STAFFING REVIEW Tyler ISD

Transcription

1 STAFFING REVIEW Tyler ISD March 2011 HR Services Texas Association of School Boards

2 Staffing Review Tyler ISD

3 Table of Contents Background and Overview... 1 Summary Findings... 4 Operational Findings... 5 Instructional and Administrative Support Staff... 6 Elementary School Teachers... 9 Middle School Teachers High School Teachers Special Education Staffing Student Nutrition Staffing Operations and Facilities Staffing Human Resources Data Tables Staffing School Staffing Compared to SACS Standards School Staffing Compared to Common Practice in Texas Elementary Campus Paraprofessionals: Current Elementary Campus Paraprofessionals: Proposed Secondary Campus Paraprofessionals: Current Secondary Campus Paraprofessionals: Proposed Non Campus Clerical Support Positions Campus Clinics Library Staffing Professional and Administrative Support Positions Class Size Current Sections with Elementary Enrollment Proposed Sections with Elementary Enrollment Elementary School Physical Education Middle School Class Size Comparisons (MSs 1 4) Middle School Class Size Comparisons (MSs 5 6 & Overall Core Averages)... 39

4 High School Class Size Comparisons and Overall Core Averages High School Athletic Period Class Counts Middle School Elective Class Count (MSs 1 4) Middle School Elective Class Count (MSs 5 6) High School Electives Class Count Comparisons Current Secondary Campus Enrollment Current Secondary Staff Balance all grades Current Secondary Staff Balance grades 9 12 and Middle School Class Size, Uniform 8/6.4 Master Schedule Middle School Class Size Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule Middle School Class Size Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule Middle School Enrollment Maintain Same Master Schedule High School Enrollment Uniform 5/4 Modified Block Master Schedule High School Enrollment Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule High School Enrollment Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule High School Enrollment Maintain Same Master Schedule Special Education Special Education Staffing by Program Special Education Enrollment by Campus Assessment and Speech Pathology Support Staff Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Report Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Position Recovery Maintenance Staffing Compared to APPA Standards Custodial Staffing Compared to ASBO Standards Peer District Comparisons Comparison of AEIS Data Sets... 69

5 Background and Overview Background This Staffing Review project was completed during the second semester of the school year. The analysis involved a combination of interviews with key staff members along with the collection and review of several data sets. The analysis was completed by Richard Lane, a contract consultant with TASB HR Services. Data Sources Individual interviews were conducted on January 24 26, 2011, with Superintendent Dr. Randy Reid; Deputy Superintendent Cecil McDaniel; Directors Tosha Bjork, Jeff Collum, George Faber, Angela Jenkins, Debbie Kelly, Tim Loper, Danny Long, Darlene Marshall, John Orbaugh, Dana Pate, Sharon Roy, and Kim Tunnell; Coordinators Mina Aparicio, Cherie King, Victor Olivares, and Cindy Woody; and all campus principals. Several follow up interviews, e mail exchanges, and telephone conferences were held from January 31 through March 4 to clarify issues and to provide additional specific information. Data was compiled from multiple sources. Interviewees completed detailed questionnaires related to staffing issues in their area of responsibility. The Business, Human Resources, and Technology departments provided detailed information containing Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) print outs, completed questionnaires, employee rosters, employee assignment data for the district, a set of position control files to confirm assignments, and copies of master schedules. An additional data source was reviewed. Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) print outs from the school year, the most recent information available, were used to compare Tyler ISD staffing with a group of peer districts. This group was composed of the Aldine, Longview, Mesquite, Waco, and Wichita Falls school districts. Spreadsheets detailing the comparisons on several key measures can be found in the appendices of this report. Benchmarks The analysis done in this report involves comparing staffing data to various benchmarks, or standards. The most frequently used comparisons are made to Common Practice in Texas (CPTx). As the title implies, these standards represent staffing averages gleaned (by the analyst) from 15 years of experience in this type of procedure, involving over 200 individual public school districts. Additionally, these values are updated annually to provide the most current comparisons possible. The second set of standards has already been mentioned. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) annually publishes Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) data for every school system and campus in Texas. The information for the most recent full school year becomes available on or about December 1 of each year. The raw data provided by TEA has been processed by the analyst to develop staffing averages for various types of positions. Where appropriate, these averages can allow comparisons with individual peer groups (as listed above) or with the broad range of districts across the state. Staffing Review 1 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

6 Rationale for Findings A summary of key findings follows this section. A more detailed analysis of each finding is described in the report for each functional area. Supporting data tables are located in the appendices. Three types of findings are reported: cost savings, cost avoidance, and operational suggestions. Cost savings identify expenditures that can be reduced in current or future budgets. Cost avoidance identifies items that would normally increase in future budgets, but whose growth can be reduced or eliminated. Operational suggestions refer to practices that could refine district operations, but will not directly impact the budget. The procedure used in this type of analysis is to compare district staffing to the benchmarks referenced above. Alternatives are then suggested when district practices have established staffing levels different from those benchmarks. This analysis will point out that Tyler ISD is operating at, or below, state wide staffing averages in many programs. Other programs have been expanded to meet student and/or program needs. If not for the systemic underfunding of public schools by the state, Tyler ISD could continue with current practices. Changes in enrollment, fluctuations in appraised values, and the uncertainties of state and federal funding, have had a significant impact upon Tyler ISD finances. Many of the options in this report deal with the financial impact of current practices. The emphasis of this analysis has been to seek solutions allowing the district to avoid budget deficits and/or implement program changes. The options enumerated in this report do not imply that any current Tyler ISD practices are improper. In many cases, the district has made a conscious choice to operate in a certain manner because the practice in question best served students or the needs of a particular program at a given point in time. The findings in this report are made in the spirit of identifying options for possible consideration. If the district decides to continue a particular current practice, that decision can be made with full knowledge of the choices at hand. Tyler ISD School Board Trustees and Administrators have actively sought to control expenditures. While some economic options have been identified in this report, the actions suggested also have instructional implications. Adjustments in staffing have inevitable consequences in the service model for students. Absorbing some portion of projected enrollment increases and/or staff vacancies will definitely result in increased class counts. The task will be to balance the instructional and financial issues to reach the best operating practices for the district, its students, and the community at large. It should be noted that this study represents a snapshot in time. The primary data sets were pulled in January Enrollment in Tyler ISD historically fluctuates through the winter and spring months. Thus, the student counts listed in the data tables might have changed from the original values. Also, to a smaller extent, changes do occur in staff due to resignations and retirements. These adjustments are an unavoidable issue in the analysis of all fast growth districts. Staffing Review 2 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

7 Implementation Process The definite intent of the District is to implement any necessary staffing adjustments by attrition. Depending upon funding needs, which are driven by the action or inaction of the Legislature, the response of the District will come primarily from the options listed in this report. In making these difficult decisions, the District will have to prioritize options based upon student needs. Since, by definition, the Special Education and the Bilingual/ESL populations have the most difficulty in establishing sustained instructional progress, more conservative adjustments will likely be made in these two areas to enable these students to continue to make growth. Current information from the Texas Comptroller indicates a potential shortfall in the state budget of up to $27,000,000,000 in the general operations budget. Legislators and state officials are currently discussing possible proration of funding for public schools. This could result in the loss of up to 13 percent of school district budgets for the next biennium. Districts will need to develop contingency plans, since the actual impact will not likely be known until late May, or even July if the Legislature puts off the decisions until a special session during the summer. All these uncertainties make accurate planning extremely difficult for most districts across the state. Staffing Review 3 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

8 Summary Findings Cost Savings Instructional and Administrative Support Staff Absorb, by attrition, up to 74 professional support positions 5,901,500 Elementary School Teachers Absorb, by attrition, five elementary positions, taking class averages from 19.0 to 19.2 in grades PK 5 Replace five second PE teacher vacancies with PE aides Middle School Teachers Maintain current master schedule and absorb, by attrition, 29 positions, taking class averages from 18.3 to 20.5 High School Teachers Maintain current master schedule and absorb, by attrition, 35 positions, taking class averages from 19.4 to , ,500 1,328,800 1,603,000 Special Education Staffing Absorb, by attrition, up to three assessors and two speech therapists (included in the 74 professional support positions listed above) Total Potential Savings $9,225,800 Staffing Review 4 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

9 Operational Findings Instructional and Administrative Support Staff Consider adding four elementary clerical positions and re balancing four secondary clerical slots If required to prorate, consider a revised clinic staffing model, expanding LVN usage (cost savings = $440,400) If required to prorate, consider a revised library staffing model, expanding aide usage (cost savings = $620,823) Elementary School Teachers Consider use of one or more surplus positions for targeted interventions (RTI) Consider use of up to five surplus positions for test coordinators Middle School Teachers Convert 12 athletic periods to academic core sections (cost avoidance = $137,400) Emphasize the need for new coaches to hold academic certifications Continue use of paraprofessional aides to supervise ISS If required to prorate, shift to a 7/6 master schedule at a class size of 20.5, and absorb up to 45 positions (cost savings = $2,061,000) OR, if required to prorate, shift to a 8/7 master schedule at a class size of 20.5, and absorb up to 50 positions (cost savings = $2,290,000) Consider use of one or more surplus teacher positions for targeted interventions (RTI) High School Teachers Convert athletic periods to academic core sections, depending upon proration Emphasize the need for new coaches to hold academic certifications If required to prorate, shift to a 7/6 master schedule at a class size of 22.0, and absorb up to 53 positions (cost savings = $2,427,400) OR, if required to prorate, shift to a 8/7 master schedule at a class size of 22.0, and absorb up to 59 positions (cost savings = $2,702,200) Consider reassignment of one or more positions for targeted interventions (RTI) Special Education Staffing Continue documentation of required interventions prior to initiating referrals Continue use of case manager format for processing referrals Continue to allot a portion of carry over federal funds for residential placements Student Nutrition Staffing Review free/reduced service data to seek additional student breakfast meals Consider use of Student Nutrition fund balance to upgrade and/or update kitchen equipment Pro rate all utility, payroll, casualty insurance, equipment purchase, kitchen renovation, and kitchen construction costs to student nutrition fund balance Facilities Staffing Review preventative maintenance schedules for regular completion of necessary tasks Consider implementation of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. maintenance shift for up to one half of maintenance staff Human Resources Staffing Release new and replacement positions for hire in March April Consider implementing Early Notification stipend in March 2011 Expand the Practicum in Education and Training program as a Grow Your Own program for minority and bilingual recruitment through College University Tyler ISD partnerships Staffing Review 5 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

