School Board Questions and Answers
January 28, 2015
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
1
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
2
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
3
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
4
School Board Questions and Answers
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
Elementary
General ED
Special Ed
Total Students Served
ELL
FRL
Middle
General ED
Special Ed
Total Students Served
ELL
FRL
High
General Ed
Special Ed
Total Students Served
ELL
FRL
Summer 2010
Summer 2011
Summer 2012
Summer 2013
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
665
618
681
445
583
526
1,110
1,201
1,207
205
144
222
476
595
611
Regional
Regional
Regional
176
395
368
97
99
106
273
494
474
93
69
143
110
143
185
Regional
Regional
Regional
147
930
876
1,055
58
140
157
196
205
1,070
1,033
69
53
49
25
364
418
Summer 2014
No Summer School
*926
*277
*564
No data available
*1,490
*133
*264
827
No data available
Summer School
by School
174
68
242
113
40
Regional
1,251
51
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
5
School Board Questions and Answers
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
FCPS
Prince William
LCPS
Cost per Internal Student
$680
$450
$695*
Cost per External Student
$780
$595
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
14-15 Course and Provider
Edgenuity
Keystone School, The
Virtual Virginia
Grand Total
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
152
Count of Classes
Taken by LCPS
Students
37
1
66
104
6
School Board Questions and Answers
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
2009-10 ARRA Spec Ed Teacher
24.0
Pre-School ARRA Teacher
Total
2010-11 General Education Teachers
2.0
2.0
25.8
ELL Teacher
Total
2011-12 General Education Teachers
29.3
Total
10.0
2013-14 General Education Teachers
Teacher, ELL
Total
2014-15 General Education Teachers
Teacher, ELL
Total
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
15.0
10.0
Total
17.0
3.5
Special Ed Teachers
2012-13 General Education Teachers
Department of
Instruction
Reserve
Teacher FTEs
24.0
0.8
0.8
21.0
1.00
3.00
4.0
23.5
(2.2)
0.2
(2.0)
19.5
7
School Board Questions and Answers
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
Parents
Students
Total
138,242
Adult accounts link to a
student (Example: Mom
and Dad both have
accounts to Johnny Smith’s
grades)
72,059 (Students who have
grades)
Total Logged In
33,411
% Logged In
24%
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
10,678
29.3%
MS Total
12,941
35.5%
HS Total
12,702
34.9%
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
Other
121
0.3%
Totals
36,442
8
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
9
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
10
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
11
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
12
School Board Questions and Answers
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-areanetwork 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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
13
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
14
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
15
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
16
School Board Questions and Answers
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
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
17
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
18
School Board Questions and Answers
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
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
$20.6m
$21m
$22.2m
$29.1m
$30.9m
Total FTE
Total
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
19
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
20
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
21
School Board Questions and Answers
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 cloudenvironment 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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
22
School Board Questions and Answers
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
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
23
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
24
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
25
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
26
School Board Questions and Answers
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 colocated 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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
27
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
28
School Board Questions and Answers
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).
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
29
School Board Questions and Answers
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 $0.74 million.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
30
School Board Questions and Answers
January 28, 2015
131. Provide information on adjusted plan changes vs. premium increases. (Morse/January 22, 2015)
Cost
Avoidance
($ in millions)
Options (In Network)
1.
OAP & POS - Change out-of-network pricing
2.
OAP & POS - Increase stop-loss coverage
3.
Pharmacy - Co-pay increase $5 across all tiers
4.
Replace out-of-area POS plan w/ National OAP plan
5.
6.
OAP & POS - Primary co-pay increase of $5 from $15 to
$20; Specialist co-pay increase of $10 from $30 to $40
OAP - Change annual deductibles to $300/$600
7.
POS - Change out-of pocket maximum $3,000/$6,000
8.
OAP - Change out-of-pocket $1,500/$3,000
9.
OAP & POS - Increase ER co-pay from $100 to $150
TOTAL
$2.60
$0.60
$1.11
$0.04
$1.22
$0.26
$0.12
$0.74
$0.13
$6.82
Below is a guideline for the amount of savings needed to achieve premium increases
ranging from 9-15%.
DESIRED PREMIUM INCREASE
14% increase
13% increase
12% increase
11% increase
10% increase
9% increase
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
REQUIRED COST AVOIDANCE
$1.4 million
$2.7 million
$4.1 million
$5.4 million
$6.8 million
$8.1 million
31
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
32
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
33
School Board Questions and Answers
January 28, 2015
135. Provide information about other districts that provide health care with no deductible and no coinsurance. (Fox/January 27, 2015)
See attached chart.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
34
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
35
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
36
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
37
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
2.
3.
Facilities, Project Manager
Facilities, Environmental Specialist
Facilities, Environmental Safety and Occupational Health Coordinator
(approved in mid-year FY15)
4.
5.
6.
Transportation, Lead Driver – Rock Ridge HS
Transportation, Lead Driver – Riverside HS
Transportation, Lead Driver – SPED
Vehicles assigned to Riverside High School were appropriated in FY 2015.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
38
School Board Questions and Answers
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.
Loudoun County Public Schools – FY 2016 Operating Budget
39
Attachment Question #28
Attachment Question #28
Attachment Question #28
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying the Rising Cost of
Special 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 all
students (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 per
year (including inflation). The unprecedented $1.4 billion increase in federal special education aid
allocated 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 deleterious fiscal effect on general education. Over the past 15 years, general education spending has risen by an
estimated 69%.
• Over a five-year span beginning with the 1993–94 year, the state share of special education funding
decreased (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 of
disability. State and local general and special educators will need to work together to increase the capacity of general education to accommodate a higher degree of learning diversity if special education
expansion is to be brought under greater control.
uestions about rising special education costs and
their impact on general education are currently
among the most contentious issues in public education. Although these rising costs are a legitimate
concern, the evidence does not support the claim
that they are having a deleterious fiscal impact on
general education. In fact, spending on general education1 has risen considerably since the passage of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) in 1975. It is just not growing at as fast a rate
as special education spending. Available data also
suggest that the state share of special education
costs is declining, which is requiring increased contributions from school districts. Consequently, the
cost impact of special education is increasingly being
felt at the local level. New federal contributions have
not made considerable inroads in regard to these
Q
expenditure trends. Growing special education
enrollments are the major factor driving rising costs.
Therefore, without comprehensive school reform
that encompasses general and special education,
these trends of rising enrollments and costs are
likely to continue.
One view of the tension between general and
special education is presented in “Irreconcilable
Differences? Defining the Rising Conflict Between
Regular and Special Education,” by Meredith and
Underwood (1995). They raise the issue of resource
competition between these two groups of students
as a major concern and conclude that “the cost of
educating disabled students ... is threatening our
ability to educate nondisabled students in many
districts and, therefore, is placing the entire public
education edifice potentially at risk” (213).
Research for this paper was supported through funding from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of
Education, through the Center for Special Education Finance at the American Institutes for Research.
4
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
Across the States
The data presented in this article substantiate
several predominant themes regarding special and
general education. They show rising special education enrollments and costs, varying levels of state
effort to curb or offset these rising costs, the general
trend of these new costs falling disproportionately
on local school districts, and concerns about their
effect on general education programming. These
themes are illustrated in the following examples
from the states.
In Vermont, the Blue Ribbon Commission on
Special Education Costs, set up by the Legislature in
1998, concluded that “the cost of special education
is rising at a rate that Vermont cannot sustain ... costcontainment must become a system-wide priority.”
