K-3 Override Task Force 2006-2007

1. K-3 Override Task Force2006-2007 An Update for the Governing Board May 24, 2007

2. 2003 - The Present Following the work of the original K-3 Override Task Force, August through December 2003, the Governing Board adopted a resolution calling for a special K-3 M & O budget override election for Spring, 2004. K-3 Override Implementation 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 2007 K-3 Override Task Force

3. 2007 Task Force Members Toni Napper (P) –ALT Teresa Elves (T)- ALT Cheryl Leone (P)- AC Sandra Vargas (P)- AV Jeannie Swanson (T)- AV Jennifer Fisk (P)- AR Terry Shumaker (T)- AR Jocelyn Windman (P)-CW Kristin Bond (T)- CW Dawn Gunn (P)- CL Jeri Deane (T)- CL Elizabeth Martinez (P)- DV Keri Schlink (T)- DV Kristina White (P)- IR Jane Smith (T)- IR Wendy Wittenwyler (T)- JJ Jill Walker (T)- JJ Laura Perez (P)- LV Dawn Green (T)- LV Jack Doody (P)- LM Mandy Taylor (T)- LM Melinda Gallagher (P)- MZ Christine Dilworth (T)- MZ Tina Trejo (P)- MA Antoinette McCoy (T)- MA Ken Gallatin (P)- MM Kathy Thrall (T)- MM Lynel Sonnevelt (T)- MV Jill Hicks (P)- OR Coryn Rossbach (T)- OR Krystn Dale (P)- RM Diane Geise (T)- RM Anna Sanchez (P)- RR Cori Erickson (T)- RR Jana Hatcher (P)- SA Cheyana Leiva (T)- SA Tricia Toschik (T)- SA Amber Munig (P)- SB Sandie Hammon (T)- SB Michelle Ingersoll (P)- SU Libby Yoder (T)- SU Staci Snow (T)- SS Kelly Tate (P)- SN Mary Rooney (P)- SN Carroll Worsup (T)- SN Steffanie Hernandez (P)- SW Colleen Stringi (T)- SW Gretchen Pinkerton (P)- TU Sherry Bosch (T)- TU Susan Spellman (P)- WA Susan Clark (T)- WA Carol Bell (T)- WA Chair- Aaron Jahneke

4. Task Force Purpose: to offer a recommendation to the Superintendent and Governing Board regarding a call for continuation of the K-3 Override.

5. K-3 Override Task ForceTasks to Date Reviewed work of the original K-3 Override Task Force Identified questions to be answered regarding the schools’ plans, budgets, and promises made to voters Surveyed constituents pertaining to what is known about the K-3 Override plans at individual schools Requested data to answer identified questions Requested ‘School Finance 101 Course’ Analyzed data from multiple sources to determine whether promises made were kept

6. K-3 Override  A.R.S. 15-482 K-3 programs must: supplement what already exists; focus on low-achieving students; and remove barriers to academic achievement, improve instruction, or increase the amount of time for instruction.

7. Original K-3 Override Task Force Interests to address K-3 students who have fallen behind academically; to address programs that prevent the need for remediation; to improve the English acquisition of English language learners; and to meet the physical, intellectual, social, and emotional needs of K-3 students.

8. Original K-3 Override Task Force Interests cont. To provide options that… make the most beneficial use of the override revenue. improve the academic achievement of low-achieving K-3 students. improve the academic achievement of as many K-3 children as possible, given the revenue. provide additional time for K-3 children to interact with teachers/adults.

9. Original K-3 Override Task Force  Recommendation The following choices were offered to schools as options: Full-day kindergarten Reduced class size/ reduced student/ teacher ratios Intervention programs defined as in-school and after-school tutorial programs that focus on literacy, mathematics, and the acquisition of English

10. K-3 Override Election2004 Estimated revenues to fund the 5% Revenue Control Limit Override = $4,780,478.00 Estimated secondary tax rate increase per $100 of assessed valuation= 34¢ On a $103,613 home, the secondary tax increase would be $35.80 per year.

11. K-3 Override Implementation2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 Each year schools have reviewed data and updated plans. A K-3 Override Oversight Committee has reviewed the plans to ensure alignment with voter-approved choices. Notebooks with all school plans have been provided and are maintained in each school office. Each year plans have been brought to the Governing Board for approval.