10 Instructional and Administrative Support Staff Staffing assignments for the positions of principal, assistant principal, counselor, librarian, and library aide have been compared with benchmarks reflecting current practice in Texas (CPTx) public school districts. These are voluntary standards, since they have not been specifically funded by the Legislature. Common practice in Texas (CPTx) is staffing one assistant principal for each 450 students, including both elementary and secondary schools. The Tyler ISD overall ratio is one AP per 385 students. The individual campus ratios in Tyler ISD are one position per 305 high school students, one position per 303 middle school students, and one position per 498 elementary students. Overall, the district is staffing 8.5 positions over the CPTx assistant principal benchmark. When the CPTx (common practice in Texas) benchmark is used to review the counseling program, Tyler ISD staffs 7.5 positions under the benchmark. The applicable guideline is one counselor for each 400 students. Overall, the district is currently staffing at a ratio of 485 students per counselor. The individual campus counselor ratios in Tyler ISD are one position per 351 high school students, one position per 491 middle school students, and one position per 586 elementary students. (Considering the common practice benchmark for counselors, the combined Tyler ISD secondary school campuses are at the benchmark level. The combined elementary campuses are a total of 7.5 counseling positions short.) Considering the common practice benchmark for counselors, a net of 7.5 new elementary counseling positions could be added at a significant cost. However, a more cost effective solution would be to add six Test Coordinator positions. Each coordinator could handle the testing program at three sites, freeing the counselors at those sites of those duties. While not providing additional counselors, the remaining counselors would have more time for student interaction. The test coordinators must be certified staff members and are typically paid on the teacher salary schedule. They could be almost completely funded by redirecting the five surplus elementary teaching positions to be discussed later, at no new cost to Tyler ISD. In addition to assistant principal and counselor positions, Tyler ISD staffs instructional specialists across all levels. Common duties would include data disaggregation, mentoring new teachers, delivering demo lessons, and leading staff development sessions. These 45.5 positions, combined with the 48 assistant principal slots and 38 counselors, have allowed the District to place significant emphasis on the campus instructional programs, resulting in recent increases in student performance. However, the combination has the district operating at 50.5 positions over benchmark levels. These support positions will be revisited later in this section of the report. Texas Common Practice Standards (CPTx) seek to have a full time librarian and one library aide at each campus. High school campuses generally add a second librarian and/or media specialist at 2,000 students. The district staffs one librarian at each campus, and staffs one library aide at each secondary school, as well as five library aides across the 19 elementary campuses. As the Texas benchmark is voluntary, the District is not out of compliance and can certainly continue with the current economical format. Common practice observed in Texas public schools involves staffing 5.5 clerks and/or secretaries per 1,000 students at secondary campuses, with a minimum of three positions. The corresponding figure at the elementary level is 4.5 clerks per 1,000 students, with a Staffing Review 6 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

11 minimum of two positions. A review of campus clerical staffing indicates that the district is four positions under the benchmark at the elementary schools. As a group, the secondary schools are at benchmark levels. However, four surplus clerks from Tyler High School would need to be reassigned to Lee High School, Hogg Middle School, Hubbard Middle School, and Moore Middle School to bring those offices to benchmark. Four spreadsheets detailing this issue can be found in the appendices of this report. The District currently staffs 206 instructional aides at the PK 12 campuses. Staffing at the state benchmark of 13.3 aides per each 1,000 students would lead to instructional aides. Thus, the District is staffing 41.6 positions under the benchmark value. Operating at 16.8 percent under common practice represents a substantial level of economy, and no adjustments are needed at this point. An analysis of these instructional aide positions can be found along with the clerical positions in the four spreadsheets referenced above. Currently, 55.0 clerical support positions are staffed at various central administrative sites. These positions include secretaries, clerks and specialists. Common practice is 3.0 of these positions per 1,000 students, or 55.4 positions in Tyler ISD based on current enrollment. Thus, the staffing of these positions in Tyler ISD is at the benchmark. Once again, an economical model can be continued without adjustments. The District currently staffs 31 Registered Nurses (RNs) at a total cost of $1,477,522. If the Legislature requires that the district be subject to proration, an adjustment could be considered. Shifting the staffing model to 7 RNs and 29 Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) would result in a cost savings of $440,493 in salary and benefits. (This type of change would be an example of the shift to a more conservative service model in an effort to locate needed savings.) In the new model, an LVN would be assigned to each campus and a single RN would supervise up to 5 LVNs. The LVNs are licensed and can perform all necessary functions under the supervision of a RN. The RN would spend one day per week at each of the five campuses, providing training and supervision. In an emergency, the RN could come to a campus in need. (To facilitate travel, each set of up to 5 campuses should be in as close proximity as possible. Also, the high school trainers could be added to the emergency response teams.) The District currently staffs 24.5 certified librarians (CLs) and 8 Library Aides (LAs) at a total cost of $1,519,924. If the Legislature requires that the district be subject to proration, an adjustment could be considered. Shifting the staffing model to 7 CLs and 28 LAs would result in a cost savings of $620,823 in salary and benefits. (As with the nursing model, this type of change would be another example of the shift to a more conservative service model in an effort to locate needed savings.) In the new model, an aide would be assigned to each campus and a single librarian would supervise up to four campuses. The aides can perform necessary functions under the supervision of a librarian. The librarian would spend every fourth day at each of the four campuses, providing training and supervision. The librarian would also manage the library budget and assure the quality and quantity of the collection at the four assigned schools. The PEIMS categories for non classroom support supervisory and administrative positions include Professional Support (counselors, diagnosticians, curriculum specialists, technicians, etc.), Campus Administrators (principals, assistant principals, program directors, etc.), and Central Administrators (superintendent, departmental directors, etc.). The district staffs of these positions in , compared to a state average of positions for a district of this enrollment. Thus, Tyler ISD is operating at 74.4 positions over Staffing Review 7 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

12 common practice in Texas. Absorbing these 74 surplus positions, through attrition, would lead to a cost savings of up to $5,901,550 in salary and benefits expenses. Making this magnitude of a change would involve a substantial decrease in persons providing support services at both the campus and district wide levels. The Technology group is appropriately staffed for most operations with a total of 27 core positions, two graphics slots, and two administrative assistants. Five of these slots are at the departmental level, handling infrastructure and purchasing. There are seven positions in the information systems area, including six specialists on six different major applications. The remaining 15 technicians and specialists provide district wide support at the school sites and at the Help Desk operation. This group is responsible for maintaining over 10,000 pieces of equipment, averaging within the benchmark range of per technician. The department is in the final stages of the Prologic conversion. The next major activity will be the startup of the Virtualization project. Appropriate use is being made of connectivity to automate many tasks, such as imaging new computers. (Instructional Technology has recently been moved to the Curriculum Department. It is a shared responsibility between that department and the campuses.) Principal interviews produced the following consensus positions. First, principals at all levels are extremely supportive of the efforts of the central office staff. The timeliness of services and the quality of support are greatly appreciated. Second, principals were nearly unanimous in expressing a need for positions (professionals or aides) to address necessary student academic interventions. These additional Response to Intervention (RtI) positions would be used to assist students not served by Special Education, but still in need of help to meet instructional goals. Third, they request that new and replacement positions be released for hiring by April. If at all possible, they want to hire in April May when the applicant pool is richest. Applicant quality begins to drop significantly in late June, and minority applicants are hard to find year round. Fourth, principals consistently rated the staffing of literacy coaches and instructional specialists as a key factor in reaching curriculum goals. Fifth, secondary principals unanimously expressed concern over the size of their core classes and the impact of the large class size on student performance. Finally, the secondary school principals consistently emphasized the importance of double blocking language arts and mathematics. Total benchmark-related cost savings options in this area: $5,901,500 Total additional savings options in this area: $1,061,200 Staffing Review 8 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

