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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2:
MADISON METROPOLITANSCHOOL DISTRICT
Page 3 and 4:
Executive SummaryThe Madison Metrop
Page 5 and 6:
Project OverviewIn October 2001, th
Page 7 and 8:
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY (cont.)Ins
Page 10 and 11:
Budget DiscussionOVERALL DISTRICT E
Page 12 and 13:
MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES (cont.)Hence,
Page 14 and 15:
MANDATE INFORMATION (based on funct
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31: MANDATE INFORMATION (based on funct
Page 46 and 47: Budget Decision ItemsEXPLANATION OF
Page 48 and 49: FISCAL IMPACT OF BUDGET DECISION IT
Page 50 and 51: Decision Item #1:Effectiveness:REDU
Page 52 and 53: Decision Item #2: ELIMINATE OR SECU
Page 54 and 55: Decision Item #3: ELIMINATE THE VAC
Page 56 and 57: Decision Item #4: REDUCE NON-MANDAT
Page 65 and 66: Decision Item #5:Revenues:ELIMINATE
Page 67 and 68: Decision Item #6:Background:REDUCE
Page 69 and 70: Decision Item #6: REDUCE SCHOOL LIB
Page 71 and 72: Decision Item #6:Service Delivery:R
Page 73 and 74: Decision Item #7:Option B:ELIMINATE
Page 77 and 78: Decision Item #8:Effectiveness:REDU
Page 79: Decision Item #9: REDUCE FUNDING OF
Page 83 and 84: Decision Item #11:REDUCE/REORGANIZE
Page 85 and 86: Decision Item #11:Student Impact:RE
Page 87 and 88: Decision Item #12:Expenditures:REDU
Page 89 and 90: Decision Item #13:Background:INCLUD
Page 91 and 92: Decision Item #14: ELIMINATE DRIVER
Page 97 and 98: Decision Item #15:ELIMINATE THE ATH
Page 99 and 100: Decision Item #16:Strategic Priorit
Page 101 and 102: Decision Item #18:Background:REDIST
Page 103 and 104: Decision Item #19:REDUCE FUNDING FO
Page 105 and 106: Decision Item #20:Background:INCREA
Page 109 and 110: Decision Item #21:REDUCE/REORGANIZE
Page 111 and 112: Decision Item #22:Background: (cont
Page 113 and 114: Decision Item #22:ELIMINATE SELECTE
Page 115 and 116: Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT
Page 117 and 118: Decision Item #23: ELIMINATE SELECT
Page 119 and 120: Decision Item #24:Background: (cont
Page 121 and 122: Decision Item #24:Student Impact:EL
Page 123 and 124: Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS
Page 125 and 126: Decision Item #25: REDUCE FUNCTIONS
Page 129 and 130: Decision Item #27:Background:PRORAT
Page 131 and 132:
Decision Item #27:Effectiveness:PRO
Page 133 and 134:
Decision Item #28:Expenditures:ELIM
Page 135 and 136:
Decision Item #29:Background:ELIMIN
Page 137 and 138:
Decision Item #29: ELIMINATE TEACHE
Page 139 and 140:
Decision Item #30:Background:BUSSIN
Page 141 and 142:
Decision Item #31:Background:ELIMIN
Page 143 and 144:
Decision Item #31: ELIMINATE HIGH C
Page 145 and 146:
Decision Item #32: RISK MANAGERBack
Page 147 and 148:
Allocation AnalysisINSTRUCTION - RE
Page 149 and 150:
INSTRUCTION - REGULAR EDUCATION (co
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
INSTRUCTION - SPECIAL EDUCATIONBack
Page 157 and 158:
INSTRUCTION - SPECIAL EDUCATION (co
Page 159 and 160:
AdministrationAdministration is def
Page 161 and 162:
Grant AnalysisFISCAL IMPACT OF GRAN
Page 163 and 164:
GRANT ADMINISTRATIONThe District ma
Page 165 and 166:
• Staff Development Course Offeri
Page 167 and 168:
NEXT STEPS - INCORPORATING THE MODE
Page 169 and 170:
A - MASTER LISTING
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?