school board questions and answers january 28, 2015 28. is ... · school board questions and...

School Board Questions and Answers

January 28, 2015

Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget

28. Is there any available research on the relative costs of educating “at-risk” students? I understand that this is probably not available for LCPS specifically, but there might be national research that has been done that could be helpful. If so, please make it available as background on the budgetary effects of an increasing “at-risk” student population on school division budgets. (Hornberger, January 12, 2015) Below are studies that include analyses of costs for districts or schools in educating at-risk students: Cost of Student Achievement: Report of the DC Education Adequacy Study http://tinyurl.com/mx2d4uj Study of the District of Columbia Public Schools by the Finance Project documented the cost of additional staff and resources to serve students in foster care, homeless students, low income students, students receiving special education services and English language learners. The study findings recommended an additional cost weight of 0.37 for the district for serving each student at risk of academic failure. Meeting the Educational Needs of At-Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models http://epa.sagepub.com/content/16/1/1.short Study of the costs of implementing three comprehensive school reform models designed to support grade-level achievement for at-risk students. The high estimates for the models ranged from $266,000 to $646,500 per school. Adjusting School Aid Formulas for the Higher Cost of Educating Disadvantaged Students http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/47/1/ntj-v47n01p89-110-adjusting-school-aid-formulas.pdf Study of the adjustments to school aid formulas for educating disadvantaged students in Arizona. Additional costs ranged from 5-10% higher based on the population of disadvantaged students. Attached are 2 research articles by reputable sources documenting the rising cost of special education. However, from these and other articles reviewed, it does vary from local, state and regional areas in the US.

1


January 28, 2015


40. What language is communicated to applicants/FCPS regarding transportation to TJHS? Can the agreement read LCPS "may or may not" provide transportation? (Bergel/January 13, 2015)

The language that is communicated to applicants is, “A Virginia Regional Governor’s School, TJHSST is open to Fairfax County students to student in participating districts (currently Arlington, Loudoun, and Prince William countries, and Falls Church City). Fairfax County and most other participating school districts provide transportation to their students to TJHSST.”

See link for reference document http://www.fcps.edu/pla/TJHSST_Admissions/forms/TJIntroTranslation/TJIntro_English.pdf

When staff asked if the contract language could be changed to “may or may not provide transportation”, the response was they want to keep the contract consistent. All other participating counties provide transportation.

Fairfax County has agreed to extend the deadline for our contract submission to February 16, 2015.

2


January 28, 2015


59. Is there a requirement to offer student enrichment programs for gifted students and do we have funds for this? Why are we providing programs for gifted when we are not offering summer programs to students with difficulties? (Turgeon, January 13, 2015)

There are no State requirements for student enrichment programs for gifted students.

3


January 28, 2015


61. Why does the increase in staff for Gifted not correlate with the amount of growth? (Hornberger, January 13, 2015)

There have been variances in the number of gifted students who participate in the program.

4


January 28, 2015


68. Provide the five year summer school statistics for Elementary School, Middle School and how many ELL students and Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) students attended. (Sheridan/January 14, 2015)

Provided are the five year summer school statistics for Elementary, Middle and High School. They include the number of ELL and FRL students. The data for Special Education includes Extended School Year (ESY) special education students. The total number of students served for each level is the sum of general education and special education. Students can be reflected in multiple categories as indicated by ELL and FRL data.

The data was extracted from our Student Information System and the Department of Instructional Services ELL Office

Summer 2010 Summer 2011 Summer 2012 Summer 2013 Summer 2014

No Summer School

Elementary Regional Regional Regional Regional

General ED 665

618

681

*926 *277

Special Ed 445

583

526

*564 No data available

Total Students Served

1,110

1,201

1,207 *1,490

ELL 205

144

222 *133 *264

FRL 476

595

611 827 No data available

Middle Regional Regional Regional Summer School by School

General ED

176

395

368 174

Special Ed 97

99

106

68

Total Students Served 273

494

474

242

ELL 93

69

143 113

FRL 110

143

185 40

High Regional Regional Regional Regional

General Ed 147

930

876

1,055

Special Ed

58

140

157

196

Total Students Served

205

1,070

1,033

1,251

ELL 69

53

49 51

FRL

25

364

418 553

*Title 1 Summer Session occurred for summer 2013 and 2014-Guilford, Sugarland, Sully and Rolling Ridge. (2014 was funded with LCPS Title I funds.) This data is included in the overall summer school numbers for summer 2013. Only the Title 1 data is available for summer 2014.

5


January 28, 2015


69. What is the cost of Virtual Loudoun compared to surrounding jurisdictions? How many other LCPS students are enrolled in other jurisdictions' virtual courses? (Sheridan, Jan 14, 2015)

School Division Cost per Internal Student Cost per External Student

FCPS $680 $780 Prince William $450 $595 LCPS $695* TBD

*LCPS FRL cost is $150 The following chart shows Virtual classes taken by LCPS students excluding Virtual Loudoun

13-14 Course and Provider

Count of Classes Taken by LCPS Students

Edgenuity 67

FCPS Online 2

FLORIDA VIRTUAL SCHOOL 8

Gallaudet 2

The Keystone School 3

Virtual Virginia 70

Grand Total 152

14-15 Course and Provider

Count of Classes Taken by LCPS Students

Edgenuity 37

Keystone School, The 1

Virtual Virginia 66

Grand Total 104

6


January 28, 2015


77. How frequently does the school division actually add unbudgeted teaching positions? Please provide a five-year analysis of the teaching positions added to the school division that was not actually budgeted for (aka contingency), including ES, MS, HS, SPED and ELL teaching positions. If a five-year analysis is not available, please provide as much information in response to this question that is available. (Hornberger/Jan. 19, 2015)

Positions have historically been added to the budget to address:

Unanticipated growth in the number of students; Unanticipated student distributions; and Increases in grant funding during the year.

The following chart provides a history of the teacher positions which were added after the budget process was concluded. In addition, there have been additional teachers positions included in the Department of Instruction budget to specifically address unanticipated needs. These positions were held in reserve until enrollment stabilized and allocated as needed. Those not allocated remained vacant for the year.

Year Description Added FTE Department of Instruction

Reserve Teacher FTEs

2009-10 ARRA Spec Ed Teacher 24.0 Pre-School ARRA Teacher 2.0 Total 2.0 17.0 2010-11 General Education Teachers 25.8

ELL Teacher 3.5 Total 29.3 15.0

2011-12 General Education Teachers - Special Ed Teachers 10.0 Total 10.0 24.0

2012-13 General Education Teachers 0.8 Total 0.8 21.0

2013-14 General Education Teachers 1.00 Teacher, ELL 3.00 Total 4.0 23.5

2014-15 General Education Teachers (2.2) Teacher, ELL 0.2 Total (2.0) 19.5

7


January 28, 2015


84. Provide breakdown of Phoenix service costs (by ES, MS, HS)? Do we have statistics of parental usage between ES, MS, HS? (Rose/January 20, 2015)

The costs of the SIS for LCPS are NOT separated by school level. Below are counts of parent and/or student access to Clarity from the previous two school years. We have requested 2013-14 data for Table 2 from the vendor and will supply that when it is received. These numbers do not show a true representation of system use because Clarity has a feature where you can receive an email that informs the recipient of any change in the student account. Once this is set up, the account holder does not have to continue to log on to the Clarity portal. (It is similar to the notice you receive when someone comments on your Facebook status.) Table 1: Counts of Parents and Students Logging into Clarity as of January 22, 2014 (2013-14 school year) Distribution by grade level is not available

Group Total Total Logged In % Logged In

Parents 138,242

Adult accounts link to a student (Example: Mom and Dad both have accounts to Johnny Smith’s grades)

33,411 24%

Students 72,059 (Students who have grades)

18,018 25%

Table 2: Counts of Clarity Parent active accounts by school level as of January 11, 2013 (2012-13 school year)

ES Total MS Total HS Total Other Totals 10,678 12,941 12,702 121 36,442 29.3% 35.5% 34.9% 0.3%

8


January 28, 2015


94. What are student deficiency levels at ES, MS, and HS levels which will not be addressed if Summer School is not funded? How many students at each level are not being served through summer school because of the cuts in funding? (Turgeon, Jan 20, 2015)

We cannot say exactly what student deficiency levels will be addressed until the students are identified for attending summer school. However, we included a chart (Question #68) that shows a pattern of the number of students served from summer 2009 to summer 2014. Generally, we focus on reading and math deficiencies during summer programming. High school offers summer programming for credit recovery. The lack of transportation, as in the summer of 2014, limits accessibility to summer school for students.

Please review the summer school trend document for question 68.

9


January 28, 2015


95. What would be the cost to restore Summer School classroom instruction at the high school level back to the FY14 level? And what would be the cost if we wanted student tuition to cover 50% of the cost? (Reed/January 20, 2015)

Teacher salaries for high school summer school in the summer of 2013 cost approximately $566,000. A similar level of resources would be needed to support the restoration of summer school at the high school level assuming a similar program is desired. In the summer of 2013 approximately 1,055 high school students attended summer school. If one wanted student tuition to cover half the cost, tuition would be set at $268 per course.

Note participation might not be as high as seen in previous years due to the existence of Virtual Loudoun.

10


January 28, 2015


102. What is the DTS current level of staffing for ERP and Phoenix? (Morse/January 21, 2015)

Phoenix

Currently there are 8.5 DTS staff members who support the Phoenix Student Information System. Roles and responsibilities for support, maintenance, training, upgrades, and modifications for Phoenix and other LCPS data and reporting requirements are:

4 data analysts

2 technical trainers

.5 program assistant

1 SQL DBA

1 System engineer

Oracle ERP

No DTS staff directly supports the ERP; only minimal infrastructure and security support is required and is absorbed as part of daily routine activities. DTS’s responsibility is to provide an internet connection and active directory security credentials, similar to other 3rd party vendor hosted LCPS applications. Loudoun County DIT is the technical owner and project manager of the ERP.

11


January 28, 2015


103. What modules have been and are being implemented for Phoenix? When do we expect those modules to be completed? (Morse/January 21, 2015 )

The core functions of the Phoenix SIS were configured and implemented during the FY14 School Year and delivered in July 2014 for a FY15 go-live. Integrated functions/modules include demographics, attendance, student enrollment, master scheduling, discipline, health, and testing. Phoenix also provides data integration with 3rd party LCPS applications including but not limited to Transportation, Library, Assessment, and other instructional applications. DTS is supporting the Department of Instruction during the implementation of the gradebook, parent and student portals, mobile apps, online surveys, and parent-teacher conferences. DTS anticipates completion of these modules by August, 2015 for a FY16 go-live. Phoenix will also eliminate the need for the Parent Information Management System (PIMS) which automates requests to modify personal contact information. DTS is requesting funding in the FY16 budget to streamline online registration and forms.

12


January 28, 2015


104. How is the increase in bandwidth costed out? (Turgeon/January 21, 2015)

The bandwidth upgrade is segmented into two functional areas, an internet capacity upgrade and a wide-area-network upgrade. The internet capacity upgrade increases bandwidth to the internet from the current 2 Gb to 10 Gb. The wide-area-network (WAN) upgrade increases the “highway traffic lanes” between schools and also increases the number of central processing hubs (CPH) from 2 to 4 locations.

Total bandwidth will be increased 500% (2 GB to 10 GB) while costs will only increase 37% ($846,000 increase from $2.3m to $3.15m.)

The increase of internet bandwidth would not be effective without upgrading the WAN. The additional CPH will reduce capacity and processing “bottlenecks’ allowing us to maximize throughput within the WAN and to the Internet. The detailed analysis below identifies all budgeted costs without the LCPS 45% e-rate reimbursement.

Elementary schools - All elementary schools, Udvar Hazy, and Cornwall campus have 100MB WAN circuits that cost $1,300 a month each. There would be no upgrade to these circuits and these would continuing costs in the FY16 budget.

Middle schools – All middle schools have the same 100 MB WAN circuit as elementary schools. The FY16 plan calls for upgrading each middle school to a 1 GB WAN circuit. The 1 GB circuits cost $2,100 a month, increasing monthly costs by $800 per school.

