STAFFING REVIEW Tyler ISD

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

Staffing Review Tyler ISD

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... 10 High School Teachers... 12 Special Education Staffing... 14 Student Nutrition Staffing... 15 Operations and Facilities Staffing... 16 Human Resources... 17 Data Tables Staffing School Staffing Compared to SACS Standards... 20 School Staffing Compared to Common Practice in Texas... 22 Elementary Campus Paraprofessionals: Current... 24 Elementary Campus Paraprofessionals: Proposed... 25 Secondary Campus Paraprofessionals: Current... 26 Secondary Campus Paraprofessionals: Proposed... 27 Non Campus Clerical Support Positions... 28 Campus Clinics... 29 Library Staffing... 30 Professional and Administrative Support Positions... 31 Class Size Current Sections with Elementary Enrollment... 33 Proposed Sections with Elementary Enrollment... 35 Elementary School Physical Education... 37 Middle School Class Size Comparisons (MSs 1 4)... 38 Middle School Class Size Comparisons (MSs 5 6 & Overall Core Averages)... 39

High School Class Size Comparisons and Overall Core Averages... 40 High School Athletic Period Class Counts... 41 Middle School Elective Class Count (MSs 1 4)... 42 Middle School Elective Class Count (MSs 5 6)... 43 High School Electives Class Count Comparisons... 44 Current Secondary Campus Enrollment... 45 Current Secondary Staff Balance all grades 6 12... 46 Current Secondary Staff Balance grades 9 12 and 6 8... 47 Middle School Class Size, Uniform 8/6.4 Master Schedule... 48 Middle School Class Size Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule... 49 Middle School Class Size Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule... 50 Middle School Enrollment Maintain Same Master Schedule... 51 High School Enrollment Uniform 5/4 Modified Block Master Schedule... 52 High School Enrollment Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule... 53 High School Enrollment Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule... 54 High School Enrollment Maintain Same Master Schedule... 55 Special Education Special Education Staffing by Program... 57 Special Education Enrollment by Campus... 59 Assessment and Speech Pathology... 60 Support Staff Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Report... 62 Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Position Recovery... 64 Maintenance Staffing Compared to APPA Standards... 65 Custodial Staffing Compared to ASBO Standards... 66 Peer District Comparisons Comparison of 2009 10 AEIS Data Sets... 69

Background and Overview Background This Staffing Review project was completed during the second semester of the 2010 11 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 2009 10 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

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 2011. 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

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

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 22.0 229,000 163,500 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

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

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

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 247.6 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 412.9 of these positions in 2010 11, compared to a state average of 322.8 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

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 700 750 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

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 2010 11, 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 2011 12 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

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 22 24 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 18 20 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

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 2011 12. 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

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 295.1 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 22 24 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 9 12. 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 15 17 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

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 2011 12. 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

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 2007 08, 9.9% in 2008 09, and 9.3% in 2009 10. The current statewide comparison figure is 9.4%. The TEA target goal is 8.0% by 2012 13. 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 106.0 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 127.0 special education aides are employed. This produces average counts of 6.3 students per staff member (1,473 students and 233.0 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 100 105 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 50 55 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

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 85 90 percent at high school kitchens, 88 92 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

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 141.9 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

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

Data Tables

Staffing

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 2,724 1.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 5.5 2.5 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 2.0 (1.0) Tyler HS 1,845 1.0 1.0 0.0 8.0 3.5 4.5 1.0 1.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 HS Sub-Totals 4,569 2.0 2.0 0.0 15.0 8.5 6.5 2.0 2.0 10.0 13.0 9.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 4.0 (1.0) Middle Schools Boulter MS 494 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Dogan MS 452 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Hogg MS 641 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Hubbard MS 985 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Moore MS 948 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Stewart MS 412 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) MS Sub-Totals 3,932 6.0 6.0 0.0 13.0 5.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 8.0 8.5 (0.5) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 (6.0) ElementarySchools Austin 519 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Bell 510 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Birdwell 448 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Bonner 506 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Caldwell 674 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Clarkston 394 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Dixie 552 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Douglas 724 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Griffin 674 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Jack 691 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Jones 329 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Orr 645 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Owens 634 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Peete 380 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Ramey 541 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Rice 825 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Woods 694 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0)

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 9,959 17.0 17.0 0.0 20.0 15.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 33.0 17.0 24.5 (7.5) 17.0 17.0 0.0 5.0 17.0 (12.0) Total 18,460 25.0 25.0 0.0 48.0 29.5 18.5 2.0 2.0 45.5 38.0 42.5 (4.5) 25.0 26.0 (1.0) 8.0 27.0 (19.0)

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 2,724 1.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 8.0 7.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 2.0 (1.0) Tyler HS 1,845 1.0 1.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 5.0 4.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 HS Sub-Totals 4,569 2.0 2.0 0.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 13.0 11.5 1.5 2.0 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 3.0 0.0 Middle Schools Boulter MS 494 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Dogan MS 452 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Hogg MS 641 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Hubbard MS 985 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Moore MS 948 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Stewart MS 412 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) MS Sub-Totals 3,932 6.0 6.0 0.0 13.0 8.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 8.0 9.5 (1.5) 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 (6.0) ElementarySchools Austin 519 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Bell 510 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Birdwell 448 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Bonner 506 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Caldwell 674 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Clarkston 394 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Dixie 552 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Douglas 724 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Griffin 674 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Jack 691 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Jones 329 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Orr 645 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Owens 634 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Peete 380 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Ramey 541 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 Rice 825 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

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 694 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 (1.0) Boshears 82 St. Louis-Head Start 137 Elem. Sub-Totals 9,959 17.0 17.0 0.0 20.0 21.0 (1.0) 0.0 0.0 33.0 17.0 24.5 (7.5) 17.0 17.0 0.0 5.0 17.0 (12.0) Total 18,460 25.0 25.0 0.0 48.0 39.5 8.5 2.0 2.0 45.5 38.0 45.5 (7.5) 25.0 26.0-1.0 8.0 26.0 (18.0)

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 519 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 Bell 510 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 7.0 9.0 Birdwell 448 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 10.0 Bonner 506 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 9.0 11.0 Caldwell 674 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 9.0 Clarkston 394 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 9.0 11.0 Dixie 552 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 14.0 16.0 Douglas 724 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 13.0 Griffin 674 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 11.0 Jack 691 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 9.0 12.0 Jones 329 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 9.0 11.0 Orr 645 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 8.0 11.0 Owens 634 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 6.0 9.0 Peete 380 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 Ramey 541 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 8.0 Rice 825 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 9.0 12.0 Woods 694 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 7.0 10.0 Total 9,740 23.0 17.0 40.0 4.1 9.0 4.0 17.0 5.0 11.5 17.0 53.0 21.5 138.0 178.0 Clerical positions per 1,000 elementary students = 4.5 (with a minimum of 2 positions)

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 519 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 Bell 510 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.9 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 7.0 9.0 Birdwell 448 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 10.0 Bonner 506 1.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 9.0 11.0 Caldwell 674 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 7.0 10.0 Clarkston 394 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 9.0 11.0 Dixie 552 1.5 1.0 2.5 4.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 14.0 16.5 Douglas 724 2.5 1.0 3.5 4.8 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 13.5 Griffin 674 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 9.0 12.0 Jack 691 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 9.0 12.0 Jones 329 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 9.0 11.0 Orr 645 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 8.0 11.0 Owens 634 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 6.0 9.0 Peete 380 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 8.0 Ramey 541 1.5 1.0 2.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 8.5 Rice 825 2.5 1.0 3.5 4.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 9.0 12.5 Woods 694 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 7.0 10.0 Total 9,740 27.0 17.0 44.0 4.5 9.0 4.0 17.0 5.0 11.5 17.0 53.0 21.5 138.0 182.0 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

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 2,724 9.0 2.0 2.0 13.0 4.8 0.0 2.0 1.0 16.0 19.0 1.0 33.0 Tyler HS 1,845 10.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 7.6 0.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 18.0 1.0 33.0 Boulter MS 494 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 6.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 9.0 Dogan MS 452 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 6.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 9.0 Hogg MS 641 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.7 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 7.0 Hubbard MS 985 4.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 10.0 Moore MS 948 3.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 4.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 10.0 Stewart MS 412 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 7.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 7.0 Total 8,501 34.0 4.0 10.0 48.0 5.6 3.0 10.0 3.0 52.0 68.0 2.0 118.0 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 = 247.4 positions (Current staffing = 138.0 elementary aides + 68.0 secondary aides = 206.0 instructional aides)

