FY 2014 Budget Questions DEPARTMENT INDEX See End of Document for Topical Index

Click on any entry in the Index to be taken to the corresponding Budget Question FY 2014 Budget Questions DEPARTMENT INDEX See end of document for Topical Index

Question...... CD#/Question#/Page#...... Answer Prepared By

Cluster Assistant Superintendents In-School Suspension...... ES-02/14/26...... CAS

Communications and Community Outreach FCPS Publications...... BOS-08/26/63...... Barbara Hunter

Facilities and Transportation CIP Requirements...... BOS-03/28/65...... Jeffrey Platenberg Cost to Purchase Trailer...... SE-02/10/14...... Jeffrey Platenberg Estimated vs. Actual Costs of Capital Projects...... BOS-17/48/125...... Jeffrey Platenberg Expanding Pre-K Programs...... TDK-01/5/6...... Jeffrey Platenberg FCPS Bonds...... BOS-04/27/64...... Jeffrey Platenberg Monopole Revenue...... ES-04/23/58...... Jeffrey Platenberg Paid Holiday...... SE-07/68/168...... Jeffrey Platenberg Planetariums...... DS-02/55/139...... Jeffrey Platenberg Proffer Contributions...... BOS-21/37/90...... Jeffrey Platenberg School Bus Orders...... DS-03/60/158...... Jeffrey Platenberg Trailer Usage...... BOS-23/47/121...... Jeffrey Platenberg

Financial Services Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... KS-01/9/12...... Susan Quinn Analysis of Yearend Balances...... BOS-05/25/61...... Susan Quinn Attrition Rate...... BOS-16/42/113...... Susan Quinn Automatic Carryover...... BOS-09/29/67...... Susan Quinn Automatic Carryover...... SE-05/51/129...... Susan Quinn CAFR Fund Balances...... JS-01/22/55...... Susan Quinn Cost Per Student for Immersion & FLES ...... PR-04/11/15...... Susan Quinn Cost to Provide 1% MSA or $500 Bonus...... PR-03/7/9...... Susan Quinn Costs and Personnel Counts for FCPS Departments...BOS-06/49/127...... Susan Quinn Expanding Pre-K Programs...... TDK-01/5/6...... Susan Quinn Expenditures Overbudgeted...... BOS-15/34/77...... Susan Quinn FLES Expansion...... /RM-03/61/159...... Susan Quinn FOCUS Status...... SE-06/53/137...... Susan Quinn Grant Revenues...... SE-01/1/1...... Susan Quinn Instruction Costs...... BOS-12/33/75...... Susan Quinn Johnie Forte, Jr. Support Center...... ES-07/32/72...... Susan Quinn No New FLI or FLES Programs...... PR-05/6/8...... Susan Quinn One-Time Balances and Carryover...... BOS-01/16/31...... Susan Quinn Operating Fund Expenditure Detail...... ES-06/57/142...... Susan Quinn Overtime Funds...... PR-08/62/160...... Susan Quinn Per-Pupil-Cost Calculations...... PR-06/20/51...... Susan Quinn Planetariums...... DS-02/55/139...... Susan Quinn i Question...... CD#/Question#/Page#...... Answer Prepared By

Promotion Freeze...... PR-01/4/4...... Susan Quinn Reserves and Carryover...... BOS-14/31/70...... Susan Quinn Salary And Benefit Comparison...... MM-01/8/10...... Susan Quinn School-Based Positions...... BOS-02/17/34...... Susan Quinn Staffing Reserve Positions at Midyear...... ES-01/3/3...... Susan Quinn Substitute Expenditures...... PR-07/54/138...... Susan Quinn Technology Expenditures...... BOS-13/41/111...... Susan Quinn Travel Costs...... PR-10/70/172...... Susan Quinn Trends in Positions Other Than Operating Fund...... PR-02/12/25...... Susan Quinn Twelve-Month Positions...... PR-11/64/163...... Susan Quinn Unfilled Positions at Midyear...... DS-01/2/2...... Susan Quinn VRS Employee Contribution...... BOS-10/30/69...... Susan Quinn VRS Pay Increase Midyear...... BOS-22/44/117...... Susan Quinn