High schools – Currently, only 2 LCPS high schools have 1 GB WAN circuits. The FY16 plan calls for upgrading the other high schools from 100 MB to 1 GB, increasing monthly costs by $800 per school.

Core Data Center – The LCPS data center can only support 2.9 GB of traffic through existing circuits. This plan calls for adding a 10 GB WAN circuit to receive school WAN circuit traffic, upgrading the 2 existing LDVON circuits from 450 MB to 1 GB each and add 2 additional 1 GB LDVON circuits to support growth in the east and south.

Increasing the Data center WAN circuit to 10 GB costs $7,100 a month, an increase of $5,000 a month over current charges for a 1 GB circuit.

LD VON circuits will cost $67,145 a month, an increase of $40,000 a month over current costs. We currently pay $24,000 a month for (2) 450 MB circuits from PVHS and PFHS for a total bandwidth of 900 MB. The FY16 plan calls for upgrading these two circuits to 1 GB each and adding 2 additional 1 GB circuits, for a total bandwidth of 4 GB.

These circuits are more expensive due to the long distance service charges. Loudoun County is split into two separate LATA’s or service areas:

‐ LATA 236 – Area north of 50 and west of 28 (Leesburg, Ashburn, Purcellville) ‐ LATA 246 – Area south of 50 or east of 28 (Sterling, South Riding)

Internet circuit – There are currently (2) 1 GB internet circuits that provide a total of 2 GB of bandwidth to LCPS. The FY16 plan is to upgrade one of these circuits to 10 GB. The 10 GB circuit cost will be $17,500 a month, an increase of $3,000 a month from our current cost for a 1 GB internet circuit.

13


January 28, 2015


105. Have we received any feedback from users on functionality of Phoenix (SIS)? What has that feedback been? Turgeon Contartesi 1/21/2015

During FY14, a cadre of stakeholders including, but not limited to, teachers, administrators, clinic staff, school support staff, content area supervisors, counselors, registrars, and testing coordinators was assembled to ensure that the selection of the Phoenix SIS met and exceeded the enterprise features and functions required by LCPS staff. During the implementation, regular focus-group sessions were conducted to examine and ensure optimal system configuration to support agreed upon requirements. During FY15, we have been modifying Phoenix SIS features and functions to resolve issues and concerns or to increase efficiency and effectiveness based on user feedback. Also during FY15, DTS and the Department of Instruction (DOI) have been configuring the gradebook and portal. Recently, DOI has conducted preliminary training sessions with questions, suggestions, and recommendations actively being discussed between the class and instructor. Training sessions are scheduled through FY15 using a variety of methods including face-to-face, online, and virtual classrooms. We anticipate that these sessions will generate a rich dialog with important feedback. Other methods for obtaining user feedback include the LCPS Phoenix User Group, which meets monthly and includes users from multiple staffing positions and the DTS Service Desk, which receives frequent users questions that result in system enhancements and modifications. To date, DTS has implemented 27 user functional enhancements with several pending deliverables in February. Functional requirement requests are added to the Phoenix User Group agenda for discussion and analysis. Approved enhancements are prioritized and addressed either through internal programming or vendor customization.

14


January 28, 2015


106. How much on-site repair/maintenance is done to computers by technicians? (Kuesters/January 21, 2015)

Technicians are responsible for the physical repair and maintenance of all instructional and administrative laptops and desktops within the division. Physical computer problems are handled on-site or returned to the shop for repair by the technician. In instances where the warranty is available, units may be shipped back to the manufacture for repair or replacement.

In FY15, DTS installed a modern comprehensive service desk system to track incidents more effectively. The intention is to increase efficiency by categorizing incidents by type and analyzing the most effective methods of resolving problems through data and trend analysis.

DTS handles approximately 30,000 trouble tickets each year. The new service desk system has been in place for 6 months and DTS staff have closed a total of 19,657 incidents.

15


January 28, 2015


108. What are the anticipated levels of increase in Personnel costs in the future? (Fox/January 21,2015)

DTS is playing catch-up, recovering from years of student and staff growth, additional new school buildings, new technologies including wireless, hosted administrative and instructional applications, internet expansion, classroom Promethean boards, and BYOT without increasing commensurate staffing to support the expanding technologies.

In addition, future department resource requests will be dependent upon a number of factors, including but not limited to state computers for SOL testing, new student population growth, types of technology, and the impact of BYOT. The effect of these independent variables will dictate future staffing requests.

As computers are added and computer ratios increase / decrease, there will be a changing need for staffing. DTS is requesting one computer technician for every 983 computers for FY16. Keep in mind that opening a new school adds network equipment, AV equipment, servers, and software that must be supported holistically by other DTS support teams.

16


January 28, 2015


109. Can we form a multi-year plan/proposal to "catch-up" with technicians? Where do we need to get to in terms of ratios? (Fox/January 21, 2015)

Yes. There are three areas that are essential in developing a multi-year staffing plan. First, we must establish a reasonable student to computer ratio for repair. This will accommodate equitable support and reasonable response and resolution times by technicians.

Second, changing technology and increasing internet access will change classroom support.

Third, DTS will not be supporting personal devices in the classroom. Internet access will be provided on a first-come, first-serve basis. Personal device wireless access is the responsibility of the user similar to free public Wi-Fi locations.

The eight positions requested in FY16 are reasonable based on current workload and staffing. The BYOT pilot will provide valuable data in determining the instructional value of BYOT in the classroom, required support, and identification of new or unanticipated effects.

DTS is striving for FY16 support ratios of one computer technician for every 983 computers. Keep in mind DTS does not only support computers, but also supports network equipment, AV equipment, servers, enterprise applications, and software. The technology teams identified below provide direct support for instruction in the classroom and administrative users.

In-Field Support Teams for Technology (96 DTS Staff)

Network and Wireless – 5 FTE Systems and Servers – 9 FTE Software – 7 FTE Computer Support – 32 FTE AV Support – 9 FTE Cable Support – 2 FTE Service Desk – 5 FTE Web Dev and Database – 7 FTE SIS and Information Management Support – 11 FTE Operations Support – 5 FTE Project Management Support – 1 FTE Security Support – 3 FTE

17


January 28, 2015


110. What is included in the Technology cost per pupil (Exec Summary)? How does this compare to other jurisdictions? (Hornberger/January 21, 2015)

The expenditures included in the Technology category are based on the Virginia Department of Education definition:

“This function captures technology-related expenditures as required by the General Assembly. All technology-related expenditures should be reported under this function using the sub-functions described below. Any services (i.e., distance learning) involving the use of technology for instructional, public information, or any other use should be recorded exclusively in this function and not reported in other functional areas of the ASRFIN.

Classroom Instruction Include technology expenditures directly related to the delivery of classroom instruction and the interaction between students and teachers, including actual instruction in technology. 68200 Instructional Support Include technology expenditures related to instructional support services for students, staff, and school administration. Include technology expenditures in the areas of: Guidance Services, School Social Worker Services, Homebound Instruction, Improvement of Instruction, Media Services, Office of the Principal, as well as for instructional technology resource positions that provide staff development and technology support positions that provide technical support but do not teach students. 68300 Administration Include technology-related expenditures that directly support activities concerned with establishing and administering policy for operating the LEA. 68400 Attendance & Health Include technology-related expenditures that directly support activities whose primary purpose is the promotion and improvement of students’ attendance at school through various student attendance and health services. 68500 Pupil Transportation Include technology-related expenditures that directly support activities concerned with transporting students to and from school. 68600 Operations & Maintenance Include technology-related expenditures that directly support activities concerned with keeping the physical plant open, comfortable, and safe for use, and keeping the grounds, buildings, and equipment in effective working condition. 68700 School Food Services and Other Non-Instructional Operations Include technology-related expenditures that directly support non-instructional services for students, staff, or the community, such as school food services, enterprise operations, and community services. 68800 Facilities Include technology-related expenditures that directly support activities concerned with acquiring land and buildings, remodeling buildings, constructing buildings and additions to buildings, installing or extending service systems and other built-in equipment, and improving sites.”

School Food Services are not included in the LCPS general operating fund and are therefore excluded from the cost per pupil reported in the executive summary.

A comparison of technology costs per pupil for LCPS and other jurisdictions is in Attachment Question 110.

18


January 28, 2015


111. Overall number of where we are with Technology (including Lease Purchase) last 5 years. (Hornberger/January 21, 2015)

The Department of Technology Services (DTS) did not exist until October of 2012. The first comprehensive DTS budget was developed, reconciled, and appropriated for the FY14 school year. For comparison, the budgets from FY12 and FY13 were aggregated from 3 separate LCPS departments (Business and Finance, Instruction, Pupil Services).

Source FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Total FTE 86 90 90 105 113

Staffing Costs (Salary and Fringe)

$6.7m $7.2m $8.0m $9.6m $10.9m

Lease $5.0m $1.9m $4.1m $8.5m $6.1m

O & M $8.7m $8.7m $8.7m $8.7m $11.6m

Grant $0.2m $3.2m $1.4m $2.3m $2.3m

Total $20.6m $21m $22.2m $29.1m $30.9m

19


January 28, 2015


112. Are computers over 5 years old being used? If so, can we get the ratio including these? (Turgeon/January 21, 2015)

Yes, there are computers over 5 years old being used in schools. These computers are past expected life and will not be repaired upon failure.

The district ratio for students to computers (under 5 years old) is 3.39:1. The district ratio for students to all computers (including those over 5 years old) is 2.39:1.

The target maximum school ratio for students to computers (under 5 years old) is 3.6:1.

20


January 28, 2015


113. Has there been any efforts to use Computer Tech students to provide tech support? Has consideration been given to a DTS in house apprentice program? (Fox/January 21, 2015)

There have been some internal discussions regarding this topic, but at this time we are not using students to support technology. DTS and DOI will engage in discussions about the feasibility and logistics necessary to make this level of support possible.

21


January 28, 2015


114. Can we focus more on common applications for devices? (Morse/January 21, 2015)

LCPS has implemented several device agnostic browser-based applications such as the SIS. These tools have reduced the need to support client applications, devices, and browser configurations. DTS is developing a unique student and teacher landing page that will push web-based applications and provide the same user experience whether on an LCPS or personal device.

DTS is committed to supporting a safe, functional, and user-friendly cloud computing environment. The cloud-environment will give teachers, students, and administrators easy access to LCPS documents without the need for VPN-access or expensive virtual desktop software. The cloud-environment provides a secure enterprise solution that is scalable while being cost effective.

DTS has rolled out Office 365 for all staff, to include Outlook, OneDrive, and Office applications. This tool is device agnostic and will become the primary communication and collaboration tool for LCPS. Students will be granted access to Office 365, thus creating a true device agnostic platform for students and teachers to collaborate.

DTS will continue to work with other departments to identify and implement device agnostic solutions that are effective and economical.

22


January 28, 2015


115. Provide the total cost for each initiative and FTEs associated with them (including lease purchase). (Hornberger/January 21, 2015)

DTS has 5 major initiatives:

Staffing to Maintain Support Levels (7 FTE’s)

‐ (FTE) 3 Lead Systems Specialist ‐ (FTE) 1 AV Tech ‐ (FTE) 1 Computer Tech ‐ (FTE) 1 Office Assistant ‐ (FTE) 1 IT Project Manager

Bandwidth Expansion ($1.1m)

- (OM) $846k for circuit upgrades

- (OM) $250k for wireless coverage upgrade

Hardware Deployment ($9.4m):

- (LEASE) $1m – Switch replacements (200 switches at $5000 each) across all locations

- (LEASE) $300k – Data center Server replacements here and at DIT (apps)

- (LEASE) $4.8m – computers for 3.6:1 ratio and replace older than 5 years

- (GRANT) $2.3m - computers for 3.6:1 ratio and replace older than 5 years

- (OM) $1m – Classroom sets for O2W initiative

SIS Functionality Expansion ($0.1m and 1 FTE)

- (OM) $100k for Online Registration

- (FTE) 1 database programmer

Contracts, Purchases, Support, & Services ($9.4m)

- (OM) $2.3 million – Continuing circuit costs

- (OM) $1.25 million – Parts for repair of AV (IWB, Computers,

- (OM) $900,000 – Contractual Services

- (OM) $750,000 - Microsoft EES Agreement

- (OM) $511,000 – Avaya Switch Maintenance

- (OM) $450,000 – SIS Renewal

23


January 28, 2015


118. Where do we stand on the replacement of 2600 radios? (Morse/January 21, 2015)

School based handheld radios (approximately 2,600 ea.) are being replaced at a general rate of 17 schools per year and are funded in the Capital Outlay line in the budget. The FY15 project to replace 980 fleet based mobile radios is complete.