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 2,724 11.0 2.0 2.0 15.0 5.5 0.0 2.0 1.0 16.0 19.0 1.0 35.0 Tyler HS 1,845 6.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 5.4 0.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 18.0 1.0 29.0 Boulter MS 494 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 6.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 4.0 6.0 0.0 9.0 Dogan MS 452 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 6.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 9.0 Hogg MS 641 2.5 0.0 1.0 3.5 5.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 7.5 Hubbard MS 985 4.5 0.0 1.0 5.5 5.6 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 5.0 0.0 10.5 Moore MS 948 4.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 5.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 11.0 Stewart MS 412 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 7.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 7.0 Total 8,501 34.0 4.0 10.0 48.0 5.6 3.0 10.0 3.0 52.0 68.0 2.0 118.0 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 = 247.4 positions (Current staffing = 138.0 elementary aides + 68.0 secondary aides = 206.0 instructional aides) (Current staffing = 206.0 instructional aides - 247.4 benchmark positions = 41.4 positions under benchmark = 18% under benchmark)

Non-Campus Clerical Support Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Department or Office Clerk Secretary Specialist Total Athletics 0 2 0 2 Communication 1 1 0 2 Curriculum 4 10 2 16 Deputy Superintendent 0 1 0 1 Facilities 0 3 0 3 Finance 3 2 2 7 Food Service 1 1 0 2 Instructional Assessment 0 2 1 3 Personnel 1 1 5 7 Special Education 5 2 1 8 Special Populations 0 1 0 1 Superintendent 0 1 0 1 Transportation 1 1 0 2 Total Positions 16 28 11 55 18,460 students x 3.0 non-campus clerical positions per 1,000 students = 55.4 positions

Campus Clinics Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Current Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Registered Nurse (RN) $47,662 31 $1,477,522 Current Model Total Payroll $1,477,522 Proposed Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) $24,255 29 $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

Library Staffing Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Current Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Library Aide $18,077 8.0 $144,616 Librarian $56,135 24.5 $1,375,308 Current Model Total Payroll $1,519,924 Proposed Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation Library Aide $18,077 28.0 $506,156 Librarian $56,135 7.0 $392,945 Proposed Model Total Payroll $899,101 Savings by Implementation of New Model $620,823

Professional and Administrative Support Positions Comparison of AEIS Data for 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 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 71 314 141 Professional Support 263.1 287.1 304.1 322.0 58,575.8 Therapist 5.0 6.0 Counselor 40.3 41.9 Librarian 23.5 24.2 Social Worker 2.0 2.0 Nurse 33.8 34.0 Speech Pathologist 15.9 13.9 Diagnostician & LSSP 22.5 21.8 Truant Officer, Visiting Teacher 4.0 5.0 Campus Prof. Personnel 49.6 53.9 Non-Campus Prof. Personnel 104.0 115.3 Athletic Trainer 3.5 4.0 304.1 322.0 Prof Support per 1,000 Stds 14.6 15.9 16.5 17.4 12.1 Campus Admin. 81.0 77.0 80.0 80.9 18,543.4 Campus Adm per 1,000 Stds 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.4 3.8 Central Admin. 12.0 12.0 14.0 10.0 6,852.9 Central Adm per 1,000 Stds 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.4 Total Prof. & Admin. Support 356.1 376.1 398.1 412.9 83,972.1 Total Support per 1,000 Stds 19.8 20.8 21.6 22.3 17.4 18,549 students x 17.4 administrative and support positions per 1,000 students = 322.8 positions 412.9-322.8 = 74.4 surplus positions @ $65,500 = $5,901,550 in salary and benefits costs

Class Size

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 2 38 19.0 2 26 13.0 2 44 22.0 2 21 10.5 4 30 7.5 1 29 29.0 13 188 14.5 Bilingual Ed 3 63 21.0 4 73 18.3 2 40 20.0 3 48 16.0 3 49 16.3 3 58 19.3 18 331 18.4 Bell Regular Ed 3 70 23.3 3 62 20.7 3 66 22.0 4 79 19.8 4 69 17.3 4 79 19.8 21 425 20.2 Bilingual Ed 1 22 22.0 1 9 9.0 1 10 10.0 1 15 15.0 1 10 10.0 1 13 13.0 6 79 13.2 Birdwell Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 2 29 14.5 2 29 14.5 2 39 19.5 2 37 18.5 2 30 15.0 2 27 13.5 12.5 201 16.1 Bilingual Ed 2 38 19.0 2 43 21.5 2 30 15.0 2 29 14.5 2 27 13.5 2 29 14.5 2 30 15.0 13 207 15.9 Bonner Regular Ed 1 22 22.0 2 29 14.5 2 33 16.5 2 35 17.5 2 38 19.0 2 53 26.5 11 210 19.1 Bilingual Ed 1 20 20.0 2 46 23.0 3 49 16.3 2 31 15.5 2 27 13.5 2 28 14.0 1 27 27.0 13 228 17.5 Bilingual Ed (PM) 4 59 14.8 2 30 14.8 Caldwell Regular Ed 5 115 23.0 5 103 20.6 5 107 21.4 5 93 18.6 5 102 20.4 3 86 28.7 28 606 21.6 Bilingual Ed 1 9 9.0 1 14 14.0 1 12 12.0 1 14 14.0 1 10 10.0 1 9 9.0 6 68 11.3 Clarkston Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 3 50 16.7 3 53 17.7 3 61 20.3 3 58 19.3 4 72 18.0 3 74 24.7 20 388 19.4 Dixie Regular Ed 1 19 19.0 3 67 22.3 3 54 18.0 4 78 19.5 3 58 19.3 4 80 20.0 3 61 20.3 21 417 19.9 Bilingual Ed 1 23 23.0 1 24 24.0 2 26 13.0 1 17 17.0 1 14 14.0 1 13 13.0 7 117 16.7 Douglas Regular Ed 2 42 21.0 2 35 17.5 3 48 16.0 2 44 22.0 3 56 18.7 3 76 25.3 15 301 20.1 Bilingual Ed 2 34 17.0 4 67 16.8 4 72 18.0 4 64 16.0 3 57 19.0 2 43 21.5 2 46 23.0 20 366 18.3 Bilingual Ed (PM) 2 31 15.5 1 16 15.5 Griffin Regular Ed 3 50 16.7 3 63 21.0 3 57 19.0 3 57 19.0 3 67 22.3 2 48 24.0 17 342 20.1 Headstart-full day 2 40 20.0 2 40 20.0 Bilingual Ed 3 47 15.7 3 46 15.3 3 65 21.7 2 43 21.5 3 54 18.0 2 35 17.5 16 290 18.1 Headstart-full day 1 20 20.0 1 20 20.0 Jack Regular Ed 5 114 22.8 6 114 19.0 6 121 20.2 6 123 20.5 5 108 21.6 4 91 22.8 32 671 21.0 Jones Regular Ed 3 52 17.3 2 44 22.0 3 48 16.0 2 40 20.0 3 50 16.7 2 45 22.5 2 31 15.5 17 310 18.2 Orr Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 3 49 16.3 3 64 21.3 4 60 15.0 3 54 18.0 4 75 18.8 3 73 24.3 21 395 18.8 Bilingual Ed 1 20 20.0 2 37 18.5 2 36 18.0 3 47 15.7 2 37 18.5 2 34 17.0 2 31 15.5 14 242 17.3 Owens Regular Ed 1 16 16.0 5 101 20.2 6 120 20.0 5 96 19.2 6 111 18.5 4 85 21.3 5 100 20.0 31.5 621 19.7

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 2 44 22.0 2 27 13.5 3 49 16.3 2 47 23.5 3 53 17.7 2 32 16.0 14 252 18.0 Bilingual Ed 1 20 20.0 1 17 17.0 2 34 17.0 1 17 17.0 1 17 17.0 1 16 16.0 7 121 17.3 Ramey Regular Ed 4 70 17.5 4 75 18.8 3 60 20.0 3 61 20.3 3 64 21.3 3 57 19.0 20 387 19.4 Bilingual Ed 2 29 14.5 2 29 14.5 2 23 11.5 2 36 18.0 1 10 10.0 1 14 14.0 10 141 14.1 Rice Regular Ed 6 131 21.8 6 132 22.0 6 129 21.5 7 145 20.7 7 144 20.6 5 140 28.0 37 821 22.2 Woods Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 5 108 21.6 5 105 21.0 6 114 19.0 6 113 18.8 6 115 19.2 5 119 23.8 34 694 20.4 TOTAL 12 215 17.9 78 1,550 19.9 84 1,538 18.3 86 1,583 18.4 82 1,524 18.6 84 1,531 18.2 69 1,468 21.3 501 9,524 19.0 Bilingual Ed = 134 2,255 16.8 K-4 Class Average = 414 sections with 7,726 students = 18.7 students per class Regular Ed = 367 7,269 19.8 PK-6 Class Average = 501 sections with 9,524 students = 19.0 students per class $91,600 = savings @ 20.1 students per section, = 499 sections, 2 fewer sections than the current staffing format $183,200 = savings @ 20.1 students per section, = 497 sections, 4 fewer sections than the current staffing format $274,800 = savings @ 20.2 students per section, = 495 sections, 6 fewer sections than the current staffing format $366,400 = savings @ 20.3 students per section, = 493 sections, 8 fewer sections than the current staffing format $458,000 = savings @ 20.3 students per section, = 491 sections, 10 fewer sections than the current staffing format