Human Resources Assistant Principal Intern Program...... ES-10/69/170...... Phyllis Pajardo Cost to put Support Staff in Classroom Positions...... RM-02/46/120...... Phyllis Pajardo Living Wage...... SE-03/21/54...... Phyllis Pajardo Overtime Funds...... PR-08/62/160...... Phyllis Pajardo Paid Holiday...... SE-07/68/168...... Phyllis Pajardo Parent Liaison Contracts...... SE-04/52/136...... Phyllis Pajardo Position Title And Pay Level For Supervisors...... PR-09/58/152...... Phyllis Pajardo Promotion Freeze...... PR-01/4/4...... Phyllis Pajardo Substitute Expenditures...... PR-07/54/138...... Phyllis Pajardo Twelve-Month Positions...... PR-11/64/163...... Phyllis Pajardo

Information Technology Cost of eCART...... JS-02/45/118...... Maribeth Luftglass Costs & Benefits to Maintain,Reduce,or Eliminate...BOS-11/40/105...... Maribeth Luftglass Multimedia Services Allocations...... ES-05/19/37...... Maribeth Luftglass Technology Expenditures...... BOS-13/41/111...... Maribeth Luftglass

Instructional Services Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... KS-01/9/12...... Sloan Presidio Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... TDK-02/66/165...... Sloan Presidio AVID Program Funding...... PH-04/50/128...... Sloan Presidio Cost of eCART...... JS-02/45/118...... Sloan Presidio Cost of FECEP/Head Start...... DS-04/65/164...... Sloan Presidio Cost of FLI and FLES...... ES-11/67/166...... Sloan Presidio Cost Per Student for Immersion & FLES ...... PR-04/11/15...... Sloan Presidio ESOL Students...... BOS-18/43/115...... Sloan Presidio Expanding Pre-K Programs...... TDK-01/5/6...... Sloan Presidio International Baccalaureate Costs...... ES-03/15/28...... Sloan Presidio No New FLI or FLES Programs...... PR-05/6/8...... Sloan Presidio Paid Holiday...... SE-07/68/168...... Sloan Presidio Planetariums...... DS-02/55/139...... Sloan Presidio ii Question...... CD#/Question#/Page#...... Answer Prepared By

Office of the Superintendent College Level Courses...... BOS-20/36/85...... Jack Dale Costs & Benefits to Maintain,Reduce,or Eliminate...BOS-11/40/105...... Richard Moniuszko Paid Holiday...... SE-07/68/168...... Richard Moniuszko Priority Schools Initiative...... BOS-19/35/79...... Richard Moniuszko PSI Expenses...... BOS-07/24/60...... Richard Moniuszko PSI Funding...... PH-02/13/25...... Richard Moniuszko

Professional Leadership and Accountability Assistant Principal Intern Program...... ES-10/69/170...... Terri Breeden Cost of eCART...... JS-02/45/118...... Terri Breeden Costs & Benefits to Maintain,Reduce,or Eliminate...BOS-11/40/105...... Terri Breeden Cultural Sensitivity Training...... PH-01 /18/36...... Terri Breeden Instructional Coaches...... PH-03/38/102...... Terri Breeden Instructional Coaches...... PH-05/59/157...... Terri Breeden Instructional Coaches/Principals...... ES-09/63/162...... Terri Breeden National Board Certified Teacher Stipends...... RM-01/39/104...... Terri Breeden

Special Services Grant Revenues...... SE-01/1/1...... Kim Dockery Suspension Support...... ES-08/56/140...... Kim Dockery

iii CD# SE-01 Question #1

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn and Kim Dockery

Date Prepared: November 20, 2012

Question: In Financial Services’ Operational Expectations Monitoring Report presented to the School Board at the November 12th work session, measure 1.3 included on page 4 of the report talks about revenue projections. Does the description suggest that we received $12 million less in grant money than expected? If so, was there some major change in a funding source (e.g., federal budget cuts) that was responsible for that?

Response: The unrealized revenue of $12 million was not due to a change in funding source or award amounts; it is due to the fact that most federal grants, including IDEA, are awarded annually and valid for a period of 27 months. In each FCPS fiscal year, there may be two or three awards (full and carry-forward amounts) budgeted. Funding from the earliest grant award is spent first and at year end, the unrealized revenue is carried forward and re-appropriated in the subsequent year. All IDEA revenue represents reimbursement for FCPS salaries, benefits and other allowable expenses as detailed in the IDEA Annual Plan and is received within the grant award’s validity date.

In addition, the federal government, through the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement of IDEA, prohibits FCPS from reducing the level of local expenditures for the support of special education services below the level of the preceding year. Failure to meet MOE could result in FCPS being required to return millions of Federal dollars. In order to ensure that this requirement is met, FCPS must spend local and grant funding at fairly consistent levels each year.

