Madison-Stockbridge Valley Study Data Sets 2013

Reorganization Feasibility Study On Behalf of the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Central School Districts February, 2013 DATA
SETS OF THE STUDY

Prepared by: The SES Study Team, LLC
This report was prepared with funds provided by the New York State Department of State under the local government efficiency grant program.
Purpose of the Study Funded by the NYS Department of State: To research if the reorganization (through centralization) of the two districts can provide enhanced educational opportunities and, at the same time, increase efficiencies and lower cost for the overall operations by forming a reorganized school district. School District Community Advisory Committee Members Appointed by the Respective Boards of Education to Work with and Advise the SES Study Team in the Preparation of the Feasibility Study
PRIME COMMUNITY SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE REPRESENTATION STUDY COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Brayman, Duane Parent Support Services Clark, Jessica Parent/MCS Staff Support Services Cotter, Michele Faculty Student Program Dapson, Samantha Support Staff Finance Davis, Kimberly Parent Student Program Jeffers, Ed Parent Finance LaForce, Eileen Parent Support Services Masker, Dianne Parent Finance Mitchell, Lisa Parent Student Program Nichols, Annett Parent Finance Smith, Doug Parent Support Services Snyder, Jona Parent Student Program Snyder, Kelly Parent Student Program Stolarczyk, Paula Parent Finance COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Bartlett, Shelia Faculty Rep Program Chapin, Jennie Real Estate Agent Finance Church, Malary Unmarried <30 Program Conklin, Bernard Retired Support Services Couture, Curt Booster Parent Program DeMenezes, Ed Pre-school Parent Finance Hollingsworth, Thomas General Community Support Services Lighthall, Ray Pastor Support Services Marshall, Fred Support Staff Rep Support Services McInerney, John Empty Nester Finance Nolley, Tracie Elementary Parent Program Pokorny, Jay HS Parent Support Services Reed, Norm Elected Leader Finance Shea, William Business Person Finance Usborne, Justiss Student Program
The Boards of Education, the Superintendents, and the SES Study Team sincerely thank the volunteer Joint Community Advisory Committee Members for their time, diligence, collaboration and advice in the preparation of this study. The SES Study Team acknowledges and thanks Suzanne Spear and Jay OConnor of the New York State Education Department as helpful collaborative resources for the study.
Madison Central School District

Board of Education Members: Kathy Bridge; William Langbein; Carl Lindberg; James Mitchell (president); Jona Snyder; Stephanie Tanner; Steve Yancey Superintendent of Schools: Perry Dewey The Madison Central School District is located on Route 20 in the heart of rural Madison County. The district, while considered a small, rural district in size of approximately 50 square miles, provides individualized attention for all students, with a focus on preparing them for academic excellence and lifelong learning. Madison has one building which houses approximately 460 students in grades Pre K- 12. The community residents possess a strong belief in education and support the District in positive educational endeavors. The community that supports the District is rural in character comprised of agricultural farms and small businesses. The school places high standards of student achievement and offers a well-rounded variety of instructional programs for students. Madison is a component district of the Madison-Oneida BOCES located in Verona. Madison students participate in a variety of programs including career and technical education, preschool and special education programs. The District is managed by two district level administrators; two building level administrators and three support supervisors. The operating budget for the 2012-13 school year was approximately $8.8 million.
Stockbridge Valley Central School District

Board of Education Members: Jacob Byron (president); Christina Chapin; Lindsey Cross; Thomas Jones; Michael Oot; Barbary Reaves; Charles Wilson Jr. Superintendent of Schools: Dr. Patrick Curtin, Interim The Stockbridge Valley Central School District is located in the eastern portion of Madison and the western perimeter of Oneida County. It is approximately 20 miles from the cities of Syracuse, Utica and Rome. Interstate 90 is in close proximity as well as state highways 5 and 46. The school district is approximately 42 square miles and is primarily residential and agricultural in character. Many of the residents are employed either in, or close to Syracuse, Utica, Rome and Oneida. Commercial and professional services are afforded the residents within the district. Several small family farms are in the district. Industry continues to remain stable within the District. Today the Stockbridge Valley Central School District has approximately 490 Pre K-12 students who are all housed at the building in Munnsville. Stockbridge Valley is also a component district of the Madison-Oneida BOCES and its students also participate in a number of BOCES programs. The District is managed by two district level administrators, two building administrators and two support supervisors. The operating budget for the 2012-13 school year was $10.0 million.
DATA
Data Reference Tools Compiled by the Study, Analyzed by the Joint Community Advisory Committee, and Posted on the Website of Each School District as the Study Progressed since March 2012
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL OF THE DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS IN THIS DATA SECTION OF THE STUDY WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITES OF EACH OF THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS MET AND USED THEM TO HELP GUIDE THE STUDY. SOME OF THE TOOLS POSTED ON THE WEB CONTAINED TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTIONS AND SOME CLARIFICATION OF THE DATA HAS BEEN ADDED SINCE THE POSTING. THEREFORE, IN SOME INSTANCES THE DATA REFERENCE TOOLS COMPILED HERE ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITES. THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE DATA/INFORMATION CHANGES, HOWEVER, FROM THE ORIGINAL DATA TOOLS.
DATA Criteria Used by the Boards of Education to Appoint Community Advisory Committee Members What Questions Should the Community Advisory Joint Committee and the Two District Reorganization Study Address/Answer? Agendas of the Work Session Meetings of the Community Advisory Joint Committee Pupil Enrollment Projection Calculations Federal Census Bureau Demographic Characteristic Estimates for the Two School Districts School District Financial Characteristics/Fiscal Condition Profiles 2011-2012 Grade Level Section Class Sizes Pupil Capacity of Each School Building for Possible Use in a Reorganized School District Summary Results of the 2010 Building Condition Surveys Elements of the Grade Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 6 Program in 2011-2012 Elements of the Grade 7 through Grade 12 Program in 2011-2012 2011-2012 Program Elements: Interscholastic Athletics, Co-Curricular and Music/Drama 2010-2011 Summary of Elementary and High School Assessment Results National Clearinghouse Data About College Attendance, Persistence, and Attainment Labor Contract Profiles and Full Time Equivalent Cost Data Some Possible What If Ideas to Use the Existing School Buildings if the Communities Chose to Reorganize the Two Districts into One A What if Picture of a Pupil Transportation Plan APPENDIX Questions and Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about Timeline and Governance Topics Related to School District Reorganization School District Reorganization Incentive Aid Q and A about the Process with Regard to Personnel when a School District Reorganization Occurs through Centralization -169-171-172-1-2-5-24-52-64-75-79-89-93-96-101-107-116-128-150-164-
DATA
Criteria used by the Boards to appoint Community Advisory Committee members from those who volunteered in each school district. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL COMMITTEE MEMBERS INCLUDE: 9 The ability to listen to all sides of an issue and respect the opinions of others. 9 Acknowledged by the community as one who represents a constituency within the respective district. 9 The ability and comfort to accurately convey ideas and information verbally to fellow community members. 9 The ability to see a 'big picture' yet able to appreciate and understand details with a focus on the main mission of a school district which is to serve students effectively and with quality as defined by the community. 9 Believes in transparency of the study work, data and process. 9 Has the willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to attend all (most) meetings in a timely manner and to contribute to the work of the Committee and study. 9 Has demonstrated a previous interest and involvement in some aspect of the school district and/or community. 9 Is a resident of the respective school district. 9 Is willing to be accessible to community members to help communicate about the work of the Committee and the study process. 9 Understands the process of consensus and is willing to work with others to identify and then support a consensus recommendation. 9 Understands and accepts that recommendations of the Committee are advisory in nature to the Boards of Education and to the communities of the districts.
Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future. SES STUDY TEAM
-1-
DATA
What Questions Should a Potential Reorganization Feasibility Study Address/answer?

COMPILED COLLABORATIVELY BY THE MEMBERS OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY BOARDS OF EDUCATION AND THEIR SUPERINTENDENTS AT A WORKSHOP ON APRIL 12, 2011; AND BY THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THEIR MARCH 26, 2012 WORK MEETING
Joint Community Advisory Committee resource April 24, 2012
-2-
DATA Educational Program Questions Identified by the Boards of Education and Superintendents Category One: Enhanced/Accelerated/New Offerings/Overall Program Opportunities What kind of increased academic opportunities might be offered? How will we increase academic rigor? Category Two: Specific Programs and Program Questions Would there be more college and Advanced Placement courses available to students? What would our class sizes look like in a new district? Is student achievement affected (up/down)? How would scheduling work-during the day and after school? How will special education programs be coordinated and delivered? What information is collected for enrollment and how are projections determined? Would the Pre-K program be continued? Category Three: Co-Curricular and Athletics Will athletic programs be expanded in a reorganized district? What co-curricular and interscholastic opportunities would there be for kids? Does reorganization limit the opportunities for kids to participate in sports?
Ranking out of 38 questions identified
2 13 6 15 20 21 22 23 25 2 16 25
Financial Issues/Questions Identified by the Boards of Education and Superintendents Category One: Issues Related to Money/Costs/Taxes What could be cost savings in a reorganized district? What assurances are there from NYS that reorganization aid will be there in the future? What would the tax rates in the reorganized district look like? What will the actual cost savings be in a reorganized district even without incentive aid? Would reorganization incentive aid be affected by the Gap Elimination Adjustment? How would the proposed 2% tax cap affect the budgets of the newly formed district? How does a school district plan for the eventual loss of incentive aid? What would happen to the districts fund balances? How is BOCES aid affected in a reorganized district? How is debt service handled in reorganization? Category Two: Labor Relations/Other How will staffing be affected? How are contracts dealt with in a reorganized district? Does the study examine sharing of administrative staff and what might it look like?
3 5 7 9 10 11 14 18 19 22 2 7 12
-3-
DATA Functional Services/Operations Issues/Questions Identified by the Boards of Education and Superintendents Category One: Student Transportation What would bus routes look like in a reorganized district? Category Two: Facility Questions What would happen to our buildings and would they remain open? What would building maintenance costs be and how much in the new district? Would there be a need for additional buildings? Cultural Questions
8 1 12 25
How might the small school feel be affected by a merged, larger district? How would reorganization affect the student/staff relationships? How could the reorganization of the districts affect the safety of students? How does the reorganized district address colors, mascots, and names? Governance Questions Do the Boards have the ability to determine what are and are not deal breakers? How much interaction does the State Education Department and the Department of State have in the study process? How long would it take for the new district to be up and running? How will each community be represented on the Board of Education? Anything on the horizon from NYS about mandating reorganization?
4 15 18 20
15 17 18 19 24
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY AT MARCH 26 COMMITTEE WORK SESSION How might a merged school district maintain and add to an agriculture course of study for students? What might the arts program look like in a reorganized school district? What happens to the individual funds in student accounts that been raised by fund raisers for those specific clubs/activities? What becomes the basis for the debt limit for the reorganized school district since a small portion of the Stockbridge Valley school district falls within the municipal boundaries of Oneida City? Is it possible to contract out transportation services if the districts were to reorganize? How long might the bus rides be for students? What are the current policies in each school district concerning length of bus ride now? How can we make this possible change a positive transition for the kids if the new district comes about?
-4-
DATA
AGENDAS OF MEETINGS OF THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY
March 26, 2012 December 12, 2012
Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future.
-5-
Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts
Objective of the school districts:

The purpose of the feasibility study is to gather information and provide facts and recommendations to the Boards of Education of the Districts regarding the potential reorganization of one or both of the Districts. Options to be considered through the study may include centralization, annexation, formal or informal sharing and cooperation arrangements between the Districts, any other changes that may be authorized by current law or amendments to the law, and no change from the current status.
REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING ONE AGENDA MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
(Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)
Please set your cell phone to vibrate before we begin. Thank you.
A. (6:00) Welcome by a representative from each Board of Education and the Superintendents SES Study Team: B. (6:10) Overview and Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the feasibility study is to gather information and provide facts and recommendations to the Boards of Education of the Districts regarding the potential reorganization of one or both of the Districts. Options to be considered through the study may include centralization, annexation, formal or informal sharing and cooperation arrangements between the Districts, any other changes that may be authorized by current law or amendments to the law, and no change from the current status. The Study Process: Over a series of working meetings scheduled periodically, the Joint Community Advisory Committee with the help of the SES Study Team will review comprehensive sets of data about the two districts and identify possible opportunities and challenges regarding the reorganization of the school districts into one consolidated, merged school district.

Example Study data topics include:

Demographics of the two districts. The current fiscal condition profiles of each district. Current property taxes. Pupil capacities of the existing school buildings. Building conditions of the existing school buildings. Current class sizes in delivering the program currently. The elementary program offerings. The secondary program offerings. Co-curricular and athletic offerings. State student assessment data. College enrollment data about school district graduates.
-6-

How the school districts currently share regionally with other school districts. Current instructional and instructional support staffing and deployment. Current expenditures for staffing and program. Elements of current labor contracts. Historical retention pattern of staff. Current expenditures to deliver the educational program separately in the two districts.
C. (6:25:7:10) Introductory Activity: An Opportunity to Meet the Members of the CAC D. (7:10-7:30) The Role of the Joint Community Advisory Committee/Role of SES Team and Timeline Information: Each Board of Education has appointed 15 community volunteers to form the Community Advisory Committee for the district. The volunteers from each school district provide a wide representation of the community. The charge to the Joint Community Advisory Committee volunteers is: 9 To listen to presentations and discussions and provide perspectives and feedback about the data and their analysis during the study process 9 To advise the consultants on issues related to the study. 9 To help keep district residents informed with accurate information about the study. 9 To promote 3-way communication among school district officials and personnel, the citizens of the districts, and the SES Study Team consultants. The Boards of Education used the following criteria to appoint the volunteers:
The ability to listen to all sides of an issue and to respect the opinions of others. Acknowledged by the community as one who represents a constituency within the respective district. The ability and comfort to accurately convey ideas and information verbally to fellow community members. The ability to see a 'big picture' yet able to appreciate and understand details with a focus on the main mission of a school district which is to serve students effectively and with quality as defined by the community. Believes in transparency of the study work, data and process. Has the willingness and ability to commit the necessary time to attend all (most) meetings in a timely manner and to contribute to the work of the Committee and study. Has demonstrated a previous interest and involvement in some aspect of the school district and/or community. Is a resident of the respective school district or is a resident business owner in the district. Is willing to be accessible to community members to help communicate about the work of the Committee and the study process. Understands the process of consensus and is willing to work with others to identify and then support a consensus recommendation. Understands and accepts that recommendations of the Committee are advisory in nature to the Boards of Education and to the communities of the districts.
-7-

The Boards of Education also have appointed each member to serve on one of three subcommittees. Each district has 5 Committee Members serving on each subcommittee. The three subcommittees are: The Educational Program Subcommittee; The Finance, Personnel, and Governance Subcommittee; and the Functional Services/Operations Subcommittee. (red, yellow, blue dots) 9 THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM SUBCOMMITTEE: This committee focuses on such topics as the K-12 instructional program for children including academic core subjects; special areas and advanced placement and college courses; co-curricular and extracurricular offerings; online, distance learning, and other technologically based instruction; BOCES programming; use of the existing school buildings; and other related program topics they identify. 9 THE FINANCE, PERSONNEL, AND GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE: This subcommittee focuses on many what if topics that would result depending on the directions the communities take about reorganization. Topics include: personnel, property tax information, state aid revenues, and costs associated with various models of how the district might reorganize. Additionally, information relative to how the new district could be restructured; the makeup of the new school board; process for reorganization; and timeline information in order to help the joint committee better understand the overall impact of a potential reorganization of the district are analyzed and reviewed. 9 THE FUNCTIONAL SERVICES/OPERATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE: This subcommittee focuses on such topics as pupil transportation; food service/cafeteria program; building operations and maintenance functions; school business functions and other related topics they identify. The Role of The SES Study Team (Paul Seversky, Doug Exley, and Sam Shevat): To organize and lead the study process; research, collect and organize various sets of data about the two school districts; listen to citizens and school personnel; document various points of view and perceptions about the data collected and analyzed by the Joint Community Advisory Committee; help ensure public transparency of the work of the study and data compiled; develop and prepare the study document. The SES Study Team will take no formal position about what each district should do or not do with regard to reorganization. The Study Report written by the Study Team-- in an unbiased fashion-- will identify opportunities and challenges that reorganization might provide the two districts.
-8-

The Current Timeline for the Study: 9 March-August: scheduled meetings of the Joint Community Advisory Committee 9 August-September: crafting of the Study Report 9 October: review of the Study Report by the State Education Department and the Boards of Education 9 By November: public forum meetings in the two communities to present the Study and engage public discussion Potential Step After the Study is Completed: 9 Boards of Education decide if an advisory referendum (straw vote) in each community should be undertaken to determine the point of view of each community about reorganization of the two districts. Coffee/Tea Break (7:30-7:40) E. (7:40-8:00) What is School Reorganization that is applicable to the two districts of the study? Reference Tool: Q and A about School District Reorganization Centralization: A new district is created encompassing the entire area of the school districts to be merged. Centralization requires approval, by a majority vote, of the voters in each affected school district. Annexation: Ordered by the Commissioner, a neighboring district is dissolved and becomes part of the annexing district. Annexation to a central school district is subject to a referendum in each district. For there to be a referendum, a petition must be filed within 60 days and the referendum must pass in each district. F. (8:00-8:15) Questions from the Joint Community Advisory Committee Members at this juncture of tonights meeting? G. (8:15-9:00) Our first task together with the study: Attached is a list of questions that the two Boards of Education and the school district Superintendents identified at a joint planning session in preparation for this reorganization study. Are there are other questions not listed that the Joint Community Advisory Committee and the Study should explore? H. Meeting Two: April 17, Tuesday; 6:00 9:00 p.m. MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
-9-

Some House Keeping for todays meeting: 9 Please remember to sign-in for todays meeting. 9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. 9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. 9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address madison-stockbridgestudy@sesstudyteam.org gets you to all three of us simultaneously. 9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Joint Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the Joint Community Advisory Committee, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publicly be available in the fall. Thank you.
Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely.
- 10 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING TWO AGENDA: TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and agenda at the front of the room.)
Sub-committees, please sit together: red dot, Education Committee yellow dot, Finance/Personnel Committee blue dot, Support Services 1. (6:00) Welcome to all members not present on March 26th 9 Please choose a committee partner. If one partner cannot attend a meeting, the other partner gets copies of all documents and information used at the meeting to give the absent partner at the next meeting. Thank you. 2. (6:10) Compilation of questions initially developed by both Boards of Education along with those questions identified and added by the Joint Community Advisory Committee on March 26 What questions should the Joint Community Advisory Committees and the Reorganization Study address/answer? 3. Set of questions is a tool to make sure the study addresses the topics, and questions important to the Advisory Committee representatives and the Boards of Education. 4. (6:20) Data review, discussion, and analysis 9 Geographic data Observations: Opportunities and Challenges 5. Data Reference: Census Demographic Characteristics Observations: Opportunities and Challenges 6. Data Reference: Enrollment Projection Calculations 9 Observations: Opportunities and Challenges 9 Data Reference: School Building Pupil Capacities 9 Observations: Opportunities and Challenges 9 Data Reference: Grade Level Section Sizes 2011-2012 Observations: Opportunities and Challenges - 11 -

7. (8:50) Next meeting #3: Wednesday, June 6; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Stockbridge Valley Future Agenda Topics (not necessarily in sequential order): Educational Programs (grades K-12; special education) Labor Relations / contracts Building Use / Condition of buildings Interscholastic athletics / Co-curricular Activities Student Assessments Transportation Financial Information (i.e. Current financial health; budget projections; reorganization incentive aid; property tax estimates) Some House Keeping for todays meeting: Please remember to sign-in for todays meeting. Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address madison-stockbridgestudy@sesstudyteam.org gets you to all three of us simultaneously. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Joint Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the Joint Community Advisory Committee, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will be available publicly in the fall. Thank you. Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely.
- 12 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MEETING OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES MEETING THREE AGENDA WEDNESDAY, June 6, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)
Please sit together in in your committees. red dot, Education Committee yellow dot, Finance/Personnel Committee blue dot, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee F. (6:00) Data Reference: Profile of the Current Grades Kindergarten through grade 6 elementary programs in the two school districts. Staff Guest Resources for the Community Advisory Committee attending this meeting:
MADISON Jeff DeAngelo, CSE Chair STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY Mary Ann Iritz, Principal Bill Petrilli, Asst. Principal Courtney Cameron, Guidance Counselor Michele Wright, 3rd Grade Teacher Hilary Passante, 4th Grade Teacher Pat Curtin, Interim Superintendent
Mike Lee, Guidance Counselor Pat Hill, Elementary Teacher
Perry Dewey, Superintendent
9 (6:05-6:20) Scan of data set by the Community Advisory Committees; review in your subcommittees; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive. 9 (6:20-7:20) Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts about the grades K-6 program profile. Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible answers to the questions: - 13 -

The purpose of the feasibility study is to gather information and provide facts and recommendations to the Boards of Education of the Districts regarding the potential reorganization of one or both of the Districts. Options to be considered through the study may include centralization, annexation, formal or informal sharing and cooperation arrangements between the Districts, any other changes that may be authorized by current law or amendments to the law, and no change from the current status. "What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced elementary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?
9 9 9
(7:20-7:30) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water. (7:30-7:45) Scan of the secondary program grades 7-12 data set by the Community Advisory Committees; review in your subcommittees; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive. (7:45-8:45) Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts about the grades 7-12 program profile. Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible answers to the questions:
"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced secondary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?
G. (8:50) Meeting four: July; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Madison Central School We will work with both districts to schedule a date toward the end of July. We will have the districts email committee members as soon as the date is available. Some House Keeping for todays meeting: 9 Please remember to sign-in for todays meeting. 9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. 9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. 9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address mad-sv@ses-studyteam.org gets you to all three of us simultaneously. 9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the two Community Advisory Committees, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the winter months. Thank you. Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely.
- 14 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING #4 AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)
Sub-committees, please sit together: red dot, Education Committee yellow dot, Finance/Personnel Committee blue dot, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee Staff Guest Resources for the Community Advisory Committee attending this meeting:
Madison Mike Lee, Athletic Director Chris Harper, Principal Perry Dewey, Superintendent Stockbridge Valley Bill Petrilli, Assistant Principal Mary Ann Iritz, Principal Pat Curtin, Superintendent
A. (6:00) Data References: Student Assessment Report Cards (2007-2011); Summary of Elementary, Middle and High School Assessment Results; Data about High School Graduates since 2003 with Regard to College and the Job Market B. (6:00-6:30) Scan each Data Set by the Joint Community Advisory Committee; review in your subcommittees at your tables; list any opportunities and challenges you perceive. You may want to focus your discussion on the questions suggested in each data reference. Other General discussion questions include: What do the data show you? What insights do the data provide about the current program and the students? Are Madison and Stockbridge Valley students prepared to meet the changing/shrinking workforce of the future? Are there efforts the communities ought to offer in the schools that lack of funding has prevented? C. (6:30-7:10) Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts. D. (7:10) Data Reference: Current (2011-2012) Grades 7-12 Interscholastic Athletics; Clubs and Drama/Music Programs in the two districts - 15 -

E. (7:10-7:30) Review in subcommittees or at your tables; share and discuss the elements of the secondary athletics and co-curricular profiles of both districts currently. F. (7:30-7:40) Time for a cup of coffee, tea or water. G. (7:40- 8:00) Clarifying questions asked of Staff Guests from the two school districts about the athletic and co-curricular program profiles. H. (8:00-8:50) Advisory Committee discussion with Staff Guests regarding possible answers to the questions. Record ideas by the Study Team.
"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced high school interscholastic athletic and co-curricular opportunitieswhat could be done to help the programs be even better? If resources were available through reorganization, then what possible opportunities for these programs could be implemented to benefit the high school pupils of the two-district region?
Joint Committee scan of their June 6 ideas about:

"What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced elementary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region? "What are specific ideas and examples about enhanced secondary program/learning opportunities that are possible for the pupils of the two districts if resources were available through reorganization?" How and why will these possible enhanced learning opportunities benefit the pupils of the two-district region?
I. Meeting Number 5: Thursday, August 23; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Stockbridge Valley Upcoming Meeting Topics (Not necessarily in chronological order.) Condition of the Buildings Potential Building Configurations Labor Contracts with Q&A Transportation Review Fiscal Conditions Review What If Building Use What If Program/Staffing What If Transportation What If Financials Some House Keeping for todays meeting: Please remember to sign-in for todays meeting. Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. - 16 -