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 2 38 19.0 2 26 13.0 2 44 22.0 1 21 21.0 2 30 15.0 1 29 29.0 10 188 18.8 Bilingual Ed 3 63 21.0 4 73 18.3 2 40 20.0 3 48 16.0 3 49 16.3 3 58 19.3 18 331 18.4 Bell Regular Ed 3 70 23.3 3 62 20.7 3 66 22.0 4 79 19.8 4 69 17.3 4 79 19.8 21 425 20.2 Bilingual Ed 1 22 22.0 1 9 9.0 1 10 10.0 1 15 15.0 1 10 10.0 1 13 13.0 6 79 13.2 Birdwell Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 2 29 14.5 2 29 14.5 2 39 19.5 2 37 18.5 2 30 15.0 1 27 27.0 11.5 201 17.5 Bilingual Ed 2 38 19.0 2 43 21.5 2 30 15.0 2 29 14.5 2 27 13.5 2 29 14.5 2 30 15.0 13 207 15.9 Bonner Regular Ed 1 22 22.0 2 29 14.5 2 33 16.5 2 35 17.5 2 38 19.0 2 53 26.5 11 210 19.1 Bilingual Ed 1 20 20.0 2 46 23.0 3 49 16.3 2 31 15.5 2 27 13.5 2 28 14.0 1 27 27.0 13 228 17.5 Bilingual Ed (PM) 3 59 19.7 1.5 30 19.7 Caldwell Regular Ed 5 115 23.0 5 103 20.6 5 107 21.4 5 93 18.6 5 102 20.4 3 86 28.7 28 606 21.6 Bilingual Ed 1 9 9.0 1 14 14.0 1 12 12.0 1 14 14.0 1 10 10.0 1 9 9.0 6 68 11.3 Clarkston Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 3 50 16.7 3 53 17.7 3 61 20.3 3 58 19.3 4 72 18.0 3 74 24.7 20 388 19.4 Dixie Regular Ed 1 19 19.0 3 67 22.3 3 54 18.0 4 78 19.5 3 58 19.3 4 80 20.0 3 61 20.3 21 417 19.9 Bilingual Ed 1 23 23.0 1 24 24.0 2 26 13.0 1 17 17.0 1 14 14.0 1 13 13.0 7 117 16.7 Douglas Regular Ed 2 42 21.0 2 35 17.5 3 48 16.0 2 44 22.0 3 56 18.7 3 76 25.3 15 301 20.1 Bilingual Ed 2 34 17.0 4 67 16.8 4 72 18.0 3 64 21.3 3 57 19.0 2 43 21.5 2 46 23.0 19 366 19.3 Bilingual Ed (PM) 2 31 15.5 1 16 15.5 Griffin Regular Ed 3 50 16.7 3 63 21.0 3 57 19.0 3 57 19.0 3 67 22.3 2 48 24.0 17 342 20.1 Headstart-full day 2 40 20.0 2 40 20.0 Bilingual Ed 3 47 15.7 3 46 15.3 3 65 21.7 2 43 21.5 3 54 18.0 2 35 17.5 16 290 18.1 Headstart-full day 1 20 20.0 1 20 20.0 Jack Regular Ed 5 114 22.8 6 114 19.0 6 121 20.2 6 123 20.5 5 108 21.6 4 91 22.8 32 671 21.0

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 3 52 17.3 2 44 22.0 3 48 16.0 2 40 20.0 3 50 16.7 2 45 22.5 2 31 15.5 17 310 18.2 Orr Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 3 49 16.3 3 64 21.3 4 60 15.0 3 54 18.0 4 75 18.8 3 73 24.3 21 395 18.8 Bilingual Ed 1 20 20.0 2 37 18.5 2 36 18.0 3 47 15.7 2 37 18.5 2 34 17.0 2 31 15.5 14 242 17.3 Owens Regular Ed 1 16 16.0 5 101 20.2 6 120 20.0 5 96 19.2 6 111 18.5 4 85 21.3 5 100 20.0 31.5 621 19.7 Peete Regular Ed 2 44 22.0 2 27 13.5 3 49 16.3 2 47 23.5 3 53 17.7 2 32 16.0 14 252 18.0 Bilingual Ed 1 20 20.0 1 17 17.0 2 34 17.0 1 17 17.0 1 17 17.0 1 16 16.0 7 121 17.3 Ramey Regular Ed 4 70 17.5 4 75 18.8 3 60 20.0 3 61 20.3 3 64 21.3 3 57 19.0 20 387 19.4 Bilingual Ed 2 29 14.5 2 29 14.5 2 23 11.5 2 36 18.0 1 10 10.0 1 14 14.0 10 141 14.1 Rice Regular Ed 6 131 21.8 6 132 22.0 6 129 21.5 7 145 20.7 7 144 20.6 5 140 28.0 37 821 22.2 Woods Regular Ed 1 20 20.0 5 108 21.6 5 105 21.0 6 114 19.0 6 113 18.8 6 115 19.2 5 119 23.8 34 694 20.4 TOTAL 12 215 18.7 78 1,550 19.9 84 1,538 18.3 85 1,583 18.6 81 1,524 18.8 82 1,531 18.7 68 1,468 21.6 496 9,524 19.2 Bilingual Ed = 133 2,255 17.0 K-4 Class Average = 410 sections with 7,726 students = 18.8 students per class Regular Ed = 363 7,269 20.0 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

Elementary School Physical Education Staffing as of January 24, 2011 Current Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation PE Teacher $48,605 22 $1,069,310 PE Aide $15,894 11 $174,834 Current Model Total Payroll $1,244,144 Proposed Staffing Model Average Total Job Title Payroll Positions Compensation PE Teacher $48,605 17 $826,285 PE Aide $15,894 16 $254,304 Proposed Model Total Payroll $1,080,589 Savings by Implementation of New Model $163,555

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 - 6 94 7 13.4 44 2 22.0 130 9 14.4 176 9 19.6 Lang. Arts - 6 PAP 25 1 25.0 38 2 19.0 43 2 21.5 139 7 19.9 Lang. Arts - 7 74 4 18.5 50 3 16.7 83 4 20.8 159 8 19.9 Lang. Arts - 7 PAP 36 2 18.0 51 2 25.5 25 1 25.0 173 7 24.7 Lang. Arts - 8 106 5 21.2 87 5 17.4 78 4 19.5 173 7 24.7 Lang. Arts - 8 PAP 43 2 21.5 22 1 22.0 26 1 26.0 152 7 21.7 ELA 6-8 INV 29 6 4.8 23 3 7.7 64 8 8.0 143 14 10.2 ESL - 6 35 3 11.7 49 3 16.3 41 4 10.3 13 3 4.3 ESL - 7 35 3 11.7 56 3 18.7 29 3 9.7 ESL - 8 26 3 8.7 37 2 18.5 31 3 10.3 MYP - ELA 123 6 20.5 MYP - Math 103 5 20.6 MYP - Science 126 6 21.0 MYP - Social Studies 127 6 21.2 Math - 6 129 7 18.4 106 5 21.2 188 11 17.1 154 10 15.4 Math - 6 PAP 26 1 26.0 25 1 25.0 28 1 28.0 159 7 22.7 Math - 7 107 5 21.4 137 5 27.4 110 5 22.0 154 9 17.1 Math - 7 PAP 37 2 18.5 27 1 27.0 27 2 13.5 175 7 25.0 Math - 8 138 7 19.7 128 5 25.6 138 6 23.0 225 10 22.5 Math -8 PAP, Alg 1, Geometry 37 2 18.5 21 1 21.0 24 1 24.0 99 5 19.8 Math/Science 6-8 INV 45 6 7.5 20 3 6.7 77 9 8.6 695 52 13.4 Science - 6 137 7 19.6 86 4 21.5 224 15 14.9 183 10 18.3 Science - 6 PAP 28 1 28.0 45 2 22.5 135 6 22.5 Earth Science 118 5 23.6 108 5 21.6 145 7 20.7 164 8 20.5 Earth Science PAP 34 2 17.0 56 2 28.0 168 7 24.0 Life Science 134 7 19.1 106 6 17.7 146 7 20.9 172 8 21.5 Life Science PAP 46 2 23.0 37 2 18.5 153 8 19.1 World Cultures - 6 140 6 23.3 86 4 21.5 224 13 17.2 183 9 20.3 World Cult. - 6 PAP 25 1 25.0 45 2 22.5 135 7 19.3 Texas History 120 6 20.0 108 6 18.0 145 8 18.1 159 8 19.9 Texas History PAP 32 2 16.0 56 2 28.0 173 7 24.7 American History 130 6 21.7 127 5 25.4 145 6 24.2 172 7 24.6 Am. History PAP 50 2 25.0 22 1 22.0 153 7 21.9 Spanish 52 4 13.0 123 6 20.5 317 14 22.6 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 2,016 113 17.8 1,855 92 20.2 2,773 159 17.4 5,056 268 18.9 Std/Tchr (Reg Ed) Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Staffing Counts 494 42.0 452 32.5 641 44.5 985 62.0 Theoretical Average 15.7 18.5 18.0 19.9 Master Schedule 4/3 8/6 8/6.4 8/6.4 Average