In California, a nearly $2 billion claim filed by
school districts against the state for insufficiently
funding special education was just settled. As
described by the Los Angeles Times, “finding ways to
pay for special education services has become a
crisis in many school districts as the number of
qualified students has increased” (Pyle, 1999).
In Michigan, over 300 districts have filed a lawsuit against the state seeking more funding for special education (Special Education Report, 2000).
Similarly, Wisconsin’s Evaluation of Special Education
Funding (1999) report cites rising special education
costs of nearly 37% between 1992–93 and 1997–98
and special education enrollments growing by 19%
in relation to public school enrollment increases of
just over six percent.
…Hartman describes the state’s prior special education funding system as “approaching fiscal meltdown” 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 School
Superintendents established a task force to study
“rapidly increasing special education costs across
the state.” A soon-to-be released update of this
report (Berman, et al., forthcoming, 2001) found that
rising special education costs were “exacerbated by
the state’s new education reform funding formula …
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
which sets unrealistically low percentages for students in special education and allocates less than
half of what would be required to pay for services
for these students.”
In a recent analysis of special education funding
in Pennsylvania, Hartman2 describes the state’s
prior special education funding system as
“approaching fiscal meltdown” and reports that “in
the eyes of the legislature, the system was a black
hole with an insatiable thirst for state funds.” He
then presents data to show that the impact of subsequent reform was to limit state spending while district special education costs continued to rise.
In Hawaii, the State Department of Education
reports that it has more than doubled its spending
on special education since 1994 through federal
court rulings under the Felix Consent Decree. The
State Superintendent, however, maintains that “he
doesn’t believe the negative effect on regular education is pervasive.” “No funds have been taken from
general education,” but rather “a disproportionate
amount of the new money is going to special education.” He goes on to say, however, that he does see
this 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 districts
between 1967 and 1991. They found that expenditures going to general education had dropped from
80% to 59%, while the share going to special education had climbed from four percent to 17%. In a
similar analysis of spending in New York, Lankford
and Wyckoff (1999) found that the share of resources
spent on general education teaching fell from 53%
in 1979–80 to 49% in 1992–93, while the share of
resources spent on special education more than
doubled—from five percent to 11%.
These findings support national concerns about
rising special education costs and also suggest deleterious effects on general education. However, to
fully understand the implications of this research, it
is important to examine their data more closely.
The findings of Rothstein and Miles (1995) and
Lankford and Wyckoff (1999) track changes in special education vis-à-vis general education spending
from a time close to the passage of the federal IDEA
5
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
in 1975 well into the future (12 to 24 years). At the
time IDEA was passed, it was widely acknowledged
that this landmark legislation was needed because
many students with disabilities were unserved or
underserved. IDEA represents a monumental
national commitment to provide “free and appropriate public education” to all students with disabilities. No one doubted at the time, or should be
surprised later, that this national commitment would
require considerable additional investments in
public education.
IDEA represents a monumental national commitment to provide “free and appropriate public
education” to all students with disabilities.
Despite the magnitude of this commitment,
however, the contention that higher special education spending has eroded general education budgets
is not borne out by either of these two studies. To
the contrary, Rothstein and Miles report that real
spending per general education student (factoring
out special education dollars) actually rose at an
average annual rate (adjusted for inflation) of about
one percent over this 25-year period (or about 25%
overall). Lankford and Wyckoff (1999) also find
gains in real spending for general education
students.
In subsequent analyses, Rothstein (1997) revisited these nine districts to track resource allocation
patterns across general and special education from
1991 to 1996—a period sufficiently distanced from
the initiation of the IDEA to ensure that he was not
simply capturing costs associated with previously
unserved or underserved students. For this time
6
period, he reports that special education’s share of
total spending rose by only 1.2% (from 17.8%
to 19%).
What Do National Data Show?
Although national expenditure data on special
education are not reported annually, it is possible to
compare overall changes in special and general
education spending over time through data released
by the Center for Special Education Finance (CSEF,
2001) at four points in time spanning a 15-year
period.
Table 1 shows considerable increases in both special and general education spending over this time
period. It shows that special education spending
rose more than general education spending (117%
versus 69%) and that special education spending
rose as a percentage of total K-12 public spending
(from 10.5% to 13.1%). However, despite the considerable rise in special education spending during this
time period, general education spending also rose
considerably (by 69%). In addition, these real gains
in general education spending occurred despite the
fact that the most costly-to-educate students were
increasingly being pulled out of general education to
receive customized instruction in special education.
Thus, at least from one perspective, general education spending increased at a time when its costs
were being reduced.
These findings do not support the argument that
special education spending has substantially
encroached on general education. Rather, they suggest that despite the considerable expansion of special education programs in the United States over
the past 15 years, general education programs have
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
also received considerable additional support.
Recent analyses by Chambers and Guarino, using
data from Kentucky, and by Hartman, in his
analyses of special and general education spending
in Pennsylvania, also provide no evidence of substantial special education encroachment on general
education.3
What are the Sources of Rising
Special Education Expenditures?
Although the data above challenge the allegation
that rising special education costs are adversely
affecting general education, there are legitimate concerns over the fact that special education enrollments have increased as a percentage of total
enrollments every year since the passage of the
IDEA nearly 25 years ago. If this pattern continues,
special education costs will continue to rise and concerns about special education in relation to general
education spending will grow.
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 attempting to distinguish between these two factors, Lankford and Wyckoff (1999) found that in
New York (excluding New York City), 90% of rising
special education expenditures were due to rising
enrollments and only 10% to increasing expenditures per student. However, for New York City, they
found an almost opposite pattern with only 15% of
rising costs attributable to changes in special
education 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 Instruction study (1999), the increase in special education
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
spending was attributed exclusively to rising special
education enrollments, with special education
expenditures per student reportedly growing
at a slower rate than for general education (15%
compared to 18%). In the California lawsuit
described above, the major factor cited as driving
increased special education expenditures was a
doubling of the statewide special education
enrollment from 1990 to the present.
Over the period 1988–89 to 1998–99, the count of
special education students has increased about twice
as fast as total enrollment (33% versus 15%; U.S.
Department of Education, 1999). At the same time,
special education costs per student appear to be
increasing. Based on data released by the Center for
Special Education Finance (2001), trends in spending
per student (in constant dollars) appear in Table 2.
These data seem to support a recently released
Massachusetts’ School Superintendents’ Report
(2000), which found that:
… the increase in special education has been due
to such medical, economic, and social factors as the
advances in medical knowledge and technology,
the deinstitutionalization of special needs children,
the consequences of higher percentages of children
living in poverty, and the increase in families experiencing social and economic stress. Due to these
factors, more children with more severe special
needs are entering public schools. (p. 5)
Based on these findings, the report concludes that
“the increase in special education costs has not been
a result of school district policy and practice.”
Although national data (Table 3) support the
claim from the Massachusetts report that “more
children with more severe special needs are entering
public schools,” in fact, the major changes in special
education enrollment over the past ten years have
been in categories of disability that generally enroll
students with less severe special needs. These are
7
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
students for whom assignment to special education
is likely to be more within district control. For example, column 6 shows that 60% of the total increase in
special education enrollment over this period was in
the Specific Learning Disabilities category.
