders 89.4 / 7th graders 94.9 Current 9th grade > 6th graders 91.0 / 7th graders 88.0 / 8th graders 87.2 Current 11th grade > 6th graders 96.7 / 7th graders 95.9 / 8th graders 91.4 / 10th

90.6 RESULTS of COHORT Reading (2011 2012) 9 of 9 grade levels had above the 2011 Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the year. Actual Attainment v. Benchmark Attainment: Class

Class Class Class Class Class Class Class Class of of of of of of of of of 2024 2023 2022 2021

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 (K) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

159.5 (155.1) 179.4 (176.1) 191.9 (189.2) 205.3 (199.2) 209.3 (206.3) 217.9 (212.4) 220.6 (216.3) 224.8 (219.6) 226.3 (222.6) RESULTS Math 5 of 7 grade levels (2 8) had above 50% of students meet targeted growth for 2010 2011 school year per MAP results. Math 7 of 7 grade levels (2 8) had

above 50% of students meet targeted growth for 2011 2012 school year per MAP results. *1st Grade and Kindergarten will begin math MAP testing during the 2012 2013 school year. RESULTS Math 2009 2010 school year our overall percentage was 64.3% Math - 2010 2011 school year our overall percentage was 61.2% per MAP results. Math 2011 2012 school year our overall percentage was 75% (Grades 2 8) RESULTS

In the top 10% of schools nationally, about 65 - 75 percent of the students reach their growth norm target in mathematics. 2009 2010 (64.3%) 2010 2011 (61.2%) 2011 2012 (75%) *1st Grader and Kindergarten will begin math MAP testing during 2012 2013 school year. RESULTS Math (2010 2011) of 7 grades ( 3- 8 and 10), overall percentage of students scoring proficient and or advanced on WKCE was 86% for 2010 2011 school year. Math (2011 2012) of 7 grades (3 8 and 10), overall percentage of students

scoring proficient and or advanced on WKCE was 88% for 2011 2012 school year. RESULTS of COHORT Math (2010 2011) of 6 grades (excluding 2nd grade), 2 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage of students meeting norm target growth per MAP. Math (2011 2012) of 6 grades (excluding 2nd grade), 5 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage of students meeting norm target growth per MAP. RESULTS of COHORT

INCREASING OR DECREASING? Current 4th graders (2012 2013) > 2nd Grade 67.8% / 3rd Grade 78.2% Current 5th graders > 2nd Grade 54.2% / 3rd Grade 53.3% / 4th Grade 69.7% Current 6th graders > 3rd Grade 71.4% / 4th Grade 68.3% / 5th Grade 73.2% Current 7th graders > 4th Grade 74.8% / 5th Grade 48.7% / 6th Grade 84.2%

Current 8th graders > 5th Grade 63.3% / 6th Grade 80.3% / 7th Grade 69.8% Current 9th graders > 6th Grade 71.6% / 7th Grade 47.9% / 8th Grade 70.4% RESULTS of COHORT Math (2010 2011) of 6 grades (4 8 and 10), 1 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage meeting attainment for proficiency and or advanced per WKCE. *3rd Grade does take exam, but not included since second grade does not take exam. Math (2011 2012) of 6 grades (4 8 and

10), 4 of 6 cohorts increased their overall percentage meeting attainment for proficiency and or advanced per WKCE. RESULTS of COHORT Increasing or Decreasing? {AYP 79} Current 4th grade (2012 2013) > 3rd graders 87 Current 5th grade > 3rd graders 73.9 / 4th graders 80.5 Current 6th grade > 3rd graders 89.5 / 4th graders 88 / 5th graders 92.4

Current 7th grade > 3rd graders 87 /4th graders 90.2 / 5th graders 87.7 / 6th graders 88.5 Current 8th grade > 4th graders 87.3 / 5th graders 90.6 / 6th graders 90.4 / 7th graders 89.7 Current 9th grade > 5th graders 91.1 / 6th graders 95.5 / 7th graders 95 / 8th graders 96.8 Current 11th grade > 6th graders 90.8 / 7th graders 88.6 / 8th graders 88.3 / 10th graders 80.3 RESULTS of COHORT