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 - 6 234 11 21.3 117 5 23.4 795 43 18.5 Lang. Arts - 6 PAP 64 2 32.0 25 1 25.0 334 15 22.3 Lang. Arts - 7 215 9 23.9 87 5 17.4 668 33 20.2 Lang. Arts - 7 PAP 110 4 27.5 99 5 19.8 494 21 23.5 Lang. Arts - 8 200 9 22.2 110 7 15.7 754 37 20.4 Lang. Arts - 8 PAP 90 3 30.0 30 1 30.0 363 15 24.2 ELA 6-8 INV 10 1 10.0 137 11 12.5 406 43 9.4 ESL - 6 29 5 5.8 14 2 7.0 181 20 9.1 ESL - 7 18 3 6.0 24 3 8.0 162 15 10.8 ESL - 8 10 3 3.3 16 1 16.0 120 12 10.0 MYP - ELA 123 6 20.5 MYP - Math 103 5 20.6 MYP - Science 126 6 21.0 MYP - Social Studies 127 6 21.2 Math - 6 163 7 23.3 90 10 9.0 830 50 16.6 Math - 6 PAP 132 5 26.4 34 2 17.0 404 17 23.8 Math - 7 210 8 26.3 98 11 8.9 816 43 19.0 Math - 7 PAP 83 3 27.7 23 1 23.0 372 16 23.3 Math - 8 169 8 21.1 120 11 10.9 918 47 19.5 Math -8 PAP, Alg 1, Geometry 127 6 21.2 20 1 20.0 328 16 20.5 Math/Science 6-8 INV 78 5 15.6 94 13 7.2 1009 88 11.5 Science - 6 227 9 25.2 118 5 23.6 975 50 19.5 Science - 6 PAP 73 3 24.3 18 1 18.0 299 13 23.0 Earth Science 202 9 22.4 101 5 20.2 838 39 21.5 Earth Science PAP 131 5 26.2 28 1 28.0 417 17 24.5 Life Science 174 8 21.8 124 6 20.7 856 42 20.4 Life Science PAP 105 4 26.3 23 1 23.0 364 17 21.4 World Cultures - 6 229 9 25.4 108 5 21.6 970 46 21.1 World Cult. - 6 PAP 59 2 29.5 24 1 24.0 288 13 22.2 Texas History 224 11 20.4 114 5 22.8 870 44 19.8 Texas History PAP 109 4 27.3 15 1 15.0 385 16 24.1 American History 215 9 23.9 119 5 23.8 908 38 23.9 Am. History PAP 90 3 30.0 28 1 28.0 343 14 24.5 Spanish 492 24 20.5 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 3,780 168 22.5 1,958 127 15.4 17,438 927 18.8 Std/Tchr (Reg Ed) Students Teachers Ratio Students Teachers Ratio Staffing Counts 948 56.5 412 31.5 Theoretical Average 21.7 17.0 Master Schedule 4.4/3.4 7/5.4

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 1 527 18 29.3 490 29 16.9 1,017 47 21.6 English 1 PAP/PIB 261 9 29.0 67 3 22.3 328 12 27.3 English 2 652 23 28.3 387 18 21.5 1,039 41 25.3 English 2 PAP/PIB 229 9 25.4 71 3 23.7 300 12 25.0 English 3 573 20 28.7 350 14 25.0 923 34 27.1 English 3 AP/CONC/IB 215 7 30.7 84 3 28.0 299 10 29.9 English 4 556 19 29.3 343 13 26.4 899 32 28.1 English 4 AP/CONC/IB 143 5 28.6 39 3 13.0 182 8 22.8 ELA Remedial 43 3 14.3 43 3 14.3 Communication Appl. 578 19 30.4 211 8 26.4 789 27 29.2 Algebra 1 636 25 25.4 541 20 27.1 1,177 45 26.2 Algebra 1 PAP/PIB 152 5 30.4 35 2 17.5 187 7 26.7 Algebra 2 521 16 32.6 259 15 17.3 780 31 25.2 Algebra 2 PAP/PIB 198 7 28.3 48 2 24.0 246 9 27.3 Geometry 729 27 27.0 464 22 21.1 1,193 49 24.3 Geometry PAP/PIB 120 5 24.0 39 2 19.5 159 7 22.7 Pre-Calculus 264 9 29.3 132 7 18.9 396 16 24.8 Pre-Calculus PAP 88 4 22.0 28 2 14.0 116 6 19.3 AP Math 146 7 20.9 30 2 15.0 176 9 19.6 Math Remedial 125 7 17.9 229 19 12.1 354 26 13.6 Math Models 353 14 25.2 253 13 19.5 606 27 22.4 Wld Geography 585 21 27.9 528 32 16.5 1,113 53 21.0 Wld Geography AP/PAP 313 11 28.5 55 2 27.5 368 13 28.3 Wld History 554 19 29.2 367 17 21.6 921 36 25.6 Wld History AP/PAP 276 10 27.6 91 3 30.3 367 13 28.2 US History 546 19 28.7 331 14 23.6 877 33 26.6 US History PAP/AP/CONC 209 7 29.9 85 5 17.0 294 12 24.5 Government/Economics 937 34 27.6 284 13 21.8 1,221 47 26.0 Govt./Econ AP/CONC 216 8 27.0 87 3 29.0 303 11 27.5 SS Electives Reg/AP/IB 250 12 20.8 250 12 20.8 IPC 461 15 30.7 273 13 21.0 734 28 26.2 Biology 588 19 30.9 509 26 19.6 1,097 45 24.4 Biology PAP 313 11 28.5 67 3 22.3 380 14 27.1 Chemistry 521 21 24.8 355 18 19.7 876 39 22.5 Chemistry PAP/PIB 168 6 28.0 73 3 24.3 241 9 26.8 Physics 262 10 26.2 279 14 19.9 541 24 22.5 Physics PAP/PIB 159 6 26.5 159 6 26.5 AP/IB Sciences 201 12 16.8 60 3 20.0 261 15 17.4 Science Electives 313 11 28.5 90 4 22.5 403 15 26.9 Science Remedial 140 9 15.6 140 9 15.6 ASL 31 2 15.5 31 2 15.5 French 164 9 18.2 146 9 16.2 310 18 17.2 Other Languages 68 4 17.0 12 1 12.0 80 5 16.0 Spanish 1,386 61 22.7 676 31 21.8 2,062 92 22.4 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 15,630 586 26.7 8,608 423 20.3 24,238 1,009 24.0 Std/Tchr (Reg Ed) Stdnts Teachers Ratio Stdnts Teachers Ratio Staffing Counts 2,724 162.1 1,845 133.0 Theoretical Average 21.0 17.3 Master Schedule 5/4 5/4

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 212 15 14.1 283 18 312 20 15.6 807 53 15.2 Tyler HS 180 10 18.0 140 9 15.6 275 18 15.3 595 37 16.1 HS Totals 392 25 15.7 423 27 15.7 587 38 15.4 0 0 #DIV/0! 1,402 90 15.6 Middle Schools 7th Grade Boys 7th Grade Girls 8th Grade Boys 8th Grade Girls Totals Boulter MS 36 4 9.0 30 3 10.0 40 4 10.0 30 3 10.0 136 14 9.7 Dogan MS 52 2 26.0 22 2 11.0 20 2 10.0 22 2 11.0 116 8 14.5 Hogg MS 55 3 18.3 24 2 12.0 39 3 13.0 25 2 12.5 143 10 14.3 Hubbard MS 114 3 38.0 90 3 30.0 93 3 31.0 90 3 30.0 387 12 32.3 Moore MS 95 3 31.7 75 3 25.0 65 2 32.5 35 2 17.5 270 10 27.0 Stewart MS 33 2 16.5 26 2 13.0 29 2 14.5 24 2 12.0 112 8 14.0 MS Totals 385 17 22.6 267 15 17.8 286 16 17.9 226 14 16.1 1,164 62 18.8 Certification (Assignment) LHS THS BMS DMS HgMS HuMS MMS SMS Total Eng-LA, Speech 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 8 Math 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 Science 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 11 Social Studies 6 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 10 Foreign Language 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Special Ed 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 CTE 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 HPE 15 17 4 4 4 4 5 4 57 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 33 29 0 7 5 5 8 8 8 0 103