To examine how increased enrollments are
distributed by disability category, we followed a
typology of disabilities adopted by California. Using
this typology, the data show that 87% of the overall
change in student counts over this time period
occurs in “non-severe” disability categories. In
addition, cost estimates by disability from the last
national expenditure study (Moore et al., 1988),
8
expressed in 1996–97 dollars, show an estimated
75% of new costs allocated to the category of “nonsevere” disabilities.
These data challenge the Massachusetts report’s
conclusion that special education costs have not
resulted from school district policies and practices.
While increases in the enrollment of students with
very severe needs are arguably beyond district
control, the predominant categories of rising
enrollment are in the less severe categories of
disability. For at least some of these students,
enhancing the capacity of general education to
address a broader range of learning diversity
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
appears to be what is needed if rising special
education costs and enrollments are to be brought
under greater control.
Increasing our Knowledge of
Special Education Spending
Unfortunately, the spending estimates shown in
Table 3 are over 15 years old (Moore et al., 1988).
Through funding from the U.S. Department of
Education, however, the Center for Special
Education Finance (CSEF)4 is attempting to fill this
information gap. CSEF is currently conducting a
national Special Education Expenditure Project
(SEEP). This vast undertaking will provide updated
national special education spending information collected from all 50 states and from approximately 250
school districts. For each state, at least two school
districts are included in this national sample. To
provide information that does not rely on local
accounting conventions and is truly comparable
across the nation, expenditure information is constructed from detailed pictures of the resources
going to individual students, schools, school districts, and states. To this end, SEEP surveys have
been sent to a sample of schools (where teachers are
providing information about themselves and about a
sample of the students they serve), to district offices,
and to state departments of special education. In
return, SEEP will provide participating districts with
information about how their resource allocation patterns and expenditures on special education compare with those of other districts and states across
the nation.
At the same time, nine states have contracted for
extended SEEP studies.5 The sample of SEEP
districts in these states is expanded substantially
beyond what is included in the federal study, which
will allow customized analyses of special education
expenditures that are fully representative of each
state and unique to its special interests and concerns. This will also allow these states to compare
their own state and district expenditures with those
of other comparable states and districts across the
nation.
In addition, CSEF is also conducting a study for
the Milwaukee Public Schools to examine special
education resource allocation patterns across the
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
district’s schools. These data will assist future policy
decisions about how to best allocate special
education resources under a school-based management system. These data will also help inform
district funding of special education services in
charter schools and in private schools receiving
state vouchers.
Moreover, in conjunction with the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE), CSEF has administered a special
education finance survey to all 50 states. This survey
asks questions about special education spending,
fiscal reform efforts, and current formula provisions.
This information is being used to publish the third
in a series of reports about special education finance
across the states.6 Some preliminary results from this
survey follow.
Estimated Spending—Who Pays?
From these survey results, CSEF researchers were
able to derive estimates of total special education
spending for 34 states, as well as the trends in
federal, state, and local special education funding
shown in Table 4. These data show a relatively
recent change in the share of support for special
education programs borne by federal, state, and
local government. While much media attention
has focused on increased federal funding for special
education over the past few years, the percentage
share of federal special education funding has
changed relatively little during the period
represented in Table 4 (from seven precent to eight
precent). The big shift in this time period is the
decreasing state share of funding (56% to 47%) and
the increasing burden on local funding sources (37%
to 45%).
9
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
How Much Is Needed?
Although growth in federal support for special education appears fairly minimal based on the table
above, federal revenues have expanded fairly substantially since 1998–99. However, primarily due to
rising enrollments, special education costs are rising
substantially faster than new federal funding. 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.
Nationally, the count of special education students over the past five years for which data are currently available (1993–94 to 1998–99) has risen an
average of 127,000 per year. Over this same time
period, estimated special education spending has
risen an estimated $3 billion per year (including
inflation). If these increases in total special education
spending continue—even with the $500 million
annual increases in federal special education funding seen over the past few years—states and localities will continue to face an increasing special
education revenue burden. Even the unprecedented
$1.4 billion increase in federal special education aid
allocated for Fiscal Year 2000 is well short of these
rapidly 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 has
been increasing fiscal support, the state share of special education support appears to be declining. This
may seem ironic to states that have undoubtedly
seen this segment of their state budget grow. For
10
example, in Hawaii, despite its considerable increase
in state spending for special education since 1994, a
federal ruling recently found that the state had
“failed to significantly improve the care for disabled
children first ordered six years ago” (Special
Education Report, 2000). In Michigan, where districts are suing the state for lack of special education
support, a spokesman for the governor insists that
the state is meeting its obligations: “per-pupil
spending is at an all time high” (Special Education
Report, 2000).
In response to the NASDSE state survey
described above, 30 states say their state funding
formula has changed over the past six years, and 20
say they are currently considering additional
changes. Special education cost control is a likely
factor affecting much of this change. However, it
appears from the data above that limiting state
spending on special education only places greater
pressure on local education revenues. It is likely that
the states will have to take a more systemic and
holistic approach to education change if they really
want to stem rising enrollments in special education
and their corresponding costs.
Further suggesting the need for systemic change
is the evidence cited earlier that the majority of new
special education enrollments and costs come from
increased numbers of students in the less severe categories of disability. These are the students for
whom states and districts may need to seek modes
of service other than special education if the growth
in rising enrollments and costs is to be brought
under greater control.
Conclusion
It is tempting to focus all concern regarding rising
special education costs on special education itself.
However, since much of the growing expenditures
seem attributable to continuously rising identification rates, it seems insufficient to look to special
education alone for the solution. For the most part,
it is those students not making appropriate progress
in general education who are referred to special
education for supplemental services. To understand
why special education is growing, we need a better
understanding of why increasing numbers of
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
children are not finding success within general
education.
The more state and local officials continue to
raise the bar for student achievement and heighten
the sanctions for school failure, the more likely it
becomes that parents will argue for, and educators
will agree to, the referral of more students for individualized treatment through special education.
Such trends exemplify the concern of Meredith and
Underwood (1995), that “current state fiscal legislation is increasingly encouraging an educational
ecosystem in which the regular and special education communities become direct competitors for an
increasingly narrow resource base” (207).
The reaction of some states to rising special education expenditures is simply to cap state aid for
special education. At the same time, they may be
adopting statewide accountability measures that
single out low-performing students, inadvertently
driving them into special education. For example,
Wisconsin found that while special education costs
increased 37% from 1992–93 through 1997–98, federal support for these programs increased only 30%,
and state support increased a paltry six percent
(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 1999).
ential funding for these extraordinarily high cost
cases. Otherwise, “the risk of random, devastating
expenditures striking a particular school budget
increases.”
In conclusion, in considering rising special education expenditures and their impact on general
education programs, the wisdom of the cartoon
character Pogo may apply: “We have met the enemy
and it is us.” As educators, we cannot increasingly
refer students with diverse learning needs to special
education and then look with alarm as this segment
of the school budget rises. As state policymakers, we
need to support programs that attempt to assist students prior to their referral to more costly special
education interventions—especially in light of everincreasing student standards and high stakes
accountability. We also need to target supplementary
special education aid to districts serving students
with extraordinarily high cost special needs. At the
same time, it is essential to begin bridging the gap
between general and special education programs
and providers to more fully address the educational
needs of all children.
Notes
The reaction of some states to rising special education expenditures is simply to cap state aid for
special education.
