The Final Report - Malcolm Shabazz City High School, Madison WI

MADISON METROPOLITANSCHOOL DISTRICTFunctional AnalysisVirchow, Krause & Company, LLPTen Terrace CourtP.O. Box 7398Madison, WI 53704-7398March 11, 2002

MADISON METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICTTABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary 1 – 2Project Overview 3 – 7Budget Discussion 8 – 10Mandate Analysis 11 – 43Budget Decision Items 44 – 143Allocation Analysis 144 – 155Administration 156 – 157Grant Analysis 158 – 160Operational Efficiency Review Recommendations 161 – 162Functional Analysis Model Implementation 163 – 164AppendicesA – Master Listing of District FunctionsB – Grant Information

Executive SummaryThe Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) is and has historically been recognized as oneof the best in the nation. This valid reputation is based on student achievement results, depth ofinstructional programs, and innovative approaches to serve a student population with diverseneeds. Specifically, MMSD is one of the only districts in the nation to see an improvement inreading achievement levels while at the same time experiencing an increase in studentpopulation categorized within the lowest poverty levels. It is also known as a district thateffectively meets the instructional needs of students with disabilities.The ability to maintain this high level of quality in serving District students requires a substantialfiscal investment. At present, MMSD spends approximately $2,000 more per student than itspeer districts within the State of Wisconsin to ensure this high standard of quality. During thepast decade, astute fiscal management on the part of the District has allowed it to accommodatethis commitment to exceptional, quality and comprehensive education for all students.While MMSD’s commitment to quality has not changed, the cumulative impact of state revenuecaps (instituted by the Wisconsin Legislature in 1993) has made it impossible for the District tocontinue to provide the current depth and breadth of quality programming. Combined with stableto decreasing enrollment projections, the District is facing the need to reduce an estimated $5million-$7 million from its base budget in the next fiscal/school year and a similar amount in thefollowing years.These required reductions will have a significant impact on the level of quality programming theDistrict can realistically continue to provide, but to which residents of the school district areaccustomed. During the past five years, the District has already made significant cuts to the basebudget that did not adversely affect instructional programming or services to the schools. Assuch, the District now faces increasingly tough choices in how to accomplish additionalbudgetary reductions.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP, was retained in the Fall of 2001 to assist the District inconducting a functional analysis of all District operations and resources. The main objectives ofthis analysis were to:• identify potential functions or programs for consideration in making reductions• to provide a tool to analyze the impacts of the identified potential reductionsOne main assumption in performing the analysis was that functions that are core to classroom(i.e. core to classroom instruction) would not be considered for reduction. Instead, the mainfocus of the analysis was on functions/programs that were identified as instructional support (i.e.indirect support of the classroom instructor), instructional discretionary (i.e. indirectly related toclassroom instruction) and corporate discretionary (i.e. indirectly related to providing coreservices necessary for the District operation).The following report provides our methodology for conducting the functional analysis, a menu ofbudget decision items for District consideration, and documentation supporting the analysis.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 1March 11, 2002

Executive Summary (cont.)Fortunately, we found that although the District is facing some tough choices, the level of cutsrequired is not yet at the level that requires abandonment of a considerable level of programs orfunctions. In fact, the analysis shows that the District has many instances where a reduction inservice delivery level or modification to the budgetary allocation process can preserve theprogram or function at a meaningful level (i.e. quality programming). Specific analysis of stateand federal mandate requirements shows that given its commitment to quality programming, theDistrict is exceeding mandated programming in several cases (see chart on pages 12 - 43).Our analysis provides the District with a tool for future analysis of potential areas for budgetreduction, and a menu of potential areas for consideration in meeting the first $5 millionreduction required in the next budget. Overall, a range of $12.7 million to $21.7 million in budgetreductions has been identified. Of this amount, a range of $8.4 million to $12.2 million is fromspecific reductions or elimination in functional or programmatic areas. Another $4.2 million to$9.6 million can be gained from consideration of changes to staff allocation methods.Again, these identified reductions are not recommended reductions, but rather representavailable options and the impacts (i.e. fiscal, student, collective bargaining agreement) ofimplementing the identified reduction. It is our belief that although these identified reductionspresent realistic options backed by comprehensive analyses, the District may also determineslight variations to the identified reductions are more feasible based on District needs. Our goalwas to provide a tool and methodology to ensure decisions are made on common criteria andthat can be used for future budget decisions as well.We are confident that the tool and information provided will assist the District to maintain itscommitment to providing a comprehensive and quality educational experience for MadisonMetropolitan School District students within the constraints imposed by state revenue caps.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 2March 11, 2002

Project OverviewIn October 2001, the Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD) selected Virchow, Krause &Company, LLP and its subcontractor, AZ Consultants, to conduct a functional analysis of Districtfunctions. Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP is a Wisconsin-based consulting and certified publicaccounting firm specializing in services to school districts and local units of government.PURPOSE AND SCOPEDue to state imposed revenue caps and declining enrollments, MMSD faces significant fiscalconstraints. Specifically, if the District were to continue with the 2001-2002 service budget, itwould experience budget deficits of $5 - $10 million in the coming years. Recognizing thesubstantial budget reduction requirements ahead, the District sought an independent, objectivefunctional analysis. The District is to be commended for investing in this functional analysis priorto proceeding with budgetary decisions, to ensure that those difficult decisions are made withobjective, consistent information about the effects of potential decisions on the District’sstudents, staff, and community.A functional analysis is a systematic approach to analyzing all the District’s functions thatidentifies and categorizes functions according to an established set of unique screening criteria.This process, known as managed abandonment, allows the District to identify functions thatcould be abandoned (along with the programmatic impact of abandonment). In addition, theanalysis also identifies function reduction opportunities – where functions cannot be abandonedentirely but where savings can be achieved through reductions in functions.As Superintendent Rainwater has noted, there are several key assumptions behind the functionalanalysis. These assumptions are:• Every single thing the District does is good for kids. Long ago the District eliminated all thosethings that were peripheral.• All District staff members - teachers, administrators, custodians and food service workers –are good at what they do.• The District has very talented people that work very hard and that work very smart.• Site-based teachers and administrators currently have full time jobs – and they can't absorbmore work. Functions cannot move from the central office to people at the site because sitebasedstaff members are working as hard and as efficiently as possible.With these assumptions in mind, the results of the functional analysis are presented in thisreport. Where we identified an opportunity for managed abandonment or function reductionbecause the function is discretionary or support or exceeds the level of service required bystatutes, we have developed decision items. Inclusion of a function as a decision item does notmean that the function does not add value to the students or staff of the District. Again, theassumption behind the functional analysis is that everything the District does is good for kids. Adecision item is simply a case where the District is engaged in a discretionary or support activitythat could be abandoned or a core/required activity that exceeds mandate or policyrequirements.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 3March 11, 2002

PURPOSE AND SCOPE (cont.)The decisions facing the District are difficult; the analysis we provide is intended to frame thesedecisions with data about the impact, cost, and policy implications of programs so that Districtdecision makers have the information they need to make informed decisions. At the same time,there were many cases where quantitative data on program effectiveness, impact or successwere not available. In those cases, we attempted to include any available quantitative data,coupled with qualitative information.This functional analysis is intended to provide the District with consistent, objective informationto use in decision making. The functional analysis does not make decisions about where theDistrict should target budget reductions. It merely recognizes that the District faces difficultdecisions, and attempts to frame those decisions within a balanced, analytical and objectiveframework.APPROACH AND METHODOLOGYThe cornerstone of our approach to completing this functional analysis is our decision model.The model began with identification of all functions and sub-functions within the District. We thendeveloped categories into which all functions could be divided (see below). Next, we developedscreening criteria – a standard set of variables used to analyze all functions based on howfunctions are categorized. For example, all mandated functions underwent the same analysis,while all instructional discretionary items were analyzed on a distinct set of criteria.Through the application of screening criteria, we identified items where a decision was required.In light of the fiscal constraints facing the District, a decision item was a case where a functionwas material in cost and could be eliminated or reduced (based on the screening criteria).Decision items attempt to frame the potential effects of function elimination or reduction, in lightof data available.In designing the decision model, we embedded two crucial features. First, we took great lengthsto avoid substituting our value judgments for those of District decision-makers. As a result, we donot offer recommendations, but rather frame the budget decision options. The second crucialfeature of our model is that all functions are analyzed within the same framework. Theapplication of a standard set of functional categories and screening criteria (coupled with anobjective perspective) was intended to foster consistency in analyzing functions across programareas, departments, and divisions within the District.In order to implement this approach, the following tasks were completed:• Each department and division submitted a listing of their functions and sub-functions.• All sub-functions were classified into one of the following functional categories forscreening purposes:Core to Classroom Instruction – providing direct core classroom instruction for the District(e.g. Math instruction)Health and Safety – directly related to the well-being of students or District employees(abandonment would create direct negative impact on health or safety)Mandated (State or Federal) – mandated through specific state or federal statues or legaladministrative rulesInstructional Support – resources directly supporting core classroom instruction (e.g. supportinstruction, equipment, supplies)Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 4March 11, 2002

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY (cont.)Instructional Discretionary - indirectly related to classroom instruction (e.g. athletics, schoolforest, extracurricular)Core to Corporate – providing direct core services for the District (e.g. building maintenance,payroll, accounting)Corporate Discretionary - indirectly related to core corporate functionsCompetitive Grant – Directly linked to grant funding (spending can be traced to specificgrant(s))• Interviewed staff, gathered data, and analyzed functions and sub-functions based oncategory assigned, using the following screening criteria:#1 Core to Classroom- Enrollment projections- FTE allocated to function- Impact of FTE change- Standards for course offerings/class size- Student/Teacher ratios#2 Health and Safety- Validate key impact /risk on employee/student health- Identify opportunities for outsourcing#3 Mandated- Research legislative language- Level of service provided (comparison with mandated level)- Alternatives for service delivery#4 Instructional Support- Student impact- Strategic priorities and plan recommendations –- Is it effective in meeting priorities – performance measures/qualitative data- Are there redundancies or overlap- Is the service available elsewhere- Are there service delivery issues- Expenditures/Revenues/Fees- FTE allocated to function#5/#7 Instructional Discretionary / Corporate Discretionary- Student/employee impact- Strategic priorities and plan recommendations- Collective bargaining agreement impacts- Alternatives to current service delivery/reduction alternatives- Is it effective in meeting priorities – performance measures/qualitative data- Are there redundancies or overlap- Is the service available elsewhere- Are there service delivery issues- Expenditures/Revenues/Fees (current and potential)- FTE allocated to functionVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 5March 11, 2002

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY (cont.)#6 Core to Corporate- Identify requirements- Level of service provided (requirements being exceeded)- Alternatives for service delivery#8 Competitive Grants- Length of grant (years)- Level of revenue- Partially or fully funded- Required in-kind matches- Required/anticipated continuation of service once grant lapses• Conducted a survey of principals to gather their perspective on the relativeimportance of select functions and the priority they place on functions and programs.• Reviewed state statutes relative to mandated functions to determine whethermandates were being met and/or exceeded.• Development of potential cost savings through managed abandonment ofservice/program/staff reductions.REPORT FORMATVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP is pleased to present MMSD with the results of the functionalanalysis.The report's format should assist the District in addressing issues relative to the overallbudgeting and functional analysis process. Before presenting our findings, we wish to thank allthose who participated for their cooperation, time and involvement. We received a high level ofcooperation from all those contacted regarding this review.This report, by its nature, focuses on decisions around budget reductions and does not focus onthe many strengths of District’s operations, systems, and procedures. We understand that theDistrict is committed to maintaining a quality education and are confident that this analysisfacilitates that commitment.The body of the report opens with an overall discussion of the budget and expenditures of theDistrict, designed to provide an overview of the fiscal environment. This information sheds lighton the nature of the fiscal constraints facing the District and is a backdrop against which thedecision items should be viewed.The next section, mandate analysis, provides information on mandated functions and subfunctions,identifying current requirements and (where possible) anticipating upcomingrequirements. The District’s level of service is then compared to the mandated level. Caseswhere a material difference existed between the required and actual levels of service resulted ina decision item.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 6March 11, 2002

Budget DiscussionOVERALL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES AND COMPARISONThe District’s 2001-2002 budget includes a total of $280.8 million in expenditures and $279.3 inrevenues.Expenditures by Major Program Category (in millions of $)Million %Elementary Schools $ 60.1 21.4Secondary Schools 64.9 23.1General District Administration 4.2 1.5Teaching and Learning 7.2 2.6School Planning 2.5 0.9Educational Services 60.2 21.4Student Services 16.0 5.7Business Services 46.8 16.7Human Resources 6.4 2.3MSCR/Community Recreation 4.3 1.5Debt Service 7.0 2.5Miscellaneous District-wide 1.2 0.4TOTALS $ 280.8 100Notable is the fact that debt service costs have declined from $9.7 million in 1999-2000 to $7.0million in 2001-2002, a decline of 28%.Salaries and fringe benefits in all program functional areas listed above are approximately 86%of the District’s budget ($241.5 million).The budget increased 4% in 2001-2002 from 2000-2001, while the property tax levy increased3%. The corresponding increases in 2000-2001 from 1999-2000 were 5.4% and 2.65%,respectively.MAJOR REVENUE SOURCESThe largest three sources of revenue: property taxes, general state aid, and handicapped aidscomprise 83.5% of budgeted District revenues in 2001-2002. Listed below are all major sources:Million %Property Taxes $155.6 55.7General State Aid 60.4 21.6Handicapped Aid 17.4 6.2Interest on Investments 3.0 1.1Computer Aid 2.5 0.9Title I 3.2 1.1Food Service 6.5 2.3Safe Schools Grant 2.7 1.0Federal Entitlement Grants 3.1 1.1MSCR/Community Recreation 2.3 0.8All other 22.6 8.1TOTALS $279.3 100Data source: Madison Metropolitan School District Proposed Budget, 2001-2002Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 8March 11, 2002

MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES (cont.)Expenditure and revenue comparison to similarly sized districts (2000-2001 budgeted)Total Per% Revenues from*DistrictStudentExpenditures Local State FederalMadison Metropolitan $10,166 63.6 30.6 5.6Racine $8,713 30.0 63.4 6.3Kenosha $8,683 32.2 60.0 7.2Green Bay Area $8,889 38.5 53.9 6.3Appleton Area $8,270 38.5 58.4 2.8Waukesha $8,942 55.3 41.5 2.7Eau Claire Area $9,398 41.3 53.4 4.7Oshkosh Area $8,026 34.3 60.8 3.8Janesville $8,343 35.5 60.2 3.8Sheboygan Area $9,381 35.6 61.5 3.8Total Schools >10,000pupils (minus Madison) $8,738 37.9 57.0 4.6% Madison above avg. 16.3%State of WI – all schools $8,786 39.1 54.7 5.0% Madison above avg. 15.7%*Operating revenuesSource: SchoolFacts01, Wisconsin Taxpayers AllianceAs the table indicates, Madison’s total per student budgeted expenditures for 2000-2001 wereapproximately 16% higher than the statewide average and the average for the nine (9) districtshaving more than 10,000 students excluding Milwaukee.In addition, Madison’s reliance on local funding, largely from the property tax, is significantlyhigher than the statewide average. Conversely, Madison receives a much smaller share of itsbudget for operations from state aid, 30.6% vs. the statewide average of nearly 55%. The lowerproportion of state aid is a result of the state equalization aid formula whereby “property rich”districts receive a much lower percentage of state aid. The formula is built on the premise thatdistricts with a higher ability to pay with local funding (higher property values per student) shouldreceive less state aid.State revenue caps, enacted to lower and stabilize school property taxes in 1993 when the statesignificantly increased its share of public school costs, restrict the amount of revenue theMadison School District can raise from local property taxpayers. The revenue limit law is tied toenrollment and the District, projecting declining enrollments, is particularly adversely affected. Asenrollments decline, the revenue caps allow a lower percentage increase in the amount ofproperty taxes that can be levied for elementary and secondary education. Hence, it will need toreduce an estimated $5 million from its 2001-2002 base budget for fiscal/school year 2002-2003,$10 million in 2003-2004, $15 million in 2004-2005, $20 million in 2005-2006, and $25 million in2006-2007, according to District projections.Essentially, fewer students do not mean proportionally lower costs. Fixed costs for such thingsas utilities and transportation, for example, are the same as enrollments decline. In addition, theDistrict faces increasing costs for most of its expenditures, especially salary and fringe benefitcosts.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 9March 11, 2002

MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES (cont.)Hence, the state revenue caps are forcing the District to reduce its base budget unless areferendum to exceed the caps is approved.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 10March 11, 2002