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 100 6 16.7 77 5 15.4 251 14 17.9 372 14 26.6 AVID 72 4 18.0 43 3 14.3 56 3 18.7 124 6 20.7 Band 150 6 25.0 56 3 18.7 133 5 26.6 254 12 21.2 Choir 52 4 13.0 42 2 21.0 125 11 11.4 223 7 31.9 Career Portals 809 40 20.2 Creative Living 331 14 23.6 Dance 47 3 15.7 21 1 21.0 Health 43 3 14.3 Journlism (Y/N) 12 1 12.0 Keyboarding 61 4 15.3 152 6 25.3 104 5 20.8 320 14 22.9 Math/Science/Tech Orchestra 38 4 9.5 57 3 19.0 63 3 21.0 80 4 20.0 PALS/Teen Leader 22 1 22.0 PE 254 16 15.9 152 9 16.9 416 17 24.5 659 38 17.3 Tech Applications 71 3 23.7 49 4 12.3 294 14 21.0 Theatre/Speech 79 6 13.2 11 1 11.0 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 911 55 16.6 626 34 18.4 1,208 63 19.2 3,530 167 21.1

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 203 10 20.3 57 3 19.0 1,060 52 20.4 AVID 57 5 11.4 112 7 16.0 464 28 16.6 Band 286 12 23.8 66 4 16.5 945 42 22.5 Choir 108 6 18.0 84 7 12.0 634 37 17.1 Career Portals 105 5 21.0 914 45 20.3 Creative Living 331 14 23.6 Dance 68 4 17.0 Health 43 3 14.3 Journlism (Y/N) 26 1 26.0 38 2 19.0 Keyboarding 571 24 23.8 70 3 23.3 1,278 56 22.8 Math/Science/Tech 355 17 20.9 355 17 20.9 Orchestra 110 6 18.3 19 2 9.5 367 22 16.7 PALS/Teen Leader 100 4 25.0 66 5 13.2 188 10 18.8 PE 617 19 32.5 118 4 29.5 2,216 103 21.5 Tech Applications 337 14 24.1 134 7 19.1 885 42 21.1 Theatre/Speech 144 6 24.0 234 13 18.0 Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg All Elective Average 3,019 129 23.4 726 42 17.3 10,020 490 20.4

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 518 24 21.6 382 25 15.3 900 49 18.4 Band 271 15 18.1 97 4 24.3 368 19 19.4 Choir 74 5 14.8 94 6 15.7 168 11 15.3 Dance 494 16 30.9 53 2 26.5 547 18 30.4 Orchestra 81 4 20.3 24 2 12.0 105 6 17.5 Photography 128 6 21.3 128 6 21.3 Theatre 416 15 27.7 179 11 16.3 595 26 22.9 AVID 162 8 20.3 162 8 20.3 Computer Science AP 10 1 10.0 10 1 10.0 Debate 17 1 17.0 8 1 8.0 25 2 12.5 Health 266 9 29.6 143 6 23.8 409 15 27.3 Journalism 57 2 28.5 39 3 13.0 96 5 19.2 PE 404 16 25.3 308 13 23.7 712 29 24.6 PE - Cheer/Drill Team 18 1 18.0 82 3 27.3 100 4 25.0 Teen Leadership/PALS 16 1 16.0 16 1 16.0 Agriculture 217 9 24.1 128 8 16.0 345 17 20.3 Auto Tech (TJC) 180 6 30.0 25 2 12.5 205 8 25.6 Building Trades 84 4 21.0 220 13 16.9 304 17 17.9 Business 212 10 21.2 220 13 16.9 432 23 18.8 Career Prep (Co-Ops) 144 5 28.8 120 7 17.1 264 12 22.0 Computer Applications 47 2 23.5 600 36 16.7 647 38 17.0 Criminal Justice 326 12 27.2 LHS 326 12 27.2 Family & Cons. Sci 613 27 22.7 267 14 19.1 880 41 21.5 Graphics 46 2 23.0 37 3 12.3 83 5 16.6 Health Sci Tech 422 21 20.1 LHS 422 21 20.1 Instruct. Practices in Ed 56 3 18.7 22 1 22.0 78 4 19.5 Tech Systems 960 40 24.0 93 5 18.6 1,053 45 23.4 Welding 139 8 17.4 LHS 139 8 17.4 Total Total Class Total Total Class Total Total Class Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg Stds Sect Avg All Elective Average 6,378 273 23.4 3,141 178 17.6 9,519 451 21.1 Fine Arts Average 1,982 85 23.3 829 50 16.6 2,811 135 20.8 "Other" Average 788 31 25.4 580 26 22.3 1,368 57 24.0 Vocational Average 3,446 149 23.1 1,732 102 17.0 5,178 251 20.6

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 9 10 11 12 Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Lee 806 703 606 609 2,724 177.1 15.0 162.1 5.0 4.0 21.0 Tyler 573 443 424 405 1,845 147.0 14.0 133.0 5.0 4.0 17.3 High School Total 1,379 1,146 1,030 1,014 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 18.1 8 7 17.7 Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Middle Schools 5 6 7 8 Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Boulter 167 149 178 494 46.0 4.0 42.0 4.0 3.0 15.7 Dogan 132 167 153 452 36.5 4.0 32.5 8.0 6.0 18.5 Hogg 274 186 181 641 47.5 3.0 44.5 8.0 6.4 18.0 Hubbard 320 337 328 985 66.0 4.0 62.0 8.0 6.4 19.9 Moore 305 335 308 948 60.5 4.0 56.5 4.4 3.4 21.7 Stewart 127 133 152 412 35.5 4.0 31.5 7.0 5.4 17.0 Middle School Total 0 1,325 1,307 1,300 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 17.1 8 7 16.7

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 9 10 11 12 Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio @ 18.1 Change Lee 806 703 606 609 2,724 177.1 15.0 162.1 4 3 22.4 180.8 18.6 Tyler 573 443 424 405 1,845 147.0 14.0 133.0 4 3 18.5 122.4-10.6 High School Total 1,379 1,146 1,030 1,014 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 4 3 20.6 Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Tchrs Teacher Middle Schools 5 6 7 8 Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio @ 22.0 Change Boulter 167 149 178 494 46.0 4.0 42.0 4 3 15.7 32.8-9.2 Doagn 132 167 153 452 36.5 4.0 32.5 4 3 18.5 30.0-2.5 Hogg 274 186 181 641 47.5 3.0 44.5 4 3 19.2 42.5-2.0 Hubbard 320 337 328 985 66.0 4.0 62.0 4 3 21.2 65.4 3.4 Moore 305 335 308 948 60.5 4.0 56.5 4 3 22.4 62.9 6.4 Stewart 127 133 152 412 35.5 4.0 31.5 4 3 17.4 27.3-4.2 Middle School Total 0 1,325 1,307 1,300 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 4 3 19.5 TOTAL SECONDARY 8,501 616 52 564 4 3 20.1 564 0.0

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 9 10 11 12 Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio @ 19.4 Change Lee 806 703 606 609 2,724 177.1 15.0 162.1 5 4 21.0 176.0 13.8 Tyler 573 443 424 405 1,845 147.0 14.0 133.0 5 4 17.3 119.2-13.8 High School Total 1,379 1,146 1,030 1,014 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.4 295.1 0.0 Tyler ISD Grade Grade Grade Grade Total Total SpEd Net Pupil Tchr P/T Tchrs Teacher Middle Schools 5 6 7 8 Pupils Tchrs Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio @ 19.5 Change Boulter 167 149 178 494 46.0 4.0 42.0 4 3 15.7 33.8-8.2 Dogan 132 167 153 452 36.5 4.0 32.5 4 3 18.5 30.9-1.6 Hogg 274 186 181 641 47.5 3.0 44.5 4 3 19.2 43.9-0.6 Hubbard 320 337 328 985 66.0 4.0 62.0 4 3 21.2 67.4 5.4 Moore 305 335 308 948 60.5 4.0 56.5 4 3 22.4 64.9 8.4 Stewart 127 133 152 412 35.5 4.0 31.5 4 3 17.4 28.2-3.3 Middle School Total 0 1,325 1,307 1,300 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 4 3 19.5 269.0 0.0

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 Tchr @ (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler MSs' Base Line 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.3 117 Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.5 265.7-3.3 $152,254 118 Tyler MSs at 19.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.0 258.7-10.3 $472,463 122 Tyler MSs at 19.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.5 252.1-16.9 $776,251 125 Tyler MSs at 20.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 20.0 245.8-23.3 $1,064,850 128 Tyler MSs at 20.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 20.5 239.8-29.2 $1,339,371 131 Tyler MSs at 21.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 21.0 234.0-35.0 $1,600,819 134 Tyler MSs at 21.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 21.5 228.6-40.4 $1,850,107 138 Tyler MSs at 22.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 22.0 223.4-45.6 $2,088,064 141 Tyler MSs at 22.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 22.5 218.4-50.6 $2,315,444 144 Tyler MSs at 23.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 23.0 213.7-55.3 $2,532,939 147 Tyler MSs at 23.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 23.5 209.1-59.9 $2,741,179 150 Tyler MSs at 24.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 24.0 204.8-64.2 $2,940,742 154 Tyler MSs at 24.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 24.5 200.6-68.4 $3,132,159 157 Tyler MSs at 25.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 25.0 196.6-72.4 $3,315,920 160 Tyler MSs at 25.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 25.5 192.7-76.3 $3,492,475 163 Tyler MSs at 26.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 26.0 189.0-80.0 $3,662,238 166