Despite Vermont’s rising costs, the Blue Ribbon
Commission concluded that it still “‘supports the
strategic direction’ laid out a decade ago, when the
state moved to beef up its special education services.” This 1990 law prescribed “‘educational support systems to catch and remedy learning problems
early on’ and reduce referral to the more costly special education system. ‘We really can’t reduce special
education costs unless there are alternative support
services for kids’” (Gram, 1999, August 8).
In addition, as shown in Table 3, more children
are arriving in the public schools with a need for
complex interventions. In response to growing numbers of high cost children, Meredith and Underwood
(1995) express concern over an increasing failure to
amortize these special education costs. State and
federal funding mechanisms need to provide differ-
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
1. General education for this article corresponds to total
K–12 public education spending less estimated total
spending 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 be
found on these web sites: http://www.seep.org and
http://csef.air.org
References
Berman, S., Davis, P., Koufman-Frederick, A., & Urion, D.
(forthcoming, 2001). The Impact of Special Education
on Education Reform: A Case Study of Massachusetts.
In C. Finn Jr. & A. Rotherham (Eds.), Rethinking
Special Education for the 21st Century. Washington, DC:
Progressive Policy Institute and Fordham Foundation.
11
Attachment Question #28
Who’s Paying?
Parrish, T., & other authors (forthcoming, 2001). State
Special Education Finance Systems, 1999–2000. Palo
Alto, 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 Special
Education Costs. Montpelier, VT: Author.
Gram, D. (1999, August 8). Panel Suggests Cutting Special
Education Costs. Times Argus, p.1.
Lankford, H. & Wyckoff, J. (1999). The Allocation of
Resources to Special Education and Regular
Instruction in New York State. In T.B. Parrish, J.G.
Chambers, & C.M. Guarino (Eds.), Funding Special
Education (pp. 147–175). Thousand Oaks, California:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Meredith, B. & Underwood, J. (1995). Irreconcilable
Differences? Defining the Rising Conflict Between
Regular 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 delivery
and cost. Washington, DC: Decision Resources
Corporation.
Pyle, A. (1999, November 1). Davis Asked to Help End
Special Education Funding Dispute. Los Angeles
Times, p.1.
Parrish & other authors. (November 2000). State Special
Education Finance Systems, 1999–2000 (draft report).
Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance.
American Institutes for Research.
12
Rothstein, R. & Miles, K.H. (1995). Where’s the Money
Gone? 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). Michigan
Districts Sue State For More Special Education
Money, p. 7.
U.S. Department of Education. (1992) Fourteenth Annual
Report to Congress on the Implementation of the
Individual with Disabilities Education Act. Washington,
DC: Office of Special Education Programs.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). 21st Annual Report
to Congress on the Implementation of the Individual with
Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of
Special Education Programs.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1999). An
Evaluation of Special Education Funding. Madison, WI:
Legislative Audit Bureau.
About the Author
Thomas B. Parrish, Ed.D., is Managing Research
Scientist at John C. Flanagan Research Center,
American Institutes for Research, 1791 Arastradero
Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Special Education Leadership 14(1) • April 2001
Attachment Question #110
Attachment Question #123
Loudoun County Public Schools
Per Pupil and Per School Allotments
Instructional Materials:
Postage:
Art:
Music:
Elementary
Middle
High
$33.38 per pupil
$38.88 per pupil
$38.88 per pupil
Elementary
Middle
High
$3.06 per pupil
$4.41 per pupil
$4.41 per pupil
Elementary
$8.62 per pupil
Elementary
Middle
High
Computer Supplies:
$1.00 per pupil or minimum of $200.00 per school
$7,375.00 per school
Band
$2,000.00
Chorus
$2,000.00
Guitar $1,375.00
Orchestra
$2,000.00
$9,600.00 per school
Band
$4,000.00
Chorus
$2,200.00
Guitar
$1,400.00
Orchestra
$2,000.00
Elementary
Middle
High
$9.10 per pupil
$9.10 per pupil
$9.10 per pupil
$6.50 per pupil
$5,500.00 per high school
$200.00 per Counselor
$350.00 per teacher assigned to Middle School
Staff Development:
Advanced Placement Science:
Elementary Guidance:
Gifted Education:
Health and Physical Education:
Elementary
Middle
High
Recess
$500.00 per school
$500.00 per school
$500.00 per school
$100.00 per elementary school
Attachment #123
Loudoun County Public Schools
FY14 Budget and Actual Allotments
School
Aldie Elementary
Algonkian Elementary
Arcola Elementary
Ashburn Elementary
Balls Bluff Elementary
Banneker Elementary
Belmont Ridge Middle
Belmont Station Elementary
Blue Ridge Middle
Briar Woods High
Broad Run High
Buffalo Trail Elementary
Building Improvement
Catoctin Elementary
Cedar Lane Elementary
Central Office CTE
Cool Spring Elementary
Countryside Elementary
Creightons Corner Elementary
Discovery Elementary
Dominion High
Dominion Trail Elementary
Douglass School
Eagle Ridge Middle
Emerick Elementary
Evergreen Mill Elementary
Farmwell Station Middle
Forest Grove Elementary
Frances Hazel Reid Elementary
Frederick Douglass Elementary
Freedom High
Guilford Elementary
Hamilton Elementary
Harmony Middle
Harper Park Middle
Heritage High
Hillsboro Elementary
Hillside Elementary
Horizon Elementary
Hutchison Farm Elementary
J. Michael Lunsford Middle
J.L.Simpson Middle
John Champe High
John W. Tolbert Jr. Elementary
Kenneth W. Culbert Elementary
Leesburg Elementary
Budget
$10,077.00
$32,659.00
$54,975.00
$44,929.00
$43,159.00
$12,209.00
$110,306.00
$51,430.00
$68,530.67
$149,369.00
$132,994.00
$55,609.00
$0.00
$38,658.00
$47,132.00
$0.00
$42,721.00
$47,903.00
$54,732.00