The IDEA carry-forward balance increased significantly in FY 2011 due to two significant and unavoidable factors: 1) The requirement that IDEA funds received under ARRA be spent in full a year earlier than the concurrent ‘regular’ IDEA award, and 2) expenditure reductions due to the VRS rate holiday. The combined effect on our locally-funded special education expenditures might have otherwise put FCPS in jeopardy of being out of compliance with MOE. As mentioned above, those same MOE requirements prevent FCPS from recouping those carried forward funds at an accelerated rate. The IDEA carry-forward balance for FY 2012 was $1.5 million less than in FY 2011, and we expect to further reduce this balance by the end of FY 2013 and beyond.

1 CD# DS-01 Question #2 FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Dan Storck

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: November 21, 2012

Question: Please identify the dollar value of unfilled positions at midyear and the overall picture of those positions.

Response: When FCPS reports vacancies, they are as of a set point in time. The number and composition of position vacancies fluctuate during the fiscal year as employees are hired and as employees leave FCPS. For example, as of November 1, 2012, there were 537 vacancies, but as of November 15, 2012, there were 495 vacancies. This includes all contracted position vacancies in the operating fund, excluding bus drivers, and includes the remaining positions in the staffing reserve.

To provide a cost estimate for position vacancies, it is necessary to assume how long the positions will be vacant. If FCPS were to assume that all current vacancies were to remain unfilled for the remainder of the fiscal year, excluding any vacancy savings that have already occurred, the total value of vacancies is $22.2 million in salaries and benefits.

Value - Assuming Vacancies as Vacant for Remainder Position Category of 11/15/12 of Fiscal Year PRINCIPALS 2 $0.2 ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS 5 $0.4 SUPERVISORS 2 $0.2 SPECIALISTS 26 $2.0 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL 16 $0.7 TEACHERS 288 $13.9 INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS 66 $1.7 SPECIALIZED ASSISTANTS 15 $0.4 OFFICE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL 23 $0.8 TRADES PERSONNEL 21 $0.9 CUSTODIAL PERSONNEL 28 $0.9 TRANSPORTATION PERSONNEL 3 $0.2 Total 495 $22.2

2 CD# ES-01 Question #3

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: November 21, 2012

Question: Please identify the dollar value of staffing reserve positions at midyear.

Response: The staffing reserve in FY 2013 began the fiscal year with a total of 242.1 positions. The reserve consists of both teacher and instructional assistant positions, and depending on the positions that have been allocated to date, the impact to the budget will vary.

The total reserve budget for both the salaries and related benefits is $16.6 million. When we completed the Friday memo, as of October 19, a total of 102 positions had been utilized. As of November 15, an additional 22 positions have been allocated. If we include the lapse that has already occurred, the salary and benefits budget for the full year for the remaining positions is $9.2 million. After excluding the lapse that has already occurred, the remaining salary and benefits budget is $6.9 million.

3 CD# PR-01 Question #4

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo and Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: January 25, 2013

Question: Please indicate the amount of funds that can be saved by instituting a promotion freeze: a) immediately for the remainder of FY 2013 and b) for all of FY 2014. I am looking at reasonable promotion freezes that impact those that are not 100 percent school-based, including the "hybrid" positions that travel from school to school, as well as central office.

Response: In FCPS, promotions occur when a current employee applies and is selected to fill a vacant position of a higher grade. Promotion for nonschool-based positions is defined in Policy 4612 as “The movement of an employee from one position, through open competition, to a position that is assigned to a job group or salary lane that has a higher maximum salary based on a 12-month contract or work year, and the higher maximum salary is not due to a change in the number of contract days or workdays or to the length of the workday.”

Employees who compete and are selected for a higher graded position typically receive an increase of 10 percent. Promotion calculation in Policy 4612 is defined as “An increase of ten percent in salary in an employee's current job group prior to placement on the next higher dollar amount in the new job group or salary lane.”

Unless FCPS were to exclude current employees from applying for vacant positions and therefore hire only external candidates, a promotion freeze would be equivalent to a vacancy freeze.

In the response to Budget Question #2, an estimate of the divisionwide value of vacancies as of November 15, 2012 was provided. In terms of nonschool-based positions, on November 15, 2012 there were 59 positions vacant. As indicated in the response to Budget Question #2, when FCPS reports vacancies they are as of a set point in time. The number and composition of position vacancies fluctuate during the fiscal year as employees are hired and as employees leave FCPS.