24


January 28, 2015


123. How are allotments distributed to schools? How are those funds accounted for and audited? Provide a history of budget vs actual for FY14 and FY15. (Rose/January 22, 2015)

Allotments are distributed to schools based on per pupil or per school amounts. See Attachment Question #123. Decisions concerning the expenditure of allotment amounts are at the discretion of the principal and are subject to the same purchasing and accounting rules as all LCPS funds. The allotment accounts are included in the annual audit.

The FY14 and FY15 budget and actual expenditures can be found in Attachment Question #123.

25


January 28, 2015


124. How are School Activity Funds accounted for? How are they audited? Are there controls in place concerning the items purchased with these funds?

School Activity Funds (SAF) are accounted for in accordance with School Board Policy 4-11 and supported by the LCPS Student Activity Funds Administrative and Accounting Manual. Audits are conducted by an independent Certified Public Accounting firm as provided by Virginia Code and School Board Policy. Controls in place are identified in the Administrative and Accounting Manual. Purchases made through the schools SAF must also conform to School Board Procurement Policies and the Virginia Public Procurement Act.

26


January 28, 2015


127. How long will LCPS employees be co-located due to Oracle off-site implementation participation? What are the additional personnel costs to off-set this? (Turgeon/January 22, 2015)

Employees have been co-located since February 2014. Four employees from the Department of Personnel Services have been co-located, three of those almost full time. It is anticipated that these employees will be co-located until the project goes live in 2015. Last year an additional personnel analyst was added to the Department of Personnel Services due to the anticipated continuing need for this position following Oracle implementation. Other staff changes thus far have been as a result of long-term needs and lean staffing. This makes Oracle implementation more challenging but is not directly related to Oracle itself. Most of the additional staff time for Oracle has been performed by staff not eligible for overtime. Six Business and Financial Services employees are also located at Ridge Top. Additional staff time has been performed by some not eligible for overtime and some staff who are eligible for overtime. New staff was added in FY15, is requested for FY16 and potentially needed in the future as well. All new staff in Business and Financial Services is related to the workload due to growth and workload brought about by the new financial and human resource systems aka Oracle.

27


January 28, 2015


128. Will there be any future need to add additional Personnel Department staff due to Oracle? (Turgeon/January 22, 2015)

We are not asking for staffing as a direct result of Oracle for FY 16. We have made some reallocation proposals based on how we believe the new software systems will function and our current needs in the areas of staffing, employee relations, auditing, and data. Short-term needs can be addressed through overtime for personnel who are eligible. We will reassess our needs after we have had the experience of the project going live to determine whether or not there are any long-term staffing needs.

28


January 28, 2015


129. Is the out-of-network pricing increase based on usage? Do we have a lot of out-of network usage by employee? (Turgeon/January 22, 2015)

No, it is based on high claim dollars spurring from a methodology that factors in geographic region. The cost avoidance is an actuarial projection based on our current benefits and current out-of-network benefit reimbursement level (usual and customary).

No we do not have a high number of individuals accessing out-of-network services, but 10.8% of our total claim dollars are spent on out-of-network services.

Data shows that this is a very small population of users but high dollar claims ($100K and above).

29


January 28, 2015


130. Provide costing for a lower increase for out-of-pocket maximum in the OAP. (Morse/January 22, 2015)

Previously staff set forth an option that raised the out of pocket maximum in the OAP from $1,000/$2,000 to $2,000/$4,000 for a cost avoidance of $1.1 million. We have revised that and reduced the increase so that the out-of-pocket maximums in OAP now go from $1,000/$2,000 to $1,500/$3,000 for a savings of $0.74 million.

30


January 28, 2015


131. Provide information on adjusted plan changes vs. premium increases. (Morse/January 22, 2015)

Options (In Network)

Cost Avoidance

($ in millions)

1. OAP & POS - Change out-of-network pricing $2.60 2. OAP & POS - Increase stop-loss coverage $0.60 3. Pharmacy - Co-pay increase $5 across all tiers $1.11 4. Replace out-of-area POS plan w/ National OAP plan $0.04 5. OAP & POS - Primary co-pay increase of $5 from $15 to

$20; Specialist co-pay increase of $10 from $30 to $40 $1.22

6. OAP - Change annual deductibles to $300/$600 $0.26 7. POS - Change out-of pocket maximum $3,000/$6,000 $0.12 8. OAP - Change out-of-pocket $1,500/$3,000 $0.74 9. OAP & POS - Increase ER co-pay from $100 to $150 $0.13

TOTAL $6.82

Below is a guideline for the amount of savings needed to achieve premium increases ranging from 9-15%.

DESIRED PREMIUM INCREASE REQUIRED COST AVOIDANCE

14% increase $1.4 million 13% increase $2.7 million 12% increase $4.1 million 11% increase $5.4 million 10% increase $6.8 million 9% increase $8.1 million

31


January 28, 2015


133. What is the cost of eliminating reduced price for students? (Reed/January 27, 2015)

The reduction in revenue for eliminating the reduced cost meal is estimated between $140,000 to $152,000 annually based upon current participation and the federal reimbursement rates. Currently our revenue per meal equivalent exceeds our costs to prepare the meal equivalent by a range of $0.45 to $0.67. Based upon the excess revenue noted above, it is estimated that between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 will be added to the School Nutrition Services reserve fund in FY 2016.

32


January 28, 2015


134. Provide clarification on costs if employee visits ER multiple times for the same condition. (Turgeon/January 27, 2015)

A co-pay is assessed for every visit, regardless of time between visits or any like-diagnosis in multiple visits. The co-pay is waived upon inpatient admission so long as the admission is a direct result of the emergency room visit.

33


January 28, 2015


135. Provide information about other districts that provide health care with no deductible and no co-insurance. (Fox/January 27, 2015)

See attached chart.

34


January 28, 2015


136. What is the cost of the College in 6 program? (Rose/January 27, 2015)

The “College in Six” program provides transportation to 6th graders to surrounding college campuses so that they can envision themselves going to college and as a result make better decisions about high school class selections etc. The only cost to LCPS is transportation, which is included as part of the transportation field-trip funding. The funds expended are estimated at $65,000 annually except in the years when trips are cancelled due to inclement weather.

35


January 28, 2015


137. Provide data on current computers and replacement plan for the future including number of computers and age. Provide inventory of computers currently at each school. What are the requested? (Morse/Hornberger/Rose/January 27, 2015)

137 A - Provide data on current computers and replacement plan for the future including number of computers and age.

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 Admin 900 700* 700* 700* 700* 3.6:1 224 213 240 228 101 Refresh 8,476 4,479 986 100 9,346 Total 9,600 5,392 1,926** 1,028** 10,147

*Approximately 20% per year ** Recommend cost averaging FY20 refresh across FY18 and FY19 to balance cycle due to budget cuts in FY12-FY14

As technology changes and with initiatives such as BYOT, computer replacements may be impacted in the future.

The total number of computers refreshed over the next 5 years (28,093) will not match with total number of computers supported by DTS (35,453) due to computers older than five years (5,700) being left onsite for school use. These computers will not be replaced (DNR) when they have a critical failure so they are not included in the replacement estimates; however, DTS still supports these computers.

The district is responsible for providing computers for SOL testing. State requirement is a student to computer ratio of 5:1. DTS calculated the 3.6:1 student to computer ratio based on current inventory and to ensure equity between all schools.

137 B - Provide inventory of computers currently at each school.

The total number of instructional computers for all schools is 31,183. The total number of administrative computers and servers in the division is 4,300. Total DTS supported devices running a windows-based operating system is 35,483.

The total number of instructional computers less than five years old is 23,148. The total number of instructional computers older than five years due for replacement in FY16 is 8,035 or 25% of the total instructional inventory. In FY15, 4,018 instructional computers were installed.

This yearly discrepancy in replacement totals was due to limited funding for computer refresh cycles over the previous tight budget years. Once LCPS reduces the gap in replacement cycles caused by budget cuts, DTS plans to replace 20% of computers each year.

See attachment 137B for detailed computer inventory by school.

137 C - What are the responsibilities of new positions requested?

Please see attachment 137C detailing the justification, consequences of not funding, and efforts to close the gap and increase efficiencies for DTS position requests.

36


January 28, 2015


140. Provide service fees for charter schools. (Morse/January 27, 2015)

Attached is Section 29 – Funding Process, from the Middleburg Community Charter School Agreement. Paragraph 29.2-C specifically addresses the fee structure agreed to.

37


January 28, 2015


141. What is the purpose of the 6 small 4X4 vehicles being purchased? Are the vehicles for the new high school included in budget (trailer and hitch)? (Hornberger/January 27, 2015)

The six small SUVs being purchased are in support of positions requested by Facilities Services and Transportation. The positions are: 1. Facilities, Project Manager 2. Facilities, Environmental Specialist 3. Facilities, Environmental Safety and Occupational Health Coordinator

(approved in mid-year FY15)

4. Transportation, Lead Driver – Rock Ridge HS 5. Transportation, Lead Driver – Riverside HS 6. Transportation, Lead Driver – SPED

Vehicles assigned to Riverside High School were appropriated in FY 2015.

38


January 28, 2015


142. Provide detailed explanation of increase in Special Education personnel line. (Fox/January 27, 2015)

Salary increase (both new positions and step increases for existing positions) Teachers $ 3.7 million Teaching Assistants $ 1.0 million Occupational/Physical Therapist $ 0.3 million FICA $ 0.4 million Healthcare $ 4.0 million Lapse & Turnover $ 0.9 million Total $10.3 million Offset by reductions in Classified subs and Part-time of ($0.1) million Total $10.2 million The totals in question #13 only include the cost of new positions and the benefits for those positions.

39

Attachment Question #28

4Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001

Who’s Paying the Rising Cost ofSpecial Education?

Thomas B. Parrish, Ed.D.American Institutes for Research

• From 1988–89 to 1998–99, special education enrollments grew about twice as fast as those of allstudents (33% versus 15% growth). Special education costs per student also appear to be rising.

• Combined federal, state, and local spending on special education is rising an estimated $3 billion peryear (including inflation). The unprecedented $1.4 billion increase in federal special education aidallocated for Fiscal Year 2000 is well short of these rapidly rising costs.

• Although rising special education costs are a legitimate concern, the evidence does not show a deleteri-ous fiscal effect on general education. Over the past 15 years, general education spending has risen by anestimated 69%.

• Over a five-year span beginning with the 1993–94 year, the state share of special education fundingdecreased (55% to 47%), and the burden on local funding sources increased (39% to 45%).

• The majority of new special education enrollments come from students in less severe categories ofdisability. State and local general and special educators will need to work together to increase the capac-ity of general education to accommodate a higher degree of learning diversity if special educationexpansion is to be brought under greater control.

Questions about rising special education costs andtheir impact on general education are currently

among the most contentious issues in public educa-tion. Although these rising costs are a legitimateconcern, the evidence does not support the claimthat they are having a deleterious fiscal impact ongeneral education. In fact, spending on general edu-cation1 has risen considerably since the passage ofthe Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) in 1975. It is just not growing at as fast a rateas special education spending. Available data alsosuggest that the state share of special educationcosts is declining, which is requiring increased con-tributions from school districts. Consequently, thecost impact of special education is increasingly beingfelt at the local level. New federal contributions havenot made considerable inroads in regard to these

expenditure trends. Growing special educationenrollments are the major factor driving rising costs.Therefore, without comprehensive school reformthat encompasses general and special education,these trends of rising enrollments and costs arelikely to continue.