$49,845.00
$105,256.33
$43,744.66
$66,453.00
$88,819.00
$32,672.00
$43,258.79
$94,089.00
$40,868.00
$48,659.00
$43,016.00
$111,562.00
$35,738.00
$11,779.83
$77,711.72
$80,379.00
$95,381.66
$5,563.00
$46,242.43
$46,548.00
$53,899.00
$101,794.84
$76,562.00
$76,232.00
$54,344.00
$35,748.00
$40,801.00
Actual
$8,459.11
$29,672.79
$54,974.95
$44,515.14
$42,027.86
$12,120.69
$108,702.68
$51,430.00
$63,409.21
$127,574.61
$110,882.26
$52,347.65
$0.00
$33,348.55
$33,224.11
$14,395.91
$39,184.56
$45,454.17
$54,185.93
$42,848.92
$80,638.96
$39,586.88
$46,545.98
$77,268.88
$32,668.91
$42,213.59
$94,088.17
$35,231.34
$45,128.79
$41,638.44
$109,362.78
$35,133.09
$11,723.94
$65,695.95
$73,236.27
$92,073.31
$5,031.42
$44,211.08
$44,492.13
$53,898.36
$95,338.55
$76,514.30
$73,677.48
$54,305.80
$31,477.22
$40,800.97
Encumbrance
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$346.68
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$515.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$72.04
$1,195.44
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$23.88
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$55.10
$0.00
$16.84
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Balance
$1,617.89
$2,986.21
$0.05
$413.86
$1,131.14
$88.31
$1,603.32
$0.00
$5,121.46
$21,794.39
$22,111.74
$2,914.67
$0.00
$5,309.45
$13,907.89
-$14,395.91
$3,536.44
$2,448.83
$31.07
$6,996.08
$24,617.37
$4,157.78
$19,907.02
$11,550.12
$3.09
$1,045.20
$0.83
$5,564.62
$2,334.77
$1,377.56
$2,199.22
$604.91
$55.89
$12,039.65
$7,142.73
$3,308.35
$531.58
$2,031.35
$2,110.97
$0.64
$6,439.45
$47.70
$2,554.52
$38.20
$4,270.78
$0.03
Attachment #123
Loudoun County Public Schools
FY14 Budget and Actual Allotments
School
Legacy Elementary
Liberty Elementary
Lincoln Elementary
Little River Elementary
Loudoun County High
Loudoun Valley High
Lovettsville Elementary
Lowes Island Elementary
Lucketts Elementary
Math Office
Meadowland Elementary
Mercer Middle
Middleburg Elementary
Mill Run Elementary
Monroe Technology Center
Moorefield Station Elementary
Mountain View Elementary
Newton Lee Elementary
Parent Involvement
Park View High
Pinebrook Elementary
Potomac Falls High
Potowmack Elementary
River Bend Middle
Rolling Ridge Elementary
Rosa Lee Carter Elementary
Round Hill Elemenatry
Sanders Corner Elementary
Seldens Landing Elementary
Seneca Ridge Middle
Smarts Mill Middle
Sterling Elementary
Sterling Middle
Steuart W. Weller Elementary
Stone Bridge High
Stone Hill Middle
Sugarland Elementary
Sully Elementary
Sycolin Creek Elementary
Tuscarora High
Waterford Elementary
Woodgrove High
Total
Budget
Actual
$67,115.92
$67,061.70
$71,867.09
$70,726.78
$10,004.00
$9,586.39
$46,583.30
$46,579.26
$106,337.00
$98,594.07
$93,518.00
$79,964.06
$35,882.00
$30,272.47
$46,677.00
$45,040.61
$19,129.00
$15,556.81
$0.00
$66.00
$28,576.00
$24,739.66
$74,745.00
$66,365.19
$4,906.00
$3,247.65
$61,205.18
$60,219.46
$353,179.00 $353,179.00
$64,718.00
$59,764.04
$35,908.00
$35,049.14
$60,753.00
$56,563.66
$0.00
$4.52
$101,578.29
$87,729.47
$76,451.00
$69,852.61
$116,167.00
$94,577.74
$40,149.53
$37,701.90
$86,469.00
$83,449.34
$38,265.00
$32,719.53
$57,500.00
$57,131.65
$36,903.00
$36,443.43
$41,605.00
$41,513.27
$58,899.00
$58,246.29
$77,575.47
$75,737.03
$79,969.99
$73,960.69
$34,123.26
$33,351.40
$76,129.00
$64,137.96
$54,995.00
$54,332.55
$128,685.00 $100,914.97
$117,217.00 $106,280.75
$37,567.17
$34,722.43
$31,469.00
$30,216.74
$45,766.64
$44,836.68
$136,294.00 $121,520.63
$12,911.00
$12,500.30
$111,224.00 $111,021.08
$5,383,376.77 $4,996,220.60
Encumbrance
$31.00
$1,096.80
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$4,519.00
$0.00
$39.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$62.85
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$200.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$18.66
$0.00
$240.95
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,149.58
Balance
$23.22
$43.51
$417.61
$4.04
$7,742.93
$13,553.94
$5,609.53
$1,636.39
$3,572.19
-$66.00
$3,836.34
$8,379.81
$1,658.35
$985.72
$0.00
$434.96
$858.86
$4,150.34
-$4.52
$13,848.82
$6,661.24
$21,589.26
$2,447.63
$3,019.66
$5,545.47
$368.35
$459.57
$91.73
$652.71
$1,638.44
$6,009.30
$771.86
$11,991.04
$662.45
$27,770.03
$10,936.25
$2,826.08
$1,252.26
$689.01
$14,773.37
$410.70
$202.92
$379,006.59
Attachment #123
Loudoun County Public Schools
FY15 Budget and YTD Actual as of January 23, 2015 Allotments
School
Academy of Science
Aldie Elementary
Algonkian Elementary
Arcola Elementary
Ashburn Elementary
Balls Bluff Elementary
Banneker Elementary
Belmont Ridge Middle
Belmont Station Elementary
Blue Ridge Middle
Briar Woods High
Broad Run High
Buffalo Trail Elementary
Cardinal Ridge Elementary
Catoctin Elementary
Cedar Lane Elementary
Cool Spring Elementary
Countryside Elementary
Creightons Corner Elementary
Discovery Elementary
Dominion High
Dominion Trail Elementary
Douglass School
Eagle Ridge Middle
Emerick Elementary
Evergreen Mill Elementary
Farmwell Station Middle
Forest Grove Elementary
Frances Hazel Reid Elementary
Frederick Douglass Elementary
Freedom High
Guilford Elementary
Hamilton Elementary
Harmony Middle
Harper Park Middle
Health and Physical Education Office
Heritage High
Hillsboro Elementary
Hillside Elementary
Horizon Elementary
Hutchison Farm Elementary
J. Michael Lunsford Middle
J.L.Simpson Middle
John Champe High
John W. Tolbert Jr. Elementary
Budget
$25,849.00
$8,811.71
$29,023.24
$49,802.65
$41,848.55
$40,039.19
$9,987.90
$84,864.93
$46,795.07
$67,024.51
$124,565.05
$131,033.80
$47,006.80
$57,385.90
$34,694.34
$40,600.60
$38,772.24
$43,620.70
$64,451.42
$44,515.64
$108,489.80
$39,314.41
$65,908.50
$91,585.35
$30,465.56
$34,483.58
$80,704.74
$32,725.17
$45,433.18
$39,454.48
$109,105.25
$32,890.82
$11,033.85
$81,854.70
$77,467.47
$0.00
$98,500.38
$5,281.69
$42,476.42
$42,756.93
$50,479.64
$105,008.53
$74,267.14
$92,314.95
$45,148.22
YTD Actual Encumbrance
$0.00
$0.00
$2,510.84
$0.00
$19,121.44
$0.00
$30,002.09
$3,127.00
$26,186.10
$175.49