To provide a cost estimate for position vacancies, it is necessary to assume how long the positions will be vacant. If FCPS were to assume that all current vacancies were to remain unfilled for the remainder of FY 2013, excluding any vacancy savings that have already occurred, the total value of nonschool- based vacancies is $3.2 million in salaries and benefits. If these same positions were to be vacant for the entire year of FY 2014, the value would be $5.0 million.

While the savings for holding currently vacant nonschool-based positions vacant seems significant, there are other considerations: 4 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #4 • The budget for FY 2013 and for FY 2014 includes FCPS experiencing lapse from position vacancies. Only the savings beyond what was projected in the lapse budget would be additional savings. • A nonschool-based hiring freeze will have a significant impact on schools and the operational support provided to them. While the responsibilities of vacant positions are temporarily filled for short periods of time during the hiring process, not filling vacancies for a longer time frame will have a significant impact, particularly as FCPS has fewer nonschool-based positions providing support than prior to the economic downturn. οο When looking at the number of nonschool-based positions providing support to students and schools, the number of nonschool-based positions per 1,000 students has fallen from 10.3 in FY 2000 to 8.9 per 1,000 students in FY 2013. οο The impact of leaving positions vacant for the remainder of FY 2013 could be generally tolerable in the short term but will certainly impact services to schools with the impact being greater for the positions with more direct links to students and schools. Managing a single vacancy may be workable for a short period while managing multiple vacancies can result in higher risk or undesirable impact to students. For example, Security Officers patrol and inspect assigned schools to deter theft, fire, vandalism, unauthorized activities, or conditions which endanger students, personnel, and FCPS property. In the short term, covering a single vacancy may be doable but operating with multiple vacancies may pose a more serious and unacceptable risk. Another example regarding tolerance and assumption of risk is Transportation/Route Supervisors vacancies. These personnel not only manage routes, but also manage day-to-day issues including substitute placements, update of the bus maintenance tracking database, and supervision of early/late bus services during inclement weather. οο In the long term, accumulated vacancies from FY 2013 and FY 2014 will have a direct impact on services. If a hiring freeze is in place over multiple years, a prioritization of services will be needed, followed by a reduction in services.

Other salary changes that may be confused with promotion include step, reclassification, and regrade. These actions are covered by Regulation 4612 Salary Guides—Employees Assigned to the Unified Salary Scale.

Step is defined as “One of a series of incremental pay levels within a job group or paygrade.” Since step increases were not funded in the FY 2013 Approved Budget and were also not included in the Superintendent’s FY 2014 Proposed Budget, employees have not and will not receive a salary increase based on longevity or their experience in the position.

Reclassification is defined as “The action that results from the formal evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of a position(s) or active class(es) within the organization or a segment of the organization.” Regrade is defined as “The action that results from the formal evaluation of appropriateness of the job group assigned to a position without a change in the duties and responsibilities, e.g., market value assessment.”

When a reclassification or regrade action results in assignment of a position to a higher job group involving no change in the number of workdays, an employee shall be placed in the higher job group on the same contract day or workday scale at the lowest step that exceeds his or her current pay rate. The divisionwide budget for reclassification for FY 2013 is $153,702. If FCPS were to freeze reclassifications, employees would be working out of their classifications which could result in other actions such as employee grievances and/or legal action. 5 CD# TDK-01 Question #5

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Tamara Derenak Kaufax

Answer Prepared By: Sloan Presidio, Jeffrey Platenberg, Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: January 31, 2013

Question: What would the costs be to the school system/county, including the facilities impact, if we were to take full advantage of the state’s Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) funding with a 40 percent local match to allow us to implement pre-K programs for the approximately 1,000 children currently on the waiting list?

Response: For FY 2013, the General Assembly approved funding for the Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) is calculated at $6,000 per eligible child with program costs shared by the state and local governments. The Appropriation Act states that a local match of funds, based on the composite index of local ability- to-pay and capped at 0.5000, is required in order to receive state funds for this program. For FY 2013, FCPS’ composite index is capped at 0.5000 for purposes of calculating the estimated local match requirement for VPI funding. Additionally, State and local matching funds may not be used for capital outlay.