If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address madison-stockbridgestudy@sesstudyteam.org gets you to all three of us simultaneously. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Joint Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the Joint Community Advisory Committee, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will be available publicly in the fall. Thank you. Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely.
- 17 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MEETING OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING FIVE AGENDA THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag at the front of the room.)
Please sit together in your subcommittees. red dot, Education Committee yellow dot, Finance/Personnel Committee blue dot, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee A. (6:00-6:15) Welcome/Review of last meeting information. Questions or ideas regarding data related to assessment and programming K-12 B. (6:15-7:00) Data References: Q and A about staff/employment topics related to a reorganization of school districts Summary of the major elements of the instructional and instructional support contracts currently in place in the two districts. Summary of the total 2011-2012 cost per FTE for the various categories of staff employed by the school district. Summary of staff turnover in the two school districts since 2007-2008. In your committee, please review the contract information and write down any questions you have about the contracts; similarities or differences, anything that strikes you as needing clarification? C. (7:00-7:15) Data Reference: Building Condition Survey D. (7:15-7:25) Time for a cup of coffee or water. E. (7:25-8:00) What if ideas to use the existing school buildings if the communities chose to reorganize the two districts into one. In your committee, please review the sheet provided that lists the enrollment estimates and assumptions about class sizes along with the pupil capacities of each of the school buildings currently. Please share ideas about what might be the best options to use the - 18 -

current school buildings to serve pupils Pre-K through grade 12. Talk about possible opportunities and challenges with each option that your committee discusses. F. (8:00-8:45) Building Options Review and discussion of the possible opportunities and challenges. G. (8:50) Meeting six: Within the first two weeks of Octoberas soon as the 2011-2012 audit is ready for the public ; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Madison Central School Upcoming Meeting Topics (Not necessarily in chronological order.) Fiscal Conditions Review What If Building Use What If Program/Staffing What If Transportation What If Financials Some House Keeping for todays meeting: 9 Please remember to sign-in for todays meeting. 9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. 9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. 9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address mad-sv@ses-studyteam.org gets you to all three of us simultaneously. 9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the two Community Advisory Committees, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the winter months. Thank you. Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely.
- 19 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MEETING OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SIX AGENDA MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)
Sub-committees, please sit together in groups of three or four. red dot, Education Committee yellow dot, Finance/Personnel Committee blue dot, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee WALKING TOUR OF BUILDING: 5:30-5:55. PLEASE MEET AT THE MAIN OFFICE. C. (6:00-7:30) Data Reference: Building Scenarios Worksheets 9 In your groups, please review the various building scenarios and list opportunities and challenges for each of the scenarios. (Take time for water and coffee) 9 Review opportunities and challenges with large group. Rank-ordering process for the scenarios. 9 Which scenario should the study report as a prime scenario for consideration. D. (7:30-7:45) In large group setting, review Program Ideas re: Elementary and Secondary Programs. Here is the list of opportunities that the Joint CAC identified after the series of program meetings.
Elementary class sizes at elem professional development for staff classroom aides at elem school more support for intervention after school tutoring extra curriculum opportunities for elem more support services more technology at elem level enrichment opportunities for all students Secondary maintain and improve agriculture program increase offerings for students more extra curricurricular and sports opportunities additional resources to support students additional late bus runs increase career tech opportunities for kids life skills/business program opportunities for students more help with support services enrichment opportunities for all students marching band FFA program continue with more opportunities Fine arts/drama opportunities STEM; comprehensive Science, Technology, English, Math
- 20 -

E. (7:45-8:00) (Revisit Q and A from first meeting.) Committee of the whole discussion of: 9 Governance: How many board members should there be on the new districts Board of Education? What should be the term of office? What personal and professional characteristics would you want to see in the members serving on the new Board of Education? 9 Ed Law 1801(2) states that the Commissioner of Education designates the name of a newly centralized district in the centralization order. Subject to the commissioners approval, school boards of new or reorganized central school districts may select a different name by filing a written request for a name change with the commissioner no later than 14 days before the centralization order is to become effective. (Ed Law 315). What might be an appropriate process to select a new district name to recommend to the commissioner? 9 What might be an appropriate process to choose school colors and mascot for the reorganized school district? F. (8:00-9:00) Fiscal Conditions Review: Mr. Pat Powers, CPA, Senior Partner, DArchangelo and Co. G. Meeting seven: Wednesday, December 12, 2012; 6:00 to 9:00 pm at Stockbridge Valley Central School What If Building Use What If Program/Staffing What If Transportation What If Financials
Some House Keeping for todays meeting: 9 Please remember to sign-in for todays meeting. 9 Please leave your name badge with us. We will bring them to the next meeting for you. 9 The large envelope folder is for you to keep and take home the materials from our meetings. Please bring the folder to each meeting because you may want to refer to various data in your work on the subcommittees. 9 If you need to contact Paul, Doug, or Sam, the email address mad-sv@ses-studyteam.org gets you to all three of us simultaneously. 9 If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions about how you feel about your involvement as a Community Advisory Committee Member, please share your thoughts as you believe is appropriate. If you are contacted personally by the media and are asked questions or opinions about the data the study is analyzing together with the two Community Advisory Committees, please refer all such questions to your home school superintendent, Paul, Doug or Sam. The review and analysis of the study data is a collaborative effort--with and by--all Advisory Members. The fruit of that effort will be a comprehensive study report which will publically be available in the winter months. Thank you.
Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely. - 21 -

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY MEETING OF THE MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SEVEN AGENDA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2012 6:00 9:00 p.m. STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (Community Advisory Committee Members, please sign in and pick up your nametag and folder at the front of the room.)
Sub-committees, please sit together in groups of three or four. red dot, Education Committee yellow dot, Finance/Personnel Committee blue dot, Functional Support Services and Operations Committee (6:00-9:00) Paul, Doug and Sam will present three What if Pictures for review and discussion together this evening. They are: What if Picture of Pupil Transportatiion What if Picture of Program/Staffing What if Picture of Financials All of the pictures are based on the analysis and discussion by the Joint Community Advisory Committee of the various data sets researched and presented by the study process over the last six meetings of the Advisory Committee. The key factor that guides all the scenarios is the vision of the student program discussed by the Joint Community Advisory Committee in consultation with the various staff guests from both school districts since March. Please remember that the three documents present a draft roadmap and a framework to implement the overall student program in existing facilities in a financially prudent and responsible manner. The overriding focus at this stage is to make sure there is enough estimated resource in total to deliver a quality, comprehensive program by a reorganized school district in a responsible and financially prudent manner. In the end, how the estimated resources are used is up to the new district board of education and the community it serves. The What if picture of a financial plan gives a scenario of the financials related to providing the program resources described in the What if Program/Staffing Picture and the What if Pupil Transportation Plan in total. Specific detail decisions by the board of education at the time of reorganization about how to implement the resources to deliver the program (ex. number of counselors versus number of social workers or specific number of bus routes needed) may or may not follow the scenarios exactly as presented in the What if Pictures. - 22 -

In addition, the specific work assignment of each type of professional and instructional support staff person is a program development task that is addressed if the reorganization process gets to the implementation stage. Next Step for the Study Team: Based on what we have learned with the Joint Community Advisory Committee since March, the Study Team will draft a study report. The study is sent to the State Education Department for their review and approval. As directed by SED, such a draft study is not a public document. After review and approval by the State Education Department of the study, the Study Team will arrange for public copies of the study and then host a community meeting in each of the two districts to present the findings of the study. After the community meeting presentations of the findings by the Study Team, the Boards of Education enter a phase over a few weeks for community meetings hosted by each Board to discuss the findings and to listen to community perceptions. After this public period, the Boards deliberate to decide if reorganization of the two school districts should be presented to each respective community for an advisory referendum (straw vote) that is a tool to judge interest by the communities to proceed to a binding referendum.
We sincerely thank you for your time, collaboration with each other, and your insights about the many sets of data we researched related to the possibility of a reorganization of Madison CS and Stockbridge Valley CS into one school district. We appreciate the hospitality extended to us as three guest outsiders to your communities as you worked on a very important public policy issue about how to serve the young people in both communities in the future. Paul, Doug, Sam SES Study Team
Thank you for your time and help to your school district and community. Please drive home safely.
- 23 -
Data: Enrollment Projection Calculations for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS 2012-2021
MADISON CS STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS
April 2012
- 24 -
Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, Format, and Methodology. All Rights Reserved. Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.
SES Study Team
- 25 -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose of the Enrollment Projection Calculations Variables that May Suggest Adjustments to the Calculated Baseline Enrollment Projections Basic Assumption Guiding the Projection Calculations Methodology to Project Baseline Enrollment Forecasts Limitations of the Calculations Study Data A. Historical Perspective of Annual Enrollments B. Historical Perspective of Annual Live Births in Madison County and in the Enrollment Areas Of the Two School Districts C. Historical Perspective of the Trend Patterns of the Live Births in Madison County, the Catchment Area Towns of Each District, and Within the Attendance Area of Each School District D. Historical Perspective of the Relationship Between Annual Live Births and Kindergarten Enrollments in Each District E. Kindergarten Enrollment Forecasts F. Baseline K-12 Enrollment Projections for the Two School Districts G. Summary of Enrollment Projection Data Calculations As they Apply to a Reorganization of the Two Districts Into One K-12 School District Attachment: Enrollment Projection Calculations 4 7 9 1 1 1 2 3
10 12 13 18
19
- 26 -
DATA PURPOSE AND USE OF THE ENROLLMENT PROJECTION CALCULATIONS DATA This enrollment projection calculations study provides historical and current enrollment data and suggests enrollment projection scenarios based on the trending of patterns of historical data. A cohort survival statistic methodology is used. The calculations provide present and projected pupil enrollments based on different assumptions about the future. The study enables the school districts to comply with Commissioners Regulation Section 155.1. The Regulation requires long-range planning of program requirements, pupil capacity of existing facilities, and a plan for repair or modernization of facilities and/or provision for additional facilities to support the delivery of program. The Regulation outlines that planning for grades K-6 should be done with a five year view of future enrollments and a ten year view of future enrollments for grades 7-12. The enrollment estimates are projections and not predictions. All enrollment projections for years further in the future (plus five years) have inherent uncertainties because the assumptions on which they are based can be affected by changes in human behavior, by the economy, or by other events. The projections do offer a starting point for analyzing and understanding the elements of future school district demographic change. The enrollment projection study calculations combined with the values, intuition, and vision of school district officials and their communities can frame planning discussions as the school districts project their facilities, staffing and program needs into the future.
VARIABLES THAT INFLUENCE FUTURE SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENTS The six sources of current and projected school district enrollment are: live births within the school district and their eventual kindergarten enrollment in the district; new household population with children who move to the district; new population who move to the district who are at child-bearing age and plan to begin a family; enrollment of students from non-public schools or from home schooling settings; school program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the school district in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation; a change by other public schools, if any, who tuition students to attend the school districts.
- 27 -
DATA BASIC ASSUMPTION GUIDING THE PROJECTION CALCULATIONS When using the Cohort Survival Statistic to project future enrollments, it is assumed that the following variables will continue in the future in a similar manner as they have since 2006 unless data are identified to the contrary:
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
the death rate of children the live birth rate migration of students both into and out of the district grade retention patterns residential construction and housing market increase or decrease of local employment opportunities dropout rate graduation rate private school enrollments number of non-residents enrolled on a tuition basis
If there are data to suggest that one or more of the variables listed above will not continue into the near future of the next five years in the same historical pattern, then the base Cohort Survival Statistic results are modified to estimate the potential impact the variable(s) may have on future school district enrollments. As of April 2012, there are no substantial data to suggest the expectation of significant new population sparked by a growing job market to the enrollment area of the two school districts, and/or a significant increase of new residential construction that could attract households with school-age children over the next five years. Also, the death rate of children, the rate of private school enrollments, and the few numbers of non-resident tuitioned enrollments are not expected to change significantly over the next five years. School program and academic intervention changes that may increase the success of the school districts in keeping existing enrollment as long as possible to culminate in high school graduation may be a variable that might influence future enrollments and should be analyzed if significant educational program opportunities are added and/or if academic support-intervention services are changed systemically. The variable of live births is integral to the methodology used to estimate future kindergarten enrollments. The enrollment projection calculations are baseline projections in that they analyze two of the six variables that may influence future enrollments: historic live birth patterns, and historic grade-level enrollments.
- 28 -
DATA METHODOLOGY TO PROJECT BASELINE ENROLLMENT FORECASTS Compilation of Data The study collects the following data to execute the cohort survival statistic to project baseline future enrollments of each school district: Student enrollments by grade level from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 are compiled from data provided by district personnel. All enrolled children including special needs students, temporarily home-bound pupils, and non-resident tuitioned pupils regardless of instructional program are included in the calculations. Annual kindergarten class enrollments are compared to the total school district enrollment area live births five years earlier. Live birth numbers in the school district since 2002 as reported by the NYS Department of Health are analyzed.
Application of the Baseline Cohort Survival Statistic The cohort survival statistic identifies a percentage of survival ratio that describes the relationship of a grade level enrollment in a given year compared to the grade enrollment in the next lower grade from the previous year. If a ratio falls below 1.0, the ratio signifies that the enrollment of students in a grade level decreased or did not survive enrollment into the next grade level of the next year. If a ratio rises above 1.0, the ratio then signifies new enrollment has moved to the district or a significant change in grade-tograde promotion policy.
Calculating the survival ratios from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 for each of the grade enrollments provides the basis for a set of average grade-to-grade survival ratios that can be used to estimate future baseline grade enrollments in the Madison and Stockbridge Valley school districts.
Limitations of the Calculations Study

Future enrollments are positively affected by: Added births in the district and the resulting added kindergarten enrollments. The reductions in private school/home school/charter school enrollments The increase in the enrollment retention of students through grade 12 as completers of a diploma program. A robust employment market that can attract new residents with children and/or who are at childbearing age. A robust housing market that can attract new residents with children and/ or who are at childbearing age. Increased enrollment of tuitioned students from other school districts. Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and - 29 decision options for serving students in the future.
DATA Similarly, future enrollment projections can be negatively affected by the antitheses of the same variables. Therefore, the enrollment projection estimates should be revisited and updated yearly if there are any major changes in: the assumptions that base the methodology of this study; the annual live birth data for the district; major shifts in the housing market and employment market opportunities from what has been expected; changes in the educational program offered; and/or changes in the non-public school, charter school, or out of school district enrollments by residents of the school districts; or major immediate changes to the numbers of pupils tuitioned from other school districts. The Enrollment Projection Calculations provide sets of estimates about future K-12 enrollments ranging from low to high based on defined assumptions and historical patterns of population and enrollment data. It is suggested that the Boards of Education, the school district leadership team and the respective communities discuss the projection scenarios and come to consensus about what the school district and the community believe about the local futurewill the glass be filled, half filled or half empty? with regard to such items as increased numbers of pupils completing graduation, new residential construction, the existing residential market, new population to the district, and increased jobs within commuting distance of the district. A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANNUAL ENROLLMENTS 9 Grades K-12, K-6, and 7-12: DATA SNAPSHOT District: Net Change of 2006 Six-Year Average and 2011 enrollments Enrollment K-12: K-12: -30; -6.1% 501 Madison -52; -9.6% 510 Stockbridge Valley District: Madison Stockbridge Valley
9 Grade Kindergarten: District:
Six Year Median Enrollment K-12: 502 499
Net Change of 2006 and 2011 enrollments K-6: -19; -6.9% -59; -20%
Net Change of 2006 and 2011 enrollments 7-12: -11; -5% +7; 2.8%
Madison Stockbridge Valley
Net Change of 2006 and 2011 Kindergarten Enrollments: +5; +14.3% -8; -17%
- 30 -
DATA
CHART ONE: MADISON CS HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011

y = -6.3143x + 522.6
ENROLLMENT
496
507
534
508
492
466
06-07
07-08
08-09 YEAR
09-10
10-11
11-12
CHART ONE: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011

y = -10.286x + 546.33
ENRO LLM ENT
544
540 489 491
506
492
06-07
07-08
08-09 YEAR
09-10
10-11
11-12
- 31 -
DATA
350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
CHART TWO: MADISON CS HISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011
274
273 234 222
276 258 260 248 255 237 211 255
y = -4.7143x + 282
ENROLLMENT
K-6
7-12
y = -1.6x + 240.6
06-07
07-08
08-09
YEAR
09-10
10-11
11-12
350 340 330 320 310 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
CHART TWO: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS HISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011
295
287 249 253 247 234 257 249 257 236 256
y = -11.914x + 298.87 242
ENROLLMENT
K-6
7-12
y = 1.6286x + 247.47
06-07
07-08
08-09
YEAR
09-10
10-11
11-12
- 32 -
DATA
FIGURE FOUR: MADISON KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT 2002-2011

60 55 50 45 40 ENROLLMENT 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 YEAR 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 30 38 32 34 29 48 42 39 36 35 y = -0.4303x + 38.667
FIGURE FOUR: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT 2002-2011

50 45 40 35 31 ENROLLM ENT 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 YEAR 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 47 42 39 37 32 y = -0.703x + 40.867 41
40
39
22
- 33 -
DATA B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANNUAL LIVE BIRTHS IN MADISON COUNTY AND IN THE ENROLLMENT AREAS OF EACH OF THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS DATA SNAPSHOT Live Births Net Change from 2002 through 2010 -68; -9.6% Madison County District Enrollment Area: Madison Stockbridge Valley +10; +35.6% +3; +1.2%
FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AREA 2002-2010
50 45 40 36 35 LIVE BIRTHS 30 25 21 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 30 28 33 30 y = 1.3167x + 25.861 38 38 38 Will the pattern of the last eight years of live births in the district continue over the next five years?
- 34 -
DATA
FIGURE TWO: LIVE BIRTHS IN THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT AREA 2002-2010
50 45 40 35 31 LIVE BIRTHS 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 YEAR 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 25 26 24 34 30 28 26 Will the pattern of the last eight years of live births in the district continue over the next five years? y = 0.85x + 24.861 38
C. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE TREND PATTERNS OF THE LIVE BIRTHS IN MADISON COUNTY, THE CATCHMENT AREA TOWNS OF EACH DISTRICT, AND WITHIN THE ATTENDANCE AREA OF EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT
MADISON County Pattern slope: -6.733 Catchment Area of the Towns where the district is located. School district enrollment area Madison Slope: -.6167 Slope: +1.3167 Stockbridge Valley Slope: -.9833 Slope: +.85
- 35 -
DATA
FIGURE THREE: MADISON ENROLLMENT AREA, CATCHMENT AREA, AND MADISON COUNTY BIRTH TRENDS 2002-2010
900 875 850 825 800 775 750 725 700 675 650 625 600 575 550 525 500 475 450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2002 2003
y = -6.7333x + 747.33
BIRTHS
y = -0.6167x + 202.75 y = 1.3167x + 25.861
2004
2005
2006 DISTRICT
2007
2008
2009
2010
MADISON COUNTY
CATCHMENT AREA
FIGURE THREE: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY ENROLLMENT AREA, CATCHMENT AREA, AND MADISON COUNTY BIRTH TRENDS 2002-2010
900 875 850 825 800 775 750 725 700 675 650 625 600 575 550 525 500 475 450 425 400 375 350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2002 2003
y = -6.7333x + 747.33
BIRTHS
y = -0.9833x + 329.92
y = 0.85x + 24.861
2004
2005
2006 DISTRICT
2007
2008
2009
2010
MADISON COUNTY
CATCHMENT AREA
- 36 -
DATA
D. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANNUAL LIVE BIRTHS AND KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS IN EACH DISTRICT DATA SNAPSHOT Pattern of total live births from 2002-2006 and total kindergarten enrollments five years later 20072011 (K enroll divided by live births in district 5 years earlier): 148/173; 1.16 (116%) 140/170; 1.21 (121%) Average result of yearly comparisons of kindergarten enrollments and births five years earlier: Ratio of 1.19 (119%) Ratio of 1.22 (122%)
District:
Madison Stockbridge Valley
TABLE 3
RATIOS OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS (2007-2011) OF THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER (2002-2006) IN THE ENROLLMENT AREA OF THE DISTRICT
COMPARISON YEARS
K ENROLL
LIVE BIRTHS ENROLLMENT AREA
KIND/ BIRTHS RATIO
2007 K STUDENTS TO 2002 BIRTHS 2008 K STUDENTS TO 2003 BIRTHS 2009 K STUDENTS TO 2004 BIRTHS 2010 K STUDENTS TO 2005 BIRTHS 2011 K STUDENTS TO 2006 BIRTHS
34 39 29 36 35
28 30 21 33 36
1.214286 1.3 1.380952 1.090909 0.972222
HISTORICAL LIVE BIRTH RATIOS 2007-20101 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
- 37 -
DATA
FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT
75 70 65 60 NUM BER OF BIRTHS AND PUPILS 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER 30 38 32 34 28 30 29 21 48 42 39 36 33 35 36 38 38 30 38 W ILL THE RATIO BETWEEN
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?
TABLE 3
RATIOS OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENTS (2007-2011) OF THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER (2002-2006) IN THE ENROLLMENT AREA OF THE DISTRICT COMPARISON YEARS K ENROLL LIVE BIRTHS ENROLLMENT AREA KIND/ BIRTHS RATIO
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
K K K K K
STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS
TO TO TO TO TO
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS BIRTHS
32 22 37 40 39
25 26 24 31 34
1.28 0.846154 1.541667 1.290323 1.147059
HISTORICAL LIVE BIRTH RATIOS 2007-2011 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
- 38 -
DATA
FIGURE SIX: PATTERN OF KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND THE PATTERN OF LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER IN THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
75 70 65 60 NUMBER OF BIRTHS AND PUPILS 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT YEAR KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER 31 47 42 39 41 37 32 25 26 22 24 31 40 39 34 30 26 28 W ILL THE RATIO BETWEEN
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT AND LIVE BIRTHS FIVE YEARS EARLIER CONTINUE INTO THE FUTURE? WHAT FACTORS MIGHT INFLUENCE THE RATIO?
38
E. KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT FORECASTS Estimating future kindergarten enrollments is the most speculative aspect of projecting K-12 enrollments. However, analyzing historical annual kindergarten enrollments in concert with historical annual live birth data and patterns do reveal a set of defendable estimates of future kindergarten enrollments. These estimated future kindergarten enrollments then can be included in the base cohort survival statistic application to project future K-12 enrollments. Historical kindergarten enrollments of the two school districts and historical live birth data are analyzed three ways. The three analyses form the basis for three kindergarten enrollment forecasts for each school district. The three kindergarten forecasts are used to develop Low, Mid, and a High K-12 enrollment projection calculations for the Madison and Stockbridge Valley school districts. The nomenclature of low, mid, and high is determined by the estimated total K-6 enrollment five years from now consistent with the planning guidelines in NYS Commissioners Regulation 155.1.
- 39 -
DATA The three kindergarten enrollment forecasts for each school district are estimated from the analysis of the historical patterns of live births, kindergarten enrollments, and the ratios of how many pupils enroll in kindergarten compared to the number who were born five years earlier in the boundaries of the school district.
One forecast assumes that the overall kindergarten enrollment-to-live-birth ratio for the years 2007 through 2011 is an historically based ratio that is possible to expect in the future. It also assumes that the historical pattern of live births over the past nine years is possible to expect in the future. A second forecast assumes that the historical pattern of the kindergarten enrollment-to-live-birth ratios for the years 2007 through 2011 may continue into the future. It also assumes that the historical pattern of live births over the past six years is possible to expect in the future. The third forecast assumes that future kindergarten enrollments will follow the pattern of kindergarten enrollments from 2006 through 2011 without reference to live birth trends or kindergarten-to-live-birth ratio patterns.
Forecasted Kindergarten Enrollment Estimate Current 2011 Kindergarten Enrollment 2012 low range mid range high range 2013 low range mid range high range 2014 low range mid range high range 2015 low range mid range high range 2016 low range mid range high range Madison Stockbridge Valley
35 37 34 44 35 34 44 26 33 35 31 33 44 28 32 46
39 33 36 38 32 32 34 32 46 50 31 34 37 30 41 41
- 40 -
DATA F. BASELINE K-12 ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS Tables 7A, B, and C in the Figures, Tables, Charts Attachment present Low, Mid, and High range K-12 enrollment projections calculated using forecasted future kindergarten enrollments and the cohort survival statistic. Each calculation is based on historical K-12 enrollments as reported by the school district for each of the school years 2006-2007 through 2011-2012. The historical enrollment data are used to calculate percentage of survival ratios for each grade level K-12. The ratios quantify the rate of change in number of students in a particular grade level compared to the number of students in the next higher grade level in the following year. The survival ratios are averaged for each grade level from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012. The six-year average ratios for each grade level are used to calculate estimated future grade 1-12 enrollments through 2021-22.
DATA SNAPSHOT MADISON CS Year Grades K-6 CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2011-2012 255 Calculation Baseline Cohort Low Range Baseline Cohort Mid Range Baseline Cohort High Range 2013-2014 2016-2017 2013-2014 2016-2017 2013-2014 2016-2017 254 234 250 243 270 291 Grades 7-12 211 222 218 222 218 222 218
- 41 -
DATA
BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR MADISON CS

YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 254 218 473 254 222 476 243 223 466 233 225 458 234 218 452 225 221 446 214 218 432 200 221 421 187 218 405 182 204 385 LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 219 109 111 145 108 215 117 112 144 110 200 120 120 146 103 205 112 123 140 102 198 109 115 145 102 189 102 112 155 110 176 113 105 143 113 164 113 116 143 104 160 104 116 141 102 149 98 107 138 97 LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 179 108 147 75 73 173 108 147 82 78 172 99 144 70 78 169 93 140 64 84 161 85 149 73 73 150 86 139 75 66 140 80 135 75 75 137 74 126 63 77 127 70 116 59 77 120 66 115 61 66 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 251 218 470 250 222 472 245 223 469 238 225 462 243 218 461 240 221 461 236 218 454 233 217 450 229 214 443 226 207 432 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 216 109 111 145 108 211 117 112 144 110 203 120 120 146 103 210 112 123 140 102 207 109 115 145 102 204 102 112 155 110 201 110 105 143 113 198 109 113 143 104 194 107 112 141 102 191 106 110 135 97 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 176 105 147 75 73 169 104 147 82 78 175 102 144 70 78 173 101 137 64 84 170 99 144 73 73 168 98 142 72 66 165 96 140 71 75 163 95 138 70 74 160 93 136 69 73 158 92 134 68 72 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 261 218 480 270 222 492 268 223 491 271 225 496 291 218 508 303 221 525 317 218 535 324 228 552 332 235 567 351 231 581 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 226 109 111 145 108 231 117 112 144 110 226 120 120 146 103 244 112 123 140 102 255 109 115 145 102 267 102 112 155 110 272 121 105 143 113 278 130 124 143 104 296 131 134 141 102 305 130 134 146 97 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 186 115 147 75 73 188 123 147 82 78 198 124 144 70 78 207 124 147 64 84 218 125 165 73 73 221 138 166 82 66 226 143 175 91 75 242 147 177 82 85 250 152 180 82 94 257 156 195 94 85
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
6 36 39 42 28 36 36 38 36 27 32
6 36 39 42 28 36 36 35 35 34 34
6 36 39 42 28 36 36 46 46 36 46
CHART SIX: MADISON CS GRADES K-6 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2016