12. K-3 Override Implementation 2004-2005 13 (of 27) schools offered Full-Day K (22.5 FTE) including two state-funded, plus one tuition-based 12 schools offered reduced class size (25.5 FTE) Academic Interventionists were in 20 schools (29.5 FTE) Additional Resources: Instructional Assistants (11.375 FTE) After-school tutoring stipends Staffing: $4.5 million Professional Development, substitutes, and supplies ($140,000)

13. K-3 Override Implementation 2005-2006 23 (of 27) schools offered Full-Day K (30.5 FTE), including five state-funded, plus one tuition-based 12 schools offered reduced class size (22.5 FTE) Academic Interventionists were in 20 schools (32.5 FTE) Additional Resources: Instructional Assistants (10.67 FTE) After-school tutoring stipends Staffing: $4.5 million Professional Development, substitutes, and supplies ($140,000)

14. K-3 Override Implementation 2006-2007 26 (of 27) schools offer Full-Day K (36.0 FTE), state funds additional weight per child 12 schools reduced class size (21.00 FTE) Academic Interventionists are in 20 schools (34.0 FTE) Additional Resources: Instructional Assistants (16.67 FTE) After-school tutoring stipends Staffing: $4.8 million Professional Development, substitutes, and supplies ($150,000)

15. Current K-3 Override Seven Year Timeline 04-05 yr 1 plans, budget =$4,667,325 05-06 yr 2 plans, budget =$4,684,019 06-07 yr 3 plans, budget =$4,945,867 07-08 yr 4 plans, budget =$5,345,066 08-09 yr 5 plans, budget =$5,451,968 09-10 yr 6 plans, budget = -$1.8 mil. 10-11 yr 7 plans, budget = -$3.6 mil. 2011-12 no K-3 Override $

16. Constituent Survey Members conducted an informal survey of peers, asking the question: “Do you know how we’re using the K-3 override monies at our school?”

17. Feedback Received The majority of staff, parents and community members did not know specifics of the plan and what services were being provided, other than full-day Kindergarten. This was particularly evident with both newer staff members and with parents who were new to the school community.

18. Recommendations Discussed survey data with principals and asked them to review the plans with staff and community through Site Council meetings, newsletters, PTO/A. Requested that there be a District-wide publication of information pertaining to the K-3 Override. April 2007 WESD News included this information.

19. School Finance 101Lessons Learned School district budgets are funded according to limits set by legislative action each year. These limits are based on a per student amount. Some items can be budgeted outside these limits with voter approval through secondary property tax levied to taxpayers.

20. Kindergarten Group B Funds These funds were added to the budget for 06-07. These funds helped supplement the money lost when the Full Day Kindergarten funding was discontinued.

21. How Does the Override Affect the Tax Rate? The secondary tax rate has decreased over the last two years in WESD because the assessed valuation in the district has increased. While the district is not adding additional levies (in fact the rate is lower), the cost to a taxpayer may have increased because the value of their home has increased.

23. Questions to be Answered What has the impact of the K-3 override been to date? Does WESD have a continuing need for the programs funded through the override?

24. Demographic Trend Data Studied Kindergarten Enrollment Cohort Enrollment Free and Reduced Lunch Status Title I Status Mobility

25. Kindergarten Enrollment 2003-2007 2003-2004 No Full-Day Kindergarten Classes 2004-2005 13 Schools 2005-2006 24 schools 2006-2007 26 schools

26. K-3 Cohort Enrollment 2003-2007

27. WESD Demographics 2001-2006

28. English Language Learners1989-2006

29. Question to be Answered Have full-day kindergarten, reduced class size, and intervention programs impacted student achievement?

30. Achievement Data Studied Included: Kindergarten Reading Assessment Data Full-day:Half-day Comparison Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) K-3

31. Growth of Half-Day Compared to Full-Day Programs 2004-2005

32. Developmental Reading Assessment

33. Processing the Data Identified pros and cons of the current K-3 Override programs Identified advantages and disadvantages of a November 2007 election Determined whether a continuation of the K-3 Override is warranted

34. 100 % Consensus The Task Force concluded through 100% consensus that they bring forward to the Superintendent and Governing Board their recommendation to call for a continuation of the K-3 Override in a November 2007 election.

35. Additional Communication Began the development of documentation regarding the current and potential future override: Programs, Promises, Projection Posted information on the Internet, including an email address for feedback Drafted a Community Connections article for distribution in late May Reviewed the 2007-2008 school plans drafts for dual purpose: alignment with statute and as future documentation

36. Planning Ahead Karen Osborne, County Elections Office presented the rules regarding school override elections Doreen Zannis shared information about SOS

37. Next Steps On June 14, the Task Force will bring forth their recommendation and accompanying documentation.