Math (2011 2012) of 7 grade levels had above the 2011 Normative Data Reference (RIT Scores) at the end of the year. Actual Attainment v. Benchmark Attainment: Class Class Class Class Class Class Class of

of of of of of of 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

195 210.4 217.3 230 232.2 237.3 240 (191.3) (203.5) (212.4) (220.7) (226) (230.9) (234.4)

RESULTS of Explore / PLAN / ACT ACT SCORES Reading English Math Science Composite Student % 07 08 55.6%

22.6 21.4 21.5 22.1 22.0 08 09 22.4 20.8 21.4 22.1 21.9 09 - 10

65.8% 22.8 21.9 21.9 22.5 22.4 10 11 11 12 22.7 22.5 State Avg. 22.1 21.1 21.4 21.5

21.8 21.0 22.0 22.4 22.6 22.1 22.2 22.0 22.1 61.2% 62.3% 70.6% RESULTS OF ACT (Graduating Class) EAST TROY

2010 2011 2011 2012 22.2 (62.3%) 22.0 (70.6%) Mequon-Thiensville 25.6 (89%) 25.2 (79.7%) Elmbrook 25.2 (87%) 25.4 (84.5%) Arrowhead 24.8 (83.3%) 25.0 (83.2%) Kettle Moraine 23.8 (81.3%) 24.1 (?)

Mukwonago 23.4 (67.1%) 23.3 (62.9%) Waterford 22.9 (71.5%) 22.6 (68.7%) Waukesha 22.9 (57.1%) 22.5 (57.2%) RESULTS OF ACT 2010 2011 EAST TROY 2011 2012

22.2 (62.3%) 22.0 (70.6%) Burlington 22.4 (57.3%) 22.3 (58.1%) Elkhorn 21.8 (60.8%) 20.9 (?) Whitewater 21.6 (65.8%) 21.7 (63.6%) RESULTS of Cohort Explore / PLAN / ACT

Explore Scores (8th grade Class of 2016) for 2011 2012 school year: *Began 8th Grade Explore during 2011 2012 school year. E.Troy National Reading 14.4 14.6 Benchmark Scores English Math Science Composite 15 16.3 16.8 15.7

14.7 15 13 15.5 17 16.6 20 15.5 RESULTS of Cohort Explore / PLAN / ACT Student Focus Explore Scores (8th grade Class of 2016)

for 2011 2012 school year: *Began 8th Grade Explore during 2011 2012 school year. Number of students that met or exceeded designated benchmark: Reading (15) 43/96 National 51% English (13) 64/96 National 83% Math (17) 40/96 National 38% RESULTS of Cohort Explore / PLAN / ACT Explore Scores (9th grade Class of 2015) for 2011 2012 school year: E. Troy National

Reading English 17.3 17.4 15.4 Benchmark Scores 16 15.7 14 Math Science 17.7 18.6 16.3 17.1

18 20 Composite 17.9 16.2 RESULTS of Cohort Explore / PLAN / ACT Explore Scores (9th grade Class of 2014) for 2010 2011 school year: E. Troy Reading 16.2 National Avg. 15.3

English Math 17 17.4 15.5 Science 18.4 16.3 16.5 Composite 17.3 16.1 PLAN Scores (10th grade Class of 2014) for 2011 2012 school year: E. Troy National

Reading 18.4 (2.2) 16.9 English Math Science Composite 18 (1.0) 19 (1.6) 19.4 (1.0) 18.8 (1.5) 16.4 17.9 18 17.5 RESULTS of Cohort Explore / PLAN / ACT Student Focus Explore Scores (9th grade Class of 2014) for 2010 2011 school year:

Number of students that met or exceeded designated benchmark: Reading (15) 59/112 = 52% English (13) 93/112 = 83% Math (17) 54/112 = 48% Science (20) 29/112 = 26% National 51% National 83% National 38% National 27% PLAN Scores (10th grade Class of 2014) for 2011 2012 school year:

Number of students that met or exceeded designated benchmark: Reading (17) 82/112 = 73% English (15) 95/112 = 84% Math (19) 56/112 = 50% Science (21) 43/112 = 38% National National National National