300 290 280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2012 254 251 261 255
CURRENT ENROLL. 2010-2011
PUPILS
2013 254 250 270
2014 243 245 268
2015 233 238 271
2016 234 243 291
BASE COHORT LOW RANGE BASE COHORT MID RANGE BASE COHORT HIGH RANGE CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2011
- 42 -
DATA
CHART SEVEN: MADISON CS GRADES 7-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021

280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2012 218 218 218 211
CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2010-2011
PUPILS
2013 222 222 222
2014 223 223 223
2015 225 225 225
2016 218 218 218
2017 221 221 221
2018 218 218 218
2019 221 217 228
2020 218 214 235
2021 204 207 231
600 580 560 540 520 500 480 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
CHART EIGHT: MADISON CS GRADES K-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021
2012 473 470 480 466
CURRENT ENROLL. 2010-2011
PUPILS
2013 476 472 492
2014 466 469 491
2015 458 462 496
2016 452 461 508
2017 446 461 525
2018 432 454 535
2019 421 450 552
2020 405 443 567
2021 385 432 581
DATA SNAPSHOT STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS Year Grades K-6 CURRENT ENROLLMENT 2011-2012 236 Calculation Baseline Cohort Low Range Baseline Cohort Mid Range Baseline Cohort High Range 2013-2014 2016-2017 2013-2014 2016-2017 2013-2014 2016-2017 227 222 230 252 234 263
Grades 7-12 256 228 199 228 199 228 199
- 43 -
DATA
BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 226 252 477 227 228 456 221 226 446 226 200 426 222 199 421 217 191 408 208 187 395 203 190 392 199 184 383 194 189 384 LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 198 115 122 164 130 192 109 116 155 112 198 90 110 158 115 195 94 91 138 109 189 90 95 141 104 181 104 92 122 99 177 103 106 114 81 173 100 105 119 85 170 93 101 120 82 166 91 95 127 95 LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 163 106 119 63 88 170 103 125 58 73 167 96 125 54 67 163 94 132 64 62 154 92 130 68 58 151 90 127 66 69 148 88 119 59 73 144 86 117 58 71 141 84 115 57 64 138 82 112 56 63 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 229 252 480 230 228 459 238 226 463 247 200 446 252 199 451 259 191 450 263 187 450 271 193 463 283 187 470 283 206 489 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 201 115 122 164 130 195 109 116 155 112 215 90 110 158 115 215 94 91 138 109 220 90 95 141 104 224 104 92 122 99 230 106 106 114 81 241 103 108 119 85 241 109 104 120 82 252 108 111 130 95 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 166 109 119 63 88 173 106 125 58 73 184 113 125 54 67 183 111 135 64 62 184 119 133 68 58 191 116 143 68 69 201 125 138 62 73 200 128 143 71 74 210 131 152 73 67 215 134 150 68 77 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 231 252 482 234 228 463 246 226 471 258 200 457 263 199 462 269 191 460 271 187 459 275 195 470 283 190 473 275 214 489 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 203 115 122 164 130 199 109 116 155 112 223 90 110 158 115 226 94 91 138 109 230 90 95 141 104 233 104 92 122 99 236 108 106 114 81 244 107 110 119 85 237 116 108 120 82 241 116 119 132 95 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 168 111 119 63 88 177 110 125 58 73 192 121 125 54 67 194 120 137 64 62 195 126 136 68 58 199 118 151 70 69 206 123 148 66 73 198 124 151 77 75 203 125 158 79 71 204 125 150 71 82
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
6 27 36 22 32 33 36 30 29 29 28
6 27 36 22 32 33 36 33 29 42 31
6 27 36 22 32 33 36 35 31 46 34
- 44 -
DATA
CHART SIX: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS GRADES K-6 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2016
270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2012 226 229 231 236
C U R R EN T EN R O LL. 2010-2011
PUPILS
2013 227 230 234
2014 221 238 246
2015 226 247 258
2016 222 252 263
CHART SEVEN: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS GRADES 7-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021
280 270 260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
2012 252 252 252 256
C UR REN T EN RO LLM ENT 2010-2011
PUPILS
2013 228 228 228
2014 226 226 226
2015 200 200 200
2016 199 199 199
2017 191 191 191
2018 187 187 187
2019 190 193 195
2020 184 187 190
2021 189 206 214
500 480 460 440 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
CHART EIGHT: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS GRADES K-12 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT SCENARIOS 2012-2021
2012 477 480 482 492
C U R R E N TE N R O LL. 2010-2011
P U P ILS
2013 456 459 463
2014 446 463 471
2015 426 446 457
2016 421 451 462
2017 408 450 460
2018 395 450 459
2019 392 463 470
2020 383 470 473
2021 384 489 489
- 45 -
DATA G. SUMMARY OF ENROLLMENT PROJECTION DATA CALCULATIONS AS THEY APPLY TO A REORGANIZATION OF THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICT DATA SNAPSHOT Grades K-6 491
Calculation
Year
Grades 7-12 467
CURRENT COMBINED ENROLLMENT OF THE TWO DISTRICTS Baseline Cohort Low Range
2011-2012
TOTAL GRADES K-12 FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING 958
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
480 482 463 459 456 480 481 483 484 495 492 505 513 529 554
470 450 449 425 417 470 450 449 425 417 470 450 449 425 417
950 932 912 884 873 950 931 932 909 912 962 954 962 954 970
Baseline Cohort Mid Range
Baseline Cohort High Range
- 46 -
DATA
ATTACHMENT:
- 47 -
DATA
TABLE 1
LIVE BIRTHS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA SERVED BY THE MADISON SCHOOL DISTRICT AS REPORTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2002-2010
TOWN
MADISON COUNTY EATON 0.35% MADISON 49.95% STOCKBRIDGE 1.43% VILLAGE OF MADISON 100.00% Oneida County Augusta 79.91% MARSHALL 0.33% Vernon 0.03%
2002
38
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL BIRTHS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY
38 38 41 46 38 41 45 44 369
31
31
26
31
30
34
32
29
31
275
28
27
21
24
28
22
19
25
18
212
31
23
20
21
25
27
29
19
26
32
222
21
24
15
21
23
24
23
16
18
185
59
48
64
54
79
56
59
45
39
503
Percentages refer to the share of residential parcels that are in the Madison School District TOTAL BIRTHS IN CATCHMENT AREA NYS HEALTH DEPARTMENT 'LIVE BIRTHS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT' DISTRICT/CATCHMENT AREA LIVE BIRTH RATIO MADISON COUNTY TOTAL BIRTHS ONEIDA COUNTY TOTAL BIRTHS DISTRICT/MADISON COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATIO 13.86% 15.87% 11.23% 16.58% 15.00% 18.27% 19.29% 15.71% 20.65% 16.25% 16.76% 6 YEAR RATIO
202
189
187
199
240
208
197
191
184
1797
28
30
21
33
36
38
38
30
38
292
710
739
704
725
744
780
699
680
642
6423
2488
3.94%
2611
4.06%
2576
2.98%
2480
4.55%
2595
4.84%
2606
4.87%
2617
5.44%
2633
4.41%
2633
5.92%
23239
4.55% 4.74%
6 YEAR RATIO
TABLE 2
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT OF THE MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2002-2011
2002
30
2003
38
2004 2005 2006 2007