Mandate AnalysisGiven the nature of the District as a public educational entity, and the fact that a significantportion of funding is received from federal and state sources, the District is required to complywith a considerable level of mandated requirements. A component of this functional analysis wasan assessment of whether mandated functions, as identified and categorized from the initialfunctional listing, are being met and in which cases the service provided by the District is in factexceeding what is required.These mandates can be categorized as follows:Federal mandate – legal requirementFederal mandate – funding requirementState mandate- legal requirementState mandate – funding requirementDepartment of Public Instruction – administrative rule requirementDepartment of Public Instruction – 20 standardsFor ease of use, the chart which follows attempts to tie the relevant mandates , whether state orfederal, to a single functional area. It should be noted that the DPI standards are in actuality bestpractices rather than legal mandates. In recent years auditing of District implementation of thesestandards has been decreasing as state resources toward this effort are reduced.The District has a formidable challenge in ensuring compliance. However, efforts intended tofurther quality service to students should not be confused or misinterpreted as mandaterequirements. As indicated by the information below, in many instances the District is providingservice offerings that exceed the required state or federal mandate. In these cases, more detailis provided in the corresponding decision item found in the next section.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 11March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceBoard of Education WI Stat.The school districtBoard records19.21(1)is responsible tomaintenance andkeep and remain theretentionlegal custodian ofproperty and thingsfrom their office’spredecessor andothers required bylaw to be filed,deposited, or kept inthe officer's office,or which are in thelawful possession orcontrol of the officeror the officer'sdeputies.Business ServicesHomelessTransportationThe Stewart B.McKinneyHomelessAssistance ActSection 721(1) each state educational agency (SEA) shallensure that each homeless child and/or youth hasequal access to the same free, appropriate publiceducation, including a public preschool education, asprovided to other children and youth; (3)homelessness alone should not be sufficient reasonto separate students from the mainstream schoolenvironment; and (4) homeless students should haveaccess to the education and other services neededto ensure that they have an opportunity to meet thesame challenging state student performancestandards to which all students are held.The Districtprovidesindividualizedservices for childrento their home schoolof origin. Service isoften taxicab orotherwiseindividualized.ServiceLevelMeetsExceeds –options foralternatemethods ofservicedelivery areavailableCommentsSee Decision itemVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 12March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceBusiness Services WI Stat. 121.54 General transportation (a) Except as provided in 1.5 mile radiusPupil Transportation (2)sub. (1), every school board shall providecurrently in place @2 Mile Radiustransportation to and from public school for all pupils MMSDwho reside in the school district 2 miles or more fromthe nearest public school they are entitled to attend.Business ServicesPupil TransportationHazardsBusiness ServicesSpec. Educ.TransportationWI Stat. 121.54(9)WI Stat. 121.54(3)Transportation in areas of unusual hazards (a) Inschool districts in which unusual hazards exist forpupils in walking to and from school, the schoolboard shall develop a plan showing by map andexplanation the nature of the unusual hazards andpropose a plan of transportation, if necessary, whichwill provide proper safeguards for schoolattendance.Transportation for children with disabilities. Theboard shall provide transportation for children withdisabilities, as defined in s. 115.76 (5), to any publicor private elementary or high school, to theWisconsin school for the visually handicapped or theWisconsin school for the deaf or to any specialeducation program for children with disabilitiessponsored by a state tax-supported institution ofhigher education, including a technical college,regardless of distance, if the request for suchtransportation is approved by the statesuperintendent.In connection with 2mile radius, mostelementary bussingis a result ofhazards, notdistance. Hazardsdo not generallyapply beyondelementary agestudents.MMSD offerstransportation incompliance withthese regulationsServiceLevelExceedsMeetsMeetsCommentsSee Decision itemVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 13March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceBusiness ServicesBuilding Services-ADA ComplianceBusiness ServicesFood Services-U.S.D.A. Programs(Policy compliance ofadministering F & RMeal Applications)Americans withDisabilities ActS.933Section 302USDANational SchoolLunch ProgramChapter 11Part 245.1Prohibition of discrimination by publicaccommodations. (a) General Rule--No individualshall be discriminated against on the basis ofdisability in the full and equal enjoyment of thegoods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, oraccommodations of any place of publicaccommodation by any person who owns, leases (orleases to), or operates a place of publicaccommodation.Any child at a participating school may purchase ameal through the National School Lunch Program.Children from families with incomes at or below 130percent of the poverty level (PL) are eligible for freemeals. Families with incomes between 130 percentand 185 percent of the PL are eligible for reducedpricemeals, for which students can be charged nomore than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2001 toJune 30, 2002, 130 percent of the poverty level is$22,945 for a family of four; 185 percent is $32,653.)Local school food authorities set their own prices forfull-price (paid) meals, but must operate their mealservices as non-profit programs. After school snacksare provided to children on the same incomeeligibility basis as school meals. However, thatprogram operates in areas where at least 50 percentof students are eligible for free or reduced-pricemeals may serve all their snacks for free.Compliance officeris Risk managementand safety officewithin businessservicesMMSD is incompliance withF&R MealApplications policiesServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 14March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceBusiness Services USDAFood Services- National SchoolU.S.D.A. Programs Lunch Program(Lunch)Subchapter APart 210.1Education ServicesESL & BilingualEducation- ProvideInstructionEducation ServicesESL & BilingualEducation- PublicInformation/PartnershipsEducation ServicesESL & BilingualEducation- StudentAssessmentWI Stat. 115.96(4)WI Stat. 115.96(2)WI Stat. 115.96(1)The National School Lunch provides nutritionallybalanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 27million children each school day. In 1998, theprogram expanded to include reimbursement forsnacks served to children in after school educationaland enrichment programs to include children through18 years of age. The Food and Nutrition Serviceadministers the program at the Federal level. At theState level, the National School Lunch Program isusually administered by State education agencies,which operate the program through agreements withschool food authorities.Annually, the board shall establish a bilingualbiculturaleducation program [to include]….Instruction in reading, writing and speaking theEnglish language and instruction in the subjectsnecessary to permit the pupil to progress through theeducational system.A school board which may be required to offer aprogram must send a letter to the parent, custodian,or guardian of every limited English speaking pupilwho is eligible for participation in the program, andprovides notice of consent.Annually, each school board must conduct a count ofthe limited-English speaking pupils in public schools,assess the language proficiency of such pupils, andclassify pupils by language group, grade level, age,and English language proficiency.MMSD offers foodprograms beyondregulations,however theseprograms are selffundedthrough feesand are currentlybreak even, thus notcosting the Districtadditional localfundingFor all ESLprograms, a recentcompliance reviewidentified 3complianceconcerns includingunder-identificationand under-servingstudentsSee aboveSee aboveServiceLevelExceedsComplianceconcernsComplianceconcernsComplianceconcernsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 15March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducation Services WI Stat. 115.78Special Education-Cross Categorical -IDEA ProcessEducation ServicesSpecial Education-IEP CaseManagement andInstructionEducation ServicesIDEA Compliance/Reporting LegalComplaints-Student/ParentsFederal300.26, 300.24,300.28,300.550Federal300.300300.13WI Stat. 115.78(1m)Federal300.751WI Stat. 115.77(4)For children identified with a disability as outlined,must provide special education 300.26, relatedservices 300.24 and supplementary aids andservices 300.28, 300.550Evaluation team must describe any devices orservices that are necessary for the student toreceive FAPE. The results must be reflected in theIPE goals.Must ensure that free and appropriate publiceducation is available to all children with disabilities.Free appropriate public education means specialeducation and related services that: (a) Are providedat public expense, under public supervision anddirection, and without charge (b) Meets thestandards of the SEA, and provided in conformitywith an individualized education program (IEP)Must appoint an IEP team for each child to evaluatechild, determine eligibility, develop an individualizededucation program and determine the placement forthe child.Must provide an annual report of children served(300.751) LEA must submit plan, including requiredinformation.MMSD offersinstruction andrelated services asrequired by law.Some servicedelivery alternativesare available.ServiceLevelMeets –deliveryalternativesavailableMeetsMeetsCommentsSee decision item.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 16March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducation Services WI Stat. 115.76 Each public agency shall ensure that assistiveSpecial Education- (14)technology devises or assistive technology services,Assistive Technology Federalor both, as those terms are available to a child if(Acquire, Maintain, 300.308required as part of the child’s IEP.Repair Devices, 300.6assessment, services)Education ServicesSpecial Education-CCIS-PST (IEPChairperson and LEArepresentative)Education ServicesSpecial Education-CCIS-PST(ManifestationDeterminations)WI Stat. 115.78(1m)Federal300.523LEA must appoint an IEP team including parents, atleast one special ed teacher, a representative of theLEA, and individual who can interpret evaluationresults, the child (if appropriate) and any otherindividuals at the discretion of the parent or LEA.Any action contemplated involving a removal thatconstitutes a change of placement must include areview of the relationship between the child’sdisability and the behavior subject to disciplinaryactionServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 17March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducation Services FederalMust have in effect policies and procedures toSpecial Education- 300.125 (CFR) ensure that all children with disabilities residing inChild Find (Noticethe State, regardless of the severity of theirPublic of CFdisability, and who are in need of special educationRequire/Process)and related services, are identified, located, andevaluated.WI Stat.115.28(7)If a licensed staff members becomes aware of achild between the ages of 3 and 5 years who is notenrolled in kindergarten and who may have adisability, the staff member is required by law torefer the child to the local education agency.ServiceLevelMeetsCommentsEducation Services –Extended School YearFederal300.121 (c)Federal300.309Must ensure that FAPE is made available to eacheligible child no later than the child’s third birthday,and IEP or IFSP is in effect for the child by that date.Each public agency shall ensure that extendedschool year services are available as necessary toprovided FAPE, and ESY must be provided only if achild’s IEP team determines that services arenecessary for the provision of FAPE.MeetsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 18March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducation Services – FederalMust provide transportation, including specializedSpecialized300.24equipment if required to provide specialTransportationtransportation for a child.Education ServicesSpecial Education-Cross Categorical(Personal andBehavior Support)Education ServicesSpecial Education-Hearing ImpairedInterpreter ServicesEducation ServicesSpecial Education-Occupational Therapy(IEP Process andServices to Students)Physical TherapyWI Stat.115.787 (3) (b)(1)Federal300.24WI Stat.115.787 (3) (b)(4)WI Stat. 115.76Federal300.24PI 11Related services include social work servicesassisting in developing positive behavioralintervention strategies.Plan for instruction must consider communicativeneeds of the child, and, in the case of hearingimpaired, consider language and communicativeneeds, opportunities for direct communication, andopportunities for direct instruction in the child’slanguage and communicative mode.Must provide related services (developmental,corrective, and other supportive services as arerequired to assist a child with a disability to benefitfrom special education). Includes: (a) Speechlanguagepathology (b) Audiology services, (c)Psychology services, (d)Physical and occupationaltherapy(e) Recreation (f) Early identification andassessment (g) Counseling, including rehabilitationcounseling, orientation and mobility services (h)Medical services for diagnostic or evaluationpurposesMinimum caseload for occupational and physicaltherapists is 15, maximum is 30 without therapistassistant, 45 with therapist assistantThe Districtcurrently has amaximum caseloadof 40 for therapistswith an assistant(below the DPIrecommended 45maximum)ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsExceedscaseloadstandardsCommentsSee decision itemVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 19March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducation Services –Special EducationAudiologyEducation ServicesSpecial Education-Private/ParochialSchool Services(Direct Services -SL/OT/PT and IEPProcess)Federal300.24.b.1WI Stat. 115.76(b) (14)WI Stat. 115.77(1m) (d)Federal300.451Federal300.452 (b)Audiology required as a related service. Includes (a)Identification of children with hearing loss (b)Determination of the range, nature, and degree ofhearing loss, including referral for medical or otherprofessional attention for the habilitation of hearing.(c) Provision of habilitative activities (d) Creationand administration of programs for prevention ofhearing loss, (e) Counseling and guidance. (f)Determination of children’s needs for group andindividual amplification, selecting and fitting anappropriate aid, and evaluating the effectiveness ofamplification.Must locate, identify, and evaluate all private schoolchildren with disabilities in the jurisdiction of theLEA. Must ensure that children with disabilities whoare enrolled in private schools are provided withspecial education and related services, as defined inthe agency’s service plan (to be developed andimplemented with each private school child).Decisions about which services will be provided inservice plans must be made in consultation withrepresentatives of private schoolchildren.LEA must spend an amount on private schoolchildren that is proportionate to the number ofchildren.The District’s staffestimate that theDistrict exceeds theproportion that mustbe spent on privateschool students bya small amount(less than $25,000)ServiceLevelExceedsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 20March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducation Services 300.24 (b) (14) Speech-language pathology services included: (a)Special Education-Identification of children with speech or languageSpeech/Languageimpairments, (b) Diagnosis and appraisal of specific(IEP Casespeech or language impairments (c) Referral forManagement, IDEAmedical or other professional attention necessary forProcess)the habilitation of speech or language impairments(d) Provision of speech and language services forthe habilitation or prevention of communicative115.76 (14) impairmentsCounseling and guidance of parents, children andteachers regarding speech and languageimpairments.Education ServicesSpecial Education-Vision Impaired-Instruction in Use ofBraille115.787 (3) (3) In the case of a child who is visually impaired,provide for instruction in Braille and use of Brailleunless IEP team determines that use of Braille is notappropriate for the child.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 21March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducational Planning PI 34.17 The initial educator shall receive ongoing orientation EducationalAdmin. & Teacherfrom the employing school district which isplanning departmentLicensurecollaboratively developed and delivered by school is developing plansManagement-boards, administrators, teachers, support staff and to ensure that PI 34Induction and mentorparents. The initial educator shall be provided is complied with inprogram, Professionalsupport seminars by the employing school district the requiredDevelopment Planwhich reflect the standards in subchapter II and the timeframe.and panels, Relicensingmission and goals of the school district. The initialeducator shall be provided with a qualified mentor bythe employing school district. The mentoring periodmay be for less than 5 years.To move to the professional educator level, the initialeducator must design and complete a professionaldevelopment plan that demonstrates increasedproficiency in one or more of the standards that wereidentified by her/his professional development teamas needing improvement.ServiceLevelNA (futurerequirement)CommentsEducational PlanningResearch andEvaluation- Testingand AssessmentNo Child LeftBehind Act of2001Educators eligible to hold or renew a regular licenseprior to July 1, 2004 may renew their license eitherby completing 6 semester credits (related to licenseor standards) from an accredited IHE, orsuccessfully complete the professional developmentplan.Each district will be required to administerstandardized reading and math tests for studentseach year when in grades 3-8 by the 2005-2006school year.The Districtcurrentlyadministers requiredtests in 4 th , 8 th , 10 th ,plus tests in 5 th , 6 th ,7 th , in addition toseveral 3 rd gradetestsNA (futurerequirement)Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 22March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducational Planning WI Stat. 118.30 DPE will create a high school graduation test. The District hasGraduation/Promotion (1) (b)developed a policyAdministration-Each school board shall adopt academic standards, and criteriaSummer School WI Stat. 118.30 including a high school gradation examination, aOption, District (1g)fourth grade examination and an 8 th gradeapproved programs,examination.High SchoolWI Stat. 118.33Graduation Plan, (1) (f) 1By 9/1/02, must develop a policy specifying criteriaPortfolio, Studentfor granting a high school diploma.Promotion from 4th to WI Stat. 118.335th Grade Plan, (6)Must adopt a written policy specifying promotionStudent Promotioncriteria from 4 th to 5 th grade and 8 th to 9 th gradefrom 8th to 9th GradePlanEducational PlanningStudent Records-Computerized yearend, summer school,quarter-end,membership thirdFriday and secondFriday roll-ups ofstudent information onAS400WI Stat. 121.05PI 17.04Annually the school district clerk shall file a verifiedannual school district report with the department, onforms supplied by the department.The school district clerk shall include, as part of theannual school district report under s. 120.18, theaverage of the number of pupils enrolled on the 3rdFriday of September and the 2nd Friday of Januaryof the previous school year.Summer school aid calculation. Summer schoolaverage daily membership equivalent shall beincluded as a full–time equivalency in the District’sSeptember official enrollment of the school districtServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 23March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducational PlanningStudent Records-District and DPIquarterly attendance,year end and absenteereportsEducational PlanningEnrollment- OfficialDistrict and DPIMembership Reports-Third Friday, SecondFriday, OpenEnrollment, AnnualSummer School, 220Integration andHabitual TruancyWI Stat. 115.38WI Stat.115.30(3)WI Stat.118.51(3)(a)2.The contents of the School Performance Reportrequires attendance (absentee) reports.Annually each school administrator shall submit, onforms provided by the department, a statement of theenrollment on the 3rd Friday of September.A nonresident school board may not act on anyapplication received until after the 3rd Friday followingthe first Monday in February. If more applications for agrade or program are received than are available, theboard shall give preference to pupils and siblingsalready enrolled then accept on a random basis. Ifspace is not available for open enrollment pupils in thegrade or program applied to, the board may accept anapplicant who is already attending school in thenonresident school district or a sibling of the applicant.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsDPI Ch 220Immediately following each membership count date, thesending district must provide receiving district with alist of Integration Transfer Program pupils. Receivingdistrict must review the lists against its membershiprecords. If the pupil counts on the lists do not agreewith the membership reports filed with the DPI, thereceiving and sending districts are to amendmembership reports.WI Stat. 115.38The School Performance report requires habitualtruancy data.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 24March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducational Planning WI Stat. 118.51 Any student may attend a public school in aEnrollment- Opennonresident school district under the full-time openEnrollment, internalenrollment program. A pupil may attend a pre-k,transfer and F1early childhood or school-operated day care programInternational studentsin a nonresident school district only if the residentschool district offers the same type of program andthe pupil is eligible to attend that program in theresident district. Student must apply and the Districtmust notify applicant if application denied, includingreason for denial.Educational PlanningEnrollment- Schoolguardianship &temporary schoolresidencyEducational PlanningStudent Records-School performancereport and Office ofCivil Rights ReportEducational PlanningStudent EnrollmentSection11432(e)(4) ofthe McKinneyActWI Stat. 115.38PI-1290When a homeless child is not living with parents orlegal guardians, it is the school district responsibilityto enroll the child. Section 11432(e)(4) of theMcKinney Act specifies that the choice regardingschool placement shall be made regardless ofwhether the child is living with parents or in anothertemporary placement. The District is required toenroll homeless children who are not living withparents or legal guardians assuming the child is notliving in the District for the primary purpose ofattending the District's public schools.State Superintendent develops a school and schooldistrict performance report with indicators ofacademic achievement, other indicators ofperformance, numbers of suspensions andexpulsions, staffing and financial information andrequires districts complete the report requirements.There are several different enrollment reports. Thisinformation is collected from public school districtson the PI-1290, Public Enrollment Report.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 25March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducational Planning WI Stat. 118.25 Upon written request for pupil or adult guardian, theStudent Record- (2) (e)District must make records available.Student recordsrequest fromstudents, parents andgovernment agenciesEducational PlanningResearch &Evaluation- MMSDDistrict Data Profileand MMSD EthnicSurvey ReportWI Stat. 115.38WI Stat.115.44(2)The contents of the School Performance Reportrequires a student profile which includes StudentPerformance Indicators and Opportunity-to-LearnIndicators.Biennially, the state superintendent shall provide thegovernor and any appropriate standing committee ofthe legislature information on the performance of theearly identification program and the postsecondaryeducational progress of the pupils who were enrolledin the program including the number and ethnicbackgrounds of the pupils who were enrolled in theprogram and college acceptance, retention andgraduation rates of the pupils.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 26March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceEducational Planning WI Stat. 115.38 The Wisconsin School Performance Report (SPR)Research &WI Stat.was created in 1991 with the passage of StateEvaluation- Mandated 118.43(3) Statute 115.38. The contents of the report requiredata requests for DPIincluding postgraduation intentions.SAGE reporting, DPISchool PerformanceExcept as provided in pars. (am) and (ar), anReport, andachievement guarantee contract shall require theGraduating Seniorsschool board to do all of the following in eachPost High Schoolparticipating school: (a) Class size. Reduce eachIntentions Surveyclass size to 15 in the following manner: 1. In the1996-97 school year, in at least grades kindergartenand one. 2. In the 1997-98 school year, in at leastgrades kindergarten to 2. 3. In the 1998-99 to 2000-01 school years, in at least grades kindergarten to 3.(am) Class size; additional contracts. For contractsthat begin in the 1998-99 school year, reduce eachclass size to 15 in the following manner: 1. In the1998-99 school year, in at least grades kindergartenand one. 2. In the 1999-2000 school year, in at leastgrades kindergarten to 2.Educational PlanningResearch &EvaluationTeaching & Learning-Testing/AssessmentPI 16.07PI 16.09Required tests include: (1) Wisconsin ReadingComprehension Test (WRCT) (grade 3) and (2)Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations(WKCE) (grades 4, 8, 10)The Districtadministers requiredassessment plusPrimary LA inK,1 st ,2 nd and Mathin 1 st , 2 nd ,3 rd alsoadministers TerraNova in 5 th, 6 th , 7 th ,ServiceLevelMeetsExceedsCommentsDistrict use ofassessments abovethose required Isdirectly related toreading andlanguage artsstrategic priorities.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 27March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceElementary/Wis. Stat.Secondary Education 120.13– ExpulsionHuman ResourcesTax implications ofdependent familypartnersHuman ResourcesCOBRA InsuranceprogramHuman ResourcesHCFA insuranceprogramHuman ResourcesHIPAA insuranceprogramInternalRevenue CodeSection 152ConsolidatedOmnibusBudgetReconciliationAct (COBRA)Now CalledCMSMedicareMedicaidHealthInsurancePortability andAccountabilityActThe board must hold a hearing prior to expelling astudent. An independent hearing panel or officermay be appointed by the board may be appointed bythe board to conduct the hearing and expel astudent.Employees and retirees adding domesticpartners/children to their employer-sponsoredinsurance programs must identify their family taxstatus to verify whether their dependents qualify asInternal Revenue Code (IRC) "eligible dependents"under Section 152. Section 152 qualifyingdependents can be added on to MMSD coverage asany other dependent, with no additional tax impact tothe employee.Provides health benefit provisions. The law amendsthe Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA), the Internal Revenue Code and the PublicHealth Service Act to provide continuation of grouphealth coverage that otherwise would be terminated.CMS provides health through Medicare, Medicaidand SCHIP. Individuals can receive their benefitsthrough the fee for service delivery system orchoose a managed care plan.Title I of the Health Insurance Portability andAccountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) protects healthinsurance coverage for workers and their familieswhen they change or lose their jobs.Policy set by Board,role of mediator andhearing liaisonplayed by AssistantSuperintendentsServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 28March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceHuman Resources Wisconsin The Wisconsin law (WFMLA) allows 6 weeks of paidData capture for Family and or unpaid leave. The Federal law (FMLA) grantsFMLA leave ofMedical Leave twelve weeks but only requires that leave time beabsence and Medical Act (WFMLA), granted, therefore, it is unpaid leave. The result isleave of absence the Federal twelve weeks of parental leave time that includes theincludingFamily and possibility of 6 weeks of paid time. Leave qualifyingcompensation and Medical Leave under WFMLA and FMLA is counted towards thecontractAct (FMLA) employee's entitlement under both laws.administrationHuman ResourcesStaff TB testingWI Stat.118.25(2)(a)As a condition of employment, the school board,except in 1st class cities, shall require a physicalexamination, including a chest X-ray or tuberculintest, of every school employee of the school district.Freedom from tuberculosis in a communicable formis a condition of employment. In the case of a newschool employee, the school board may permit theschool employee to submit proof of an examination,chest X-ray or tuberculin test complying with thissection which was taken within the past 90 days inlieu of requiring such examination, X-ray or test. Ifthe reaction to the tuberculin test is positive, a chestX-ray shall be required. Additional physicalexaminations shall be required thereafter at intervalsdetermined by the school board. The schoolemployee shall be examined by a physician in theemploy of or under contract with the school district,but if a physician is not employed or under contract,the examination shall be made by a physicianselected by the school employee.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 29March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceHuman Resources Chapter 2 Wisconsin Retirement System regulations andWRS Retirement 40.01administrationcontractadministrationHuman ResourcesCapture staff dataunder employment forunemploymentcompensationHuman ResourcesCollective bargainingagreementsHuman ResourcesLabor RelationsContractAdministration-GrievancenegotiationsHuman ResourcesLabor RelationsContractAdministration- LegalComplianceHuman ResourcesLabor RelationsContractAdministration- WERCHearingsWisconsinUnemploymentInsurance LawAct 15Section 108Unemployment insurance law appropriations andpenalties1099GQTWRSWISER111.70 111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSDWI Stat. 111.70 111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSDWI Stat. 111.70WI Stat. 111.70111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSD111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSDServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 30March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceHuman Resources WI Stat. 111.70 111.70 governs and allows employment relationsLabor Relationsincluding all collective bargainingContractSee CBA for MMSDAdministration- WERCWitnessesHuman ResourcesLabor RelationsContractAdministration- WERCExhibitsHuman ResourcesLabor RelationsContractAdministration- WERCBriefsHuman ResourcesLabor RelationsContractAdministration- WERCCommunicationHuman ResourcesPayroll- Federal andState Reports(mandated) IRS--941& 945Human ResourcesPayroll- Federal andState Reports(mandated) W-2, 1099WI Stat. 111.70WI Stat. 111.70WI Stat. 111.70IRSUs DeptRevenueIRSUs DeptRevenue111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSD111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSD111.70 governs and allows employment relationsincluding all collective bargainingSee CBA for MMSDEmployers who withhold income tax on wages, orwho must pay social security or Medicare tax mustfile Form 941 each calendar quarter and Form 945annuallyEmployers required to file copy of federal form W-2 ifwages were paid to employees and provide 1099’s toemployees department or revenueServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 31March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceLegal Services Section 504 Section 504 does require development of a plan,ADA & Section 504though a written document is not mandated. TheIndividualized Education Program (IEP) of IDEA maybe used for the Section 504 written plan. Section504 requires notice to parents regardingidentification, evaluation, and/or placement. Writtennotice is recommended. Section 504 requiresimpartial hearings for parents who disagree with theidentification, evaluation, or placement of a student.Parents have an opportunity to participate in thehearing process and to be represented by counsel.Legal AffairsReports to the StateEthics BoardWI Stat.13.685(1)WI Stat.13.685(2)The board shall prescribe forms and instructions forpreparing and filing license applications under s.13.63 (1), registration applications under s. 13.64and the statements required under ss. 13.68 and13.695.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsOffice of theSuperintendentAlternative Programs-Instruction toStudents for At-RiskProgramsWI Stat.118.153(3)(b)The board shall prepare and publish a manualsetting forth recommended uniform methods ofaccounting and reporting for use by persons who arerequired to provide information under s. 13.68 (4) orto file statements under s. 13.68 or 13.695.The District is required to identify students at risk ofnot-graduating and develop a plan to meet theirneeds, including through alternative programs.The District offers avast array ofalternativeprograms.ExceedsSee decision items.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 32March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceServiceLevelOffice of theWI Stat.Required to provide free and appropriate education . MeetsSuperintendent 115.76(3) to people who are at least 3 and less than 21 andAlternative Programs- 118.15(1)(cm) who have not graduated from high school. TheInstruction todistrict in which the facility is located must provideStudents at Danethe education.County Jail/HuberOffice of theSuperintendentAlternative Programs-Instruction to studentsin SAPARWI Stat. 115.92The program for school age parents who areresidents of the school district shall be designed toprovide services and instruction to meet the needs ofschool age parents, including education on the skillsrequired of a parent; family planning, as defined in s.253.07 (1) (a), including natural family planning; andinstruction on adoption and adoption services. Theprogram shall be coordinated with existingvocational and job training programs in the schooldistrict.The Districtprovides services inhome school, inaddition to singleparent project andschool age parentprogram (SAPAR)ExceedsCommentsSee decision item.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 33March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceOffice of theSectionSection 11432(e)(5) of the McKinney Act requiresSuperintendent 11432(e)(5) of that school districts provide to homeless childrenAlternative Programs- the McKinney services that are comparable to services provided toInstruction to students Actother students in the school district. Specifically,in Homeless/TEPhomeless children must have access to anyProgrameducational services for which they otherwise meetthe eligibility requirements including programs forlimited English proficient children, gifted children, orchildren with handicapping conditions. Also,homeless children who meet the relevant eligibilityrequirements must have access to free and reducedprice meal programs, before- and after-schoolprograms, and programs for preschool studentsoffered by the school district. Homeless children,who meet the educational criteria, are also eligible toreceive Chapter 1 services without regard to theschool residency requirement.Office of theSuperintendentAlternative Programs-Transportation tostudents inHomeless/TEPProgramSection11432(e)(5) ofthe McKinneyActAs a general rule, Section 11432(e)(5) of theMcKinney Act requires that homeless children beprovided transportation services that are"comparable" to the services offered to otherstudents in the school selected. In some cases,however, even if "comparable" services areprovided, lack of adequate transportation may stillact as a barrier to school attendance by homelesschildren.The Districtprovidesindividualizedservices for childrento their home schoolof origin. Service isoften taxicab orotherwiseindividualized.ServiceLevelMeetsExceedsCommentsSee decision item.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 34March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceOffice of theWI Stat.Required to provide free and appropriate educationSuperintendent 115.76(3) to people who are at least 3 and less than 21 andAlternative Programs- 118.15(1)(cm) who have not graduated from high school. TheInstruction todistrict in which a correctional facility is located mustStudents at the Daneprovide the education.County ShelterSecondary Education-Youth OptionsProgramStudent ServicesExpulsions &Truancy- (LegalCompliance ofExpulsion)Wis. Stat.118.55See Elementary/Secondary EducationThe Youth Options Program permits any 11th or 12thgrade student to attend a Wisconsin institution ofhigher education for the purpose of taking one nonsectariancourse. The school district is required topay for the course if no comparable course is offeredin any district high school and if the course isapproved for high school credit.The Districtcurrently offersprogrammingthrough theUniversity ofWisconsin-Madison.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 35March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceStudent Services WI Stat.A student may be assigned to detention as aExpulsions &118.16(4)(c) consequence of a pupil's truancy or to a supervised,Truancy- Return to WI Stat.directed study program. The program need not beSchool118.16(4)(cm) held during the regular school day. The studyprogram may qualify for credit provided for workcompleted during study program time. A pupil shallbe permitted to take any examinations missed duringa period of assignment to a supervised, directedstudy program.ServiceLevelMeetsCommentsStudent ServicesExpulsions &Truancy-(LegalCompliance ofTruancy)WI Stat.118.16(2)A student may be assigned to an assessment periodas a consequence of truancy or upon the return toschool after being truant. The student mayparticipated in the assessment without being inviolation of s. 118.15.The school attendance officer, except as providedunder pars. (cg) and (cr), shall notify the parent orguardian of truancy, request the child’s return toschool or request an excuse of the parent orguardian. When habitually truant, the parent orguardian shall be notified by registered or certifiedmail of the parent or guardian’s responsibility tocause the child to attend school regularly. Theparent or guardian can request program orcurriculum modifications and meet with personnel todiscuss the truancy. The mailing should also includepenalties imposed on the parent or guardian if he orshe fails to cause the child to attend school regularlyas required.MeetsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 36March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceStudent Services- WI Stat.Required to provide health exams, protect fromHealth Services- 118.07, WI exposure to blood borne pathogens, accommodateEmployee Health Stat. 118.25, disability, safety, ergonomics.WI Stat.101.055Student Services-Health Services-Physical Health(CommunicableDisease)Student Services-Health Services-Physical Health(Diagnosis &Treatment)Student Services-Health Services-Physical Health(Directcare & referral)Student Services-Health Services-Physical Health(Immunizations)Student ServicesSocial Work Services-Child abuse referralWI Stat.252.21, 118.07WI Stat.115.76.89 WIStat. 146.81-84WI Stat. 441WI Stat. 121.02(1) (g)PI 8.01WI Stat. 118.12(16)WI Stat. 252.04WI Stat. 251WI Stat. 48.981(2-4), (7)Required to have prevention, intervention, reporting,annual staff training, and written plan for addressingcommunicable disease.Districts are required to provide medical services asa related service to the child’s IEP. Required tocommunicate with health care provider, provideaccommodation, delegate nursing procedures, notifystaff with a need to know.School districts are required to provide emergencynursing services, which are provided according toDistrict’s policy and proceduresDistricts are required to gather information, sendnotices, exclude for noncompliance, exclude fordisease outbreak, and maintain and store records.Social workers are among those required to reportchild abuse and refer to appropriate agencies.ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 37March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceStudent Services WI Stat.Social Work Services- 118.01(2)d8Classroom Instruction(Protective BehaviorsCurriculum)Teaching & Learning– Career & TechnicalEducationWis. Stat.121.02(1)(m)WI Stat.121.02(1)(k)1WI Stat.121.02(1)(L)3Each school board shall provide an instructionalprogramming to give pupils knowledge of effectivemeans to recognize, avoid, prevent and haltphysically or psychologically intrusive or abusivesituations which may be harmful to pupils, includingchild abuse, sexual abuse and child enticement.Instruction shall be designed to help pupils developpositive psychological, emotional and problemsolvingresponses to such situations and avoidrelying on negative, fearful or solely reactivemethods of dealing with such situations. Instructionshall include information on available school andcommunity prevention and intervention assistance orservices and shall be provided to pupils inelementary schools.See Teaching & LearningCareer & Tech Ed-Education for EmploymentDevelop a written, sequential curriculum plan invocational education, the plan shall specifyobjectives, course content and resources and shallinclude a program evaluation method.In grades 9 to 12, provide access to an educationalprogram that enables pupils each year to studyvocational education. In this subdivision, "access"means an opportunity to study through school districtcourse offerings, independent study, cooperativeeducational service agencies or cooperativearrangements between school boards andpostsecondary educational institutions.The school districtprovides curriculumwhich is oftendelivered bypsychologists orsocial workers(while curriculum isrequired, law doesnot specify whomust deliver)ServiceLevelMeetsMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 38March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceTeaching & Learning WI Stat.The school district shall provide access to anCareer & Tech Ed- 121.02(1)(m) education for employment program approved by theEducation forstate superintendent. The program shall incorporateEmploymentapplied curricula; guidance and counseling servicesunder par. (e); technical preparation under s.118.34; college preparation; youth apprenticeshipunder s. 106.13 or other job training and workexperience; and instruction in skills relating toemployment.Require to include on transcripts title of the course;high school credits earned and whether credits wereearned through advanced standing, transcriptedcredit, or the advanced placement program; andparticipating postsecondary institution, whenappropriate for pupils graduating after August 30,2004.Service LevelThe Districtemploys 1.8FTE tomanage theSchool to Workand YouthApprenticeshipprograms. Apartnershipwith the countyexists formanagingrelationshipswith programemployersrelated to theYouthApprenticeshipprogram.Districtguidancecounselors areinvolved inscoring of thecareer rubricand inscheduling.CommentsMany other districtssupervise portionsof this program as aadd-on to otherpositions rather thanhaving stand alonepositions tocoordinate.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 39March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceTeaching & Learning/ Wis. Stat. History culture re: Indian tribes twice in elementary The curriculumSocial Studies121.02and one in H.S.ensures coverage ofthese elements.Student ServicesPsychologicalServices- AssessmentTeaching &Learning/LanguageArts – ReadingTeaching & Learning/Staff DevelopmentTeaching & Learning/CurriculumDevelopmentPI 3.53PI 8.01(2)cStandard (c)PI 8.01 (2)Standard (b)Standards (j) &(k)The psychologist conducts both behavioral andintellectual assessments and assists in programplanning for classroom teachers in regard toyoungsters with behavioral and academic need• Identify underachieving students.• Assessment performed by staff educated inreading achievement and diagnosis.• Integrated reading intervention and improvementplans.Establish a professional staff development plan eachschool year designed to meet the needs ofindividuals or curriculum areas in each school.Involve licensed support staff, instructional staff, andadministrative staff in creation of the annualprofessional staff development plan.• Written comprehensive curriculum.• Instruction in K-6 provided by or undersupervision of a subject area teacher.• Art and music instruction in grades 7-12available and taught by an art or music teacher.• Health instruction in grades 7-12 including onestructured course by a health teacher.Psychologistsprovideassessments.The currentcombined of PLAA,reading recoveryand gateways toliteracy support thisrequirement.Each content areacoordinatorprepares such plan.Involvement oflicensed staff occursthrough SummerInstitute.The District hasstandards basedcurriculum in allcore areas. TheDistrict ensuresappropriate courseofferings andrequired studentscheduling for art,music andinstruction.Service LevelMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsMeetsExceeds –students areoffered morethan isrequired inmusic at theelementaryschool level(grades 4&5)CommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 40March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceTeaching & Learning/ Standard (l) Access to students – K-12 The District has anFine Artsadministrative levelposition overseeingthis area.Teaching & Learning/Library MediaServicesTeaching & Learning/Physical EducationTeaching & Learning/Career & TechnicalEducationTeaching & Learning/Talented & GiftedStandard (h) • Access to students K-12• Performed by or under the supervision ofcertified librarian• Provide a district library media program directedand coordinated by a certified person in thelibrary media fieldStandards (j) &(l)Standard (m)PI 26.01WI Stat. 118.35• Grades K-6 must meet for physical education aminimum of 3 times per week• Physical education instruction in grades 7-12required and taught by a physical educationalteacher, except the potential elective year inhigh school.• Must have education for employment council,half business/industry representatives, halfteachers, administrators, pupil services, pupils,parents, etc.• Long range plan with annual review• Designate an individual to coordinate theeducation for employment programEach school board shall ensure that all gifted andtalented pupils enrolled in the school district haveaccess to a program for gifted and talented pupils.District curriculum plans should include objectives,content and resources which challenge the mostable and most talented children in any classroom.All librarians arestaffed by certifiedlibrarians.The Districtdedicates a portionof an FTE tooversee thisprogram.The Career andTechnical EducationCoordinator is thecoordinator of theprogram.The District’sprogram for TAG ispremiere in terms ofresources allocatedand availableprogrammingoptions.ServiceLevelExceedsExceedsExceedsMeets/ExceedsExceedsCommentsSee decision item.See decision itemSee decision itemOther districts useteaching staff tooversee theprogram.See decision itemVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 41March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceServiceLevelTeaching & Learning/ Standard (t) • Written planMeetsTalented & Gifted• Coordinator• Identification in 5 talent categories• Appropriate programs• Parental participation in program planning• Annual report to State SuperintendentTeaching & Learning/ Standard (l) Access to Students K-8 MeetsLanguage Arts andReadingTeaching & Learning/ Standard (l) Access to students K-12 MeetsMathematicsTeaching & Learning/Science andEnvironmentalEducationTeaching & Learning/Social StudiesTeaching & Learning/Foreign LanguageTeaching & Learning/Technology andLearningStandard (l) &(k)Access to students K-12 – ScienceIntegration of environmental education concepts intocurriculumEnvironmentaleducation offeringsare at a premiumlevel.Standard (l) Access to students grades K-12 The District hasdesignatedcoordinator forprogram.Standard (l) Access to students – grades 9-12 The District hasdesignatedcoordinator for theprogram.Standard (k) Integrate computer literacy into the curriculum plan. The Districtallocatesconsiderable staffresources towardthis effort.ExceedsExceedsExceedsMeets/ExceedsCommentsSee decision itemSee decision itemSee operationalreview item.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 42March 11, 2002

MANDATE INFORMATION (based on functions identified by MMSD)MMSD ProgramDepartment/Function(alphabetically bydept) Mandate Specific RequirementOfferings/ComplianceAssuranceTeaching & Learning/Title IElementary andSecondaryEducation Act(ESEA)Section 1114 &1115Title I Part A – provides federal dollars tosupplement educational opportunities for childrenwho live in high poverty areas and are at risk offailing to meet the state’s challenging content andperformance standards.Targeted Assistance – students are identified basedon multiple, objective and educationally relatedcriteria. Programming options are discretionaryhowever, programming must be provided specificallyfor the identified students. An assessment ofprogram effectiveness is required.Schoolwide – requires a poverty level at or above40% (determined by free and reduced lunch counts).Staff resources can work with all students. Anassessment of the effectiveness of the program mustbe conducted.Title I programs inMadison emphasizeearly intervention inreading.ServiceLevelMeetsCommentsVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 43March 11, 2002

Budget Decision ItemsEXPLANATION OF ANALYSISAs discussed previously, the functional analysis process is a method to evaluate anorganization’s operations from a program or unique activity/primary purpose perspective. Assuch, the emphasis on this type of analysis does not focus on individual positions, but rather onthe contribution of a position to a particular function. In addition, attention is given to totalresources (i.e., staff, equipment, materials) allocated toward that function. The main objectivesof the MMSD functional analysis project are to:• determine the critical nature of individual functions or programs• identify functions or programs that should be considered for elimination• offer alternatives to service delivery that result in cost reductionsThis comprehensive analysis of all District functions has resulted in the decision items thatfollow. A complete listing of all functions reviewed and the relative screening category is foundin Appendix A. The majority of our effort was expended in analyzing functions that werecategorized as instructional support, instructional discretionary and corporate discretionary. Asdiscussed before, the analysis of these functions included a review of a variety of factors - withfiscal impact, correlation with strategic and board priorities, and student impact being the mostimportant variables of review.The analysis of functions relied significantly on financial, position control and programeffectiveness information provided by the District. Although steps have been taken (particularlyin the financial area) to improve available information and data, the inability to obtain specificdata as requested made the evaluation of certain of these variables difficult for some areas. Anongoing benefit of this functional analysis is the identification of the need to track and monitorspecific information or data for future decision-making in several departments and functionalareas.Based on all of the functions analyzed, the majority of these decision items identifyconsiderable potential savings from program reductions or function reorganization ormodifications. This is a positive finding in that for the most part the District can continue to offerquality programs and services and is not yet at the point of having to totally abandon completeprograms or services.FISCAL IMPACT OF BUDGET DECISION ITEMSOverall, a range of $12.7 million to $21.7 million in budget reductions has been identified forconsideration in addressing the need to reduce the overall District budget. Of this amount arange of $8.4 million to $12.2 million is from specific functional or programmatic areas. Another$4.2 million to $9.6 million can be gained from consideration of changes to pupil/teacher ratios.The items should be viewed as a menu of potential reductions that can be made over a fiveyearperiod as necessary to stay within state revenue limits. Thus, it is anticipated that theDistrict will concentrate on those items that they determine have the least impact in the firstyear and gradually progress to the larger impact items assuming the current state budgetsituation continues over the next few years. Assuming the need to reduce the budget by $5million in the first year, the District should find itself with many options to consider.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 44March 11, 2002

FISCAL IMPACT OF BUDGET DECISION ITEMS (cont.)It is important to note that these options should not be construed as recommended cuts, butrather as individual decisions. Each decision item write-up offers insight and information forconsideration in determining the specific student impact, level of District priority, fiscal impactand program effectiveness impact of changing the current function or program offering.AnticipatedSavingsMinimumAnticipatedSavingsMaximumDecision Item#DepartmentOptionElementary $694,500.00 $1,795,600.00 Reduce or Eliminate REACH program 1Option A: Reduce to 1/2 hour per weekOption B: Total elimination of programT&L - Science Program $83,000.00 $83,000.00 Eliminate or find private funding for special facilities 2Legal $78,200.00 $78,200.00 Eliminate Contract Compliance Officer 3Student Services $150,000.00 $1,327,500.00 Eliminate selected alternative programs 4Educational Information $86,705.00 $86,705.00 Eliminate grow own principal program 5Library Media Services(T&L,Scho $400,128.00 $499,100.00 Reduce school library media specialists 6Option A: Reduce based on school sizeOption B: Reduce based on hours per student, w/ increase to EA supportT&L - Library Media Services $203,550.00 $442,500.00 Reduce media production program 7Option A: Eliminate department $442,500Option B: Reduce size of unitElem/Sec - Extracurricular $84,000.00 $84,000.00 Reduce funding for extracurricular programming 8Elem/Sec - RISE $650,650.00 $1,301,00.00 Eliminate or Reduce RISE Program 9Option A: Reduce by 1/2 first yearOption B: Eliminate program 2nd yearT&L - Reading Recovery $658,000.00 $1,316,100.00 Reduce district funding toward Reading Recovery 10Option A: Reduce total funding by 50%Option B: Eliminate $1.3 millionT&L - Central Office $54,600.00 $180,000.00 Reduce Coordinator FTE by 2 11Option B: Convert 2 Coordinator FTE to resource teachersT&L - TAG program $313,365.00 $313,365.00 Reduce total alllocation, reallocate centrally 12Sec./Minority Service Coordinator $250,690.00 $250,690.00 Include in guidance allocations 13Secondary Education $92,310.00 $222,100.00 Eliminate Driver Education programming 14Option B: Discontinue offering a credit and increase feesOption C: Increase fee slightly to cover BTWSecondary Education $82,000.00 $84,000.00 Eliminate the no cut freshmen rule 15Option B: Increase freshman ahtletic feesSecondary Education $10,800.00 $14,000.00 Eliminate JV teams added as a spill over result of no cut frosh 16Option B: Increase sophomore and junior ahtletic feesSecondary Education $43,000.00 $53,000.00 Generate additional athletic contest gate revenues 17Secondary Education $0.00 $74,000.00 Eliminate .8FTE of the assistant principal position relative to athletics 18Parent Community Relations $39,000.00 $422,500.00 Option A: cut 1 position at $39,000--91,500 19Option B: eliminate 2 of 6 positions - $131,000Option C: abandon function @ $422,500Ed. Services $94,763.00 $245,030.00 Change ot/pt ratios 20Ed. Services $126,000.00 $126,000.00 Eliminate selected program support 21Student Services $137,000.00 $137,000.00 Reduce functions and nurse allocations 22Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 45March 11, 2002

FISCAL IMPACT OF BUDGET DECISION ITEMS (cont.)DepartmentAnticipatedSavingsMinimumAnticipatedSavingsMaximumOptionDecision Item#Student Services $224,000.00 $224,000.00 Reduce functions, psychologist allocations 23Student Services $269,000.00 $269,000.00 Reduce functions, social work allocations 24Educational Information $94,000.00 $94,000.00 Reduce functions and FTE in Staff and Organization Development 25Educational Information $129,000.00 $129,000.00 Reduce funding for Summer Institutes by 50 percent 26Human Resources $1,073,939.00 $1,073,939.00 Prorate part time health care benefits 27Human Resources $136,812.00 $146,880.00 Eliminate Administrator Retirement 284 retirements per year @ maximum $36,720Savings will not be realized in 2002-2003Human Resources $1,940,779.00 $1,940,779.00 Eliminate TERP Teacher Retirement 29$1,940,779 = 01-02 costsSavings will not be realized in 2002-2003Business Services $19,282.00 $255,816.00 Bussing distance radius change from 1.5 to 2.0 miles 30Middle School = $236,534.4Elementary = $19,281.6Secondary Education $213,340.00 $213,340.00 Eliminate high cost/low participation sports offereings 31Total Savings $8,436,413.00 $12,175,144.00ALLOCATIONSAllocations - SAGE 15/18:1 Ratio $679,000.00 $679,000.00 SAGE funding @ 15/18 vs. 14/18Reduction of 14.00 positionsAllocations - SAGE >30% Low Inc $1,028,685.00 $1,028,685.00 Implement SAGE @ 15/18 at schools >30% Low IncomeReduction of 21.21 positionsAllocations - Supplemental $378,300.00 $2,950,740.00 Eliminate SupplementalsElementary = 28.74 @ $1,393,890Middle School = 24.3 @ $1,178,550High School = 7.8@ $378,300Reduction of 60.74 total positionsAllocations - Specials $179,450.00 $179,450.00 Increase Specials to 22 from 21 sections per allocationReduction of 3.2 positions with SAGE specials eliminationAdditional .5 position without SAGE specials eliminationAllocations - Elementary Class Siz $540,290.00 $540,290.00 Elementary Ratios increased to 23-24-26Reduction of 11.1 positionsAllocations - Middle School Class $451,050.00 $882,700.00 Middle School Ratios increased 1.0From 17:1 to 18:1Reduction of 18.2 positionsAllocations - High School Class S $388,000.00 $766,300.00 High School Ratios increased 1.0From 21.8:1 to 22.8:1Reduction of 15.8 positionsEd. Services $593,723.00 $2,538,521.00 Change spec. ed student teacher ratios ($750-2.1 million)Change sea ratiosAllocations Totals $4,238,498.00 $9,565,686.00Total Savings with Allocations $12,674,911.00 $21,740,830.00Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 46March 11, 2002