For FY 2014, the state funding is projected based on a reduced cap of 0.4000. The chart below provides two scenarios to illustrate the estimated costs to expand the Family and Early Childhood Education Program (FECEP) for approximately 1,000 children who are currently on FCPS’ waiting list. The number of children on the waiting list does vary over time, but has been approximately 1,000. The first scenario assumes existing space will be utilized to expand the program. After accounting for state funding of $3.6 million, the net cost totals $18.0 million. Of this amount, $5.7 million represents non-recurring expenditures related to building infrastructure.

The second scenario assumes the cost of a new addition to expand the program. Under this scenario, the net cost totals $31.2 million. Of this amount, $18.9 million represents non-recurring expenditures related to building infrastructure.

Estimated Cost to Expand Pre-K (to approximately 1,000 students) Program Component Existing Space New Addition FY 2014 Proposed FECEP/Head Start Cost Per Pupil of $15,945 $ 15,945,000 $ 15,945,000 Less State Funding Per Pupil of $3,600 (3,600,000) (3,600,000) FCPS' Estimated Net Cost Per Pupil of $12,345 $ 12,345,000 $ 12,345,000 Transportation Cost - - Facilities Cost - 63 classrooms 5,670,000 18,900,000 Estimated Cost to FCPS $ 18,015,000 $ 31,245,000

6 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #5 The FY 2014 proposed FECEP/Head Start cost per pupil includes the cost of standard transportation. Any additional transportation costs would depend on where the additional children are actually placed relative to their base school and the hours of the program. For purposes of this estimate, the calculation assumes these additional children will be transported on their base school buses with other students.

The facilities cost represents the space required to expand the program to 1,000 additional children. Based on 16 students per classroom, an additional 63 classrooms would be required. The facilities cost estimates include the cost for construction in an existing space and the cost of a new addition. The cost for construction in an existing space reflects the cost to construct the classroom plus the cost to move students out of an existing space and into temporary classrooms. It is important to note that utilizing existing space would have a long term impact on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as we face continued enrollment growth. We will continue to work with the County to determine if there are other county facilities that may be available.

7 CD# PR-05 Question #6 FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Sloan Presidio, Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: January 31, 2013

Question: Please indicate the amount of funds that could be saved by not opening new immersion or FLES programs in FY 2014, until a study can be done on efficacy and equity.

Response: The FY 2014 Proposed Budget includes an increase of $1.0 million to expand World Languages programs to ten additional elementary schools. The $1.0 million will be the savings realized by not opening new foreign language immersion or FLES programs in FY 2014.

Here is the narrative description from the FY 2014 Proposed Budget document, page 44:

World Languages programs in elementary schools will be expanded to ten additional schools to address Student Achievement Goal 1.2. In FY 2014, eight schools will fully implement the Foreign Languages in the Elementary Schools (FLES) program at all grade levels and two schools will implement the Foreign Language Immersion program. Funding provides 12.0 teacher positions, as well as staff development, translations, and materials. The specific schools will be identified and included in the FY 2014 Approved Budget.

8 CD# PR-03 Question #7

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: January 31, 2013

Question: Please estimate how much it would cost to provide a 1 percent market scale adjustment (MSA) or a $500 bonus for school-based employees, and also for custodial staff.

Response: The FY 2014 Proposed Budget includes a 1 percent MSA for all employees at a cost of $18.9 million. Of this amount, $16.5 million is for school-based employees and $2.4 million is for nonschool-based employees. Of these two amounts, $0.6 million is for school-based custodians and approximately $19,000 is for nonschool-based custodians.

A similar breakdown to provide a $500 bonus to contracted employees is provided in the chart below. A bonus is a one-time event that does not add to the salary base for the following year, and it does not impact or count towards salary sensitive benefits like life insurance or retirement.

It should be noted that under FCPS’ current salary scale structure it is not possible to provide a 1 percent MSA for employees based on their school-based vs. nonschool-based status. In other words, there are not separate salary scales for employees with the same job functions (e.g., office assistant) based on whether they are school-based or nonschool-based.

All Employees Custodians 1% MSA ($ in M) ($ in M) School-based $16.5 $0.6 Nonschool-based including bus drivers 2.4 0.0 Total $18.9 $0.6 $500 Bonus School-based $12.0 $0.7 Nonschool-based including bus drivers 1.8 0.0 Total $13.8 $0.7

O:\OBS\Groups\Budget Questions\FY 2014 Budget Questions\Patty Reed\PR03\PR-03 chart Page 1 of 1 Sheet1 1/31/2013 CD# MM-01 Question #8

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Megan McLaughlin

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: January 31, 2013

Question: Please provide a salary and benefit comparison for surrounding jurisdictions.