13 Elementary School Teachers Tyler ISD elementary schools have an enrollment of 9,959 students, with 7,269 of these students in Regular Education homerooms and another 2,255 students in Bilingual Education sections. Currently, class averages run 18.7 in grades K 4 and 19.0 across all classrooms in grades PK 5. Statewide, total elementary school class averages typically run in the 19.5 to 20.5 range. Thus, Tyler ISD operates under the benchmark range in both reference grade spans. The Pre K program is offered at 10 of the 17 elementary schools. The average load in this area is 17.9 students per section. Bilingual classes are offered at 11 campuses. The average load for these classes is 16.8 students per homeroom. ESL services are available at the six campuses not currently offering the bilingual program. There are only five surplus sections at the campuses in , out of a total of 501 classrooms. This amounts to only 1.0 percent of the total number of classrooms. The details are shown in four accompanying spreadsheet pages in the appendices of this report. These five sections could be absorbed without exceeding the 22:1 class size limit at grades K 4. In theory, absorbing these positions could provide the district a cost savings of up to $229,000 in salary and benefits. The reduction of these positions could be accomplished in by absorbing normal vacancies and/or through reassignments. This is the current operating practice of the district. (Concerning the present year, the District s practice is to leave these positions in place, since adjusting classes after the first three weeks of school can be a significant disturbance to students, staff, and parents. This is a very reasonable policy. Also, these sections allow Tyler ISD to absorb additional elementary students throughout the current school year.) If the decision is to keep a smaller class size at a particular grade level, one or more of these five sections could continue to be offered. Each section retained would reduce the savings by $45,800 in average salary and benefits costs. An option for one or more of the five positions discussed above would be to use the available slots to address the principals concerns for additional intervention specialists. While regular class size would be increased to free these teacher positions, some or all of the slots involved could be reassigned to small group intervention roles for students with specific instructional needs. Another option for the five positions discussed above would be to use the available slots to add the test coordinator positions discussed in the previous section of this report. These test coordinators would free counselors and/or assistant principals to spend more time with students, addressing the issues brought forth by most elementary principals. A current practice at five Tyler ISD campuses is to assign multiple PE teachers, rather than using PE aides. Each elementary campus certainly needs one fully certified PE teacher. However, the second person in the program could be an aide. The total number of persons in the program would remain the same, so no drop in supervision levels would occur. In addition, the aide(s) would not require a conference period, allowing the principal more flexibility in assignment of duties, etc. Based upon current compensation practices, shifting to this staffing model for five surplus PE teachers would result in a cost savings of $163,555 in salary and benefits expense. Total benchmark-related cost savings options in this area: $392,500 Staffing Review 9 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

14 Middle School Teachers The six middle schools currently operate on five different master schedules. The common thread through all the schedules is the use of one of the core teacher periods for academic teaming. Two of the six schools also provide a teaming period for elective teachers. These schedules are useful for some instructional purposes, but are very inefficient ones, considering class size for a fixed number of teachers. Also, the five unique schedules complicate any efforts to share staff members. Total counts at the middle schools are 3,932 students and 269 teachers. The total teacher count includes all teachers, except those in special education assignments. The theoretical class average is 19.5 students per class, based upon a 4/3 master schedule. The mathematical staffing formula corresponding to this data is (1.333 x students)/19.5 = Full Time Teacher Equivalents (or FTEs). Statewide, middle school class sizes typically run students per class when the reference 7/6 master schedule is used. Based upon current enrollment and staff, Tyler ISD middle schools would average 17.1 students per class using a 7/6 schedule. Thus, the class sizes are significantly below the standard practice range, allowing the campuses to absorb additional students and/or teacher vacancies. A change in master schedule format could be considered to address principals concerns. As shown in the previous paragraph, shifting to the 7/6 schedule would lower middle school class sizes from an average of 19.5 to 17.1 students per section. The 7/6 master schedule is significantly more efficient than the current block schedules. Also, decreasing class size by over 2.4 students per class would allow more individual attention for students needing additional support to reach instructional goals. Hogg, Hubbard, and Stewart Middle Schools are staffed at theoretical averages of 18.0, 19.9, and 17.0 students per class, respectively. Their actual class averages in core academic subjects are 17.4, 18.9, and 15.4, respectively; all lower than their own theoretical averages. The fact that their core averages are below their theoretical averages is evidence of balanced master schedules. These principals are making use of larger elective and/or athletic classes to keep the core classes as small as possible. Boulter, Dogan, and Moore Middle Schools have core averages of 0.8 to 2.1 students per section greater than their own theoretical averages. Their schedules are upside down compared to the balance shown at Hogg, Hubbard, and Stewart. Each sport necessitates the assignment of a coach to an athletic period to work with the athletes. However, if multiple coaches are assigned to an athletic period, the load per coach should at least approach the average class counts in the rest of the master schedule. Any coaches in excess of this staffing level should be assigned an academic class, rather than an athletic period. (Any number of coaches would be allowed in pre school or after school workouts.) Currently, middle athletic periods at Hubbard and Moore are staffed at an average of 29.9 athletes per coach. This compares very favorably with core academic averages of 20.3, and with the middle school statewide benchmark of athletes per coach. The athletic periods at the remaining four middle schools average 12.7 athletes per coach, compared to core class averages of 17.5 students per section. Converting 12 athletic periods to core classes across these four middle schools would be the equivalent of adding three teachers to the total staff, while only raising athletic period class size to 18.1 athletes per Staffing Review 10 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

15 coach. This action would lead to a cost avoidance of $137,400 in salary and benefits expense. To reach the flexibility of coaching assignments discussed above, it is important that the majority (if not all) of the coaching staff hold academic certifications. (Currently, 25 of 41 middle school coaches are assigned to Health/PE.) Administrators should seek to staff coaching positions with core certifications. To that end, new coaches should not be considered for hire unless academically certified in areas other than Health/PE or Social Studies and current coaches should be encouraged to add academic certifications through testing. At most schools, ISS classrooms are being staffed with paraprofessionals. Using an aide for supervision on a full time basis allows the certified teachers to concentrate on academic assignments and assists in keeping core academic class size as small as possible. This is a definite help to principals in the balancing of their schedules. Some campuses are using a teacher to supplement the program, leading to a corresponding increase in core class size. Elective classes at the middle schools are averaging 20.4 students per section, compared to an average of 20.5 in core academic classes. (The state wide benchmark for middle school electives is 23 students per section.) Larger elective classes would contribute to smaller core classes, thereby assisting in reaching instructional goals in the core subjects. As the district is presently operating well below the benchmark level for middle school staffing, no increase in the number of teachers would be recommended for Instead, up to 29 vacancies could be absorbed by allowing the average class size to increase from 18.3 to 20.5 students per section. This action would result in a cost savings of up to $1,328,800 in salary and benefits costs. However, the Legislature may resort to proration to balance the State s budget, causing extensive changes in service delivery in public schools. Shifting to a 7/6 master schedule format and adjusting staffing to the same class size of 20.5 students per section would allow the absorption of 45 vacancies across the six middle schools. This option would result in a cost savings of up to $2,061,000 in salary and benefits costs. The average daily load would be 123 students per teacher. Finally, shifting to an 8/7 master schedule at the middle schools while returning to a class size of 20.5 students per section would raise the number of absorbed vacancies to 50 positions. This emergency option would result in a cost savings of up to $2,290,000 in salary and benefits costs, or a total of an additional $229,000 over the 7/6 option listed above. The average daily load would increase to 143 students per teacher, but the principals option to double block both language arts and math would remain in place. The accompanying three spreadsheets referenced in the appendix of this report also provide various options at other class sizes and master schedule formats. Total cost avoidance options in this area: $137,400 Total benchmark-related cost savings options in this area: $1,328,800 Total additional savings options in this area: $961,200 Staffing Review 11 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

16 High School Teachers Both traditional Tyler high schools operate on a modified A/B block master schedule. Students take five classes per day. Teachers instruct four classes per day, and have one 90 minute conference period. As was true with the middle schools, the A/B block is a very inefficient master schedule, from a class size perspective. Total counts at Tyler ISD high schools are 4,569 students and teachers. The total teacher count includes all teachers, except those in special education assignments, the athletic trainers, and the athletic coordinators. The theoretical class average is 19.4 students per section. The mathematical staffing formula corresponding to this data is (1.200 x students)/19.4 = Full Time Teacher Equivalents (or FTEs). The staffing benchmark for Texas high schools is students per section, based upon use of the 7/6 master schedule. Converting the two high schools to the 7/6 schedule would yield a theoretical average of 18.1 students per class across grades Thus, the high schools are operating well under the benchmark range. Both high schools have average core class sizes (26.7 and 20.3) well over their theoretical averages (21.0 and 17.3), respectively. Thus, their schedules are considered to be unbalanced. The two major factors leading to the problem are relatively small elective and athletic classes and a skewed distribution of assignments for coaches. If multiple coaches are assigned to an athletic period, the load per coach should at least approach the average class counts in the rest of the master schedule. Any coaches in excess of this staffing level should be assigned an academic class, rather than an athletic period. Currently, athletic periods at Tyler ISD high schools are staffed at an average of 15.6 athletes per coach. This compares with the core academic average class sizes of 26.7 and 20.3 students per section. The athletic period average is well under the core class size. However, it is just within the benchmark of athletes per coach commonly in use in Texas high schools. In the absence of proration, no adjustments are needed. However, should the Legislature seriously restrict Tyler ISD funding, an appropriate step would involve converting a number of athletic periods to academic sections at the high schools. These new sections would help to lower the impact of proration on core academic class counts, increasing schedule flexibility throughout the master schedule. To reach the flexibility of coaching assignments discussed above, it is important that the majority (if not all) of the coaching staff hold academic certifications. Presently, 32 of the 62 high school coaches are assigned to Health or PE. Another seven coaches are assigned to social studies classes. Thus, 63 percent of coaches are used in only these two master schedule areas, making the balancing of campus schedules very difficult. To that end, new coaches should not be considered for hire unless academically certified in areas other than Health/PE or Social Studies and current coaches should be encouraged to add academic certifications through testing. As with most of the middle schools, the ISS classrooms are currently being served by paraprofessionals at two high schools. Using the model of two aides for supervision on a full time basis allows all certified teachers to concentrate on academic assignments and assists in keeping core academic class size as small as possible. Staffing Review 12 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