INDIVIDUAL BUDGET DECISION ITEMSThe following 30 decision items are independent of one another unless otherwise noted. Assuch, the impacts of implementation have been considered as it relates directly to the identifiedfunction or program.Decision Item #1:REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE REACH PROGRAMOption A:Option B:Reduce REACH to 30 minutes per weekEliminate REACH programBackground:The Reinforcement and Enrichment for All Children (REACH) program isdesigned to allow instructional staff the opportunity to participate in teamplanning within content areas or by grade level. Specifically, the Districtfundedprogram provides one hour per week (generally two 30 minuteperiods), where all elementary students are provided focused andenrichment based instruction in a variety of areas. The focus of theenrichment is at the discretion of the individual school. During this timeperiod, instructional staff are involved in individual or team planning.Currently, six (6) schools focus on science, 22 focus on computertechnology and three offer programs relating to dance, school themes,and affective, creative and critical thinking. The District employsadditional instructional staff to facilitate these enrichment sections.Expenditures: All costs are salary related and total $1,795,600.Revenues:FTE:None.28.65 instructional FTEAnticipated Savings: Option A: $694,520 14.32 FTE salary of $48,500Option B: $1,795,600 28.65 FTE salary of $62,673Student Impact:Minimal, students would still receive the required amount of weeklyinstructional time, but would receive it the traditional classroom setting.Those students who preferred the special instruction provided throughREACH may react unfavorably to this change unless the content to betaught in the classroom is consistent with that being offered throughREACH. Research shows that professional development and planningtime in a team forum can directly correlate to staff effectiveness.Strategic Priorities: Direct link to staff effectiveness. (3)Board Priorities:No direct link.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 47March 11, 2002

Decision Item #1:Effectiveness:REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE REACH PROGRAM (cont.)The effectiveness of the program has not been measured in terms ofstudent achievement or staff development effectiveness.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Elementary level instructional staff currently receive the contract requiredplanning time through the specials related instructional time.Students involved in the computer-related REACH programs receivesimilar instruction in the general classroom and through programmingwithin library media services.Service Delivery:CBA Impact:Allowing the program to continue ensures a higher level of staff planningtime than is required by contract.The Districts negotiated labor agreement, specifically the section onplanning time may need to be re-negotiated. The current contractrequires 4.5 hours of planning time during the established school day forpupils. If REACH were to be eliminated, the total amount of planning timewould need to be re-negotiated or alternatives considered for placementof students.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 48March 11, 2002

Decision Item #2: ELIMINATE OR SECURE PRIVATE FUNDING FOR SCIENCEFACILITIESBackground:The District currently maintains a planetarium and observatory as part ofthe District science program. These facilities are staff by Districtpersonnel and serve as an enhancement to the science curriculum.Specifically, the planetarium offers interactive programs and labs,classroom curriculum development support and an informationalnewsletter. The observatory is used by both students and teachers toview “live” images of planets, galaxies and star clusters through anInternet link.The planetarium is also open to the public and is visited frequently byother school districts within Dane County. Approximately one-third of the18,000 students visiting the planetarium annually are visitors fromoutside the District.Expenditures:The District currently spends approximately $156,500 to staff andmaintain these two facilities.Salary OtherPlanetarium $80,000 $12,000Observatory* $60,000 $4,500Totals $140,000 $16,500* Funding for the observatory is from entitlement fundsfor innovative programs (Title VI). These funds will notcontinue in the next fiscal year, as current, but areanticipated to be replaced by another entitlementsource.The District currently relies on private sources of funding for equipmentpurchases and upgrades. The major capital investment in theplanetarium is the projector which is 30 years old. The projector will needto be replaced within the next few years at an anticipated cost of over$100,000.Revenues: Planetarium (annual fees) = $9,000Non-MMSD visitors are required to pay $1.25/student with a minimum of$35 per class.FTE: Total of 1.8Planetarium 1.0Observatory .8Anticipated Savings:The District would realize a net cost savings to the general fund of$83,000 from ceasing to maintain these facilities or by finding a privatepartner to fund these facilities.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 49March 11, 2002

Decision Item #2: ELIMINATE OR SECURE PRIVATE FUNDING FOR SCIENCEFACILITIES (cont.)Student Impact:Approximately 12,000 MMDS students visit the planetarium on an annualbasis.No usage figures were available for the observatory as a majority ofaccess is by teachers to gain materials and “viewings” for classroominstruction.Strategic Priorities: A direct link to the curriculum and instruction priority exists. (3)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:No direct link.No data exist to show a direct impact on student achievement or learningin the area of science. However, it can be argued that access to thesefacilities and the materials they provide may make the instruction ofthese areas more interesting and potentially effective.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: The District has the only planetarium in the area. There are observatoryfacilities at the University of Wisconsin, however, they are not currentlyavailable to MMSD students. In addition, the UW facility is live, whereasthe MMSD facility is remote.Service Delivery:The level of curriculum enhancement provided by these facilities farexceeds what is available in most other Wisconsin school districts. Intheir absence other districts are able to enhance instruction through theuse of other science-based resources found on the Internet, in technicaljournals and through available video resources.As a community resource, the facilities assist to enhance the image ofthe District as a community partner in science education, however, thereare other options for community members to gain similar informationsuch as the University, on-line resources and specialized programmingon television. Continuation should be predicated on the ability of thecommunity to support such a facility.The District is currently in the process of exploring alternative fundingsources. Potential funding sources related to the Planetarium includeNASA, the Foundation for Madison’s Public Schools, and variouscompetitive grants. Another potential would be a partnership with theUW’s Space Place program. Additionally, a closer relationship with theUW Space Science and Engineering program may provide alternativefunding or options related to the observatory.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 50March 11, 2002

Decision Item #3: ELIMINATE THE VACANT CONTRACT COMPLIANCE OFFICERPOSITION, ASSIGN ITS DUTIES TO DISTRICT AFFIRMATIVEACTION OFFICER, AND REALLOCATE ADA, SEC. 504 DUTIES, ANDTITLE IX DUTIES OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICER TOBUILDING SERVICES, HUMAN RESOURCES AND THE CHIEF OFSTAFFBackground: The position’s main responsibility is to administer the District’s ContractCompliance Plan, the vehicle for facilitating participation of HistoricallyUnderutilized Businesses (HUB) in doing business with the District byproviding goods and services and to communicate the District’srequirement that vendors document their efforts to provide equalemployment opportunity.The District’s contract compliance function has been, in effect, carriedout by the Affirmative Action Officer for the past year or so because theindividual filling the contract compliance position was on medical leave.The position became vacant in January 2002.Expenditures: $78,200Including:Salaries and fringe benefitsRevenues: $0FTE:1. Contract Compliance OfficerAnticipated Savings: $78,200Student Impact: None, corporate function.Strategic Priorities: Home and community partnershipBoard Priorities: Contract Compliance Plan adopted by the Board in mid-2001Effectiveness: The contract compliance plan established voluntary employment andbusiness participation goals. The goals, which are not rigid quotas, andthe results for fiscal years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001 2002 year todate through January 23, 2002 are shown below. It is emphasized thatthe expenditures shown are for building services expenditures only, thelargest non-salary and fringe benefit category; administrative,purchasing, and food services are not included because theirexpenditures are made largely to prime vendors.BuildingServicesContract CompliancePlan Goals (all svcs)1999-2000Actual2000-2001Actual2001-202 Yearto Date*Total invoices $ $9,058,009 $14,870,766 $10,422,598Total Non-HUB $ $7,407932 $11,588,870 $8,263,755Total HUB $ & % $1,650,07718.2%$3,281,89522.1%$8,263,75520.7%Total SmallBusiness $ & % 29%$1,532,68816.9%$3,178,52021.3%$2,065,11520.7%Total MinorityOwned Bus $ & % 8%$32,460.36%$20,665.14%$18,737.18%Total WomenOwned Bus $ & % 12%$222,2902.5%$120,654.81%$85,842.82%* Year to date, through January 23, 2002Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 51March 11, 2002

Decision Item #3: ELIMINATE THE VACANT CONTRACT COMPLIANCE OFFICERPOSITION, ASSIGN ITS DUTIES TO DISTRICT AFFIRMATIVEACTION OFFICER, AND REALLOCATE ADA, SEC. 504 DUTIES, ANDTITLE IX DUTIES OF THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICER TOBUILDING SERVICES, HUMAN RESOURCES AND THE CHIEF OFSTAFF (cont.)Note: For the 2001-2002 school year, Building Services has $3.1 million in purchase orders(projects) outstanding. The 2001-2002 fiscal year expenditure report will be adjustedwhen the projects are completed. Of those outstanding projects, 27.5% are with smallbusinesses, 0.14% are with minority owned businesses and 1.37% are with womenowned businesses.Source: Affirmative Action Office report to Superintendent dated January 25, 2002.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: None.Service Delivery:The contract compliance duties became the responsibility of theAffirmative Action Officer earlier in 2002 when the position becamevacant. Transferring the Title IX, ADA and section 504 duties from theAffirmative Action Officer to others should rebalance the workload inorder to enable greater efforts to achieve compliance with the District’sContract Compliance Plan.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 52March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGSBackground:The District strives to achieve a 100% graduation rate. The MMSDAlternative Programs guide states that to meet this goal, the District “needsto provide a mix of educational choices as diverse as the students andfamilies it serves." The District’s alternative programs are designed toprovide this mix of educational choices.The District’s alternative programs are part of an array of services designedto meet State of Wisconsin mandates relative to “at risk” students (s.118.153, Wis. Statutes). School districts are required to identify studentswho are at risk of not graduating and develop plans to meet the needs ofthose students. The statute does not require specific programs, nor does itmandate a broad range of programs, such as that offered by MMSD.The District collected data on 496 students participating in alternativeprograms in the 1 st semester of 2000-2001 and determined that, overall, 39percent of participants met the state definition of at risk (ranging byprogram from 75 percent to 23 percent). 93 percent of students participatingin the programs scored below proficiency on one or more assessment subtestsfor the WSAS and WKCE tests. Over 80% scored below proficiency on8 th grade language arts, 8 th grade math, and 10 th grade math tests. 65percent of participating students were credit deficient, and 23 percent wereenrolled in special education.The District’s alternative programs can be divided into two categories –those that are specifically required by mandates and those that arediscretionary. The District’s alternative programs are as follows: (Detailedinformation about all alternative programs is provided in Attachment 1.)Discretionary:9 Neon (special education combined program – i.e. students attend boththe alternative program and their home school) 19 Cluster (combined expulsion diversion)9 Replay (combined expulsion diversion)9 Accelerated Learning Academy (stand alone 2 )9 Diploma Completion (stand alone)9 GED/HSED (stand alone)9 Malcolm Shabazz City High School (stand alone)9 School within a School (one program for students of each of 4 highschools, 3 stand alone and 1 combined)9 Transitional Learning Center (stand alone)9 Off Campus Instruction (for students with medical needs or deemedadministratively to be best served off campus for a period)9 Work and Learning Centers (stand alone)1 Neon students are special education students, and the District is required to implement the studentIndividualized Education Plans (IEP). The District is not required to do so specifically through the Neonprogram.2 Students enrolled in stand alone alternative programs are no longer enrolled in their home schools.Thus, in comparing costs for combined and stand alone programs, it is important to recognize thatsavings from eliminating stand alone programs would be partially offset by increased expenditures inhome schools. Savings from elimination of combined programs would not be offset, as the home schoolretains allocation regardless of whether the combined program continues.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 53March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Background: (cont.)Mandated:9 Incarcerated youth9 Homeless students (transportation)9 School Age Parents (SAPAR)9 Madison Area Technical College for Credit9 Off Campus Instruction (for students engaged in the expulsionprocess)The District has several options relative to alternative programs:• Eliminate selected high cost discretionary programs.• Restrict the level of service in mandated programs to the levelrequired by law.• Refine requirements for a discretionary program – the off-campusprogramming,• Change the way the School Within a School Program isimplemented.Clearly, other discretionary alternative programs could be eliminated. Forpurposes of this analysis, we have highlighted four options. To ensureDistrict decision-makers have the information needed if anotherdiscretionary alternative program were selected for abandonment, weinclude Attachment 1, which summarizes all alternative programs, includingcost, cost per student, and available outcome data.Expenditures:Revenues:FTE:The District current spends over $5 million on discretionary alternativeprograms and $1 million on required alternative programs. It should benoted that, due to the fact that many alternative programs are stand-alone,these costs would not be eliminated if all alternative programs werediscontinued. Savings would be partially offset, as students would return totheir home schools, where additional teacher allocation would be requiredto support instruction.The District receives limited revenue and reimbursement for alternativeprograms (approximately $600,000 in 2001-2002).Including all alternative programs, over 85 FTE are dedicated to theseprograms.Options for abandonment and savings (NOTE: Options are not mutually exclusive; morethan one option could be implemented simultaneouslyOption A:Option B:Eliminate discretionary programs with a high per studentcost – assume Neon, Replay and Cluster $580,000 (8.4 FTE)(it should be noted, these are the only middle schoolalternative programs)Eliminate instances where required programs are beingprovided above the mandated level (SAPAR, homeless) -$195,000 SAPAR 6.8 FTE, $160,000 homeless transportationVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 54March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Student Impact andEffectiveness,Availability andDelivery of Services:Option C: Refine the requirements for Medical Off-CampusProgramming (continue current year savings ofapproximately $150,000)Option D: Discontinue the practice of holding two seats for studentsenrolled in the School Within a School Program(approximately $242,500 – 5 FTE)Option A: If the District were to eliminate programs with a high costper student, many of the combined programs (where two seats areheld for the student – one at the home school and one at thealternative program) would be eliminated. Replay, Cluster, and Neon (aprogram for emotionally disturbed special education students) areamong the highest cost combined programs. These programs are usedto divert students from expulsion (for the 2000-2001 school year, 90students were diverted into programs such as Cluster and Replay). Theprograms also serve students who are not diverted from expulsion butwho have significant behavior problems in their home school. Studentsin these programs often participate in their home schools, and spendpart of their day at the alternative program. If these programs were notavailable, many of the students would likely face expulsion, drop out,or be more likely to enter the criminal justice system (in recognition ofthis fact, Dane County cooperates with the Replay program, offering inkindservices such as social workers and space to support theprogram).The effectiveness of programs included in Option A varies with theprogram. No data are available on the effectiveness of Neon. ForReplay, analysis of a sample of records suggests that 69 percent ofstudents increased their attendance the year following theirparticipation. For the Cluster program, 42 percent of studentsincreased their attendance in the year following their participation.Elimination of these programs would result in savings of approximately$580,000.Option B: While the law requires that services be provided to schoolaged parents, it does not require that districts provide stand-alonespecialized programs for this population. The school is required tomake program modifications and services available to enable the pupilto continue his or her education. One of the options the District makesavailable is the School Aged Parent Program (SAPAR), which allowsparents to participate in a stand-alone off-site program, with a muchlower student teacher ratio and support services..Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 55March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Option B: (cont.)SAPAR is not the District’s only single parent program option. Singleparents also have options in their home schools, and can participate inthe single parent program (a citywide program to help parent studentsobtain schooling and skills – includes social worker, assistancelocating child care, advocacy, and other assistance). A study of asample of SAPAR participants indicates that students in the programexperienced an average 17 percent increase in attendance. Theprogram also graduated 8 students in 2000-2001. Elimination of theprogram would result in reduction in alternative costs of $375,000,partially offset by home school increases (assuming an offsettingincrease of three home school teachers for approximately $180,000)for a net savings of approximately $195,000.The law also requires that transportation services be provided tohomeless students, at the request of the parent or guardian, to andfrom the student’s school of origin. The law does not specify the typeof transportation that must be provided.The District’s policy has been to provide a high level of service (oftentaxicab) toward the goal of maximizing students’ attendance. Provisionof services through city bus passes (for the student and guardian)would result in substantial savings (assuming current participationlevels and bus passes provided to the child and guardian at MadisonMetro advertised rates, at least $130,000 could be saved annually). Nooutcome data on the attendance rates for homeless students receivingtransportation services were available, nor is it possible to determinewhat the effect on attendance might be if transportation services wererealigned.Option C: MMSD provides medical homebound services for studentswho are physically or emotionally unable to attend school for extendedperiods. Students in this program meet for two hours a day with ateacher who receives lesson plans and materials from the student’shome school teacher. Although placement in this program is providedon a case by case basis, the guidelines have historically allowedplacement for a variety of conditions, such as anxiety or school phobia.If this program were reconstructed to more rigorously define eligibility,significant savings could be achieved. For example, the District hasachieved significant savings of approximately $150,000 (assuming firstsemester trends continue throughout the year) during the 2001-2002year by restricting eligibility primarily to students involved in expulsionhearings (where the law requires services). If the homeboundinstruction were not available for the array of medical conditions it hasbeen historically provided, students could still complete courseworkfrom the home school.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 56March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Option D: Each of the four primary high schools offers a School Withina School program for retained or, in some cases, academicallystruggling ninth graders. Two programs (East and West High Schools)are offered off-site, while LaFollette and Memorial High Schools offerSchool Within a School programs at the high school site. All SchoolWithin a School programs offer smaller classes. In the case ofLaFollette, participating students mainstream in core academics butexperience some small skill building classes. Each high school iscurrently allocated 2.6 teacher FTE and .5 assistant FTE for SchoolWithin a School programs. However, these students continue to have aseat held (i.e. to be counted in the enrollment) for the general highschool allocation. Assuming 22 students per FTE and based on 108students in School Within a School programs, high schools receive atotal of 5 teacher allocations for these students, plus the 10.4 FTEallocation for School Within a School (which translates into a 7:1student teacher ratio). The District has the option to discontinue thepractice of double counting students enrolled in the programs.Assuming an average salary of $48,500, this would result in estimatedsavings of $242,500. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine theeffect this change would have on students. Since the current policy hasthe effect of decreasing student teacher ratios, this change wouldincrease those ratios.Strategic Priorities: Most alternative programs are associated with curriculum andinstruction (3).Board Priorities:Alternative programs are designed to improve attendance, a key Boardpriority. Outcome data on the percent increase in attendance (ifapplicable and available) are presented by program in Attachment 1. Astudy of alternative program data in 2000-2001 suggested an overallimprovement in attendance of 17 percent for alternative programs.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 57March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Program Cost FTE Students Outcome Data TypeTime inExistenceAny recognitions receivedNEON (Special Education)Total $ 323,300 4.0 12 NAPer Student Year $ 26,942Accelerated Learning Academy 44Total $ 769,177 5.6Per Student Year $ 17,481Cluster Program 00/01 SchoolYear 11Total $ 132,934 1.5Per Student Year $ 12,085Average 17% increasein attendance42% of studentsincreased attendancethe following year.Combined - seat held in 2programsNote: 12 slots are open at any given point, but students can enrollfor short-term as wellStand-alone 10 yearsCombined -seat held in2 programs 11 yearsCharter School 1996; Charter School Implementation Grant1997;Stanford Accelerted Schools Training1997/98; CommunityCooperative Grant Recipient2001; applicant for ComprehensiveSchool Reform Demonstration Grant2002Diploma Completion ProgramTotal $ 114,000Per Student Year $ 1,22693 perQuarterGED/HSED 170Total $ 110,000Per Student Year $ 64722 per year -12 max atREPLAYone timeTotal $ 124,704 2.9Per Student Year $ 5,668Average 17% increasein attendance; 74students graduated in00/0155 received GED orHSED69% of studentsincreased attendancethe following yearStand-alone,graduationfacilitationCombinedCombined,expulsiondiversion31 years4 yearsMalcolm Shabazz City HighSchool 127Total $ 1,037,153 17.0Per Student Year $ 8,1672000/01 School Year51 GraduatesAverage 17% increasein attendance 92%attendace rate 00/01 Stand-alone 31 yearsNational Demonstration Site forService Learning; Tri-State SchoolService Learning Site; Fellows School; National Service LearningLeader School; Wisconsin Care About Kids Award; Mayor'sAward; Kohl Educational Foundation Award; National CharacterEducational Finalist; National Youth Leadership Council;Rennobolm ScholarVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 58March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Program Cost FTE Students Outcome Data TypeTime inExistenceAny recognitions receivedSchool Within A School Combined 4 yearsEast High: Crossroads 28Before: 0% earned 4credits or moreDuring: 79% earned 4Total $ 193,000 3.1credits or morePer Student Year 6,892.86LaFollette: On Track 34Total $ 193,000 3.1Per Student Year $ 5,676Local School Funds also appliedMemorial: Connect 28Total $ 193,000 3.1Per Student Year $ 6,893Local School Funds also appliedWest: Neighborhood House 18Total $ 193,000 3.1Per Student Year $ 10,722Local School Funds also appliedTransitional Learning Center 77Total $ 93,500 1.5Per Student Year $ 1,214Before: 29% earned 4credits or moreDuring: 53% earned 4credits or moreDuring: 79% earned 4credits or moreBefore: 0% earned 4credits or moreDuring: 67% earned 4credits or more37 credits earned thatcould not have beenearned anywhere elseCombined -Online creditrecovery 1 yearOff Campus:Medical/Administrative 00/01Total $231,145Per Student Year $ 10,31976 studentsfor 4,200days servedWork and Learning Centers 97Brearly StreetTotal $ 363,873 4.5Per Student Year $ 7,503Park StreetTotal $ 363,873 4.8Per Student Year $ 7,5032000/01 School Year48 GraduatesCombinedStand-alonegraduationfacilitation 26 years 1999: "Exemplary Rating" National Alliance of BusinessHomeless 1st. Sem. 01/02 120 CombinedTotal $ 528,235 7.8Per Student Year $ 4,402Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 59March 11, 2002

Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDATED ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (cont.)Required ProgramsProgram Cost FTE Students Outcome Data TypeIncarcerated StudentsTime inExistenceAny recognitions receivedJail/HuberTotal $ 139,531 2.0Studentyears: Jail: 719 daysequivalent of attending, 63 students6.9, assuming Huber: 532 days180 days atending, 38 studentsSeparateDetention/ShelterTotal $ 116,220 2.1Student Detention: 622 daysyears: attending, 103equivalent of students4.9, assuming Shelter: 253 days180 days attending, 39 students SeparateHomeless Program -TransportationTransportation $ 216,940$108,4701st Sem.only248 Elem. 91Middle 64H.S. Combined 13 yearsSAPAR 1997/98 CohortTotal $ 377,676 6.8Per Student Year $ 6,994Average 17% increase61% enrolled in attendance; 8(54 students) Grads 00/01 Separate 30 yearsMATC for Credit 00/01 37Total $ 27,514Per Student $ 744Off Campus:Expulsion Process 00/01Total $ 154,096Per Student year $ 10,13885 courses: 16.5MMSD credits earned:32% success rate Separate80 students for 2,853days servedSeparateVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 60March 11, 2002

Decision Item #5: ELIMINATE THE GROW OUR OWN PRINCIPAL PROGRAMBackground:Over the past ten years, the District has seen a decline in the applicantpool for vacant administrator positions (a drop of 69% in principalapplications and 38% in assistant principal applications) 3 . In response tothis decline, the District initiated the Grow Our Own Principal Program.As part of the Grow Our Own Principal Program, the District annuallyidentifies 2 MMSD instructional staff members who are interested intransitioning to administrative positions within the District (candidates musthold a current principal’s license or be within 12 months of completing alicensure program). The program provides a substitute teacher to take overthe teacher’s classroom, while each participant in the program completes aone-year internship with a master principal, learning from that principal onthe job. The program is designed to provide mentoring, on the jobexperience, and professional development in key administrative areassuch as school improvement planning, staff development, budgeting andplanning, student discipline, and special education.The goals include the following:• Address the growing challenge of attracting highly qualified people toprincipal leadership• Provide participants who are committed to becoming principals withexperiences that will allow them to move smoothly into the role ofprincipal in MMSD• Provide interns with information about the resources, departments, andpeople in the District.Nine teachers have graduated from the Grow Our Own Principal Programsince its inception. All nine have gone on to successfully becomeadministrators within the Madison School District. The program requires,as a condition to participation, that individuals commit to stay with theDistrict as administrators for two years. Approximately 90 percent ofparticipants have maintained that commitment.Expenditures:The District current spends approximately $92,000 on the Grow Our OwnPrincipal Program:Salaries $92,100Material/Supplies $605Total $92,7053 Source: Dept. of Educational Information, Planning & DevelopmentVirchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 61March 11, 2002

Decision Item #5:Revenues:ELIMINATE THE GROW OUR OWN PRINCIPAL PROGRAM (cont.)Several sources of funding are used to offset the costs of the Grow OurOwn Principal Program (all revenue numbers are 2001-2002 schoolyear).Foundation for Madison PublicSchools ($6,000)Bassett Fund (10,000)Title II Eisenhower Funds (17,000)Total ($33,000)District Portion: Expenditures $92,705Funds applied ($33,000)District Funded $59,705To identify the true net cost of the program, grant revenue that isapplied to the program but could be used elsewhere should be added tothe District funded portion of costs. While the Foundation earmarks$6,000 for this program (and which program managers could not use forother purposes), both the Bassett funds and the Title II funds can beused for other purposes (to offset other District costs).The true net cost to the District is therefore:Expenditures $92,705Exclusive Program Revenue ($6,000)Net Cost $86,705FTE:No permanent - 2 substitute teacher FTE cover the classrooms of theselected internsAnticipated Savings: Because two revenue sources applied to this program to offset costscould be used for other purposes, discontinuing this program wouldresult in savings of $86,705.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:This program is directed toward staff development, and there are nodirect student impacts. However, there may be an indirect link betweenthe program and improving administration (thereby indirectly affectingstudent achievement).The program is designed to enhance the staff effectiveness of principalsby addressing the shortage of principals and fostering a smoothtransition from the role of teacher to principal.No direct link.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 62March 11, 2002

Decision Item #5:Effectiveness:ELIMINATE THE GROW OUR OWN PRINCIPAL PROGRAM (cont.)As cited above, the program has a 100 percent success rate in yieldingsuccessful applicants for administrator positions. In addition, theprogram has approximately a 90% retention rate. Given the District’srecent difficulty in attracting administrators, these statistics demonstratea program that is achieving its objective. It cannot be determined,however, how many of these candidates would have gone on to becomeadministrators with the District in the absence of the program.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: The District offers other staff development for new principals (onceappointed), including the New Principal Staff Development Program andOngoing Principal Leadership Development. However, there are no otherprograms of this magnitude focused on developing teachers who areconsidering becoming administrators.Service Delivery:In the absence of the Grow Our Own Principal Program, the Districtcould offer a more informal mentoring program, to pair teachers who areconsidering a career in administration with a master principal. Nosubstitute teachers would be provided, nor would teachers be devotedfull time to completing an internship.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 63March 11, 2002

Decision Item #6:Background:REDUCE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST ALLOCATIONOption A: Reduce Library Media Specialist based on school sizeOption B: Reduce Library Media Specialist based on overall studentpopulationAs part of its commitment to advancing the information literacy ofstudents, the District has invested resources at the both the central andschool level as part of the library media program. The specific purposesof this program are providing resources to:• organize and manage information resources• instruct students and staff on use of information resources• consult with teachers in integrating information literacy intocurriculum.At the school level, the library media specialists are responsible forimplementing activities and functions related to the above. Specifically,these positions manage school collections, provide in-library assistance,develop on-line curriculum materials, provide in-library programming andassist with circulation assess and maintenance. The scheduledprogramming provided to students is not mandated and is determined onan individual school basis. The role played by the librarians was changedas central processing of materials was eliminated during last year’sbudget reductions.Overall it is estimated by the library media services coordinator thatthese positions spend approximately 70% of their time in direct service tostudents with the remaining 30% spent responding to instructor requestsfor assistance.MMSD has historically targeted allocations for the library mediaspecialists at the elementary level. Library media specialist positions areallocated on a consistent basis per elementary school regardless ofschool size. The librarian positions at the secondary level are allocatedthrough discretionary support at the discretion of the individual principal.The state DPI standards require that library media services be providedby a certified library/audiovisual professional at the secondary level andunder the supervision of a certified library/audiovisual professional at theelementary level.Expenditures: District annual expenditures for library media specialists total$3,534,900.School level FTE CostElementary 30 $2,005,980Middle 11 $735,526High 12 $802,392Total Cost $3,543,898Revenues:FTE:None.Total allocation for library media specialists is 53 FTE.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 64March 11, 2002

Decision Item #6:REDUCE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST ALLOCATION (cont.)Anticipated Savings: Option A: Reduce Library Media Specialist based on school sizeA reduction to library media specialist positions based on individualschool size would result in anticipated savings of $400,130.Applying standards as drafted by the Wisconsin Department of PublicInstruction and relating to professional staff, the District would incur areduction in total FTE of 6.0 to its library media specialist staff. Thestandards are as follows:School Size (# ofStudents)LibraryMedia FTEUp to 299 .5- 1.0300 – 799 1.0- 2.0800 – 1,399 2.0 – 2.51,400 – 2,100+ 2.5-3.0* These figures assume a corresponding commitment toappropriate support staff.Assuming the low end of the FTE range for each school size, theDistrict should adjust staffing levels as follows:FTECurrent Proposed SavingsElementary 30 26.5 3.5Middle School 11 10 1High School 12 10.5 1.5Total 53 47 6Salary $ 3,534,464$ 400,128Application of these standards would ensure that the school librarystaffing is based on school size and offers continuous access to aprofessional library media specialist for programming and curriculumissues for both instructional staff and students.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 65March 11, 2002

Decision Item #6: REDUCE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST ALLOCATION (cont.)Anticipated Savings: Option B: Reduce Library Media Specialist based on OverallStudent PopulationA reduction in the District library media specialist positions to meetrather than exceed the DPI standards would result in net savings of$499,100.By applying standards which consider average student visits andcirculation, the District can best match librarian allocations to studentpopulation. Standards developed by the State of Colorado, recommenda level of 5 “endorsed” staff hours for every 100 students (assumingstudent visits of 1.8 per week and 2.42 circulation per student).Applying this standard, the District’s allocations would be as follows:CurrentProposedLevel FTE Benchmark FTE FTEAllocation per student Allocation Allocation per student SavingsElementary 30 358 13.43 15.00 716 15.00Middle 11 977 7.15 8.25 1302 2.75High 12 895 10.29 10.00 1074 2.00Total FTE 53 33.25 19.75This model bases FTE on actual student contact versus staffing basedon school size.A reduction in FTE would equate to savings that should be offset withan increase to Educational Assistant (EA) positions to ensure adequatecoverage of open library hours. These positions will need to bededicated specifically to the library and receive the necessary training.That increase would occur only at the elementary and middle schoollevels based on current hours of EA assistance received. The centraloffice currently funds a portion of EA hours as indicated below.Current EA Proposed TL funded Proposed Increase inaverge hours hours Educ Assist FTEElementary 13 30 9 15.75Middle 23 30 3 7.425High School 60 60 10Total FTE increase 23.175Additional EA salary costs $817,985Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 66March 11, 2002

Decision Item #6: REDUCE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST ALLOCATION (cont.)Anticipated Savings: Option B (cont.)Net savings from this reduction of library media specialists with a slightoffset of educational assistants would equate to the following savings:FTESalary CostsIncrease to EA 23 ($817,985)Decrease to Library Media 19.75 1,317,088Total Cost Savings $499,103Assumptions: 1 – average library media specialist = $66,668.2 – EA average = $35,296Application of this standard may require more advanced planning on thepart of instructional staff or students (especially at the elementary level)as a professional library media specialist may not be available during allhours for which the library is open.Student Impact:These positions play a crucial role in providing student assistance forresearch, on-line resource literacy and specific programming related toinformation literacy. It is not possible to quantify specifically how manystudents are served on a weekly basis, however, at some point, thesepositions impact every one of the 25,0000 students in the District.Strategic Priorities: In-direct link to the curriculum and instruction priority. Professionallibrarian services and the resources in the LMC are directly related to achallenging, diverse, and contemporary curriculum. Contemporarycurricula in social studies and science are inquiry based; the LMCprovides resources and the professional staff help students learn how toaccess and evaluate the resources. LMC resources supplementtextbooks to ensure that students have access to multiple perspectives.LMC resources are also essential to update traditional learning materialsand keep the curriculum current.Board Priorities:Effectiveness:No direct link, may be indirectly linked to 3 rd grade reading goal.Principals ranked the library media specialist allocation as middle levelpriority (i.e. 15 of 27, 9 of 20) when considering all school allocations.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Some of the services related to materials and resources and provided toinstructors are also available from the materials or reference librarianlocated centrally within the T&L department. However, the level ofcustomization of specific resources to individual teacher needs is notpossible at the same level.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 67March 11, 2002

Decision Item #6:Service Delivery:REDUCE SCHOOL LIBRARY MEDIA SPECIALIST ALLOCATION (cont.)For purposes of efficiency, many of the functions performed by thelibrary media specialists in terms of information literacy integration,overall management of material quality, and integrated use of technologyfor information research can be more efficiently performed from acentralized basis by the materials and reference librarians, and thetechnology integration specialists. A reduction in on-site library mediaspecialists will require a high level of coordination and planning, and mayrequire these central office positions to spend more time on-site traininginstructors.Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Page 68March 11, 2002