Response: Attached is a chart that compares the salary and benefits for a mid-career teacher for the jurisdictions that participate in the Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) Guide. For each jurisdiction, the salary of a teacher with a master’s degree step 9 is used for the comparison. Then the benefits paid by the jurisdiction on behalf of that teacher position are calculated. For health insurance, family coverage was selected. The chart below shows that FCPS ranks 6th in the region (out of 10 schools) for total compensation (salary and benefits) and 7th for salary alone. Details for each jurisdiction follow. Salaries and Benefit Comparison FY 2013

Overall Summary Total Comp. Rank Order for Salary Rank Order for District (Salaries & Total Comp. MA Step 9 Salaries Benefits) FCPS $88,657 6 $58,303 7 Alexandria $104,651 1 $70,808 2 Arlington $100,646 2 $71,982 1 Falls Church $90,992 4 $62,388 5 Loudoun $83,478 8 $54,040 10 Manassas City $78,516 10 $54,197 9 Manassas Park $81,018 9 $55,758 8 Montgomery $96,629 3 $67,723 3 Prince George's $89,070 5 $63,020 4 Prince William $86,276 7 $58,895 6

1 of 1 1/31/2013 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #8 1/31/2013

0 8 8 5 1 6 0 4 $0 $0 $643 $600 $701 $448 $654 54.5% 46.5% $4,13 $4,505 $6,867 $2,162 $2,356 $1,066 $6,301 $11,85 $54,04 $14,532 $29,43 $83,47 $58,89 $27,38 $86,27 Using Using Salary Salary Midpoint Midpoint Employer Cost Employer Cost

for for Mid Mid Salary Salary 1.19% 0.00% 1.11% 7.65% 7.65% 4.00% 1.19% 0.76% 4.00% 1.11% 11.66% 11.66% William Prince William WABE WABE Percent Percent Teacher Teacher

8 4 2 0 0 0 6 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $742 $693 45.8% 41.3% $4,773 $7,27 $4,821 $8,375 $2,496 $1,021 $1,468 $12,62 $89,07 $62,38 $63,02 $10,365 $28,60 $90,99 $26,05 George's Prince Church Loudoun Loudoun Using Using Salary Salary Midpoint Midpoint Employer Cost Employer Cost

for for Mid Mid Salary Salary 1.19% 0.00% 1.11% 7.65% 7.65% 4.00% 0.00% 1.62% 0.00% 0.00% 11.66% 13.29% Church Falls WABE WABE Percent Percent Teacher Teacher

6 9 2 3 4 6 $0 $0 $0 $32 $857 $288 $799 $554 $741 39.8% 42.7% $5,507 $8,393 $5,181 $9,000 $3,671 $12,267 $96,62 $71,98 $67,72 $28,66 $28,90 $10,281 $100,64 Using Using Salary Salary Midpoint Midpoint Employer Cost Employer Cost 2013 FY

for for Mid Mid Salary Salary 1.19% 0.40% 1.11% 7.65% 7.65% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 5.42% 11.66% 13.29% WABE WABE Percent Percent Montgomery Montgomery Prince George's Prince Teacher Teacher

Benefit Comparison 1 8 8 8 3 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Par k and $340 $786 $664 $761 $619 47.8% 45.3% $5,417 $8,256 $4,265 $6,501 $2,230 $18,283 $81,01 $70,80 $55,75 $33,84 $25,26 $10,98 $104,65 Using Using Salary Salary Midpoint Midpoint Salaries Employer Cost Employer Cost Manassas k

Par for for Salary Salary 0.00% 0.48% 0.00% 1.11% 7.65% 7.65% 0.00% 1.19% 4.00% 1.11% 11.66% 11.66% WABE Mid WABE Mid Percent Percent Teacher Teacher Manassas

y 7 6 3 7 4 9 4 $0 $0 Cit $507 $647 $806 $260 $602 52.1% 44.9% $3,113 $1,749 $4,460 $6,798 $4,146 $6,319 $2,168 $12,273 $88,65 $78,51 $30,35 $24,31 $58,30 $54,19 $10,82 FCPS Alexandria Alexandria Arlington Arlington Falls Using Using Salary Salary Midpoint Midpoint Manassas Employer Cost Employer Cost y