56% 75% 38% 31% RESULTS of Cohort Explore / PLAN / ACT Explore Scores (9th grade Class of 2013) for 2009 2010 school year: Reading English Math Science Composite E. Troy 17 17.1 17.9 18.7 17.8 National 16.9

15.5 16.3 16.9 16.1 PLAN Scores (10th grade Class of 2013) for 2010 2011 school year: Reading English Math Science Composite E. Troy 18.7 (1.7) 18.2 (1.2) 19.9 (2.0) 20.3 (1.6) 19.4 (1.6) National 17.2

17.4 17.8 18.3 17.8 ACT Scores (11th grade Class of 2013) for 2011 2012 school year currently do not receive scores until after graduation: E. Troy ? ? ? ? ? (?/?) (?/?) (?/?) (?/?) (?/?)

RESULTS of COHORT Graduating Class of 2011 ACT Reading % 09 10 22.7 English 21.1 Math Science 21.8

22.4 Composite 22.2 Graduating Class of 2012 ACT 10 11 22.5 21.4 70.6% (6.3) (4.4) Explore 08 09 16.2 17.0 100% (Exam taken as 9th graders) 21.0 (4.3)

16.7 22.6 (4.9) 17.7 22.0 (5.0) 17.0 Student 62.3% STUDENT FOCUS

Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for grades 2 8 during 2010 2011 school year per MAP: 263 students Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for grades K - 8 during 2011 2012 school year per MAP (began MAP testing with kindergarten and first grade in reading during 2011 2012 school year): 353 Number of students that did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for grades 2 8 during 2011 2012 school year per MAP: 237 STUDENT FOCUS

{School Year Data of 2010 2011} - Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for two consecutive years per MAP: 55 students {School Year Data of 2011 -2012} - Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for two consecutive years per MAP: 35 students {School Year Data of 2010 2011} Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for three consecutive years per MAP: 16 {School Year Data of 2011 2012} Did not meet individual STUDENT FOCUS

{School Year Data of 2011 - 2012} Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for four consecutive years per MAP: 5 STUDENT FOCUS Did not meet individual targeted growth within math for grades 2 8 during 2010 2011 school year per MAP: 313 students Did not meet individual targeted growth within

math for grades 2 8 during 2011 2012 school year per MAP (will begin MAP testing with kindergarten and first grade in math during 2012 2013 school year): 204 STUDENT FOCUS {School Year Data of 2010 2011} - Did not meet individual targeted growth within math for two consecutive years per

MAP: 59 students {School Year Data of 2011 -2012} - Did not meet individual targeted growth within math for two consecutive years per MAP: 40 students {School Year Data of 2010 2011} Did not meet individual targeted growth within reading for three consecutive years per MAP: 18 {School Year Data of 2011 2012} Did not meet individual STUDENT FOCUS {School Year Data of 2011 - 2012} Did not meet individual targeted growth within math for four consecutive years per MAP: 1 Additional Results

District Data Points attendance, truancy rate, drop out rate, suspensions, expulsions, retention rate, high school completion rates, open enrollment students, home-schooled students, ELL students, gifted and talented, special education, extra-curricular, etc. PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventional Strategies) YRBS (Youth Risk Behavior Survey) School Perceptions Senior Survey VI. ANNUAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE TO EDUCATION AWARDS Congratulations and Thank You

to: Maureen Lindow VII. TREASURERS REPORT 2011-12 Budgeted Unaudited Variance EXPENDITURES General Fund 17,626,710 17,297,832 (328,878) Special Education Fund 1,690,314 1,640,910 (49,404) Debt Service Funds 2,297,635 2,297,636 1 REVENUES General Fund 17,626,710 17,639,194 12,484 Special Education Fund 1,690,314 1,640,910 (49,404) Debt Service Fund 2,341,905 2,342,012 107 Total fund balance increase of $341,362

VIII. PRESENTATION OF THE BUDGET 12-13 Key Aspects of REVENUES STATE BUDGET per pupil revenue limit increase of $50 (.54%) with matching $50 per pupil state aid provision (.54%) and state aid decrease of -15% due to hold harmless provision at 85% of previous years aid Projected Revenue Limit on July 1: $16,165,723: .54% increase