Decision Item #7:ELIMINATE THE MEDIA PRODUCTION FUNCTION UNLESS IT CAN BEFULLY FUNDED EXTERNALLYOption A:Option B:Eliminate entire department or find external fundingEliminate AV and production support to schools, retainmedia production and one cable channelBackground:This unit serves the District by meeting communication and instructionalneeds of MMSD students and staff, and the information needs of thepublic. Specifically, the unit provides specialized video production,management of the public information cable channel and audio visualsupport service.A considerable amount of staff time (35%)is spent on public relationsmedia production for informational pieces to be aired on the cablechannel. Another 15% of time is spent on instructional media productionfor use in the classroom. The remaining 50% is split between technicalsupport to staff, equipment lending, video recording/duplicating andspecial projects (e.g. staff recognition, student instruction, staff mediatraining courses).Expenditures:Total expenditures of $442,500 including:Salary and benefits $319,640Other $122,860Revenues:FTE:None currently, potential in future for:a) portion of annual cable franchise fees paid to the City of Madison(estimated at 1/3 of $670,000 = $223,000)b) production on a fee basis for outside entities (i.e., production forexternal users)5.16 FTE currently allocated to media production unitAnticipated Savings:Option A: Eliminate media production unit $442,500Option B: Reduce services provided $203,550Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 69March 11, 2002

Decision Item #7:Option B:ELIMINATE THE MEDIA PRODUCTION FUNCTION UNLESS IT CAN BEFULLY FUNDED EXTERNALLY (cont.)Retaining media production services would require the following:Recommended Staffing Level:Estimatedbudget1 FTE Unit Mgr. $ 45,0002 FTE Videographer/Editors 70,4001 Operations Assistant 35,2001 Programming Assistant 33,300Total Salary Costs 183,900Other 55,050Total Operation Costs 238,950Student Impact:The Media Production unit provides support to schools: video lendinglibrary; recording and duplicating on request; special event sound systemset up; working with students; and videotaping special functions. Thus, theimpact of the unit on students is greater than that stated. The unit providesteachers and students with access to relevant curricular materials whenthey need it. The unit is also able to help teachers access relevanttechnology.Strategic Priorities: Community and family partnershipsBoard Priorities:Effectiveness:No direct link to defined priorities.The most effective use of District resources is media production for publicinformation. The District uses the production and distribution services ofthis unit extensively to educate the public and staff regarding Districtinitiatives. It is estimated that it would cost the District significantly more tohave these services provided by an outside vendor.Most school districts do not have a media production service as extensiveas this. Two TV channels appear to be a luxury. District data show thatmost viewing is from “channel surfers,” not viewers looking specifically forschool news. They do an excellent job of assisting sites with videoproduction. However, their technology lags behind national trends fordigital, wireless etc. It is certainly an effective learning tool for thosestudents who participate and the District has used the TV very effectivelyin communicating to parents and the community on District news andpriorities.In addition, Media Production helps other MMSD departments producevideos to get information to teachers, students and community efficientlyand effectively. Examples of videos produced include: how to tutor middleschool math which was placed in all middle school LMC’s and publiclibraries; keyboarding instruction to directly instruct students, elementaryteacher introduction to the revised math standards; and Launching intoLiteracy speaker series.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 70March 11, 2002

Decision Item #7:ELIMINATE THE MEDIA PRODUCTION FUNCTION UNLESS IT CAN BEFULLY FUNDED EXTERNALLY (cont.)Effectiveness: (cont.) The argument can also be made that the District benefits from theeconomies of scale by having this unit perform a comprehensive set offunctions due to the expertise and equipment required.The principals surveyed consistently ranked access to media productiona low priority. (ranked 7 th of 8 at all school levels).Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Only redundancy would be if a particular school goes through TechnologyService and does their own production. No evidence of that. The onlyobvious would be print media. In Madison there are numerous operationsfor these functions on an as needed basis. Also, a cooperative agreementto use the local city cable may be a possibility.Service Delivery:The services provided by the media production unit exceed what istypically found in a school district media center both in terms of types ofservices performed and quality of production. The following are additionalideas to enhance revenue/reduce costs:• There is an opportunity to lobby the city/state for funding. CurrentlyCharter Communications pays the city approximately $670,000 infranchise fees. A portion of that goes to fund Cable Channel 12 andWYOU (community TV). The District has never sought out this fundingbut it would seem they would certainly fit the missions of those twostations and could possibly receive funding.• Potential to set up the media production unit as a cost center thatcharges back District users for services based on usage/type ofservice.• Provide production services to organizations external to MMSD as timepermits.In addition, consideration should be given to the fact that:• A cooperative arrangement with another entity might lessen thechannel access costs but there would certainly be a cost to theDistrict’s ability to have its programming reflect District priorities andserve District needs.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 71March 11, 2002

Decision Item #8:Background:REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR EXTRACURRICULARACTIVITIESThe District offers a wide variety of extracurricular activities to assist infulfilling its mission of providing students with “the knowledge and skillsneeded for academic achievement and a successful life.”The District budgeted approximately $362,000 for high schoolextracurricular activities in the 2001-2002 fiscal year. This budget includesall extracurricular activities including costs for add-on contract salaryexpenditures to cover advisor or additional pay costs.Additionally, each school is allocated an equal amount to spend onmaterial and equipment for these activities. In total, $139,400 wasbudgeted for the 2001-02 fiscal year. This equates to $34,850 per highschool (excluding Shabazz).Individual schools, under the direction of the principal, determine whichextracurricular activities occur at their school. For instance, East High didnot offer Debate during the 2001-02 school year.Analysis of the participation rates and cost per student is difficult given thelack of a centralized method for collecting data regarding participants.However, information obtained was used for purposes of the followinganalysis.A breakout by extracurricular activity follows:District-wide Estimated Projected Cost Per Participant CostActivity Participants Cost of Advisors Expenditures Revenue Student Ranking Ranking1-lowest 1-highestChoir 260 $ 4,470 $ 30,279$ 116 6 4Band/Orchestra 754 $ 14,835 $ 47,085$ 62 8 7Drama 698 $ 20,347 $ 61,752 $ 12,881 $ 70 7 6Debate 56 $ 6,572 $ 20,106$ 359 2 2Forensics 108 $ 9,514 $ 21,888$ 203 4 3Literary 125 $ 4,946 $ 13,656$ 109 5 5Newspaper 16 $ 7,472 $ 37,834 $ 11,925 $ 1,619 1 1Yearbook 78 $ 7,045 $ 225,852 $ 197,830 $ 359 3 2Other Clubs 1846 $ 19,217 $ 16,481$ 9 9 8Total 3941 1 $ 94,4182$474,933Data Sources: Participant data from principalsExpenditure and revenue data from MMSD accountingEstimated cost of advisors from principalsAssumes: school year 2000-2001 expendituresData issues: 1. Two schools did not provide full students counts for those participating in music related after school activitiesthus the number of participants may be understated2. Cost of advisor data in choir is low given no information provided by one schools.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 72March 11, 2002

Decision Item #8:Expenditures,Revenues andParticipation:FTE:REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR EXTRACURRICULARACTIVITIES (cont.)Those extracurricular activities with high cost and low participation arenewspaper, debate and yearbook. However, there is a considerabledifference in cost per student (i.e. $1,619 –newspaper, $359 debate andyearbook). Costs for the yearbook and newspaper are offset somewhatby revenues.None, advisors are paid through add-on contract dollars. In many casesadvisors volunteer their time.Anticipated Savings: If the District would choose to eliminate those high cost/low participantactivities, it is estimated that approximately $84,000 could be saved.However, further analysis would be needed to verify actual numbersof participants and to estimate the specific number of participantsand costs by school. Differences in participation and costs by schoolshould be considered in refining the extracurricular formula based fundingprocess.Cost savingsNet CostImpacted StudentsDebate $ 20,10656Newspaper $ 36,21516Yearbook $ 28,02278Total Savings $ 84,343Another option would be to raise fees for yearbook and seekadditional advertisements for the newspaper to make these activitiesfiscally self sufficient.Student Impact:Approximately 4,000 high school students are involved in extracurricularactivities at MMSD. Elimination of low participation/high cost activitieswould impact approximately150 students or 3% of current participants. Itmight be argued that the newspaper and the yearbook impact morestudents than are involved as participants.Strategic Priorities: No direct link to specific curriculum or instructional priorities, unless theactivities is directly related to a for credit course and is used to enhanceinstruction (e.g. swing choir, jazz band).Board Priorities:No direct link, although the argument may be made that some studentsimprove attendance in order to participate in extracurricular activities.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 73March 11, 2002

Decision Item #8:Effectiveness:REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR EXTRACURRICULARACTIVITIES (cont.)No measures of effectiveness are available specific to MMSD activities,however research exists which argues for the benefit of providing acomprehensive education for students to include activities to round outskills in “life long” learning activities.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Given highly educated and professional nature of the Madison community,a commitment to cultural activities, and the presence of a University, someof the offerings found in extracurricular activities could be found within thecommunity. (i.e. Nonprofit or specialized theater groups offer experiencesin drama, Madison Children’s Theater, Playtime Productions).However, the number of students who could participate in such activitiesmay be limited due to number of total participants allowed (i.e. they mayhave to try out) and lack of financial ability to participate if the organizationrequires payment of a fee.Currently, many of these activities are offered for middle school studentsthrough MSCR. There may be a potential to incorporate some of theseprograms into the MSCR program.Service Delivery:In cases where competition is a obvious component of the activity(forensics, debate, marching band), offering these programs throughMSCR or other community venues may make it difficult to be recognizedfor competition.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 74March 11, 2002

Decision Item #9: REDUCE FUNDING OF RESOURCES INTEGRATED FOR SUCCESS ANDEQUITY (R.I.S.E) PROGRAMOption A: Reduce funding for the program by 50%Option B: Eliminate the Program or secure foundation fundingBackground:As part of the school improvement planning process, each school is chargedwith identifying areas of student achievement that need to be addressed.Often the issues identified relate specifically to or are more prevalent amongstudents of color. The District has set aside funding to be used specificallyto enhance the performance of students of color who have not successfullyreached achievement levels comparable to their peers. The funds arespecifically intended to differentiate and accelerate higher learning for thisstudent population.A specific process exists by which each school gets allocation based oncriteria. A condition of the funding is that each school must identify targetstudents for participation and comply with progress monitoring requirements.Each student must have defined targets, be assigned a specific staff personand have a progress report mid-year and at the end of year. A supplementalform includes evaluative data to track whether or not the identified targethas been met. This information is reviewed by the AssistantSuperintendents of Secondary and Elementary Education at year end on aschool by school basis during principal evaluations.The position of Family Community Liaison was created to assist in ensuringthe success of this program. These positions report to individual schoolprincipals and are responsible to provide liaison with students and families.Expenditures: Costs for this program are salary related and total $1,301,300.ApproximateSchool Level Allocation FTEElementary $ 576,300 22.45Middle School $ 329,700 10.63High School $ 395,3009.08$ 1,301,300 42.16* these allocations are at the teacher salary level, but are used to fund avariety of positions.Average cost per student = $644 (assuming consistent service levels to all)Revenues:FTE:None.42.16 FTE district-wide for this program, including 9 FTE as FamilyCommunity LiaisonsVirchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 75March 11, 2002

Decision Item #9: REDUCE FUNDING OF RESOURCES INTEGRATED FOR SUCCESS ANDEQUITY (R.I.S.E) PROGRAM (cont.)Anticipated Savings:ExpenditureSavings FTE ReductionOption A: Reduce funding by 50% $650,650 21.08Option B: Eliminate funding $1,301,300 42.16Student Impact:The program currently serves 2021 students district-wide and provides avariety of services from tutoring, student achievement monitoring, parentalliaison, attendance monitoring, and referral for health concerns.Strategic Priorities: Directly linked to home and community partnership priority. (1)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Directly linked to attendance goal, and indirectly linked to studentachievement in reading and math.Evaluative data are maintained and evaluated on an individual studentbasis. Historically, cumulative data have not been available to indicate theoverall effectiveness of the program. It is estimated by District personnelthat 75-80% of students reach their identified targets. Identified targetscan include specific attendance targets, maximum levels of behaviorincidents and reaching identified program objectives (e.g. ReadingRecovery).Principal rankings of allocation priorities consistently ranked the FamilyCommunity Liaison positions as a very low priority. (H.S. – averaged 25out of 27, M.S.- averaged 19 out of 20, and Elem. – averaged 18 out of20).Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Student achievement monitoring is also done by guidance counselors,minority service coordinators (at the high school), content areas resourceteachers and individual classroom teachers.Services are available to many of these students at the elementary levelthrough Reading Recovery and Title I.The Family Community Liaison function is similar to that provided by theMinority Service Coordinators at the high school and the parent communityrelations office for students at all levels.Service Delivery:Program funding intended to serve students of color may in some casesbe used for other school-wide efforts for the benefit of all students. Someargue that the true intent of the funding has been diluted to meet otherschool needs. The resources allocated through this program are notcoordinated or authorized centrally. As the District continues to developprograms and processes for staff development around instructionaldifferentiation, the ability of the classroom teacher to meet individualstudent needs improves.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 76March 11, 2002

Decision Item #10: REDUCE DISTRICT FUNDING OF READING RECOVERY (cont.)Option A: Reduce the program by 50%Option B: Eliminate the programBackground:Reading Recovery is an intervention program designed to assist thelowest achieving first grade students improve their reading and languagearts skills. The program was initiated in the District in 1989. Specificallythe program is a proactive program designed to ensure early identificationand assessment of students at risk of not achieving the recommendedlevels of proficiency in reading and language arts.Participation in the program is governed by the Reading Recovery Councilof North America. This requires implementation of its defined model andadherence to guidelines related to site operation, teacher selection andtraining, student selection, assessment and monitor, and specific programparameters (i.e. length, frequency of sessions, number of students perteacher).The reading recovery program provides the base philosophy from whichmany of the other literacy programs at MMSD are developed. The programprovides the highest level of one-on-one student service for all literacyprograms within the District. Reading recovery teachers serve a minimumof 8 students per year, with no more than 4 students being served at anytime. The students are involved in the program until they reach theoutlined achievement criterion or 20 weeks, whichever comes first.Expenditures:$1,316,133 salary expenditures$940,100 in District general funds support this program.Cost per student = $4,049• assumes 325 students/year and includes Title I fundingRevenues:District costs for this program are currently offset through $376,000 ofTitle I funding.FTE: A total of 21 FTE are dedicated to this program – 19 teacher FTE and 2teacher leader allocations. (6 FTE are funded through Title I)Anticipated Savings:SalarySavingsFTE SavingsOption A $658,000 10.5 District funded FTE21 total FTE (District and Title IOption B $1,316,100 funded)Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 77March 11, 2002

Decision Item #10: REDUCE DISTRICT FUNDING OF READING RECOVERY (cont.)Option A: Reduce resources for Reading Recovery by 50%Although the program has a positive impact on reading proficiency withinthe District, it is the highest cost literacy program. A 50% reduction of theprogram would equate to $658,000 in cost savings.Option B:Student Impact:Eliminate the Reading Recovery program.Totally eliminating the program would result in a net cost savings of$1,316,100. This action would release $376,000 of Title I funding for otherpurposes and would eliminate $940,100 from the District budget.Designed to serve the lowest 20% of 1 st grade student in terms of readingachievement, this program serves approximately 325 students per year.This program also indirectly impacts the literacy achievement of studentstaught by those instructors involved in the program as they integrate theprograms learning techniques into the general classroom in while workingin other District literacy programs.If Option A is implemented, the District may find itself allocating themajority of funding for the Reading Recovery program to the same schoolswhich receive Title I funding. This could create a situation whereby “highneeds” students in non-Title I schools may no longer have access to thisprogram.Strategic Priorities: Directly tied to the strategic priorities of Staff Effectiveness and Curriculumand Instruction. (3)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Directly linked to the goal of all students being able to read at the 3 rd gradelevel or beyond.During the years 1995 through 2000, 85% of students involved in theprogram have obtained an average reading level.The argument can also be made that this program has had an indirectimpact on other students. Specifically, training received by teachers andteacher leaders who participate in this program impacts these students astechniques learned through this program are integrated into the regularclassroom. The level of indirect impact through integration of thesetechniques can not be directly quantified. However, overall improvementhas been exhibited during the last five year in reading proficiency resultswithin those schools having been involved in this and other District literacyimprovement programs. Specifically, performance on the 3 rd grade readingcomprehension test has shown an overall decline in below standardperformance among ethnic groups during the past ten years. (with theexception of Southeast Asian which has shown a slight increase during thepast year.) In addition, comparison between proficient and advancedreading student %’s show a marked increase in level between the first andsecond grade years. The percentage of students proficient or advanced isup district-wide from 76% to 86% between these two grades.In terms of highest priority, elementary principals ranked reading recoveryallocations as an average of 5 out of 20 when ranking allocations.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 78March 11, 2002

Decision Item #10: REDUCE DISTRICT FUNDING OF READING RECOVERY (cont.)Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: The program serves similar students to those served by Title I, however,services are not duplicated as students do not receive services from bothReading Recovery and Title I at the same time. The combination of thesetwo programs allows a continuous level of intervention for the lowestachieving students.Service Delivery: The program provides the highest quality of direct-to-the-studentintervention related to reading proficiency within the District. Also, itfurthers the District’s goals of staff development relating to student literacyproficiency. However, the level of resources required is higher than allother literacy programs.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 79March 11, 2002

Decision Item #11:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE FTE IN TEACHING AND LEARNINGPhase I:Phase II:Reduce total Coordinator FTE by 2 within two yearsConvert additional 2 FTE to resource teachersBackground:The Department of Teaching and Learning (T&L) is one component of theDistrict’s efforts toward furthering the curriculum and staff developmentinitiatives.Specifically, the T&L department has the ultimate goal of enhancingstudent achievement through:• Identify essential learnings in the content areas• Support implementation of standards based classrooms• Implement research-based best practices• Promote varieties or assessments that information instruction anddocument student learning• Support District and school-based content initiative• Link MMSD and schools with local, state and national professionalresources and professional organizations.Research shows that professional development that focuses by contentarea and is sustained over a span of time can enhance instructionalknowledge and delivery skills. T&L sponsors staff development to provideteachers with the information and skills they need to implement curriculumand instructional practices for which there is research-based evidence ofpositive impact on student achievement.The coordinators play varying roles based on the content area over whichthey are responsible and the number of resource teachers for whom theyprovide direction. In most cases, we found a direct correlation between thenumber of instructional resource teachers or resource staff and the levelof priority of the content area in relation to defined District strategic goals.(e.g. Language Arts, Title I, Math).The majority of all functions performed by the T&L Coordinators wereidentified as instructional support. Based on workload figures provided bythe T&L coordinators, approximately 4 FTE in total are dedicatedspecifically toward curriculum and staff development initiatives by all theT&L coordinators including the integration of assessment into curriculumand staff development initiatives.Although state standards exist which outline “preferred” practice for eachof the content areas, the standards do not require the existence of anadministrator level coordinator for these content areas.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 80March 11, 2002

Decision Item #11:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE FTE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING (cont.)Expenditures: Total budget for the Teaching and Learning department is $6,406,000.BudgetedSalaries $4,426,000Purchased Services $ 418,000Supplies andMaterials $1,225,000Equipment $ 303,000Other $ 34,000Of the salary and fringe expenditure total, $877,500 or 20% is salaries forT&L Coordinators. This assumes an average salary and fringe rate of$90,000). The remainder of the salary dollars funds resource teachers andsubstitutes for curriculum or staff development initiatives.It should be noted that T&L coordinators have 214 day contracts while T&Lteachers work under 190 day contracts. Approximately $3,005,000 of thetotal funding for this department is entitlement funding. Additional fundingis provided through competitive grants and state categorical aids. The T&Lcoordinators are responsible to manage this funding.Revenues:FTE:The Title I coordinator position is fully funded by the Title I entitlement.9.75 administrator level FTE dedicated as coordinators within teachingand learning and distributed out as follows:Content AreaFTELanguage Arts 1.0Talented and Gifted 1.0Science .5Environmental Ed .5Social Studies .8Foreign Language .2Career and Tech Ed 1.0Library Media Services 1.0Fine Arts 1.0Phy Ed .25Health .25Title I (entitlement funded) 1.0Technology and Learning 1.0Math .25Anticipated Savings: Total savings anticipated to be $234,650.Option A: $180,000 Eliminate 2 FTEOption B: $54,650 Conversion of 2 FTE to teacher positionsImplementation of Phase II may result in an increase to extend contractbudgets needed to cover for summer inservices.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 81March 11, 2002

Decision Item #11:Student Impact:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE FTE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING (cont.)The services provided by teaching and learning coordinators have anindirect impact on students as they provide support to curriculum and staffdevelopment. The direct student impact results from resource teachersworking directly with instructors in the classroom.Strategic Priorities: Supports strategic priorities of curriculum and instruction and staffdevelopment. (3)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Certain of these positions directly support attainment of the boardpriorities for reading achievement and algebra and geometry achievement.The direct impact that these positions have on students and staff isdifficult if not impossible to quantify. The majority of the activitiescoordinated by these positions result in implementation by other positions(i.e. resource teacher, classroom teacher). The department worked todevelop methods and tools to quantify the impact of department activities,however, at the time of this analysis, such information was not available.One measure of effectiveness of these positions and the activities theycoordinate is the survey responses provided by principals. In the coreareas of Language Arts, Math, Science and Social Studies, the frequencyof interaction with school staff was considerably higher than that for thenon-core areas of Career/Tech Education, Fine Arts, Foreign Language,Environment Education. Additionally, these resources were available mostoften for staff and curriculum development.In the non-core areas the frequency of contact was higher in the areas ofTalented and Gifted, Technology and Learning, Reading Recovery (elemonly), Title I and Library Media Services. These are areas for whichspecific resource teachers and staff are available to assist directly at theschool sites.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Some of the duties currently performed by District coordinators haveminimal impact on the District’s instructional offerings or methods.Currently 1.4 FTE are dedicated to maintaining publicrelations/partnerships, maintaining intra-department communications,reviewing code compliance, and being involved in labor relations issues.Approximately 1.4 FTE cumulatively are dedicated toward staffing issues.Based on interviews with coordinators, it is our observation that ½ of theseefforts are related to interviewing of staff or consulting on labor issues andare duplicative or could be performed by others within the District (e.g.Human Resources, District principals).Service Delivery: Many other districts of similar size consolidate the coordinator roles intofewer positions with several content areas of responsibility and thenreallocate those positions as resource teachers designed to provide directservice to instruction on staff and curriculum development. The Districthas done so recently in the area of Math and should evaluate theeffectiveness and response of school staff of doing so from a more sitebasedperspective.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 82March 11, 2002

Decision Item #12:Background:REDUCE OVERALL ALLOCATION TO TAG PROGRAMThe Talented and Gifted (TAG) program at MMSD is designed to:• Assist students to recognize their full potential• Identify programming options to provide students with the “next level ofchallenge.”• Facilitate ongoing evaluation and assessment of individual studentneeds.• Assisting teachers to effectively instruct students at varyingachievement levels through curricular differentiation within theclassroom.The program is centrally coordinated by a TAG Coordinator and tworesource teachers located within the Teaching and Learning Department.Each school also is provided with a minimum of .2 targeted allocation andhas the option of using supplemental allocations to increase thatallocation. At present, there are 11 FTE total school-based allocations forTAG. The TAG coordinator has no real authority over these positions asthey report to the principals.State statutes require that all public school districts have a boardapproved “talented and gifted program.” The State of Wisconsin requiresthrough DPI standards that each school district have the following:• Method or process for identifying students with exceptional needs inthe 5 talent categories• Access to programming options and strategies• Policy regarding access to optional programsThe District has modified its approach to TAG programming and shiftedaway from a focus on pull-out student programming options to a moreintegrated within the classroom approach.This new approach has resulted in:1) a revision of the identification process to the InSTEP process whichresults in individualized student plans based on referral from parents,teachers or other District staff.2) Use of an increased level of TAG resources for staff developmentaround differentiation of instruction to meet varying achievement levelswithin the classroom. (estimated at 75% of resource time)All TAG resources are intended to assist in the correct assessment of astudent’s needs and the facilitation with content area experts regardingappropriate programming options.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 83March 11, 2002

Decision Item #12:Expenditures:REDUCE OVERALL ALLOCATION TO TAG PROGRAM (cont.)Total budget for TAG (including school allocations) is $1,032,050. Thisincludes:SalariesCentral officeSchool based$215,340$689,400Expenditures for transportation,supplemental resources andsubstitute teacher salaries. $127,300Revenues:FTE:None.3 central office staff (1 FTE at the administrator level)11 school based staffAnticipated Savings: Currently, school based resources are not used in a coordinated orcentralized fashion. Each school manages the individual TAG allocationin a decentralized manner. Additionally, these 11 FTE are actually lessthan .5 of a position which makes it difficult for these individuals to fulfilltheir intended roles. As such, we recommend the following:1) Consolidate all TAG resources centrally under the direction of thedepartment of Teaching and Learning. However, ensure that notmore than 5% of each of these positions is dedicated toadministrative duties. In other words, 95% of position activitiesshould be in direct assessment of students or assistance to staff.2) Reduce the total allocation by 5 FTE for a remainder of 9 FTE.Savings of $313,365 in salary expenditures would be realized fromthis reduction.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:It is estimated (by the District TAG coordinator) that 15-20% of thestudent population is served through the activities of this program.Assuming enrollment of 25,000 students that equals approximately 5,000students. The annual number of students involved in the identificationprocess (InSTEP) is approximately 120.Supports the strategic priorities relating to curriculum and instruction andstaff development. (3)No direct link.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 84March 11, 2002

Decision Item #12:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:REDUCE OVERALL ALLOCATION TO TAG PROGRAM (cont.)Specific data do not exist to confirm or refute the effectiveness of thisprogram. The only gauge of effectiveness is an outdated compliance auditperformed by the DPI in 1990, which noted several areas of noncompliancewith the DPI standard (t). Memos between the DPI and theDistrict indicate that some progress has been made in rectifying theseissues, however, the last documentation regarding this issue is 1994.A small number of students are also served by the Youth OptionsProgram, which requires the District to pay for attendance in universitycourses. However, this is only available to students in grade 11 andabove, whereas TAG serves students at all levels.For students grade 8 th and above, the data from the advanced placementprogram may offer data similar to what is being provided by the TAGInSTEP process. However, programming offered by advanced placementchanges the depth of the content provided but not the pace at which it isprovided. Both are key to effective TAG programming.Service Delivery:The recent transformation to the approach and delivery method fortalented and gifted programs results in a more effective use of resourcesfrom a district-wide perspective. Many districts do not have stand alonetalented and gifted programs, but rather incorporate the requirements ofthe program into other District positions and require that these students beserved within the classroom. The creation of the InSTEP process willsignificantly improve the ability of staff to monitor the needs of individualstudents and to identify specific content areas where instructionaldifferentiation is needed. Much of this work is done jointly with contentarea experts (i.e. content area resource teachers or coordinators).In addition, appropriate, consistent, and cohesive assessment andprogramming can be provided through 9.0 centralized FTE, by ensuringthat each school has a single TAG resource teacher.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 85March 11, 2002

Decision Item #13:Background:INCLUDE MINORITY SERVICE COORDINATORS IN GUIDANCEALLOCATIONIn the early 1970’s the District replaced a guidance counselor allocationwith a Career Awareness Counselor position to address issues relatingto specific needs of minority students. This position was expanded to allhigh schools and continues to exist as positions that have been retitledMinority Service Coordinator. The intent of these four positions is toensure that all students regardless of ethnicity have their needs metsocially, academically and from a safety standpoint and to increase thenumber of minority students with solid academic and social skills upongraduation.The role of these positions varies significantly within each school andincludes tasks such as mediation, testing, counseling and facilitation ofschool visits. In addition, these positions are key contacts for specialprogramming internal to the District and between the District andcommunity organizations.In addition to the minority service coordinators, each minority studentwithin the District is assigned to a guidance counselor for achievementtracking and career planning. The minority service coordinator positionsreport directly to the high school principals and therefore, do not interacton a regular basis with the Guidance Program Support position.Expenditures:Revenues:FTE:$250,690 salary and fringe expendituresNone.4 FTE – one allocated to each regular high schoolAnticipated Savings: By including these positions within a school’s guidance allocation, theDistrict would save an amount equal to 4 FTE, or $250,690.Student Impact:Intended to serve 2659 minority students at the high school level.Student to Minority Service Coordinator ratio = 664 studentsper 1 CoordinatorGuidance Counselors within the High School =Approximately 350/1 counselor.Strategic Priorities: Direct link to Home and Community Partnership objective. (1)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Direct link to board priority regarding 94% attendance rate and academicperformance.Priority of the Minority Service Coordinator allocation is ranked #19 outof 27 by school principals in terms of allocation priorities. Conversely theguidance counselor allocation is ranked #1.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 86March 11, 2002

Decision Item #13: INCLUDE MINORITY SERVICE COORDINATORS IN GUIDANCEALLOCATION (cont.)Effectiveness: (cont.) As currently allocated these positions are expected to service aconsiderable number of students. In addition, the efforts of such positionsare not coordinated with similar efforts within the guidance area. Theefforts of these positions also are mainly focused on the African Americanpopulation, while the District has approximately 1,400 students of otherethnicity.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:The positions serve a different role than guidance counselors however,some of the activities performed by both of these positions for the samestudent are duplicative. (e.g. career counseling, achievement tracking).The District would capitalize on the knowledge and experience of thesepositions by integrating the responsibilities into the guidance programwhich would allow professional development on these issues for allguidance counselors which would translate into better assimilationapproaches to minority specific issues.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 87March 11, 2002

Decision Item #14: ELIMINATE DRIVER EDUCATION FROM COURSE OFFERINGS ORMAKE SELF SUFFICIENTOption A:Option B:Option C:Eliminate the programDiscontinue offering a credit and charge a fee highenough to recoup all costsContinue to offer program - increase student fee torecoup BTW costsBackground:The District currently offers classroom instruction and behind the wheeltraining for students to fulfill the requirements to be eligible to apply for aWisconsin drivers license. This course offering is not mandated by theState Department of Transportation, nor is it a requirement for graduation.However, high school students may earn ¼ of a credit toward graduationupon successful completion of this program. This credit does not counttoward the minimum credit load requirement.Specifically, the District offers a Traffic Safety classroom course duringschool hours to fulfill the 30 hour instructional requirements related toobtaining a driver license. Traffic Safety Lab Instruction (Behind-the-Wheel) is offered before and after school to fulfill the six hour observationand six hour simulation requirements. Both course offerings are alsoavailable through Summer School and are included in total instructionalminutes when figuring general state aid.Approximately, 57% of Wisconsin school districts currently provide bothclassroom and behind the wheel course offerings. 8% of districts do notoffer driver education and 11% offer driver education as a summer schooloffering only. The District’s current $115 student fee is above therecognized 2000/2001 state average student fee of $87.The District is prohibited from charging a fee for any course for whichcredit is received. State categorical aid is dependent upon the Districtgenerating no more in student fee revenue for the course then than isincurred in cost.Expenditures:The District current spends approximately $490,860* annually to providethis course offering including:Salaries & Fringe $445,375Equipment Replacement, $29,500Rental & RepairInsurance $5,200Material/Supplies $10,785Total $490,860** Minimal costs are also incurred by Administrative Services andTeaching and Learning. These costs are not significant and, therefore,are not included.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 88March 11, 2002

Decision Item #14: ELIMINATE DRIVER EDUCATION FROM COURSE OFFERINGS OR MAKESELF SUFFICIENT (cont.)Revenues:Total annual revenues for this program equal approximately $268,750. Thisrevenue is received from state categorical revenues and through the $115student fee as follows:RevenueState Categorical Aid $ 125,000Student Fees $ 143,750Total Revenue $ 268,750Expenditures $ 490,862Net Cost to District $ (222,112)Thus, the District is not covering the cost of the program at the currentstudent fee level.FTE:AnticipatedSavings:4.55 teacher FTEAs part of the 2001-2002 budget, the District reduced the FTE dedicated tothis program by eliminating the Driver Education Coordinator position.Option A: Eliminate the programGiven the high cost of offering the program, the lack of direct tie to minimalgraduation requirements, and the availability of driver education programs inthe private sector, the District may wish to consider eliminating the program.The District would continue to incur approximately 1.5 FTE or $94,333 inteacher salary expenditures assuming one-half of these students chose totake another elective and one half were placed in a study hall.In keeping with the District’s commitment to life long learning, considerationshould be given to offering a subsidy for students eligible for free andreduced lunch. The scenario below assumes that subsidy is $100 perstudent.Net Cost to District $ 222,112Domino of reducing classroom $ (94,332.93)Subsidy program $ (35,469.00)Cost Savings $ 92,310Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 89March 11, 2002