Cit for for Mid Mid Salary Salary 5.34% 0.87% 3.00% 1.11% 7.65% 7.65% 0.00% 0.48% 4.00% 1.11% 11.66% 11.66% FCPS WABE WABE Percent Percent Manassas Teacher Teacher Paid by ER Paid by ER Rate Rate options. options. Family Family 9 9 Credit Credit benefits benefits Jurisdiction Jurisdiction of Salary of Salary all all Total Total Family Family Retirement Retirement ‐ Employee Rate ‐ Employer (ER) ‐ Employer (ER) ‐ Employee Rate include include Health Care Health Care ‐ DPPO ‐ DPPO ‐ Masters, Step ‐ Masters, Step Security Security Benefits Benefits Insurance Insurance Health Insurance ‐ PPO Life Supplemental Retirement Retiree Dental Total Total Compensation Compensation Salary Benefits Social Retirement Benefits Percent Does not Salary Benefits Social Dental Benefits Percent Does not Retirement Health Insurance ‐ PPO Supplemental Life Retirement Retiree 1 of

11 CD# KS-01 Question #9

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Kathy Smith

Answer Prepared By: Sloan Presidio, Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: February 6, 2013

Question: How many of our 139 elementary schools trade to have a full-time Advanced Academic Resource Teacher? What percentage of Title I schools have made this trade?

Response: Of the 139 elementary schools, a total of 51, or 37 percent, are currently using school or Title I resources to fund a full-time Advanced Academic Resource Teacher. Of the 38 Title I schools, a total of 18, or 47 percent, are currently using school or Title I resources to fund a full-time Advanced Academic Resource Teacher.

The chart on the following page lists by school the amount of a full-time equivalent position that each school is adding with school or Title I funding and if the addition esultsr in a full-time Advanced Academic Resource Teacher position.

12 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #9

Additional Advanced Academic Resource Additional Advanced Academic Resource Teachers (AART) Funded by Elementary Schools Teachers (AART) Funded by Elementary Schools FY 2013 FY 2013

Total Results in Total Results in Additional full-time Additional full-time School AART resource School AART resource Aldrin 0.50 Y Kings Park 0.50 Y Armstrong 1.50 Y Lake Anne 0.50 Y Beech Tree * 0.50 Y Laurel Ridge 0.50 Y Belvedere** 0.50 Y Lees Corner 0.50 Y Bucknell** 0.50 Y Lemon Road 0.10 N Camelot 0.50 Y London Towne ** 0.50 Y Cardinal Forest 0.50 Y Lorton Station * 0.50 Y Chesterbrook 0.50 Y Marshall Road 0.50 Y Churchill Road 0.50 Y Mason Crest 0.50 Y Coates 0.50 Y Mount Vernon Woods * 0.50 Y Colvin Run 0.50 Y Oak Hill 0.50 Y Crestwood * 0.30 N Oakton ES 0.50 Y Crossfield 0.20 N Oak View 0.50 Y Daniels Run* 0.50 Y Parklawn * 0.50 Y Dogwood* 0.50 Y Pine Spring * 0.50 Y Fairfax Villa 0.05 N Powell 0.50 Y Fairhill 0.50 Y Providence * 0.50 Y Flint Hill 0.50 Y Riverside** 0.50 Y Floris 0.10 N Rolling Valley 0.50 Y Fort Belvoir 0.50 Y Silverbrook 0.10 N Fort Hunt 0.50 Y Sleepy Hollow * 0.60 Y Forestville 0.20 N Spring Hill 0.50 Y Franklin Sherman 0.50 Y Union Mill 0.50 Y Glen Forest** 0.50 Y Vienna 0.50 Y Halley 0.50 Y Waples Mill 0.50 Y Haycock 0.50 Y Washington Mill * 0.50 Y Hayfield ES 0.20 N Westlawn * 0.50 Y Herndon ES * 0.50 Y W Springfield 0.10 N Hunters Woods 0.50 Y Wolftrap 0.60 Y Island Creek 0.50 Y Woodley Hills** 0.50 Y

* indicates Title I school ** indicates funded by Title I

13 CD# SE-02 Question #10

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: February 6, 2013

Question: What is our cost to purchase a trailer? What is our cost for moving and installing a trailer?