17 Overall, electives average 21.1 students per section at the high school campuses. (A reasonable target level would be 24 students per class.) Fine Arts classes and CTE classes average 20.8 and 20.6 students per class, respectively. This compares with core academic averages of 24.0 students per class. At this point, the elective classes are not doing their part in attempting to balance the high school schedules. Several elective and/or Health/PE vacancies could be absorbed. This action would have only minimal impact on program offerings for students. Another alternative would be to condense smaller elective sections at the high schools, using the elective staff freed in this manner to teach any core academic classes for which they were certified, to assist in providing targeted intervention to high school students with academic needs, or to offer individual elective sections at the middle schools (building their potential high school enrollments in the future). As the district is presently operating well below the benchmark level for high school staffing, no increase in the number of teachers would be recommended for In fact, up to 35 vacancies could be absorbed by allowing the average class size to increase from 19.4 to 22.0 students per section. This action would result in a cost savings of up to $1,603,000 in salary and benefits costs. As with the middle schools, adjusting to proration may require shifting to the 7/6 master schedule format. Adjusting to a class size of 22.0 students per section in the new schedule would allow the absorption of 53 vacancies across the two high schools. This option would result in a cost savings of up to $2,427,400 in salary and benefits costs. As with the discussion in the prior section, one or more of these slots could be retained to address the needs for targeted intervention at these grade levels. The mathematical staffing formula corresponding to this data is (1.143 x students)/22.0 = Full Time Teacher Equivalents (or FTEs). The average daily load would be 132 students per teacher. Finally, as with the middle school section of this report, proration on the part of the Legislature could require even steeper levels of adjustments for Tyler ISD. Shifting to an 8/7 master schedule at the high schools with a staffing ratio of 22.0 students per section would raise the number of absorbed vacancies to 59 positions. This emergency option would result in a cost savings of up to $2,702,200 in salary and benefits costs, or a total of an additional $274,800 over the 7/6 option listed above. The average daily load would increase to 154 students per teacher. The accompanying three spreadsheets referenced in the appendix of this report also provide various options at other class sizes and master schedule formats. Total benchmark-related cost savings options in this area: $1,603,000 Total additional savings options in this area: $1,099,200 Staffing Review 13 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

18 Special Education Staffing The Special Education program is well administered. Principals are supportive of the program and consider it effective in meeting the needs of Tyler ISD students. The Tyler ISD current percentage identification in Special Education is 8.1%, down from 11.3% in , 9.9% in , and 9.3% in The current statewide comparison figure is 9.4%. The TEA target goal is 8.0% by Tyler ISD has essentially reached that goal this year. The case manager format is being used by the appraisal staff and a three tiered identification process emphasizing student intervention, pre referral, and referral is in place. A history of the effectiveness of specific intervention strategies is required prior to referral. This change has not only resulted in improvement in special education program identification figures, but has also helped to generate additional student academic progress. The Special Education department staffs teaching positions for 1,473 students, or an average of 13.9 students per teacher. The state average is 13.6 students per teacher. In addition to the certified teaching staff, another special education aides are employed. This produces average counts of 6.3 students per staff member (1,473 students and total classroom staff). Across the state, total staffing ratios typically average 6.4 students per special education staff member. Based upon the information listed above, the Tyler ISD special education program has a shortage of two teaching positions and a overage of five aide positions. The result is a program essentially in balance with common practice across the state. Thus, no net adjustments are needed and the current balanced model can be continued. Tyler ISD currently staffs 18 diagnosticians and LSSPs, at a caseload of 82.3 students per assessor. Typical caseloads in Texas school districts average approximately students. Up to three vacancies could be absorbed. These three positions are considered to be included in the 74 surplus professional support positions discussed in the first section of this report. Tyler ISD currently staffs 13 speech language pathologists (SLPs) and one speech assistant at caseloads of 44.4 students per provider. Typical caseloads in Texas school districts average approximately students. Absorbing two positions would lead to caseloads of 51.8 students per therapist. As was the case with the diagnosticians, these two positions are considered to be included in the 74 surplus professional support positions discussed in the first section of this report. No due process hearings have been held in the past three years. Considering the enrollment of the district, this history is evidence of a well articulated program, administered with clear standards, and sensitive to the needs of the community. No residential placements are in effect, and none are anticipated. However, the practice of reserving a significant portion of a given year s federal funds carryover for the following year s potential residential placements should be continued. Any residential placement can be an enormous expense. Staffing Review 14 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

19 Student Nutrition Staffing The Tyler ISD Student Nutrition Department operates 28 kitchens across the district. Each campus kitchen is a full production facility, using standardized recipes. Principals consistently remarked upon the help of this department in providing timely and nutritious service. The department provides its own specialized preventative maintenance and repair of the unique equipment (ovens, walk in coolers, etc.) used in this operation. Occasionally, Tyler ISD electricians and/or plumbers are called for assistance. In general, based on the accompanying Meals per Labor Hour (MPLH), all 28 kitchens are operating at, or above, target benchmarks. The entire department operates in the black and carries a substantial positive fund balance. Secondary school cafeterias routinely have difficulty maintaining MPLH values. The staffing of a snack bar and increasing menu choices can make these operations less efficient. The desired level of economy often has to be balanced against the perceived need for a wide range of meal options and points of sale (POS). Common target values would be percent at high school kitchens, percent at middle school kitchens, and 95+ percent at elementary kitchens. As stated above, all 28 kitchens operate at or above these targets. Twenty seven of the twenty eight kitchens exceed 100 percent of their target performance rates. This is a remarkable achievement, involving consistent efforts by the staff and great leadership. Based upon current figures, the Tyler ISD kitchens are operating with 16.5 percent fewer labor hours than the benchmark level expected. The staff and supervisors are to be commended for this level of performance. An area for further study is the school breakfast program. Based on the data provided, at least 52 percent of students qualifying for the free or reduced price meal program are not eating the cafeteria breakfasts. This is a significant problem on two fronts. It is difficult for these students to perform effectively when consistently missing the breakfast meal. Also, the Tyler ISD Student Nutrition Fund is missing out on a sizable portion of federal reimbursement. Care should be taken to correct this situation. Principals, the Cafeteria Managers, the Student Nutrition Director, and the Transportation Director should begin to review this issue. Significant improvement in the number of breakfasts served will likely require adjustments in some operations. The Student Nutrition Department currently carries forward a sizable fund balance. This balance has reached the point at which federal limitations will require some expenditure of surplus funds. Consideration could certainly be given to using a portion of this fund balance to update and/or upgrade kitchen equipment. This action would allow federal targets to be reached, while enabling the program to operate even more efficiently to meet student and staff needs. Since Student Nutrition uses a separate fund, increased revenue in this area would not directly impact the Tyler ISD Maintenance and Operations budget. However, savings or additional income would allow for pro rated reimbursement of utilities, casualty insurance costs, equipment replacement, possible salary increases, and/or decreased meal costs to students. Staffing Review 15 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

20 Operations and Facilities Staffing The staffing in the Tyler ISD Maintenance Department is within 0.5 position of the benchmark level (61.6 positions as compared to 62.1 slots recommended) provided by the Association of Physical Plant Administrators (APPA) standards. This analysis considers actual employees of the District (42) along with the amount of work currently being contracted to outside vendors (19.6 employee equivalents). Across all crafts, there is an excellent mix of skilled tradesmen. There are 18 licensed HVAC technicians, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and welders. Most Texas school districts have not been able to retain such a solid mix of skilled tradespersons. Tyler ISD is to be commended in this area. In the future, adjusting to operate at leaner levels of maintenance staffing, with a minimum of new staff members and increasing campus needs, will require the employees to be even more efficient. Consideration could be given to moving half or more of the maintenance staff to an 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. shift. This would enable maintenance employees to accomplish additional work, since students would not be in the buildings for much of the new maintenance work day. The gains in efficiency would need to be balanced against the resistance of these employees to work evening shifts. (A possible approach could be hiring all new and replacement maintenance staff members onto the evening shift and allowing those current employees who wished to do so to keep their current hours. Thus, over a period of time, the desired number of employees on the evening shift would be reached on a voluntary basis.) Currently, $840,862 is being spent for maintenance services performed by vendors. The district could consider hiring additional maintenance persons, using this pool of dollars by reducing the amount paid to vendors. This would allow the department to staff specialized preventative maintenance crews at no net cost to Tyler ISD. Tyler ISD currently staffs at one custodian per 19,695 square feet, compared to the ASBO standard of one custodian per 19,000 square feet. Thus, the total staffing in the Custodial Department is essentially at benchmark levels (139 positions versus positions recommended), based on ASBO standards. This small difference does not require any adjustment. Staffing Review 16 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