Decision Item #14: ELIMINATE DRIVER EDUCATION FROM COURSE OFFERINGS OR MAKESELF SUFFICIENT (cont.)AnticipatedSavings: (cont.)Option A: (cont.)Assumes:1. 1250 students complete both section2. 80 students scheduled per study hall2. 30% of students take driver education3. 30% students are free and reduced lunch• Minimal one time costs of removing equipment from the classroom.• There would also be an immaterial reduction in aid due to theelimination of drivers education as a summer school offering and thecorresponding small reduction in summer school enrollment.Option B: Discontinue offering a credit and increase the fee to recoupcostsThe District currently offers credit for the course and therefore, can notcharge fees to recoup the cost of the program in its entirety. State statutedisallows student fees for classroom offerings which result in earned credits.Some districts have changed the way these courses are offered and in somecases offer them through Fund 80 programs.Student fees would need to be raised to $292 to recoup the fees. This feelevel is within the acceptable level to retain categorical aids. This wouldequate to cost savings of $222,112.Expenditures $ 490,862Revenue $ (268,750)Net Cost $ 222,112Increase in fee per student $ 177.00New fee $ 292.00Assumes:1. continued receipt of categorical aid at present level2. Stable student enrollment in both classroom and BTWThis would still be lower than the combined rate of commercial drivingschools which charge an average of $325 for both offerings.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 90March 11, 2002

Decision Item #14:ELIMINATE DRIVER EDUCATION FROM COURSE OFFERINGS ORMAKE SELF SUFFICIENT (cont.)AnticipatedOption C: Continue to offer program as current but increase fee toSavings: (cont.) $118.72The District could choose to continue to offer the program as a for creditcourse and could ensure that it is recouping the expenses related tobehind the wheel programming by increasing the student fee to cover thecurrent deficit for behind the wheel programming. This would equate tocost savings of $4,650.Behind the WheelExpenditures $ 148,400.00Revenues $ (143,750.00) $115 @1250 studentsNet cost to district $ 4,650.00Required increase to fee $3.72Revised Fee $118.72Student Impact:The course is available any student, but is primarily accessed by aportion of the 2030 students in 10 th grade. Figures received from the highschools indicate that approximately 1250 students enrolled in thisprogram during the 2000-2001 school year. Elimination of the course maynegatively impact lower income students who will not have the means toafford the cost of purchasing the service in the private sector.Strategic Priorities: No direct link.Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:No direct link, although indirectly it could be argued that this programimpacts attendance for those wishing to obtain a driver license.Outcome data would focus on the success of students in obtaining aWisconsin driver license. Specific analysis on this point is not available,nor is it directly tied to the core mission of the District.The offerings of this program, both classroom and behind the wheelinstruction, are available through other sources, primarily in the privatesector through commercial offerings. There are currently six to eightproviders of driver education in the Madison area. The average cost forthese providers is approximately $125 for classroom instruction and $200for behind the wheel. Another potential source for service would be forthe District to contract with the local CESA or technical college to providethis program. As long as the District maintains responsibility foradministering the program, they can receive the state categorical aid.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 91March 11, 2002

Decision Item #14: ELIMINATE DRIVER EDUCATION FROM COURSE OFFERINGS ORMAKE SELF SUFFICIENT (cont.)Service Delivery:The District currently waives the behind the wheel fee for students withoutthe means to pay. All other students must pay the full fee. The currentlevel of program offering costs the District and does not take advantage ofsimilar offerings in the community.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 92March 11, 2002

Decision Item #15:ELIMINATE THE ATHLETIC “NO CUT” FRESHMEN RULEOption A:Option B:Eliminate the “No Cut” Freshmen ruleIncrease athletic fees for freshmen and sophomoresBackground:The District implemented a “no cut” freshmen policy more than 20 yearsago to provide freshmen an opportunity to gain experience in athleticsbefore roster limitations were enforced. Before the policy was established,freshmen teams “cut” players to meet roster limitations after try-outs. Theplayers were often cut without any access or experience in the sport.The demand for athletics expanded. To meet the demand, middle schoolsports were created and assumed by MSCR (Madison school andcommunity recreation) offering opportunities to gain further exposure tosports at a younger age.It is important to note that no sport, whether it has multiple freshmenteams or not, is self-sufficient. Also, fee and admission revenues are notcharged against relative expenditures, nor are revenues or expenditurescaptured at the team level (frosh, JV or varsity). Thus, it is difficult todetermine, beyond estimate, which sports and even which teams are themost burdensome.While eliminating the “no cut” freshmen rule and subsequently eliminatingexcess freshmen teams was considered in the past, the Board specificallyapproved an increase of $20 in athletic fees for seniors and juniors to helpfund the program rather than eliminate it.Expenditures:The District currently spends approximately $111,000 (above and beyondtypical freshmen sports) to accommodate the “no cut” freshmen rule.PerEliminatedAggregate Roster SpotSalaries & fringe $ 88,000 $196Officiating $ 12,000 $ 27Transportation $ 11,000 $ 24Total Expenditures $111,000 $247Total Revenue ($ 27,000) ($ 60)Net Cost $ 84,000 $187Revenues: The District charges $60 per freshmen, per sport to participate inathletics. Approximately 1650 freshmen students participate in athleticsgenerating $99,000 in fee revenue. Should the “no cut” freshmen rule beeliminated, approximately 450 freshmen would not participate in athletics,decreasing fee revenue by approximately $27,000. The abandoned feerevenue may be overstated as “cut” freshmen may fill vacant roster spotsin other sports.FTE:0. Coaches and other athletic support staff are not considered in terms ofFTE.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 93March 11, 2002

Decision Item #15:ELIMINATE THE ATHLETIC “NO CUT” FRESHMEN RULE (cont.)Anticipated Savings:Option A: $84,000 could be saved if the “no cut” freshmen policy wereeliminated.Option B: Increase athletic fees charged to freshmen to $110 to raiseapproximately $82,000. The current fee for freshmen is $60.Student Impact:Option A: 450 freshmen would be impacted annually, a $187 net cost perstudent.Option B: Availability of athletics would not be reduced, however, theaccessibility to students may be hampered as some students may nothave the capacity to afford the increased fees. Also, facilities will continueto be overtaxed.Strategic Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:While we have not analyzed the direct impact athletic participation has onattendance, District sources cited research supporting that participation inextracurricular activities, specifically athletics, positively impacts schoolattendance.While the “no cut” freshmen rule was established to provide students withan athletic experience that would not be otherwise available, offeringmiddle school sports has addressed the need to expose students to sportsbefore limiting their ability to participate to meet roster spots. The “no cut”freshmen rule has increased the cost of providing athletics by increasingcoaching, transportation and officiating costs at the freshmen level,created additional teams at the junior varsity level and has overtaxedpractice facilities.Students not participating in the athletic activity of their choice have theopportunity to pursue other athletic activities or participate in other, nonathleticextracurricular activities.As an alternative to eliminating the “no cut” freshmen rule, the Districtcould significantly raise athletic fees for all participants.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 94March 11, 2002

Decision Item #16:ELIMINATE THE JUNIOR VARSITY TEAMS FORMED AS A RESULT OF“NO CUT” FRESHMEN OVERRUNOption A: Eliminate additional JV teamsOption B: Increase athletic fees charged to freshmen andsophomoresBackground:The District implemented a “no cut” freshmen policy more than 20 yearsago to provide freshmen an opportunity to gain experience in athleticsbefore roster limitations were enforced. As a result, an artificial need foradditional junior varsity teams was satisfied by creating additional JVteams, though students have had an opportunity to explore athletics at themiddle school and freshmen levels.While eliminating the “no cut” freshmen rule and subsequently eliminatingexcess freshmen and JV teams was considered in the past, fees chargedto seniors and juniors was raised $20 to help fund the program rather thaneliminate it.Expenditures:The District currently spends approximately $13,200 to add additional JVteams.Salaries & Fringe $ 7,500Officiating $ 1,700Transportation $ 4,000Total Expenditures $13,200Revenues:The revenue generated by participating athletes whose roster spots wouldbe eliminated with the abolishment of the additional JV teams isapproximately $2,400. The District charges $60 per sophomore, per sportto participate. Should additional JV teams be eliminated, approximately 40athletes would not participate in athletics, decreasing fees byapproximately $2,400. This figure assumes that athletes cut when tryingout for an initial sport would not join another team.FTE: 0.Anticipated Savings:Option A:eliminated.$10,800 could be saved if the additional JV teams wereOption B: Raising athletic fees for sophomores to $70 per student andjunior fees to $85 per student would raise athletic revenue byapproximately $14,000, covering the costs of additional JV teams.Student Impact:Option A: 40 Athletes would be impacted annually, a $260 net cost perstudent.Option B: Availability of athletics would not be reduced, however, theaccessibility to students may be hampered as some students may nothave the capacity to afford the increased fees. Also, facilities will continueto be overtaxed.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 95March 11, 2002

Decision Item #16:Strategic Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:ELIMINATE THE JUNIOR VARSITY TEAMS FORMED AS A RESULT OF“NO CUT” FRESHMEN OVERRUN (cont.)While we have not analyzed the direct impact athletic participation has onattendance, District sources cited research supporting participation inextracurricular activities, specifically athletics, increases impactedstudents’ school attendance.While the additional JV teams were created as a spill over of the “no cut”freshmen rule, upon arrival at the JV level athletes have had theopportunity to participate in athletics at the middle school level andperhaps at the freshmen level. The additional JV teams have increasedthe cost of providing athletics by increasing coaching, transportation andofficiating costs at the JV level and overtaxed practice facilities.Students not participating in the athletic activity of their choice have toopportunity to pursue other athletic activities or participate in other, nonathleticextracurricular activities.As an alternative to eliminating the additional JV teams, the District couldsignificantly raise athletic fees for all participants.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 96March 11, 2002

Decision Item #17:Background:Expenditures:Revenues:GENERATE ADDITIONAL ATHLETIC COMPETITION ADMISSIONREVENUESThe District currently collects admission fees at athletic competitions forsome varsity sports. Admission fees are not charged consistently by sportacross the District. The fee is $3/adult and $2/student.The District currently spends approximately $400,000 to $500,000 per highschool for athletics. Coaches’ salary and fringe account for the largestportion of the expenditures. Coaches are not considered in terms of FTE,their compensation is typically in supplemental funding, which provides theability to move funds easily between sports. Currently, the only ability todefray these expenditures is in participation fees as admission revenue isaccounted for in the general fund.The District currently generates approximately $120,000-$130,000 inadmission revenue annually. Assuming that each spectator was an adult,the District could raise an additional $40,000 to $43,000 dollars annually ifadmission fees were increased $1 per spectator and that increase doesnot lead to decreased attendance. Additionally, the District could raiseadded revenues, estimated at approximately $10,000 annually to takeadmission revenue uniformly at the same sporting events. Currently oneschool charges at 11 different sporting events where another schoolcharges at only 7 events. We also recommend taking admission fees atvolleyball games.FTE: 0.Anticipated Income: More than an estimated $50,000 could be generated if admission fees areincreased at the varsity level and applied uniformly across the District.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:There is direct impact on student achievement.There is no link to strategic priority.There is no effectiveness consideration as services are not to be reduced.There is no consideration for redundancy as there is no service reduction.There is no service delivery impact.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 97March 11, 2002

Decision Item #18:Background:REDISTRIBUTE THE ATHLETIC FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BYASSISTANT PRINCIPALS WITH ATHLETIC DUTIES IN HIGH SCHOOLSEach high school in the District has an athletic director, who is at theteacher classification. The director is ultimately responsible for schedulingpractice and contest facilities, transportation, scheduling officials andtracking academic eligibility. The ADs are also responsible to establishand maintain the athletic budget. The athletic directors are heavilyinvolved in the investigations involving disputes over eligibility and athleticcode violations while the assistant principal generally take the lead inassuming parents/guardian relations.Athletic secretaries support the athletic directors by contributing .5 to 1FTE per school. The athletic directors are involved with coaches, thoughthe assistant principals perform their evaluations. There is a district-wideathletic director at .5 FTE. The school level athletic directors report to theschools principal, not the District’s athletic director.Expenditures:Revenues:Assistant principals with athletic responsibilities at the high school leveltotal approximately .8 FTE equaling of salary and fringe expenditures$74,000.There is no revenue that would be foregone by eliminating the assistantprincipal with athletic responsibilities position.FTE: 0.8.Anticipated savings: $74,000 could be saved if the assistant principal (performing athleticfunctions) positions were redistributed. This savings cannot be realizedunless coupled with other FTE reductions. This opportunity reducesapproximately .2 FTE per school, a difficult reduction to realize asassistant principals are assigned by school.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:Student impact is difficult to measure. The duties currently assumed bythe assistant principals would be transferred to the school level athleticdirectors and the district-wide athletic director.We have not identified any link to a strategic priority that would precludeus from making this recommendation.The proposed change would redirect handling issues currently assumedby the assistant principals to the school level athletic directors and thedistrict-wide athletic director.The suggested reduction more efficiently aligns these functions in theDistrict.The supervision and coordination of athletics will be centralized.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 98March 11, 2002

Decision Item #19:REDUCE FUNDING FOR THE PARENT COMMUNITY RELATIONS UNITBackground: The unit, as presently constituted, was established in mid-2001; the 2001-2002 school year is its first year; predecessor organizations included theHuman Relations Department, Minority Student Achievement Division, andthe Equity, Diversity and Advocacy Department.The unit’s objective is to respond to individual student and family needsrequiring the following types of help:• Hear parent concerns• Help parents navigate through the system, especially where language,racial, or cultural barriers exist• Serve as cultural translators• Facilitate problem solving• Follow up to ensure problem is resolved• Help schools understand the nature of the problem and develop a planof action to help students and families• Help schools become more culturally sensitive and welcoming in bothenvironment and curriculum• Help parents in connecting with community resources• Broker services to minority youth• Communicate the real needs to the Board and Administration offamilies that traditionally do not come forward to voice their concernsThe District’s enrollment composition (2000-2001 school year) have led tothe unit’s functions• 18% African American• 10% Asian and Asian American• 7% Hispanic ancestry• 7% enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) (51% of newstudents speak Spanish)• 64% European AmericanExpenditures:Revenues:FTE:$422,500 ($396,600 for salaries and fringe benefits and $25,900 forsupplies and services, including up to $20,000 for community groups foroutreach and support)None.The unit has 6 full-time positions: 5 professional and 1 administrativesupport. The team consists of the Special Assistant to the Superintendentfor Parent/Community Relations, 1 Parent/Community RelationsCoordinator, 3 Parent/Community Response team members, and 1secretary. One team member is fluent in Spanish and one is fluent inHmong.The Assistant Superintendents for Elementary Education and SecondaryEducation, Title IX Coordinator, Native American Student Advisor,Talented and Gifted Coordinator, and other staff assist the ParentCommunity Relations staff on a case by case basis when needed.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 99March 11, 2002

Decision Item #19:REDUCE FUNDING FOR THE PARENT COMMUNITY RELATIONSUNIT (cont.)Anticipated Savings: Option A: Eliminate one position: $39,000 - $91,500Option B: Eliminate two professional positions: $130,900Option C: Abandon the function entirely: $422,500As the staff increases its ability to handle more cases and becomesmore productive, the District can examine the feasibility of reducing thestaff size in years 2 though 5 of its managed abandonment efforts,assuming State revenue caps remain in place.Student Impact:Based on the availability of partial year data, 118 students assisted, it isexpected that an estimated 265 students and their families will beserved during the 2001-2002 school year.Year to date, the breakdown of cases has been as follows• African American 36%• White 25%• No data indicating 16%• SE Asian & Hmong 8%• Native American 8%• Hispanic 7%Total 100%During the first four months of the school year (August – January, forwhich data are available), the unit handled 118 cases. At the end ofJanuary, 86 cases (73%) were closed (resolved) and 32 cases remainedactive (24 of which were active for more than one month). The teamprovided services to parents, families and school staff in 36 of theDistrict’s 45 schools.Each of the five professional positions handled an average of 5.4 casesper month during the period analyzed at an average cost per case ofapproximately $1,500 to $1,600 (direct costs only, indirect costs areexcluded from this estimate). The average number of cases handled permonth per professional staff member ranged from a high of 9 to a low of2.7, the latter being the Hmong-speaking professional. Each caseaveraged nine (9) hours to resolve.In aggregate, it is estimated that the professional staff spends 62% of itstime handling and resolving cases (ranges from 80% to 40%); 62% of 5positions means that 3.1 full time equivalents perform the service. Theremaining 38% of time is spent working with community groups, staffdevelopment, supporting district/community committees, andcollaborating with professional resources, etc.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 100March 11, 2002

Decision Item #19:Effectiveness:REDUCE FUNDING FOR THE PARENT COMMUNITY RELATIONS UNIT(cont.)Strengths of the unit include:• its ability to respond quickly, within 24 hours, to problems and issuesto bridge any cultural barriers to ensure that minority and multi-culturalstudents and families’ concerns and needs are addressed andresolved so that learning occurs,• ability to resolve problems before they lead to legal claims,• foreign language skills of the staff to assist in an effective way, and• skills of the staff to deal with a full range of racial, ethnic and culturalissues facing students, their families, and school faculty and staff.Weaknesses: a light caseload vis-à-vis the number of staff assigned tothe function:• A caseload per staff member that appears to be low (5.4 cases permonth per team member average). The caseload is likely the result ofthree factors: a) the newness (August 2001) of the function and thefact that its existence is not well-known, b) a lower need for servicethan estimated, and c) the average time to resolve a case is nine (9)hours.• An organization structure that appears top-heavy; 2 of the 5professional positions are senior level.Student Impact:Due to program reduction: should be minimal under Option A, althoughthis option could eliminate the unit professional with the highestproductivity – with 8.3 cases per month. This impact is likely to be morepronounced if Option C is adopted and the service is abandoned. UnderOption A, reducing the staff by one professional position may lead to anaverage caseload of 7.1 or higher cases per staff member per month asthe remaining staff grows in experience. In addition, the average cost percase handled should drop from the current $1,500 - $1,600 to anestimated $1,200. Abandoning the function completely will put pressure onAssistant Superintendents, principals, assistant principals, social workers,guidance counselors to handle these cases. Or, problems and issues thatarise may remain unresolved. Adopting Option B would eliminate aposition and the teacher position, which has handled an average of 2.7cases per month (lowest productivity), due to the relatively small numberof Southeast Asian/Hmong student cases coming to the staff forresolution. Under Option B the District would need to use another Hmongspeaking staff member or teacher to respond to students speaking thatlanguage.Strategic Priorities: This function is pursuant to the Student Support and Home andCommunity Partnership priorities.Board Priorities:This function conforms to the Board’s priority of having all students,regardless of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic or linguistic subgroup attendschool at a 94% attendance rate at each grade level.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 101March 11, 2002

Decision Item #20:Background:INCREASE MAXIMUM CASELOADS FOR OCCUPATIONALTHERAPISTS OR ELIMINATE THE USE OF THERAPY ASSISTANTSAs required by federal and state law, the District provides occupationaltherapy and physical therapy as related services when the child needstherapy to function in the education setting and when documented in astudent’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The Department’s 2001-2002 budget includes allocation for 15.7 occupational therapy assistants,22.7 occupational therapists, 18.75 physical therapists, and .6 physicaltherapist assistants.The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) has the followingcaseload standards for occupational and physical therapists:A. A minimum of 15 childrenB. A maximum of 30 childrenC. A maximum of 45 children with one or more occupational therapyassistantsHowever, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is more restrictive.The CBA indicates that a therapist with an assistant will carry a maximumcaseload of 40 children, compared with the DPI recommended maximumcaseload of 45. In addition, the CBA further restricts assignments,indicating that therapists will not be assigned to more than four schools.As a result of this restriction, a 1.0 therapist may allocated to four schoolswhose combined caseload alone does not require a 1.0 therapist.There are two options available to the District to restructure therapystudents:Option A: Increase the maximum caseload with assistant to DPIstandard of 45Option B: Discontinue the use of therapist assistants and assign alltherapists a caseload of 30Expenditures: For purposes of this analysis, the department’s projections for 2002-2003were used, to ensure that changes in overall therapist requirements areaccounted for. Based on anticipated enrollment projections for 2002-2003,the current CBA allocation model would require 22.6 occupationaltherapists and 13.7 occupational therapist assistants, for an estimatedtotal expenditure of approximately $2.2 million.Revenues:(Department-wide) The District does receive Federal Entitlements (IDEAFlow-Through) as well as categorical IDEA Grants and State Aid.Entitlement funds are based on an unduplicated head count. Categoricalaids reimburse based on expenditures (at the rate of approximately 30%).Total budgeted revenue from federal entitlements in 2001-2002 isapproximately $3 million, with an additional $200,000 in categoricalrevenue and $17 million in categorical state aid. The District receivescategorical aids of approximately 30 percent of expenditures for thesestaff positions. In addition, the District receives annual Medicaidreimbursement for direct services including occupational and physicaltherapy. In the 2000-2001 school year, the District received $166,513 foroccupational therapy and $121,574 for physical therapy.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 102March 11, 2002

Decision Item #20:INCREASE MAXIMUM CASELOADS FOR OCCUPATIONALTHERAPISTS OR ELIMINATE THE USE OF THERAPY ASSISTANTS(cont.)FTE: Option A: Reduction of 1.75 FTE Occupational TherapistsOption B: Reduction of 14.25 FTE Occupational TherapistAssistants, partially offset by an increase of 6.85Occupational TherapistsAnticipated Savings: Savings (including an offsetting reduction of 30 percent of categorical aids) areanticipated to be:Option A: $94,763Option B: $245,030Summary OT FTE OT $ TA FTE TA $ Total CostCostsAvoidedCategorical AidNetSavingsCurrent Allocation Method 22.06 $ 1,382,588 14.25 $ 813,204 $ 2,195,792 $ - $ - $ -Cap to 45 with TA 19.90 $ 1,247,213 14.25 $ 813,204 $ 2,060,417 $ 135,376 $ (40,613) $ 94,763No TA's, Cap at 30 29.45 $ 1,845,749 0.00 $ - $ 1,845,749 $ 350,043 $ (105,013) $ 245,030Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:There would be no effect on Medicaid revenue, as the same number ofstudents would be served. Therapists are directly engaged in providingservices to students, as required in the child’s IEP. However, because theDistrict could implement either alternative and maintain the DPIrecommend maximum caseloads, there should be minimal negative impacton students for either alternative.NANAOther Considerations: While it is not cost beneficial to use therapist assistants, the market forassistants has historically been less tight than for therapists. Severalyears ago, physical and occupational therapists were difficult for schooldistricts to attract, and the use of therapist assistants allowed the Districtto ensure that services were not compromised as a result of the labormarket. While the current market for therapists is not tight, it isconceivable that the market could change.Implementing Option A would require a change to the collectivebargaining agreement. The CBA currently restricts therapists to amaximum caseload of 40 (with assistant) and a maximum of fourschools. These restrictions would need to be removed from the CBA forOption A to be feasible.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 103March 11, 2002

Decision Item #21:Background:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE PROGRAM SUPPORT FTE FOR SPECIALEDUCATION (ELIMINATION OF 3.0 PROGRAM SUPPORT TEACHERPOSITIONS)The Department of Educational Services, Division of Special Education, isresponsible to deliver specially designed instruction and related servicesto students with disabilities. The Division of Special Education hasdedicated program support teachers to assist in the implementation ofthose services.Specifically, program support teachers function like “master teachers,” andperform the following functions:• Serve as special education teacher on initial IEP (IndividualizedEducation Programs) evaluations – this is part of the District’s centrallycoordinated IEP system (CCIS)• Serve as facilitator for IEP meetings to determine manifestation relatedto expulsion recommendations• Provide professional development services to staff• Respond to staff requests for supportAlthough the law does not specify a level of support required for specialeducation, the Federal law that governs delivery of special educationservices (IDEA 97) does require that individual plans include a statementof program modifications or supports that will be provided for schoolpersonnel. Program support teachers (PST) play a crucial role in ensuringthat these supports to staff are in place.In addition to the functions identified above, program support teachersplay a variety of roles that vary with their designation, includingcoordinating professional development for all special education staff andserving on the collaborative school reform project. In addition, some PST’sare dedicated to particular functional areas (including autism, assistivetechnology, occupational and physical therapy, technology, and earlychildhood). Five PST positions implement specific mandated programs,including 1.0 early childhood, 2.0 child find, and 1.5 private parochial –assisting with screenings, public information and child identification).Workload figures provided by the Department indicate that the programsupport teachers complete approximately 600 IEP evaluations annually(an average of approximately 32 per PST primarily assigned toevaluations). Program support teachers also complete approximately 75manifestation determinations annually. In 2000-2001, program supportteachers responded to 214 requests for support from staff, including 104autism requests, 39 staff training requests, and 71 student specificrequests. These requests for support are directly related to implementingstudents’ IEP’s.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 104March 11, 2002

Decision Item #21:Expenditures:Revenues:FTE:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE PROGRAM SUPPORT FTE FOR SPECIALEDUCATION (ELIMINATION OF 3.0 PROGRAM SUPPORT TEACHERPOSITIONS) (cont.)There are currently 33.8 program support teachers in the Division ofSpecial Education, according to the most recent organizational chart,including 4.5 FTE funded through IDEA flow-through funds. This equatesto approximately $2,181,020. The department’s total special educationservices budget for 2001-2002 is over $53 million, approximately 19percent of the District’s total budget.The District does receive Federal Entitlements (IDEA Flow-Through) aswell as categorical IDEA Grants and State Aid. Entitlement funds arebased on an unduplicated head count. Categorical aids reimburse basedon expenditures (at the rate of approximately 30%). Total budgetedrevenue from federal entitlements in 2001-2002 is approximately $3million, with an additional $200,000 in categorical revenue and $17million in state categorical aid. The District also receives Medicaidreimbursement for many direct services to special education students,including the time spent by Program Support Teachers in evaluatingstudents.Program Support Teacher FTE broken out as follows:FunctionFTECentrally Coordinated IEP System(primary focus is evaluation) 18.3OT/PT 4 1.0Assistive Technology 1.0Staff Productivity/Technology 540Autism 2.5Child Find/Screening 2.0Early Childhood 1.0Private & Parochial 1.5Professional Development 2.0Collaborative School Reform 2.5Anticipated Savings: Expenditures anticipated to be reduced by $180,000, for elimination of 3program support teacher positions, assuming an average salary ofapproximately $54,000, including fringe benefits. These savings wouldbe partially offset by reduction of $60,000 in state categorical aid, for anet savings of $126,000.4 There are two OT/PT program support teachers listed on the organizational chart. However, each ofthese positions spends half his/her time serving as a therapist. Therefore, the total PST allocation is 1.0.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 105March 11, 2002

Decision Item #21:REDUCE/REORGANIZE THE PROGRAM SUPPORT FTE FOR SPECIALEDUCATION (ELIMINATION OF 3.0 PROGRAM SUPPORT TEACHERPOSITIONS) (cont.)Student Impact: The services provided by program support teachers primarily affectstudents indirectly as the support is primarily directed to specialeducation staff to ensure optimal services. Some services, such as childfind and assistive technology are provided more directly to students(either screening or helping match students with appropriatetechnology). Others, such as professional development andcollaborative school reform, are exclusively indirect in the effect theyhave on students. The professional development PST positions werecreated when the centrally coordinated IEP program was developed. Atthat time, all program support teachers were removed from schools, asthe evaluation system was redesigned to ensure consistency inevaluation and PST’s were assigned to serve on evaluation teams.Strategic Priorities: Supports strategic priorities of staff development. (3)Board Priorities: NAEffectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:The direct impact that these positions have on students and staff is notpossible to quantify. The majority of the activities directed by thesepositions result in implementation by special education teachers orassistants. There are no data available to determine the effectiveness ofstaff development or the role that program support teachers play inensuring compliance with the law.Some functions performed by program support teachers are alsoperformed elsewhere within the organization. For example, while there isone PST dedicated to technology, there are also technology supportstaff in research and evaluation who are available to respond to staffquestions or concerns. The department has two staff dedicated toprofessional development, which is a function shared by all programsupport and by the staff and organizational development department. Inaddition, there are three staff dedicated to collaborative school reform.Service Delivery:Reductions in program support staff (if not taken from targeted supportsuch as professional development, technology, or collaborative schoolreform) would likely increase the caseloads for support requests andevaluations. Assuming all reductions were taken from CCIS, the averagenumber of evaluations per PST would increase from 32 to 35.Other Considerations: The CCIS PST’s have allowed the District to experience a decline overthe past two years in the percentage of students being found eligible forspecial education. The department also reports that the CCIS PST’shave increased compliance with IDEA.Collaborative school project PST’s (2.5) and staff development PST’scould play an important role in supporting schools with redesigningservice delivery and staffing schedules if the student/teacher ratio wereto increase.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 106March 11, 2002

Decision Item #22: ELIMINATE SELECTED NURSE FUNCTIONS AND REDUCE ALLOCATIONACCORDINGLYBackground:The 2000-2001 allocation for Student Services includes an allocation of21.1 nurses and 26.58 nurse assistants to provide health services. Asdescribed in the budget narrative, “the health services staff providesservices to all students in the MMSD to ensure that health problems orconcerns are not barriers to a student’s learning.” The District also has sixadditional nurse FTE funded externally (outside the Student Servicesbudget).Nurses perform many functions, including health curriculum, direct nursingservices (counseling, crisis intervention, communicable diseases, diagnosisand treatment, direct care and referral, and screening), immunizations, staffdevelopment, clinics and other efforts to increase attendance, coordinationwith parents, community, and health care providers, and AODA assessmentand prevention. The District also recently expanded health services toinclude administering acetaminophen/ibuprofen, administering epinephrineand nebulized medication, and diagnosing minor acute illnesses.The District produces an annual report summarizing health services. Thisreport provides substantial data about health office visits and disposition. In2000-2001, there were 259,177 office visits. Of those, nurse assistantsprovided 195,552, and nurses provided 59,262 (both the nurse andassistant provided services in the remaining visits). Nurse assistants areoften the first to see students to come to the health office. Nurses, inaddition to seeing students, provide numerous other functions, includingservices to staff, acting as a health advocate to groups of students,services to special education students, health educator services, screeningand general management. During the 1998-1999 school year, the Districtconducted a random sampling time study of nurses’ time. Following are theresults 5 :NursesFunction% of Tim eFTEAllocationCostAllocationDirect Nursing Services (to staff) 1.90% 0.4 $ 27,461H ealth A dvocate (individualstudent) 43.49% 9.2 $ 628,564H ealth A dvocate (g ro u p s of students 7.87% 1.7 $ 113,746SpecialEducation Services 6.05% 1.3 $ 87,441H ealth Educator 6.65% 1.4 $ 96,113H ealth Screening 2.67% 0.6 $ 38,590Generalm anagem ent 31.80% 6.7 $ 459,608T otal 21.1 $ 1,445,3085The Health Educator function also includes a small amount of time counseling to groups of students.This time was not considered to materially affect this analysis. The number of health sessions in 98-99was 719, compared with 824,834, and 854 in 00-01, 99-00 and 97-98, respectively. In 97-98, the healtheducator function represented 7.87% of nurses’ time – over 1% more than in 98-99, when fewer sessionswere offered. Given that counseling to groups is less than 1% of this time, the allocation of 6.65% to theHealth Educator category is appropriate.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 107March 11, 2002

Decision Item #22:Background: (cont.)ELIMINATE SELECTED NURSE FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)There are two categories into which these functions fall:Functions directed to improving students’ health:9 Health Advocate (individuals)9 Health Advocate (groups)9 EEN Services9 Health ScreeningFunctions that are discretionary:9 Health Educator9 Direct Nursing Services to StaffThe remaining function, general management, is assumed to be requiredto perform the above (this category includes supervision of the nurseassistants, transportation between sites, staff meetings anddevelopment and record-keeping). Although 30 percent of time formanagement duties may appear high at first glance, given the inclusionof record keeping in this category, it cannot be determined without adetailed operational review whether reductions in the percent of time formanagement are possible.Although the data have not been collected since 98-99, the two years forwhich data were collected show fairly stable levels of effort for eachfunction. In addition, while there have been some changes in services(reductions in Special Education assessments due to the IDEAimplementation and increases in health advocate to students), thesechanges would represent shifts in time between functions directed tostudents’ health, and would not affect discretionary functions.As the data shows, 8.5 percent of nurses’ time is spent deliveringdiscretionary services. Given an allocation of 21.1 nurses, this translatesinto approximately 2 nurse FTE.Expenditures: The 2001-2002 Student Services budget includes approximately $1.4million for nurses.Revenues:The District receives Medicaid revenue for nursing service to students.In 2000-2001, this amount totaled $16,471. This revenue should not beaffected by eliminating the discretionary functions identified.FTE: If the above discretionary functions were eliminated, approximately 2.0FTE could be eliminated.Anticipated Savings: Assuming an average salary with fringe benefits of $68,500,approximately $137,000 could be saved if nurses no longer provideddirect services to staff or provided educational services and theallocation were reduced accordingly.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 108March 11, 2002