One view of the tension between general andspecial education is presented in “IrreconcilableDifferences? Defining the Rising Conflict BetweenRegular and Special Education,” by Meredith andUnderwood (1995). They raise the issue of resourcecompetition between these two groups of studentsas a major concern and conclude that “the cost ofeducating disabled students ... is threatening ourability to educate nondisabled students in manydistricts and, therefore, is placing the entire publiceducation edifice potentially at risk” (213).

Research for this paper was supported through funding from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department ofEducation, through the Center for Special Education Finance at the American Institutes for Research.


Across the StatesThe data presented in this article substantiateseveral predominant themes regarding special andgeneral education. They show rising special educa-tion enrollments and costs, varying levels of stateeffort to curb or offset these rising costs, the generaltrend of these new costs falling disproportionatelyon local school districts, and concerns about theireffect on general education programming. Thesethemes are illustrated in the following examplesfrom the states.

In Vermont, the Blue Ribbon Commission onSpecial Education Costs, set up by the Legislature in1998, concluded that “the cost of special educationis rising at a rate that Vermont cannot sustain ... cost-containment must become a system-wide priority.”

In California, a nearly $2 billion claim filed byschool districts against the state for insufficientlyfunding special education was just settled. Asdescribed by the Los Angeles Times, “finding ways topay for special education services has become acrisis in many school districts as the number ofqualified students has increased” (Pyle, 1999).

In Michigan, over 300 districts have filed a law-suit against the state seeking more funding for spe-cial education (Special Education Report, 2000).Similarly, Wisconsin’s Evaluation of Special EducationFunding (1999) report cites rising special educationcosts of nearly 37% between 1992–93 and 1997–98and special education enrollments growing by 19%in relation to public school enrollment increases ofjust over six percent.

…Hartman describes the state’s prior special edu-

cation funding system as “approaching fiscal melt-

down” and reports that “in the eyes of the

legislature, the system was a black hole with an

insatiable thirst for state funds.”

In Massachusetts, the Association of SchoolSuperintendents established a task force to study“rapidly increasing special education costs acrossthe state.” A soon-to-be released update of thisreport (Berman, et al., forthcoming, 2001) found thatrising special education costs were “exacerbated bythe state’s new education reform funding formula …

which sets unrealistically low percentages for stu-dents in special education and allocates less thanhalf of what would be required to pay for servicesfor these students.”

In a recent analysis of special education fundingin Pennsylvania, Hartman2 describes the state’sprior special education funding system as“approaching fiscal meltdown” and reports that “inthe eyes of the legislature, the system was a blackhole with an insatiable thirst for state funds.” Hethen presents data to show that the impact of subse-quent reform was to limit state spending while dis-trict special education costs continued to rise.

In Hawaii, the State Department of Educationreports that it has more than doubled its spendingon special education since 1994 through federalcourt rulings under the Felix Consent Decree. TheState Superintendent, however, maintains that “hedoesn’t believe the negative effect on regular educa-tion is pervasive.” “No funds have been taken fromgeneral education,” but rather “a disproportionateamount of the new money is going to special educa-tion.” He goes on to say, however, that he does seethis as a legitimate concern. (West Hawaii Today,January 8, 2001).

Research Findings In Where’s the Money Gone? Rothstein and Miles(1995) analyzed spending in nine school districtsbetween 1967 and 1991. They found that expendi-tures going to general education had dropped from80% to 59%, while the share going to special educa-tion had climbed from four percent to 17%. In asimilar analysis of spending in New York, Lankfordand Wyckoff (1999) found that the share of resourcesspent on general education teaching fell from 53%in 1979–80 to 49% in 1992–93, while the share ofresources spent on special education more thandoubled—from five percent to 11%.

These findings support national concerns aboutrising special education costs and also suggest dele-terious effects on general education. However, tofully understand the implications of this research, itis important to examine their data more closely.

The findings of Rothstein and Miles (1995) andLankford and Wyckoff (1999) track changes in spe-cial education vis-à-vis general education spendingfrom a time close to the passage of the federal IDEA


Who’s Paying?Attachment Question #28


in 1975 well into the future (12 to 24 years). At thetime IDEA was passed, it was widely acknowledgedthat this landmark legislation was needed becausemany students with disabilities were unserved orunderserved. IDEA represents a monumentalnational commitment to provide “free and appropri-ate public education” to all students with disabili-ties. No one doubted at the time, or should besurprised later, that this national commitment wouldrequire considerable additional investments inpublic education.

IDEA represents a monumental national commit-

ment to provide “free and appropriate public

education” to all students with disabilities.

Despite the magnitude of this commitment,however, the contention that higher special educa-tion spending has eroded general education budgetsis not borne out by either of these two studies. Tothe contrary, Rothstein and Miles report that realspending per general education student (factoringout special education dollars) actually rose at anaverage annual rate (adjusted for inflation) of aboutone percent over this 25-year period (or about 25%overall). Lankford and Wyckoff (1999) also findgains in real spending for general educationstudents.

In subsequent analyses, Rothstein (1997) revis-ited these nine districts to track resource allocationpatterns across general and special education from1991 to 1996—a period sufficiently distanced fromthe initiation of the IDEA to ensure that he was notsimply capturing costs associated with previouslyunserved or underserved students. For this time

period, he reports that special education’s share oftotal spending rose by only 1.2% (from 17.8%to 19%).

What Do National Data Show?Although national expenditure data on specialeducation are not reported annually, it is possible tocompare overall changes in special and generaleducation spending over time through data releasedby the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF,2001) at four points in time spanning a 15-yearperiod.

Table 1 shows considerable increases in both spe-cial and general education spending over this timeperiod. It shows that special education spendingrose more than general education spending (117%versus 69%) and that special education spendingrose as a percentage of total K-12 public spending(from 10.5% to 13.1%). However, despite the consid-erable rise in special education spending during thistime period, general education spending also roseconsiderably (by 69%). In addition, these real gainsin general education spending occurred despite thefact that the most costly-to-educate students wereincreasingly being pulled out of general education toreceive customized instruction in special education.Thus, at least from one perspective, general educa-tion spending increased at a time when its costswere being reduced.

These findings do not support the argument thatspecial education spending has substantiallyencroached on general education. Rather, they sug-gest that despite the considerable expansion of spe-cial education programs in the United States overthe past 15 years, general education programs have



also received considerable additional support.Recent analyses by Chambers and Guarino, usingdata from Kentucky, and by Hartman, in his analyses of special and general education spendingin Pennsylvania, also provide no evidence of sub-stantial special education encroachment on generaleducation.3

What are the Sources of RisingSpecial Education Expenditures?Although the data above challenge the allegationthat rising special education costs are adverselyaffecting general education, there are legitimate con-cerns over the fact that special education enroll-ments have increased as a percentage of totalenrollments every year since the passage of theIDEA nearly 25 years ago. If this pattern continues,special education costs will continue to rise and con-cerns about special education in relation to generaleducation spending will grow.

In considering appropriate policy interventions,it is important to understand the extent to whichincreased special education costs are a function ofrising special education enrollments as opposed togrowing expenditures per special education student.In attempting to distinguish between these two fac-tors, Lankford and Wyckoff (1999) found that inNew York (excluding New York City), 90% of risingspecial education expenditures were due to risingenrollments and only 10% to increasing expendi-tures per student. However, for New York City, theyfound an almost opposite pattern with only 15% ofrising costs attributable to changes in specialeducation enrollments.

In considering appropriate policy interventions, it

is important to understand the extent to which

increased special education costs are a function of

rising special education enrollments as opposed

to growing expenditures per special education

student.

In the Wisconsin Department of Public Instr-uction study (1999), the increase in special education

spending was attributed exclusively to rising specialeducation enrollments, with special educationexpenditures per student reportedly growingat a slower rate than for general education (15%compared to 18%). In the California lawsuitdescribed above, the major factor cited as drivingincreased special education expenditures was adoubling of the statewide special educationenrollment from 1990 to the present.

Over the period 1988–89 to 1998–99, the count ofspecial education students has increased about twiceas fast as total enrollment (33% versus 15%; U.S.Department of Education, 1999). At the same time,special education costs per student appear to beincreasing. Based on data released by the Center forSpecial Education Finance (2001), trends in spendingper student (in constant dollars) appear in Table 2.

These data seem to support a recently releasedMassachusetts’ School Superintendents’ Report(2000), which found that:

… the increase in special education has been dueto such medical, economic, and social factors as theadvances in medical knowledge and technology,the deinstitutionalization of special needs children,the consequences of higher percentages of childrenliving in poverty, and the increase in families expe-riencing social and economic stress. Due to thesefactors, more children with more severe specialneeds are entering public schools. (p. 5)

Based on these findings, the report concludes that“the increase in special education costs has not beena result of school district policy and practice.”

Although national data (Table 3) support theclaim from the Massachusetts report that “morechildren with more severe special needs are enteringpublic schools,” in fact, the major changes in specialeducation enrollment over the past ten years havebeen in categories of disability that generally enrollstudents with less severe special needs. These are



students for whom assignment to special educationis likely to be more within district control. For exam-ple, column 6 shows that 60% of the total increase inspecial education enrollment over this period was inthe Specific Learning Disabilities category.

To examine how increased enrollments aredistributed by disability category, we followed atypology of disabilities adopted by California. Usingthis typology, the data show that 87% of the overallchange in student counts over this time periodoccurs in “non-severe” disability categories. Inaddition, cost estimates by disability from the lastnational expenditure study (Moore et al., 1988),

expressed in 1996–97 dollars, show an estimated75% of new costs allocated to the category of “non-severe” disabilities.

These data challenge the Massachusetts report’sconclusion that special education costs have notresulted from school district policies and practices.While increases in the enrollment of students withvery severe needs are arguably beyond districtcontrol, the predominant categories of risingenrollment are in the less severe categories ofdisability. For at least some of these students,enhancing the capacity of general education toaddress a broader range of learning diversity



appears to be what is needed if rising specialeducation costs and enrollments are to be broughtunder greater control.

Increasing our Knowledge ofSpecial Education SpendingUnfortunately, the spending estimates shown inTable 3 are over 15 years old (Moore et al., 1988).Through funding from the U.S. Department ofEducation, however, the Center for SpecialEducation Finance (CSEF)4 is attempting to fill thisinformation gap. CSEF is currently conducting anational Special Education Expenditure Project(SEEP). This vast undertaking will provide updatednational special education spending information col-lected from all 50 states and from approximately 250school districts. For each state, at least two schooldistricts are included in this national sample. Toprovide information that does not rely on localaccounting conventions and is truly comparableacross the nation, expenditure information is con-structed from detailed pictures of the resourcesgoing to individual students, schools, school dis-tricts, and states. To this end, SEEP surveys havebeen sent to a sample of schools (where teachers areproviding information about themselves and about asample of the students they serve), to district offices,and to state departments of special education. Inreturn, SEEP will provide participating districts withinformation about how their resource allocation pat-terns and expenditures on special education com-pare with those of other districts and states acrossthe nation.

At the same time, nine states have contracted forextended SEEP studies.5 The sample of SEEPdistricts in these states is expanded substantiallybeyond what is included in the federal study, whichwill allow customized analyses of special educationexpenditures that are fully representative of eachstate and unique to its special interests and con-cerns. This will also allow these states to comparetheir own state and district expenditures with thoseof other comparable states and districts across thenation.

In addition, CSEF is also conducting a study forthe Milwaukee Public Schools to examine specialeducation resource allocation patterns across the

district’s schools. These data will assist future policydecisions about how to best allocate specialeducation resources under a school-based manage-ment system. These data will also help informdistrict funding of special education services incharter schools and in private schools receivingstate vouchers.

Moreover, in conjunction with the NationalAssociation of State Directors of Special Education(NASDSE), CSEF has administered a specialeducation finance survey to all 50 states. This surveyasks questions about special education spending,fiscal reform efforts, and current formula provisions.This information is being used to publish the thirdin a series of reports about special education financeacross the states.6 Some preliminary results from thissurvey follow.