21 Human Resources Principals have been very supportive of the level of effort in this area. Human Resources staff members are considered to be readily available for service and able to handle campus needs in a timely and effective manner. One possible area for attention would be the time needed to move from job offer to actual hiring during the summer season. All principals agree that solid applicants are available for regular education positions in the months of March through mid July. Beginning in late July, the quality begins to drop. This decline normally accelerates in the summer, through no fault of anyone. As the stronger candidates commit to contracts, the overall quality of the remaining candidates drops. Concerning Bilingual Education, Special Education, Science, and Math positions, as well as minority applicants, there is a perceived shortage, year round. Principals recommend staffing as many new and/or replacement positions in March through May as possible. A helpful practice in this area can be the establishment of a small stipend (approximately $500) paid to current teachers planning to retire or resign, rather than returning for the following school year. To qualify for the Early Notification stipend, a teacher would need to submit a letter of resignation prior to the end of the first week of March. The teacher would then complete their contract assignment successfully, and receive the stipend in their last Tyler ISD check. This would allow principals to seek replacements while the number of eligible candidates was at its peak. Practicum in Education and Training (PET) is a TEA approved vocational program currently offered in Tyler ISD high schools. The students enrolled generate additional vocational funds for the District. This program has shown to be an effective tool in encouraging seniors to consider education majors after high school graduation. Across the state, these programs have been particularly effective in generating minority candidates, special education teachers, and bilingual teachers. Consideration could be given to expanding the PET program, through partnerships with area colleges and universities. Emphasizing the Grow Your Own features of the PET program (by providing opportunities for graduates to return to Tyler ISD for substitute assignments and student teaching while in college) will assist the District in filling any shortage of minority and/or bilingual teachers. Staffing Review 17 Tyler ISD Copyright 2011 Texas Association of School Boards

22 Data Tables

23 Staffing

24 School Staffing Compared to Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Standards Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 SpEd Instr. Lib Campus Pupils Prin SACS +,- A.P. SACS +,- Intern Facil. Spec. Coun SACS +,- Lib SACS +,- Aide SACS +,- High Schools Lee HS 2, (1.0) (1.0) Tyler HS 1, HS Sub-Totals 4, (1.0) (1.0) Middle Schools Boulter MS (1.0) Dogan MS (1.0) Hogg MS (0.5) (1.0) Hubbard MS (1.0) Moore MS (1.0) Stewart MS (1.0) MS Sub-Totals 3, (0.5) (6.0) ElementarySchools Austin (0.5) (1.0) Bell (0.5) (1.0) Birdwell (0.5) (1.0) Bonner (0.5) (1.0) Caldwell (0.5) (1.0) Clarkston (1.0) Dixie (0.5) (1.0) Douglas (0.5) Griffin (0.5) (1.0) Jack (0.5) Jones (1.0) Orr (0.5) Owens (0.5) (1.0) Peete (1.0) Ramey (0.5) Rice (1.0) Woods (0.5) (1.0)

25 School Staffing Compared to Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Standards Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 SpEd Instr. Lib Campus Pupils Prin SACS +,- A.P. SACS +,- Intern Facil. Spec. Coun SACS +,- Lib SACS +,- Aide SACS +,- Boshears 82 St. Louis-Head Start 137 Elem. Sub-Totals 9, (7.5) (12.0) Total 18, (4.5) (1.0) (19.0)

26 School Staffing Compared to Common Practice in Texas (CPTx) Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 SpEd Instr. Lib Campus Pupils Prin CPTx +,- A.P. CPTx +,- Intern Facil. Spec. Coun CPTx +,- Lib CPTx +,- Aide CPTx +,- High Schools Lee HS 2, (1.0) (1.0) Tyler HS 1, HS Sub-Totals 4, (1.0) Middle Schools Boulter MS (1.0) Dogan MS (1.0) Hogg MS (0.5) (1.0) Hubbard MS (0.5) (1.0) Moore MS (0.5) (1.0) Stewart MS (1.0) MS Sub-Totals 3, (1.5) (6.0) ElementarySchools Austin (0.5) (1.0) Bell (0.5) (1.0) Birdwell (1.0) Bonner (0.5) (1.0) Caldwell (0.5) (0.5) (1.0) Clarkston (1.0) Dixie (0.5) (1.0) Douglas (0.5) (1.0) Griffin (0.5) (0.5) (1.0) Jack (0.5) (0.5) Jones (1.0) Orr (0.5) Owens (0.5) (0.5) (1.0) Peete (1.0) Ramey (0.5) Rice (1.0)

27 School Staffing Compared to Common Practice in Texas (CPTx) Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 SpEd Instr. Lib Campus Pupils Prin CPTx +,- A.P. CPTx +,- Intern Facil. Spec. Coun CPTx +,- Lib CPTx +,- Aide CPTx +,- Woods (0.5) (1.0) Boshears 82 St. Louis-Head Start 137 Elem. Sub-Totals 9, (1.0) (7.5) (12.0) Total 18, (7.5) (18.0)

28 Elementary Campus Paraprofessionals: Current Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Elementary Campus Sub-Total Clerical per Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Sub-Total Total Schools Pupils Clerk Sec. Clerical 1,000 Stds Bil/ESL Cmputr ISS Lib PE PK/K SpEd Other Inst. Aides Para. Austin Bell Birdwell Bonner Caldwell Clarkston Dixie Douglas Griffin Jack Jones Orr Owens Peete Ramey Rice Woods Total 9, Clerical positions per 1,000 elementary students = 4.5 (with a minimum of 2 positions)

29 Elementary Campus Paraprofessionals: Proposed Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Elementary Campus Sub-Total Clerical per Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Sub-Total Total Schools Pupils Clerk Sec. Clerical 1,000 Stds Bil/ESL Cmputr ISS Lib PE PK/K SpEd Other Inst. Aides Para. Austin Bell Birdwell Bonner Caldwell Clarkston Dixie Douglas Griffin Jack Jones Orr Owens Peete Ramey Rice Woods Total 9, Clerical positions per 1,000 elementary students = 4.5 (with a minimum of 2 positions) Four additional clerical positions are needed to bring elementary campuses to benchmark levels

30 Secondary Campus Paraprofessionals: Current Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Campus Clerical Sub-Total Secondary Sec., Bkkpr, Op. Mgr. Sub-Total per 1,000 Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Diag. Total Schools Pupils Clerk Rgstrar Sec. Clerical Students ESL ISS Lib SpEd Instruct. Sec. Para. Lee HS 2, Tyler HS 1, Boulter MS Dogan MS Hogg MS Hubbard MS Moore MS Stewart MS Total 8, Clerical positions per 1,000 secondary students = 5.5 (with a minimum of 3 positions) 18,460 students x 13.4 instructional aide positions per 1,000 students = positions (Current staffing = elementary aides secondary aides = instructional aides)

31 Secondary Campus Paraprofessionals: Proposed Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Campus Clerical Sub-Total Secondary Sec., Bkkpr, Op. Mgr. Sub-Total per 1,000 Aide Aide Aide Aide Aide Diag. Total Schools Pupils Clerk Rgstrar Sec. Clerical Students ESL ISS Lib SpEd Instruct. Sec. Para. Lee HS 2, Tyler HS 1, Boulter MS Dogan MS Hogg MS Hubbard MS Moore MS Stewart MS Total 8, Clerical positions per 1,000 secondary students = 5.5 (with a minimum of 3 positions) Total secondary clerks are at benchmark levels, but the reassignments would balance the load across all eight campuses 18,460 students x 13.4 instructional aide positions per 1,000 students = positions (Current staffing = elementary aides secondary aides = instructional aides) (Current staffing = instructional aides benchmark positions = 41.4 positions under benchmark = 18% under benchmark)

32 Non-Campus Clerical Support Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Department or Office Clerk Secretary Specialist Total Athletics Communication Curriculum Deputy Superintendent Facilities Finance Food Service Instructional Assessment Personnel Special Education Special Populations Superintendent Transportation Total Positions ,460 students x 3.0 non-campus clerical positions per 1,000 students = 55.4 positions

33 Campus Clinics Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Current Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Registered Nurse (RN) $47, $1,477,522 Current Model Total Payroll $1,477,522 Proposed Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) $24, $703,395 Registered Nurse (RN) $47,662 7 $333,634 Proposed Model Total Payroll $1,037,029 Savings by Implementation of New Model $440,493

34 Library Staffing Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Current Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Library Aide $18, $144,616 Librarian $56, $1,375,308 Current Model Total Payroll $1,519,924 Proposed Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Library Aide $18, $506,156 Librarian $56, $392,945 Proposed Model Total Payroll $899,101 Savings by Implementation of New Model $620,823

35 Professional and Administrative Support Positions Comparison of AEIS Data for , , , and Tyler Criterion (07-08) Tyler (08-09) Tyler (09-10) Tyler (10-11) State Average (09-10) Students 18,023 18,094 18,408 18,549 4,824,778 Membership Increase Professional Support ,575.8 Therapist Counselor Librarian Social Worker Nurse Speech Pathologist Diagnostician & LSSP Truant Officer, Visiting Teacher Campus Prof. Personnel Non-Campus Prof. Personnel Athletic Trainer Prof Support per 1,000 Stds Campus Admin ,543.4 Campus Adm per 1,000 Stds Central Admin ,852.9 Central Adm per 1,000 Stds Total Prof. & Admin. Support ,972.1 Total Support per 1,000 Stds ,549 students x 17.4 administrative and support positions per 1,000 students = positions = 74.4 surplus $65,500 = $5,901,550 in salary and benefits costs

36 Class Size

37 Elementary Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Current Sections Pre-K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total Tyler ISD Elementary # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class Schools Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Tchrs Enr. Avg. Austin Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bell Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Birdwell Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bonner Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bilingual Ed (PM) Caldwell Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Clarkston Regular Ed Dixie Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Douglas Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bilingual Ed (PM) Griffin Regular Ed Headstart-full day Bilingual Ed Headstart-full day Jack Regular Ed Jones Regular Ed Orr Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Owens Regular Ed