$3,487,168 state aid (-15%) $12,547,010 Fd 10 property taxes (4.83%) 12-13 Key Aspects of Shortfall Projected Shortfall: $410,991 original Budget reductions: 2nd grade 1.0 FTE due to class sizes Support Staff WRS EE contribution HS social studies .5 FTE reduction CPI decrease over projection for all salaries

Health insurance network change, increased deductible Dental and disability carrier changes IX. BUDGET HEARING By S. 65.90 Wis. Stats, common school districts must hold the public budget hearing at the time and place of the annual meeting. Residents have an opportunity to comment on the proposed budget. School District Funds 10 General Fund -Used to record district financial activities for current operations, except those activities required to be accounted for in separate funds. School District Funds 20 Special Project Funds

21 Special Revenue Trust Fund Gift / Donations Fund prudent when project directed by donation will cross fiscal years. 27 Special Education Fund Exceptional Educational Needs/Federal Handicapped/Other Special Projects School District Funds 30 Debt Service Funds Irrepealable debt tax levy and related revenues. Principal, interest, and related long-term debt retirement. 38 Non-referendum Approved Debt Service (within the revenue limit) 39 Referendum Approved Debt Service School District Funds 50 Food Service Fund Federal regulations require separate accounting for Food Service. Fund deficit must be eliminated through transfer

from the General Fund. Fund balance must be retained for use in Food Service. School District Funds 70 Trust Funds These funds are used to account for assets held by the district in a trustee capacity for individuals, private organizations, or other governments. East Troy utilizes this fund for its scholarship donations. School District Funds 80 Community Service Fund Fund established through S. 120.13 and 120.61,

Wis. Stats. Allows a school board to permit use of district property for civic purposes. Examples of activities could include adult education, community recreation programs, and/or day care services. LONG TERM DEBT As of September 1, 2012 Remaining principal on Fund 38 $755,000 (Debt Expires 9/19/2018). Remaining principal on Fund 39 $5,325,000 (Debt Expires 3/1/2018). What if the Referendum Passes? Fd 39, the referendum approved debt fund will increase Estimated at this time from $1,516,145 to $1,698,694

This is an estimated $20 impact on Fund 39 for a $150,000 home. Overall tax levy would increase from the estimated 5.21% to 6.56% $150,000 home average increase from $69.45 to $87.36. 02/10/2020 RESOLUTIONS (Page 61) X. Resolution A: Adoption of Tax Levy XI. Resolution B: Salaries for Board of Education Members XII. Resolution C: Set Date and Time for 2013 Annual Meeting East Troy School District XIII - Referendum 2012 Goal of Presentation

To provide information to increase understanding for upcoming referendum Needs Process Costs Tax Impact Referendum The district has a number of needs, including some very fundamental needs that must be addressed. Process

With the help of an advisory committee, the district created a master plan. This is a plan that outlines various facilities-related projects. Master plan In accepting the master plan, the board needed to determine what needs outlined in the master plan to address first. Now is the time

In October 2011, the School Board was able to decrease the overall levy 2.8% while paying off extra debt. The payment of that extra debt allows an opportunity in 2012 to replace those monies with a new referendum. Therefore, a $15 million debt referendum amortized over 20 years is a $0 tax impact. Interest rates and construction costs For every 1% below historically average interest rates, a 17.2 million dollar project avoids 2.2 million dollars in interest. Average interest over 25 years = 5.5%. Interest rates are currently below 3%. Therefore, a 2.5% interest savings would save approximately 5.6 million dollars. Selection of an option The solutions placed on the ballot by the board

Addresses critical safety and security needs at all of the schools Allows the schools to adopt and enhance updated teaching methods Supports and enhances science, technology, engineering and mathematics Creates a new performance and gathering place for the district and community Addresses cafeteria/kitchen and some athletic facilities Supporting and enhancing quality education Safety and Security

Secured entrances Security cameras Controlled building access Transportation congestion at Prairie View Supporting and enhancing quality education Classroom Renovation Larger classrooms to support project based learning at High School STEM laboratories to support Middle School and High School Project Lead the Way curriculum