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 Tchr @ (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler MSs' Base Line 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.3 117 Shift to 8/7 master schedule 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 16.7 117 Tyler MSs at 17.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 17.0 264.3-4.7 $213,605 119 Tyler MSs at 17.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 17.5 256.8-12.2 $559,508 123 Tyler MSs at 18.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 18.0 249.7-19.3 $886,194 126 Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 18.5 242.9-26.1 $1,195,221 130 Tyler MSs at 19.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 19.0 236.5-32.5 $1,487,983 133 Tyler MSs at 19.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 19.5 230.4-38.6 $1,765,733 137 Tyler MSs at 20.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 20.0 224.7-44.3 $2,029,594 140 Tyler MSs at 20.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 20.5 219.2-49.8 $2,280,585 144 Tyler MSs at 21.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 21.0 214.0-55.0 $2,519,623 147 Tyler MSs at 21.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 21.5 209.0-60.0 $2,747,544 151 Tyler MSs at 22.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 22.0 204.3-64.7 $2,965,104 154 Tyler MSs at 22.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 22.5 199.7-69.3 $3,172,995 158 Tyler MSs at 23.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 23.0 195.4-73.6 $3,371,847 161 Tyler MSs at 23.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 23.5 191.2-77.8 $3,562,238 165 Tyler MSs at 24.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 24.0 187.2-81.8 $3,744,695 168 Tyler MSs at 24.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 24.5 183.4-85.6 $3,919,706 172 Tyler MSs at 25.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 25.0 179.7-89.3 $4,087,715 175 Tyler MSs at 25.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 25.5 176.2-92.8 $4,249,137 179 Tyler MSs at 26.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 7 26.0 172.8-96.2 $4,404,349 182

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 Tchr @ (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler MSs' Base Line 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.3 117 Shift to 7/6 master schedule 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 17.1 102 Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 17.5 262.1-6.9 $314,493 105 Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 18.0 254.9-14.1 $647,985 108 Tyler MSs at 18.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 18.5 248.0-21.0 $963,450 111 Tyler MSs at 19.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 19.0 241.4-27.6 $1,262,312 114 Tyler MSs at 19.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 19.5 235.2-33.8 $1,545,848 117 Tyler MSs at 20.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 20.0 229.4-39.6 $1,815,207 120 Tyler MSs at 20.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 20.5 223.8-45.2 $2,071,426 123 Tyler MSs at 21.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 21.0 218.4-50.6 $2,315,444 126 Tyler MSs at 21.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 21.5 213.4-55.6 $2,548,113 129 Tyler MSs at 22.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 22.0 208.5-60.5 $2,770,206 132 Tyler MSs at 22.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 22.5 203.9-65.1 $2,982,428 135 Tyler MSs at 23.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 23.0 199.4-69.6 $3,185,423 138 Tyler MSs at 23.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 23.5 195.2-73.8 $3,379,780 141 Tyler MSs at 24.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 24.0 191.1-77.9 $3,566,039 144 Tyler MSs at 24.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 24.5 187.2-81.8 $3,744,695 147 Tyler MSs at 25.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 25.0 183.5-85.5 $3,916,205 150 Tyler MSs at 25.5 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 25.5 179.9-89.1 $4,080,990 153 Tyler MSs at 26.0 Avg. 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 7 6 26.0 176.4-92.6 $4,239,436 156

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 3,932 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.3 Plus 50 new students 3,982 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.5 Plus 100 new students 4,032 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 18.7 Plus 150 new students 4,082 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.0 Plus 200 new students 4,132 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.2 Plus 250 new students 4,182 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.4 Plus 300 new students 4,232 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.7 Plus 350 new students 4,282 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 19.9 Plus 400 new students 4,332 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 20.1 Plus 450 new students 4,382 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 20.4 Plus 500 new students 4,432 292.0 23.0 269.0 8 6.4 20.6

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 Tchr @ (+/-) 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 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.4 116 Tyler HS's at 19.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.5 292.9-2.3 $103,297 117 Tyler HS's at 20.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.0 285.6-9.6 $438,649 120 Tyler HS's at 20.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.5 278.6-16.5 $757,644 123 Tyler HS's at 21.0Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 21.0 272.0-23.2 $1,061,448 126 Tyler HS's at 21.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 21.5 265.6-29.5 $1,351,121 129 Tyler HS's at 22.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 22.0 259.6-35.5 $1,627,628 132 Tyler HS's at 22.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 22.5 253.8-41.3 $1,891,845 135 Tyler HS's at 23.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 23.0 248.3-46.8 $2,144,575 138 Tyler HS's at 23.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 23.5 243.0-52.1 $2,386,550 141 Tyler HS's at 24.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 24.0 238.0-57.2 $2,618,443 144 Tyler HS's at 24.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 24.5 233.1-62.0 $2,840,871 147 Tyler HS's at 25.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 25.0 228.5-66.7 $3,054,402 150 Tyler HS's at 25.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 25.5 224.0-71.2 $3,259,559 153 Tyler HS's at 26.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 26.0 219.7-75.5 $3,456,825 156

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 Tchr @ (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler HS's Base Line 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.4 116 Shift to 8/7 Master Schedule 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 17.7 124 Tyler HS's at 18.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 18.0 290.1-5.0 $231,050 126 Tyler HS's at 18.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 18.5 282.3-12.9 $590,141 130 Tyler HS's at 19.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 19.0 274.8-20.3 $930,332 133 Tyler HS's at 19.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 19.5 267.8-27.4 $1,253,078 137 Tyler HS's at 20.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 20.0 261.1-34.1 $1,559,686 140 Tyler HS's at 20.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 20.5 254.7-40.4 $1,851,338 144 Tyler HS's at 21.0Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 21.0 248.7-46.5 $2,129,102 147 Tyler HS's at 21.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 21.5 242.9-52.3 $2,393,946 151 Tyler HS's at 22.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 22.0 237.4-57.8 $2,646,752 154 Tyler HS's at 22.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 22.5 232.1-63.1 $2,888,322 158 Tyler HS's at 23.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 23.0 227.0-68.1 $3,119,390 161 Tyler HS's at 23.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 23.5 222.2-72.9 $3,340,624 165 Tyler HS's at 24.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 24.0 217.6-77.6 $3,552,641 168 Tyler HS's at 24.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 24.5 213.1-82.0 $3,756,003 172 Tyler HS's at 25.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 25.0 208.9-86.3 $3,951,231 175 Tyler HS's at 25.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 25.5 204.8-90.4 $4,138,804 179 Tyler HS's at 26.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 8 7 26.0 200.8-94.3 $4,319,161 182

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 Tchr @ (+/-) Savings at $45,800 Teacher Load Pupils Tchr Tchr Tchrs Prds Prds Ratio Avg Tchrs per Position at Average Tyler HS's Base Line 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.4 116 Shift to 7/6 Master Schedule 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 18.1 108 Tyler HS's at 18.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 18.5 288.1-7.0 $320,823 111 Tyler HS's at 19.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 19.0 280.6-14.6 $668,101 114 Tyler HS's at 19.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 19.5 273.4-21.8 $997,571 117 Tyler HS's at 20.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 20.0 266.5-28.6 $1,310,567 120 Tyler HS's at 20.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 20.5 260.0-35.1 $1,608,295 123 Tyler HS's at 21.0Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 21.0 253.8-41.3 $1,891,845 126 Tyler HS's at 21.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 21.5 247.9-47.2 $2,162,207 129 Tyler HS's at 22.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 22.0 242.3-52.8 $2,420,280 132 Tyler HS's at 22.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 22.5 236.9-58.2 $2,666,883 135 Tyler HS's at 23.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 23.0 231.8-63.4 $2,902,764 138 Tyler HS's at 23.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 23.5 226.8-68.3 $3,128,608 141 Tyler HS's at 24.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 24.0 222.1-73.0 $3,345,041 144 Tyler HS's at 24.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 24.5 217.6-77.6 $3,552,641 147 Tyler HS's at 25.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 25.0 213.2-81.9 $3,751,936 150 Tyler HS's at 25.5 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 25.5 209.0-86.1 $3,943,416 153 Tyler HS's at 26.0 Avg. 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 7 6 26.0 205.0-90.1 $4,127,531 156

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 4,569 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.4 Plus 50 new students 4,619 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.6 Plus 100 new students 4,669 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 19.8 Plus 150 new students 4,719 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.0 Plus 200 new students 4,769 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.2 Plus 250 new students 4,819 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.4 Plus 300 new students 4,869 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.6 Plus 350 new students 4,919 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 20.8 Plus 400 new students 4,969 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 21.0 Plus 450 new students 5,019 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 21.3 Plus 500 new students 5,069 324.1 29.0 295.1 5 4 21.5