38 Elementary Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Current Sections Pre-K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total Tyler ISD Elementary # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class Schools Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Tchrs Enr. Avg. Peete Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Ramey Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Rice Regular Ed Woods Regular Ed TOTAL , , , , , , , Bilingual Ed = 134 2, K-4 Class Average = 414 sections with 7,726 students = 18.7 students per class Regular Ed = 367 7, PK-6 Class Average = 501 sections with 9,524 students = 19.0 students per class $91,600 = 20.1 students per section, = 499 sections, 2 fewer sections than the current staffing format $183,200 = 20.1 students per section, = 497 sections, 4 fewer sections than the current staffing format $274,800 = 20.2 students per section, = 495 sections, 6 fewer sections than the current staffing format $366,400 = 20.3 students per section, = 493 sections, 8 fewer sections than the current staffing format $458,000 = 20.3 students per section, = 491 sections, 10 fewer sections than the current staffing format

39 Elementary Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Proposed Sections Pre-K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total Tyler ISD Elementary # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class Schools Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Tchrs Enr. Avg. Austin Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bell Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Birdwell Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bonner Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bilingual Ed (PM) Caldwell Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Clarkston Regular Ed Dixie Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Douglas Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Bilingual Ed (PM) Griffin Regular Ed Headstart-full day Bilingual Ed Headstart-full day Jack Regular Ed

40 Elementary Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Proposed Sections Pre-K Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Total Tyler ISD Elementary # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class # Class Schools Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Sect Enr. Avg. Tchrs Enr. Avg. Jones Regular Ed Orr Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Owens Regular Ed Peete Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Ramey Regular Ed Bilingual Ed Rice Regular Ed Woods Regular Ed TOTAL , , , , , , , Bilingual Ed = 133 2, K-4 Class Average = 410 sections with 7,726 students = 18.8 students per class Regular Ed = 363 7, PK-6 Class Average = 496 sections with 9,524 students = 19.2 students per class Absorbing five (5) vacancies at $45,800 = $229,000 in salary and benefits costs

41 Elementary School Physical Education Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Current Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation PE Teacher $48, $1,069,310 PE Aide $15, $174,834 Current Model Total Payroll $1,244,144 Proposed Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation PE Teacher $48, $826,285 PE Aide $15, $254,304 Proposed Model Total Payroll $1,080,589 Savings by Implementation of New Model $163,555

42 Middle School Class Size Comparisons (MSs 1-4) Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Boulter MS Dogan MS Hogg MS Course Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Hubbard MS Sections Lang. Arts Lang. Arts - 6 PAP Lang. Arts Lang. Arts - 7 PAP Lang. Arts Lang. Arts - 8 PAP ELA 6-8 INV ESL ESL ESL MYP - ELA MYP - Math MYP - Science MYP - Social Studies Math Math - 6 PAP Math Math - 7 PAP Math Math -8 PAP, Alg 1, Geometry Math/Science 6-8 INV Science Science - 6 PAP Earth Science Earth Science PAP Life Science Life Science PAP World Cultures World Cult. - 6 PAP Texas History Texas History PAP American History Am. History PAP Spanish Student/Teacher Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Average Counts Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Core Subject Counts 2, , , , Std/Tchr (Reg Ed) Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Staffing Counts Theoretical Average Master Schedule 4/3 8/6 8/6.4 8/6.4 Average

43 Middle School Class Size Comparisons (MSs 5-6 and Overall Core Averages) Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Moore MS Stewart MS Overall Core Averages Course Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Lang. Arts Lang. Arts - 6 PAP Lang. Arts Lang. Arts - 7 PAP Lang. Arts Lang. Arts - 8 PAP ELA 6-8 INV ESL ESL ESL MYP - ELA MYP - Math MYP - Science MYP - Social Studies Math Math - 6 PAP Math Math - 7 PAP Math Math -8 PAP, Alg 1, Geometry Math/Science 6-8 INV Science Science - 6 PAP Earth Science Earth Science PAP Life Science Life Science PAP World Cultures World Cult. - 6 PAP Texas History Texas History PAP American History Am. History PAP Spanish Student/Teacher Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Average Counts Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Core Subject Counts 3, , , Std/Tchr (Reg Ed) Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Staffing Counts Theoretical Average Master Schedule 4.4/3.4 7/5.4

44 High School Class Size Comparisons and Overall Core Averages Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Lee HS Tyler HS Overall Core Averages Course Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average English , English 1 PAP/PIB English , English 2 PAP/PIB English English 3 AP/CONC/IB English English 4 AP/CONC/IB ELA Remedial Communication Appl Algebra , Algebra 1 PAP/PIB Algebra Algebra 2 PAP/PIB Geometry , Geometry PAP/PIB Pre-Calculus Pre-Calculus PAP AP Math Math Remedial Math Models Wld Geography , Wld Geography AP/PAP Wld History Wld History AP/PAP US History US History PAP/AP/CONC Government/Economics , Govt./Econ AP/CONC SS Electives Reg/AP/IB IPC Biology , Biology PAP Chemistry Chemistry PAP/PIB Physics Physics PAP/PIB AP/IB Sciences Science Electives Science Remedial ASL French Other Languages Spanish 1, , Student/Teacher Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Average Counts Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Core Subject Counts 15, , ,238 1, Std/Tchr (Reg Ed) Stdnts Teachers Ratio Stdnts Teachers Ratio Staffing Counts 2, , Theoretical Average Master Schedule 5/4 5/4

45 High School Athletic Period Class Counts Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Campus Stdnts Coach Avg Stdnts Coach Avg Stdnts Coach Avg Stdnts Coach Avg Stdnts Coach Avg High Schools Period 1 Period 4 Period 5 Totals Lee HS Tyler HS HS Totals #DIV/0! 1, Middle Schools 7th Grade Boys 7th Grade Girls 8th Grade Boys 8th Grade Girls Totals Boulter MS Dogan MS Hogg MS Hubbard MS Moore MS Stewart MS MS Totals , Certification (Assignment) LHS THS BMS DMS HgMS HuMS MMS SMS Total Eng-LA, Speech Math Science Social Studies Foreign Language Special Ed CTE HPE Other Total

46 Middle School Elective Class Count Comparisons (MSs 1-4) Students and Sections as of January 24, 2011 Boulter MS Dogan MS Hogg MS Hubbard MS Course Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Art AVID Band Choir Career Portals Creative Living Dance Health Journlism (Y/N) Keyboarding Math/Science/Tech Orchestra PALS/Teen Leader PE Tech Applications Theatre/Speech Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg All Elective Average , ,

47 Middle School Elective Class Count Comparisons (MSs 5-6) Students and Sections as of January 24, 2011 Moore MS Stewart MS Overall Elective Averages Course Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Art , AVID Band Choir Career Portals Creative Living Dance Health Journlism (Y/N) Keyboarding , Math/Science/Tech Orchestra PALS/Teen Leader PE , Tech Applications Theatre/Speech Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg All Elective Average 3, ,

48 High School Elective Class Count Comparisons Students and sections as of January 24, 2011 Lee HS Tyler HS Overall Elective Averages Course Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Students Sections Average Art Band Choir Dance Orchestra Photography Theatre AVID Computer Science AP Debate Health Journalism PE PE - Cheer/Drill Team Teen Leadership/PALS Agriculture Auto Tech (TJC) Building Trades Business Career Prep (Co-Ops) Computer Applications Criminal Justice LHS Family & Cons. Sci Graphics Health Sci Tech LHS Instruct. Practices in Ed Tech Systems , Welding LHS Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg All Elective Average 6, , , Fine Arts Average 1, , "Other" Average , Vocational Average 3, , ,

49 Secondary Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Current Master Schedule Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T High Schools Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Lee , Tyler , High School Total 1,379 1,146 1,030 1,014 4, Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Middle Schools Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Boulter Dogan Hogg Hubbard Moore Stewart Middle School Total 0 1,325 1,307 1,300 3,

50 Secondary School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Internal Equity Comparison Across All Grades 6-12 Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Tchrs Teacher High Schools Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds 18.1 Change Lee , Tyler , High School Total 1,379 1,146 1,030 1,014 4, Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Tchrs Teacher Middle Schools Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds 22.0 Change Boulter Doagn Hogg Hubbard Moore Stewart Middle School Total 0 1,325 1,307 1,300 3, TOTAL SECONDARY 8,

51 Secondary School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Separate Internal Equity Comparison for Grades 9-12 and 6-8 Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Tchrs Teacher High Schools Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds 19.4 Change Lee , Tyler , High School Total 1,379 1,146 1,030 1,014 4, Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Tchrs Teacher Middle Schools Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds 19.5 Change Boulter Dogan Hogg Hubbard Moore Stewart Middle School Total 0 1,325 1,307 1,300 3,

52 Middle School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Uniform 8/6.4 Master Schedule: Position Recovery by Varying Class Average Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler MSs' Base Line 3, Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3, $152, Tyler MSs at 19.0 Avg. 3, $472, Tyler MSs at 19.5 Avg. 3, $776, Tyler MSs at 20.0 Avg. 3, $1,064, Tyler MSs at 20.5 Avg. 3, $1,339, Tyler MSs at 21.0 Avg. 3, $1,600, Tyler MSs at 21.5 Avg. 3, $1,850, Tyler MSs at 22.0 Avg. 3, $2,088, Tyler MSs at 22.5 Avg. 3, $2,315, Tyler MSs at 23.0 Avg. 3, $2,532, Tyler MSs at 23.5 Avg. 3, $2,741, Tyler MSs at 24.0 Avg. 3, $2,940, Tyler MSs at 24.5 Avg. 3, $3,132, Tyler MSs at 25.0 Avg. 3, $3,315, Tyler MSs at 25.5 Avg. 3, $3,492, Tyler MSs at 26.0 Avg. 3, $3,662,