$18,411.86
$0.00
$4,482.07
$0.00
$59,750.50
$1,505.10
$31,625.52
$1,366.24
$37,235.04
$0.00
$48,699.38
$0.00
$67,361.34
$0.00
$26,931.03
$715.88
$20,671.25
$2,505.02
$18,221.51
$16.95
$17,750.63
$0.00
$22,426.11
$170.00
$23,768.14
$1,287.28
$48,361.88
$2,406.90
$27,187.06
$38.00
$56,703.77
$2,592.82
$24,314.64
$77.24
$18,861.11
$2,598.00
$44,246.81
$55.00
$18,190.05
$0.00
$21,392.09
$0.00
$45,324.32
$1,324.69
$19,110.83
$2,199.48
$26,717.24
$4,319.21
$22,532.72
$510.00
$53,648.52
$533.53
$19,840.82
$0.00
$6,576.88
$3,148.60
$36,153.11
$8,919.83
$34,869.12
$1,055.50
$120.00
$0.00
$54,349.30
$523.88
$3,106.67
$0.00
$27,431.47
$757.49
$24,196.26
$5,701.00
$33,275.62
$0.00
$62,771.17
$0.00
$53,173.08
$10,006.50
$42,494.33
$1,912.00
$15,607.30
$0.00
Balance
$25,849.00
$6,300.87
$9,901.80
$16,673.56
$15,486.96
$21,627.33
$5,505.83
$23,609.33
$13,803.31
$29,789.47
$75,865.67
$63,672.46
$19,359.89
$34,209.63
$16,455.88
$22,849.97
$16,176.13
$18,565.28
$13,682.64
$17,290.58
$49,193.21
$14,922.53
$44,449.39
$47,283.54
$12,275.51
$13,091.49
$34,055.73
$11,414.86
$14,396.73
$16,411.76
$54,923.20
$13,050.00
$1,308.37
$36,781.76
$41,542.85
-$120.00
$43,627.20
$2,175.02
$14,287.46
$12,859.67
$17,204.02
$42,237.36
$11,087.56
$47,908.62
$29,540.92
Attachment #123
Kenneth W. Culbert Elementary
Leesburg Elementary
Legacy Elementary
Liberty Elementary
Lincoln Elementary
Little River Elementary
Loudoun County High
Loudoun Valley High
Lovettsville Elementary
Lowes Island Elementary
Lucketts Elementary
Meadowland Elementary
Mercer Middle
Middleburg Elementary
Mill Run Elementary
Monroe Technology Center
Moorefield Station Elementary
Mountain View Elementary
Newton Lee Elementary
Park View High
Pinebrook Elementary
Potomac Falls High
Potowmack Elementary
River Bend Middle
Rock Ridge High
Rolling Ridge Elementary
Rosa Lee Carter Elementary
Round Hill Elemenatry
Safety and Security
Sanders Corner Elementary
Seldens Landing Elementary
Seneca Ridge Middle
Smarts Mill Middle
Sterling Elementary
Sterling Middle
Steuart W. Weller Elementary
Stone Bridge High
Stone Hill Middle
Sugarland Elementary
Sully Elementary
Sycolin Creek Elementary
Trailside Middle
Tuscarora High
Waterford Elementary
Woodgrove High
Total
$30,952.37
$17,588.84
$35,643.71
$26,978.06
$65,440.67
$43,701.11
$63,894.92
$44,934.33
$8,917.17
$5,666.98
$46,161.52
$23,039.53
$108,683.15
$50,616.32
$98,021.00
$43,771.35
$29,780.73
$17,808.84
$43,123.63
$24,386.55
$17,393.95
$9,029.14
$25,674.66
$16,107.18
$87,498.90
$38,012.45
$744.40
$0.00
$55,258.06
$39,322.01
$341,061.00
$180,557.36
$63,909.67
$37,771.41
$33,559.18
$19,816.61
$53,892.23
$19,595.84
$106,642.15
$36,463.87
$60,336.06
$42,182.96
$116,709.69
$43,655.52
$37,784.78
$21,531.27
$82,914.78
$42,696.19
$79,616.05
$51,100.96
$34,702.72
$19,357.28
$59,158.00
$34,117.31
$31,477.53
$26,625.90
$0.00
$87.00
$36,767.79
$25,702.08
$49,691.97
$32,170.44
$76,773.12
$42,748.49
$81,023.00
$40,408.44
$30,098.28
$17,076.97
$73,656.45
$37,959.54
$52,081.61
$23,970.39
$130,340.10
$55,282.55
$99,625.95
$51,270.09
$33,033.41
$21,013.37
$28,795.16
$12,872.65
$41,151.04
$28,388.54
$83,582.01
$62,946.38
$137,435.75
$75,441.30
$10,454.83
$3,752.89
$113,114.55
$61,224.43
$5,364,421.70 $2,884,461.74
$0.00 $13,363.53
$0.00
$8,665.65
$1,114.00 $20,625.56
$1,096.80 $17,863.79
$0.00
$3,250.19
$0.00 $23,121.99
$129.00 $57,937.83
$39.34 $54,210.31
$0.00 $11,971.89
$942.34 $17,794.74
$829.80
$7,535.01
$5.00
$9,562.48
$228.13 $49,258.32
$0.00
$744.40
$49.00 $15,887.05
$19,384.68 $141,118.96
$2,478.80 $23,659.46
$0.00 $13,742.57
$1,695.00 $32,601.39
$2,442.61 $67,735.67
$40.05 $18,113.05
$1,187.00 $71,867.17
$0.00 $16,253.51
$1,100.00 $39,118.59
$34.00 $28,481.09
$0.00 $15,345.44
$6.95 $25,033.74
$67.16
$4,784.47
$0.00
-$87.00
$0.00 $11,065.71
$1,216.00 $16,305.53
$27.30 $33,997.33
$2,000.00 $38,614.56
$0.00 $13,021.31
$0.00 $35,696.91
$386.49 $27,724.73
$6,747.40 $68,310.15
$0.00 $48,355.86
$127.80 $11,892.24
$0.00 $15,922.51
$511.67 $12,250.83
$0.00 $20,635.63
$0.00 $61,994.45
$0.00
$6,701.94
$3,525.11 $48,365.01
$106,960.06 $2,372,999.90
Attachment Question #135
Plan Design Comparison - Plan Year 2015
Alexandria City PS
Kaiser
Permanente
POS
Annual
Deductible
In-Network
Co-Insurance
In-Network
Out-of-Pocket
Maximum
In-Network
Co-Pays
Office Visits
(Primary /
Specialist)
In-Network
Retail
Kaiser
Permanente
HMO
Arlington County PS
United
Healthcare
POS Choice Plus
United
Healthcare
POS Choice
Kaiser
Permanente
HMO
Immediate
In-Network
medical attention
Hospital Stay
Cigna OAP High
Aetna/Innovation
Health
POS
Carefirst
BlueChoice
Advantage
POS
Loudoun County PS
Kaiser
Permanente
HMO
Cigna OAP
2015 / 2016
Cigna POS
2015 / 2016
Prince William County PS
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
Family
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$800
$600
$0
$0
$0
$400 / $600
$0 / $300
$0
$0
$0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20%
10%
10%
10%
0%
10%
0%
20%
20%
0%
$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
Brand
$25 or $45
$25 or $45
$30
$30
$20 or $40
Non-Brand
$40 or $60
$40 or $60
$50
$50
Generic
$15
$15
$20
$20
$20
Brand
$25
$25
$60
$60
$40
Non-Brand
$40
$40
$100
$100
$70
$100
$100
$100
$100
$50
RX
Mail
Cigna OAP Low
Fairfax County PS
Emergency room
services
Emergency medical
transportation
$0
$7
$7
$15 or $20
$5 / $10
$10
$25
20%, max $50
20%, max $50
$25 or $45
$25 / $30
$35
$45
20%, max $50
20%, max $50
$40 or $60
$45 / $50
$70
$0
$14
$14
$15
$10 / $20
$20
$50
20%, max $100
20%, max $100
$25
$50 / $60
$70
$90
20%, max $50
20%, max $50
$60
$90 / $100
$140
$250
$200
$50 plus 10%
$50 plus 10%
$75
$100
35% with $35
Min and $50 Max
50% with $50
$35 or $55
Min and $100
$8
35% with $70
Min and $140
50% with $100
Min and $200
$100
$200
$200 plus 20%
$200
$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
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
20%
10%
10%
10%
$0
10%
$0
$0
20%
$0
In-Network
Physician/surgeon fees
Information pulled from SBCs on District websites.