Estimated Spending—Who Pays?

From these survey results, CSEF researchers wereable to derive estimates of total special educationspending for 34 states, as well as the trends infederal, state, and local special education fundingshown in Table 4. These data show a relativelyrecent change in the share of support for specialeducation programs borne by federal, state, andlocal government. While much media attentionhas focused on increased federal funding for specialeducation over the past few years, the percentageshare of federal special education funding haschanged relatively little during the periodrepresented in Table 4 (from seven precent to eightprecent). The big shift in this time period is thedecreasing state share of funding (56% to 47%) andthe increasing burden on local funding sources (37%to 45%).



How Much Is Needed?

Although growth in federal support for special edu-cation appears fairly minimal based on the tableabove, federal revenues have expanded fairly sub-stantially since 1998–99. However, primarily due torising enrollments, special education costs are risingsubstantially faster than new federal funding. Unlessthe states are willing to substantially increase theirshare (reversing observed trends over the past fiveyears) or the federal contribution is increased to theallowable allocation of 40% of the nation’s averageper pupil expenditure, the additional funds neededfor special education will increasingly come fromlocal sources.

Nationally, the count of special education stu-dents over the past five years for which data are cur-rently available (1993–94 to 1998–99) has risen anaverage of 127,000 per year. Over this same timeperiod, estimated special education spending hasrisen an estimated $3 billion per year (includinginflation). If these increases in total special educationspending continue—even with the $500 millionannual increases in federal special education fund-ing seen over the past few years—states and locali-ties will continue to face an increasing specialeducation revenue burden. Even the unprecedented$1.4 billion increase in federal special education aidallocated for Fiscal Year 2000 is well short of theserapidly rising costs.

Unless the states are willing to substantially

increase their share (reversing observed trends

over the past five years) or the federal contribution

is increased to the allowable allocation of 40% of

the nation’s average per pupil expenditure, the

additional funds needed for special education will

increasingly come from local sources.

Policy Implications

As mentioned, while the federal government hasbeen increasing fiscal support, the state share of spe-cial education support appears to be declining. Thismay seem ironic to states that have undoubtedlyseen this segment of their state budget grow. For

example, in Hawaii, despite its considerable increasein state spending for special education since 1994, afederal ruling recently found that the state had“failed to significantly improve the care for disabledchildren first ordered six years ago” (SpecialEducation Report, 2000). In Michigan, where dis-tricts are suing the state for lack of special educationsupport, a spokesman for the governor insists thatthe state is meeting its obligations: “per-pupilspending is at an all time high” (Special EducationReport, 2000).

In response to the NASDSE state surveydescribed above, 30 states say their state fundingformula has changed over the past six years, and 20say they are currently considering additionalchanges. Special education cost control is a likelyfactor affecting much of this change. However, itappears from the data above that limiting statespending on special education only places greaterpressure on local education revenues. It is likely thatthe states will have to take a more systemic andholistic approach to education change if they reallywant to stem rising enrollments in special educationand their corresponding costs.

Further suggesting the need for systemic changeis the evidence cited earlier that the majority of newspecial education enrollments and costs come fromincreased numbers of students in the less severe cat-egories of disability. These are the students forwhom states and districts may need to seek modesof service other than special education if the growthin rising enrollments and costs is to be broughtunder greater control.

ConclusionIt is tempting to focus all concern regarding risingspecial education costs on special education itself.However, since much of the growing expendituresseem attributable to continuously rising identifica-tion rates, it seems insufficient to look to specialeducation alone for the solution. For the most part,it is those students not making appropriate progressin general education who are referred to specialeducation for supplemental services. To understandwhy special education is growing, we need a betterunderstanding of why increasing numbers of



children are not finding success within generaleducation.

The more state and local officials continue toraise the bar for student achievement and heightenthe sanctions for school failure, the more likely itbecomes that parents will argue for, and educatorswill agree to, the referral of more students for indi-vidualized treatment through special education.Such trends exemplify the concern of Meredith andUnderwood (1995), that “current state fiscal legisla-tion is increasingly encouraging an educationalecosystem in which the regular and special educa-tion communities become direct competitors for anincreasingly narrow resource base” (207).

The reaction of some states to rising special edu-cation expenditures is simply to cap state aid forspecial education. At the same time, they may beadopting statewide accountability measures thatsingle out low-performing students, inadvertentlydriving them into special education. For example,Wisconsin found that while special education costsincreased 37% from 1992–93 through 1997–98, fed-eral support for these programs increased only 30%,and state support increased a paltry six percent(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1999).

The reaction of some states to rising special educa-

tion expenditures is simply to cap state aid for

special education.

Despite Vermont’s rising costs, the Blue RibbonCommission concluded that it still “‘supports thestrategic direction’ laid out a decade ago, when thestate moved to beef up its special education ser-vices.” This 1990 law prescribed “‘educational sup-port systems to catch and remedy learning problemsearly on’ and reduce referral to the more costly spe-cial education system. ‘We really can’t reduce specialeducation costs unless there are alternative supportservices for kids’” (Gram, 1999, August 8).

In addition, as shown in Table 3, more childrenare arriving in the public schools with a need forcomplex interventions. In response to growing num-bers of high cost children, Meredith and Underwood(1995) express concern over an increasing failure toamortize these special education costs. State andfederal funding mechanisms need to provide differ-

ential funding for these extraordinarily high costcases. Otherwise, “the risk of random, devastatingexpenditures striking a particular school budgetincreases.”

In conclusion, in considering rising special edu-cation expenditures and their impact on generaleducation programs, the wisdom of the cartooncharacter Pogo may apply: “We have met the enemyand it is us.” As educators, we cannot increasinglyrefer students with diverse learning needs to specialeducation and then look with alarm as this segmentof the school budget rises. As state policymakers, weneed to support programs that attempt to assist stu-dents prior to their referral to more costly specialeducation interventions—especially in light of ever-increasing student standards and high stakesaccountability. We also need to target supplementaryspecial education aid to districts serving studentswith extraordinarily high cost special needs. At thesame time, it is essential to begin bridging the gapbetween general and special education programsand providers to more fully address the educationalneeds of all children.

Notes1. General education for this article corresponds to total

K–12 public education spending less estimated totalspending on special education.

2. See article by Hartman in this volume.3. See article by Chambers and Guarino and article by

Hartman in this volume.4. The Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF) is

located at the American Institutes for Research (AIR)in Palo Alto, California.

5. The extended SEEP study states are Alabama,Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey,New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

6. Additional information about these projects can befound on these web sites: http://www.seep.org andhttp://csef.air.org

ReferencesBerman, S., Davis, P., Koufman-Frederick, A., & Urion, D.

(forthcoming, 2001). The Impact of Special Educationon Education Reform: A Case Study of Massachusetts.In C. Finn Jr. & A. Rotherham (Eds.), RethinkingSpecial Education for the 21st Century. Washington, DC:Progressive Policy Institute and Fordham Foundation.



Parrish, T., & other authors (forthcoming, 2001). StateSpecial Education Finance Systems, 1999–2000. PaloAlto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance.American Institutes for Research.

Blue Ribbon Commission on Special Education Costs.(1999). Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on SpecialEducation Costs. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Gram, D. (1999, August 8). Panel Suggests Cutting SpecialEducation Costs. Times Argus, p.1.

Lankford, H. & Wyckoff, J. (1999). The Allocation ofResources to Special Education and RegularInstruction in New York State. In T.B. Parrish, J.G.Chambers, & C.M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding SpecialEducation (pp. 147–175). Thousand Oaks, California:Corwin Press, Inc.

Meredith, B. & Underwood, J. (1995). IrreconcilableDifferences? Defining the Rising Conflict BetweenRegular and Special Education. Journal of Law &Education, 24(2).

Moore, M.T., Strang, E.W., Schwartz, M., & Braddock. M.(1988). Patterns in special education services deliveryand cost. Washington, DC: Decision ResourcesCorporation.

Pyle, A. (1999, November 1). Davis Asked to Help EndSpecial Education Funding Dispute. Los AngelesTimes, p.1.

Parrish & other authors. (November 2000). State SpecialEducation Finance Systems, 1999–2000 (draft report).Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance.American Institutes for Research.

Rothstein, R. & Miles, K.H. (1995). Where’s the MoneyGone? Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Rothstein, R. (1997). Where’s the Money Going?Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Special Education Costs Seen as a Funding Drain. (2001,January 8). West Hawaii Today, p. A1.

Special Education Report (2000, December 6). MichiganDistricts Sue State For More Special EducationMoney, p. 7.

U.S. Department of Education. (1992) Fourteenth AnnualReport to Congress on the Implementation of theIndividual with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,DC: Office of Special Education Programs.

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). 21st Annual Reportto Congress on the Implementation of the Individual withDisabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office ofSpecial Education Programs.

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1999). AnEvaluation of Special Education Funding. Madison, WI:Legislative Audit Bureau.

About the AuthorThomas B. Parrish, Ed.D., is Managing ResearchScientist at John C. Flanagan Research Center,American Institutes for Research, 1791 ArastraderoRoad, Palo Alto, CA 94304.E-mail: [email protected]



Loudoun County Public SchoolsPer Pupil and Per School Allotments

Instructional Materials:Elementary $33.38 per pupilMiddle $38.88 per pupilHigh $38.88 per pupil

Postage:Elementary $3.06 per pupilMiddle $4.41 per pupilHigh $4.41 per pupil

Art:Elementary $8.62 per pupil

Music:Elementary $1.00 per pupil or minimum of $200.00 per schoolMiddle $7,375.00 per school

Band $2,000.00Chorus $2,000.00

Guitar $1,375.00Orchestra $2,000.00

High $9,600.00 per schoolBand $4,000.00

Chorus $2,200.00Guitar $1,400.00

Orchestra $2,000.00Computer Supplies:

Elementary $9.10 per pupilMiddle $9.10 per pupilHigh $9.10 per pupil

Staff Development: $6.50 per pupilAdvanced Placement Science: $5,500.00 per high school Elementary Guidance: $200.00 per Counselor Gifted Education: $350.00 per teacher assigned to Middle SchoolHealth and Physical Education:

Elementary $500.00 per schoolMiddle $500.00 per schoolHigh $500.00 per schoolRecess $100.00 per elementary school