Special Education

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 216 9.0 24.0 4.0 13.0 16.6 Tyler 173 6.0 28.8 5.0 11.0 15.7 VAC 21 1.0 21.0 0.0 1.0 21.0 Boshears 80 16.0 5.0 34.0 50.0 1.6 Link 12 1.0 12.0 6.0 7.0 1.7 Boulter 48 3.0 16.0 1.0 4.0 12.0 Hogg 44 3.0 14.7 1.0 4.0 11.0 Hubbard 21 2.0 10.5 1.0 3.0 7.0 Moore 60 3.0 20.0 2.0 5.0 12.0 Stewart 21 3.0 7.0 1.0 4.0 5.3 Austin 5 0.5 10.0 0.0 0.5 10.0 Bell 17 1.5 11.3 0.0 1.5 11.3 Birdwell 11 1.0 11.0 0.0 1.0 11.0 Bonner 5 0.5 10.0 0.0 0.5 10.0 Caldwell 17 1.0 17.0 1.0 2.0 8.5 Clarkston 11 1.0 11.0 1.0 2.0 5.5 Dixie 22 1.0 22.0 1.0 2.0 11.0 Douglas 7 1.0 7.0 1.0 2.0 3.5 Griffin 9 1.0 9.0 1.0 2.0 4.5 Jack 18 1.0 18.0 0.0 1.0 18.0 Jones 9 1.0 9.0 1.0 2.0 4.5 Orr 19 1.5 12.7 1.0 2.5 7.6 Owens 19 1.0 19.0 1.0 2.0 9.5 Peete 9 1.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 Ramey 14 1.0 14.0 1.0 2.0 7.0 Rice 19 2.0 9.5 1.0 3.0 6.3 Woods 13 1.0 13.0 1.0 2.0 6.5 Sub Total 920 65.0 14.2 66.0 131.0 7.0 Life Skills, PTC Lee 17 2.0 8.5 4.0 6.0 2.8 Lee (PTC) 13 1.0 13.0 3.0 4.0 3.3 Tyler 21 3.0 7.0 5.0 8.0 2.6 Dogan 8 1.0 8.0 2.0 3.0 2.7 Hubbard (PTC) 6 1.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 Moore 5 1.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 Stewart 9 1.0 9.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Bell 8 1.0 8.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 Birdwell 8 1.0 8.0 2.0 3.0 2.7 Douglas 9 4.0 2.3 3.0 7.0 1.3

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 7 1.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 1.8 Jones 11 1.0 11.0 2.0 3.0 3.7 Peete (PTC) 9 1.0 9.0 3.0 4.0 2.3 Rice (PTC) 10 2.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 1.4 Sub Total 141 21.0 6.7 41.0 62.0 2.3 PPCD Bonner 9 1.0 9.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 Dixie 18 2.0 9.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 Jack 10 1.0 10.0 2.0 3.0 3.3 Jones 6 1.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Orr 10 1.0 10.0 2.0 3.0 3.3 Sub Total 53 6.0 8.8 11.0 17.0 3.1 ABU Tyler 4 1.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.3 Boulter 6 1.0 6.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 Caldwell 4 1.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.3 Dixie 5 1.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 1.7 Sub Total 19 4.0 4.8 8.0 12.0 1.6 RDSFD Itinerant 66 4.0 16.5 0.0 4.0 16.5 Lee 10 1.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 10.0 Moore 9 1.0 9.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 Clarkston 22 4.0 5.5 1.0 5.0 4.4 Sub Total 107 10.0 10.7 1.0 11.0 9.7 "Speech Only" 233 Total 1,473 106.0 13.9 127.0 233.0 6.3 Tyler ISD at State Average 1,473 108.3 13.6 121.8 230.2 6.4 Difference 2.3-5.2 Savings at Average Salaries -$105,744 $95,518 -$10,226

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 2,724 259 9.5% 2 257 9.4% Tyler 1,845 221 12.0% 0 221 12.0% Boshears (PK-12) 80 80 100.0% 0 80 100.0% Middle Schools Boulter 494 50 10.1% 0 50 10.1% Dogan 452 34 7.5% 0 34 7.5% Hogg 641 44 6.9% 1 43 6.7% Hubbard 985 49 5.0% 2 47 4.8% Moore 948 76 8.0% 2 74 7.8% Stewart 412 43 10.4% 2 41 10.0% Elementary Schools Austin 519 16 3.1% 10 6 1.2% Bell 510 40 7.8% 15 25 4.9% Birdwell 448 37 8.3% 16 21 4.7% Bonner 506 27 5.3% 13 14 2.8% Caldwell 674 28 4.2% 6 22 3.3% Clarkston 394 49 12.4% 18 31 7.9% Dixie 552 61 11.1% 13 48 8.7% Douglas 724 29 4.0% 11 18 2.5% Griffin 674 20 3.0% 9 11 1.6% Jack 691 52 7.5% 18 34 4.9% Jones 329 59 17.9% 14 45 13.7% Orr 645 49 7.6% 19 30 4.7% Owens 634 35 5.5% 16 19 3.0% Peete 380 23 6.1% 5 18 4.7% Ramey 541 20 3.7% 6 14 2.6% Rice 825 49 5.9% 19 30 3.6% Woods 694 32 4.6% 15 17 2.4% Total 18,321 1,482 8.1% 232 1,250 6.8% State Identification in 2009-10 = 9.0% Tyler ISD Identification in 2007-08 = 11.3% Tyler ISD Identification in 2008-09 = 9.9% Tyler ISD Identification in 2009-10 = 9.3%

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 1,482 18 82.3 Benchmark 100-105 Proposed 1,482 17.0 87.2 1,482 16.0 92.6 1,482 15.0 98.8 1,482 14.5 102.2 1,482 14.0 105.9 Speech Pathology Speech Pathologists 13 Speech Assistants (part) 1 Total Staff 14 Tyler ISD 621 14 44.4 Benchmark 50-55 Proposed 621 13.5 46.0 621 13.0 47.8 621 12.5 49.7 621 12.0 51.8 621 11.5 54.0 621 11.0 56.5

Support Staff

Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Data for 2010-2011 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 1,159 311 1,255 $784 392 1,803 93.0 19.4 18.0 108% Tyler 1,874 1,498 367 1,260 $463 232 1,675 97.0 17.3 16.7 103% Gary 0 0 0 85 $0 0 85 6.0 14.2 8.5 167% Plyler 40 0 35 43 $2 1 62 6.0 10.3 6.2 165% St. Louis 143 143 110 136 $71 36 227 14.0 16.2 12.2 133% Middle Schools Boulter 499 447 142 417 $105 53 541 39.0 13.9 15.4 90% Dogan 452 432 165 412 $114 57 552 32.0 17.2 15.5 111% Hogg 646 526 159 563 $146 73 716 36.0 19.9 17.1 116% Hubbard 988 407 109 557 $345 173 784 38.0 20.6 17.8 116% Moore 948 559 160 559 $184 92 731 38.0 19.2 17.3 111% Stewart 411 376 208 390 $137 69 563 36.0 15.6 15.6 100% Elementaries Austin 514 499 282 483 $4 2 626 32.0 19.6 16.2 121% Bell 511 367 185 428 $12 6 527 27.0 19.5 15.2 128% Birdwell 446 401 192 376 $42 21 493 26.0 19.0 14.9 127% Bonner 504 485 251 446 $30 15 587 26.0 22.6 15.8 143% Caldwell 680 446 209 540 $15 8 652 30.0 21.7 16.5 132% Clarkston 395 245 184 336 $19 10 438 20.0 21.9 14.3 153% Dixie 553 455 313 496 $27 14 666 30.0 22.2 16.6 134% Douglas 723 668 436 615 $7 4 837 38.0 22.0 18.3 120% Griffin 690 645 413 643 $22 11 861 36.0 23.9 18.6 129% Jack 694 210 198 457 $85 43 599 26.0 23.0 15.9 145% Jones (Boshears) 464 326 222 351 $39 20 482 26.0 18.5 14.8 125% Orr 650 589 286 594 $37 19 756 36.0 21.0 17.5 120% Owens 626 204 157 396 $25 13 487 26.0 18.7 14.8 127% Peete 385 365 225 364 $0 0 477 24.0 19.9 14.7 135% Ramey 532 486 243 491 $3 2 614 30.0 20.5 16.1 127% Rice 834 286 158 536 $12 6 621 30.0 20.7 16.2 128% Woods 695 353 285 541 $49 25 708 34.0 20.8 17.0 122%

Meals Per Labor Hour (MPLH) Data for 2010-2011 TOTAL 18,659 12,577 0 6,005 13,770 $2,779 1,390 18,162 932.00 19.5 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