Attachment B Question #137
FY15 LCPS Intructional Computer Inventories
Age (Yrs.)
School
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Aldie ES
Aldie ES
Aldie ES
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Algonkian ES
Algonkian ES
Algonkian ES
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Arcola ES
Arcola ES
Arcola ES
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Quantity
Computer
36
19
0
Laptop
Total
4
22
0
40
41
0
81
27
132
0
18
20
92
45
152
92
289
131
0
0
28
0
61
159
Ashburn ES
Ashburn ES
Ashburn ES
63
99
0
22
22
112
85
121
112
318
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Balls Bluff ES
Balls Bluff ES
Balls Bluff ES
128
30
0
42
0
7
170
30
7
207
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Banneker ES
Banneker ES
Banneker ES
39
35
0
8
22
0
47
57
0
104
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Belmont Ridge MS
Belmont Ridge MS
Belmont Ridge MS
229
103
0
0
112
105
229
215
105
549
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Belmont Station ES
Belmont Station ES
Belmont Station ES
73
118
0
134
18
16
207
136
16
359
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Blue Ridge MS
Blue Ridge MS
Blue Ridge MS
240
99
0
0
80
18
240
179
18
61
220
Attachment B Question #137
Total computers
437
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Briar Woods HS
Briar Woods HS
Briar Woods HS
338
210
0
0
96
210
338
306
210
854
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Broad Run HS
Broad Run HS
Broad Run HS
270
173
0
0
126
248
270
299
248
817
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Buffalo Trails ES
Buffalo Trails ES
Buffalo Trails ES
208
0
0
36
0
0
244
0
0
244
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY17 computer refresh
Total computers
Cardinal Ridge ES
Cardinal Ridge ES
Cardinal Ridge ES
153
0
0
93
0
17
246
0
17
263
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Catoctin ES
Catoctin ES
Catoctin ES
63
98
0
18
22
85
81
120
85
286
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Cedar Lane ES
Cedar Lane ES
Cedar Lane ES
77
117
0
22
8
97
99
125
97
321
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Cool Spring ES
Cool Spring ES
Cool Spring ES
69
90
0
16
26
105
85
116
105
306
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Countryside ES
Countryside ES
Countryside ES
69
116
0
22
14
111
91
130
111
332
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Creighton's Corner ES
Creighton's Corner ES
Creighton's Corner ES
86
133
0
35
17
132
121
150
132
403
Attachment B Question #137
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Discovery ES
Discovery ES
Discovery ES
215
0
0
38
0
0
253
0
0
253
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Dominion HS
Dominion HS
Dominion HS
334
167
0
0
112
60
334
279
60
673
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Dominion Trail ES
Dominion Trail ES
Dominion Trail ES
163
0
0
46
0
0
209
0
0
209
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Douglass
Douglass
Douglass
69
160
0
0
16
0
69
176
0
245
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Eagle Ridge MS
Eagle Ridge MS
Eagle Ridge MS
274
90
0
182
0
0
456
90
0
546
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Emerick ES
Emerick ES
Emerick ES
56
106
0
16
24
61
72
130
61
263
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Evergreen Mill ES
Evergreen Mill ES
Evergreen Mill ES
68
96
0
18
22
92
86
118
92
296
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Farmwell Station MS
Farmwell Station MS
Farmwell Station MS
274
84
0
160
0
0
434
84
0
518
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Forest Grove ES
Forest Grove ES
Forest Grove ES
136
30
0
60
0
0
196
30
0
226
Less than 5
Greater than 5
Francis Hazel Reid ES
Francis Hazel Reid ES
75
107
20
22
95
129
Attachment B Question #137
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Francis Hazel Reid ES
0
109
109
333
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Frederick Douglas ES
Frederick Douglas ES
Frederick Douglas ES
208
0
0
36
0
0
244
0
0
244
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Freedom HS
Freedom HS
Freedom HS
315
210
0
0
96
94
315
306
94
715
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Guilford ES
Guilford ES
Guilford ES
64
86
0
36
20
43
100
106
43
249
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Hamilton ES
Hamilton ES
Hamilton ES
47
37
0
10
22
0
57
59
0
116
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Harmony MS
Harmony MS
Harmony MS
328
0
0
80
0
0
408
0
0
408
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Harper Park MS
Harper Park MS
Harper Park MS
220
90
0
0
80
81
220
170
81
471
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Heritage HS
Heritage HS
Heritage HS
556
0
0
112
0
0
668
0
0
668
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Hillsboro ES
Hillsboro ES
Hillsboro ES
35
20
0
4
22
0
39
42
0
81
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Hillside ES
Hillside ES
Hillside ES
66
94
0
22
22
107
88
116
107
311
Attachment B Question #137
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Horizon ES
Horizon ES
Horizon ES
71
114
0
22
20
110
93
134
110
337
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Hutchison Farm ES
Hutchison Farm ES
Hutchison Farm ES
149
30
0
68
0
26
217
30
26
273
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
J Lunsford MS
J Lunsford MS
J Lunsford MS
382
0
0
80
0
0
462
0
0
462
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
J.L. Simpson MS
J.L. Simpson MS
J.L. Simpson MS
258
45
0
0
80
25
258
125
25
408
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
John Champe HS
John Champe HS
John Champe HS
538
0
0
96
0
0
634
0
0
634
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Kenneth Culbert ES
Kenneth Culbert ES
Kenneth Culbert ES
201
0
0
38
0
0
239
0
0
239
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Leesburg ES
Leesburg ES
Leesburg ES
64
87
0
18
20
82
82
107
82
271
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Legacy ES
Legacy ES
Legacy ES
169
30
0
64
0
73
233
30
73
336
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Liberty ES
Liberty ES
Liberty ES
88
117
0
28
32
147
116
149
147
412
Less than 5
Lincoln ES
37
4
41
Attachment B Question #137
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Lincoln ES
Lincoln ES
22
0
22
0
44
0
85
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Little River ES
Little River ES
Little River ES
148
30
0
68
0
17
216
30
17
263
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Loudoun County HS
Loudoun County HS
Loudoun County HS
283
109
0
0
96
123
283
205
123
611
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Loudoun Valley HS
Loudoun Valley HS
Loudoun Valley HS
241
153
0
0
96
121
241
249
121
611
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Lovettsville ES
Lovettsville ES
Lovettsville ES
60
75
0
16
22
65
76
97
65
238
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Lowes Island ES
Lowes Island ES
Lowes Island ES
162
0
0
40
0
0
202
0
0
202
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Lucketts ES
Lucketts ES
Lucketts ES
43
40
0
6
22
29
49
62
29
140
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Meadowland ES
Meadowland ES
Meadowland ES
59
80
0
14
24
49
73
104
49
226
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Mercer MS
Mercer MS
Mercer MS
261
105
0
0
96
48
261
201
48
510
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Middleburg ES
Middleburg ES
Middleburg ES
27
18
0
4
22
0
31
40
0
Attachment B Question #137
Total computers
71
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Mill Run ES
Mill Run ES
Mill Run ES
157
30
0
64
0
37
221
30
37
288
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Monroe Tech Ctr.
Monroe Tech Ctr.
Monroe Tech Ctr.