Loudoun County Public SchoolsFY14 Budget and Actual Allotments

School Budget Actual Encumbrance BalanceAldie Elementary $10,077.00 $8,459.11 $0.00 $1,617.89Algonkian Elementary $32,659.00 $29,672.79 $0.00 $2,986.21Arcola Elementary $54,975.00 $54,974.95 $0.00 $0.05Ashburn Elementary $44,929.00 $44,515.14 $0.00 $413.86Balls Bluff Elementary $43,159.00 $42,027.86 $0.00 $1,131.14Banneker Elementary $12,209.00 $12,120.69 $0.00 $88.31Belmont Ridge Middle $110,306.00 $108,702.68 $0.00 $1,603.32Belmont Station Elementary $51,430.00 $51,430.00 $0.00 $0.00Blue Ridge Middle $68,530.67 $63,409.21 $0.00 $5,121.46Briar Woods High $149,369.00 $127,574.61 $0.00 $21,794.39Broad Run High $132,994.00 $110,882.26 $0.00 $22,111.74Buffalo Trail Elementary $55,609.00 $52,347.65 $346.68 $2,914.67Building Improvement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Catoctin Elementary $38,658.00 $33,348.55 $0.00 $5,309.45Cedar Lane Elementary $47,132.00 $33,224.11 $0.00 $13,907.89Central Office CTE $0.00 $14,395.91 $0.00 -$14,395.91Cool Spring Elementary $42,721.00 $39,184.56 $0.00 $3,536.44Countryside Elementary $47,903.00 $45,454.17 $0.00 $2,448.83Creightons Corner Elementary $54,732.00 $54,185.93 $515.00 $31.07Discovery Elementary $49,845.00 $42,848.92 $0.00 $6,996.08Dominion High $105,256.33 $80,638.96 $0.00 $24,617.37Dominion Trail Elementary $43,744.66 $39,586.88 $0.00 $4,157.78Douglass School $66,453.00 $46,545.98 $0.00 $19,907.02Eagle Ridge Middle $88,819.00 $77,268.88 $0.00 $11,550.12Emerick Elementary $32,672.00 $32,668.91 $0.00 $3.09Evergreen Mill Elementary $43,258.79 $42,213.59 $0.00 $1,045.20Farmwell Station Middle $94,089.00 $94,088.17 $0.00 $0.83Forest Grove Elementary $40,868.00 $35,231.34 $72.04 $5,564.62Frances Hazel Reid Elementary $48,659.00 $45,128.79 $1,195.44 $2,334.77Frederick Douglass Elementary $43,016.00 $41,638.44 $0.00 $1,377.56Freedom High $111,562.00 $109,362.78 $0.00 $2,199.22Guilford Elementary $35,738.00 $35,133.09 $0.00 $604.91Hamilton Elementary $11,779.83 $11,723.94 $0.00 $55.89Harmony Middle $77,711.72 $65,695.95 -$23.88 $12,039.65Harper Park Middle $80,379.00 $73,236.27 $0.00 $7,142.73Heritage High $95,381.66 $92,073.31 $0.00 $3,308.35Hillsboro Elementary $5,563.00 $5,031.42 $0.00 $531.58Hillside Elementary $46,242.43 $44,211.08 $0.00 $2,031.35Horizon Elementary $46,548.00 $44,492.13 -$55.10 $2,110.97Hutchison Farm Elementary $53,899.00 $53,898.36 $0.00 $0.64J. Michael Lunsford Middle $101,794.84 $95,338.55 $16.84 $6,439.45J.L.Simpson Middle $76,562.00 $76,514.30 $0.00 $47.70John Champe High $76,232.00 $73,677.48 $0.00 $2,554.52John W. Tolbert Jr. Elementary $54,344.00 $54,305.80 $0.00 $38.20Kenneth W. Culbert Elementary $35,748.00 $31,477.22 $0.00 $4,270.78Leesburg Elementary $40,801.00 $40,800.97 $0.00 $0.03

Attachment #123

Loudoun County Public SchoolsFY14 Budget and Actual Allotments

School Budget Actual Encumbrance BalanceLegacy Elementary $67,115.92 $67,061.70 $31.00 $23.22Liberty Elementary $71,867.09 $70,726.78 $1,096.80 $43.51Lincoln Elementary $10,004.00 $9,586.39 $0.00 $417.61Little River Elementary $46,583.30 $46,579.26 $0.00 $4.04Loudoun County High $106,337.00 $98,594.07 $0.00 $7,742.93Loudoun Valley High $93,518.00 $79,964.06 $0.00 $13,553.94Lovettsville Elementary $35,882.00 $30,272.47 $0.00 $5,609.53Lowes Island Elementary $46,677.00 $45,040.61 $0.00 $1,636.39Lucketts Elementary $19,129.00 $15,556.81 $0.00 $3,572.19Math Office $0.00 $66.00 $0.00 -$66.00Meadowland Elementary $28,576.00 $24,739.66 $0.00 $3,836.34Mercer Middle $74,745.00 $66,365.19 $0.00 $8,379.81Middleburg Elementary $4,906.00 $3,247.65 $0.00 $1,658.35Mill Run Elementary $61,205.18 $60,219.46 $0.00 $985.72Monroe Technology Center $353,179.00 $353,179.00 $0.00 $0.00Moorefield Station Elementary $64,718.00 $59,764.04 $4,519.00 $434.96Mountain View Elementary $35,908.00 $35,049.14 $0.00 $858.86Newton Lee Elementary $60,753.00 $56,563.66 $39.00 $4,150.34Parent Involvement $0.00 $4.52 $0.00 -$4.52Park View High $101,578.29 $87,729.47 $0.00 $13,848.82Pinebrook Elementary $76,451.00 $69,852.61 -$62.85 $6,661.24Potomac Falls High $116,167.00 $94,577.74 $0.00 $21,589.26Potowmack Elementary $40,149.53 $37,701.90 $0.00 $2,447.63River Bend Middle $86,469.00 $83,449.34 $0.00 $3,019.66Rolling Ridge Elementary $38,265.00 $32,719.53 $0.00 $5,545.47Rosa Lee Carter Elementary $57,500.00 $57,131.65 $0.00 $368.35Round Hill Elemenatry $36,903.00 $36,443.43 $0.00 $459.57Sanders Corner Elementary $41,605.00 $41,513.27 $0.00 $91.73Seldens Landing Elementary $58,899.00 $58,246.29 $0.00 $652.71Seneca Ridge Middle $77,575.47 $75,737.03 $200.00 $1,638.44Smarts Mill Middle $79,969.99 $73,960.69 $0.00 $6,009.30Sterling Elementary $34,123.26 $33,351.40 $0.00 $771.86Sterling Middle $76,129.00 $64,137.96 $0.00 $11,991.04Steuart W. Weller Elementary $54,995.00 $54,332.55 $0.00 $662.45Stone Bridge High $128,685.00 $100,914.97 $0.00 $27,770.03Stone Hill Middle $117,217.00 $106,280.75 $0.00 $10,936.25Sugarland Elementary $37,567.17 $34,722.43 $18.66 $2,826.08Sully Elementary $31,469.00 $30,216.74 $0.00 $1,252.26Sycolin Creek Elementary $45,766.64 $44,836.68 $240.95 $689.01Tuscarora High $136,294.00 $121,520.63 $0.00 $14,773.37Waterford Elementary $12,911.00 $12,500.30 $0.00 $410.70Woodgrove High $111,224.00 $111,021.08 $0.00 $202.92Total $5,383,376.77 $4,996,220.60 $8,149.58 $379,006.59

Attachment #123

Loudoun County Public SchoolsFY15 Budget and YTD Actual as of January 23, 2015 Allotments

School Budget YTD Actual Encumbrance BalanceAcademy of Science $25,849.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,849.00Aldie Elementary $8,811.71 $2,510.84 $0.00 $6,300.87Algonkian Elementary $29,023.24 $19,121.44 $0.00 $9,901.80Arcola Elementary $49,802.65 $30,002.09 $3,127.00 $16,673.56Ashburn Elementary $41,848.55 $26,186.10 $175.49 $15,486.96Balls Bluff Elementary $40,039.19 $18,411.86 $0.00 $21,627.33Banneker Elementary $9,987.90 $4,482.07 $0.00 $5,505.83Belmont Ridge Middle $84,864.93 $59,750.50 $1,505.10 $23,609.33Belmont Station Elementary $46,795.07 $31,625.52 $1,366.24 $13,803.31Blue Ridge Middle $67,024.51 $37,235.04 $0.00 $29,789.47Briar Woods High $124,565.05 $48,699.38 $0.00 $75,865.67Broad Run High $131,033.80 $67,361.34 $0.00 $63,672.46Buffalo Trail Elementary $47,006.80 $26,931.03 $715.88 $19,359.89Cardinal Ridge Elementary $57,385.90 $20,671.25 $2,505.02 $34,209.63Catoctin Elementary $34,694.34 $18,221.51 $16.95 $16,455.88Cedar Lane Elementary $40,600.60 $17,750.63 $0.00 $22,849.97Cool Spring Elementary $38,772.24 $22,426.11 $170.00 $16,176.13Countryside Elementary $43,620.70 $23,768.14 $1,287.28 $18,565.28Creightons Corner Elementary $64,451.42 $48,361.88 $2,406.90 $13,682.64Discovery Elementary $44,515.64 $27,187.06 $38.00 $17,290.58Dominion High $108,489.80 $56,703.77 $2,592.82 $49,193.21Dominion Trail Elementary $39,314.41 $24,314.64 $77.24 $14,922.53Douglass School $65,908.50 $18,861.11 $2,598.00 $44,449.39Eagle Ridge Middle $91,585.35 $44,246.81 $55.00 $47,283.54Emerick Elementary $30,465.56 $18,190.05 $0.00 $12,275.51Evergreen Mill Elementary $34,483.58 $21,392.09 $0.00 $13,091.49Farmwell Station Middle $80,704.74 $45,324.32 $1,324.69 $34,055.73Forest Grove Elementary $32,725.17 $19,110.83 $2,199.48 $11,414.86Frances Hazel Reid Elementary $45,433.18 $26,717.24 $4,319.21 $14,396.73Frederick Douglass Elementary $39,454.48 $22,532.72 $510.00 $16,411.76Freedom High $109,105.25 $53,648.52 $533.53 $54,923.20Guilford Elementary $32,890.82 $19,840.82 $0.00 $13,050.00Hamilton Elementary $11,033.85 $6,576.88 $3,148.60 $1,308.37Harmony Middle $81,854.70 $36,153.11 $8,919.83 $36,781.76Harper Park Middle $77,467.47 $34,869.12 $1,055.50 $41,542.85Health and Physical Education Office $0.00 $120.00 $0.00 -$120.00Heritage High $98,500.38 $54,349.30 $523.88 $43,627.20Hillsboro Elementary $5,281.69 $3,106.67 $0.00 $2,175.02Hillside Elementary $42,476.42 $27,431.47 $757.49 $14,287.46Horizon Elementary $42,756.93 $24,196.26 $5,701.00 $12,859.67Hutchison Farm Elementary $50,479.64 $33,275.62 $0.00 $17,204.02J. Michael Lunsford Middle $105,008.53 $62,771.17 $0.00 $42,237.36J.L.Simpson Middle $74,267.14 $53,173.08 $10,006.50 $11,087.56John Champe High $92,314.95 $42,494.33 $1,912.00 $47,908.62John W. Tolbert Jr. Elementary $45,148.22 $15,607.30 $0.00 $29,540.92

Attachment #123

Kenneth W. Culbert Elementary $30,952.37 $17,588.84 $0.00 $13,363.53Leesburg Elementary $35,643.71 $26,978.06 $0.00 $8,665.65Legacy Elementary $65,440.67 $43,701.11 $1,114.00 $20,625.56Liberty Elementary $63,894.92 $44,934.33 $1,096.80 $17,863.79Lincoln Elementary $8,917.17 $5,666.98 $0.00 $3,250.19Little River Elementary $46,161.52 $23,039.53 $0.00 $23,121.99Loudoun County High $108,683.15 $50,616.32 $129.00 $57,937.83Loudoun Valley High $98,021.00 $43,771.35 $39.34 $54,210.31Lovettsville Elementary $29,780.73 $17,808.84 $0.00 $11,971.89Lowes Island Elementary $43,123.63 $24,386.55 $942.34 $17,794.74Lucketts Elementary $17,393.95 $9,029.14 $829.80 $7,535.01Meadowland Elementary $25,674.66 $16,107.18 $5.00 $9,562.48Mercer Middle $87,498.90 $38,012.45 $228.13 $49,258.32Middleburg Elementary $744.40 $0.00 $0.00 $744.40Mill Run Elementary $55,258.06 $39,322.01 $49.00 $15,887.05Monroe Technology Center $341,061.00 $180,557.36 $19,384.68 $141,118.96Moorefield Station Elementary $63,909.67 $37,771.41 $2,478.80 $23,659.46Mountain View Elementary $33,559.18 $19,816.61 $0.00 $13,742.57Newton Lee Elementary $53,892.23 $19,595.84 $1,695.00 $32,601.39Park View High $106,642.15 $36,463.87 $2,442.61 $67,735.67Pinebrook Elementary $60,336.06 $42,182.96 $40.05 $18,113.05Potomac Falls High $116,709.69 $43,655.52 $1,187.00 $71,867.17Potowmack Elementary $37,784.78 $21,531.27 $0.00 $16,253.51River Bend Middle $82,914.78 $42,696.19 $1,100.00 $39,118.59Rock Ridge High $79,616.05 $51,100.96 $34.00 $28,481.09Rolling Ridge Elementary $34,702.72 $19,357.28 $0.00 $15,345.44Rosa Lee Carter Elementary $59,158.00 $34,117.31 $6.95 $25,033.74Round Hill Elemenatry $31,477.53 $26,625.90 $67.16 $4,784.47Safety and Security $0.00 $87.00 $0.00 -$87.00Sanders Corner Elementary $36,767.79 $25,702.08 $0.00 $11,065.71Seldens Landing Elementary $49,691.97 $32,170.44 $1,216.00 $16,305.53Seneca Ridge Middle $76,773.12 $42,748.49 $27.30 $33,997.33Smarts Mill Middle $81,023.00 $40,408.44 $2,000.00 $38,614.56Sterling Elementary $30,098.28 $17,076.97 $0.00 $13,021.31Sterling Middle $73,656.45 $37,959.54 $0.00 $35,696.91Steuart W. Weller Elementary $52,081.61 $23,970.39 $386.49 $27,724.73Stone Bridge High $130,340.10 $55,282.55 $6,747.40 $68,310.15Stone Hill Middle $99,625.95 $51,270.09 $0.00 $48,355.86Sugarland Elementary $33,033.41 $21,013.37 $127.80 $11,892.24Sully Elementary $28,795.16 $12,872.65 $0.00 $15,922.51Sycolin Creek Elementary $41,151.04 $28,388.54 $511.67 $12,250.83Trailside Middle $83,582.01 $62,946.38 $0.00 $20,635.63Tuscarora High $137,435.75 $75,441.30 $0.00 $61,994.45Waterford Elementary $10,454.83 $3,752.89 $0.00 $6,701.94Woodgrove High $113,114.55 $61,224.43 $3,525.11 $48,365.01Total $5,364,421.70 $2,884,461.74 $106,960.06 $2,372,999.90