Decision Item #22:Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:Effectiveness:ELIMINATE SELECTED NURSE FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)There is no student impact of discontinuing nursing services to staff. Ifthe nurse’s role as health educator were eliminated, there would be anincreasing requirement for teachers to teach health related classes.Currently, teachers can request that a nurse teach health relatedclasses (the most common request being human sexuality). If nurses nolonger provided this function, teachers would be required to teach theseclasses. There is no data to suggest that health courses are moreeffective when taught by a nurse than when taught by a regular teacher.Nurses’ functions are linked to the strategic priorities of student supportand home community partnership. There is no direct link betweeneliminating the identified functions and strategic priorities.Nurses’ functions that focus on improving student health are directed atimproving attendance, which is a key Board priority. Therefore, thosefunctions were not identified as options for reductions. However, there isno link to Board priorities for the role of nurse as health educator (ifteachers provide instruction) or as provider of nursing services to staff.No data were provided to suggest that nurses are better healtheducators than teachers.Other Considerations: This analysis presumes that eliminating functions and the correspondingdemands on nurses’ time can lead to a reduction in overall allocation ofnurses by a corresponding amount. It should be noted, however, thatthere are likely operational differences in how nurses spend their time,based on the needs of the schools to which they are assigned.Therefore, this reduction in functions and total nurse FTE’s allocated toschools should be accompanied by a reexamination of the allocationformula to ensure continued appropriateness.Although there is no uniform national standard for nurse student ratios,the National Association of School Nurses recommends the followingratios:1:750 general populations1:250 mainstreamed populations1:125 severely handicapped populationsThe current ratio of nurses to students is 1:950. A reduction of 2.0 FTEwould yield a ratio of 1:1040. While this is higher than professionalassociation standards, it is important to note that the District also has26.6 nurse assistant FTE’s to assist in service delivery.The principal survey results provide additional information on theappropriateness of nurse allocations (prior to any adjustments). Whenasked to rank the importance of over 20 allocations, principals at highschools, middle schools, and elementary schools ranked nurses as 3, 6,and 4, respectively (with one being the most important).Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 109March 11, 2002

Decision Item #22:ELIMINATE SELECTED NURSE FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)Other Considerations: In analyzing the role of nurses in providing services to staff, it should be(cont.)noted that some nurses may serve as Employee Assistance Program(EAP) representatives, and may include time spent in that function inthis category. However, since any employee can serve as arepresentative, eliminating the function of nursing services to staffshould not affect the EAP program.Alternatives:This analysis did not include the option of eliminating or reducing nursesassistant allocations. Because nurse assistants are often the first tierprovider of services to students who come in to the health office,reducing nurse assistant allocation would require a commensurateincrease in nurse allocation (with a higher average salary).Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 110March 11, 2002

Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT PSYCHOLOGIST FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLYBackground:The 2001-2002 budget for Student Services includes an allocation of35.7 psychologists. As described in the budget narrative, “schoolpsychologists promote mental health and facilitate learning through acontinuum of comprehensive services to children, parents, school staff,and the larger community.”Psychologists perform the following functions:PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: Individual student assessments ofcognitive ability, adaptive behavior, academic skills, socialemotional/behavioralskills, language and communication skills, sensoryand perceptual-motor skills, vocational development, environmentalinfluences.CONSULTATION: Consultation with parents, staff and communityproviders, design and development of procedures for preventingdisorders, improving educational systems/promoting mental health andlearning, direct consultation with teachers on teaching strategies,participation with other education staff in planning programs.CRISIS INTERVENTION: Includes support to students and staff during dayto day crises and support to students, staff, and parents during identifiedcritical incidents.INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING: One to one psycho-educational interventiondesigned to help students cope with a given situation.GROUP COUNSELING: Psycho-educational intervention designed to helpstudents cope with a given situation.CASE MANAGEMENT: Coordination of multi-disciplinary services tostudent, liaison with community providers, record keeping.AFFECTIVE EDUCATION: Psycho-educational intervention or instruction ofa curricular topic that is educational in nature: i.e. protective behaviors,depression, alcohol or other drug issues, violence.PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Provision of in-service education andother staff development activities, participation in staff development,service on committees responsible to develop and plan education,research, program planning and evaluation, and supervision of schoolpsychologists in training.Psychologists are allocated to individual schools based on a formula thatconsiders overall enrollment, special education enrollment, and poverty.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 111March 11, 2002

Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT PSYCHOLOGIST FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)Background: (cont.)The District produces an annual report summarizing psychologistservices, based on a random sample time study. This report provides asummary of psychologists’ time spent for each functional area. Using the2000-2001 report, we identified the following allocation of FTE and costsby function:PsychologistsFunction% of TimeFTEAllocation Cost AllocationAffective Education 6.99% 2.5 $ 156,249Assessment 24.71% 8.8 $ 552,348Consultation 25.81% 9.2 $ 576,936Crisic Intervenion 5.83% 2.1 $ 130,319Case Management 14.43% 5.2 $ 322,557Group Counseling 3.19% 1.1Individual Counseling 8.59% 3.1Professional Development 10.55% 3.8 $ 235,826Total 35.7 $ 2,235,320Psychologist functions are also broken down into categories accordingto who is served. Following is that breakdown for 2000-2001:AffectiveCrisis Case Group Individual ProfessionalEducation Assessment Consultation Intervention Management Counseling Counseling Development TotalAdult Staff 0.00% 0.04% 3.58% 1.90% 0.24% 0.00% 0.30% 0.87% 6.93%Class ofstudents2.47% 0.04% 0.15% 0.09% 0.07% 0.04% 0.00% 0.30% 3.16%District-wide 0.00% 0.08% 3.62% 0.32% 0.43% 0.00% 0.00% 4.45% 8.90%Group ofstudentsIndividualStudents1.50%1.26%0.04%23.11%1.06%13.95%0.42%2.27%0.26%9.13%2.36%0.24%0.02%7.64%0.37%0.73%6.03%58.33%School-wide 1.76% 1.41% 3.35% 0.84% 4.30% 0.55% 0.63% 3.84% 16.68%Total 6.99% 24.72% 25.71% 5.84% 14.43% 3.19% 8.59% 10.56%The functions provided by psychologists can be divided into three categories -Health Safety functions, mandated functions and discretionary functions.Mandated functions:9 AssessmentHealth and Safety functions:9 Consultation9 Crisis Intervention9 Case management9 Group counseling9 Individual CounselingDiscretionary functions:9 Affective education9 Professional development (assume 4% is time spent developingother District staff and 6% is time spent in professional development)Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 112March 11, 2002

Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT PSYCHOLOGIST FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)Background: (cont.)Expenditures:As the above chart depicts, almost 3.4 percent of psychologists’ time isspent delivering services to staff. An additional 4 percent is spent ondelivering professional development services (assuming 5.69 is spent onobtaining professional development) with an additional 7 percent spenton instruction to classes. Approximately 14.4 percent of psychologists’time is in providing instruction to students or services to staff. Based onthe total expenditures of $2.2 million, expenditures for these functionsamount to approximately $320,000.The 2001-2002 budget includes an allocation of 35.7 psychologists, forapproximately $2.2 million for psychologists.Revenues: The District receives categorical state aid reimbursing approximately 30percent of expenditures for psychologists. The net cost of the currentallocation is approximately $1.56 million. The District also receivesMedicaid revenue for psychologists’ direct services to special educationstudents. The District has only begun to bill Medicaid for these services,and no prior year actual data for this revenue is available. However,eliminating the functions identified in this item should not affect Medicaidrevenue received.FTE:5.1 FTE would be eliminated, along with the identified discretionaryfunctions.Anticipated Savings: Approximately $224,000 in savings would result if discretionary functionswere eliminated and the allocation were reduced accordingly (assumingan average salary of approximately $62,614, for expenditure reductionsof $320,000 partially offset by revenue reductions of $96,000).Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:Effectiveness:If psychologists no longer provide staff development, there may be anindirect effect on students through reduced teacher knowledge related torelevant issues. If the psychologists’ role as educator were eliminated,there would be an increasing requirement for teachers to teach affectiveeducation classes. Currently, teachers and psychologists shareresponsibility for affective education classes. There are no data tosuggest that affective courses are more effective when taught by apsychologist than when taught by a regular teacher. With the exception ofpositive behaviors curriculum (which is mandated), the District also hasthe option to discontinue affective education. However, if affectiveeducation is effective (for which no data are available), discontinue thecurriculum could lead to increased student difficulties in related areas.Staff effectiveness is a strategic priority (3), and psychologists are a keycomponent of student support (2).NAData are not available to determine the effectiveness of staff developmentor affective education performed by psychologists.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 113March 11, 2002

Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT PSYCHOLOGIST FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Both psychologists and social workers perform some functions (includingcounseling). It is not possible to determine, however, whetherpsychologists and social workers are treating the same students. Inaddition, many professionals contend that the service delivery modelsare different, and some students may be better served by socialworkers, while psychologists best serve others.Other Considerations: This analysis presumes that eliminating functions and the correspondingdemands on psychologists’ time, can lead to a reduction in overallallocation of psychologists by a corresponding amount. It should benoted, however, that there are likely operational differences in howpsychologist spend their time, based on the needs of the schools towhich they are assigned. Therefore, this reduction in functions and totalpsychologist FTE’s allocated to schools should be accompanied by areexamination of the allocation formula. For example, if a greater portionof a certain function was performed at one school, that school’sallocation would be reduced more significantly than that of a schoolwhere psychologists spend more time on counseling students andparents.Although there is no uniform national or state standard for psychologistto student ratios, the mean in Wisconsin is 1196 students perpsychologist – the national mean is 2,195. The MMSD ratio is 627students per psychologist (placing the District in the 10 thpercentile ofdistricts in Wisconsin 6 ). If the allocation were reduced by 7.2 FTE, theratio would be 765 students per psychologist, which is still above the25 th percentile for the state.The principal survey results provide additional information on theappropriateness of psychologist allocations (prior to any adjustments).When asked to rank the importance of over 20 allocations, principals athigh schools, middle schools, and elementary schools rankedpsychologists as 5, 3, and 3, respectively (with one being the mostimportant).In analyzing the role of psychologists in providing services to staff, itshould be noted that some psychologists may serve as EmployeeAssistance Program (EAP) representatives, and may include time spentin that function in this category. However, since any employee can serveas a representative, eliminating the function of psychologist services tostaff should not affect the EAP program.6Data source: National Association of School Psychologists survey – results available on the web atwww.nasponline.orgVirchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 114March 11, 2002

Decision Item #24:Background:ELIMINATE SELECT SOCIAL WORK FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLYThe 2000-2001 Adopted Budget for Student Services includes anallocation of 37.3 social workers. According to the District’s schoolsocial work service delivery framework…”[the social workers] arehired …to enhance the District’s ability to meet its academic mission,especially where a collaboration between home, school, andcommunity is key to achieving that mission.”Social workers are allocated to individual schools using a formula thattakes into account projected overall enrollment, the number of specialeducation students, and the poverty rate at a given school. Theformula is weighted most heavily to schools with high poverty rates.The District produces an annual report summarizing social workservices, entitled, “Data Summary and Analysis for Social WorkServices.” This report provides a summary of social workers’ timespent for each functional area. Using the 2000-2001 report, weidentified the following allocation of FTE and costs by function 7 :Social WorkersFunction% of TimeFTEAllocationCostAllocationIndividual Services 35.67% 13.3 $ 851,426Groups and Classroom Interventions 11.94% 4.5 $ 285,002Home-School Communication 14.46% 5.4 $ 345,154Partnerships with Community Agencies 9.81% 3.7 $ 234,160Program Development/Implementation 11.45% 4.3 $ 273,306Services for Safe, Caring, AcademicallySuccessful Schools16.70% 6.2 $ 398,621Total 37.3 $ 2,386,954Included in these functions are numerous sub-functions. Of the subfunctionsperformed by social workers, several are instructionalsupport or discretionary. Following is a list of sub-functions that fallinto each category, with discretionary or support items listed in italics.INDIVIDUAL SERVICES:9 assessment/screening9 counseling/problem solving9 crisis intervention9 teacher/principal/grade level consultation9 personal counseling/consultation/problem solving staff7This data includes all social workers (including those allocated with RISE or as supplemental). Forpurposes of this analysis, it is assumed all social workers on average, have the same breakdown of timeby function. Only social workers funded from student services are included with this decision item, asothers are addressed elsewhere (with the RISE program decision item or in the overall allocationdiscussion).Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 115March 11, 2002

Decision Item #24:Background: (cont.)ELIMINATE SELECT SOCIAL WORK FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)STUDENT GROUPS AND CLASSROOM SERVICES:9 Educational and support groups (AOD, anger management, socialskills),9 Classroom services (conflict resolution, mental health,protective behaviors, gang prevention, and safety).HOME-SCHOOL COLLABORATION:9 Parent consultation/counseling9 Parent advocacy9 Referral of family to community resources9 Parent education.PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS:9 Transition students in foster care, corrections, detention,residential treatment9 School contact person/representative9 Educational resource to community groups9 Develop and facilitate collaborative partnerships9 Coordination of community services with school programming. 8LEADERSHIP IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION:9 Curriculum development9 Attendance/truancy9 Multi-cultural achievement9 Services to pregnant and parent students9 Programs and services for mobile and homeless students9 Depression screening9 Suspension/expulsion9 Building and district crisis response9 Mentoring and tutoring programs9 Families and Schools Together, Joining Forces for Families9 Safety/gang prevention.SERVICES FOR SAFE, CARING, ACADEMICALLY SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS:9 Provide staff development9 school improvement/climate/discipline plans9 Community building with students, staff, and parents,9 Building consultation team9 AOD Screening Team9 Minority Achievement Committee.8While collaborative relationships are discretionary, they are also integral to the social work model forensuing students’ health and are not identified as discretionary for purposes of this analysis.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 116March 11, 2002

Decision Item #24:Background: (cont.)ELIMINATE SELECT SOCIAL WORK FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)Discretionary sub-functions (and the corresponding allocation) could beeliminated. Although the data summary does not provide timeallocations for sub-functions, it can be estimated that social workersspent approximately the following percent of time on discretionaryfunctions 9 :9 Personal counseling to staff: 4%9 Classroom services 10 : 6%9 Educational resource/community groups: 2%9 Staff Development 4%Thus, it can be estimated that approximately 16 percent of socialworkers’ time is spent delivering discretionary services to staff,community groups, or to classrooms. Based on total expenditures of$2.4 million, expenditures for these functions total an estimated$384,000Expenditures:The FY 2001-2002 Budget includes approximately $2.4 million forSchool Social Workers:Salaries and fringe $2,378,504Other $8,450Total $2,386,954Revenues:The District receives categorical state aid reimbursement approximately30 percent of the salaries for social workers. The net cost of the currentStudent Services allocation for social workers is approximately $1.67million.In addition, social workers contend that their work contributes to Districtrevenue, as they are crucial to enrolling difficult-to-enroll children, andto identifying students eligible for free and reduced lunch. Both of thesefunctions are performed by social workers for the benefit of students,but they also contribute to the District’s aid revenue.FTE:Anticipated Savings:6.0 FTE would be eliminated, along with the identified discretionaryfunctions.If discretionary functions were eliminated, expenditures could bereduced by $384,000 assuming an average salary of approximately$64,000 and 6.0 FTE. This savings would be offset by a reduction incategorical aid of approximately $115,000, for a net savings ofapproximately $269,000.9 Due to the lack of time study detail at the sub-function level, the percentages of time allocated tofunctions are estimates, based on available data, interviews, and comparisons with other school supportstaff time summaries.10 Although law requires one classroom service (positive behaviors), social workers are not required to deliver theinstruction.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 117March 11, 2002

Decision Item #24:Student Impact:ELIMINATE SELECT SOCIAL WORK FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)There is no direct student impact of discontinuing social workersservices to staff. If social workers no longer provide staff development,there may be an indirect link through reduced teacher knowledgerelated to relevant issues. If the social worker’s role as educator wereeliminated, there would be an increasing requirement for teachers toprovide classroom services (although social workers could continue todevelop curriculum). There are no data to suggest that such classes aremore effective when taught by social workers. With the exception ofpositive behavior curriculum (which is mandated, but could be deliveredentirely by teachers), the District also has the option to discontinuethese classroom is program is directed toward staff development, andthere are no direct student impacts. However, there may be an indirectlink between the program and improving administration (therebyindirectly affecting student achievement).Strategic Priorities: Home and Community Partnerships are supported by social workers (1)through collaborative relationships. In addition, social workers are a keycomponent of student support (3)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Social workers often see students to improve attendance. In the 1 stsemester of 2001-2002, social workers served 2,730 students (30% ofall those served by social workers) to improve attendance 11 . Data arenot available to determine what percent of students served increasedattendance as a result of social worker interaction, but anecdotalevidence suggests that that is the case.Data from the 1 st semester of 2001-2002 (and including all school socialworkers) indicates that 7,370 students were served. Of this total, socialworkers enrolled 1,170 students in the District, enrolled 1,471 studentsin free and reduced lunch, and provided classroom services to 7,886students. There are no data to demonstrate the outcomes of theseservices.One measure of effectiveness could be the principal surveys, whererespondents were asked to assign priority to over 20 allocations,including social workers, psychologists, and guidance counselors. Onthe survey, high school, middle school and elementary school principalsranked social workers 2, 8, and 2, respectively.11 Includes all social workers at the District, not just those funded through student services.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 118March 11, 2002

Decision Item #24:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:ELIMINATE SELECT SOCIAL WORK FUNCTIONS AND REDUCEALLOCATION ACCORDINGLY (cont.)Some functions (such as counseling) are performed by both socialworkers and psychologists. It is not possible to determine, however,whether they are treating the same students. In addition, manyprofessionals contend that service delivery models for social workersand psychologists are different, and some students may be better servedby social workers, while psychologists best serve others. As outcomedata are not available for either group, it is not possible to prove ordisprove this assertion. Services provided by social workers are notgenerally available in the community, except to select students inspecific circumstances.Other Considerations: This analysis presumes that eliminating functions and the correspondingdemands on social workers’ time, can lead to a reduction in overallallocation of social workers by a corresponding amount. It should benoted, however, that there are likely operational differences in howsocial workers spend their time, based on the needs of the schools towhich they are assigned. Therefore, this reduction in functions and totalsocial worker FTE’s allocated to schools should be accompanied by areexamination of the allocation formula. For example, if a greater portionof a function was performed at one school, that school’s allocation wouldbe reduced more significantly than that of a school where social workersspend more time on counseling students and parents.The National Council of State Consultants for School Social WorkServices recommends the following school social worker-studentpopulation ratios:1:2,000 Total school population with no special concentration1:1,500 Total school population with poverty concentration1:1,000 Total school population with special education population1:800 Total school population with special needs and povertyconcentration1:500 Total school population with special needs, poverty, andminority concentrationThe current social worker ratio at the District is approximately 1:660.This ratio includes only social workers budgeted in studentservices (including all social workers currently at the District, theratio would be 1:520). Assuming a reduction of 16 percent, or 6.0 socialworker FTE given the 2001-2002 allocation, the ratio would be 1:800.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 119March 11, 2002

Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS AND FTE IN STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONDEVELOPMENTBackground:The department of Staff and Organization Development is a crucialcomponent of the District’s efforts to ensure optimal staff effectiveness.The functions performed by the department include the following:• Consultation, collaboration, planning and facilitating the following:• District improvement initiatives• School Improvement initiatives• Special school projects• Use of student data• Classroom Action Research• Summer institutes• Grant development• Staff development, including principal staff development• Researching, developing, and implementing a staff developmentframework and best practices around staff development andorganizational improvements• Maintaining infrastructure and logistics for course and creditopportunities and providing instructor process support• Planning, organizing, and leading professional learning opportunities(such as team development and support)While the District has not conducted studies specific to its staffdevelopment, general research does suggest a relationship between staffdevelopment and improvements in student learning. Thus, the direct staffdevelopment activities of this department are largely instructional support,while the other initiates are instructional or corporate discretionary.Based on workload figures provided by the Staff and OrganizationDevelopment Department, the equivalent of 1.5 FTE is dedicated to thefollowing functions:9 Consulting and facilitating special school projects, including schoolinitiatives and team development and support – conflict resolution9 Consulting and facilitating special district projects, including districtinitiatives and consultation to central office departments9 Assisting with grant development9 Coordinating and facilitating classroom action research 12 (alsoincludes $23,000 in funding to support substitutes for participantsconducting research)9 Student data assistance12 Classroom action research is a process that allows participants to reflect on their practices using thetechniques of research.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 120March 11, 2002

Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS AND FTE IN STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONDEVELOPMENT (cont.)Background: (cont.)If the above functions were eliminated, 1.0 FTE staff developmentspecialist position could be eliminated. 13These functions identified above are candidates for abandonment for thefollowing reasons:Consulting andFacilitating SpecialSchool ProjectsConsulting andFacilitating SpecialDistrict ProjectsGrant DevelopmentAssistanceClassroom ActionResearchStudent DataAssistanceDiscretionary function – projects could becompleted without facilitation assistanceDiscretionary function – projects could becompleted without facilitation assistanceAssistance with grant development andwriting is available from other internal districtsourcesDiscretionary function – although participantsreport strong benefitsAssistance with student data applicationsand interpretation are available from otherinternal district sourcesExpenditures:Total budget for the Staff and Organization Development department is$910,000.BudgetedSalaries $711,132Purchased Services $105,870Supplies and$54,150MaterialsEquipment $1,000Other $38,550Total $910,702Of the salary expenditures, approximately $380,000 or 53% is required forDepartment staffing. In addition, over $250,000 provides extendedcontract and other funding for teaching of summer institutes. Theremainder of the salary dollars funds requirements for organizational orstaff development initiatives.13 Note: In 2001-2002 (the year for which data were collected) that department had 1.0 grant position, which isscheduled to end with the year. This grant position currently support other department functions half time, resultingin a need to eliminate 1.5 FTE of functions to achieve a reduction of 1.0 FTE.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 121March 11, 2002

Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS AND FTE IN STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONDEVELOPMENT (cont.)Revenues:FTE:The department’s budget includes $25,000 in miscellaneous revenue for aone-time gift.3.0 FTE dedicated as staff development specialists:Anticipated Savings: Total savings anticipated to be:$94,000 1 FTE and Classroom Action Research fundingStudent Impact:The services provided by staff and organization development specialistshave an indirect impact on students as they provide support to curriculumand staff development, and organizational improvement. The impact onstudents or staff of eliminating only those selected functions identifiedabove and 1.0 FTE should be minimal for those functions available fromother MMSD departments.The elimination of classroom action research would not directly affectstudents, except to the extent that participants learn and apply improvedclassroom techniques through the process. The effects of participationcannot be discerned, nor can it be determined how many of the 30-40annual participants would conduct research in their classroom without theprogram.Strategic Priorities: Supports strategic priorities of staff development. (3) It should also benoted that a key priority of the superintendent is school improvementplanning. If the process is revised and greater role need by played by Staffand Organization development, the reduction of force by 1.0 FTE will limitthe department’s ability to respond to the need for that expanded role inSchool Improvement Planning. Many other departments are also involvedin the School Improvement Planning process, including Research &Evaluation and Teaching & Learning. This analysis is based on currenttime allocations. The department contends that upcoming initiatives,including administering PI34 (new teacher licensing requirements) and theschool intervention process will place additional demands on staff time inthe future.Board Priorities:Effectiveness:NAThe data were not available to assess the impact of staff developmentspecialist functions on staff development or student achievement. Themajority of the activities directed by these positions require additionalimplementation by teachers, principals or administrators.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 122March 11, 2002

Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS AND FTE IN STAFF AND ORGANIZATIONDEVELOPMENT (cont.)Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Numerous units within the District have some identified responsibility forstaff development, including teaching and learning. For many of thefunctions identified above for abandonment, there is another source withinthe District.Service Delivery:In other organizations, staff and organizational development functions areoften rolled into human resource functions. However, it is unlikely thatsuch a consolidation would result in savings, as the functions wouldrequire staff allocation regardless of where they are performed.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 123March 11, 2002

Decision Item #26:Background:REDUCE FUNDING FOR SUMMER INSTITUTESThe budget for the Department of Staff and Organizational Developmentincludes approximately $260,000 for salaries, supplies, and operatingexpenses for summer institutes. The summer institutes are anopportunity for the District to provide District specific staff developmentduring the summer, when District staff members may have more timeavailable to dedicate to such development.The summer institutes vary greatly in subject matter, which is based onneeds identified by Teaching and Learning (75%), Educational Services(20%) and Student Services (5%), with one institute (the PrincipalInstitute) offered by Staff and Organizational Development. Institutescan be based on curriculum development or staff development. Thefollowing chart provides a summary of summer institutes in 2001:Type of CourseNumber ofCourses Course Hours Enrollment20-29 hours 21 430 1,02330-39 hours 9 274 20840+ hours 4 190 60Grand Total 34 894 1,291Data on attendance for individual offerings was provided as this reportwent to press, but without ample time for incorporation into this analysis.There is no overall mechanism to measure the effectiveness of theofferings, nor were there data to compare the priority of offerings (forexample, to compare a course with low enrollment but that is a ‘train thetrainer’ model with a course with high enrollment that is classroomstyle).The institutes are part of the District’s choice to offer District specificstaff development to ensure consistency in curricular approachthroughout the organization.Expenditures: The Staff and Organizational Development budget includesapproximately $260,000 for summer institutes (including expendituresfor salaries, supplies and operating expenses).Revenues:FTE:There is no material revenue associated with this program.NA. The summer institute budget does not include additional FTE. Thebudget does include funding for extended contracts for those who teachthe institutes and other staff requirements. The 2001-2002 budgetincludes approximately $221,000 for these staff requirements.Anticipated Savings: In funding for summer institutes were reduced in half, approximately$129,000 in savings would be achieved.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 124March 11, 2002

Decision Item #26:Student Impact:REDUCE FUNDING FOR SUMMER INSTITUTES (cont.)The summer institutes have an indirect impact on students as theyprovide curriculum and staff development. Reductions in funding forinstitutes would likely mean more staff would obtain professionaldevelopment from outside sources. It is impossible to determine whateffect this could have on student learning, since there is no Districtspecific data demonstrating the effectiveness of these institutes. It islikely, however, that outside sources of staff development may not beconsistent with the District’s approach or philosophy.Strategic Priorities: The institutes support the strategic priority of staff development. (3)Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service delivery:NAThe summer institutes vary greatly in subject matter, which is based onneeds identified by Teaching and Learning (75%), Educational Services(20%) and Student Services (5%), with one institute (the PrincipalInstitute) offered by Staff and Organizational Development. Institutescan be based on curriculum development or staff development. There isno overall mechanism to measure the effectiveness of the offerings, norwere data on attendance readily available. Reductions in funding forinstitutes would likely result in a need to prioritize offerings. Also, theinstitutes are a primary mechanism used to facilitate District sponsoredstaff develop to protect investments in standards based curriculumdevelopment and facilitate a common philosophy and approach. Fewerinstitutes would likely mean more staff would obtain professionaldevelopment from outside sources that could negatively impact theDistrict’s ability to train on MMSD specific instructional philosophies andmethods.There is limited other funding available for summer institutes. Summerinstitutes are one of the primary vehicles used to deliver instructionspecific to the District’s philosophies and methods. The District doesprovide staff development course offerings during the fall/winter/springas well, which are supported within various department budgets andallocations. In 2001, 333 courses were offered, for 4,881 course hoursand 3,940 enrolled for fall/winter/spring offerings.NA.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 125March 11, 2002

Decision Item #27:Background:PRORATE PART-TIME TEACHER HEALTHCARE CONTRIBUTIONSThe District offers dental and medical healthcare benefits to all teacherswith an FTE status of .5 or greater. When an eligible teacher elects toparticipate in District healthcare benefits, the District contribution amountis the same for every teacher, regardless of the teacher FTE status. TheDistrict dollar contribution amount is the same for teachers employed asfull-time 1.0 FTE employees as it is for part-time teachers employed as .5FTE through .9 FTE employees. This allows part-time teachers to obtainfull-time equivalent benefits without additional part-time teachercontributions.Our review of this program indicates MMSD could reduce expenditures fordental and medical benefits by electing to prorate these benefits for parttimeteachers based upon teacher FTE. Under this plan, the District wouldprovide a percentage of the usual District contributions for part-timeteachers equivalent to the teacher FTE status. For example, a .5 FTEteacher would receive a District contribution of 50% of the usual Districtcontribution for a 1.0 FTE teacher.For comparison purposes, we reviewed part-time benefit program for otherorganizations and noted the following:• The State of Wisconsin has the same policy currently in place atMMSD, providing and funding full-time benefits to all employees witha status of .5 FTE or greater.• The City of Madison’s policy is to prorate benefits for part-timeemployees.• Dane County has a policy to prorate benefits for part-time employeesto the nearest tenth (.1).• A survey conducted of 63 Madison area organizations in year 2000 bythe Greater Madison Area Chapter of the Society for HumanResources Management reports the following:- 84% of these organizations provide benefits to part-timeemployees.- 42% of these organizations that provide part-time benefits proratethe benefits based on hours worked.Expenditures:For year 2000-2001 the total cost of these benefits for part-time teachersare $3,141,185. District and part-time teacher contributions for year 2000-2001 are:Benefit Total District Contribution Total Teacher ContributionSingle Dental $ 11,655 $ 1,294Family Dental $ 190,832 $ 21,211Single Medical $ 164,505 $ 17,447Family Medical $2,486,664 $247,577Totals $2,853,656 $287,529Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 126March 11, 2002

Decision Item #27:Revenues:FTE:PRORATE PART-TIME TEACHER HEALTHCARE CONTRIBUTIONS(cont.)No revenues are generated for the District for these benefit plansYear 2000-2001 part-time teacher dental and medical participation:Part-Time TeacherBenefitParticipationSingle Dental 41Family Dental 265Total Dental 306Single Medical 45Family Medical 255Total Medical 290Anticipated Savings: Prorating the benefit contributions based upon teacher FTE status shiftscosts from the District to part-time teachers equivalent to the percentagedifference in each part-time teacher’s actual FTE versus a 1.0 FTE.Total benefit costs remain the same. For year 2000-2001 the total costof these benefits are $3,141,185.Under a prorated plan, District and part-time teacher contributions foryear 2000-2001 would be redistributed as follows:BenefitTotal DistrictContributionTotal TeacherContributionSingle Dental $ 8,088 $ 4,862Family Dental $ 117,689 $ 94,353Single Medical $ 111,128 $ 70,824Family Medical $ 1,542,812 $1,191,429Totals $ 1,779,717 $1,361,468Total District savings is $1,073,939 annually. With insurance costs risingeach year, savings in subsequent years is likely to be higher than thesavings stated here for 2000-2001.It is likely that some part-time teachers will elect not to participate indental and medical benefits when their dollar contributions increase. Anydecrease in participation would generate additional District savings inthe sum of the total usual District contribution for each part-time teacherelecting not to participate.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:No impact on students or student achievement levels.Supports Strategic Priority of Efficient, Strategic Resource use through areduction of overall District cost per pupil based on the dollar savingsgenerated through proration.NAVirchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 127March 11, 2002

Decision Item #27:Effectiveness:PRORATE PART-TIME TEACHER HEALTHCARE CONTRIBUTIONS(cont.)The actual benefits received remains the same for part-time teacherselecting to participate in District dental and medical plans.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Part-time teachers may have availability of group insurance through aspouse. Under proration, the services remain the same, however costcontribution increases for participants. The District has historicallyprovided these benefits to part-time teachers. As a result, elimination ofthis program to part-time teachers will likely be perceived as taking away ateacher benefit.Service Delivery:No impact.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 128March 11, 2002