48 42 32 34
2008 2009 2010 2011

39 29 36 35
- 48 -
DATA
TABLE 1
LIVE BIRTHS IN THE CATCHMENT AREA SERVED BY THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT AS REPORTED BY THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 2002-2010
TOWN
MADISON COUNTY City of Oneida 8.84% Village of Munnsville 100.00% Eaton 5.78% Lincoln 8.23% Smithfield 15.23% Stockbridge 98.57% Oneida County Augusta 1.34% Vernon 0.79%
2002
127
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 TOTAL BIRTHS IN EACH MUNICIPALITY
135 145 150 149 141 138 139 134 1258
10
11
62
38
38
38
41
46
38
41
45
44
369
18
20
21
23
20
25
24
19
15
185
12
17
10
17
13
11
14
13
114
28
27
21
24
28
22
19
25
18
212
23
20
21
25
27
29
19
26
32
222
59
48
64
54
79
56
59
45
39
503
Percentages refer to the share of residential parcels that are in the Stockbridge Valley School District TOTAL BIRTHS IN CATCHMENT AREA NYS HEALTH DEPARTMENT 'LIVE BIRTHS BY SCHOOL DISTRICT' DISTRICT/CATCHMENT AREA LIVE BIRTH RATIO MADISON COUNTY TOTAL BIRTHS ONEIDA COUNTY TOTAL BIRTHS DISTRICT/MADISON COUNTY LIVE BIRTH RATIO 8.04% 8.25% 7.32% 9.37% 9.02% 9.12% 8.25% 11.95% 9.30% 8.96% 9.16% 6 YEAR RATIO
311
315
328
331
377
329
315
318
301
2925
25
26
24
31
34
30
26
38
28
262
710
739
704
725
744
780
699
680
642
6423
2488
3.52%
2611
3.52%
2576
3.41%
2480
4.28%
2595
4.57%
2606
3.85%
2617
3.72%
2633
5.59%
2633
4.36%
23239
4.08% 4.19%
6 YEAR RATIO
TABLE 2
KINDERGARTEN ENROLLMENT OF THE STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 2002-2011
Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 decision options for serving students in the future.
47 42 31 39 41 32 22 37 40 39
- 49 -
DATA
TABLE 7-A: LOW RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12 MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 KNDG 32 34 39 29 36 35 1.03 1.03 1.00 0.86 0.94 0.973 34 36 34 25 30 27 25 24 22 21 R 1ST 44 33 35 39 25 34 0.95 1.12 1.14 1.03 1.12 1.073 36 37 39 37 27 32 29 27 26 24 R 2ND 38 42 37 40 40 28 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.05 0.989 28 36 36 38 36 27 32 29 27 26 R 3RD 39 35 42 37 39 42 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.042 44 29 38 38 40 38 28 33 30 28 R 4TH 46 39 37 44 39 41 1.00 1.03 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.969 40 42 28 36 37 39 37 27 32 29 R 5TH 38 46 40 34 43 36 1.16 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.91 0.992 36 39 42 28 36 36 38 36 27 32 R 6TH 37 44 46 37 33 39 1.03 1.09 1.11 0.89 0.97 1.018 40 36 40 43 28 37 37 39 37 27 R 7TH 33 38 48 51 33 32 1.15 1.08 0.88 0.96 1.12 1.037 33 41 38 42 44 29 38 38 40 38 R 8TH 39 38 41 42 49 37 1.23 1.03 0.98 0.98 0.92 1.025 38 34 42 39 43 46 30 39 39 41 R 9TH 40 48 39 40 41 45 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.90 0.95 0.948 43 36 32 40 37 40 43 28 37 37 R 10TH 45 40 44 38 36 39 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.87 0.83 0.922 36 39 33 30 37 34 37 40 26 34 R 11TH 28 44 39 42 33 30 0.93 1.07 0.90 1.07 0.85 0.963 29 35 38 32 29 36 33 36 38 25 473 476 466 458 452 446 432 421 405 385 R 12TH TOTAL 37 26 47 35 45 28 496 507 534 508 492 466
Average Ratio 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 37 35 26 31 28 26 25 23 22 21
TABLE 7-B: MID RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12 MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 KNDG 32 34 39 29 36 35 1.03 1.03 1.00 0.86 0.94 0.973 34 33 33 32 32 31 31 30 30 29 R 1ST 44 33 35 39 25 34 0.95 1.12 1.14 1.03 1.12 1.073 36 37 36 36 34 34 33 33 32 32 R 2ND 38 42 37 40 40 28 0.92 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.05 0.989 28 36 36 35 35 34 34 33 33 32 R 3RD 39 35 42 37 39 42 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.042 44 29 38 38 37 37 36 36 34 34 R 4TH 46 39 37 44 39 41 1.00 1.03 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.969 40 42 28 36 37 35 35 34 34 33 R 5TH 38 46 40 34 43 36 1.16 1.00 0.93 0.97 0.91 0.992 36 39 42 28 36 36 35 35 34 34 R 6TH 37 44 46 37 33 39 1.03 1.09 1.11 0.89 0.97 1.018 40 36 40 43 28 37 37 36 36 35 R 7TH 33 38 48 51 33 32 1.15 1.08 0.88 0.96 1.12 1.037 33 41 38 42 44 29 38 38 37 37 R 8TH 39 38 41 42 49 37 1.23 1.03 0.98 0.98 0.92 1.025 38 34 42 39 43 46 30 39 39 38 R 9TH 40 48 39 40 41 45 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.90 0.95 0.948 43 36 32 40 37 40 43 28 37 37 R 10TH 45 40 44 38 36 39 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.87 0.83 0.922 36 39 33 30 37 34 37 40 26 34 R 11TH 28 44 39 42 33 30 0.93 1.07 0.90 1.07 0.85 0.963 29 35 38 32 29 36 33 36 38 25 470 472 469 462 461 461 454 450 443 432 R 12TH 37 26 47 35 45 28 TOTAL 496 507 534 508 492 466
Average Ratio 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 34 34 33 33 32 32 31 31 30 30
TABLE 7-C: HIGH RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12 MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Average Ratio 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 44 44 35 44 46 47 49 50 52 53
- 50 -
DATA
TABLE 7-A: LOW RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12 STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
YEAR 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 KNDG 41 32 22 37 40 39 1.02 1.09 1.09 0.97 0.90 1.016 40 34 33 33 32 30 30 29 28 28 R 1ST 41 42 35 24 36 36 0.98 0.74 0.94 1.13 0.92 0.940 34 37 32 31 31 30 29 29 28 27 R 2ND 37 40 31 33 27 33 1.08 1.08 1.00 1.09 0.89 1.027 34 35 38 32 31 31 30 29 29 28 R 3RD 38 40 43 31 36 24 0.97 0.90 0.95 0.90 1.00 0.946 23 32 33 36 31 30 30 29 28 28 R 4TH 44 37 36 41 28 36 1.00 0.89 1.03 1.00 0.96 0.977 35 22 31 32 35 30 29 29 28 27 R 5TH 49 44 33 37 41 27 1.06 0.95 0.94 1.11 1.00 1.013 27 36 22 32 33 36 30 29 29 28 R 6TH 45 52 42 31 41 41 1.02 0.94 1.10 1.23 1.07 1.072 44 29 38 24 34 35 38 32 31 31 R 7TH 47 46 49 46 38 44 0.98 0.96 1.04 1.07 0.92 0.992 44 44 29 38 24 34 35 38 32 31 R 8TH 43 46 44 51 49 35 0.95 0.96 1.05 0.96 1.02 0.987 35 43 43 29 37 24 33 34 38 32 R 9TH 45 41 44 46 49 50 0.98 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.73 0.906 45 31 39 39 26 34 21 30 31 34 R 10TH 32 44 38 41 44 36 1.03 0.91 0.84 1.12 1.11 1.004 36 45 31 39 39 26 34 21 30 31 R 11TH 41 33 40 32 46 49 1.05 0.97 1.03 0.97 0.91 0.985 48 36 45 31 39 39 26 33 21 30 477 456 446 426 421 408 395 392 383 384 R 12TH TOTAL 41 43 32 41 31 42 544 540 489 491 506 492
Average Ratio 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 33 32 32 31 30 30 29 28 28 27
TABLE 7-B: MID RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12 STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Average Ratio 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 36 32 46 34 41 42 43 44 45 46
TABLE 7-C: HIGH RANGE BASELINE COHORT SURVIVAL STATISTIC ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS GRADES K-12 STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Average Ratio 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 38 34 50 37 41 41 42 42 42 42
- 51 -
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: FEDERAL CENSUS BUREAU DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTIC ESTIMATES 2006-2010
April 2012
- 52 -
Data: Federal Census 2006-2010 Demographic Estimates for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees
SOURCE OF DATA: Federal Census Bureau 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Page 1: Selected Demographic Estimates (Sex and Age, Race, Housing Units..) Page 3: Selected Social Characteristics (Education, Marital Status, Relationships, Grandparents..) Page 6: Selected Economic Characteristics (Income, Occupation, Commuting to Work..) Page 9: Selected Housing Characteristics (Occupancy and Structure, Housing Value..)
To maintain confidentiality, the Census Bureau applies statistical procedures that introduce some uncertainty into data for geographic areas with small population groups. The data in this table contain sampling error and nonsampling error. Each demographic characteristic has a corresponding Margin of Error. The margin of error is the difference between an estimate and its upper or lower confidence bound. All American Community Survey margins of error are based on a 90 percent confidence level. The margins of error are not reported in this discussion tool due to space considerations. The demographic estimates are reported here to encourage community discussion about possible similarities and differences in characteristics of the Madison and Stockbridge Valley school districts. The compilation of the Census data is to help the community and school leaders discuss and suggest insights about the school districts and the communities they serve as part of the long-term planning effort of the school districts. Additional information on the design and methodology of the American Community Survey, including data collection and processing, can be found at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/methodology main/
Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, and Format All Rights Reserved. Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study. SES Study Team
- 53 -
Data: Federal Census 2006-2010 Demographic Estimates for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees Demographic 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey Demographic Characteristics Total population Male Female Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 to 84 years 85 years and over Median age (years) 18 years and over 21 years and over 62 years and over 65 years and over 18 years and over Male Female 65 years and over Male Female RACE Total population One race Two or more races One race White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Cherokee tribal grouping Chippewa tribal grouping Navajo tribal grouping Sioux tribal grouping Asian Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Native Hawaiian Madison Central Estimate Percent 3,083 1,507 48.9% 1,576 51.1% 205 6.6% 142 4.6% 158 5.1% 167 5.4% 118 3.8% 316 10.2% 474 15.4% 485 15.7% 294 9.5% 192 6.2% 371 12.0% 146 4.7% 15 0.5% 44.2 (X) 2,462 79.9% 2,370 76.9% 649 21.1% 532 17.3% 2,462 2,462 1,227 49.8% 1,235 50.2% 532 532 240 45.1% 292 54.9% 3,083 3,066 17 3,066 3,033 11 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 6 0 0 3 4 0 0 3,083 99.4% 0.6% 99.4% 98.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Stockbridge Valley Estimate 3,231 1,641 1,590 326 252 201 223 213 330 480 515 211 85 208 173 14 37.6 2,316 2,187 444 395 2,316 1,172 1,144 395 179 216 3,231 3,105 126 3,105 3,053 0 50 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 50.8% 49.2% 10.1% 7.8% 6.2% 6.9% 6.6% 10.2% 14.9% 15.9% 6.5% 2.6% 6.4% 5.4% 0.4% (X) 71.7% 67.7% 13.7% 12.2% 2,316 50.6% 49.4% 395 45.3% 54.7% 3,231 96.1% 3.9% 96.1% 94.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
- 54 -
Demographic Characteristics Guamanian or Chamorro Samoan Other Pacific Islander Some other race Two or more races White and Black or African American White and American Indian and Alaska Native White and Asian Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native Race alone or in combination with one or more other races Total population White Black or African American American Indian and Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Some other race HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Mexican Puerto Rican Cuban Other Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Native alone Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone Two or more races Two races including Some other race Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races Total housing units Madison Central Estimate Percent 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 0.3% 17 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 17 0.6% Stockbridge Valley Estimate 0 0 0 0 126 124 2 0 0 Percent 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 3.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
3,083 3,033 28 17 13 0 9 3,083 35 0 18 0 17 3,048 3,001 11 0 13 0 6 17 0 17 1,441
3,083 98.4% 0.9% 0.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 3,083 1.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 98.9% 97.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% (X)
3,231 3,179 124 52 2 0 0 3,231 0 0 0 0 0 3,231 3,053 0 50 2 0 0 126 0 126 1,272
3,231 98.4% 3.8% 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3,231 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 94.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 3.9% (X)
- 55 -
Selected Social Characteristics 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Selected Social Characteristics HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE Total households Family households (families) With own children under 18 years Married-couple family With own children under 18 years Male householder, no wife present, family With own children under 18 years Female householder, no husband present, family With own children under 18 years Nonfamily households Householder living alone 65 years and over Households with one or more people under 18 years Households with one or more people 65 years and over Average household size Average family size RELATIONSHIP Population in households Householder Spouse Child Other relatives Nonrelatives Unmarried partner MARITAL STATUS Males 15 years and over Never married Now married, except separated Separated Widowed Divorced Females 15 years and over Never married Now married, except separated Separated Widowed Divorced FERTILITY Number of women 15 to 50 years old who had a birth in the past 12 months Unmarried women (widowed, divorced, and never married) Per 1,000 unmarried women Per 1,000 women 15 to 50 years old Madison Central Estimate Percent 1,352 844 320 710 266 33 12 101 42 508 392 132 351 428 2.28 2.84 3,083 1,352 716 779 60 176 117 1,280 340 726 17 15 182 1,298 308 710 14 161 105 24 5 17 36 1,352 62.4% 23.7% 52.5% 19.7% 2.4% 0.9% 7.5% 3.1% 37.6% 29.0% 9.8% 26.0% 31.7% (X) (X) 3,083 43.9% 23.2% 25.3% 1.9% 5.7% 3.8% 1,280 26.6% 56.7% 1.3% 1.2% 14.2% 1,298 23.7% 54.7% 1.1% 12.4% 8.1% 24 20.8% (X) (X) Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 1,165 846 399 621 211 103 91 122 97 319 230 84 427 277 2.77 3.10 3,231 1,165 622 1,018 139 287 147 1,266 389 670 50 23 134 1,186 320 625 58 55 128 37 0 0 49 1,165 72.6% 34.2% 53.3% 18.1% 8.8% 7.8% 10.5% 8.3% 27.4% 19.7% 7.2% 36.7% 23.8% (X) (X) 3,231 36.1% 19.3% 31.5% 4.3% 8.9% 4.5% 1,266 30.7% 52.9% 3.9% 1.8% 10.6% 1,186 27.0% 52.7% 4.9% 4.6% 10.8% 37 0.0% (X) (X)
- 56 -
Selected Social Characteristics Per 1,000 women 15 to 19 years old Per 1,000 women 20 to 34 years old Per 1,000 women 35 to 50 years old GRANDPARENTS Number of grandparents living with own grandchildren under 18 years Responsible for grandchildren Years responsible for grandchildren Less than 1 year 1 or 2 years 3 or 4 years 5 or more years Number of grandparents responsible for own grandchildren under 18 years Who are female Who are married EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Population 25 years and over Less than 9th grade 9th to 12th grade, no diploma High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or professional degree Percent high school graduate or higher Percent bachelor's degree or higher VETERAN STATUS Civilian population 18 years and over Civilian veterans RESIDENCE 1 YEAR AGO Population 1 year and over Same house Different house in the U.S. Same county Different county Same state Different state Abroad PLACE OF BIRTH Total population Native Born in United States State of residence Different state Born in Puerto Rico, U.S. Island areas, or born abroad to American parent(s) Foreign born U.S. CITIZENSHIP STATUS Foreign-born population Naturalized U.S. citizen Not a U.S. citizen Madison Central Estimate Percent 0 (X) 118 (X) 0 (X) 37 20 8 0 0 12 20 10 20 2,293 64 254 1,027 338 298 138 174 (X) (X) 2,456 248 3,072 2,890 182 83 99 93 6 0 3,083 3,047 3,032 2,714 318 15 36 36 19 17 37 54.1% 21.6% 0.0% 0.0% 32.4% 20 50.0% 100.0% 2,293 2.8% 11.1% 44.8% 14.7% 13.0% 6.0% 7.6% 86.1% 13.6% 2,456 10.1% 3,072 94.1% 5.9% 2.7% 3.2% 3.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3,083 98.8% 98.3% 88.0% 10.3% 0.5% 1.2% 36 52.8% 47.2% Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 0 (X) 159 (X) 0 (X) 47 7 2 0 0 5 7 1 2 2,016 60 209 902 312 309 139 85 (X) (X) 2,316 251 3,191 2,832 359 158 201 27 174 0 3,231 3,219 3,198 2,926 272 21 12 12 8 4 47 14.9% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 7 14.3% 28.6% 2,016 3.0% 10.4% 44.7% 15.5% 15.3% 6.9% 4.2% 86.7% 11.1% 2,316 10.8% 3,191 88.7% 11.3% 5.0% 6.3% 0.8% 5.5% 0.0% 3,231 99.6% 99.0% 90.6% 8.4% 0.6% 0.4% 12 66.7% 33.3%
- 57 -
Selected Social Characteristics YEAR OF ENTRY Population born outside the United States Native Entered 2000 or later Entered before 2000 Foreign born Entered 2000 or later Entered before 2000 WORLD REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN Foreign-born population, excluding population born at sea Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America Northern America LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME Population 5 years and over English only Language other than English Speak English less than "very well" Spanish Speak English less than "very well" Other Indo-European languages Speak English less than "very well" Asian and Pacific Islander languages Speak English less than "very well" Other languages Speak English less than "very well" ANCESTRY Total population American Arab Czech Danish Dutch English French (except Basque) French Canadian German Greek Hungarian Irish Italian Lithuanian Norwegian Polish Portuguese Russian Scotch-Irish Scottish Madison Central Estimate Percent 51 15 0 15 36 4 32 36 9 10 0 0 17 0 2,878 2,767 111 57 31 23 57 34 23 0 0 0 3,083 331 16 13 55 140 736 206 83 813 0 0 706 189 7 25 177 0 6 47 75 51 15 0.0% 100.0% 36 11.1% 88.9% 36 25.0% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0% 47.2% 0.0% 2,878 96.1% 3.9% 2.0% 1.1% 0.8% 2.0% 1.2% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3,083 10.7% 0.5% 0.4% 1.8% 4.5% 23.9% 6.7% 2.7% 26.4% 0.0% 0.0% 22.9% 6.1% 0.2% 0.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.2% 1.5% 2.4% Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 33 21 0 21 12 0 12 12 0 1 0 0 0 11 2,905 2,849 56 26 36 13 13 12 1 1 6 0 3,231 384 0 3 0 132 446 164 82 597 22 7 648 309 0 22 232 0 2 26 51 33 21 0.0% 100.0% 12 0.0% 100.0% 12 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 91.7% 2,905 98.1% 1.9% 0.9% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 3,231 11.9% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 4.1% 13.8% 5.1% 2.5% 18.5% 0.7% 0.2% 20.1% 9.6% 0.0% 0.7% 7.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.8% 1.6%
- 58 -
Slovak Subsaharan African Swedish Swiss Ukrainian Welsh West Indian (excluding Hispanic origin groups) 0 0 15 26 4 148 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.1% 4.8% 0.0% 0 0 11 21 28 118 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 3.7% 0.0%
Selected Economic Characteristics 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Selected Economic Characteristics EMPLOYMENT STATUS Population 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Unemployed Armed Forces Not in labor force Civilian labor force Percent Unemployed Females 16 years and over In labor force Civilian labor force Employed Own children under 6 years All parents in family in labor force Own children 6 to 17 years All parents in family in labor force COMMUTING TO WORK Workers 16 years and over Car, truck, or van -- drove alone Car, truck, or van -- carpooled Public transportation (excluding taxicab) Walked Other means Worked at home Mean travel time to work (minutes) OCCUPATION Civilian employed population 16 years and over Management, business, science, and arts occupations Service occupations Sales and office occupations Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations Production, transportation, and material moving occupations INDUSTRY Civilian employed population 16 years and over Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining Construction Manufacturing Wholesale trade Madison Central Estimate Percent 2,533 1,757 1,751 1,684 67 6 776 1,751 (X) 1,266 829 829 812 222 129 362 307 1,674 1,240 186 0 58 28 162 25.6 1,684 494 316 407 302 165 1,684 173 193 189 16 2,533 69.4% 69.1% 66.5% 2.6% 0.2% 30.6% 1,751 3.8% 1,266 65.5% 65.5% 64.1% 222 58.1% 362 84.8% 1,674 74.1% 11.1% 0.0% 3.5% 1.7% 9.7% (X) 1,684 29.3% 18.8% 24.2% 17.9% 9.8% 1,684 10.3% 11.5% 11.2% 1.0% Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 2,420 1,679 1,679 1,593 86 0 741 1,679 (X) 1,176 764 764 717 362 218 497 385 1,541 1,276 145 0 23 19 78 21.0 1,593 490 287 313 201 302 1,593 129 161 213 32 2,420 69.4% 69.4% 65.8% 3.6% 0.0% 30.6% 1,679 5.1% 1,176 65.0% 65.0% 61.0% 362 60.2% 497 77.5% 1,541 82.8% 9.4% 0.0% 1.5% 1.2% 5.1% (X) 1,593 30.8% 18.0% 19.6% 12.6% 19.0% 1,593 8.1% 10.1% 13.4% 2.0%
- 59 -
Selected Economic Characteristics Retail trade Transportation and warehousing, and utilities Information Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services Other services, except public administration Public administration CLASS OF WORKER Civilian employed population 16 years and over Private wage and salary workers Government workers Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers Unpaid family workers INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Total households Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Median household income (dollars) Mean household income (dollars) With earnings Mean earnings (dollars) With Social Security Mean Social Security income (dollars) With retirement income Mean retirement income (dollars) With Supplemental Security Income Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars) With cash public assistance income Mean cash public assistance income (dollars) With Food Stamp/SNAP benefits in the past 12 months Families Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 or more Madison Central Estimate Percent 141 8.4% 74 4.4% 16 1.0% 66 3.9% 67 4.0% 461 162 64 62 1,684 1,184 233 239 28 1,352 116 77 160 253 210 180 198 131 0 27 40,202 55,377 1,059 55,565 496 15,235 312 21,277 37 5,086 20 2,635 30 844 36 18 86 142 130 127 155 123 0 27 27.4% 9.6% 3.8% 3.7% 1,684 70.3% 13.8% 14.2% 1.7% 1,352 8.6% 5.7% 11.8% 18.7% 15.5% 13.3% 14.6% 9.7% 0.0% 2.0% (X) (X) 78.3% (X) 36.7% (X) 23.1% (X) 2.7% (X) 1.5% (X) 2.2% 844 4.3% 2.1% 10.2% 16.8% 15.4% 15.0% 18.4% 14.6% 0.0% 3.2% Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 214 13.4% 51 3.2% 8 0.5% 30 1.9% 83 5.2% 419 159 46 48 1,593 1,211 215 160 7 1,165 115 57 84 193 205 235 155 86 19 16 47,063 53,530 916 56,869 325 16,588 204 12,125 43 5,921 12 3,833 49 846 49 37 53 146 169 175 122 60 19 16 26.3% 10.0% 2.9% 3.0% 1,593 76.0% 13.5% 10.0% 0.4% 1,165 9.9% 4.9% 7.2% 16.6% 17.6% 20.2% 13.3% 7.4% 1.6% 1.4% (X) (X) 78.6% (X) 27.9% (X) 17.5% (X) 3.7% (X) 1.0% (X) 4.2% 846 5.8% 4.4% 6.3% 17.3% 20.0% 20.7% 14.4% 7.1% 2.2% 1.9%
- 60 -
Madison Central Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent Estimate Percent Median family income (dollars) 52,500 (X) 48,278 (X) Mean family income (dollars) 67,797 (X) 57,529 (X) Per capita income (dollars) 24,591 (X) 19,899 (X) Nonfamily households 508 508 319 319 Median nonfamily income (dollars) 27,500 (X) 26,741 (X) Mean nonfamily income (dollars) 33,100 (X) 33,442 (X) Median earnings for workers (dollars) 25,753 (X) 27,161 (X) Median earnings for male full-time, year-round workers (dollars) 38,190 (X) 33,474 (X) Median earnings for female full-time, year-round workers (dollars) 37,037 (X) 28,333 (X) PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES AND PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS IS BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL All families (X) 8.1% (X) 11.0% With related children under 18 years (X) 14.7% (X) 18.7% With related children under 5 years only (X) 18.4% (X) 33.0% Married couple families (X) 5.5% (X) 3.2% With related children under 18 years (X) 8.0% (X) 3.1% With related children under 5 years only (X) 20.2% (X) 0.0% Families with female householder, no husband present (X) 16.8% (X) 45.1% With related children under 18 years (X) 28.8% (X) 52.4% With related children under 5 years only (X) 0.0% (X) 75.0% All people (X) 11.3% (X) 16.4% Under 18 years (X) 14.5% (X) 28.7% Related children under 18 years (X) 14.5% (X) 28.0% Related children under 5 years (X) 11.7% (X) 51.2% Related children 5 to 17 years (X) 15.9% (X) 14.9% 18 years and over (X) 10.4% (X) 11.5% 18 to 64 years (X) 10.9% (X) 11.0% 65 years and over (X) 8.6% (X) 13.9% People in families (X) 8.3% (X) 14.3% Unrelated individuals 15 years and over (X) 21.9% (X) 25.3% Selected Economic Characteristics
Housing 5-Year Estimates: 2006-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Selected Housing Characteristics HOUSING OCCUPANCY Total housing units Occupied housing units Vacant housing units Homeowner vacancy rate Rental vacancy rate UNITS IN STRUCTURE Total housing units 1-unit, detached 1-unit, attached 2 units 3 or 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 20 or more units Mobile home Madison Central Estimate Percent 1,441 1,352 89 0.0 3.0 1,441 1,071 7 47 68 8 0 0 240 1,441 93.8% 6.2% (X) (X) 1,441 74.3% 0.5% 3.3% 4.7% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 1,272 1,165 107 0.6 2.5 1,272 869 23 32 45 11 0 0 292 1,272 91.6% 8.4% (X) (X) 1,272 68.3% 1.8% 2.5% 3.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 23.0%
- 61 -
Selected Housing Characteristics Boat, RV, van, etc. YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Total housing units Built 2005 or later Built 2000 to 2004 Built 1990 to 1999 Built 1980 to 1989 Built 1970 to 1979 Built 1960 to 1969 Built 1950 to 1959 Built 1940 to 1949 Built 1939 or earlier ROOMS Total housing units 1 room 2 rooms 3 rooms 4 rooms 5 rooms 6 rooms 7 rooms 8 rooms 9 rooms or more Median rooms BEDROOMS Total housing units No bedroom 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4 bedrooms 5 or more bedrooms HOUSING TENURE Occupied housing units Owner-occupied Renter-occupied Average household size of owner-occupied unit Average household size of renter-occupied unit YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Occupied housing units Moved in 2005 or later Moved in 2000 to 2004 Moved in 1990 to 1999 Moved in 1980 to 1989 Moved in 1970 to 1979 Moved in 1969 or earlier VEHICLES AVAILABLE Occupied housing units No vehicles available 1 vehicle available 2 vehicles available 3 or more vehicles available Madison Central Estimate Percent 0 0.0% 1,441 16 39 116 223 188 51 79 18 711 1,441 0 0 77 202 239 247 270 216 190 6.3 1,441 0 68 423 577 331 42 1,352 1,122 230 2.40 1.69 1,352 230 301 423 177 100 121 1,352 53 536 576 187 1,441 1.1% 2.7% 8.0% 15.5% 13.0% 3.5% 5.5% 1.2% 49.3% 1,441 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 14.0% 16.6% 17.1% 18.7% 15.0% 13.2% (X) 1,441 0.0% 4.7% 29.4% 40.0% 23.0% 2.9% 1,352 83.0% 17.0% (X) (X) 1,352 17.0% 22.3% 31.3% 13.1% 7.4% 8.9% 1,352 3.9% 39.6% 42.6% 13.8% Stockbridge Valley Estimate Percent 0 0.0% 1,272 14 81 158 210 103 38 99 67 502 1,272 14 5 72 186 278 278 170 153 116 5.8 1,272 14 77 377 567 162 75 1,165 933 232 2.69 3.10 1,165 236 265 373 171 48 72 1,165 63 314 515 273 1,272 1.1% 6.4% 12.4% 16.5% 8.1% 3.0% 7.8% 5.3% 39.5% 1,272 1.1% 0.4% 5.7% 14.6% 21.9% 21.9% 13.4% 12.0% 9.1% (X) 1,272 1.1% 6.1% 29.6% 44.6% 12.7% 5.9% 1,165 80.1% 19.9% (X) (X) 1,165 20.3% 22.7% 32.0% 14.7% 4.1% 6.2% 1,165 5.4% 27.0% 44.2% 23.4%
- 62 -
Selected Housing Characteristics HOUSE HEATING FUEL Occupied housing units Utility gas Bottled, tank, or LP gas Electricity Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. Coal or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS Occupied housing units Lacking complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete kitchen facilities No telephone service available OCCUPANTS PER ROOM Occupied housing units 1.00 or less 1.01 to 1.50 1.51 or more VALUE Owner-occupied units Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $299,999 $300,000 to $499,999 $500,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 or more Median (dollars) MORTGAGE STATUS Owner-occupied units Housing units with a mortgage Housing units without a mortgage Madison Central Estimate 1,352 15 184 71 864 32 168 0 12 6 1,352 0 0 22 1,352 1,350 0 2 1,122 115 491 342 102 33 39 0 0 96,000 1,122 677 445 Percent 1,352 1.1% 13.6% 5.3% 63.9% 2.4% 12.4% 0.0% 0.9% 0.4% 1,352 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1,352 99.9% 0.0% 0.1% 1,122 10.2% 43.8% 30.5% 9.1% 2.9% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% (X) 1,122 60.3% 39.7% Stockbridge Valley Estimate 1,165 31 223 58 652 27 133 0 41 0 1,165 3 0 36 1,165 1,139 18 8 933 182 372 233 75 41 30 0 0 86,200 933 574 359 Percent 1,165 2.7% 19.1% 5.0% 56.0% 2.3% 11.4% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 1,165 0.3% 0.0% 3.1% 1,165 97.8% 1.5% 0.7% 933 19.5% 39.9% 25.0% 8.0% 4.4% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% (X) 933 61.5% 38.5%
- 63 -
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS/ELEMENTS PROFILE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR
October 2012
- 64 -
Madison and Stockbridge Valley Central School Districts FINANCIAL CONDITION CHARACTERISTICS
School District financial health is dependent on a number of issues. In the current economic environment the school district needs to be able to absorb State Aid decreases and increasing expenditures while maintaining a sound educational program.
Some indicators of financial health that are used to evaluate a school districts condition are as follows:
Fund balance, including reserves Excess of revenues over expenditures How reliant is the school district on State aid? Excess appropriation of fund balance Comparison of budgeted revenues and expenditures to actual School Lunch subsidies? Status of tax certiorari or any litigation outstanding
SOME OVERALL MAJOR OBSERVATIONS:
Both districts maintain fund balance by not automatically spending all of approved appropriations. Both districts have excess revenues compared to budgeted expenditures within a 5 to 10% range which is acceptable. Madisons annual expense for retiree health insurance is about 72% higher than it is for Stockbridge Valley. Both districts are comparable (within 3%) in expenses for general support, instruction and employee benefits. Both districts combined receive about $110,000 in wind power payments annually. Stockbridge has an ongoing cooperative fuel purchase arrangement with the Town. Both districts have similar total reserves to offset future expenditures and/or reductions in state aid ($2.2 million for Madison; $2.1 million for Stockbridge Valley). Both districts each have about $1 million of unrestricted fund balance. However, in the 2012-2013 budget, Madison appropriated $380 thousand to reduce taxes; and Stockbridge appropriated $650 thousand to reduce taxes. This pattern may not be sustainable if all of the expenditures of an approved budget in a given year are expended. Both districts are highly dependent on State Aid Revenues. (63% by Madison; 73% by Stockbridge Valley) Both districts have self-sustaining school lunch funds that do not require general fund expenditure to keep solvent.
- 65 -
Madison Central School District Financial Summary
6/30/2012 Fund Balance Total Restricted Unreserved Assigned Unassigned 3,201 1,894 701 606
6/30/2011 3,135 1,997 527 611
Increase (Decrease) 66 (103) 174 (5)
% 2.1% -5.2% 33.0% -0.8%
Revenues Total Real Estate Taxes and STAR State Aid Federal Aid Miscellaneous & Other Charges for Services
8,308 2,929 5,209 118 52
8,398 2,797 5,120 202 193 86
(90) -1.1% 132 4.7% 89 1.7% (202) -100.0% (75) -38.9% (34) -39.5%
Expenditures Total General Support Operation of Plant - Non-instructional Salaries Operation of Plant - Contractual and Other Maintenance of Plant - Contractual and Other Maintenance of Plant - Materials and Supplies Instruction Teacher Salaries, Full Day Kindergarten - 3 Teacher Salaries, 4 - 6 Teacher Salaries, 7 - 12 Substitute Teacher Salaries Student With Special Needs - Instructional Salaries Student With Special Needs - BOCES Services Occupational Ed. (9-12) - BOCES Services Computer Assisted Instruction - BOCES Services
8,185 1,043 131 222 38 46 3,483 445 305 750 100 139 529 214 21
8,445 1,132 126 250 68 54 3,721 474 394 788 87 73 722 184 20
(260) (89) 5 (28) (30) (8) (238) (29) (89) (38) 13 66 (193) 30 1
-3.1% -7.9% 4.0% -11.2% -44.1% -14.8% -6.4% -6.1% -22.6% -4.8% 14.9% 90.4% -26.7% 16.3% 5.0%
Transportation (includes 'cash' for bus pruchases both years) Employee Benefits State Retirement Teachers' Retirement Social Security Hospital, Medical, and Dental Insurance Debt Service Transfers Net Excess Revenues (Expenditures)
625 2,058 113 268 226 1,394 976 (101) 22
546 2,038 52 213 221 1,379 1,008 (3) (50)
79 20 61 55 5 15 (32) (98) 72
14.5% 1.0% 117.3% 25.8% 2.3% 1.1% -3.2%
- 66 -
Stockbridge Valley Central School District Financial Summary
6/30/2012 Fund Balance Total Restricted Unreserved Assigned Unassigned 3,111 1,953 816 342
6/30/2011 3,045 2,517 190 338
Increase (Decrease) 66 (564) 626 4
% 2.2% -22.4% 329.5% 1.2%
Revenues Total Real Estate Taxes and STAR State Aid Federal Aid Miscellaneous & Others Charges for services Transfers Expenditures Total General Support Operation of Plant - Non-instructional Salaries Operation of Plant - Contractual and Other Maintenance of Plant - Contractual and Other
9,120 2,157 6,654 37 181 91 (2)
9,415 2,150 6,789 180 260 35 (2)
(295) 7 (135) (143) (79) 56 -
-3.1% 0.3% -2.0% -79.5% -30.4% 157.0% 0.0%
9,052 1,154 182 221 26
9,441 1,146 192 251 19
(389) 8 (10) (30) 7
-4.1% 0.7% -5.2% -12.0% 36.8%
Instruction Teacher Salaries, Full Day Kindergarten - 3 Teacher Salaries, 4 - 6 Teacher Salaries, 7 - 12 Substitute Teacher Salaries Students With Special Needs - Instructional Salaries Students With Special Needs - BOCES Occupational Education (Grades 9-12) - Instructional Salaries Computer Assisted Inst. - BOCES Transportation (includes 'cash' for bus purchases in 2010-2011) Employee Benefits State Retirement Teachers' Retirement Social Security Hospital, Medical, & Dental Insurance
3,925 474 312 828 63 121 540 183 101 567 1,945 90 273 244 1,304
4,193 476 431 956 37 101 635 177 90 768 1,887 87 235 258 1,270
(268) (2) (119) (128) 26 20 (95) 6 11 (201) 58 3 38 (14) 34
-6.4% -0.4% -27.6% -13.4% 70.3% 19.8% -15.0% 3% 12% -26.2% 3.1% 3.4% 16.2% -5.4% 2.7%
Debt Service (in both years used 'un-needed' tax cert reserve pay construction BANS in order to reduce long-term debt) Net Revenues (Expenditures)
1,461 66
1,447 (28)
14 94
1.0%
- 66 -
DATA
EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
Financial Characteristic/ Element
Madison
Stockbridge Valley
Observation/Items to note or consider:
Expenditures (2012): Both district expenditures were lower in 2012 from 2011 (3.1% and 4.1%,
Total
8,184,732 1,043,400 12.75 3,482,593 42.55 2,058,403 25.15 6,584,396 80.45 624,835 7.63 975,501 11.92 1,945,498 21.49 7,024,591 77.59 566,950 is $430,769. 43.35 3,924,938 12.75 1,154,155
9,053,058 respectively).
General Support
% General Support of Total
Instruction
% Instruction of Total
Employee Benefits
% Employee Benefits of Total
Sub-total General Support, Instruction, and Employee Benefits
10
% Total General Support, Instruction, and Employee Benefits of Total
11
Transportation
Madison includes $194,066 in bus purchases. Without buses transportation
12
% Transportation of Total
6.26 Madison percentage is 5.2 without bus purchases. 1,461,517 Serial bond issued for $4,923,699.
Includes $472,708 in construction BAN redeemed from appropriations. Subsequent years debt service for Stockbridge will be approximately
13
Debt Service
14
% Debt Service of Total
16.14 $1,250,000, or 13.8% of 2012 expenditures.
- 67 -
DATA
EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
Debt Service 12% General Support 13% Transportation 8%
MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES
Employee Benefits 25% Instruction 42%
Transportation 6%
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES Debt Service General Support 16% 13%
Employee Benefits 21%
Instruction 44%
- 68 -
DATA
REVENUES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
Financial Characteristic/ Element Madison Stockbridge Valley Observation/Items to note or consider:
Revenues (2012):
Total
8,307,863 9,120,385 2,929,492 35.26 5,208,510 62.69 482 0.01 51,872 30,718 0.41 72.96 37,110 Medicaid assistance. 6,654,239
Real Property Taxes and Tax Items (including STAR)
2,156,858 Madison includes $78,691 in windpower payments, Stockbridge $30,859. 23.65 Madison is more dependent on Real Property Taxes.
% Real Property Taxes of Total
State Aid
% State Aid of Total
Federal Aid
% Federal Aid of Total
Charges for Services
% Service Charges of Total
0.62
0.34
Stockbridge includes $29,812 in Town fuel reimbursements and $43,956 in
10
11
Miscellaneous & Others
117,507
241,460 additional refund of prior years expenses.
***Miscellaneous and Others contains: Miscellaneous, Use of Money and Property and Sale of Property and Compensation for Loss
- 69 -
DATA
REVENUES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
Charges for Services 1% MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Miscellaneous & REVENUES Others Federal Aid 1% 0% Real Property Taxes and Tax Items (including STAR) 35%
State Aid 63%
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Charges Miscellaneous & REVENUES for Services Others Real Property Taxes 1% 3% Federal Aid and Tax Items 0% (including STAR) 24%
State Aid 73%
- 70 -
DATA
FUND BALANCE AS OF JUNE 30, 2012
Madison
Stockbridge Valley
Observation/Items to note or consider:
Restricted:
Encumbrances (Purchase Orders Still Open)
320,886 196,870 234,916
166,419 Stockbridge includes $151,055 for transportation.
Madison includes $215,000 for special needs tuition,
Unemployment Insurance
Worker's Compensation
Employees' Retirement Contributions
331,183 90,000 799,889 44,026 50,000 301,054 314,044
227,684
Tax Certiorari
Employee Benefit Accrued Liability Reserve
509,755 Madison has excess monies over compensated absences.
Capital Reserve (Voter approval required to establish and fund) Repair Reserve (Voter approval required to fund, public hearing to spend)
10
Mandatory Reserve Fund
11
Insurance
14,990 432,302 300,000
12
Property Loss and Liability
13
Tax Reduction
14
Total Reserves
2,215,156
2,118,862
15
Unrestrictd:
16
Appropriated Fund Balance to Reduce Taxes in 2012-13
380,449 605,722 986,171
650,000 Stockbridge more reliant on fund balance in budget. 341,979 Madison is over the 4.0% fund balance limit. 991,979 Total unrestricted approximately the same.
18
Total Unrestircted:
Unreserved Undesignated Fund Balance (Subject to 4.0% of subsequent year's budget)
19
20
Fund Balance as a % of 2012 Expenditures
21
Restricted
27.06% 4.65%
23.40% expenditures. 7.18%
Both districts have a high percentage of reserves to
22
Unrestricted Appropriated to Reduce Taxes in 201213
23
Appropriated Fund Balance for Other Purposes
24
Unrestricted Undesignated
7.40%
3.78%
25
Debt Service Fund Balance - 2012
713,978
190,186
- 71 -
DATA
FUND BALANCE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012
MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Total Unrestircted: FUND BALANCE 28% 0%
Appropriated Fund Balance to Reduce 0% Taxes in 2012-13 11% 0% 0%
Total Reserves 50%
Total Unrestircted: 26%
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUND BALANCE 0%
0%
Total Reserves 57% 0%
0% Appropriated Fund Balance to Reduce Taxes in 2011-12 20%
- 72 -
DATA
OUTSTANDING DEBT AS OF JUNE 30, 2012
Madison
Stockbridge Valley
Observation/Items to note or consider: These enrollment numbers are from 2010-
Enrollment
446 4,974,537 8,208,699
489 2011.
Serial Bonds Due at 6-30-12
Anticipated Bonding on Projects
Total Estimated Debt
4,974,537
8,208,699
Madison has net fixed assets of $9,909,000. Stockbridge has net fixed assets of $18,338,000.
Total Estimated Debt Per Student
11,154 94.8% 10,574 580
16,787 95.0% 15,947 839

Includes 10% building incentive aid.
Building Aid %
Estimated Aid Per Student
Debt Per Student
Funds Available:
10
Debt Service Fund
713,978 1,601
190,186 389
Must be used to pay future debt service expense.
11
Funds Available Per Student
12
Net Debt Per Student
(1,021)
450
- 73 -
DATA
FINANCIAL HEALTH COMPARISON AS OF JUNE 30, 2012
INDICATORS
SCHOOL DISTRICT Madison Stockbridge Valley
OBSERVATIONS Both districts had excess expenditures in 2011 which came out of fund balance ($46,530 for Madison, $26,449 for Stockbridge).
General Fund Excess Revenues Over Expenditures Last Two Years?
2011 - No 2012 - Yes
2011 - No 2012 - Yes
State and Federal Aid / Total Revenue
62.70% 446 $18,351 11.92% 8.3% -2.9% 5.5% 7.3% $18,513 16.14% 7.3% 489
73.37%
Stockbridge more dependent on State Aid as a revenue.
K-12 Public School Enrollment including Charter Schools
These enrollment numbers are from 2010-2011. Amounts consistent.
General Fund Expenditures per Pupil
Debt Service as a % of Expenditures
Stockbridge debt service is higher due to new building construction and more renovations. However, Stockbridge fixed assets net of depreciation are also higher.
Percent of Unexpended 2012 Budget
Percent of Revenue Under Budget
2012 Excess (Deficit) Revenues and Expenditures to Budget
% of Pupils Eligible for Free/Reduced Price Lunches
46.0% $25,573
No
45.4% $94,507
No
The numbers used to derive these percentages were taken from 2010-2011. Madison had a net loss in 2012 of $8,554.
10
School Lunch Fund Balance at June 30, 2012
11
School Lunch Subsidy from General Fund?
12
Other Post-Employment Benefits
$588,893 $1,394,201
$341,086 $1,304,194
Health insurance for premiums retirees. Amounts include retiree premiums.
13
Total Medical Insurance expense.
- 74 -
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE:

