3 years ago

4/11/06 minutes - reach

4/11/06 minutes - reach

Committee on Weights

Committee on Weights Meeting MinutesTuesday, April 11, 2006 – 8:00 am to 1:00 pmAirport Conference RoomDiscussion:-It appears the Economic disadvantaged students getting G/T and CA funds.-COWI looked at G/T and CSAP and was not confident that it was possible to accurately countstudents. Is it a possible solution to assume a certain % was G/T or CSAP at each school? Or, usesome testing scores for G/T students (perhaps HSA proficient a year early?)The Department needs to “define” and consistently implement G/T programs before true WSF can bedone. PUT into COW II recommendation.Point made -Are there actual “costs” with G/T? Something other than using existing funds, whichcould be used?Does it make a difference if principals can do as they see fit once allocated?DecisionDiscussion – CSAPShould G/T be identified as a characteristic that is weighted due to need for more funding?Want to weight but not enough information to determine a weight.Issues to be addressed by the DOEo How many studentso How much are costso How will there be a consistent applicationo Where are the existing G/T funds going?Handouts distributed: “Comprehensive School Alienation Program (CSAP) 18291, CSAP BudgetAllocation” and “EDN 100 School Lump sum Budget CSAP”.-Program Objective and Description – criteria for CSAP are exact and clear.-Legislative appropriation appears to only address 41% of identified students.There is a way to address the issue if we use existing funds.The question is to use the allocated funds $9M (approximate figure, not counting fringe) as dividedper identified or per served student. This raises the question of adequacy (number identified) versusavailable (number served). If the served number is used additional funds for identified only will comefrom other students.(i.e., it decreases the weight of 1.)Revised 2

Committee on Weights Meeting MinutesTuesday, April 11, 2006 – 8:00 am to 1:00 pmAirport Conference RoomDecisionPresentation on How other districtsaddress small schools andcharacteristics. Bob CampbellCSAP criteria clear enough for weighting.Use identified number of students but include actual per student costs within the recommendation.Handout explanation.Point to remember - these districts have been doing this for years. There is some reason to ease into it.Discussion on the use of a schoolfoundation as a way to improve thecurrent WSF.Small schools will be less adversely affected by a foundation. But it does reduce the overall weight ofone student. If the most recent example is used, approximately 25% of the WSF will go into theschool foundation. That reduces the per student weight by 25%.Most members reported that the use of a base conceptually was acceptable. Reservations wereexpressed regarding the size, the rational to determine the size, and the possibility that the use of afoundation may be viewed or used as a means to restrict school community or principal flexibility.One possibility is to assign a certain percentage of the total WSF as a foundation then proportionedout by school level. Over time, better tracking of school operational costs via the Academic andFinancial Plan could be used to determine a better base percentage.Staff: Base defined by position suggests that positions are guaranteed or mandated, and thereforestaffing cannot be adjusted by the principal. This runs contrary to the legislative intent of the law,which was to provide principals with more flexibility in financial decision-making. Staff suggests apercentage of totals for use by the school as a “base” or “foundation.”Assignment for next meeting. Run various base foundations with additional columns:Per pupil amountPercentage of change from base year and current WSFItem for consideration. What does BOE Policy expect at each school? Principals must have funds andmeaningful flexibility to implement.BreakNeed handouts of relevant BOE policies.Revised 3

Front cover.indd 1 4/26/2012 3:11:06 PM - Jewish Image Magazine
11-07-06-Wallom-1-NGS_Collab_Board_User Management.pdf
PLAN 5- december 06-4.indd - Fayette County
Rev_ATT630 4-11 Final april 11 - Enterprise Business - AT&T
Tristar (Catalogue 24 pgs) 6-4-11 - Neo Automation
April 4 & 11, 2010.pdf -
PAIWG Minutes 11 July 2012 - Public Sector Commission
001 pow-mia special 11-06-03 rev - 24th Infantry Division Association
Volume 11 No 4 Aug 1960.pdf - Lakes Gliding Club
Playwork Level 4 flyers APRIL 11 - eduBuzz
4/24/11 - St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church
4/17/11 - St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church
El Pomar Debate 4-15-11 v2-1.pptx - The City Committee
28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... - Was denn
11-4-06 Board meeting minutes - Summit Resort Group HOA ...
BOS Minutes 06-06-11 - Manchester-by-the-Sea
Minutes 06/06/11 - Matlock Town Council
06/06/11 Minutes - Randolph County Schools
SERC Reg Criteria_Reliability Assessments_Rev 4 (10-06-11).pdf
Council Meeting 14-06-11 Minutes - City of Greater Geelong
11-06-12 Finance Minutes Final - Sonoma County SELPA
EAL 4+ Evaluation of Solaris 10 Release 11/06 Trusted Extensions
Committee on Weights VII Meeting Minutes - reach
Minutes of 4-18-11 - Lake Local Schools
AVAPL Minutes 4-11-13.pdf