Attachment #123

Kaiser Permanente

POS

Kaiser Permanente

HMO

United Healthcare

POS Choice Plus

United Healthcare

POS Choice

Kaiser Permanente

HMOCigna OAP Low Cigna OAP High

Aetna/Innovation Health POS

Carefirst BlueChoice Advantage

POS

Kaiser Permanente

HMO

Cigna OAP2015 / 2016

Cigna POS2015 / 2016

Anthem Keycare Enhanced PPO

Anthem Keycare Core PPO

Anthem HealthKeepers

POS

Individual $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 $300 $0 $0 $0 $200 / $300 $0 / $150 $0 $0 $0

Family $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $800 $600 $0 $0 $0 $400 / $600 $0 / $300 $0 $0 $0

Co-Insurance In-Network 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 10% 10% 10% 0% 10% 0% 20% 20% 0%

Individual $3,000 $3,500 $2,800 $2,200 $3,500 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $500 $3,500 $1,000 / $2,000 $2,500 / $3,000 $1,500 $3,000 $1,500

Family $6,000 $9,400 $8,600 $7,200 $9,400 $6,000 $6,000 $1,000 $1,000 $9,400 $2,000 / $4,000 $5,000 / 6,000 $3,000 $6,000 $3,000

PCP $15 $15 $15 $15 $10 $40 $20 $20 $20 $20 $15 / $20 $15 / $20 $20 $25 $20

Specialist $15 $15 $15 $15 $10 $80 $40 $20 $20 $20 $30 / $40 $30 / $40 $35 $50 $40

Coinsurance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Generic $15 or $20 $15 or $20 $10 $10 $10 or $20 $0 $0 $7 $7 $15 or $20

Brand $25 or $45 $25 or $45 $30 $30 $20 or $4035% with $35

Min and $50 Max$25 20%, max $50 20%, max $50 $25 or $45

Non-Brand $40 or $60 $40 or $60 $50 $50 $35 or $5550% with $50 Min and $100

$45 20%, max $50 20%, max $50 $40 or $60

Generic $15 $15 $20 $20 $20 $8 $0 $14 $14 $15

Brand $25 $25 $60 $60 $4035% with $70 Min and $140

$50 20%, max $100 20%, max $100 $25

Non-Brand $40 $40 $100 $100 $7050% with $100 Min and $200

$90 20%, max $50 20%, max $50 $60

Emergency room services

$100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $250 $200 $50 plus 10% $50 plus 10% $75 $100 $100 $200 $200 plus 20% $200

Emergency medical transportation

$50 $50 $0 $0 $50 20% 10% 10% 10% $75 10% $0 20% 20% $0

Urgent Care $15 $15 $15 $15 $10 $50 $50 $20 $20 $20 $50 $25$20 PCP/ $35

Specialist$25 PCP/ $50

Specialist$20 PCP/ $40

Specialist

Facility fee $200 $200 $200 $200 $0 $250 plus 20% $250 plus 10% $100 plus 10% $100 plus 10% $100 $200 plus 10% $0 $350 $400 plus 20% $200 per day

Physician/surgeon fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 20% 10% 10% 10% $0 10% $0 $0 20% $0

Information pulled from SBCs on District websites.

Immediate medical attention

Hospital Stay

RX

In-Network

$140

In-Network

$10

$25 / $30 $35

$45 / $50 $70

Mail

$10 / $20 $20

$50 / $60 $70

Retail

$5 / $10

$90 / $100

In-Network

In-Network

Co-PaysOffice Visits (Primary / Specialist)

Plan Design Comparison - Plan Year 2015

Alexandria City PS Arlington County PS Fairfax County PS Loudoun County PS Prince William County PS

In-NetworkAnnual Deductible

Out-of-Pocket Maximum


Age (Yrs.) School QuantityComputer Laptop Total

Less than 5 Aldie ES 36 4 40Greater than 5 Aldie ES 19 22 41FY15 computer refresh Aldie ES 0 0 0 Total computers 81

Less than 5 Algonkian ES 27 18 45Greater than 5 Algonkian ES 132 20 152FY15 computer refresh Algonkian ES 0 92 92 Total computers 289

Less than 5 Arcola ES 131 28 159Greater than 5 Arcola ES 0 0FY15 computer refresh Arcola ES 0 61 61 Total computers 220

Less than 5 Ashburn ES 63 22 85Greater than 5 Ashburn ES 99 22 121FY15 computer refresh Ashburn ES 0 112 112 Total computers 318

Less than 5 Balls Bluff ES 128 42 170Greater than 5 Balls Bluff ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Balls Bluff ES 0 7 7 Total computers 207

Less than 5 Banneker ES 39 8 47Greater than 5 Banneker ES 35 22 57FY15 computer refresh Banneker ES 0 0 0 Total computers 104

Less than 5 Belmont Ridge MS 229 0 229Greater than 5 Belmont Ridge MS 103 112 215FY15 computer refresh Belmont Ridge MS 0 105 105 Total computers 549

Less than 5 Belmont Station ES 73 134 207Greater than 5 Belmont Station ES 118 18 136FY15 computer refresh Belmont Station ES 0 16 16 Total computers 359

Less than 5 Blue Ridge MS 240 0 240Greater than 5 Blue Ridge MS 99 80 179FY15 computer refresh Blue Ridge MS 0 18 18

FY15 LCPS Intructional Computer Inventories

Attachment B Question #137

Total computers 437

Less than 5 Briar Woods HS 338 0 338Greater than 5 Briar Woods HS 210 96 306FY15 computer refresh Briar Woods HS 0 210 210 Total computers 854

Less than 5 Broad Run HS 270 0 270Greater than 5 Broad Run HS 173 126 299FY15 computer refresh Broad Run HS 0 248 248 Total computers 817

Less than 5 Buffalo Trails ES 208 36 244Greater than 5 Buffalo Trails ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Buffalo Trails ES 0 0 0 Total computers 244

Less than 5 Cardinal Ridge ES 153 93 246Greater than 5 Cardinal Ridge ES 0 0 0FY17 computer refresh Cardinal Ridge ES 0 17 17 Total computers 263

Less than 5 Catoctin ES 63 18 81Greater than 5 Catoctin ES 98 22 120FY15 computer refresh Catoctin ES 0 85 85 Total computers 286

Less than 5 Cedar Lane ES 77 22 99Greater than 5 Cedar Lane ES 117 8 125FY15 computer refresh Cedar Lane ES 0 97 97 Total computers 321

Less than 5 Cool Spring ES 69 16 85Greater than 5 Cool Spring ES 90 26 116FY15 computer refresh Cool Spring ES 0 105 105 Total computers 306

Less than 5 Countryside ES 69 22 91Greater than 5 Countryside ES 116 14 130FY15 computer refresh Countryside ES 0 111 111 Total computers 332

Less than 5 Creighton's Corner ES 86 35 121Greater than 5 Creighton's Corner ES 133 17 150FY15 computer refresh Creighton's Corner ES 0 132 132 Total computers 403


Less than 5 Discovery ES 215 38 253Greater than 5 Discovery ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Discovery ES 0 0 0 Total computers 253

Less than 5 Dominion HS 334 0 334Greater than 5 Dominion HS 167 112 279FY15 computer refresh Dominion HS 0 60 60 Total computers 673

Less than 5 Dominion Trail ES 163 46 209Greater than 5 Dominion Trail ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Dominion Trail ES 0 0 0 Total computers 209

Less than 5 Douglass 69 0 69Greater than 5 Douglass 160 16 176FY15 computer refresh Douglass 0 0 0 Total computers 245

Less than 5 Eagle Ridge MS 274 182 456Greater than 5 Eagle Ridge MS 90 0 90FY15 computer refresh Eagle Ridge MS 0 0 0 Total computers 546

Less than 5 Emerick ES 56 16 72Greater than 5 Emerick ES 106 24 130FY15 computer refresh Emerick ES 0 61 61 Total computers 263

Less than 5 Evergreen Mill ES 68 18 86Greater than 5 Evergreen Mill ES 96 22 118FY15 computer refresh Evergreen Mill ES 0 92 92 Total computers 296

Less than 5 Farmwell Station MS 274 160 434Greater than 5 Farmwell Station MS 84 0 84FY15 computer refresh Farmwell Station MS 0 0 0 Total computers 518

Less than 5 Forest Grove ES 136 60 196Greater than 5 Forest Grove ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Forest Grove ES 0 0 0 Total computers 226

Less than 5 Francis Hazel Reid ES 75 20 95Greater than 5 Francis Hazel Reid ES 107 22 129


FY15 computer refresh Francis Hazel Reid ES 0 109 109 Total computers 333

Less than 5 Frederick Douglas ES 208 36 244Greater than 5 Frederick Douglas ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Frederick Douglas ES 0 0 0 Total computers 244

Less than 5 Freedom HS 315 0 315Greater than 5 Freedom HS 210 96 306FY15 computer refresh Freedom HS 0 94 94 Total computers 715

Less than 5 Guilford ES 64 36 100Greater than 5 Guilford ES 86 20 106FY15 computer refresh Guilford ES 0 43 43 Total computers 249

Less than 5 Hamilton ES 47 10 57Greater than 5 Hamilton ES 37 22 59FY15 computer refresh Hamilton ES 0 0 0 Total computers 116

Less than 5 Harmony MS 328 80 408Greater than 5 Harmony MS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Harmony MS 0 0 0 Total computers 408

Less than 5 Harper Park MS 220 0 220Greater than 5 Harper Park MS 90 80 170FY15 computer refresh Harper Park MS 0 81 81 Total computers 471

Less than 5 Heritage HS 556 112 668Greater than 5 Heritage HS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Heritage HS 0 0 0 Total computers 668

Less than 5 Hillsboro ES 35 4 39Greater than 5 Hillsboro ES 20 22 42FY15 computer refresh Hillsboro ES 0 0 0 Total computers 81

Less than 5 Hillside ES 66 22 88Greater than 5 Hillside ES 94 22 116FY15 computer refresh Hillside ES 0 107 107 Total computers 311


Less than 5 Horizon ES 71 22 93Greater than 5 Horizon ES 114 20 134FY15 computer refresh Horizon ES 0 110 110 Total computers 337

Less than 5 Hutchison Farm ES 149 68 217Greater than 5 Hutchison Farm ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Hutchison Farm ES 0 26 26 Total computers 273

Less than 5 J Lunsford MS 382 80 462Greater than 5 J Lunsford MS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh J Lunsford MS 0 0 0 Total computers 462