2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2011
April 2012
Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future. C. SES STUDY TEAM
- 75 -
Data: Enrollment Projection Calculations for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR GRADE LEVEL CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OCTOBER 1, 2011 GRADE LEVEL Madison Elementary Stockbridge Valley Elementary 17 18 PRE-K 17 16 12 17 12-18 PRE-K Range 17 16 PRE-K Average KINDERGARTEN K Range K Average GRADE 1 GRADE 1 Range GRADE 1 Average GRADE 2 GRADE 2 Range GRADE 2 Average GRADE 3 GRADE 3 Range GRADE 3 Average GRADE 4 GRADE 4 Range GRADE 4 Average GRADE 5 GRADE 5 Range GRADE 5 Average GRADE LEVEL GRADE 6 GRADE 6 Range GRADE 6 Average 17 18 17-18 18 17 17 17 17 14 14 14 14 21 21 21 21 20 21 20-21 21 18 18 18 18 21 18 18-21 20 20 19 19-20 20 17 19 17-19 18 17 16 16-17 17 12 12 12 12 17 18 17-18 18 27 27 27 20 19 19-20 20
- 76 -
Data: Enrollment Projection Calculations for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR GRADES 7-12 ENGLISH CLASS SECTION ENROLLMENTS AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2011 ENGLISH CLASSES GRADE LEVEL GRADE 7 GRADE 7 Range GRADE 7 Average GRADE 8 GRADE 8 Range GRADE 8 Average GRADE 9 GRADE 9 Range GRADE 9 Average GRADE 10 GRADE 10 Range GRADE 10 Average GRADE 11 GRADE 11 Range GRADE 11 Average GRADE 12* GRADE 12 Range GRADE 12 Average Madison High School 15 13 13-15 14 15 18 15-18 17 24 22 22-24 23 14 16 14-16 15 21 9 9-21 15 20 20 20 Stockbridge Valley High School 18 24 18-24 21 16 17 16-17 17 22 26 22-26 24 20 19 19-20 20 24 25 24-25 25 16 16 16
*Please note that each district has senior students who achieve their senior English requirement as part of their Career Technical Education Program at the Madison-Oneida BOCES and not at the home school.
- 77 -
TEACHER CONTRACT LANGUAGE REFERENCES TO CLASS SIZE Madison CS There are no specific sections of Board Policy or clauses/pages in the contract with the Faculty Association.
Stockbridge Valley CS Page 9H of the contract with the Stockbridge Valley Teacher Association states: The class size for each elementary teacher should not exceed 25 pupils per class. If the average class size for an elementary grade level exceeds 25, an aide will be made available to assist those classroom teachers affected for a period of time deemed reasonable by those teachers. Page 9I of the contract with the Stockbridge Valley Teacher Association states: The class size for each instructional period in Grades 7-12 should not exceed 30 pupils with supervisory periods limited to 40 pupils per teacher. The District realizes these numbers to be excessive for optimum educational achievement, and will strive to keep the classes below these levels.
- 78 -

AVAILABLE PUPIL CAPACITY OF EACH SCHOOL BUILDING FOR POSSIBLE USE IN A REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT
April 2012
- 79 -
Data: Initial Overall View of the Pupil Capacity of Each Existing School Building
Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, and Format All Rights Reserved. Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Boards of Education, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.
SES Study Team
- 80 -
DATA
SOURCE OF DATA: Inventory of each instructional and instructional support space by each principal/superintendent based on how the space is used to deliver the kindergarten through grade twelve educational program in 2011-2012. Classrooms used to deliver pre-kindergarten and pre-school are also included. ASSUMPTIONS: The method and assumptions for estimating pupil capacity per existing school building for potential use by a reorganized school district includes: 9 The pupil capacity analysis is based on delivering instruction with the following class
size goals: Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-School) 18 pupils Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils Grades 2 and 3: 22 pupils Grades 4, 5, and 6: 24 pupils Grades 7-12: 25 pupils (Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for such specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the board)-and 25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a classroom will host class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less specialized.) Spaces now designated for instructional support are generally assumed to continue for instructional support. Pre-kindergarten and pre-school are assumed to continue to be a part of the program. State Education Department guidelines are applied in calculating the number of pupils that a specific type of classroom should serve. Unassigned pupil capacity is planned for in each school building to allow for flexibility in delivering the program and/or to add an instructional support function or additional programs not now in place. The analysis, at the present time, does not include renting classrooms to the BOCES to host consortium shared programs. Current spaces used for central administration are not re-claimed for instructional program pupil capacity at this time. It is assumed for this pupil capacity analysis that there are no renovations to change existing space or the building of new additional space.
9 9
9 9 9 9 9
- 81 -
DATA 9 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR A REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT Calculation Year Grades K-6 491 Grades 7-12 467 TOTAL GRADES K-12 FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING 958
20112012 20122013 20132014 20142015 20152016 20162017 20122013 20132014 20142015 20152016 20162017 20122013 20132014 20142015 20152016 20162017
480 482 463 459 456 480 481 483 484 495 492 505 513 529 554
470 450 449 425 417 470 450 449 425 417 470 450 449 425 417
950 932 912 884 873 950 931 932 909 912 962 954 962 954 970
- 82 -
DATA
Madison K-6 Pupil Capacity
Stockbridge K-6 Pupil Capacity
Madison 7-12 Pupil Capacity 363
Stockbridge 7-12 Pupil Capacity 375
336 312 Pre-K/Pre-School: Pre-K/Pre-School: 18 (36 half day) 54 (108 half day) Total K-6 Pupil Capacity Currently Available: 648 Anticipated K-6 Pupil Capacity Need in five years: 456-554
Total 7-12 Pupil Capacity Currently Available: 738 Anticipated 7-12 Pupil Capacity Need in five years: 417
DISTRICT: MADISON EXISTING K-6 ELEMENTARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION: Pupil Capacity Use or Subject Size (Sq. ft.) Number of Existing Number of Grade Calculated Based on Minimum Rooms (SED pupil level classes with Assumed Class Size standard capacity rating assumed Class Size Goals elementary each): Goals: class sq. Pre-K: 18 K and gr. 1: 20 footage is 770. Gr. 2 and 3: 22 Gr. 4,5,6: 24 Special ed: 12:1:1 Pre-K to 6th Plus 1000 1 Pre-K: Half-day 36 (over 550 square feet) 900 to 999 10 1 Full day 18 770 to 899 4 700 to 769 0 K-1: Below 700 0 4 80 Grades 2-3: 4 88 Grades 4-6: 6 144 Special Needs self-contained: 460* 1 768 1 2 24 *denotes below standard square footage Total Grade 15 15 level Instructional Rooms 2 (12:1:1) 2 Special Needs ESTIMATED NET K-6 PUPIL CAPACITY 336 pupils EXISTING ELEMENTARY SPACES reserved FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity) Computer Lab 1120 Art 616 K-12 Stage 1196
- 83 -
DATA
Vocal music Instrumental music Library K-12 2204 Occupational Therapy Physical Therapy Speech K-12 Cafeteria 528 3216
School psychologist Gym 3800 of 7600 Reading 240 Social worker 221 Reading 256 Resource 288 (Existing offices, faculty work rooms, nurse, storage, operations and maintenance spaces, bathrooms, kitchen, locker rooms and similar spaces are assumed to be continued as used.) DISTRICT: MADISON EXISTING 7-12 SECONDARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION Use or Subject No. of rooms Size (Sq. Ft.) Square feet per Functional Pupil pupil station; Pupil Capacity Capacity by maximum pupil Assumed Class SED stations (SED Size Goal of 25 guidelines to Building Aid pupils per determine Guidelines) classroom or Building Aid SED guideline, Units which ever is smaller. Ag shop and CR 1 720 75 sq ft = 20 max 1 1512 Art 1 736 45 sq ft = 25 max Business Ed 35 sq ft = 24 max Computer CR 35 sq. ft = 24 max Distributive Ed 50 sq ft = 20 max Keyboarding 35 sq ft = 24 max Home & Careers 1 1054 50 sq ft = 24 max Music: Classroom 25 sq ft = 30 max Instrumental 1 1050 25 sq ft x .4 Vocal 1 768 20 sq ft x .4 Technology 1 588 75 sq ft = 24 max 1 1800 Mech. Drawing 35 sq ft = & CAD 25 max Science: General 30 sq ft = 30 max Earth 1 896 30 sq ft = 30 max Biology (Living 1 1200 50 sq ft = Environment) 24 max Chemistry 1 840 50 sq ft =
- 84 -
DATA
24 max 50 sq ft = 24 max 25 sq ft max of 15% ps-ic 48 x 66 (3168) max 30 48 x 66 (3168) max 30 36 x 52 (1872) Max 30 Max 30 16.5 sq ft max of 40% ps ic Square feet per pupil station; maximum pupil stations (SED Building Aid Guidelines)
Physics Library Reading Rm Phys Ed: 1st stationup to 500 pupils 2nd station501 1000 pupils Each additional500 pupils or fraction Pool Study Hall if so designated Use or Subject 2204 900 1 3800
No. of rooms
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Functional Pupil Capacity Assumed Class Size Goal of 25 pupils per classroom or SED guideline, which ever is smaller.
Pupil Capacity by SED guidelines to determine Building Aid Units
Interchangeable Classrooms
4-math
840 736 720 806 1440 1344 1260 340 414 420
26 sq. ft = 30 max
4English/foreign language
2-social studies
State Education Department capacity methodology for a junior/senior high school having 25 or fewer teaching stations: 1. Ascertain the total number of teaching stations used only for English, social studies, mathematics, languages, health education and general or early science (not biology or physics). 2. Multiply this total by 33. 11 x 33
EQUALS TOTAL PUPIL CAPACITY OF THE 7-12 portion of the SCHOOL BUILDING: 363
EXISTING SECONDARY SPACES reserved FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity) Computer lab 645 Guidance X Auditorium Special Needs Resource 320 Cafeteria K-12 Rooms K-12 Faculty workroom
x x
- 85 -
DATA
DISTRICT: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY EXISTING K-6 ELEMENTARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION: Use or Subject Size (Sq. ft.) Number of Existing Number of Grade Pupil Capacity Minimum Rooms (SED pupil level classes with Calculated Based on standard capacity rating assumed Class Size Assumed Class Size elementary each): Goals: Goals class sq. Pre-K: 18 footage is 770. K and gr. 1: 20 Gr. 2 and 3: 22 Gr. 4,5,6: 24 Special ed: 12:1:1 Pre-K to 6th Plus 1000 0 Pre-K and Pre-school: Half-day 108 (over 550 square feet) 900 to 999 3 3 Full day 54 770 to 899 14 700 to 769 0 K-1: Below 700 0 4 80 Grades 2-3: 4 88 Grades 4-6: 5 120 Unassigned classroom: 1 24 Special Needs self-contained:
Total Grade level Instructional Rooms Special Needs Computer Lab Art Vocal music Instrumental music Library 924 806 922
17
17
0 0 ESTIMATED NET K-6 PUPIL CAPACITY Conference room Occupational Therapy Physical Therapy Speech 529 Y Program Stage Cafeteria K-12
312 pupils 535 x 3196
School psychologist Gym 3815 Reading Social worker Public Library 816 ELA Resource 819 Math Resource 810 (Existing offices, faculty work rooms, nurse, storage, operations and maintenance spaces, bathrooms, kitchen, locker rooms and similar spaces are assumed to be continued as used.)
- 86 -
DATA
DISTRICT: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY EXISTING 7-12 SECONDARY SPACES AVAILABLE FOR DIRECT INSTRUCTION Use or Subject No. of rooms Size (Sq. Ft.) Square feet per Functional Pupil pupil station; Pupil Capacity Capacity by maximum pupil Assumed Class SED stations (SED Size Goal of 25 guidelines to Building Aid pupils per determine Guidelines) classroom or Building Aid SED guideline, Units which ever is smaller. Ag shop and CR 1 771 75 sq ft = 20 max 1 1801 Art 1 944 45 sq ft = 25 max Business Ed 1 805 35 sq ft = 24 max Computer CR 35 sq. ft = 24 max Distributive Ed 50 sq ft = 20 max Keyboarding 35 sq ft = 24 max Home & Careers 1 1205 50 sq ft = 24 max Music: Classroom 25 sq ft = 30 max Instrumental 1 1180 25 sq ft x .4 Vocal 1 815 20 sq ft x .4 Technology 1 873 75 sq ft = 24 max Mech. Drawing 35 sq ft = & CAD 25 max Science: General 30 sq ft = 30 max Earth 1 1260 30 sq ft = 30 max Biology (Living 1 1205 50 sq ft = Environment) 24 max Chemistry 1 1187 50 sq ft = 24 max Physics 50 sq ft = 24 max Library 1251 600 25 sq ft max of 15% ps-ic Reading Rm Phys Ed: 1st station1 8538 48 x 66 (3168) up to 500 pupils max 30 2nd station48 x 66 (3168) 501 1000 pupils max 30 Each additional36 x 52 (1872)
- 87 -
DATA
500 pupils or fraction Pool Study Hall if so designated Use or Subject Max 30 Max 30 16.5 sq ft max of 40% ps ic Square feet per pupil station; maximum pupil stations (SED Building Aid Guidelines)
No. of rooms
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Functional Pupil Capacity Assumed Class Size Goal of 25 pupils per classroom or SED guideline, which ever is smaller.
Pupil Capacity by SED guidelines to determine Building Aid Units
Interchangeable Classrooms
3-math 3English/foreign language 3-social studies Health
805 803 807 810 810 839 810 810 815 810
26 sq. ft = 30 max
State Education Department capacity methodology for a junior/senior high school having 25 or fewer teaching stations: 3. Ascertain the total number of teaching stations used only for English, social studies, mathematics, languages, health education and general or early science (not biology or physics). 4. Multiply this total by 33. 11 x 33
EQUALS TOTAL PUPIL CAPACITY OF THE 7-12 portion of the SCHOOL BUILDING: 363 Special Education: 12:1:1; 541 (below standard square footage) 12
EXISTING SECONDARY SPACES reserved FOR BASELINE INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES (such spaces do not generate pupil capacity) Computer lab 839 Guidance 455 K-12Auditorium Stage Computer lab 639 In-school suspension 232 Cafeteria -12 Special Needs 810 K-12 Faculty workroom Resource
3480 1740 x 660
- 88 -
DATA
SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE 2010-11 BUILDING CONDITION SURVEYS (BCS)

August 2012
-- 89 --
DATA Madison PreK-12 Building

Est $70,000 ie: Pointing of exterior walls ($30,000)
SUMMARY OF THE 2010-11 BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEYS Stockbridge Valley K-12 Building
Est $482,000 ie: Main parking areas ($420,000); sidewalks ($42,000); common area carpet ($20,000)
Building:
Items judged unsatisfactory:
(There are no non-functioning or critical failure items identified in the survey.)
Estimated capital construction expenses anticipated through 2015-2016 including Items judged unsatisfactory
Est $100,000 ie: repair exterior walls ($70,000)
Est $2,527,000 ie: catch basin ($15,000); playground ($14,000); tennis courts ($120,000); reconstruct fireproofing ($18,000); lockers ($16,000); replace door hinges ($44,000); stair treads ($17,000); elevator VCT ($1000); lighting fixtures ($15,000); wall beam supports ($30,000); replace roof ($1,501,000); cafeteria air handling unit ($75,000); upgrade fire alarm system ($70,000); upgrade smoke detection ($80,000)
Building:
None
Ag Lab Facility
Est $184,000 ie: fence near propane tank ($3000); sidewalk door pads ($1000); boiler door ($2000); interior electrical outlets ($20,000) and controls ($25,000); replace exterior doors ($14,000) & windows ($6000); replace some roof panels ($20,000); add second boiler ($30,000); smoke detection system ($8000); upgrade emergency lighting ($10,000); accessibility ($35,000)
-- 90 --
SUMMARY OF THE 2010-11 BUILDING CONDITIONS SURVEYS Building: Bus Garage (2001)
Est $3000 (sidewalks) None
DATA Madison Stockbridge Valley Bus garage
None
Est $180,000 ie: upgrade electrical panel board ($26,000); upgrade lighting ($18,000); repair wash bay ($3000); replace OH doors ($30,000); replace window ($2000); recoat roof ($25,000); repipe boiler ($4000); boiler switch ($3000); upgrade exhaust system ($60,000); emergency lights ($9000)
-- 91 --
DATA
The Building Condition Survey (BCS) is a facility review process to be conducted every five years as required by the New York State Education Department. A licensed architect or engineer has completed the survey for each of the buildings within the two school districts of the study. There are 114 items on the survey. The various categories of items include questions about: Space adequacy Site utilities and features Substructure (ex. foundation) Building envelope Interior spaces Plumbing Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems Fire safety systems Accessibility Environment/comfort/health Indoor air quality Relation with the American Red Cross and emergency shelter use
The information listed above is a summary of examples obtained from the Building Condition Surveys (BCS) completed during the 2010-11 school year as prepared by the architects and forwarded to SED by the Districts. For a complete Building Condition Survey that was filed with the SED, please contact the respective district office. Please note that it is possible that some of these items may have been addressed by the district after the BCS was filed.
The items of the Building Condition Survey are rated by the engineer/architect using the following scale:
Excellent: Satisfactory: Unsatisfactory: Non-Functioning:
Critical Failure:
System is in new or like-new condition and functioning optimally; only routine maintenance and repair is needed. System functioning reliably; routine maintenance and repair needed. System is functioning unreliably or has exceeded its useful life. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed. System is non-functioning, not functioning as designed, or is unreliable in ways that could endanger occupant health and/or safety. Repair or replacement of some or all components is needed. Same at non-functioning with the addition that the condition of at least one component is so poor that at least part of the building or grounds should not be occupied pending needed repairs/replacement or some or all components is needed
-- 92 --
DATA
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES: PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES PRE-KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE SIX PROGRAM DELIVERED IN THE SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012
MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS
Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future. c.SES STUDY TEAM
- 93 -
DATA ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE SIX PROGRAM DELIVERED CURRENTLY Program Element
Pre-Grade level transitions Pre-K K-6 Core One am and one pm with appx 17 per class. One FTE teacher and one FTE teacher assistant. Strong support for this program; MCS transports the students. Two sections at each grade level. Whenever possible, classes are balanced. Teachers and administrators analyze individual differences, learning styles, and teacher expectations when looking at placing students. Madison uses a traditional grade level configuration, but is considering different instructional models for the future. Provided by teachers. Run by BOCES-Full day program
Madison Elementary Program
Stockbridge Valley Elementary Program
Traditional grade level; decisions regarding students and grade level transitions are based upon academic success, behavior, teacher input, peer interaction, and special needs issues SV uses a traditional grade level configuration for instruction Summer program for enrichment is provided by Title I funds for a total of 12 school days. Shared w/HS business teacher (2 sections/day @elem) 1 section e/o day shared w/7/8 1 section e/o day shared w/7/8-Lessons and Band for students in grades 5/6 Total of 10 sections of PE; all three staff members are shared with the HS Shared librarian with HS Handled by staff, Principal, and Social Worker as available
Combined/ Multi-Age Offerings Enrichment Team-Teaching Options Art Vocal Music Instrumental Music Physical Education Library, Media Guidance Counseling
2X per week General Music usually 2X week, 5/6 chorus, small groups and lessons begin in 7th grade Lessons and Band for grades 5/6 2X per week for primary and 3X for intermediate (grades 3-6) 1FTE for K-12. Scheduled classes for library instruction; typically 2 times per week K-12 counselor assists social worker with elementary students. (Counselor is also the Athletic Director)
Social Worker Resource Officer Psychologist
1FTE for K-12, CSW
BOCES service-provides social work and counseling as needed BOCES service-shared with Madison
BOCES service shared with SV
Program Element
Psychiatric Foreign Language English as a Second Language Reading Instruction
See remedial reading. Regular reading instruction provided by classroom teacher
Response To Intervention (RTI) is used to identify students who need differentiated instruction. AIMSWEB assessments are used to benchmark elementary
- 94 -
DATA
Speech (nonspecial needs pupils) Speech/special needs Remedial Reading Remedial Math Remedial Writing Health Services Physical Therapy Occupational Therapy Resource Room for special needs pupils Special needsself-contained classrooms Special needsintegrated Specialized Academic Programs: Primary Mental Health Elementary Odyssey of the Mind Not normally; services for mandated IEP students Provided on a contract basis through BOCES 2FTEs serve K-6 reading and writing 1FTE for grades 1-8 See above under reading 1 K-12 nurse; grade 4 receives health instruction 1X week Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis Indirect consultant, direct consultant, and resource room services are offered K-12. 1FTE for K-5, 1FTE 6-8, and 1FTE for 9-12 2 autistic students are served in the home district. 1 12:1:1 Preschool student is served at SV and one student is served at UCP Inclusionary model students appx every 10 weeks. .5FTE is purchased through BOCES-deals mostly with IEP mandated speech services, although does speech improvement on a case by case basis Provided on a contract basis through BOCES; .5FTE See reading instruction See reading instruction See reading instruction 1 K-12 nurse Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis Contracted through BOCES on a needs basis Inclusionary model of instruction for students is used, although there is a 12:1:1 in house program that only pulls students out for math. Primarily used for 7-9 students. BOCES special ed classroom; center based. Inclusionary model
Assisted by Madison County Mental Health Services as needed
Assisted by Madison County Mental Health Services as needed
Program Element
Student Council Intramurals Art Club Other Extra Curricular Yearbook

Have had in the past-first year w/out it in the elementary school 5th and 6th grades, three 5 week sessions, T/Th after school with a late bus provided
Soccer, Biddy Ball, Little League and Pee Wee Wrestling are all offered after school and are community sponsored Lap top carts available for classes Computer Lab available
Drama Club for 4th-6th grades, Spelling Bee for 5th/6th graders, FFA-6th grade students
Computer Lab available
- 95 -
DATA
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES: PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES 7-12 PROGRAM DELIVERED IN THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR
MADISON AND STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOLS
June 2012
- 96 -
DATA ELEMENTS OF THE GRADES 7-12 PROGRAM DELIVERED CURRENTLY

STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
2 sections 2 sections 2 sections of regular ed and one of advanced as well as 1 section of 12:1: math instruction 2 sections 2 sections 2 sections 2 sections and 1 section of 12:1:1 2 sections Tech 8 2 sections, Library Media Skills grades 7/8 2 sections and Computer Technology 2 sections Health 7 for credit-2 sections Art 7 1 section every 10 weeks, Art 8 1 section every 10 weeks Spanish 7 and Spanish 8, 2 sections of each 3 staff teach grades 7/8 PE
MADISON
2 sections
Program Elements English 7 SS 7 Math 7
2 sections 2 sections for gen ed and section for 12:1:1 math instruction
Science 7 English 8
SS 8 Math 8 Science 8 Other Gr 8 Technology
2 sections 2 sections (same teacher for 7th grade-this holds for all core classes at grades 7/8) 2 sections 2 sections 2 sections for gen ed and section for 12:1:1 math instruction
Tech is taught at both grades 7 and 8 along with Agriculture for grades 7 and 8 (1 section for each grade) and Careers-2 sections 2 sections at grade 8 taught via BOCES instructor Art instruction at grades 7 and 8, 1 section of each 2 sections at 7th grade and 2 sections at 8th grade
2 staff teach 1 section each at the 7th and 8th grade levels
7th grade 2 sections
Health Art Language Physical Education Home and Careers Instrumental Music Vocal Music
8th grade, 2 sections
FCS grade 6 2 sections for a credit, FCS 7 1 section every 10 wks for credit and FCS 8 same as 7 7/8 Band plus lessons
9-12 English
2 sections of 9/10/11 and 1 section of English 12 as well as one section of Sociology
9-12 SS
SS 9 and 10 with 2 sections each, US Hist, 2 sections, and one section of Government
7/8 Chorus, Music 7 1 section every 10 weeks, Music 8 1 section every 10 weeks English 9, 10, 11 2 sections of each, English 12 has 1 section, also AIS English, Practices of Academic Writing and Introduction to Issues of Critical Reading SS 9 and 10 5 sections, US History 2 sections, Government and Economics, US History 2, Psychology, History through Film and Anthropology
Program Elements 9-12 Math
MADISON
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
9-12 Science
Pre algebra, Intro Algebra, Algebra II, Geometry, Applied Geometry, Pre-Calc and Calculus, Math 11/12 Biology, Field Natural History, Chemistry, Physics, Forensics
Pre-Algebra, Algebra, Geometry, Algebra 2/Trig, Math Topics, Senior Math, Pre-Calc, Calculus, AIS Math Biology, Chemistry, Forensics, Science Through History, Physics, Astronomy, Planet Earth, Myth-Busters, Earth Science
- 97 -
DATA
Career and Financial Management, Accounting, Desktop Publishing Career and Financial Mgmt, Wood Working HS Health Spanish I, II, III 2FTEs for 5 sections each
Business
Business Management and Business Internship
Technology
Manufacturing Systems, Architectural Drawing, Mechanical Systems and Wood Tech 1 section available Spanish II and Spanish III 2 teachers for total of 6 sections
1 section of FCS is available
1 section 9-12 Chorus
Entrepreneurship, International Foods, Clothing and Housing, Human Development, Food Science 9-12 Band plus lessons
1 section
Health Language Physical Education Home and Careers Instrumental Music Vocal Music Art
Studio Art, Advanced Art, and Independent Art Study
Advertising, Studio Art, Digital Photography, Illustration and Design, Drawing and Painting Backyard Ag, Wildlife, Intro to Horticulture, Ag Mechanics, Environmental Science, Basic Ag, Ag Production, Equine Science
Dual Credit Course Offerings: English 101, Music Theory, Calculus, Advanced Bio, Astronomy
Intro to Issues of Critical Reading (SUPA), Practices of Academic Writing (SUPA), Us Hist 1 (SUPA), US Hist 2 (SUPA), Calculus (MVCC), Environmental Science (Morrisville), Ag Mechanics (Morrisville), Anthropology, Animal Science (Morrisville), Ag Business (Morrisville)
Career and Technical Programs Advanced Placement Courses Other Opportunities, ex college sponsored programs Courses provided by teleconferencing or other distance learning programs Program Elements List of Singletons by Subject Name with less than 14 pupils enrolled
MADISON
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
Integrated Alg (12:1:1)-2, Pre-Algebra (12:1:1)-4, Drawing and Painting9, Advertising and Design-9, Art Internship-1, Illustration and Design-6, Digital Photography-4, WRT 105 Practices of Academic Writing-5, Intro to Issues of Critical Writing-5, Intro to Issues of Critical Reading-5, Spanish I-12
Astronomy-12, English 101-13, Sociology-11, Forensic Science-9, Manufacturing Systems-10, Tech Drawing-13, Physics-8, Wood Tech-6, Trans Systems-10, Agri-Business-7, Business Mgmt-12, Applied Geometry-11, Intro to Ag Skills-6, Alg/Trig-5, Field and Natural Science-11, Animal Science-7, Advanced Bio-7, Calc-10, Drama-12, Music Theory-6, FCS-10
- 98 -
DATA
Student Council-27-Stipend HS FFA-80-S Jr High FFA-35-S NHS-27-S NJHS-24-S Yearbook-17-S Science Club-38-S Math Club-25-S Spelling Bee-17-S Fresh Class-50-S Soph Class-39-S Jr Class-48-S Sr Class-44-S Multi-Cultural Club-12-S Teen Institute-S Color Guard-5-S
Clubs
Sr Class-28-stipend Jr. Class-29-stipend Soph Class-30-stipend Student Council-20-S Technology-46-during school FFA-65-S FFA-30-S (Grades 7/8) NHS-10-S NJHS-11-S Yearbook-25-S Drama Club-30-S Jr Chorus-45-During School Sr Chorus-45-During School Art Club-30-During School Sports Club-116 SADD-During School-10
Intramural Sports M/F Interscholastic Sports M/F Music Drama