MPLH and Staffing Recovery Data for 2010-2011 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 1,803 18.0 93.0 100.1 (7.1) (1.0) ($14,936) Tyler 1,675 16.7 97.0 100.3 (3.3) (0.5) ($6,903) Gary 85 8.5 6.0 10.0 (4.0) (0.6) ($8,369) Plyler 62 6.2 6.0 9.9 (3.9) (0.6) ($8,200) St. Louis 227 12.2 14.0 18.6 (4.6) (0.7) ($9,552) Middle Schools Boulter 541 15.4 39.0 35.1 3.9 0.6 $8,165 Dogan 552 15.5 32.0 35.6 (3.6) (0.5) ($7,491) Hogg 716 17.1 36.0 41.8 (5.8) (0.8) ($12,223) Hubbard 784 17.8 38.0 44.0 (6.0) (0.9) ($12,647) Moore 731 17.3 38.0 42.3 (4.3) (0.6) ($8,901) Stewart 563 15.6 36.0 36.1 (0.1) (0.0) ($121) Elementaries Austin 626 16.2 32.0 38.6 (6.6) (0.9) ($13,896) Bell 527 15.2 27.0 34.6 (7.6) (1.1) ($15,980) Birdwell 493 14.9 26.0 33.1 (7.1) (1.0) ($14,828) Bonner 587 15.8 26.0 37.1 (11.1) (1.6) ($23,265) Caldwell 652 16.5 30.0 39.5 (9.5) (1.4) ($19,907) Clarkston 438 14.3 20.0 30.6 (10.6) (1.5) ($22,165) Dixie 666 16.6 30.0 40.1 (10.1) (1.4) ($21,173) Douglas 837 18.3 38.0 45.7 (7.7) (1.1) ($16,131) Griffin 861 18.6 36.0 46.3 (10.3) (1.5) ($21,473) Jack 599 15.9 26.0 37.6 (11.6) (1.7) ($24,356) Jones (Boshears) 482 14.8 26.0 32.5 (6.5) (0.9) ($13,670) Orr 756 17.5 36.0 43.2 (7.2) (1.0) ($15,004) Owens 487 14.8 26.0 32.9 (6.9) (1.0) ($14,447) Peete 477 14.7 24.0 32.4 (8.4) (1.2) ($17,605) Ramey 614 16.1 30.0 38.1 (8.1) (1.2) ($17,023) Rice 621 16.2 30.0 38.3 (8.3) (1.2) ($17,435) Woods 708 17.0 34.0 41.6 (7.6) (1.1) ($15,999) TOTAL 18,162 932.0 1,116.3 (184.3) (26.3) ($385,532) * Standard MPLH from "School Food Service Management in the 21st Century" by Dorothy Pannell

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 0 (6.2) HVAC Technician 1 : 450,000 GSF 6.9 2 (4.9) Plumber 1 : 390,000 GSF 7.9 4 (3.9) Electrician, Electronics Technician 1 : 380,000 GSF 8.1 7 (1.1) Carpenter, Locksmith 1 : 300,000 GSF 10.3 4 (6.3) Painter, Roofer 1 : 300,000 GSF 10.3 3 (7.3) Groundsman, IPM Technician 431 acres 1 : 35 acres 12.3 7 (5.3) High School Maintenance 6 Preventitive Mainttenance Technicians 4 Storeroom Operator 1 Supervisor, Foreman 4 Spending for Contract Labor Services $840,862 1 : $42,833 19.6 Department Sub-Totals 62.1 61.6 (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

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 396,670 1.0 10.0 7.0 0.0 18.0 18.8 (0.8) Tyler 333,504 1.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 15.0 15.8 (0.8) Boshears-JON 66,616 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.2 1.8 PACE-Anderson 11,568 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 (0.0) Plyler 38,011 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8 0.2 Target Academy 42,351 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 (0.0) Middle Schools Boulter 98,277 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 4.9 0.1 Dogan 68,080 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.4 0.6 Hogg 67,017 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.4 (0.4) Hubbard 125,444 1.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.3 (0.3) Moore 79,796 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 Stewart 93,472 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.7 (0.7) Elementary Schools Austin 67,703 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.4 0.1 Bell 76,476 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.8 0.2 Birdwell 61,533 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.1 (0.1) Bonner 70,368 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.5 0.5 Caldwell 73,463 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.7 0.3 Clarkston 74,544 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.7 0.3 Dixie 67,716 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.4 (0.4) Douglas 82,262 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.1 (0.1) Griffin 93,008 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 4.7 (0.7) Jack 84,460 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.2 (0.2) Jones 65,445 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.3 (0.3) Orr 87,126 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.4 (0.4) Owens 62,719 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.1 0.9 Peete 63,216 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.2 (0.2) Ramey 72,644 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.6 (0.6) Rice 77,168 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.9 0.1 Woods 87,126 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.4 (0.4)

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 33,292 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.3 Fine Arts 30,346 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 (0.5) Maintenance 10,924 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 Prof. Dev. Center 40,758 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 (1.0) St. Louis (Head Start) 39,014 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 (0.5) Transportation 39,600 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 (1.0) Campus Totals 2,881,717 27.0 95.0 15.0 2.0 139.0 141.9 (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)

Peer District Comparisons

Comparison of 2009-10 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 4,238.0 558.3 2,363.2 1,073.0 1,097.8 1,360.2 333,006.8 Special Ed Teachers 386.0 60.6 255.9 104.9 131.8 126.8 32,027.4 Net Tchrs (less SpEd) 3,852.0 497.7 2,107.3 968.1 966.0 1,233.4 300,979.4 Teachers per 1,000 Stds 61.6 60.0 56.7 63.5 66.5 67.2 61.6 62.4 Professional Support 678.8 121.2 462.4 219.1 210.1 304.1 58,575.8 Prof Support per 1,000 Stds 10.9 14.6 12.4 14.4 14.5 16.6 13.3 12.1 Campus Admin. 232.4 26.3 127.4 73.8 57.8 80.0 18,543.4 Campus Adm per 1,000 Stds 3.7 3.2 3.4 4.8 4.0 4.4 3.8 3.8 Central Admin. 81.0 21.0 43.5 22.0 14.4 14.0 6,852.9 Central Adm per 1,000 Stds 1.3 2.5 1.2 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.4 Educational Aides 985.3 116.1 422.3 204.4 255.2 244.0 64,700.8 Ed Aides per 1,000 Stds 15.8 14.0 11.4 13.4 17.6 13.3 14.4 13.4 Auxiliary Staff 2,418.5 358.2 1,164.8 565.2 326.7 580.3 178,140.9 Aux Staff per 1,000 Stds 38.7 43.2 31.3 37.1 22.5 31.6 34.5 36.9 Total Staff Members 8,634.0 1,201.1 4,583.6 2,157.5 1,962.0 2,582.6 659,820.6 Total Staff per 1,000 Stds 138.1 144.7 123.3 141.4 135.1 140.8 136.5 136.8

Comparison of 2009-10 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 14.8 14.9 15.7 14.2 13.2 13.5 14.5 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 2,307 713 3,431 778,806 Percent of Total Stds 30.1% 14.5% 17.8% 15.1% 4.9% 18.7% 16.1% Bilingual/ESL Tchrs 113.0 48.1 187.3 49.8 13.3 145.5 23,412.4 Percent of Total Tchrs 2.7% 8.6% 7.9% 4.6% 1.2% 10.7% 7.0% Tchrs per 1,000 Students 6.0 40.0 28.3 21.6 18.7 42.4 22.9 30.1 Special Ed Stds 4,391 840 4,385 1,551 2,102 1,614 435,040 Percent of Total Stds 7.0% 10.1% 11.8% 10.2% 14.5% 8.8% 9.0% Special Ed Tchrs 386.0 60.6 255.9 104.9 131.8 126.8 32,027.4 Percent of Total Tchrs 9.1% 10.9% 10.8% 9.8% 12.0% 9.3% 9.6% Tchrs per 1,000 Students 87.9 72.1 58.4 67.6 62.7 78.6 69.7 73.6 Elem Class Size per Tchr Kindergarten 20.6 18.5 19.1 19.5 20.6 19.6 19.7 19.3 1st Grade 19.8 21.8 19.3 20.0 17.9 18.7 19.8 19.1 2nd Grade 20.2 22.9 19.5 20.1 19.5 18.5 20.4 19.2 3rd Grade 19.3 21.8 20.2 20.6 18.5 19.0 20.1 19.3 4th Grade 20.3 23.9 19.7 20.1 18.3 17.9 20.5 19.9 5th Grade 17.0 23.0 24.5 20.6 21.3 20.4 21.3 22.4 6th Grade 17.9 18.5 24.2 21.6 18.3 19.1 20.1 21.1 Sec Class Size per Tchr Sec. English 14.1 17.8 21.6 20.8 17.1 18.5 18.3 17.8 Sec. Foreign Lang. 17.5 17.3 22.7 20.4 20.8 19.4 19.7 19.4 Sec. Math 15.2 18.8 23.5 21.0 18.2 18.2 19.3 18.5 Sec. Science 14.5 19.0 24.5 20.7 18.9 20.8 19.5 19.3