53 Middle School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule: Position Recovery by Varying Class Average Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler MSs' Base Line 3, Shift to 8/7 master schedule 3, Tyler MSs at 17.0 Avg. 3, $213, Tyler MSs at 17.5 Avg. 3, $559, Tyler MSs at 18.0 Avg. 3, $886, Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3, $1,195, Tyler MSs at 19.0 Avg. 3, $1,487, Tyler MSs at 19.5 Avg. 3, $1,765, Tyler MSs at 20.0 Avg. 3, $2,029, Tyler MSs at 20.5 Avg. 3, $2,280, Tyler MSs at 21.0 Avg. 3, $2,519, Tyler MSs at 21.5 Avg. 3, $2,747, Tyler MSs at 22.0 Avg. 3, $2,965, Tyler MSs at 22.5 Avg. 3, $3,172, Tyler MSs at 23.0 Avg. 3, $3,371, Tyler MSs at 23.5 Avg. 3, $3,562, Tyler MSs at 24.0 Avg. 3, $3,744, Tyler MSs at 24.5 Avg. 3, $3,919, Tyler MSs at 25.0 Avg. 3, $4,087, Tyler MSs at 25.5 Avg. 3, $4,249, Tyler MSs at 26.0 Avg. 3, $4,404,

54 Middle School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule: Position Recovery by Varying Class Average Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler MSs' Base Line 3, Shift to 7/6 master schedule 3, Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3, $314, Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3, $647, Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3, $963, Tyler MSs at 19.0 Avg. 3, $1,262, Tyler MSs at 19.5 Avg. 3, $1,545, Tyler MSs at 20.0 Avg. 3, $1,815, Tyler MSs at 20.5 Avg. 3, $2,071, Tyler MSs at 21.0 Avg. 3, $2,315, Tyler MSs at 21.5 Avg. 3, $2,548, Tyler MSs at 22.0 Avg. 3, $2,770, Tyler MSs at 22.5 Avg. 3, $2,982, Tyler MSs at 23.0 Avg. 3, $3,185, Tyler MSs at 23.5 Avg. 3, $3,379, Tyler MSs at 24.0 Avg. 3, $3,566, Tyler MSs at 24.5 Avg. 3, $3,744, Tyler MSs at 25.0 Avg. 3, $3,916, Tyler MSs at 25.5 Avg. 3, $4,080, Tyler MSs at 26.0 Avg. 3, $4,239,

55 Middle School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Maintain Same Master Schedule Calculate Variance of Class Average due to Increased Enrollment Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Tyler MS' Base Line 3, Plus 50 new students 3, Plus 100 new students 4, Plus 150 new students 4, Plus 200 new students 4, Plus 250 new students 4, Plus 300 new students 4, Plus 350 new students 4, Plus 400 new students 4, Plus 450 new students 4, Plus 500 new students 4,

56 High School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Uniform 5/4 Modified Block Master Schedule: Position Recovery by Varying Class Average Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average (2-days) Tyler HS's Base Line 4, Tyler HS's at 19.5 Avg. 4, $103, Tyler HS's at 20.0 Avg. 4, $438, Tyler HS's at 20.5 Avg. 4, $757, Tyler HS's at 21.0Avg. 4, $1,061, Tyler HS's at 21.5 Avg. 4, $1,351, Tyler HS's at 22.0 Avg. 4, $1,627, Tyler HS's at 22.5 Avg. 4, $1,891, Tyler HS's at 23.0 Avg. 4, $2,144, Tyler HS's at 23.5 Avg. 4, $2,386, Tyler HS's at 24.0 Avg. 4, $2,618, Tyler HS's at 24.5 Avg. 4, $2,840, Tyler HS's at 25.0 Avg. 4, $3,054, Tyler HS's at 25.5 Avg. 4, $3,259, Tyler HS's at 26.0 Avg. 4, $3,456,

57 High School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule: Position Recovery by Varying Class Average Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler HS's Base Line 4, Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule 4, Tyler HS's at 18.0 Avg. 4, $231, Tyler HS's at 18.5 Avg. 4, $590, Tyler HS's at 19.0 Avg. 4, $930, Tyler HS's at 19.5 Avg. 4, $1,253, Tyler HS's at 20.0 Avg. 4, $1,559, Tyler HS's at 20.5 Avg. 4, $1,851, Tyler HS's at 21.0Avg. 4, $2,129, Tyler HS's at 21.5 Avg. 4, $2,393, Tyler HS's at 22.0 Avg. 4, $2,646, Tyler HS's at 22.5 Avg. 4, $2,888, Tyler HS's at 23.0 Avg. 4, $3,119, Tyler HS's at 23.5 Avg. 4, $3,340, Tyler HS's at 24.0 Avg. 4, $3,552, Tyler HS's at 24.5 Avg. 4, $3,756, Tyler HS's at 25.0 Avg. 4, $3,951, Tyler HS's at 25.5 Avg. 4, $4,138, Tyler HS's at 26.0 Avg. 4, $4,319,

58 High School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule: Position Recovery by Varying Class Average Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler HS's Base Line 4, Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule 4, Tyler HS's at 18.5 Avg. 4, $320, Tyler HS's at 19.0 Avg. 4, $668, Tyler HS's at 19.5 Avg. 4, $997, Tyler HS's at 20.0 Avg. 4, $1,310, Tyler HS's at 20.5 Avg. 4, $1,608, Tyler HS's at 21.0Avg. 4, $1,891, Tyler HS's at 21.5 Avg. 4, $2,162, Tyler HS's at 22.0 Avg. 4, $2,420, Tyler HS's at 22.5 Avg. 4, $2,666, Tyler HS's at 23.0 Avg. 4, $2,902, Tyler HS's at 23.5 Avg. 4, $3,128, Tyler HS's at 24.0 Avg. 4, $3,345, Tyler HS's at 24.5 Avg. 4, $3,552, Tyler HS's at 25.0 Avg. 4, $3,751, Tyler HS's at 25.5 Avg. 4, $3,943, Tyler HS's at 26.0 Avg. 4, $4,127,

59 High School Enrollment as of January 24, 2011 Maintain Uniform 5/4 Modified Block Master Schedule Calculate Variance of Class Average due to Increased Enrollment Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Tyler HS' Base Line 4, Plus 50 new students 4, Plus 100 new students 4, Plus 150 new students 4, Plus 200 new students 4, Plus 250 new students 4, Plus 300 new students 4, Plus 350 new students 4, Plus 400 new students 4, Plus 450 new students 5, Plus 500 new students 5,

60 Special Education

61 Special Education Staffing by Program Teachers and Instructional Aides as of January 24, 2011 Students Receiving Services Beyond Pupil/Tchr Instruct. Total Special Ed Total Pupil/Staff Program Speech Therapy Teachers Ratio Aides Staff Ratio Resource/Inclusion/CM Lee Tyler VAC Boshears Link Boulter Hogg Hubbard Moore Stewart Austin Bell Birdwell Bonner Caldwell Clarkston Dixie Douglas Griffin Jack Jones Orr Owens Peete Ramey Rice Woods Sub Total Life Skills, PTC Lee Lee (PTC) Tyler Dogan Hubbard (PTC) Moore Stewart Bell Birdwell Douglas

62 Special Education Staffing by Program Teachers and Instructional Aides as of January 24, 2011 Students Receiving Total Total Services Beyond Pupil/Tchr Instruct. Special Ed Pupil/Staff Program Speech Therapy Teachers Ratio Aides Staff Ratio Jack Jones Peete (PTC) Rice (PTC) Sub Total PPCD Bonner Dixie Jack Jones Orr Sub Total ABU Tyler Boulter Caldwell Dixie Sub Total RDSFD Itinerant Lee Moore Clarkston Sub Total "Speech Only" 233 Total 1, Tyler ISD at State Average 1, Difference Savings at Average Salaries -$105,744 $95,518 -$10,226

63 Special Education Enrollment by Campus as of January 24, 2011 Total SpEd Percent Speech Net SpEd Net % Campus Pupils Students SpEd Only Stds Students SpEd High Schools Lee 2, % % Tyler 1, % % Boshears (PK-12) % % Middle Schools Boulter % % Dogan % % Hogg % % Hubbard % % Moore % % Stewart % % Elementary Schools Austin % % Bell % % Birdwell % % Bonner % % Caldwell % % Clarkston % % Dixie % % Douglas % % Griffin % % Jack % % Jones % % Orr % % Owens % % Peete % % Ramey % % Rice % % Woods % % Total 18,321 1, % 232 1, % State Identification in = 9.0% Tyler ISD Identification in = 11.3% Tyler ISD Identification in = 9.9% Tyler ISD Identification in = 9.3%

64 Assessment and Speech Pathology Special Education Enrollment and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 SpEd Case Program Students Staff Load Assessment Diagnosticians 16 LSSPs (assessment) 2 Total Staff 18 Tyler ISD 1, Benchmark Proposed 1, , , , , Speech Pathology Speech Pathologists 13 Speech Assistants (part) 1 Total Staff 14 Tyler ISD Benchmark Proposed