See chart on sports programs
See chart on Sports Programs
Marching Band-40-S Jazz Band-18-Before School Select Chorus-17-Before School Chamber Bank-7-Before School Elementary Musical-35-In School
Contracted through BOCES
Marching Band-30-S Mixed Chorus-26-S SVCS Singers Select Chorus-18-S Concert Choir-In School-46 Drama Club-45-S Wind Ensemble-26-In School Symphony Band-20-In School Elementary Band-5/6-33-In School Jazz Band-10-In School Community Chorus-42-Evenings Drumline-S Contracted through BOCES, .5 FTE
MADISON
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
Contracted through BOCES, .6 FTE
Speech Program Elements Counseling Resource Room
1 FTE Guidance Counselor for K-12 Indirect and Direct consultant services and resource room are offered K-12. 1FTE for 6-8 and 1FTE for 9-12 Case by Case contracted through BOCES Case by Case contracted through BOCES
Besides the 12:1:1 with a Math Focus, all classes are built around an inclusion model BOCES, 1 hour per week BOCES, .2 FTE BOCES, .4 FTE
Physical Therapy Occupational Therapy Psychologist Psychiatrist
BOCES contracted shared with SV
- 99 -
DATA
BOCES, .4FTE 12:1:1 on site 12:1:1 at BOCES center
Social Worker Self-Contained Out of District Opportunities
1FTE Social Worker 2 12:1:1 classes on site 1 12:1:1 at BOCES as well as an 8:1:1 UCP serves 1 student Note: AIS services are provided within the schedule by general ed teachers
- 100 -
DATA
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES:

GRADES 7-12 INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS CLUBS AND DRAMA/MUSIC
CURRENT 2011-2012 PROGRAM ELEMENTS:
July 2012
- 101 -
DATA
MADISON
NUMBERS OF PUPILS WHO PARTICIPATE
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
Provided in 2010-11 program and not in 2011-12 program (x)
SPECIFIC GRADES 7-12 INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ACTIVITY
Mod Soccer Boys JV Soccer Boys Varsity Soccer Boys Mod FB JV FB Varsity FB Mod XC Boys Varsity XC Boys JV Tennis Boys Varsity Tennis Boys Mod Basketball - Boys 7th Grade BB Boys 8th Grade BB Boys JV BB Boys Varsity BB Boys JV Volleyball Boys Varsity Volleyball Boys Mod Wrestling JV Wrestling Varsity Wrestling Mod Bowling Boys JV Bowling Boys Varsity Bowling Boys Varsity Indoor Track Mod Baseball JV BB Varsity BB Mod Track Boys
16 No Program 19 5 @ Waterville No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program 15 (combined as 7/8 team) X X 11 10 No Program No Program 4 @ MECS No Program 5 @ MECS No Program No Program No Program No Program 15 No Program 15 No Program
15 16 23 No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program 17 (combined as 7/8 team) X X 12 13 No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program 24 No Program 16 No Program - 102 -
DATA MADISON
NUMBERS OF PUPILS WHO PARTICIPATE Provided in 2010-11 program and not in 2011-12 program (x)
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
Varsity Track Boys
Golf 16 No Program 18 No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program 15 (combined 7/8) X X 13 11 No Program No Program No Program No Program 9 14 15 15 No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program No Program 23 12 11 10 11 No Program 14 (combined 7/8) X X No Program 8 No Program No Program No Program No Program 16
No Program 1 @ Waterville
No Program 13 (boys and girls)
Mod Soccer Girls JV Soccer Girls Varsity Soccer Girls Mod Cross Country Girls Varsity XC Girls Mod Field Hockey JV Field Hockey Varsity Field Hockey Varsity Tennis Girls Mod Volleyball Girls 7th Gr Volleyball Girls 8th Gr Volleyball Girl JV Volleyball Girls Varsity Volleyball - Girls Cheerleading Fall Mod Basketball Girls 7th Grade BB Girls 8th Grade BB Girls JV Basketball Girls Varsity BB Girls Mod Bowling Girls JV Bowling Girls Varsity Bowling Girls JV Cheerleading Winter Varsity Cheerleading Winter
- 103 -
DATA MADISON
NUMBERS OF PUPILS WHO PARTICIPATE Provided in 2010-11 program and not in 2011-12 program (x)
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
Varsity Indoor Track - Girls Mod Softball JV SB Varsity SB Mod Track Girls Varsity Track Girls 19 (4 with other schools) 230 249 25 325
No Program 17 No Program 15 No Program No Program
No Program 23 No Program 13 No Program No Program
Total Number of Teams Total Number of PARTICIPANTSDUPLICATED COUNT 2011-2012 total grades 7-12 enrollment unduplicated count
MADISON 18 4
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
Provided in 2010 -11 program and not in 2011-12 program (x)
Clubs Music Drama
*NUMBER DENOTES THE NUMBER OF PUPILS WHO PARTICIPATE.
- 104 -
DATA INTERSCHOLASTIC AND CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM COSTS FOR 2011-2012

INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS 2011-2012
MADISON
16
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
25 $68,158 $5,214 $5,875 $79,247 $17,762 $13,886 $18,475 $129,370
Total number of paid STIPEND positions in 2011-2012 $49,356 $3,775 $4,250 $57,381 $7,385 $12,088 $17,096 $93,950
Total $ of paid stipends in 2011-2012 Total FICA paid on stipends in 2011-2012 Total retirement paid on stipends in 2011-2012 TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENDITURE 2011-2012 TOTAL ATHLETIC SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, FEES FOR INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS 2011-2012 TOTAL BUSING COSTS FOR INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS 2011-2012 TOTAL COSTS FOR OFFICIALS 2011-2012 TOTAL COSTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS 2011-2012 200 $470 230 $408
2011-2012 total grades 7-12 enrollment unduplicated count Per pupil expenditure 20112012 Total Number of INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETICS PARTICIPANTS- DUPLICATED COUNT Per Interscholastic athletic participant expenditure 2011-2012 CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM (NOT INCLUDING MUSIC AND DRAMA) 2011-2012 Total number of paid STIPEND positions in 2011-2012
249 $519 325 $398
MADISON
8
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
16 $32,592 $2,493 $2,809 $37,894 $2433 $40,327 $10,015 $766 $862 $11,643 $0 $11,643
Total $ of paid stipends in 2011-2012 Total FICA paid on stipends in 2011-2012 Total retirement paid on stipends in 2011-2012 TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENDITURE 2011-2012 TOTAL SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, FEES FOR CO-CURRICULAR 2011-2012 SUBTOTAL COSTS CO-CURRICULAR 2011-2012:
- 105 -
DATA MADISON
2 $3,284 $251 $190 $3,725 0 $535 $15,903 200 $79.52 $63,402 249 $254.63 $13,417 $9,658 $8,722
MUSIC AND DRAMA CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM Total number of paid STIPEND positions in 2011-2012
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
20 $12,092 $623 $702
Total $ of paid stipends in 2011-2012 Total FICA paid on stipends in 2011-2012 Total retirement paid on stipends in 2011-2012 TOTAL PERSONNEL EXPENDITURE 2011-2012 TOTAL MUSIC AND DRAMA CO-CURRICULAR SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, FEES FOR 2011-2012
TOTAL BUSING COSTS FOR CO-CURRICULAR and MUSIC AND DRAMA 2011-2012
TOTAL COSTS CO-CURRICULAR and MUSIC AND DRAMA CO-CURRICULAR 2011-2012: 2011-2012 total grades 7-12 enrollment unduplicated count Per pupil 2011-2012
- 106 -
DATA
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE JOINT COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 2007-2011 STUDENT REPORT CARDS: SUMMARY OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE & HIGH SCHOOL ASSESSMENT RESULTS
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS MADISON CS
JULY, 2012
- 107 -
DATA
Performance on the State assessments in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, and science at the elementary and middle levels is reported in terms of mean scores and the percentage of tested students scoring at or above Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4.
About the Performance Level Descriptors Level 1: Not Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level. Level 2: Partially Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level. Level 3: Meeting Learning Standards. Student performance demonstrates an understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level. Level 4: Meeting Learning Standards with Distinction. Student performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the content expected in the subject and grade level.
- 108 -
DATA
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS * 2010-11 TEST GR 3 ELA GR 3 MATH GR 4 ELA GR 4 MATH GR 4 SCIENCE GR 5 ELA GR 5 MATH GR 6 ELA GR 6 MATH GR 7 ELA GR 7 MATH GR 8 ELA GR 8 MATH GR 8 SCI NO. TESTED 38 38 25 25 25 40 40 39 39 38 38 49 49 49 2008-09 TEST GR 3 ELA GR 3 MATH GR 4 ELA GR 4 MATH GR 4 SCI GR 5 ELA GR 5 MATH GR 6 ELA GR 6 MATH GR 7 ELA GR 7 MATH GR 8 ELA GR 8 MATH GR 8 SCI NO. TESTED 42 43 37 38 38 35 34 45 45 46 47 45 45 45 LEVEL 2-4 95 100 95 92 97 94 97 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 LEVEL 3-4 81 95 78 92 95 77 91 82 89 83 91 67 91 84 LEVEL 2-4 97 95 100 100 100 93 98 97 92 92 95 92 96 96 LEVEL 3-4 68 63 64 64 100 50 60 64 38 34 61 27 63 73 2009-10 LEVEL 4 0 3 0 16 72 3 13 3 10 0 16 2 8 27 2007-08 LEVEL 4 7 23 3 32 84 6 12 9 9 7 17 0 18 22 NO. TESTED 42 39 40 38 37 45 45 50 48 48 48 46 47 46 LEVEL 2-4 95 95 88 89 97 93 93 100 96 98 100 98 98 100 LEVEL 3-4 81 95 45 74 89 76 78 74 79 81 92 65 87 96 LEVEL 4 12 23 0 8 43 11 13 0 4 2 31 4 21 46 NO. TESTED 31 31 41 41 41 37 37 32 32 46 46 49 49 48 LEVEL 2-4 94 97 95 98 98 97 97 91 94 93 91 92 90 98 LEVEL 3-4 65 68 39 51 98 51 54 56 69 52 72 27 41 73 LEVEL 4 29 26 2 15 76 8 14 0 19 13 35 4 4 15
* New York State Education Department Accountability & Overview Report NO. TESTED = ALL STUDENTS - 109 -
DATA
MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS * 2010-11 TEST GR 3 ELA GR 3 MATH GR 4 ELA GR 4 MATH GR 4 SCIENCE GR 5 ELA GR 5 MATH GR 6 ELA GR 6 MATH GR 7 ELA GR 7 MATH GR 8 ELA GR 8 MATH GR 8 SCI NO. TESTED 38 38 34 34 33 39 39 29 29 36 35 45 45 45 2008-09 TEST GR 3 ELA GR 3 MATH GR 4 ELA GR 4 MATH GR 4 SCI GR 5 ELA GR 5 MATH GR 6 ELA GR 6 MATH GR 7 ELA GR 7 MATH GR 8 ELA GR 8 MATH GR 8 SCI NO. TESTED 41 41 34 34 34 40 40 45 46 42 41 34 34 34 LEVEL 2-4 93 100 100 88 100 100 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 LEVEL 3-4 76 98 82 74 94 88 80 100 87 76 95 74 91 88 LEVEL 2-4 92 95 85 88 100 90 90 93 93 92 91 98 87 100 LEVEL 3-4 47 42 59 71 88 62 62 66 62 56 63 60 31 87 2009-10 LEVEL 4 5 5 9 41 48 13 10 0 24 6 23 0 2 22 2007-08 LEVEL 4 7 17 12 29 44 23 13 0 7 5 15 6 18 24 NO. TESTED 35 35 39 40 41 45 46 41 40 32 34 34 35 34 LEVEL 2-4 94 97 92 90 100 100 98 98 93 100 100 94 83 94 LEVEL 3-4 77 94 67 75 88 89 72 63 73 78 91 38 77 82 LEVEL 4 14 26 10 23 39 0 7 0 3 3 32 0 11 18 NO. TESTED 35 35 43 43 43 32 32 37 37 48 49 36 36 34 LEVEL 2-4 86 83 91 98 100 91 88 84 92 98 98 86 92 91 LEVEL 3-4 54 37 56 56 95 56 44 62 62 60 67 44 61 88 LEVEL 4 9 14 0 19 44 13 13 11 22 13 14 3 6 15
* New York State Education Department Accountability & Overview Report NO. TESTED = ALL STUDENTS
- 110 -
DATA
MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY HIGH SCHOOL REGENTS EXAMINATION PERFORMANCE *
REGENTS
YEAR
NUMBER TESTED
MADISON SV
% AT OR ABOVE 55
MADISON SV
% AT OR ABOVE 65
MADISON SV
% AT OR ABOVE 85
MADISON SV
COMPREHEN. 10-11 30 43 87 100 80 98 40 ENGLISH 09-10 38 37 95 97 92 92 32 08-09 34 40 100 98 91 90 32 INTEGRATED 10-11 39 42 92 93 85 93 5 ALGEBRA 09-10 20 46 100 98 95 98 10 08-09 49 39 98 100 88 95 12 ALGEBRA 2/ 10-11 8 20 63 79 63 65 13 TRIG 09-10 19 14 79 75 79 79 11 08-09 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA GEOMETRY 10-11 10 29 90 100 70 100 30 09-10 18 29 100 97 94 93 28 08-09 37 0 70 51 8 GLOBAL 10-11 36 43 81 93 75 86 31 HISTORY 09-10 32 44 94 98 75 98 31 46 41 93 95 87 90 22 08-09 US HISTORY 10-11 26 44 100 98 92 95 50 & 09-10 40 33 93 100 90 97 38 GOV. 08-09 34 41 100 100 91 95 44 LIVING 10-11 37 44 100 100 95 89 38 ENVIRON. 09-10 32 80 84 99 78 99 38 08-09 37 36 92 92 89 89 35 EARTH 10-11 27 33 93 100 89 97 44 SCIENCE 09-10 22 4 100 100 55 30 45 100 87 90 80 37 08-09 CHEMISTRY 10-11 12 21 92 95 75 81 25 09-10 15 12 93 100 67 83 13 25 15 84 100 60 80 20 08-09 PHYSICS 10-11 4 7 100 57 09-10 13 8 85 88 62 75 15 08-09 8 8 88 100 50 88 25 SPANISH 10-11 19 17 100 100 100 88 47 09-10 11 12 100 100 100 100 55 08-09 13 16 100 100 100 100 62 FRENCH 10-11 0 0 09-10 0 0 08-09 0 0 * From New York State Education Department Report Cards Comprehensive Information Report
56 49 23 5 28 23 15 36 NA 31 34 51 59 44 70 61 46 25 46 28 61 29 24 0 0 0 13 25 41 33 19
- 111 -
DATA
MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY FEASIBILITY STUDY HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMAS ^ DIPLOMA TYPE MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY TOTAL GRADUATES REGENTS REGENTS ADVANCED DISTINCTION IEP APPROVED HS EQUIVALENT PREP
YEAR OF GRAD
2010-11
40 34 9 1 0 34 31 11 0 0 46 39 10 0 1 (85%) (22%) NA (91%) (32%) NA (85%) (23%) NA
29 28 7 2 0 41 39 16 0 0 31 29 12 1 1 (94%) (39%) NA (95%) (39%) NA (97%) (24 %) NA
2009-10
TOTAL GRADUATES REGENTS REGENTS ADVANCED DISTINCTION IEP APPROVED HS EQUIVALENT PREP
2008-09
TOTAL GRADUATES REGENTS REGENTS ADVANCED DISTINCTION IEP APPROVED HS EQUIVALENT PREP
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES *

YEAR ** COHORT COUNT ALL STUDENTS GRADUATION RATE % ALL STUDENTS GRADUATION RATE % ALL STUDENTS GRADUATION RATE % ALL STUDENTS GRADUATION RATE % MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
2007
(2003 COHORT)
38 92% 30 83% 42 100% 41 83%
42 90% 48 88% 35 86% 44 91%
2008
(2004 COHORT)
2009
(2005 COHORT)
2010
(2006 COHORT)
^ From New York Education Department Comprehensive Information Reports * From New York Education Department Report Cards Accountability & Overview Reports ** Percentage of the Cohort that earned a local or Regents diploma by August 31 four years later
SAMPLE OF POST SECONDARY PURSUITS
- 112 -
DATA
MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL 2009-2012 GRADUATES
2009-2012 Military Army Marines Coast Guard
Vocational None
Two-year Schools SUNY Morrisville SUNY Alfred Herkimer CC Onondaga CC Mohawk Valley CC Ohio Technical Coll Lincoln Tech Finger Lakes CC Tompkins Cortland CC St Elizabeth Nursing Art Institute of America
Four-year Colleges SUNY Cortland SUNY IT SUNY Oneonta SUNY Plattsburgh Clarkson University Clark University Wells College Roberts Wesleyan Wagner College Cornell University LeMoyne College Rochester Institute of Technology Paul Smiths St Lawrence University Elmira College Albany School of Pharmacy Gannon University Hobart/William Smith Utica College University of Rochester
SAMPLE OF POST SECONDARY PURSUITS STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL 2009-2012 GRADUATES 2009-2012 Military Vocational Two-year Schools Four-year Colleges ROTC - Air Force ROTC - Navy Air Force Marines OHM BOCES Universal Tech Institute Onondaga CC SUNY Alfred Mohawk Valley CC SUNY Morrisville SUNY Cobleskill Herkimer CCC Finger Lakes CC Paul Smiths Utica School of Commerce Monroe CC Keuka College Cazenovia College SUNY New Paltz Clarkson Univ SUNY Canton SUNY Potsdam SUNY IT SUNY Buffalo SUNY Brockport Savannah College Art and Design Utica College SUNY Oneonta SUNY Cortland SUNY Maritime Rochester Institute of Technology St John Fisher LeMoyne College
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: - 113 -
DATA What instructional programs are in place now that address helping students achieve at least a 3 or 4 on the State Assessments? What other instructional programs not now in place could help increase the number of students who achieve at least a 3 or 4 on the State Assessments? What instructional programs are in place now that address helping students achieve a high school diploma? What other instructional programs not now in place could help increase the number of students who achieve a high school diploma? What other instructional programs not now in place could help students have the skill sets and goal setting skills to consider a higher education opportunity after high school graduation? What other instructional programs not now in place could help the studentswho choose not to pursue higher education options after high school graduationhave marketable employability skills for the work place as a major part of their high school programs for graduation? What added high school learning opportunities might increase the success of reducing the number of high school graduates who do not return to a college program after their freshman year? What added high school learning opportunities might increase the success of the current efforts to: 9 Enlarge the range of higher education options that are academically considered for attendance by high school graduates of both school districts? 9 Enlarge the range of higher education options that are financially considered for attendance by high school graduates of both school districts?
- 114 -
DATA
Prepared by the SES Study Team on August 2, 2012
STUDENT PERFORMANCE - PERCENTAGE SCORING AT LEVELS *-FOLLOWING ARE THE ANNUAL RESULTS OF THE BASE STUDENT POPULATION YEAR OF 2007-2008 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PUPILS YEAR TO-YEAR MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS THOSE IN THE BASE YEAR OF 2007-2008)
MADISON TEST GR 3 ELA GR 3 MATH GR 4 ELA GR 4 MATH GR 4 SCIENCE GR 5 ELA GR 5 MATH GR 6 ELA GR 6 MATH YEAR 07-08 07-08 08-09 08-09 08-09 09-10 09-10 10-11 10-11 NO. TESTED 35 35 34 34 34 32 32 29 29 LEVEL 2-4 94% 97% 100% 88% 100% 91% 88% 93% 93% LEVEL 3-4 77% 94% 82% 74% 94% 56% 44% 66% 62% LEVEL 4 14% 26% 12% 29% 44% 13% 13% 0% 24%
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY NO. TESTED 42 39 37 38 38 37 37 39 39 LEVEL 2-4 95% 95% 95% 92% 97% 97% 97% 97% 92% LEVEL 3-4 81% 95% 78% 92% 95% 51% 54% 64% 38% LEVEL 4 12% 23% 3% 32% 84% 8% 14% 3% 10%
* New York State Education Department Accountability & Overview Report NO. TESTED = ALL STUDENTS
- 115 -
DATA
- 116 -
DATA
- 117 -
DATA
- 118 -
DATA
- 119 -
DATA
- 120 -
DATA
- 121 -
DATA
- 122 -
DATA
- 123 -
DATA
- 124 -
DATA
- 125 -
DATA
- 126 -
DATA
- 127 -
DATA FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEES:
Q AND A ABOUT THE PROCESS WITH REGARD TO PERSONNEL WHEN A SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION OCCURS THROUGH CONSOLIDATION
PROFILE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTIONAL AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT LABOR CONTRACTS IN PLACE IN THE TWO DISTRICTS FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR
TOTAL FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES BY EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT BENCHMARKED TO THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR
AVERAGE TOTAL FULL TIME EQUIVALENT PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES ACROSS BOTH SCHOOL DISTRICTS BENCHMARKED TO THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT OF STAFF WHO HAVE LEFT THE DISTRICTS FOR ALL REASONS EXCEPT REDUCTION IN FORCE FOR THE SCHOOL YEARS 2007-2008 THROUGH 2010-2011
August 2012
- 128 -
Copyright 2012 As to Original Text, and Format All Rights Reserved
Authorized in perpetuity for the exclusive use for planning by the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Central School Districts, their Superintendents and by all government agencies to which the districts provide the study.
- 129 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district.
Labor Relations Implications Of School District Reorganization (August, 2012) The following information is based on guidance materials from the State Education Department and general principles of public sector employment law. This document does not contain legal advice and should not be considered a legal opinion. For legal advice, the districts should contact their respective attorney counsels. 1. Q: If two or more school districts reorganize into one school district, what happens to the employees of the former school districts? Each teacher employed by a former school district becomes an employee of the new school district. Employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law by a former school district may have varying rights in the new school district, depending on their civil service class (competitive, non-competitive, labor, etc.). 2. Q: What happens to the collective bargaining agreements of the former school districts? The contracts end. The terms of those agreements may become elements of new agreements with the new school district. The new school district and the new bargaining units bargaining agents must make a good faith effort to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements. While new collective bargaining agreements are negotiated, the provisions of the previous contracts are used by the new district. 3. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of teachers? Teachers are credited with seniority earned within a particular tenure area. When school districts centralize, the seniority lists are merged so that the new school district has only one seniority list per tenure area. 4. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law? Competitive class employees are credited with seniority in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Other employees may have seniority rights set forth in their collective bargaining agreements. 5. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer teachers? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce teaching positions on the basis of seniority within a particular tenure area. If a teaching position is abolished, the affected individual is placed on a preferred eligible list for a period of seven years.
6. Q:
What happens if the new school district needs fewer civil service employees? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce competitive class positions on the basis of seniority as set forth in the Civil Service Law. Current collective agreements that cover civil service employees may have additional reduction in force references.
7. Q:
What happens to the administrators of the former school districts? Although the guidance materials from the State Education Department specifically reference the seniority rights of teachers only, there is some reason to believe the seniority rights of school administrators may be
- 130 -
handled in a similar manner. In addition, since school administrator tenure areas may vary from district to district, the actual impact of these rights by individual job title/role is a case-by-case analysis. 8. Q: What happens to the superintendents of the former school districts? Superintendents of the former districts do not have any statutory rights to that position in the new district. The new school district board of education may select its own new superintendent. When the superintendent of a district included in the reorganization has a current employment contract, that contract becomes an obligation of the newly reorganized school district. If the newly reorganized district determines not to employ the superintendent of a former school district, the new district may discharge the contractual obligation by paying the salary which he or she would have earned, less any income obtained from employment elsewhere during the term of the contract. 9. Q: What happens to the retirement benefits of the employees of the former school districts? Retirement benefits associated with the retirement system remain unchanged. Retirement benefits associated with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement are governed by the terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. Individuals who are already retired from a school district may have certain retiree health insurance protections contained in Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009. Chapter 504 prohibits reduction of health insurance for retirees and their dependents unless there is a corresponding reduction of benefits or contributions for the corresponding group of active employees. 10. Q: Are there other considerations relating to labor relations? When two or more school districts reorganize into a new school district, it is possible that the local bargaining units are represented by different bargaining agents. It is important for the school districts and local bargaining units to work with their labor relations experts.
- 131 -
PROFILE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ALL INSTRUCTIONAL LABOR CONTRACTS IN PLACE IN BOTH DISTRICTS FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR AS OF AUGUST 2012
Observations/Items to note or consider:
Contract Element
Hours per Day
Madison 2010 - 2013 Not to exceed 7 hours and 20 minutes
Stockbridge Valley 2011-2014 8 a.m. to 3:16 p.m. (7 hours 16 minutes); on days immediately preceding vacation, the day will last until the last regularly scheduled period (2:34) for that day
Teacher Load Elementary Duty-free lunch of at least 30 minutes; Undivided 50 minute planning at least one prep period per day; period per day, an additional 50 subject to superintendent approval, minute planning period per week, may be granted four days per year and a 30 minute collaborative planning period per day; duty-free for purpose of staff-development, grade-level planning and/or 30 minute lunch; no teacher scheduled more than 3 hours and 20 curriculum development minutes without lunch or prep period Undivided 50 minute planning period per day, an additional 50 minute planning period per week, and a 30 minute collaborative planning period per day; duty-free 30 minute lunch; Not required to teach more than 6 classes of 50 minutes each day; required to supervise one 50 minute study hall or in-school suspension supervision if less than 6 teaching assignments that day Duty-free lunch of at least 30 minutes; elementary teachers have at least one preparation period each day; high school teachers have six teaching class assignments and at least ten preparation periods each week
Secondary
- 132 -
Observations/Items to note or consider: Madison Stockbridge Valley 2010 - 2013 2011-2014 Teachers will receive $20 an hour or In the elementary, teachers will a fraction thereof (i.e., $10 for 30 receive $35 per planning period to minutes) substitute (40 minutes) with a max. payment of $100, if the situation calls for extended coverage; In the high school, teachers will receive $35 for one period of 38 to 43 minutes. Permanent full-time professional Posted in the District for 5 working positions will be posted on a bulletin days; interested employees shall notify the District in writing; postings board in the teachers room and a shall be in the District office and staff notice sent to the Association room; Association President shall also President; the district gives be provided a copy consideration to: (in order) (1) professional background, (2) experience, (3) attainments of the applicant, (4) seniority; if no applicants found, the least senior teacher in the affected tenure area will fill the vacancy No later than March 1, a teacher desiring a change shall file a written statement requesting a change; requests are honored based on qualifications, certification, best interests of the District and availability No teacher shall be involuntarily transferred or reassigned out of his/her tenure area
Contract Element
Substitute Volunteer
Vacancies
Transfers
Voluntary
Involuntary
- 133 -
Stockbridge Valley 2011-2014 Observations/Items to note or consider: Madison 2010 - 2013 The District shall give an employee a 60 calendar day written notice if his/her position is to be abolished or reduced; employee shall be able to convert sick days into a severance stipend at the rate of $25 per day. All teachers will receive 12 days of sick leave each September; doctor and dentist appointments will be charged against sick leave (up to max. of 284) For reasons of personal illness, injury or medical examinations, teachers are given 12 days per year; 50% of accumulated sick days, or 30 per year (whichever is greater) may be used for family illness; continuous sick leave in excess of 3 days may require a doctors note stating teacher is able to return to work An additional 5 days per occurrence will be allowed without loss of pay for a death in the immediate family; additional days may be used (up to 3) from accumulated sick leave with Superintendent approval Teachers are allowed up to 3 days per school year without loss of pay for days of religious observance of their faith when school is in session (days must appear on Commissioner of Educations calendar as possible days of Religious Observance)
Contract Element
Layoffs
Leaves Sick Days/Accumulation
Bereavement
Up to 5 days leave with pay per year may be used for a death in the immediate family (will not be deducted from sick leave); if additional leave needed, may be granted up to 3 days at Superintendents discretion
Religious Observance
- 134 -
Contract Element
Emergency Leave
Personal
Unpaid Leave
Maternity/Child rearing
Madison Stockbridge Valley 2010 - 2013 2011-2014 Leave with pay, not to exceed 8 days per year for emergency catastrophe (immediate family sickness, fire, accident, flood, major catastrophe, impassable roads, etc.); proof may be required. (deducted from accumulated sick days) 3 days of personal leave per year (1 of 3 days of paid personal leave these days will require no reason); available to all full-time unit employees per year; administration unused personal days will accumulate as unused sick time may request a reason; other employees will be given personal leave in direct proportion to amount of work time A certified teacher with tenure may A certified teacher or teaching request up to 2 years leave without assistant may request in writing a pay and shall include the reason for leave without pay and include the the leave; the Board has the sole and reason; leaves should not exceed 1 exclusive discretion to grant or deny year and will begin at the end of the semester; max leave time granted the leave under this provision is 2 years; insurance coverage available at his/her own expense A teacher who is pregnant may For pregnancy disability, teacher may use normal accrued sick leave request, and is entitled to a maximum leave of 2 years at anytime between (may be used for requested leave the commencement of her pregnancy prior to pregnancy disability); unpaid leaves of absence for child and one year after a child is born to rearing will commence on the date her. The teacher may use sick time for following the last day of pregnancy the period of time her physician disability, or on the date of adoption; deems that a medical disability exists. 60 days notice required for unpaid Adoption entitles a teacher to a leave leave and not for more than 2 years up to 2 years; child rearing leave will be granted for either parent, regardless of the age of the child.
- 135 -
Madison 2010 - 2013 Excellus PPO plan Less than 3 years of employment in Madison CSD: board contributes 90% for individual coverage and 65% for family; for teachers in the th 4 full year of employment: Board contributes 95% for individual coverage and 90% for family coverage. Effective 7/1/12 the District will pay 88% of an individual plan and 88% of a family plan with the employee paying 12% of the difference between the individual and family plan premiums. For unit members hired prior to 7/1/12, the employee responsibility will not exceed $800 for an individual plan and $1200 for a family plan premium Stockbridge Valley 2011-2014 Observations/Items to note or consider:
Contract Element
Insurance
Plans Employees %/caps
Part-Time employee coverage
Coverage for any unit member employed more than 20% but less than 100% shall be prorated based on the FTE of the individual $10/$20/$35 and two copays for 90 $10 for Tier 1 (unless the cost is day supply for mail order actually less); $20 for Tier 2 preferred brand name; $35 for Tier 3 non-preferred brand name; mail order co-pays shall be 2 co-pays for a 90-day supply ($20; $40; $70) Must provide proof of alternative Must provide proof of alternative coverage; must opt-out no later than coverage; must opt-out before th Jan 15 ; opt-out amount is $900 for September 1; stipend is $1,250 for individual and $2,400 for family; if 7 individual and $2,500 for family; paid or more members elect to opt-out in annually in a lump sum a given year, then the amounts will be $1,000 individual and $3,000 family yes yes
Rx co-pays
Opt-out
Flex Plan
- 136 -
Observations/Items to note or consider: Madison Stockbridge Valley 2010 - 2013 2011-2014 If members of the health plan for at District will pay 80% of the individual least 10 years, shall have their health health insurance premium for retirees; coverage continued into retirement; retiree will pay 20%. For the family same percentages of contribution; plan, the District will provide the plan reimbursement of Medicare with the retiree paying 45% of the difference between the cost of the premiums to eligible individual and the family plan; Dental employees/retirees; may continue and vision plan costs will be their dental insurance at same determined in the same manner as contribution health insurance Option to participate in the Districts District will pay 100% of the individual and family vision plan. Davis Vision Plan; District will contribute 50% District will pay 100% of the District agrees to contribute a individual premium for Dental Plan A. maximum of $160 per year per participating employee for individual Dental Plus is available to unit members; the cost to employee is the coverage and $60 towards family difference between Plus and Plan A. coverage The family insurance premium for Dental Plan A will be paid by the district at the Individual premium rate.
Contract Element
Retirees
Vision
Dental
Health Expense reimbursement Mitigation Pool of $15,000 to offset Mitigation Pool of $15,000 to offset additional costs above the co-pays additional costs above the co-pays with an additional $5000 on 7/1/13 if the pool is less than $5000
- 137 -
Observations/Items to note or consider: Madison 2010 - 2013 Must have served a minimum of 10 continuous years in Madison CSD and retire under the NYS Teachers Retirement Plan; must give written st notice by Oct 1 ; qualified teachers shall receive a total dollar amount prior to deductions equal to of his/her regular annual salary for his/her last fiscal year of employment (cap of $31,000), plus $60 per day of unused sick leave (max. 284) yes 2012-2013 32,740 33,731 34,722 35,712 36,703 37,692 38,683 39,674 40,664 41,653 42,642 + $1,384 + $1,245 + $1,245 + $1,245 + $1,245 + $1,245 + $475 + $525 + $525 + $575 + $650 +$3,333 (non-cumulative) 2012-2013 38,160 38,660 39,175 40,105 40,668 43,368 44,596 45,740 46,451 47,163 49,059 (3% offstep increase) + $600 Stockbridge Valley 2011-2014 A teacher who notifies the District by the first day of school in February that he/she will retire at the end of the school year will receive a $5,000 bonus; must have 20 years of service, give an irrevocable resignation letter, and the bonus is payable in July $100 per day of unused sick leave up to 225 days accumulated.
Contract Element
Retirement Benefit
Distance Learning Starting Salary B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Masters degree Longevity 5 years After 7 years After 10 years After 15 years After 20 years After 25 years After 29 years
- 138 -
Madison 2010 - 2013 + $1,245 + $10,000 Reverts to the after 30 years benefit and remains there. + $1,058 Stockbridge Valley 2011-2014 + $1,300+$3,333 non-cumulative +$3,333 (non-cumulative) Observations/Items to note or consider:
Contract Element
After 30 years After 31 years
After 32 years After 33 years
C.A.S., Doctorate, National Board Certification
- 139 -
PROFILE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS OF ALL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT LABOR CONTRACTS IN PLACE IN THE TWO DISTRICTS FOR THE 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR
Madison 2011 - 2014 Stockbridge Valley 2010 - 2013
Contract Element
LEAVES Sick 12 month employees
10 month employees
12 sick days per year cumulative to 284 12 sick days per year cumulative to 284
One day per full month of employment, cumulative to 230 One day per full month of employment, cumulative to 210
Personal Leave 12 month employees
10 month employees
3 days of paid personal leave Up to 5 days granted to all full-time unit employees; custodial staff required to work snow days will be provided an additional personal day for every 2 snow days worked (up to 2 personal days) 3 days to each full-time unit Up to 3 days employee 3 days per occurrence for immediate family members; an additional 5 days may be granted with permission
Bereavement Leave
Emergency Leave
Up to 3 days with pay per year for a death in the immediate family (not deducted from sick leave) Up to 8 days with pay may be taken for emergency catastrophes (immediate family sickness, flood, fire, accident, impassable roads, etc.)
- 140 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. Contract Element Observations/Items to note or Madison Stockbridge Valley consider: 2011 - 2014 2010 - 2013 Unpaid Leave May request an unpaid leave for Employees may request unpaid childcare (in writing, at least 30 leave in writing granted at the days prior); up to 1 year upon discretion of superintendent and recommendation of the board; district shall grant superintendent and board unpaid maternity leave for no approval; other leaves may be longer than 6 months (requested granted upon approval 30 days prior)
PAID HOLIDAYS 12 month employees
10 month employees
13 paid holidays (14 if the 13 paid holidays District celebrates both Washington and Lincolns Birthday) All unit employees entitled to 9 Follow the school calendar paid holidays (10 if the district celebrates both Washington and Lincolns birthday)
VACATIONS 12 month employees One year in district 12 month employees receive 2
10 days weeks vacation; 11 month employees receive 9 days 2 6 continuous 12 month employees receive plus 2 years 10 days; one day for each year over one up 3 years 10 days; to a maximum of 5 days; 11 4 years 10 days; month employees receive 9 days 5 years 10 days; plus one for each year over one 6 years 11 days up to a maximum of five
- 141 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. Contract Element Observations/Items to note or Madison Stockbridge Valley consider: 2011 - 2014 2010 - 2013 7 10 continuous years 12 month employees receive 7 years 12 days; three weeks; 11 month employees 8 years 13 days; receive 14 days 9 years 14 days; 10 years 15 days Over 10 years 12 month employees receive 11 years 16 days; three weeks plus one day for each 12 years 17 days; year over 10 up to a maximum of 13 years 18 days; 5; 11 month employees receive 14 years 19 days; 14 days plus one day for each 15 + years 20 days year over 10 up to a maximum of 5 10 month employees No paid vacation No paid vacation Must have served at least 10 continuous years of service immediately prior; must give written notice to superintendent st on or before Oct 1 of the year prior; lump-sum payment of $35 per day for each day of accumulated sick leave
District Retirement Benefit
NYS Retirement
If employee has served 10 continuous years, and they indicate their intention to retire 60 days or more prior to their retirement, they will be entitled to a salary increase that year equal to 2% of their current salary multiplied by the number of years worked; if the employee has accrued more than 50 sick days, the district will pay $25 per accrued sick day to be placed in an account and used towards the payment of the retirees health insurance premiums th Tier I and II employees plan 1/60 Non-contributory plan 7575i; tier III employees article C 14; tier IV employees article 15; tier V employees article 22
- 142 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. Contract Element Observations/Items to note or Madison Stockbridge Valley consider: 2011 - 2014 2010 - 2013 Madison-Oneida-Herkimer Consortium Plan All employees, except For employees hired before 1/21/99, the board will contribute transportation and food service 95% of individual coverage and employees, working 50% or more of the defined work day for their 90% of family coverage; for employees hired after 1/21/99, job classification are eligible for must work 15 hours or more on a benefits; transportation and food weekly basis, the board will service employees must work 20 contribute 90% of individual hours per week on a regular basis coverage and 65% of family to be eligible; district contributes coverage for employees with less 90% of the individual premium than 3 years full time and 90% of the difference employment. For employees with between the family and individual more than 3 years employment, coverage. For employees hired the board will contribute 90% of prior to 7/1/10, premium contributions will not exceed family coverage. Employees hired after March 1, 2006 must $600 for and individual plan and work 20 hours per week to $850 for a family plan. receive coverage. $10 for tier 1 generic drugs, $20 3 tier plan: $5/$15/$30 for tier 2 preferred brand name drugs and $35 for non-preferred brand name drugs; mail order shall be 2 co-pays for a 90 day supply ($20 for tier 1, $40 for tier 2, $70 for tier 3) Madison-Oneida-Herkimer Consortium Plan
HEALTH INSURANCE Plan
Districts Contribution
Rx co-pay
- 143 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. Contract Element Observations/Items to note or Madison Stockbridge Valley consider: 2011 - 2014 2010 - 2013 Dental Employees hired on or after District will cover 100% of the September 1, 1992 who work individual dental plan A more than 15 hours/week are premium; family coverage for eligible for a maximum dental plan A will be paid at the contribution of $160 for same rate as individual; Dental individual and an additional $60 Plan + is also available at the for family coverage. employees option but will District will pay the same as for plan A. Vision District will pay 100% of individual and family vision plan. Rx Reimbursement Mitigation pool of $9,000 funded District established a $7,500 annually on July 1 (not to exceed reimbursement account to cover $10,000); if total is below $9,000, the difference between the current all receipts will be reimbursed 3 tier co-pays ($5/$15/$30) and the old 2 tier system ($5/$10); tier 1 co-pays will not be covered; tier 2 drugs will be reimbursed $5 and tier 3 drugs will be reimbursed $20; the account will remain until the monies are exhausted Retirees Retirees pay 45% of difference between individual and family premiums annually Opt-out $750 for individual coverage; $1,250 for individual coverage; $1,500 for family coverage $2,500 for family coverage 2012 - 2013 $14.43 $15.21 $10.76 $11.49 $10.76 $11.49 $10.76 $11.49 $10.76 $11.49 2012 - 2013 $13.55 $15.98 $9.00 - $11.03 $9.00 - $11.79 $9.00 - $12.32 - 144 -
Starting Rates: hourly/salary Bus Driver Cleaner Food Service Helper Teacher Aide/Monitor Office Assistant 1/ Teacher Aide
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. Contract Element Observations/Items to note or Madison Stockbridge Valley consider: 2011 - 2014 2010 - 2013 Typist $11.16 $11.70 Cook-Manager $28,948 $31,534 $16.20 School Nurse $27,287 $28,726 $27,983 - $46,018 Head Cleaner $23,491 $24,741 $45,739 Office Assistant II $13.10 $13.79 $25,688 - $26,803 Building Maintenance Mechanic $28,313 $30,902 Custodian $12.43 - $18.01 Head Bus Driver $41,275 $250 $475 $700 $925 $125
Longevity award/stipend
After 10 full years After 15 full years After 20 full years After 25 full years
- 145 -
FULL TIME EQUIVALENT TOTAL NUMBERS OF STAFF AND THE TOTAL FTE PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES BENCHMARKED TO THE 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR
Total personnel expenditures for each staff segment category equals the total of salary, employer FICA costs, employer health insurance costs, employer retirement costs, and any other benefits (if any). Please note that the differences in cost per FTE per staff category is primarily due to the longevity differences of various FTEs at each respective school district; the different retirement tier an FTE falls under based on what state tier was in place at time of hire; along with contractual pay guidelines.
TOTAL FTES 27 18.36 $1,251,141 $218,228 $67,710 TOTAL $ 2011-2012 $53,715 COST PER FTE $53,715 $36,371 $27,084 $68,145 6 2.5 TOTAL FTES 1 26.1 6 1 TOTAL FTES $1,780,183 $65,933 16.9
MADISON TOTAL $ 2011-2012 COST PER FTE
STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY TOTAL TOTAL $ COST FTES 2011-2012 PER FTE $1,283,791 $1,884,550 $220,137 $24,067 TOTAL $ 2011-2012 $75,964 $72,205 $36,690 $24,067 COST PER FTE
2 3 6 2 4 4
$254,530 $167,580 $206,128 $59,612 $171,936 $151,349
$127,265 $55,860 $34,355 $29,806 $42,984 $37,837
4 2 12 1 3 6 5
$494,050 $134,092 $360,331 $31,915 $89,202 $261,913 $246,348
$123,513 $67,046 $30,028 $31,915 $29,734 $43,652 $49,270
STAFF SEGMENT Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others): Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others): Grades K-12: Teacher Assistants (certified) Teacher Aides (civil service payroll) / Monitors Grades K-12: OT/PT (civil service payroll) STAFF SEGMENT Social worker (civil service payroll) Nurse (civil service payroll) K-12 certified administrators: Include all district administrators including the business official if she/he serves in a civil service position On Civil Service payroll: (CONSIDERED FTES) Supervisors of any support function Bus drivers Bus aides School lunch workers Operations and Maintenance workers Secretaries Business Office staff other than secretarial $95,445 $95,445 Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future.
- 146 -
1 1
OR business official
Technology support staff TOTAL WORK HOURS MADISON TOTAL $ 2011-2012 COST PER FTE
STAFF SEGMENT
$79,351 $79,351 STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY TOTAL TOTAL $ COST FTES 2011-2012 PER hour
CONSIDERED HOURLY EMPLOYEES ON CIVIL SERVICE PAYROLL Bus drivers Bus aides School lunch workers Part-time cleaners
- 147 -
Summary of FTE Personnel Costs Benchmarked to 2011-2012 in the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Central School Districts
Average FTE Cost
$69,794 $70,528
STAFF SEGMENT Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others): Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others):
Grades K-12: Teacher Assistants (certified) Teacher Aides (civil service payroll)
$36,530 $26,222
Grades K-12: OT/PT (civil service payroll) Social worker (civil service payroll) Nurse (civil service payroll)
$53,715
K-12 certified administrators: All district administrators including the business official if she/he serves in a civil service position
$124,763
On Civil Service payroll: (CONSIDERED FTES) Supervisors of any support function Bus drivers Bus aides School lunch workers Operations and Maintenance workers Secretaries Business Office staff other than secretarial OR business official Technology support staff
$60,334 $31,470 $31,915 $29,763 $43,385 $44,189 $95,445 $79,351
CONSIDERED HOURLY EMPLOYEES ON CIVIL SERVICE PAYROLL Bus drivers Bus aides School lunch workers Part-time cleaners
- 148 -
FTE NUMBERS OF STAFF WHO HAVE LEFT THE DISTRICTS FOR ALL REASONS EXCEPT REDUCTION IN FORCE
MADISON STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
2007-2008
2010-2011
2009-2010
2008-2009
STAFF SEGMENT 1 1.5 1 2

1
1 3.5 3 1
2 2
2007-2008
TOTAL OVER 4 YEARS
6 13
2 2
1 1 2 1
1
1
4 2 3 .4 1
Pre-K through grade 6 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others) Grade 7-12 certified teachers (including counselors, nurses and similar others): Grades K-12: Teacher Assistants (certified) Teacher Aides (civil service) Grades K-12: OT/PT (civil service) Social worker (civil service) Nurse (civil service) K-12 certified administrators: Civil Service: Supervisors of any support function Bus drivers Bus aides School lunch workers Operations and Maintenance workers Secretaries Business Office not secretarial Technology support staff
.4 1 1
.8 3 2
- 149 -
WORKING DOCUMENT OF THE JOINT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
SOME POSSIBLE WHAT IF IDEAS TO USE EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDINGS IF THE COMMUNITIES CHOSE TO REORGANIZE THE TWO DISTRICTS INTO ONE
MADISON CS STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS August, 2012
- 150 -
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 9 Sizes of School Districts in the Madison-Oneida BOCES in square miles: Morrisville-Eaton Reorganized district of Madison and Stockbridge Valley Stockbridge Valley Canastota Hamilton
Madison
36.06 9 9
42.50
50.22
55.31
56.41
76.89
92.72
95.19
99.07
Potential size of reorganized district made up of Madison and Stockbridge: 92.72 square miles. Distance between the school district campus in Munnsville and in Madison: 10.43 miles
Camden 303.38
Oneida
Rome
VVS
- 151 -
BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR MADISON CS

MID RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 251 218 470 250 222 472 245 223 469 238 225 462 243 218 461 240 221 461 236 218 454 450 233 217 443 229 214 432 226 207 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 261 218 480 270 222 492 268 223 491 271 225 496 291 218 508 303 221 525 317 218 535 552 324 228 567 332 235 581 351 231
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 254 218 473 254 222 476 243 223 466 233 225 458 234 218 452 225 221 446 214 218 432 421 200 221 405 187 218 385 182 204
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 219 109 111 145 108 215 117 112 144 110 200 120 120 146 103 205 112 123 140 102 198 109 115 145 102 189 102 112 155 110 176 113 105 143 113 164 113 116 143 104 160 104 116 141 102 149 98 107 138 97 10-12 108 110 103 102 102 110 113 104 102 97
MID RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 216 109 111 145 211 117 112 144 203 120 120 146 210 112 123 140 207 109 115 145 204 102 112 155 201 110 105 143 198 109 113 143 194 107 112 141 191 106 110 135
HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 226 109 111 145 108 231 117 112 144 110 226 120 120 146 103 244 112 123 140 102 255 109 115 145 102 267 102 112 155 110 272 121 105 143 113 278 130 124 143 104 296 131 134 141 102 305 130 134 146 97
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 179 108 147 75 73 173 108 147 82 78 172 99 144 70 78 169 93 140 64 84 161 85 149 73 73 150 86 139 75 66 140 80 135 75 75 137 74 126 63 77 127 70 116 59 77 120 66 115 61 66 6 36 39 42 28 36 36 38 36 27 32
MID RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 176 105 147 75 73 169 104 147 82 78 175 102 144 70 78 173 101 137 64 84 170 99 144 73 73 168 98 142 72 66 165 96 140 71 75 163 95 138 70 74 160 93 136 69 73 158 92 134 68 72
6 36 39 42 28 36 36 35 35 34 34
HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 186 115 147 75 73 188 123 147 82 78 198 124 144 70 78 207 124 147 64 84 218 125 165 73 73 221 138 166 82 66 226 143 175 91 75 242 147 177 82 85 250 152 180 82 94 257 156 195 94 85
6 36 39 42 28 36 36 46 46 36 46
- 152 -
BASE COHORT ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS SUMMARY FOR STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