34
84
0
0
49
113
34
133
113
280
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Moorefield Station ES
Moorefield Station ES
Moorefield Station ES
208
0
0
44
0
12
252
0
12
264
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Mountain View ES
Mountain View ES
Mountain View ES
72
111
0
22
24
61
94
135
61
290
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Newton Lee ES
Newton Lee ES
Newton Lee ES
170
30
0
64
0
12
234
30
12
276
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Park View HS
Park View HS
Park View HS
290
137
0
0
96
79
290
233
79
602
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Pinebrook ES
Pinebrook ES
Pinebrook ES
171
30
0
62
0
5
233
30
5
268
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Potomac Falls HS
Potomac Falls HS
Potomac Falls HS
278
194
0
0
96
169
278
290
169
737
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Potowmack ES
Potowmack ES
Potowmack ES
127
30
0
40
0
7
167
30
7
204
Attachment B Question #137
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
River Bend MS
River Bend MS
River Bend MS
244
90
0
80
0
0
324
90
0
414
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY17 computer refresh
Total computers
Rock Ridge HS
Rock Ridge HS
Rock Ridge HS
463
0
0
207
0
0
670
0
0
670
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Rolling Ridge ES
Rolling Ridge ES
Rolling Ridge ES
168
0
0
60
0
0
228
0
0
228
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Rosa Lee Carter ES
Rosa Lee Carter ES
Rosa Lee Carter ES
205
0
0
66
0
0
271
0
0
271
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Round Hill ES
Round Hill ES
Round Hill ES
67
94
0
16
22
75
83
116
75
274
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Sanders Corner ES
Sanders Corner ES
Sanders Corner ES
129
30
0
62
0
0
191
30
0
221
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Seldons Landing ES
Seldons Landing ES
Seldons Landing ES
164
30
0
68
0
1
232
30
1
263
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Seneca Ridge MS
Seneca Ridge MS
Seneca Ridge MS
259
91
0
0
80
28
259
171
28
458
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Smarts Mill MS
Smarts Mill MS
Smarts Mill MS
224
102
0
0
80
81
224
182
81
487
Less than 5
Greater than 5
Sterling ES
Sterling ES
63
83
38
18
101
101
Attachment B Question #137
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Sterling ES
0
39
39
241
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Sterling MS
Sterling MS
Sterling MS
259
109
0
16
80
7
275
189
7
471
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Steuart W. Weller ES
Steuart W. Weller ES
Steuart W. Weller ES
86
117
0
27
40
124
113
157
124
394
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Stone Bridge HS
Stone Bridge HS
Stone Bridge HS
368
150
0
0
96
150
368
246
150
764
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Stone Hill MS
Stone Hill MS
Stone Hill MS
347
0
0
80
0
0
427
0
0
427
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Sugarland ES
Sugarland ES
Sugarland ES
164
0
0
80
0
0
244
0
0
244
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Sully ES
Sully ES
Sully ES
63
92
0
33
23
40
96
115
40
251
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Sycolin Creek ES
Sycolin Creek ES
Sycolin Creek ES
184
0
0
94
0
0
278
0
0
278
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Tolbert ES
Tolbert ES
Tolbert ES
154
30
0
81
0
0
235
30
0
265
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY17 computer refresh
Total computers
Trailside MS
Trailside MS
Trailside MS
248
0
0
206
0
0
454
0
0
454
Attachment B Question #137
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Tuscarora HS
Tuscarora HS
Tuscarora HS
525
0
0
96
0
0
621
0
0
621
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Waterford ES
Waterford ES
Waterford ES
44
26
0
8
22
0
52
48
0
100
Less than 5
Greater than 5
FY15 computer refresh
Total computers
Woodgrove HS
Woodgrove HS
Woodgrove HS
538
0
0
96
0
0
634
0
0
634
Total Computers
31183
Department of Technology Services
FY16 FTE Requests
Line Title
Administrative/Clas
sified
Classified
Level
1
Admin Office Assistant
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.
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.
1 of 3
12
School / Non‐
Justification
School
NonSchool
Needed to offload secretarial duties from director position. This will also bring the staffing in alignment with other director level positions.
1/28/2015
Attachment C Question #137
Consequence of not funding
Efforts to close the gap/increase efficiencies
Not having this position will impact the Currently, a long term sub is in place to assist amount of projects, tasks, and meetings the with these duties, but full process and director will be able to handle. This position is procedural changes can not be established critical for day to day running of the DTS until a full time position is in place.
department.
Without the additional AV technician the time An additional staff member can expedite resolution and improve response time. DTS is it takes to respond to service requests will continue to increase, especially considering we working to develop a comprehensive SLA and this area has been identified as an area where opened 3 new schools in FY15 and will be we need to improve service.
opening another high school in FY16.
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.
Department of Technology Services
FY16 FTE Requests
Line Title
4
IT Project Manager I
5
Lead Systems Specialist
2 of 3
Administrative/Clas
sified
Classified
Classified
Level
16
16
School / Non‐
Justification
Consequence of not funding
School
NonSchool
On average DTS is working on 60 projects at Not having a Project manager approved will any given time. The DTS Project Managers will cause all departments to continue with the help enable DTS to complete more projects on status quo of having non‐technical staff time and on budget. By investing in project attempt to manage technology projects management staff DTS will have expert project without a thorough knowledge of project staff on hand to manage the most critical and management or technology best practices or complicated technology projects related to the limitations. One to the World initiative. These projects can If one position was to be outsourced the cost span across multiple LCPS departments and would be approximately $172,720 for a 1 year require an expert ability to coordinate project engagement. The approximated cost of filling activities while allowing managing budget, a single LCPS position is $80,000.
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. 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.
1/28/2015
Attachment C Question #137
Efforts to close the gap/increase efficiencies
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. Additional Lead System Specialists will close Lack of team coordination resulting in less efficient work output and longer task duration. the gap and improve efficiencies through Also, planning and managing enterprise improved team coordination and increase the projects will be tasked on higher management number of projects the Department can levels reducing the number of projects we will support.
be able to handle as a department.
Department of Technology Services
FY16 FTE Requests
Line Title
Administrative/Clas
sified
Classified
Level
Consequence of not funding
Efforts to close the gap/increase efficiencies
Additional Lead System Specialists will close Lack of team coordination resulting in less efficient work output and longer task duration. the gap and improve efficiencies through improved team coordination and increase the Also, planning and managing enterprise projects will be tasked on higher management number of projects the Department can levels reducing the number of projects we will support.
be able to handle as a department.
6
Lead Systems Specialist
7
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.
8
Computer Technician
Classified
13
School
New school cluster will not have direct support DTS is re‐allocating an internal position to DTS staffing standards place a computer technician and system specialist on site at each and teams from other groups will have to add cover the system specialist position.
this responsibility and coverage to their high school to support the schools in each cluster. The computer technician position will support queues. This will increase support be placed at Riverside High School to provide demands on other teams.
support to the school as well as Seldens Landing and Belmont Ridge Middle and assist with covering the larger SBHS cluster.
3 of 3
16
School / Non‐
Justification
School
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.
Attachment C Question #137
1/28/2015
Additional Lead System Specialists will close Lack of team coordination resulting in less efficient work output and longer task duration. the gap and improve efficiencies through improved team coordination and increase the Also, planning and managing enterprise projects will be tasked on higher management number of projects the Department can levels reducing the number of projects we will support.
be able to handle as a department.
Attachment Question #140
Attachment Question #140
Attachment Question #140