Less than 5 J.L. Simpson MS 258 0 258Greater than 5 J.L. Simpson MS 45 80 125FY15 computer refresh J.L. Simpson MS 0 25 25 Total computers 408

Less than 5 John Champe HS 538 96 634Greater than 5 John Champe HS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh John Champe HS 0 0 0 Total computers 634

Less than 5 Kenneth Culbert ES 201 38 239Greater than 5 Kenneth Culbert ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Kenneth Culbert ES 0 0 0 Total computers 239

Less than 5 Leesburg ES 64 18 82Greater than 5 Leesburg ES 87 20 107FY15 computer refresh Leesburg ES 0 82 82 Total computers 271

Less than 5 Legacy ES 169 64 233Greater than 5 Legacy ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Legacy ES 0 73 73 Total computers 336

Less than 5 Liberty ES 88 28 116Greater than 5 Liberty ES 117 32 149FY15 computer refresh Liberty ES 0 147 147 Total computers 412

Less than 5 Lincoln ES 37 4 41


Greater than 5 Lincoln ES 22 22 44FY15 computer refresh Lincoln ES 0 0 0 Total computers 85

Less than 5 Little River ES 148 68 216Greater than 5 Little River ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Little River ES 0 17 17 Total computers 263

Less than 5 Loudoun County HS 283 0 283Greater than 5 Loudoun County HS 109 96 205FY15 computer refresh Loudoun County HS 0 123 123 Total computers 611

Less than 5 Loudoun Valley HS 241 0 241Greater than 5 Loudoun Valley HS 153 96 249FY15 computer refresh Loudoun Valley HS 0 121 121 Total computers 611

Less than 5 Lovettsville ES 60 16 76Greater than 5 Lovettsville ES 75 22 97FY15 computer refresh Lovettsville ES 0 65 65 Total computers 238

Less than 5 Lowes Island ES 162 40 202Greater than 5 Lowes Island ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Lowes Island ES 0 0 0 Total computers 202

Less than 5 Lucketts ES 43 6 49Greater than 5 Lucketts ES 40 22 62FY15 computer refresh Lucketts ES 0 29 29 Total computers 140

Less than 5 Meadowland ES 59 14 73Greater than 5 Meadowland ES 80 24 104FY15 computer refresh Meadowland ES 0 49 49 Total computers 226

Less than 5 Mercer MS 261 0 261Greater than 5 Mercer MS 105 96 201FY15 computer refresh Mercer MS 0 48 48 Total computers 510

Less than 5 Middleburg ES 27 4 31Greater than 5 Middleburg ES 18 22 40FY15 computer refresh Middleburg ES 0 0 0


Total computers 71

Less than 5 Mill Run ES 157 64 221Greater than 5 Mill Run ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Mill Run ES 0 37 37 Total computers 288

Less than 5 Monroe Tech Ctr. 34 0 34Greater than 5 Monroe Tech Ctr. 84 49 133FY15 computer refresh Monroe Tech Ctr. 0 113 113 Total computers 280

Less than 5 Moorefield Station ES 208 44 252Greater than 5 Moorefield Station ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Moorefield Station ES 0 12 12 Total computers 264

Less than 5 Mountain View ES 72 22 94Greater than 5 Mountain View ES 111 24 135FY15 computer refresh Mountain View ES 0 61 61 Total computers 290

Less than 5 Newton Lee ES 170 64 234Greater than 5 Newton Lee ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Newton Lee ES 0 12 12 Total computers 276

Less than 5 Park View HS 290 0 290Greater than 5 Park View HS 137 96 233FY15 computer refresh Park View HS 0 79 79 Total computers 602

Less than 5 Pinebrook ES 171 62 233Greater than 5 Pinebrook ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Pinebrook ES 0 5 5 Total computers 268

Less than 5 Potomac Falls HS 278 0 278Greater than 5 Potomac Falls HS 194 96 290FY15 computer refresh Potomac Falls HS 0 169 169 Total computers 737

Less than 5 Potowmack ES 127 40 167Greater than 5 Potowmack ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Potowmack ES 0 7 7 Total computers 204


Less than 5 River Bend MS 244 80 324Greater than 5 River Bend MS 90 0 90FY15 computer refresh River Bend MS 0 0 0 Total computers 414

Less than 5 Rock Ridge HS 463 207 670Greater than 5 Rock Ridge HS 0 0 0FY17 computer refresh Rock Ridge HS 0 0 0 Total computers 670

Less than 5 Rolling Ridge ES 168 60 228Greater than 5 Rolling Ridge ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Rolling Ridge ES 0 0 0 Total computers 228

Less than 5 Rosa Lee Carter ES 205 66 271Greater than 5 Rosa Lee Carter ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Rosa Lee Carter ES 0 0 0 Total computers 271

Less than 5 Round Hill ES 67 16 83Greater than 5 Round Hill ES 94 22 116FY15 computer refresh Round Hill ES 0 75 75 Total computers 274

Less than 5 Sanders Corner ES 129 62 191Greater than 5 Sanders Corner ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Sanders Corner ES 0 0 0 Total computers 221

Less than 5 Seldons Landing ES 164 68 232Greater than 5 Seldons Landing ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Seldons Landing ES 0 1 1 Total computers 263

Less than 5 Seneca Ridge MS 259 0 259Greater than 5 Seneca Ridge MS 91 80 171FY15 computer refresh Seneca Ridge MS 0 28 28 Total computers 458

Less than 5 Smarts Mill MS 224 0 224Greater than 5 Smarts Mill MS 102 80 182FY15 computer refresh Smarts Mill MS 0 81 81 Total computers 487

Less than 5 Sterling ES 63 38 101Greater than 5 Sterling ES 83 18 101


FY15 computer refresh Sterling ES 0 39 39 Total computers 241

Less than 5 Sterling MS 259 16 275Greater than 5 Sterling MS 109 80 189FY15 computer refresh Sterling MS 0 7 7 Total computers 471

Less than 5 Steuart W. Weller ES 86 27 113Greater than 5 Steuart W. Weller ES 117 40 157FY15 computer refresh Steuart W. Weller ES 0 124 124 Total computers 394

Less than 5 Stone Bridge HS 368 0 368Greater than 5 Stone Bridge HS 150 96 246FY15 computer refresh Stone Bridge HS 0 150 150 Total computers 764

Less than 5 Stone Hill MS 347 80 427Greater than 5 Stone Hill MS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Stone Hill MS 0 0 0 Total computers 427

Less than 5 Sugarland ES 164 80 244Greater than 5 Sugarland ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Sugarland ES 0 0 0 Total computers 244

Less than 5 Sully ES 63 33 96Greater than 5 Sully ES 92 23 115FY15 computer refresh Sully ES 0 40 40 Total computers 251

Less than 5 Sycolin Creek ES 184 94 278Greater than 5 Sycolin Creek ES 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Sycolin Creek ES 0 0 0 Total computers 278

Less than 5 Tolbert ES 154 81 235Greater than 5 Tolbert ES 30 0 30FY15 computer refresh Tolbert ES 0 0 0 Total computers 265

Less than 5 Trailside MS 248 206 454Greater than 5 Trailside MS 0 0 0FY17 computer refresh Trailside MS 0 0 0 Total computers 454


Less than 5 Tuscarora HS 525 96 621Greater than 5 Tuscarora HS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Tuscarora HS 0 0 0 Total computers 621

Less than 5 Waterford ES 44 8 52Greater than 5 Waterford ES 26 22 48FY15 computer refresh Waterford ES 0 0 0 Total computers 100

Less than 5 Woodgrove HS 538 96 634Greater than 5 Woodgrove HS 0 0 0FY15 computer refresh Woodgrove HS 0 0 0 Total computers 634

Total Computers 31183


Department of Technology ServicesFY16 FTE Requests

Line Title Administrative/Classified

Level School / Non‐School Justification Consequence of not funding Efforts to close the gap/increase efficiencies

1 Admin Office Assistant

Classified 12 NonSchool Needed to offload secretarial duties from

director position. This will also bring the staffing in alignment with other director level positions.

Not having this position will impact the amount of projects, tasks, and meetings the director will be able to handle. This position is critical for day to day running of the DTS department.

Currently, a long term sub is in place to assist with these duties, but full process and procedural changes can not be established until a full time position is in place.

2 AV Technician Classified 13 School An additional Audio Visual Technician is needed to support the vast number of AV devices currently in the LCPS system. The current AV inventory includes over 300,000 devices including, interactive white boards (IWB), DVD/CD players, televisions, intercoms, PA systems, cassette players, projectors, microphones, amplifiers, etc. Since 2009 only one new AV support position has been added and we have opened 12 new schools. There is simply not enough staff to handle the service requests and support for all the AV devices in the district. The current AV technician to device ratio is well over 1:40,000. This has caused increased wait times for service which inhibits the staff and student's ability to use the AV equipment.

Without the additional AV technician the time it takes to respond to service requests will continue to increase, especially considering we opened 3 new schools in FY15 and will be opening another high school in FY16.

An additional staff member can expedite resolution and improve response time. DTS is working to develop a comprehensive SLA and this area has been identified as an area where we need to improve service.

3 Database Programmer

Classified 16 NonSchool Position is requested to facilitate the implementation of the software development toolkit associated with the new student information system. Position would also be responsible for all data feeds to/from SIS for integrated applications. Over 25 applications utilize data feeds from Phoenix SIS.

This position is needed for / Gradebook project and to utilize the software development toolkit to write customized LCPS functionality.

Gradebook infrastructure support was outsourced due to application being vendor hosted. This position is needed to support the gradebook application now that it is being brought in‐house.

1 of 3 1/28/2015

Attachment C Question #137




4 IT Project Manager I

Classified 16 NonSchool On average DTS is working on 60 projects at any given time. The DTS Project Managers will help enable DTS to complete more projects on time and on budget. By investing in project management staff DTS will have expert project staff on hand to manage the most critical and complicated technology projects related to the One to the World initiative. These projects can span across multiple LCPS departments and require an expert ability to coordinate project activities while allowing managing budget, schedules, and risk. Projects managers will assume responsibility for the coordination and scheduling of projects which will provide DTS the ability to better align technical resources towards completing technical tasks more efficiently.

Not having a Project manager approved will cause all departments to continue with the status quo of having non‐technical staff attempt to manage technology projects without a thorough knowledge of project management or technology best practices or limitations. If one position was to be outsourced the cost would be approximately $172,720 for a 1 year engagement. The approximated cost of filling a single LCPS position is $80,000.

Project managers will increase efficiency within LCPS by being a vigilant leader of every effort they are assigned. Project managers are responsible for ensuring that there are consistent and timely communications, tasks are completed on‐time, and risks that could delay projects are mitigated. Lastly, the additional of project management staff will allow technical and instructional administrators, who have not been trained as project managers, to more effectively manage their teams without the added pressure of trying to manage complex projects.

5 Lead Systems Specialist

Classified 16 School Team lead positions for each system specialist support group (South, West, North). These positions are needed to coordinate the incident workload of 5‐8 staff members and ensure proper procedures are followed by infield staff. These positions also physically support computers while providing Tier 3 direct user support. As our users become more sophisticated; problems escalate from

rebooting the computer to resolving more complex technical issues. Each of these teams handle approximately 1500 incidents a month.

Lack of team coordination resulting in less efficient work output and longer task duration. Also, planning and managing enterprise projects will be tasked on higher management levels reducing the number of projects we will be able to handle as a department.

Additional Lead System Specialists will close the gap and improve efficiencies through improved team coordination and increase the number of projects the Department can support.

2 of 3 1/28/2015















8 Computer Technician

Classified 13 School DTS staffing standards place a computer technician and system specialist on site at each high school to support the schools in each cluster. The computer technician position will be placed at Riverside High School to provide support to the school as well as Seldens Landing and Belmont Ridge Middle and assist with covering the larger SBHS cluster.

New school cluster will not have direct support and teams from other groups will have to add this responsibility and coverage to their support queues. This will increase support demands on other teams.

DTS is re‐allocating an internal position to cover the system specialist position.

3 of 3 1/28/2015


school board questions and answers january 28, 2015 28. is ... · school board questions and...

Documents