Decision Item #28: ELIMINATE ADMINISTRATORS’ RETIREMENT PLAN (NOT WRS)Background:This administrator retirement plan is in addition to retirement benefitsMMSD administrators receive through the Wisconsin Retirement System(WRS). The Administrators’ Retirement Plan was initiated by the Districtas an early retirement incentive program and to reward long-termadministrative service to the District. The program provides retirees with aretirement sum paid out over a three to five year period followingretirement.The program operates as a Board of Education approved plan with severalessential elements:• The program is voluntary• Eligibility for an administrator to participate requires 7 years ofadministrative service and the participant’s age and total service to theDistrict must total an eligibility factor of at least 70. The seven-yearrequirement has several additional requirements listed in the plandetail. Once seven years is achieved administrators may beginparticipation in the required 5-year contribution period for eligibility.• Eligibility is contingent upon administrator contribution required at aminimum of $50/month for five years and continuously thereafter untilleaving the District. Administrators receive these employeecontributions back as a part of this plan, in addition to the Districtcontribution.• As of the latest plan revision in July 1999, fifteen years ofadministrative service, including five years employee contribution,results in $30,600 District contribution. Twelve years of administrativeservice, including five years employee contribution results in $27,540District contribution. If an employee does not resign after five years ofcontributions, an additional $1,000 is contributed by the District eachyear up to a maximum total benefit of $34,203 per participant for the2002-2003 year.• The Board of Education can limit the number of retirees participating inthe plan each year to 4, although if funds are available the Board mayallow more participants. Historically, the Board has allowed all eligibleretirees to participate.• In consideration of the benefits afforded under this policy, participantsin this plan must perform consultation to the District after retirementfrom the District. The District and the administrator enter into acontract for services determined most advantageous to the District bythe District Superintendent. The consultation services have a minimumrequirement of 20 days of consulting services.Our review of this program indicates that this program does not benefit theDistrict through promotion of early administrator retirements. Alladministrators meeting the eligibility factor of 70 and electing to participatewill receive administrator retirement benefits, regardless of age.Additionally, benefits to the District resulting from consulting servicesrendered by the administrators are not substantial enough to offset thepayout benefit.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 129March 11, 2002

Decision Item #28:Expenditures:ELIMINATE ADMINISTRATORS’ RETIREMENT PLAN (NOT WRS)(cont.)Recent historical eligibility payouts for the Administrator Retirement Planprogram:Year Total Plan Dollar Payout Average Retiree Payout1999 $175,750 $ 29,2922000 $108,000 $ 36,0002001 $284,520 $ 35,5652002 $136,812 $ 34,203Revenues:FTE:No revenues are generated for the District under this program, howevera minimum of 20 days of consultation services is provided to the Districtfrom each participant.Recent historical retirees participating in this plan are as follows:Number of PlanYear Participant Retirees1999 62000 32001 82002 4Anticipated Savings: Elimination of this program would likely need to be phased out over aminimum 3-5 year and maximum 10 year time frame in order toaccommodate those who have either already retired or already electedto participate in the plan’s five-year contribution period. Participants areprovided benefit payouts over an additional three to five year time frameas outlined in the program guidelines.An interim savings measure would be for the Board of Education toenforce the maximum rule of 4 participants per year to cap the Districtpayout of benefits each year at $146,880. The Board of Education hasgranted benefits to greater than 4 participants in 2 of the past 4 years.Total potential District savings for these two years had the Boarddecided to cap the number of participants to 4 is $266,880. For the 2002year, the number of eligible participants is 4, thus no Board action isrequired. For future years, this could have savings impact.Another alternative is for the Board of Education to immediatelydiscontinue new participants retirees into the program and refund allparticipant contributions. The Board of Education could then decide tocontinue the three to five year payout plans for participants alreadyreceiving a payout, or provide lump sum payouts to these participantswhich would eliminate the program over a shorter time period.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 130March 11, 2002

Decision Item #28:ELIMINATE ADMINISTRATORS’ RETIREMENT PLAN (NOT WRS)(cont.)Anticipated Savings: Option A is elimination of the program over a 5-10 year time. This option(cont.)allows all participants who have already elected to begin their five-yearcontribution period to continue the program. This option would not resultin any District savings until after year 5. At year 5, savings would occurover a 3-5 year time frame until maximum savings of $146,880 isachieved annually thereafter, This estimate assumes 4 eligibleparticipants each year at a maximum eligibility payout.Option B is for immediate plan elimination resulting in the Districtdiscontinuing District contributions to all those who have not given noticeto retire. This would accelerate District savings by five years and providethe District additional savings of $146,880 per year over a five year timeperiod. Total additional potential savings under this option is $734,440.Either option has choices of providing lump sum payouts to existingretiree participants, or continuation of existing retiree payout plans overthe stated 3-5 year period. District savings between these two payoutalternatives are negligible. The potential additional benefit of lump sumpayouts is earlier elimination of plan administration responsibilitiesthrough Human Resources.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:Elimination of the Administrator Retirement Plan program should have noimpact on students or student achievement levels.NANAThis program was intended to serve the District through overall costsavings generated as a result of administrator turnover. Over time, thisprogram has evolved to result in additional District costs, instead ofDistrict savings as intended. Elimination of this program would have longtermpositive financial impact for the District.Administrator retirees already receive retirement benefits at retirementthrough other programs. Elimination of this program to administrators willbe perceived as taking away a benefit.No impact.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 131March 11, 2002

Decision Item #29:Background:ELIMINATE TEACHER EMERITUS RETIREMENT PROGRAM (TERP)The Teacher Emeritus Retirement Program (TERP) was initiated by theDistrict in the early 1980’s as an early retirement incentive program. It wasintended to promote early teacher retirement, resulting in teacher turnoverand lower overall salaries for the District. The program provides retireeswith a retirement payout for three years following retirement.The program operates as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) underthe Collective Bargaining Agreement with MTI. The current MOU runsconcurrent with the Teacher’s Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2001-2003.Specifically, the MOU outlines the following important guidelines of theprogram:• The program is completely voluntary• Only teachers defined in MTI’s “Teacher” Collective BargainingAgreement with the District are eligible to participate in TERP• Teachers must enroll by signing an agreement form with the District byFebruary 15 of the year the retiree wishes to begin participation inTERP, with the termination of the individual teacher contract effectiveat the end of the school year. TERP payouts commence October 1 ofthe same year.• Eligibility for a teacher to participate requires the participant’s age andtotal service to the District to total an eligibility factor of at least 75, ortotal service to the District of at least 30 years• Compensation under TERP is considered a retirement benefit and ispaid monthly by the District to the teachers for the duration of ateacher’s participation in the program• Compensation is calculated as the sum of 19% of the eligible retiree’shighest annual salary per year. The District pays eligible retirees thisamount for three years.• Eligible retirees can elect between a payout distribution method ofcash or a flexible spending account under Section 125 Plan forPayouts.Our review of this program indicates TERP no longer serves the purposeintended as no evidence can be found linking the program to promotion ofearly teacher retirements.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 132March 11, 2002

Decision Item #29: ELIMINATE TEACHER EMERITUS RETIREMENT PROGRAM (TERP)(cont.)Expenditures:Recent historical payouts for the TERP program:Year Total TERP Dollar Payout Average Retiree Payout1998-1999 $1,258,833 $ 9,3941999-2000 $1,565,035 $ 9,9682000-2001 $1,597,898 $10,0502001-2002 $1,940,779 $10,378Expenditures for this program are based on the number of eligible retireesparticipating in the program each year and the highest annual salaryearned by the participant. While it is difficult to predict the number ofteachers deciding to retire each year, it is likely that salaries will increaseannually. This will increase the average annual payout, creating a longtermupward trend in total dollar TERP payouts.Revenues:FTE:No revenues are generated for the District under TERPRecent historical retirees participating in TERP are as follows:Year Number of TERPEligible Retirees1996 341997 561998 441999 572000 582001 72Anticipated Savings: Elimination of this program would likely need to be phased out over atleast a 3 year time frame to accommodate those who have alreadychosen to participate in TERP and will be provided benefits over threeyears as outlined in the program guidelines. A decision to eliminate theprogram after February 15, 2002, and before February 15, 2003 wouldresult in no new TERP payouts starting with 2003 retirees. Year 2000TERP retirees would still be eligible for TERP payments throughSeptember, 2003. Year 2001 TERP retirees would be paid throughSeptember 2004. Year 2002 TERP retirees would be paid throughSeptember 2005. Under this scenario, District realization of savingswould begin in October 2003 with reduction of approximately 1/3 of theaverage payout since no new retirees would enter the payout pool.However, 2 years of retirees would still exist in the payout pool fromexisting 2001 and 2002 retirees. Beginning October 2004 the savingswould be an additional 1/3 of the total payout, with the remaining 1/3savings beginning October 2005 when all TERP payouts would no longerbe in effect.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 133March 11, 2002

Decision Item #29: ELIMINATE TEACHER EMERITUS RETIREMENT PROGRAM (TERP)(cont.)Anticipated Savings: Conservatively calculating savings at 2001-2002 TERP payout levels of(cont.)$1,940,779 annually, anticipated savings estimates are:Year Total TERP Dollar Payout Savings2002-2003 $1,940,779 $ 02003-2004 $1,293,853 $ 646,9262004-2005 $ 646,926 $1,293,8532005-2006 $ 0 $1,940,779Savings years above are stated October through September each year,equivalent to the TERP payout schedules. Potential savings would beginin October 2003, thus for the District budget year 2003-2004, savingswould be slightly less than stated here, and savings would extend into the2006-2007 year through September 2006.Elimination of this program may yield additional savings opportunities forthe District. Long-term savings may be achieved in Human Resourceswhen this program no longer requires administration. Short term salarysavings may occur in the year the District announces discontinuation ofTERP as teachers close to retirement qualifying for TERP may elect toretire earlier in order to participate in TERP. This could result in newteachers hired at lower salary levels to replace retirees at higher salarylevels.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:Effectiveness:NANANAThis program was intended to serve the District, not the teachers, throughoverall cost savings generated through teacher turnover. This programmay encourage some teachers to retire earlier, thus creating Districtsalary savings due to turnover. However, there is no early retirement agewindow for the program that limits program participation to only those thatchoose to retire early. Over time, this program has evolved to result inadditional District costs, instead of District savings as intended.Elimination of this program would have long-term positive financial impactfor the District.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 134March 11, 2002

Decision Item #29: ELIMINATE TEACHER EMERITUS RETIREMENT PROGRAM (TERP)(cont.)Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:Service Delivery:Teacher retirees already receive retirement benefits at retirement throughother programs. This additional benefit was intended to serve the District,not the teachers, through overall cost savings generated through teacherturnover. The current plan serves as an added teacher retirementbenefit, rather than a program benefiting the District through savings as aresult of early retirements. As a result, elimination of this program toteachers will be perceived as taking away a teacher benefit. It is not clearwhether teachers will feel inclined to seek employment at another schooldistrict as a direct result of elimination of TERP.No impact.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 135March 11, 2002

Decision Item #30:Background:BUSSING 2.0 MILE RADIUSAccording to Wisconsin law ((statute 121.54 (2) (a)), a pupil attending apublic elementary or secondary school, including kindergarten, isentitled to transportation by the public school district in which the pupilresides if the pupil resides two or more miles from the nearest publicschool the pupil is entitled to attend.In addition to the 2.0-mile requirement, the District is required totransport pupils in areas of where unusual hazards exist for pupilswalking to and from school. The hazard plan is developed by the Boardof Education and filed with the county sheriff.MMSD enforces a hazard plan for all elementary schools, with thepresumption that hazards jeopardize the safety of elementary agepupils. The same presumption is not made with middle and high schools.It is presumed that middle and high school age pupil safety is notjeopardized by the same hazards due to their age.The Madison Metropolitan School District currently exceeds the 2.0-milestate law, electing to transport pupils residing 1.5 miles or more from thenearest public schools the pupil is entitled to attend.Our review of pupil transportation indicates potential savings for theDistrict to move to a policy of a 2.0-mile radius, as required by law, fromthe current 1.5-mile radius that exceeds the requirements of the statelaw.Expenditures:Revenues:FTE:For year 2001-2002 the additional total costs to the District for bussingon a 1.5 mile radius versus a 2.0 mile radius is $255,816.No revenues are generated.No FTE impact.Anticipated Savings: Bussing on a 2.0 mile radius versus a 1.5 mile eliminates a total of 12bus routes totaling an annual District savings of $255,816.Three elementary schools are served by 4 of the routes projected to beeliminated for a total savings of $19,282:Elementary School Routes EliminatedGompers 1Van Hise 1Huegel 2Two middle schools are served by 8 of the routes projected to beeliminated for a total savings of $236,534Middle School Routes EliminatedSpring Harbor 5Wright 3Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 136March 11, 2002

Decision Item #30:BUSSING 2.0 MILE RADIUS (cont.)Anticipated Savings:No High school routes are projected to be effected or eliminated.(cont.)The majority of elementary bussing routes are created due to hazards, notas a result of distance. This is why the change in mileage radius impactsfew routes.Student Impact:Elimination of bus routes not required by law reduces the number ofstudents bussed to school by the District. The fact that MMSD has beenserving additional students through these 12 routes has created anexpectation for both students and parents that bussing will be available onthese routes for students going forward.Strategic Priorities: NATaking bussing away from these students is likely to have a negativepolitical impact from parents who must now find alternate means oftransportation for their children. Additionally, it is possible for theelementary routes that parents may file hazard grievances with the schooldistrict in attempts to reinstate the bus routes due to unusual hazardsexisting. Currently, no hazards are on file for the routed selected to beeliminated.Board Priorities:Effectiveness:NANARedundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: In some situations is possible for students, especially middle schoolstudents, to utilize Madison Metro bussing as an alternate means oftransportation to school. The District currently supplies students qualifyingfor need with Madison Metro Bus tickets. Accessing Madison Metroservices could be difficult for some students depending on their proximityto these routes.Service Delivery:No impact.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 137March 11, 2002

Decision Item #31:Background:ELIMINATE HIGH COST/LOW PARTICIPATION SPORT OFFERINGSThe District currently spends approximately $2,000,000 for high schoolathletics. Each school is allowed to budget approximately $400,000 to$500,000 annually for sports. Sports vary in their costs per student andparticipation levels. Listed below are sports with the highest per studentcost.Ranking* ofCost/Student(1=HighestCost)Ranking* ofParticipation(1=LowestParticipation)SportGross Costper StudentParticipationHockey 1,280 1 87 4Girls Golf 595 2 44 1Wrestling 520 3 101 5Gymnastics 470 4 82 2Girls Basketball 460 5 224 14Boys Swim/Dive 455 6 86 3Boys Basketball 435 7 261 16Boys Volleyball 430 8 108 6Boys Golf 415 9 116 7Football 315 10 516 21Baseball 310 11 202 12Girls Swim/Dive 290 12 123 8Girls Soccer 275 13 278 18Softball 260 14 204 13Boys Soccer 250 15 303 19Girls Tennis 230 16 187 12Girls Volleyball 210 17 307 20Girls Track 210 18 226 15Boys Tennis 175 20 153 10Boys Track 205 19 278 17Boys X-Country 170 21 142 9Girls X-County 160 22 148 10* The rankings compared all sports, including those not documented in thetable.Expenditures:District-wide expenditures for the high cost sports of hockey, girls golf,wrestling, gymnastics, and boys swimming/diving total $267,730.SportBudgetedExpenditure Revenue*Hockey $111,360 $27,960Girls Golf 26,180 3,180Wrestling 52,520 8,940Gymnastics 38,540 7,320Girls Basketball 103,040 31,240Boys Swim/Dive 39,130 6,990Boys Basketball 113,535 45,290Boys Volleyball 46,440 7,860Boys Golf 48,140 7,720Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 138March 11, 2002

Decision Item #31:ELIMINATE HIGH COST/LOW PARTICIPATION SPORT OFFERINGS(cont.)Expenditures: (cont.)Revenues:SportBudgetedExpenditure Revenue*Football $ 162,540 $ 66,220Baseball 62,620 13,520Girls Swim/Dive 35,670 10,010Girls Soccer 76,450 26,190Softball 53,040 13,380Boys Soccer 75,750 30,310Girls Tennis 43,010 12,620Girls Volleyball 64,470 19,800Boys Track 47,460 16,690Girls Track 26,775 10,240Tennis- Boys 56,990 24,140Boys X-County 24,140 10,020Girls X-County 23,680 10,500Totals $1,331,480 ($921,340)* Both gate and fee revenue.Total gate revenue generated by all District sports is $410,140. Fee andgate revenues are not applied against specific expenses by sport.However, estimated fees and gate revenue for hockey, girls golf,wrestling, gymnastics, and boys swimming/diving are $54,390.RevenueSport Fees Gate TotalHockey $ 6,360 $ 21,600 $ 27,960Girls Golf 3,180 3,180Wrestling 6,840 2,100 8,940Gymnastics 5,620 1,700 7,320Girls Basketball 14,440 16,800 31,240Boys Swim/Dive 6,340 650 6,990Boys Basketball 16,840 28,450 45,290Boys Volleyball 7,460 400 7,860Boys Golf 7,720 7,720Football 34,620 31,600 66,220Baseball 13,520 13,520Girls Swim/Dive 8,660 1,350 10,010Girls Soccer 18,240 7,950 26,190Softball 13,380 13,380Boys Soccer 20,060 10,250 30,310Girls Tennis 12,620 12,620Girls Volleyball 19,300 500 19,800Girls Track 15,340 1,350 16,690Boys Tennis 10,240 10,240Boys Track 19,140 5,000 24,140Boys X-Country 10,020 10,020Girls X-County 10,500 10,500Totals $280,440 $129,700 $410,140Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 139March 11, 2002

Decision Item #31: ELIMINATE HIGH COST/LOW PARTICIPATION SPORT OFFERINGS(cont.)FTE:0. Coaches and other athletic support staff are not considered in terms ofFTE.Anticipated Savings:Approximately $213,340 could be saved, $267,730 in expenditures lessthe $54,390 in revenue, if hockey, girls’ golf, wrestling, girl’s gymnasticsand boys’ swimming and diving were eliminated.It is important to note that while girls’ basketball is ranked as the fifth mostexpensive sport, it is not included as an option for elimination becauseeliminating the amount of female participants it provides may impose TitleIX implications. Title IX is address in the Student Impact section.Student Impact:Approximately 400 students, 275 boys and 125 girls, would be impacted ifthe sports identified were eliminated. Of total participants, boys accountfor 56% of the total and girls for 44%. The District currently enrolls 12,251male students and 12,642 female students. Enrollment distribution is 51%and 49% respectively. The current participation distribution is +/-5%relative to total enrollment. By eliminating the hockey, girls’ golf, wrestling,gymnastics, and boys’ swimming and diving the distribution would changeto 55% and 45% respectively, changing the ratio to +/-4% relative to totalenrollment. To satisfy Title IX concerns, equal opportunity must be offeredto boys and girls. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights,charged with enforcing Title IX, provides that a school that can answer“yes” to any of the three following questions is in compliance with Title IX:1) Are interscholastic level athletic participation opportunities for maleand female students provided in numbers substantiallyproportionate to their respective enrollments in the overall studentpopulation?2) If the members of one gender have been and areunderrepresented among interscholastic athletes, can the schooldistrict show a history and continuing practice of programexpansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developinginterests and abilities of the members of that gender?3) If neither of the first two prongs may be satisfied, can an institutionotherwise demonstrate that the interests and abilities of themembers of that gender have been fully and effectivelyaccommodated by the present athletic program?Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 140March 11, 2002

Decision Item #31: ELIMINATE HIGH COST/LOW PARTICIPATION SPORT OFFERINGS(cont.)Student Impact: (cont.)Participation inBoys Sports ParticipationParticipation inGirls Sports ParticipationBoys Tennis 153 Girls Golf 44Boys Track 278 Girls Swim/Dive 123Boys X-Country 142 Girls Soccer 278Hockey 87 Girls Basketball 224Wrestling 101 Girls Tennis 187Boys Swim/Dive 86 Girls Volleyball 307Boys Basketball 261 Girls Track 226Boys Volleyball 108 Gymnastics 82Boys Golf 116 Softball 204Football 516 Girls X-County 148Baseball 202Boys Soccer 303CurrentParticipation 2,353 1,823% 56% 44%ParticipationAfter TotalReduction 2,079 1,697% 55% 45%Strategic Priorities:Effectiveness:While we have not analyzed the direct impact athletic participation has onattendance, District sources cited research supporting that participation inextracurricular activities, specifically athletics, positively impacts schoolattendance.Eliminating the identified sports would significantly reduce the cost ofdelivering athletics to students, as athletics are not self-funding.Eliminating all of the sports identified could potentially raise Title 9 issuesfor the District.Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere: Students not participating in the athletic activity of their choice have theopportunity to pursue other athletic activities or participate in other, nonathleticextracurricular activities.Service Delivery:As an alternative to eliminating the identified sports, the District shouldconsider raising athletic fees to the level that all sports could be selfsufficient.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 141March 11, 2002

Decision Item #32: RISK MANAGERBackground:We have conducted an independent review of MMSD’s need for a riskmanagement position as a part of our functional analysis. This review isbased upon an interview with the current Risk Manager, David Norman;review of MMSD documentation related to the position; and our knowledgeof risk management as a school district function. While we have notperformed a full and detailed operational review of this position, we feelthe level of our review is sufficient to comment on the need for such aposition within MMSD.The current risk management position is new to MMSD with the start of the2001 budget year. Previously, the functions performed under this positionwere the responsibility of various positions within Business Services. Thecurrent Risk Manager is also responsible for District safety. Our reviewindicates that the current time split between safety and risk managementresponsibilities is approximately 50/50. Thus, the current position can beviewed as a .5 FTE safety position and a .5 FTE risk managementposition.The .5 FTE safety position involves the following essential tasks:• Safety compliance to Federal, State and local laws, regulations andcodes including OSHA and ADA and fire codes.• Disaster and emergency planning and response for the District. Thisincludes responding and reporting to emergencies and accidents, andcoordinating fire and tornado drills as required.• Direct and participate in collection and disposal of all Districthazardous waste.• Perform all safety inspections and review and implement safetyprocedures.• Direct the Driver Education Program.The .5 FTE risk management position involves the following essentialtasks:• Manage and direct the worker’s compensation program for the District.• Investigate and resolve all claims involving worker’s compensation,property and liability.• Ensure adequate insurance coverage and cost effectiveness forMMSD.Our functional analysis classifies these tasks as core to the corporatefunctions of MMSD. This means that the functions are providing directcore services to the District. Cost improvement options for core functionsinclude alternative delivery methods either through other MMSD personnelor external sources, or creating efficiency within the function to allow forreduced cost.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 142March 11, 2002

Decision Item # 32: RISK MANAGER (cont.)Background: (cont.)Expenditures:From a comparison viewpoint, middle to large size school districtstypically have a position responsible for safety. Few of these districtshave a position solely responsible for risk management. These functionsare typically performed through facilities management or the businessservices office. Recently, more districts are considering adding a riskmanagement position to manage rising insurance costs. Districts are alsorealizing the need for a close tie between the loss-control functions of adistrict and the insurance functions of a district. MMSD is appears to beon the front end of these risk management trends.Dollars associated with 1.0 FTE Risk Manager.MMSD’s insurance costs in this area approximate $1.3 million annuallywith a current mod rate of approximately 1.3. With mod rates adjustedover a rolling 3 year period, an actively managed claims program canbegin reaping rewards after year 1, be fully implemented after year 3, andcontinuously managed thereafter to ensure cost effectiveness. ForMMSD, the first 6 months following the start of the risk manager positionhas seen claims reduced significantly. Continuation of these resultswould likely see an insurance mod rate reduction closer to 1.0 and acorresponding rate reduction of 15-20% of the current $1.3 millionannually.Revenues:NAFTE: 1.0Anticipated Savings: Based on our independent review of the risk manager position, we do notrecommend reducing or eliminating this position. In fact, we likely wouldhave recommended studying the need to add such a position for costeffectiveness reasons had the MMSD not already had the position inplace. We commend the District for the close tie created between thesafety and risk management functions, as they are very dependent uponeach other.Student Impact:Strategic Priorities:Board Priorities:Effectiveness:Redundancies orAvailability of theService Elsewhere:NANANANAWhile the District benefits from having a single person responsible foroverseeing all aspects of Safety and Risk Management, the tasks couldbe broken out with responsibilities split among several Business Servicesfunctions within MMSD. The Safety portion of the position could be splitfrom the Risk Management portion of the position. The specific taskswithin these two .5 positions could also be split.Service Delivery:NAVirchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 143March 11, 2002

Allocation AnalysisINSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATIONBackgroundThe MMSD allocation process is led by the budget department and conducted annually inconnection with the budget approval process. Annual allocations are based upon historicalallocations and adjusted for projected enrollment changes. MMSD currently uses a site-basedmanagement philosophy that provides discretionary FTE allocations for building-levelmanagement to utilize additional support resources to meet the needs of each individual school.Allocation types fall into many categories that can be classified broadly into these five areas thatcomprise our analysis:• Base pupil to teacher classroom staffing ratios• Targeted allocations to be used for specifically stated types of FTE positions• Elementary Specials allocations for Art, Music, Reach and Physical Education.• Discretionary allocations to be used for specific groupings of FTE types, however themix of these FTE types varies by building dependent upon additional needs• Supplemental allocations to be used at the discretion of the buildings for any types ofadditional services or FTE the buildings chooseOur review analyzed various allocation scenarios that present the District with multiple decisions.The analyses relating to secondary education are straightforward and the subsequent scenarioswe generated are relatively easy to calculate. The elementary allocations are quite complex dueto additional variables requiring multiple iterations of each scenario. These variables includebase staffing ratios, SAGE ratios and subsequent funding, specials and supplementalallocations. Due to the numerous scenarios associated with this complexity, we are presentingselected scenarios that may have merit based on our analysis of financial and student impacts.The cost savings presented with each opportunity are based upon a 1.0 FTE amount of $48,500that includes salary and fringe benefits for an entry-level teacher. This dollar amount of $48,500may be understated in circumstances where eliminated positions involve personnel with highersalaries.Madison Metropolitan School District enrollment history and projections are provided below. TheDistrict provided these projections. The District’s forecasting, analysis and review approaches toattain student projections utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods to attain studentprojections.Year 2001-2002 total MMSD enrollment is 24,688. Year 2002-2003 projections indicateenrollment reduction to 24,510. The data projects an overall pattern of slightly declining totalenrollments. Further breakdown of the projections indicates this slight overall downward trend isevidences through reductions in elementary and middle school projections, with high schoolprojections indicating an increase. This data is presented to demonstrate that the District doesnot anticipate any major enrollment changes leading to immediate school building projects ordownsizing decisions. If long term downward trend projections become reality, the District mayfind the need to eliminate or consolidate buildings in order to maintain efficiencies and reducecosts.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 144March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Background (cont.)Madison Metropolitan Schools enrollment history and forecast by grade level:HistoryForecast96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07K 1998 1902 1865 1703 1797 1810 1819 1798 1798 1798 17981 2080 1955 1868 1902 1701 1753 1792 1800 1780 1780 17802 1986 2011 1892 1818 1883 1722 1727 1765 1773 1753 17533 1985 1946 1931 1835 1782 1827 1670 1675 1712 1720 17014 2039 1970 1904 1938 1821 1802 1809 1654 1658 1695 17035 1992 1996 1940 1901 1931 1828 1793 1800 1645 1650 16866 1867 1946 1933 1908 1888 1884 1791 1757 1764 1612 16177 1849 1877 1948 1897 1944 1887 1884 1791 1757 1764 16128 1813 1824 1864 1950 1933 1946 1887 1884 1791 1757 17649 2041 2156 2141 2144 2263 2277 2267 2198 2195 2087 204710 1891 1952 2044 2077 2114 2219 2209 2199 2132 2129 202411 1731 1777 1779 1830 1939 1948 2041 2032 2023 1962 195912 1552 1650 1639 1697 1728 1785 1821 1909 1900 1892 1834Total 24824 24962 24748 24600 24724 24688 24510 24262 23928 23599 23278Comparative data for Wisconsin public school staff to student ratios is available from theDepartment of Public Instruction (DPI). The latest data available for the 2000-2001 year ispresented here for the 10 most comparable Wisconsin schools based on enrollment.Enrollment Teacher FTE Pupil/Teacher RatiosDistrict Name K-8 9-12 K-8 9-12 Total K-8 9-12 OverallMadison Metropolitan 17043 8044 1,469.00 555.01 2,024.01 11.60 14.49 12.39Racine 14722 6380 928.00 365.80 1,293.80 15.86 17.44 16.31Kenosha 14387 5712 938.65 393.26 1,331.91 15.33 14.52 15.09Green Bay Area 13909 6195 961.11 394.22 1,355.33 14.47 15.71 14.83Appleton Area 9973 4820 658.29 291.07 949.36 15.15 16.56 15.58Waukesha 8516 4244 578.78 268.10 846.88 14.71 15.83 15.07Eau Claire Area 7494 3774 545.32 237.61 782.93 13.74 15.88 14.39Oshkosh Area 7343 3395 500.03 199.75 699.78 14.69 17.00 15.34Janesville 7251 3507 530.06 225.44 755.50 13.68 15.56 14.24Sheboygan Area 7143 3275 465.76 218.05 683.81 15.34 15.02 15.24Top Ten WI SchoolsTotals: 107781 49346 7,575.00 3,148.31 10,723.31 14.23 15.67 14.65State of WisconsinTotals: 592788 283001 40,108.59 19,663.28 59,771.87 14.78 14.39 14.65According to this data, MMSD ranks lowest among peer schools in K-8 pupil to teacher ratio at11.60. MMSD ranks 13th lowest across all 417 Wisconsin K-8 school districts. At the 9-12 gradelevels, MMSD ranks lowest among peers and 246 thacross all 385 Wisconsin 9-12 schooldistricts. An overall pupil to teacher ratio of 12.39 ranks MMSD lowest among peers and 47 thacross all 427 Wisconsin school districts.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 145March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Background (cont.)Many factors can influence staffing decisions in a particular district. Thus, the fact that theMadison school district has the lowest ratios of staff to students among it’s closest peers andlower than average ratios across all Wisconsin schools should be interpreted with caution.However, benchmarks do serve to open discussion related to the benefits achieved from lowerratios including comparisons of student test scores and quality of education provided.Allocation Decision ScenariosWith assistance and cooperation of the MMSD budget staff we have created decision scenariosbased upon projected 2002-2003 data including enrollment projections and staffing levels. Ourreview of allocations indicates several areas of potential savings exist for MMSD. The areas aresupplemental staffing, class size, SAGE, and specials. Some potential savings areas havedependencies with each other that create multiple scenarios. We are presenting the scenarioswe feel have the most merit based upon financial and student impacts. The scenarios arepresented here in a decision format by category.REDUCTION TO SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOCATIONSupplemental allocations currently exist at varying levels for elementary, middle and highschools. The number of allocations for each individual school building is created throughformulas based mainly on Educational Need Index (ENI). ENI attributes include EEN/ESLattributes as well as free & reduced, parent education and home status factors. This allocationmethod results in buildings with a higher index typically allocated more supplemental positions,while other buildings receive fewer supplemental allocations as a result of low ENI indexes. Thesupplemental FTE allocations are currently utilized differently by each building with the mostcommon uses as additional psychologists, social workers, guidance or clerical staff.Our overall functional analysis has included an individual review of the most common FTE usesof supplemental allocations. These reviews provide analysis and options for staffing levels forthese functions. Additional supplemental FTE allocations in these areas are considereddiscretionary. Current projected 2002-2003 supplemental allocations and potential savingsare presented here:Supplemental Allocations Total FTEApproximateBuilding FTEDollar EquivalentFTE SavingsElementary 28.74 1.0 $1,393,890Middle School 24.30 2.2 $1,178,550High School 7.80 2.0 $ 378,300Total Supplemental Allocations 60.84 $2,950,740While supplemental allocations have been provided historically, they are discretionary in natureand could be eliminated. The average impact at the building level is 1.0 FTE elementary, 2.2FTE middle school, and 2.0 FTE high school. Individual building impact will be higher or lowerthan average ranging from 0 to 2.2 elementary, 0.6 to 3.2 middle school, and 2.8 to1.6 highschool.INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 146March 11, 2002