Improve band and choral classrooms to better support the music curriculum Renovating the current tech areas to adapt to new careers Supporting and enhancing quality education Kitchen/Cafeteria Renovation supporting healthy dining choices Provides more space for prep work Provides more space for serving options Provides more space for storage Supporting and enhancing quality education Athletic Facilities

An opportunity to upgrade the facilities Supporting and enhancing quality education District Auditorium Inadequate facility - High School Lecture Hall: ADA compliance HVAC Space Performances Allows additional classroom space throughout high school that meets the practices / learning of today Programming opportunities for 21st century careers Supports Pre-K 12 Supports not only district, but community community auditorium Assist with District of Choice Now is the Time The impact A borrowing in an amount not to exceed

$17,200,000 through the issuance of general obligation bonds $17.2 million on the debt service levy equates to a $20 increase for a $150,000 home. The goal The goal of this referendum is to transform the East Troy High School from a building that hinders programming opportunities into a facility that supports the quality education that is going on there today and enhances learning for tomorrow. Ultimately, allowing us to begin addressing our Master Plan which we believe will enhance our district and Need to be competitive The districts master plan

addresses that which is broken, but also makes our schools competitive. Open enrollment No of Students 140 120 100 80 OE IN 60 OE OUT 40 20 0 2001-02

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Years 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Supporting and enhancing quality

education XIV. NEW BUSINESS XV. ADJOURN

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Desired outcome from the Missouri Collaborative Work ...

    Desired outcome from the Missouri Collaborative Work ...

    These groups will read and become experts on their assigned mind frames using the Jigsaw Activity Worksheet to record their thoughts. (8-10 minutes) 1's Mind frame 1 pp. 3-6 . 2's Mind frames 2,3,&4 pp 6-9. 3's Mind frames 5...
  • ASP.NET - neilveliz.com

    ASP.NET - neilveliz.com

    Daniel A. Seara Director Regional MSDN Buenos Aires - ARGENTINA NDSoft Objetivos Introducción a ASP.NET Conceptos y Arquitectura Características de ASP.NET ASP.NET Avanzado ASP.NET y el Microsoft® .Net Framework Contenido Sección 1: Generalidades Sección 2: Arquitectura El .NET Famework y...
  • Herd Health - teacher.co.ke

    Herd Health - teacher.co.ke

    Diseases. Any deviation from the normal state of health. Accurate disease diagnoses is an essential element in any health management program.
  • Ct image quality - TEIATH

    Ct image quality - TEIATH

    Optimizing image quality is the process of achieving a balance among the various characteristics (such as detail and noise) and adjusting the image quality to appropriate levels in order to manage the radiation dose to the patient. The clinical utility...
  • LETS EXPLORE THE STATES OF MATTER! Click the

    LETS EXPLORE THE STATES OF MATTER! Click the

    Liquid does not have a definite shape. It takes the shape of the container it is in. Liquid does have a definite mass. Liquid does have a definite volume. The soda pop in this bottle is a Liquid. The Liquid...
  • Proceso De Innovacion Y Creatividad Empresarial

    Proceso De Innovacion Y Creatividad Empresarial

    Grupo llegará a mayor variedad de puntos de vista y soluciones. Obstáculo personal a la generación ideas siguen operando (temor hacer ridículo y criticar). Objetivos pocos claro y métodos mezclados Rasgos personalidad dificultan objetivos de las ideas. BRAINSTORMING (lluvias de...
  • Ministerio de Salud

    Ministerio de Salud

    Consulta a un grupo de expertos médicos de diferentes especialidades, a los cuales se les pasó un instrumento individual. ... Se acudió a criterio de expertos para lograr una aproximación del peso porcentual de la otitis media aguda y la...
  • EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MDM/DG/RDM

    EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MDM/DG/RDM

    About the MDM Institute. Founded 2004 to focus on MDM. business drivers & technology challenges. MDM Advisory Council™ of 150 Global 5000 IT organizations with unlimited advice to key individuals, e.g. CTOs, data architects