65 Support Staff

66 Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Data for Enrollment Total Average Average Avg. Daily Avg. Daily Average Average Staffing (January F/R Breakfasts Lunches Ala Carte Ala Carte Meals Labor Hrs Actual Standard Efficiency Campus 2011) Count Served Served Sales Equivalents per Day per Day MPLH MPLH * (MPLH) High Schools Lee 2,762 1, ,255 $ , % Tyler 1,874 1, ,260 $ , % Gary $ % Plyler $ % St. Louis $ % Middle Schools Boulter $ % Dogan $ % Hogg $ % Hubbard $ % Moore $ % Stewart $ % Elementaries Austin $ % Bell $ % Birdwell $ % Bonner $ % Caldwell $ % Clarkston $ % Dixie $ % Douglas $ % Griffin $ % Jack $ % Jones (Boshears) $ % Orr $ % Owens $ % Peete $ % Ramey $ % Rice $ % Woods $ %

67 Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Data for TOTAL 18,659 12, ,005 13,770 $2,779 1,390 18, Percent Free/Reduced 67% Lunch = 13,770 = 109% Percent Breakfast Served 32% 12,577 Percent Lunch Served 74% Breakfast = 6,005 = 48% Labor Hours = Total hours devoted to preparation, serving, and clean-up. 12,577 2 Breakfasts and/or 2 snacks = 1 Meal Equivalent $2.00 of Ala Carte Sales = 1 Meal Equivalent * Standard MPLH from "School Food Service Management in the 21st Century" by Dorothy Pannell

68 MPLH and Staffing Recovery Data for Average Average Allowed Labor Hours FTEs at 7.0 Net Salary Daily Meals Standard Daily Labor Hours Above (Below) Labor Hours to and Benefits Campus Served MPLH * Labor Hours at Std MPLH Standard be Recovered to be Gained (Lost) High Schools Lee 1, (7.1) (1.0) ($14,936) Tyler 1, (3.3) (0.5) ($6,903) Gary (4.0) (0.6) ($8,369) Plyler (3.9) (0.6) ($8,200) St. Louis (4.6) (0.7) ($9,552) Middle Schools Boulter $8,165 Dogan (3.6) (0.5) ($7,491) Hogg (5.8) (0.8) ($12,223) Hubbard (6.0) (0.9) ($12,647) Moore (4.3) (0.6) ($8,901) Stewart (0.1) (0.0) ($121) Elementaries Austin (6.6) (0.9) ($13,896) Bell (7.6) (1.1) ($15,980) Birdwell (7.1) (1.0) ($14,828) Bonner (11.1) (1.6) ($23,265) Caldwell (9.5) (1.4) ($19,907) Clarkston (10.6) (1.5) ($22,165) Dixie (10.1) (1.4) ($21,173) Douglas (7.7) (1.1) ($16,131) Griffin (10.3) (1.5) ($21,473) Jack (11.6) (1.7) ($24,356) Jones (Boshears) (6.5) (0.9) ($13,670) Orr (7.2) (1.0) ($15,004) Owens (6.9) (1.0) ($14,447) Peete (8.4) (1.2) ($17,605) Ramey (8.1) (1.2) ($17,023) Rice (8.3) (1.2) ($17,435) Woods (7.6) (1.1) ($15,999) TOTAL 18, ,116.3 (184.3) (26.3) ($385,532) * Standard MPLH from "School Food Service Management in the 21st Century" by Dorothy Pannell

69 Maintenance Staffing Compared to APPA Standards * Square Footage and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Position Tyler ISD Gross Square Footage APPA* Standard APPA Staffing Current Staffing Difference Craftsman 3,096,375 1 : 500,000 GSF (6.2) HVAC Technician 1 : 450,000 GSF (4.9) Plumber 1 : 390,000 GSF (3.9) Electrician, Electronics Technician 1 : 380,000 GSF (1.1) Carpenter, Locksmith 1 : 300,000 GSF (6.3) Painter, Roofer 1 : 300,000 GSF (7.3) Groundsman, IPM Technician 431 acres 1 : 35 acres (5.3) High School Maintenance 6 Preventitive Mainttenance Technicians 4 Storeroom Operator 1 Supervisor, Foreman 4 Spending for Contract Labor Services $840,862 1 : $42, Department Sub-Totals (0.5) Director 1 Secretary, Clerk 3 Department Totals 65.6 * Association of Physical Plant Administrators, (APPA) standards per Gross Square Foot (GSF) are used for projections

70 Custodial Staffing Compared to ASBO Standards * Square Footage and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Square Lead/Asst. Day/Mid-Day Night Open Total Recommended * Campuses Footage Custodian Custodian Custodian Position Custodians Custodians Variance High Schools Lee 396, (0.8) Tyler 333, (0.8) Boshears-JON 66, PACE-Anderson 11, (0.0) Plyler 38, Target Academy 42, (0.0) Middle Schools Boulter 98, Dogan 68, Hogg 67, (0.4) Hubbard 125, (0.3) Moore 79, Stewart 93, (0.7) Elementary Schools Austin 67, Bell 76, Birdwell 61, (0.1) Bonner 70, Caldwell 73, Clarkston 74, Dixie 67, (0.4) Douglas 82, (0.1) Griffin 93, (0.7) Jack 84, (0.2) Jones 65, (0.3) Orr 87, (0.4) Owens 62, Peete 63, (0.2) Ramey 72, (0.6) Rice 77, Woods 87, (0.4)

71 Custodial Staffing Compared to ASBO Standards * Square Footage and Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Square Lead/Asst. Day/Mid-Day Night Open Total Recommended * Campuses Footage Custodian Custodian Custodian Position Custodians Custodians Variance Other Sites Administration Bldg 33, Fine Arts 30, (0.5) Maintenance 10, Prof. Dev. Center 40, (1.0) St. Louis (Head Start) 39, (0.5) Transportation 39, (1.0) Campus Totals 2,881, (2.9) * Recommended custodians based on ASBO projection of 1 custodian per 19,000 Adjusted Square Feet (ASF) (ASF = 95% of actual square footage) Tyler ISD current staffing = 1 custodian per 19,695 gross square feet (including lead custodians)

72 Peer District Comparisons

73 Comparison of AEIS Data with Peer Districts Criterion Wichita Average State Aldine Longview Mesquite Waco Falls Tyler of Peers Average AEIS Rating Maint. & Oper. Tax rate Acceptable $1.133 Unacceptable $1.040 Recognized $1.040 Acceptable $1.040 Recognized $1.040 Acceptable $1.040 $1.059 $1.058 Taxable Value per Student $211,880 $468,785 $169,187 $240,930 $264,787 $381,325 $271,114 $361,580 Percent Residential Value 33.1% 40.9% 65.0% 53.5% 61.2% 52.9% 53.8% Revenue per Student $9,059 $10,579 $9,691 $10,163 $9,019 $9,754 $9,702 $9,764 Expenditures per Student $10,490 $15,789 $10,271 $11,391 $9,952 $11,166 $11,579 $11,334 Maint. & Oper. per Student $8,658 $8,222 $7,787 $8,507 $8,158 $8,477 $8,266 $8,399 Instr Exp Ratio (11,12,13,31) 66.0% 63.5% 66.6% 61.8% 63.6% 68.1% Students 62,532 8,299 37,175 15,254 14,525 18,344 4,824,778 Economic Disadvantaged 85.2% 69.0% 62.4% 88.1% 57.2% 65.4% 59.0% Limited English Proficient 32.2% 15.2% 18.4% 16.0% 5.5% 22.2% 16.9% Teachers 4, , , , , ,006.8 Special Ed Teachers ,027.4 Net Tchrs (less SpEd) 3, , , ,979.4 Teachers per 1,000 Stds Professional Support ,575.8 Prof Support per 1,000 Stds Campus Admin ,543.4 Campus Adm per 1,000 Stds Central Admin ,852.9 Central Adm per 1,000 Stds Educational Aides ,700.8 Ed Aides per 1,000 Stds Auxiliary Staff 2, , ,140.9 Aux Staff per 1,000 Stds Total Staff Members 8, , , , , , ,820.6 Total Staff per 1,000 Stds

74 Comparison of AEIS Data with Peer Districts Criterion Wichita Average State Aldine Longview Mesquite Waco Falls Tyler of Peers Average Recommended HS Grad Plan 78.7% 69.2% 83.5% 76.5% 66.4% 79.1% 82.5% Number Students/Teacher Teacher Turnover Rate 11.4% 13.2% 11.2% 16.4% 10.7% 13.9% 11.8% Bilingual/ESL Stds 18,812 1,204 6,619 2, , ,806 Percent of Total Stds 30.1% 14.5% 17.8% 15.1% 4.9% 18.7% 16.1% Bilingual/ESL Tchrs ,412.4 Percent of Total Tchrs 2.7% 8.6% 7.9% 4.6% 1.2% 10.7% 7.0% Tchrs per 1,000 Students Special Ed Stds 4, ,385 1,551 2,102 1, ,040 Percent of Total Stds 7.0% 10.1% 11.8% 10.2% 14.5% 8.8% 9.0% Special Ed Tchrs ,027.4 Percent of Total Tchrs 9.1% 10.9% 10.8% 9.8% 12.0% 9.3% 9.6% Tchrs per 1,000 Students Elem Class Size per Tchr Kindergarten st Grade nd Grade rd Grade th Grade th Grade th Grade Sec Class Size per Tchr Sec. English Sec. Foreign Lang Sec. Math Sec. Science