Allocation Decision Scenarios (cont.)CHANGE IN PUPIL TO TEACHER RATIOS - SAGEOption 1: Change SAGE Allocation to 15:1The first discussion point is SAGE State and Federal class size requirements for schools toqualify for SAGE funding at K-3 grade levels. The requirements for of the funding are for eachSAGE school to have base pupil to teacher class size ratios of 15:1 or less for K-2 and 18:1 orless for Grade 3 (15/18). MMSD currently allocates SAGE schools at a 14/18:1 ratio, thusexceeding the ratio requirements to receive SAGE funding. A policy decision to changeallocations for SAGE schools to a ratio of 15:1 rather than the current ratio of 14:1 haspotential District savings of 14 FTE positions or $679,000. This allocation change will notimpact SAGE funding or change the SAGE program implemented at SAGE schools.Our subsequent allocation discussions and scenarios are calculated based on 15/18:1 SAGEallocations. We do not presume Board of Education approval of this item. This merely simplifiesour subsequent scenario discussion.Option 2: Limit SAGE Program to Low Income SchoolsThe majority of additional scenarios run either increases local funding or reduces the number ofschools participating in SAGE. One of these scenarios eliminates the remaining $1,028,685 localfunding entirely and maintains the existing components of the MMSD SAGE program along withthe planned expansion to 3 rdgrade for 2002-2003. A total of 21.21 FTE are related to thispotential $1,028,685 reduction. This scenario changes the participating SAGE schoolrequirement to those schools with greater than 30% overall low-income enrollment. The lowincomeenrollment requirement must be met by each school individually to qualify for SAGEunder this scenario. Overall low-income enrollment for MMSD are approximately 30%.For 2002-2003, this scenario would result in 10 of the existing 23 SAGE schools no longerparticipating in SAGE: Crestwood, Franklin, Lapham, Muir, Marquette, Randall, Schenk,Shorewood, Stephens, and Chávez. The following 13 schools remain on SAGE under thisscenario: Allis, Emerson, Glendale, Falk, Hawthorne, Lakeview, Lowell, Mendota, Midvale,Thoreau, Lincoln, Lindbergh, and Leopold. The schools remaining on the SAGE program wouldbe those with the most need as they are the 10 schools with the highest low-income enrollments.This scenario yields an additional $1,028,685 in District savings. The impact of implementingthis scenario would be a reversal of the District plan to fully implement SAGE with the overallpurpose to improve 3 rd grade reading levels.SAGE: Our SAGE analysis focused on reviewing scenarios for reducing the local fundingrequirements for SAGE. Elimination of the SAGE program entirely would cost the Districtapproximately $4.5 million in lost SAGE funding. Implementation of changing the SAGEallocation to 15/18 from 14/18 would reduce the SAGE local funding requirement for 2002-2003from $1,707,685 to $1,028,685.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 147March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Allocation Decision Scenarios (cont.)CHANGE IN PUPIL TO TEACHER RATIOS - BASEOption 1: Change in Secondary Class SizeBase pupil to teacher class size is allocated at MMSD based on historical ratios. Base ratiosexist at the elementary, middle and high school level independently. Current secondary pupil toteacher ratios in place for MMSD are 17.0 at the middle schools and 21.8 at the high schools:The financial impact of a base pupil to teacher ratio change at the secondary-level is a simplecalculation based on middle school ratios increasing from 17.0 and high school ratios increasingfrom 21.8. The impacts shown in 0.5 ratio increments are displayed here:Middle SchoolAllocationsBase RatioBase PositionAllocationsFTE ReductionBaseRatioBase PositionAllocationsDollar EquivalentFTE SavingsCurrent 17.0 326.6 0.0 $0Increase 0.5 17.5 317.3 9.3 $451,050Increase 1.0 18.0 308.4 18.2 $882,700Increase 1.5 18.5 300.1 26.5 $1,285,250Increase 2.0 19.0 292.2 34.4 $1,668,400High SchoolAllocationsBase RatioBase PositionAllocationsFTE ReductionBaseRatioBase PositionAllocationsNumber of FTEDollar EquivalentCurrent 21.8 360.2 0.0 $0Increase 0.5 22.3 352.2 8.0 $388,000Increase 1.0 22.8 344.4 15.8 $766,300Increase 1.5 23.3 337.0 23.2 $1,125,200Increase 2.0 23.8 330.0 30.2 $1,464,700Wisconsin secondary school pupil to teacher ratios produced by DPI for the year 2000-2001 weredisplayed in an earlier table. The table indicates that MMSD overall secondary pupil to teacherratio is 14.49. This compares to a 15.67 ratio for MMSD’s closest 10 peer schools. A 1.0increase in this ratio would bring MMSD’s ratio to 15.49, closer, yet still below the average of thesame 10 peer schools.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 148March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Allocation Decision Scenarios (cont.)CHANGE IN PUPIL TO TEACHER RATIOS – BASE (cont.)Option 2: Change in Elementary Class SizeElementary Class Size: Elementary class size scenarios must be calculated with SAGE FTE andfunding elements considered. The MMSD SAGE program began in the1999-2000 school yearwith 4 schools participating. It has expanded as a District core program each year with 23 of the30 elementary schools participating in 2001-2002. The District SAGE plan calls for furtherexpansion for the 2002-2003 to include 3 rd grade.The elementary level currently has Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) ratiosin place at 23 of 30 schools that reduces K-3 class sizes to 15 or less in order for MMSD toreceive State and Federal SAGE funding. Grades 4–5 at the elementary level do not have SAGEclass size restrictions. In order to achieve current SAGE program levels, the District receivesState and Federal funding for qualifying schools and locally funds the program in addition to theSAGE funding received. For 2002-2003, $1,707,685 of MMSD local funding is required tomaintain the program as implemented in 2001-2002 and implement the planned programexpansion for 2002-2003 at the 3 rd grade level.Elementary Base Ratio. A change in base elementary pupil to teacher ratios from the currentbase of 22.0 (K-1), 23.5 (Grades 2-3), 25.0 (Grades 4-5) can also be calculated and considered.One ratio change scenario is increasing these ratios to 23.0 (K-1), 24.0 (Grades 2-3), 26.0(Grades 4-5) as summarized below:Grade level Current Ratios Proposed RatiosElementary SAGE Schools (K-1) 14 15Elementary SAGE Schools Grades 2-3 18 18Elementary Non-SAGE Schools (K-1) 22 23Elementary Non-SAGE Schools Grades 2-3 23.5 24Elementary Non-SAGE Schools Grades 4-5 25 26The FTE impact of this change assuming SAGE @ 15/18 is a reduction of 18.2 base positions.This breaks down as 15 base teachers and 3.2 base Specials. This reduction in base is offset byan increased requirement in local SAGE funding of 7.06 positions. The net effect of thischange in elementary base staffing levels is a reduction of 11.14 positions or $540,290.The net savings of this change under the SAGE scenario of >30% schools would beapproximately the same should the District elect this scenario.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 149March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Allocation Decision Scenarios (cont.)CHANGE IN PUPIL TO TEACHER RATIOS – BASE (cont.)Option 3: Change Elementary Specials RatioSpecials include teachers for Art, General Music, Reach and Physical Education. Specials areallocated for base positions and for SAGE in order to accommodate SAGE local class sizereductions. The number of Specials sections instructed determines Specials allocations. Specialsallocations are a formula derived from the number of student sections and the number ofsections each Special FTE instructs. Currently, specials for Art, Music and Reach are allocatedat 21 sections instructed per 1.0 FTE. Physical Education, due to longer class times, is currentlyallocated at 14 sections instructed per 1.0 FTE. Our review determined that changing the numberof Physical Education Sections yielded minimal savings while posing logistical issues forinstructors.The maximum sections a Special teacher can instruct are 25 sections. We ran scenarios toincrease the Specials sections from 21 through 25 for iterations of the SAGE and class sizescenarios presented above. The results were nearly identical for the various SAGE and classsize scenarios. One scenario option is to increase Special allocations from the current 21sections per 1.0 FTE to 22 sections instructed per 1.0 FTE. This scenario yields a reduction of3.2 FTE base Specials and .5 FTE SAGE Specials for a total reduction of 3.7 FTE positions.The dollar equivalent savings from this scenario are $179,450.Further increases in Specials Sections per FTE would yield similar savings of approximately 3.7FTE for each 1 section increase per 1.0 FTE Special. Each section increase per FTE increasesthe workload of the Specials instructors and potentially presents increasing logistical issuesrelated to Specials instructors serving multiple schools.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 150March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – REGULAR EDUCATION (cont.)Decision SummaryREGULAR EDUCATION ALLOCATIONThe decision items discussed above are summarized and presented here:Decision ItemFTE ReductionDollar EquivalentFTE SavingsElementary Supplementals Eliminated 28.74 $1,393,890Middle School Supplementals Eliminated 24.30 $1,178,550High School Supplementals Eliminated 7.80 $ 378,300Total (ALL) Supplementals Eliminated 46.85 $2,272,225SAGE Ratio increase to 15/18 14.0 $679,000Middle School Ratio increase to 18.0 18.2 $882,700High School Ratio increase to 21.8 15.8 $766,300Elementary Ratio increase to 23-24-25 11.1 $540,290Elementary Specials Sections increase to 22 3.7 $179,450SAGE for schools >30% low income 21.21 $1,028,685These decision items represent a pool of allocation options available to the District. This servesto demonstrate the degree of financial impact these options present. The table above does notpresent all the options available to the District related to class size.Impact. It is difficult to anticipate the student impact of an increase in pupil to teacher ratios. Nodata is available on the effect such a change would have on current student achievementmeasures such as the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) or the ACT Collegeplacement exam. Data is becoming available for SAGE indicating positive effects of lowering K-3class sizes, specifically improving 3 rd grade reading scores.The SAGE program is a part of the MMSD strategic planning priorities of Student Achievementas well as the Board of Education priorities for “all students completing 3 rd grade to read at gradelevel or beyond”.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 151March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – SPECIAL EDUCATIONBackgroundAs outlined in the MMSD Adopted Budget for 2001-2002, “Special education is required underthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to insure that specially designed instructionand related services are delivered to students with disabilities through an array of programs andservices”. The District has developed a cross-categorical model to deliver these services andensure that they are provided in the least restrictive environment. This cross-categorical modelallows students with different areas of impairment to be combined for delivery of services. TheDistrict’s commitment to providing services in the least restrictive environment translates into amodel with instruction provided within the regular education classroom to the greatest extentpossible.The District’s cross-categorical model is consistent with the passage of 1997 Wisconsin Act 164,which eliminated program types for special education classrooms and the minimum/maximumenrollment ranges tied to those program types. As a result, the Department of Public Instructioninitiated a task force to develop recommendations for caseloads. The DPI task forcerecommendations provide three options to school districts: use one of two DPI formulas (basedon severity of disability and/or assuming a pullout model) or develop a model specific to theDistrict.The District elected to develop its own allocation/caseload model and formed a task force toexamine the issue. The Special Education Allocation Task Force reviewed the options andrecommended a model specific to the District. It should be noted that when the new allocationformula took effect, there was no impact of the formula on the number of teachers budgeted.Based on the recommendations of the task force, the District allocates special educationteachers to schools based on established student teacher ratios. This allocation includes allstudents who are high incidence cross-categorical (emotional disturbance, learning disabilities,cognitive disabilities). 14 The student teacher ratios are as follows:Elementary: 9:1Middle School: 11:1High School: 14:1In addition, base special education assistant hours are allocated based on teacher allocation.For each teacher, SEA hours are allocated (34 - elementary, 30 – middle school, and 25 - highschool).To implement the ratios, the District projects the number of students at each school (includingstudents in the evaluation process anticipated to be determined eligible) and divides the numberof students by the approved ratio for the school. The teacher allocation is the result of this (anynumber that is not even (X.0 or X.5) is rounded up in increments of .5). For example, if anelementary school is projected to have 41 students, the teacher allocation would be 41 / 9 or4.56, which is rounded to 5.0 teachers. The department reports that allocations are rounded toaccommodate growth. However, it should be noted that the 2002-2003 projection accommodatesgrowth by accounting for early childhood enrollments into kindergarten, ensuring that retainedseniors are included, and including students who are in process but not yet determined eligible.14 Early childhood, speech/language, low incidence itinerant, and occupational and physical therapyallocations are calculated separately with different methodologies, and this decision item does not applyto those allocations.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 152March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – SPECIAL EDUCATION (cont.)Background (cont.)As a result of the implementation of allocations and the rounding methodology, the overall ratiosare lower than the stated policy (with the current process, the elementary ratio would be 8.4 to 1,middle school is 10.7 to 1 and high school is 13.8 to 1). 15 While projections were close to actualenrollments in 2001-2002, the projections in prior years have underestimated the number ofstudents. The current rounding policy helps to ensure that, should the program have morestudents than projected, the District will have ample teachers. If rounding were eliminated andenrollment exceeded projections, there would be no flexibility in the budget and the departmentwould require additional positions be authorized outside the budget cycle.The number of Special Education Teachers in Madison can be compared with those of otherdistricts. The Quality Education Coalition (QEC) prepares an annual summary of districts’instructional student/staff ratios, based on DPI data. The following table summarizes thisinformation, provided by the QEC, for the largest 25 districts in 1999 (the most recent year forwhich data are available): 16Special Education Ratios in the Top 25 WI School DistrictsStudent to Student to totalinstructional specialFTE staff ratio education staffElmbrook 93.5 8.68 4.45Wauwatosa 67.18 8.9 5.06Madison 437.72 9.42 4.51Menomonee Falls 47.61 10.14 5.59Waukesha 156.21 10.36 5.96Green Bay 316.51 10.76 6.34Eau Claire 126.65 11.09 6.67Wausau 103.81 11.19 5.13Janesville 145.1 11.32 5.62West Bend 67.6 11.49 6.85Racine 293.03 11.53 6.01La Crosse 98.4 11.74 6.18Appleton 163.23 11.79 6.82Kenosha 231.1 11.86 6.87Sheboygan 116.4 12.1 6.22Oshkosh 115.77 12.52 6.44Stevens Point 82.43 12.53 6.21Manitowoc 50.2 13.01 5.63Wisconsin Rapids 63 13.21 6.94Beloit 100.4 13.49 7.44Milwaukee 1139.67 13.67 7.84Watertown 44.5 13.78 7.06Fond du Lac 76.8 13.92 7.55West Allis 79 14.84 10.5Neenah 60.9 14.88 7.65Average of above: 171.06 11.71 6.08State of WI 9971.96 12.09 6.65Madison Variance from Average ofTop 2524% 35%15 It should be noted that the ratio determines the number of teachers per school, but principals do theallocation of caseloads within schools (so an individual teacher may, appropriately, have fewer or morestudents than the ratio for the level, depending on the specific students assigned).16 Instructional staff includes all special education teachers, speech and language, physical therapists andoccupational therapist. Total staff also includes special education leadership, program coordination,therapist assistants, social workers, psychologists, and special education assistants.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 153March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – SPECIAL EDUCATION (cont.)Background (cont.)Each district is unique, and many factors can influence staffing requirements in a particulardistrict. Thus, the fact that the Madison School District has the second lowest ratio of total staffto students and third lowest ratio of instructional staff to students should be interpreted withcaution. It is important to note, however, that the District also has a high percentage of studentsin the Madison District who are special education students. This fact, coupled with the District’shistory of above-average rates of eligibility determinations of those referred, should beconsidered in assessing student teacher ratios.However, it should be noted that the District has some high cost, low enrollment programs. Forexample, as a recent press release notes, in May 2001, there were 4,468 students enrolled inspecial education programs. Of these, a total of 191 students had costs over $25,000 with only22 students having costs over $50,000.CHANGE ALLOCATIONS FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONIf the District were to increase student teacher ratios in special education, the followingsavings would result:OptionFTE ImpactExpenditureReductionsReducedRevenue Net SavingsRetain current ratios - eliminate rounding 12.5 $ 848,175 $ (254,453) $ 593,723Increase ratio by .5 FTE 16.5 $ 1,119,591 $ (335,877) $ 783,714Increase ratio by .5 FTE - eliminate rounding 24.5 $ 1,662,423 $ (498,727) $ 1,163,696Increase ratio by 1.0 FTE 29.0 $ 1,967,766 $ (590,330) $ 1,377,436Increase ratio by 1.0 FTE - eliminate rounding 39.5 $ 2,680,233 $ (804,070) $ 1,876,163Note: This assumes a teacher salary of approximately $67,854 (approximately 80 percent ofaverage salary).Net savings reflect that expenditure reductions are partially offset by reductions in categoricalaid.In addition, Special Education Assistant (SEA) allocations are based on teacher ratios. Ifthe District were to retain the SEA ratios (based on teacher allocation), the following SEAreductions and savings would result:OptionSEA ImpactSEA ExpenditureReductionsReducedRevenueNet SEASavingsTotalSavingsRetain current ratios - eliminate rounding 10.7 $ 327,665 $ (98,300) $ 229,366 $ 823,088Increase ratio by .5 FTE 11.9 $ 366,070 $ (109,821) $ 256,249 $ 1,039,963Increase ratio by .5 FTE - eliminate rounding 18.7 $ 571,984 $ (171,595) $ 400,389 $ 1,564,085Increase ratio by 1.0 FTE 22.2 $ 679,027 $ (203,708) $ 475,319 $ 1,852,755Increase ratio by 1.0 FTE - eliminate rounding 30.9 $ 946,225 $ (283,867) $ 662,357 $ 2,538,521Note: This assumes an SEA salary of approximately $30,642 (approximately 80 percent ofaverage salary).Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 154March 11, 2002

INSTRUCTION – SPECIAL EDUCATION (cont.)It is difficult to anticipate the student impact of a reduction in student teacher ratios. No data areavailable on the effect such a change would have on student outcomes. However, student impactcould be minimized through additional assistance provided to principals from EducationalServices in assigning caseloads to special education teachers. (Note: the department has aninitiative underway to ensure that best practices in assigning caseloads are in place).The correlation of this decision to the District’s strategic priority should be considered, as specialeducation teachers deliver curriculum and instruction (3) a strategic priority. Also forconsideration is the fact that, while special education services are mandated, DPI does notprovide any caseload guidance or minimums/maximums for special education teachers. The onlyguidance is comparison with other districts such as that depicted above, which indicate thatMadison Metropolitan School District has historically had one of the lowest ratios in the state.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 155March 11, 2002

AdministrationAdministration is defined by the Department of Public Instruction as the following activities:• Establishing and administering overall school district policy• Directing and managing the operations of individual schools• Directing, managing or supervising the business and fiscal operations of the District, orproviding central services on a district-wide basis (e.g. research, planning or statisticalanalysis, data processing, personnel, or public information services)Buildings and grounds, pupil transportation, and capital expansion/debt service are notconsidered administration.One PerspectiveThe Madison School District spent $607 per student for administrative functions in 1999-2000, or6.2% of its total per student expenditures of $9,810. In 2000-2001, it budgeted $631 per student,again 6.2% of per student expenditures of $10,166.Compared to other school districts the Madison Metropolitan School District’s administrativecosts (as a percentage of total staff and total per student administrative costs) were within rangeof the averages of both the largest Wisconsin and Big Eight conference school districts. Thetable below shows the comparisons:Administrative/TotalProfessionalstaff ratioPer studentadministrativecosts as % oftotal costs 1999-2000 actualPer studentadministrativecosts as % of totalcosts 2000-2001budgetDistrictMadison Metropolitan 3.3% 6.2 6.2Racine 2.9% 6.1 5.6Kenosha 2.4% 6.2 6.0Green Bay Area 2.6% 5.8 5.6Appleton Area 2.8% 6.0 5.3Waukesha 3.0% 6.7 7.1Eau Claire Area 3.0% 5.8 6.4Oshkosh Area 2.6% 5.8 5.0Janesville 2.5% 5.4 5.2Sheboygan Area 2.6% 7.7 6.4Beloit 3.4% 7.0 7.1Middleton-Cross Plains 1.3% 6.6 6.6Sun Prairie 3.5% 6.5 5.7Avg of above w/o Madison 2.7% 6.5 6.0Milwaukee 4.7% 8.8 8.7Statewide average 3.4% 7.7 7.4Statewide average minus Milwaukee 3.2% 7.5 7.2Source: SchoolFacts01, September 2001, Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, based upon data from theWisconsin Department of Public Instruction.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 156March 11, 2002

One Perspective (cont.)The data in the table above shows that Madison’s administrative/professional staff ratios were:• Slightly below the statewide average• Below Milwaukee• Above the large district peer and Big Eight conference average• Slightly above the statewide average minus MilwaukeeThe data also shows that Madison’s 1999-2000 actual per student administrative costsexpressed as a percentage of total per student costs were below its peer districts, the statewideaverage, Milwaukee, and statewide average minus Milwaukee.Another PerspectiveThe District has taken many budgetary actions in the past three years to reduce itsadministrative expenditures becoming more efficient and complying with state revenue capswithout resorting to significant reductions in teachers and staff whose purpose is to improvestudent performance. It has taken steps to reduce central administration expenses throughreorganizations, process improvements, contracting for services formerly provided byemployees, and reductions in administrative staff at the Doyle Administration Building.Using a slightly wider, more inclusive definition of the number of administrative employees thanin the table above, we obtained readily available data showing that the District had 151administrative employees in 1998-99. That number increased to 153.5 in 1999-2000, 155.5 in2000-2001, and 159 in 2001-2002. However, 11 of the 159 is attributed to 3 positions fundedfrom the District’s base budget paid for by bringing contracted services in house and 8 positionsfunded from non-property tax outside funding such as grants and indirect cost recovery.Adjusting for these 11 positions, the District would have 148 administrative positions in 2002-2002 compared to 151 in 1998-99.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 157March 11, 2002

Grant AnalysisFISCAL IMPACT OF GRANT FUNDINGGrant and entitlement funding is a considerable revenue source for the Madison MetropolitanSchool District. Grant funding made up approximately 7% of the District’s $279,321,125 budgetfor 2001-2002.The District relies on several types funding from the federal, state and local level.• EntitlementsThe District receives federal entitlements that are renewed every year barring new legislation inCongress such as Title funding. This funding is based on formulas and standard criteria such asnumber of students enrolled, and level of poverty. The District is heavily dependent on thesefederal entitlements as a source of grant revenue. Federal entitlements provide 40% of all grantrevenues the District receives, and equal approximately $7,714,980.Entitlements from the State of Wisconsin are also available, including SAGE (StudentAchievement Guaranteed in Education). State entitlements account for 18% of grant revenueswith a total of $3,531,033.• Discretionary/Competitive GrantsWhile entitlements are based on formulas and standard criteria, other grants are discretionary orcompetitive and are awarded to the District through state or national competitions. These includegrants such as the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant and the Memorial Smaller LearningCommunity Grant and can be a considerable amount of funding. The District receives federaldiscretionary grant funding which accounts for 31% of grant revenues or a total of $6,028,196.State discretionary dollars are only approximately 1% of grant revenues with a total of $105,440funded through this means.• Local Grants/Private DonationsOther grant revenues include donations and other contributions that from a overall budgetperspective are not specific, but which in many cases fully fund programs that are important atthe school level. These most often are for smaller amounts and are used for small projects or forone-time purchases. (See Appendix B spreadsheet for detailed information on grant revenues.)CONTINUATION OF CURRENT GRANT/ENTITLEMENT FUNDINGNo grant or entitlement is permanent. Given state budget deficits and current changes in federaleducation policy under the Bush administration, the District can not anticipate all grants tocontinue under existing requirements or at current funding levels. Considering this high level ofreliance on grant funding, the District would be well-served to anticipate the termination of orreductions to some grants.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 158March 11, 2002

CONTINUATION OF CURRENT GRANT/ENTITLEMENT FUNDING (cont.)Based on information received from various sources at MMSD, our understanding is that around30% of current grant revenues will be terminating before the end of the calendar year.Specifically, in June 2002 $1,927,923 in grant revenues will be terminating due to the end of thegrant duration. It should be understood that some of these funds may continue but at what levelis unknown. This accounts for approximately 10% of the current grant revenues. In September2002, $4,036,658, or approximately 20% of grant revenues, will be terminated. In total this is asignificant amount and the District would be well-served to centrally anticipate and address theprogram impacts of such a reductions in revenues before they take effect. (See Grantsspreadsheet for detailed information on grants ending and their amounts.)The amount of grant funding ceasing to exist during the next year is high largely because of theexpiration of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Grant. This grant accounts for over $2.8 millionand approximately 20 FTE annually. The funding received from this grant is used specifically forresources to: create a safe school environment, offer AODA and violence and early preventionprograms, provide school and community mental health interventions, offer early childhooddevelopment services, provide transition services, assist in educational reform and develop safeschool policies. The District is currently strategizing on how to financially sustain those elementsof the grant that have a positive impact on students. A detailed breakout of all costs andexpenditures associated with this grants can be found in Appendix B.In addition, given the current state budget deficit and the likelihood of further reductions in futurebiennia, alternative sources of funding should be considered for major state funded grants suchas TEACH.Also, given the changes in federal legislation under the current administration, some grants havealready been identified as being eliminated or changed for the 2002-2003 school year.The following federal grants have been identified by the Grants Coordinator as being eliminatedand folded into different funds for the 2002-2003 school year. The money may still be there inmost cases, but it will no longer be earmarked for a specific program nor may the District havecontinued control over the funding.1. Federal Class Size Reduction. $941,769. Merged into Teacher QualityEnhancement.2. Title II: Eisenhower. $151,274. Merged into Teacher Quality Enhancement.3. Technology Learning Challenge Fund (TLCF) Grant: Online Learning fromPromise to Practice. $295,000. Merged with a new Technology Block Grant.The District will decide how the Block Grant is used. ½ of the money will bebased on formulas and therefore will be more or less guaranteed to theDistrict. The rest of the money will be competitive.4. 21 st Century Grants have changed in focus.In the area of Title I, based on potential changes to the level of funding as tied to statepopulation growth, the Title I Coordinator is anticipating a slight reduction in the overall $2.6million of annual funding (exclusive of any carryover) received. This anticipated reduction hasbeen addressed for the 2002-03 budget.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 159March 11, 2002

GRANT ADMINISTRATIONThe District may wish to rethink its current organizational structure for managing grants.Currently, to coordinate the grant application process, MMSD employs a Grants and FundDevelopment Coordinator as part of the Grants Development Office. This position focuses oncompetitive grants with only limited involvement in those grants received as entitlements. TheDistrict also recently hired a new grant writer. The Grants and Fund Development Coordinator(Grants Development Office) does not write all grants. Currently, both of the above-mentionedpositions are financed through grant funds. In addition, an accounting position is paid for withgrant monies.The grant system at MMSD is very decentralized. There is not one position ultimatelyresponsible to coordinate all the grants or to monitor secured grant funding. Many of the grantsare written and maintained by those individuals who coordinate the programs that the funds aredestined for. These individuals often do the grantwriting and are largely in control of their specificgrant. For example, O’Keefe Middle School competed for and was awarded the $10,000 grantfrom the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. For all intensive purposes, these contact peopleare considered responsible for grant fiscal management. However, in many cases, the Director ofBudget, Planning and Accounting is a central source of financial data on grants at the District.SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS FOR GRANT ADMINISTRATIONƒReevaluate Grant Coordinator position.If the District sees the delegation of responsibilities for grantwriting to specific programsor schools as a priority, it may be necessary to reevaluate the coordinator position giventhe lack of coordination of all grants at the District. Another option is to centralize theentire operation giving the grant coordinator the control that his title implies. Either way,grant writing and acquisition are scattered across the District and are not coordinated byany particular office or position.ƒCreate Electronic Grant Database to Centralize and Standardize Grant Information.The difficulty in collecting this information has been the lack of standardization in datastorage methods. This data are not available electronically and is not stored uniformly inhard copy. Often the total grant amount must be calculated and is not readily available inthe District’s files. In addition, the decentralized process of grantwriting and applicationhave made data collection difficult and have sometimes forced the use of estimates ofgrant duration and grant revenue. No one has comprehensive information regarding allgrants received or applied for by the District.ƒIdentify Essential Grants and Formulate Strategy for Loss of Funding.The District may consider identifying those grants that are most essential to theiroperations. Then alternative sources of funding or changes in program allocations couldbe made given recent changes in federal legislation and state budget reductions, whichmay adversely affect grant revenues in the coming school year.Source of all grant financial information: documentation maintained by the MMSD AccountingOffice.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 160March 11, 2002

Operational Efficiency Review RecommendationsAs discussed previously, there are several areas in which we see potential for operationalefficiencies that could reduce District costs. Comprehensive review of these areas was beyondthe scope of this project, however below are highlighted specific issues or areas that the Districtshould analyze further.• Operations Review – District Clerical StaffingRationale: very low ratio of administrators to clerical staff for District top management, 1.2 to 1,suggests a review be conducted to determine whether savings are possible in years 2 – 5 of themanaged abandonment effort. Our observation is that most public sector executiveleadership/management teams have higher ratios, in the 3/2 to 1 range. With today’s technologyprofessionals, managers, and executives are usually computer proficient and the need forclerical support for such things as typing and scheduling meetings has been reduced due to theavailability of word processing and electronic calendaring.For example, there are 6 secretaries for 7 administrators, including the Superintendent (1.2 to 1).The review should examine at all non-school locations:• The number of administrators and/or supervisors supported• The number of professional staff supported• Whether the position is production-oriented• Whether the position is technology supported in nature• Operations Review – Staffing requirements in Research and Evaluation after DataWarehouse implementationRationale: The District is making a major investment to improve its data warehouse to implementa more robust model that MMSD staff can use to more readily access information. This shouldreduce data requests to Research and Evaluation – both the student data specialists andprogrammers. An operations review should be conducted 6-12 months after implementation todetermine whether the warehouse has led to efficiencies that reduce requirements on Researchand Evaluation staff members time.• Registrar’s OfficeRationale: The functional analysis did not result in any staff reduction recommendations withinthe Registrar’s office. With the exception of some grant activity, the vast majority of functions ofthis office are mandated or core to corporate. There were no indications that the office isexceeding mandate requirements, nor were there high level signs of overstaffing for corefunctions in this office. However, this scope of this study did not include a detailed analysis todetermine the extent to which mandated or core functions could be reassigned amongRegistrar’s office staff and/or school-based staff. The District may wish to conduct an operationsreview to determine whether any feasible alignments could be completed.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 161March 11, 2002

• Staff Development Course OfferingsRationale: The District offers a variety of staff development training opportunities throughout theyear, as well as in the summer through summer institutes and summer workshops. To ensureoptimal use of limited resources, the District should conduct a review of course offerings (bothsummer institutes and school year in-service opportunities) to prioritize offerings, identifypotential for reductions, and analyze the effect such reductions would have on staff development.• Additional Areas of StudyTeaching and Learning:• Technology and Learning Initiative Staffing – the District should analyze its current resourcesdedicated to integrating technology into instruction and consider reorganization to bestcapitalize on existing resources• Resource Teachers – analysis of the amount of time spent on-site by resource teachers in allcontent areas should be conducted.Elementary/Secondary:• Secondary and Elementary Schools – a review/monitoring process should be established forspecial allocations (e.g. R.I.S.E) to ensure they are being used as intended• The District should explore increasing fees for band and orchestra equipment rental to coverthe cost.• The District should analyze the impact of limiting elementary student choices in music to one,i.e. strings and general music are both offered to 4 th and 5 th graders.Business Services:Areas of study with potential cost savings noted throughout our analysis:• Collection/Accountability of fees• Mail centralization and delivery• Building fees commensurate with market rates• Vehicle/fleet required• Data services centralization of management and training• Purchasing and receiving methodology and staffing• Accounts Payable expense checks• Trash collection• Printing/delivery systems efficiency and use of technologyHuman Resources:Areas of study with potential cost savings noted throughout our analysis:• Recruitment and employment staffing• EAP• Payroll automation• Employee benefits self-service• Human Resource process for posting should be reviewed• Payroll timesheet entry and distributionVirchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 162March 11, 2002

Functional Analysis Model ImplementationNEXT STEPS – INCORPORATING THE MODEL INTO DISTRICT DECISIONSThe decision items included in this report present options based on an analysis of the currentfunctions of the District. The model used to identify these options, if maintained by the District infuture years, can continue to provide crucial information to MMSD decision-makers addressingbudgetary constraints.The functional analysis model includes the following components:• Identification of all functions and sub-functions by department and division• Assignment of all functions and sub-functions to a category for analytical purposes (seeoverview for an explanation of all categories)• Development of screening criteria for each category• Review of all functions and sub-functions against screening criteria• Identification and summary of the impact of function abandonment or reduction, including:• Fiscal impact• Student impact• Correlation to strategic and School Board prioritiesOur output from developing and utilizing this model has been the decision items included in thisreport, and the presentation of potential savings to District decision-makers. To maintain andcontinue to use this model as an analytical framework in budgetary and programmatic decisions,the District should maintain the functional listing on an ongoing basis. Maintenance includesadding and deleting functions to the master functional listing as the District’s offerings andfunctions change. In addition to ongoing maintenance, the District should periodically completethe following tasks:• Review and validate the functional listing• Review and validate the categories assigned to functions• Review and validate the screening criteria• Apply screening criteria to the functions, analyzing and identify potential effects of functionabandonment or reduction in light of fiscal impacts, student impacts, and the correlation tostrategic and Board priorities• Develop decision items for presentation to the District’s management and the Board ofEducation as appropriate• Develop an annual listing of operational review areas as a result of the functional analysis.Selecting and performing these operational reviews items for consideration in the nextbudget cycle, or sooner if recommendations for improvement can be implemented during thecurrent budget year.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 163March 11, 2002

NEXT STEPS – INCORPORATING THE MODEL INTO DISTRICT DECISIONS (cont.)In addition to replicating the functional analysis process, there are several steps the District cantake to improve the information and analysis. Specifically, we recommend the District consider:• Developing outcome and performance data in program areas (increasing quantitative dataavailable to assess program results and performance).• Continuing to improve budget and fiscal data available, specifically, improving the ability tocomplete the position reconciliation process – aligning position allocations with the Districtbudget and programs.• Moving toward a program based budget to enhance the availability of program levelinformation and ability to assess levy support required by program area.Virchow, Krause & Co. LLP Page 164March 11, 2002

APPENDICES

A – MASTER LISTING

B – GRANT INFORMATION