MID RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 229 252 480 230 228 459 238 226 463 247 200 446 252 199 451 259 191 450 263 187 450 271 193 463 283 187 470 283 206 489 MID RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 201 115 122 164 195 109 116 155 215 90 110 158 215 94 91 138 220 90 95 141 224 104 92 122 230 106 106 114 241 103 108 119 241 109 104 120 252 108 111 130 10-12 130 112 115 109 104 99 81 85 82 95 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 231 252 482 234 228 463 246 226 471 258 200 457 263 199 462 269 191 460 271 187 459 275 195 470 283 190 473 275 214 489 HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 203 115 122 164 130 199 109 116 155 112 223 90 110 158 115 226 94 91 138 109 230 90 95 141 104 233 104 92 122 99 236 108 106 114 81 244 107 110 119 85 237 116 108 120 82 241 116 119 132 95
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-6 7-12 TOTAL K-12 226 252 477 227 228 456 221 226 446 226 200 426 222 199 421 217 191 408 208 187 395 203 190 392 199 184 383 194 189 384
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-5 6-8 7-9 9-12 10-12 198 115 122 164 130 192 109 116 155 112 198 90 110 158 115 195 94 91 138 109 189 90 95 141 104 181 104 92 122 99 177 103 106 114 81 173 100 105 119 85 170 93 101 120 82 166 91 95 127 95
YEAR 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LOW RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 163 106 119 63 88 170 103 125 58 73 167 96 125 54 67 163 94 132 64 62 154 92 130 68 58 151 90 127 66 69 148 88 119 59 73 144 86 117 58 71 141 84 115 57 64 138 82 112 56 63 6 27 36 22 32 33 36 30 29 29 28
MID RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 166 109 119 63 88 173 106 125 58 73 184 113 125 54 67 183 111 135 64 62 184 119 133 68 58 191 116 143 68 69 201 125 138 62 73 200 128 143 71 74 210 131 152 73 67 215 134 150 68 77
6 27 36 22 32 33 36 33 29 42 31
HIGH RANGE PROJECTION K-4 K-2 3-6 5-6 7-8 168 111 119 63 88 177 110 125 58 73 192 121 125 54 67 194 120 137 64 62 195 126 136 68 58 199 118 151 70 69 206 123 148 66 73 198 124 151 77 75 203 125 158 79 71 204 125 150 71 82
6 27 36 22 32 33 36 35 31 46 34
- 153 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. 9 ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT PROJECTIONS FOR A REORGANIZED SCHOOL DISTRICT Calculation DATA SNAPSHOT Year Grades K-6 2011-2012 491 Grades 7-12 467 TOTAL GRADES K-12 FOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING 958
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017
480 482 463 459 456 480 481 483 484 495 492 505 513 529 554
470 450 449 425 417 470 450 449 425 417 470 450 449 425 417
950 932 912 884 873 950 931 932 909 912 962 954 962 954 970
- 154 -
ASSUMPTIONS: The method and assumptions for estimating pupil capacity per existing school building for potential use by a reorganized school district includes: 9 The pupil capacity analysis is based on delivering instruction with the following class size goals:
Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-School) 18 pupils Kindergarten and grade 1: 20 pupils Grades 2 and 3: 22 pupils Grades 4, 5, and 6: 24 pupils Grades 7-12: 25 pupils (Note: Often for specialized Grades 7-12 courses, it is likely that the class sizes for such specialized courses may be between 10-(or fewer pupils as approved by the board)-and 25 pupils. During other instructional periods of the day, it is likely a classroom will host class sizes near the 25 pupil number for other courses less specialized.) Spaces now designated for instructional support are generally assumed to continue for instructional support. Pre-kindergarten and pre-school are assumed to continue to be a part of the program. State Education Department guidelines are applied in calculating the number of pupils that a specific type of classroom should serve. Unassigned pupil capacity is planned for in each school building to allow for flexibility in delivering the program and/or to add an instructional support function or additional programs not now in place. The analysis, at the present time, does not include renting classrooms to the BOCES to host consortium shared programs. Current spaces used for central administration are not re-claimed for instructional program pupil capacity at this time. It is assumed for this pupil capacity analysis that there are no renovations to change existing space or the building of new additional space.
9 9
9 9 9 9 9
Madison K-6 Pupil Capacity
Stockbridge K-6 Pupil Capacity
Madison 7-12 Pupil Capacity 363
Stockbridge 7-12 Pupil Capacity 375
336 312 Pre-K/Pre-School: Pre-K/Pre-School: 18 (36 half day) 54 (108 half day) Total K-6 Pupil Capacity Currently Available: 648 Anticipated K-6 Pupil Capacity Need in five years: 456-554
Total 7-12 Pupil Capacity Currently Available: 738 Anticipated 7-12 Pupil Capacity Need in five years: 417
- 155 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. WHAT MIGHT IT LOOK LIKE SCENARIOS TO USE EXISTING BUILDING RESOURCES TO SERVE AN ESTIMATED ENROLLMENT OF 456-554 K-6 PUPILS AND AT LEAST 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS IN A REORGANIZED DISTRICT COMPRISED OF CONSOLIDATING THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF THE STUDY Note: Listed randomly with no qualitative judgment of each option. OPTION A Pre-K through grade all at the Madison building; Grades 7-12 all at the Stockbridge building ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years MADISON Pre-K through six TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL CAPACITY 699 699 145 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity EST. ENROLL. 554 554 ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY Grades 7-12 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL EST. CAPACITY ENROLL. 687 417 687 270 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity 417
OPPORTUNITIES OF THIS OPTION
CHALLENGES OF THIS OPTION
- 156 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. OPTION B Pre-K-5 at Madison building; Pre-K-5 at Stockbridge building; 6-8 all at Madison building; 9-12 all at Stockbridge building ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years MADISON K-5 6-8 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL CAPACITY 336 363 699 244 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity EST. ENROLL. 256 199 455 ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY K-5 9-12 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL EST. CAPACITY ENROLL. 312 230 375 687 171 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity 286 516
- 157 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. OPTION C Pre-K-4 at Madison building; Pre-K-4 at Stockbridge building; 5-6 all at Madison building; 7-12 all at Stockbridge building ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years MADISON K-4 699 5-6 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: 699 340 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity 141 359 7-12 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: 375 687 75 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity 417 612 PUPIL CAPACITY EST. ENROLL. 218 ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY K-4 PUPIL EST. CAPACITY ENROLL. 312 195
- 158 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. OPTION D Pre-K-4 at Madison building; Pre-K-4 at Stockbridge building; 5-8 all at Madison building; 9-12 all at Stockbridge building ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years MADISON K-4 5-8 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL CAPACITY 336 363 699 209 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity EST. ENROLL. 218 272 490 ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY K-4 9-12 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL EST. CAPACITY ENROLL. 312 195 375 687 206 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity 286 481
- 159 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. OPTION E Pre-K-4 at Madison building; Pre-K-4 at Stockbridge building; 5-7 all at Madison building; 8-12 all at Stockbridge building ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years MADISON K-4 5-7 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL CAPACITY 336 363 699 275 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity EST. ENROLL. 218 206 424 ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY K-4 8-12 TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program: PUPIL EST. CAPACITY ENROLL. 312 195 375 687 140 Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity 352 547
- 160 -
Working tool of the Community Advisory Committees to identify and review various options to deliver the Pre-K through Grade 12 program in a reorganized school district. OPTION
ANTICIPATED 554 GRADES K-6 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years MADISON PUPIL CAPACITY EST. ENROLL.
ANTICIPATED 417 GRADES 7-12 PUPILS TO SERVE in next five years STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY PUPIL EST. CAPACITY ENROLL.
TOTALS: Pupil capacity available for flexibility of delivery of the program:
Estimated available unassigned pupil capacity
- 161 -
- 162 -
- 163 -
A What if Picture of a Pupil Transportation Plan for a Reorganized School District Based on the Prime Building Use and Grade Configuration Option Identified by the Joint Community Advisory Committee
(Including school day times, transportation times, and bus runs)
December 2012
- 164 -
DATA Current Profile of Student Instructional Day and Bus Transportation: Madison 8:10 2:58 (6 hours, 48 minutes) 8:10 2:58 (6 hours, 48 minutes) Stockbridge Valley 8:05 2:34 (6 hours, 29 minutes) 8:05 2:34 (6 hours, 29 minutes) (6:10 Special Education to outside of district) 7:03
Current Elementary Student Day Current Secondary Student Day
First student pickup time (6:02 Special Education to outside Combined K-12 routes of district) xxxx
Total number of bus runs 10 in the A.M. 11 in the A.M. currently: 10 in the P.M. 11 in the P.M. Teacher Day currently begins: 7:40 8:00 Length of Teacher Day: 7 hours and 20 minutes 7 hours and 16 minutes Preliminary Framework Plan for School Day Times, Transportation Times, and Bus Run Resources in a Reorganization of the Districts into One Assumptions: 9 All Pre-K through grade 5 pupils attend the elementary school within the original school district attendance zone. However, parents who wish to have their elementary children attend an elementary school of the newly reorganized school district that is closer to their home may request that attendance at their discretion. 9 The goal is to reduce the current longest ride of a child on a bus which is 60 minutes. 9 Smaller (less than 66 passenger) buses will probably be used to transport pupils who currently live at the most outer limits of the current school district geographic boundaries. 9 All pupils receive bus transportation in the two districts currently. The assumption is that the same service is provided in a reorganized school district. The current practice of door-to-door and/or centralized pick up points is expected to continue contingent on pupil safety considerations and characteristics at specific locations. 9 It is expected that the reorganized school district continues the current practice of helping families as well as they can with transportation to day care locations depending upon the number of available seats on specific bus routes. 9 It is suggested that existing routes with existing drivers be provided for at least the first year (or longer) of the reorganized district. Starting for year 2, study if there can be some combining of routing where boundaries of the two attendance zones are very close and/or redevelopment of some routes will reduce time for pupils to be on a bus. 9 It is a goal to ensure arrival and departure of Vocational Technical students at the BOCES center in Verona is closer to arrival and departure times of other students from other school districts thus maximizing the instructional time available at the Vocational Center for students. Please note that outlined below is one possible comprehensive scenario to provide transportation in a reorganized school district taking into account the assumptions listed above. The scenario described
- 165 -
DATA below is used as an element of the What if financials picture for a reorganized school district and it is described here to give the communities a preliminary idea of what the student day and transportation may look like. Another transportation scenario includes the creation of all new routes across the total geographical area that would be served by the combining of Madison and Stockbridge Valley. Such a second scenario is suggested to be reviewed during the first 12 months of the new school district. However, if a reorganization was approved by the communities, the new district certainly could consider a total new routing pattern to use from day one of the new school district. 9 Preliminary student instructional day schedule in a reorganized school district: Grades preK5 Grades 6-8 Grades preK5 Grades 9-12 Madison Elementary Middle School at the Madison Building Stockbridge Valley Elementary High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building 8:45 - 3:30 8:45 - 3:30 8:45 - 3:30 7:45 - 2:30 6 hours, 45 minutes 6 hours, 45 minutes 6 hours, 45 minutes 6 hours, 45 minutes
The preliminary transportation framework has the following bus runs: MORNING BEFORE SCHOOL DAY
Madison Attendance Zone First pick-up 7:40 First pick-up 7:40 Est. Number of Routes/buses Stockbridge Valley Attendance Zone First pick-up 7:40 First pick-up 7:40 Est. Number of Routes/buses 8 to Stockbridge Valley Elementary 5 --the same buses that transported the grades 9-12 from the Madison Attendance Zone to the High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building will transport to the Middle School at Madison 8 to the High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building
PreK-5 Grades 6-8
Grades 9-12
First pick-up 6:40
6 to Madison Elementary and Middle School at Madison 5 to High School at Stockbridge Valley Building
First pick-up 6:40
AFTERNOON END OF SCHOOL DAY TO HOME

Madison Attendance Zone Dismissal 3:30 Dismissal 3:30 Dismissal 2:30 Est. Number of Routes/buses 6 Stockbridge Valley Attendance Zone Dismissal 3:30 Dismissal 3:30 Dismissal 2:30 Est. Number of Routes/buses 8 5 --the same buses that transported the grades 9-12 from the High School at the Stockbridge Valley Building back home to the Madison attendance zone 8
PreK-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12
- 166 -
DATA
Current Arrival and Departure Times of Vocational Technical Students at the Vocational Center in Verona:
Time that the BOCES expects AM pupils arrive at the center Time that the BOCES expects AM pupils to leave the center Time that the BOCES expects PM pupils to arrive at the center Time that the BOCES expects PM pupils to leave the center 8:20-8:45 MADISON Time that MADISON AM 8:40 pupils arrive at the center Time that MADISON AM 10:55 pupils leave the center Time that MADISON PM 12:05 pupils arrive at the center Time that MADISON PM 2:10 pupils leave the center STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY Time that STOCKBRIDGE 8:30 AM pupils arrive at the center Time that STOCKBRIDGE 11:05 AM pupils leave the center Time that STOCKBRIDGE 12:00 PM pupils arrive at the center Time that STOCKBRIDGE 2:00 PM pupils leave the center
10:55-11:15
12:00-12:10
1:45-2:10
Late bus runs for co-curricular Grades 4-12; Monday through Friday: Madison Attendance Area 6 routes Stockbridge Valley Attendance Area 8 routes Currently, late buses are provided one out of five days in Madison; three out of five days at Stockbridge Valley. Current combined bus fleet for AM and PM before school and after school runs: Currently: Buses Spare buses Madison 16 2 Stockbridge Valley 12 5 Estimated Cost and Revenue Basis for Transportation: Current Number of Bus Runs Estimated Number of Bus Routes for Initial Planning Collectively by the Two Districts: by a Reorganized School District: 21 AM pickup 32 AM pickup 21 PM take home 32 PM take home Equal 21 round trips Equal 32 round trips
Estimated transportation cost basis: The following are the total costs per round trip bus route by each of the districts for 2012-2013: Madison Stockbridge Valley $46,016 $49,023
Where the estimates come from: The total transportation budget NOT INCLUDING SPECIAL RUNS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS PUPILS, FIELD TRIPS, VOCATIONAL CENTER RUNS, ATHLETIC AND CO-CURRICULAR RUNS which can vary yearly based on student programs and needs; divide that resulting expenditure number by the number of roundtrip bus runs to and from school in 2012-2013. Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future.
- 167 -
DATA Average cost for per bus route run round trip plus 10% for inflation and the cost of fuel for budget planning for 2014-2015: Madison attendance area bus route roundtrip estimate: $50,618 Stockbridge Valley attendance area bus route roundtrip estimate: $53,925 Transportation State Aid: Transportation aid from the State of New York equals 90% of all approved expenses. The transportation aid currently received by Madison CS is 89.91% and Stockbridge Valley receives 89.88% for all transportation expenses submitted for approval by the State. Therefore, the local taxpayer cost currently for each round trip bus run in Madison CS is $4,643 and the local taxpayer cost currently for each round trip run in Stockbridge Valley is $4,961. Estimated Cost to Achieve the Preliminary Transportation Framework Plan for bus transportation to and from school in a reorganized district made up of Madison CS and Stockbridge Valley CS (includes 10% inflation over 2012-2013): Madison CS, Stockbridge Valley, Estimated Estimated Estimated Net without without Total Cost Transportation Aid Local Taxpayer reorganization: reorganization: Both Received in Total Cost in Total Districts Annually: Annually: Annually: (Estimated (Estimated State 10.12%) Aid % equals 89.88%) 10 round $50,618 11 round $53,925 $1,099,355 $988,252 $111,103 trips each trips each 1 late bus $816 3 late bus $11,189 $12,005 $10,791 $1,214 route per routes per week week ESTIMATED TOTALS FOR 2014-2015: $1,111,360 $999,043 $112,317 Estimated Transportation to and from School Expenditure in a Reorganized District Made up of Madison and Stockbridge Valley combined:
Estimated Total Cost Annually: Estimated Transportation Aid Received Annually: Estimated Net Local Taxpayer Cost Annually: (Estimated 10.12%) $170,949 $5,621 $176,571
11 round $50,618 21 round $53,925 trips each trips each Estimated 12 late bus routes for co-curricular Monday through Friday ESTIMATED TOTALS: Estimated net difference in cost of the transportation to and from school expenditure of the two districts separately and combined through reorganization:
(Estimated State Aid % equals 89.88%) $1,689,223 $1,518,274 $55,546 $1,744,769 $49,925 $1,568,198
+$633,409
+$569,155
+$64,254
- 168 -
APPENDIX
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION
Question #1: What happens when the study is completed? Answer#1: Upon completion, the draft study is then forwarded to the State Education Department (SED) for review. After review by the department (two-three weeks) the study is returned to the consultants to make any changes as recommended by SED. Once finalized, a community meeting is scheduled in each school district when the findings of the study are presented by the SES Study Team. Question #2: What do the Boards have to do next? Answer #2: After the presentation of the findings of the study, each Board decides how to provide a series of meetings and opportunities for the communities to discuss the findings with the respective Boards over a series of weeks. SED enters the process at this time. After the public comment/discussion period, each Board decides by vote to move forward, or not, with an advisory referendum (straw vote) by each community. If both Boards vote to go to an advisory referendum within each community, the straw vote is scheduled. If either Board chooses not to have an advisory referendum, the study process ends. Question #3: If there is an advisory referendum in both communities, what is the next step after the vote? Answer #3: If either community advises no in the 'straw' vote, the study process ends. If both communities in the straw vote advises yes, then each Board decides whether to go to a formal or 'statutory referendum' of the community or not. If one Board decides not to proceed to a formal vote, the study process ends. Both Boards, by formal resolution and through supporting documentation from the BOCES District Superintendent, may request the Commissioner to authorize the formation of a new centralized district. The Commissioners Order laying out the new district is posted in the respective districts. Next, the Boards submit Statutory Petitions requesting the Commissioner to call a special meeting to vote on the proposed centralization. The State Education Department guides the Boards over the next series of steps. There are two petitions: A) Petition signed by 100 qualified voters (or 10% of the student enrollment of the proposed combined district) requesting Commissioner to call a special meeting of the combined district to vote on centralization. B) Second Petition signed by 100 qualified voters (or 10% of the student enrollment) for each district to be designated as a special election district requesting the Commissioner establish an alternative voting site in each such district. The Commissioner then issues an order calling for a special meeting in each district for a 'statutory referendum.' Legal notices must be provided regarding the special vote and information must be provided for absentee ballots. The referendum is then held in each district voting on the centralization proposition, the number of board members to serve in each district and the term of office of the members. The referendum must pass in both districts in order for the process to continue. Question #4: What happens next, assuming a positive vote to reorganize occurs? Answer #4: The Commissioner orders a special meeting to be held to elect a new Board of Education. Notice is posted at least 10 days prior to vote. Candidates for the new Board obtain petitions through the
- 169 -
APPENDIX BOCES District Superintendent. The District Superintendent determines placement on the ballots for voting and absentee ballots are prepared. The special meeting is held to elect the new Board of Education of the newly centralized district. Question #5: When does the new district begin business? Answer #5: This happens very quickly. The BOCES District Superintendent holds an organizational meeting; members take oath of office and prepare for new school year. Of most importance is the development of the budget and holding a special meeting to vote on the new budget. The new district officially begins operation on July 1, 2014. Question #6: What if one of the districts voted not to centralize? How would this affect the other district and could they still move forward? Answer #6: If one of the districts decided not to move forward, the reorganization process is terminated. Question #7: How long can the study be used if there is an initial negative vote? Answer #7: If the two districts decided to move forward at a later date, the study is usually considered useable by the districts for one year.
GOVERNANCE
The following are excerpts from a Guide to the Reorganization of School Districts in New York State. A complete version can be found at: http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/sch_dist_org/GuideToReorganizationOfSchoolDistricts.htm CENTRALIZATION OF DISTRICTS AND GOVERNANCE This form of reorganization has been the most common. The procedures for centralization provide that a new school district be created encompassing the entire area of the school districts to be merged. The new central district becomes operational only after the centralization order is approved by the qualified voters in each school district included in the centralization. If each district approves the order by a majority vote, the new district will begin operation on July 1, following the vote. If approval of the order is defeated in any district included in the proposed centralization, the new district is not created, and the question may not be voted upon again for one year. If the order is presented a second time, and is approved, the new district begins operation. If the order is defeated a second time or if it is not brought to referendum within two years of the initial referendum then the original order becomes null and void. New Board of Education for the New District: The new district is governed by a board of education comprising five, seven or nine members. The new board is elected at a special meeting called by the Commissioner of Education after the new district is approved at referendum. The number of board members (5,7 or 9) and their term of office (3,4 or 5 years) may be voted upon at the same time as the referendum on establishing the district, or may be decided at a separate meeting. The boards of education of the districts included in the centralization continue their responsibilities until the new district begins operation and the business affairs of their former districts have been completed, usually August 1. Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and - 170 decision options for serving students in the future.
APPENDIX
REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE AID

REORGANIZATION INCENTIVE OPERATING AID
Districts: Districts: Districts: Base Aid as per SED (GEN report line 75): Madison Stockbridge Valley
$1,879,984 $2,384,984
Total base $4,264,968 Anticipated first year of consolidation: Therefore, last of 14 years of incentive aid: 2014-2015 2027-2028
MERGER YEAR
TOTAL BASE AID INCENTIVE AID %
EST. INCENTIVE
2014-2015 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2028-2029
$4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968 $4,264,968
40% 40% 40% 40% 40% 36% 32% 28% 24% 20% 16% 12% 8% 4% 0%
$1,705,987 $1,705,987 $1,705,987 $1,705,987 $1,705,987 $1,535,388 $1,364,790 $1,194,191 $1,023,592 $852,994 $682,395 $511,796 $341,197 $170,599 $0
Total est.first five years:
$8,529,936
Total est. incentive aid over 14 years:
$16,206,878
- 171 -
APPENDIX
Labor Relations Implications Of School District Reorganization (August, 2012) The following information is based on guidance materials from the State Education Department and general principles of public sector employment law. This document does not contain legal advice and should not be considered a legal opinion. For legal advice, the districts should contact their respective attorney counsels. 1. Q: If two or more school districts reorganize into one school district, what happens to the employees of the former school districts? Each teacher employed by a former school district becomes an employee of the new school district. Employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law by a former school district may have varying rights in the new school district, depending on their civil service class (competitive, non-competitive, labor, etc.). 2. Q: What happens to the collective bargaining agreements of the former school districts? The contracts end. The terms of those agreements may become elements of new agreements with the new school district. The new school district and the new bargaining units bargaining agents must make a good faith effort to negotiate new collective bargaining agreements. While new collective bargaining agreements are negotiated, the provisions of the previous contracts are used by the new district. 3. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of teachers? Teachers are credited with seniority earned within a particular tenure area. When school districts centralize, the seniority lists are merged so that the new school district has only one seniority list per tenure area. 4. Q: What happens to the seniority rights of employees appointed pursuant to the Civil Service Law? Competitive class employees are credited with seniority in accordance with the Civil Service Law. Other employees may have seniority rights set forth in their collective bargaining agreements. 5. Q: What happens if the new school district needs fewer teachers? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce teaching positions on the basis of seniority within a particular tenure area. If a teaching position is abolished, the affected individual is placed on a preferred eligible list for a period of seven years.
6. Q:
What happens if the new school district needs fewer civil service employees? The Board of Education of the new school district may reduce competitive class positions on the basis of seniority as set forth in the Civil Service Law. Current collective agreements that cover civil service employees may have additional reduction in force references.
7. Q:
What happens to the administrators of the former school districts?
- 172 -
APPENDIX
Although the guidance materials from the State Education Department specifically reference the seniority rights of teachers only, there is some reason to believe the seniority rights of school administrators may be handled in a similar manner. In addition, since school administrator tenure areas may vary from district to district, the actual impact of these rights by individual job title/role is a case-by-case analysis. 8. Q: What happens to the superintendents of the former school districts? Superintendents of the former districts do not have any statutory rights to that position in the new district. The new school district board of education may select its own new superintendent. When the superintendent of a district included in the reorganization has a current employment contract, that contract becomes an obligation of the newly reorganized school district. If the newly reorganized district determines not to employ the superintendent of a former school district, the new district may discharge the contractual obligation by paying the salary which he or she would have earned, less any income obtained from employment elsewhere during the term of the contract. 9. Q: What happens to the retirement benefits of the employees of the former school districts? Retirement benefits associated with the retirement system remain unchanged. Retirement benefits associated with an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement are governed by the terms of the employment contract or collective bargaining agreement. Individuals who are already retired from a school district may have certain retiree health insurance protections contained in Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009. Chapter 504 prohibits reduction of health insurance for retirees and their dependents unless there is a corresponding reduction of benefits or contributions for the corresponding group of active employees. 10. Q: Are there other considerations relating to labor relations? When two or more school districts reorganize into a new school district, it is possible that the local bargaining units are represented by different bargaining agents. It is important for the school districts and local bargaining units to work with their labor relations experts.
- 173 -
The Feasibility Study contains original text, concepts and formats crafted by the SES Study Team, LLC.
"Custom tools and research to aid a school district in defining a vision and decision options for serving students in the future."
Dr. Paul M. Seversky
Mr. Doug A. Exley
Mr. Sam A. Shevat
The SES Study Team focuses its work on customized studies that deal with identifying opportunities to provide quality educational programs more effectively and in a cost-effective manner. The major areas of the Teams services are school reorganization through centralization analyses, and the identification and analysis of collaborative functional sharing opportunities between school districts. The SES Study Team, in an impartial manner, provides research, direction and facilitation through a guided process. The study process emphasizes a data-driven analysis and community involvement to identify possible options to serve pupils in the future.
The common elements followed by the Team to achieve customized studies include:
A focus on answering a set of questions by school district and community stakeholders; Inclusion of, and sensitivity to, all points of view from the communities involved; An approach that begins with the collection of data, a review of major findings, sharing of perceptions, recommendations based upon challenges and opportunities, and the modeling of potential options; The central role of school district instructional, instructional support, and administrative staff in providing comprehensive data for the study to use to answer the study question(s) posed by the client district(s); Public transparency of the work and data developed, compiled, and analyzed by the Study Team; The creation of a study report that becomes the prime useable tool by members of the communities as they decide how best to educate their children in the future. The Study Team brings a combined 105 years of public education experience to working with and helping school districts identify options in serving pupils and their communities. Each team member has served as a teacher, principal and superintendent of a K-12 school district. Doug and Sam each has served as a superintendent of a reorganized district through centralization. Paul has served as a superintendent of a district that explored reorganization and in a regional capacity as a Deputy District Superintendent of a BOCES. Sam has worked for a college to administer programs for public school pupils; Paul has taught graduate level courses in educational administration for 23 years; and Doug serves as a council member at a local university. The Study Team Members have provided consultant services to public school districts since 1998.
Contact the SES Study Team to discuss your school district's specific study project. Paul.Seversky at ses-studyteam dot org Doug.Exley at ses-studyteam dot org Sam.Shevat at ses-studyteam dot org

Madison-Stockbridge Valley Study Data Sets 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madison-Stockbridge Valley Study Data Sets 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reorganization Feasibility Study On Behalf of the Madison and Stockbridge Valley Central School Districts February, 2013 DATA

SETS OF THE STUDY

Madison Central School District

Stockbridge Valley Central School District

What Questions Should a Potential Reorganization Feasibility Study Address/answer?

Joint Community Advisory Committee resource April 24, 2012

Ranking out of 38 questions identified

Ranking out of 38 questions identified

REORGANIZATION FEASIBILITY STUDY

March 26, 2012 December 12, 2012

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Example Study data topics include:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Mike Lee, Guidance Counselor Pat Hill, Elementary Teacher

Perry Dewey, Superintendent

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Joint Committee scan of their June 6 ideas about:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Madison and Stockbridge-Valley Central School Districts

Objective of the school districts:

Data: Enrollment Projection Calculations for Discussion by Community Advisory Committees

MADISON CS STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS

SES Study Team

Limitations of the Calculations Study

Six Year Median Enrollment K-12: 502 499

Madison Stockbridge Valley

CHART ONE: MADISON CS HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011

CHART ONE: STOCKBRIDGE VALLEY CS HISTORICAL K-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011

ENRO LLM ENT

540 489 491

CHART TWO: MADISON CS HISTORICAL K-6, 7-12 ENROLLMENT 2006-2011

273 234 222

276 258 260 248 255 237 211 255