Response: The estimated costs to purchase and install a new trailer, which includes site work and electrical wiring, are as follows:

• Single - $40,000 • Duplex - $80,000 • Quad - $160,000

The estimated costs to relocate and install existing trailers, which includes disassembly, transportation, site work, reassembly, and electrical wiring, are as follows:

• Single - $25,000 • Duplex - $50,000 • Quad - $80,000

14 CD# PR-04 Question #11

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patty Reed

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn, Sloan Presidio

Date Prepared: February 6, 2013

Question: Please indicate the per pupil cost for immersion and FLES programs, and provide a map illustrating where such programs are offered.

Response: Foreign Language Immersion (FLI) is an approach to language learning where students acquire target language while mastering curriculum in math, science, and health at the elementary school level. As attrition occurs in the upper elementary grade levels, additional staffing is provided to balance class size. At the middle school level, schools receive additional staffing which is used to supplement middle schools’ base staffing. Students may enroll in a foreign language class as an elective, thus allowing the students to continue to develop their language proficiency.

Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools (FLES) is an approach to language learning that allows students to develop basic communication skills in a language while reinforcing and enriching the concepts taught in the subject areas at the respective grade level. Generally, programs have 30 minutes of instruction two times per week, which is articulated through middle and high school.

FLES is currently offered in 40 elementary schools in Arabic, Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, or Spanish. The actual enrollment of students served, as of September 30, 2012 was 21,371, and the FY 2013 Approved Budget for FLES is $4.9 million. Therefore, the estimated cost to provide FLES in FY 2013 is $231 per student.

The FY 2013 Program Budget provides detailed information on FLES (pages 29-30) and FLI (pages 108- 109), and is available at the following link: www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/documents/approved/FY13/FY2013ProgramBudget.pdf.

The following charts from the FY 2014 Proposed Budget designate the FLES and FLI schools by cluster to illustrate how these programs are distributed throughout the division.

15 Page 2 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster I

Full-Day Kindergarten International Baccalaureate Magnet State K-3 ReducedSchools Ratio Foreign LanguageImmersion Foreign LanguageElementary in the SchoolsPriority Schools Title I FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary (16) Aldrin • Armstrong • Chesterbrook • • Churchill Road • • Clearview • • • • Colvin Run • Dranesville • • Forestville • Franklin Sherman • • Great Falls • • Haycock • Herndon • • • • • Hutchison • • • Kent Gardens • • • Spring Hill • Timber Lane • • • Middle (3) Cooper • Herndon • • Longfellow • High (3) Herndon Langley McLean Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 16 4 3 5 3 3 Middle 3 1 High/Secondary

1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 131 16 Page 3 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster II

Elementary (18) Camelot • Cunningham Park • • • Fairhill • • Flint Hill • • Freedom Hill • Graham Road • • • • Lemon Road • Louise Archer • Marshall Road • Pine Spring • • • • Shrevewood • • Stenwood • Vienna • Westbriar • Westgate • Westlawn • • • Wolftrap • • Woodburn • • Middle (3) Jackson Kilmer Thoreau High (3) Falls Church Madison Marshall • Special Ed Centers (3) Cedar Lane Davis Kilmer Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 18 4 7 1 3 Middle High/Secondary 1 1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 133 17 Page 4 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster III

Elementary (18) Annandale Terrace • • • Bailey's • • • • • Beech Tree • • • • • Belvedere • • • Braddock • • • • Bren Mar Park • • • Canterbury Woods • Columbia • • Glen Forest • • • Little Run • • Mantua • • Mason Crest • North Springfield • Olde Creek • Parklawn • • • Sleepy Hollow • • • • Wakefield Forest • Weyanoke • • • Middle (4) Frost Glasgow (6-8) • • • Holmes (6-8) • Poe (6-8) • •

High (4) Annandale • Thomas Jefferson Stuart • Woodson Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 18 1 10 2 5 1 10 Middle 3 1 2 High/Secondary 2 1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 135 18 Page 5 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster IV

Elementary (19) Belle View • • Bucknell • • • • Fort Belvoir • Fort Hunt • • Groveton • • • Gunston • • Hayfield • Hollin Meadows • • • • • Hybla Valley • • • • Island Creek • Lane • Lorton Station • • • • Mt. Vernon Woods • • • • • Riverside • • • • Stratford Landing • Washington Mill • • • • Waynewood • Woodlawn • • • • Woodley Hills • • • • Middle (2) Sandburg • • Whitman • • High/Secondary (3) Hayfield (7-12) • Mount Vernon • West Potomac Alternative HS (1) Bryant Special Ed Centers (2) Pulley Quander Road Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 19 10 1 5 8 10 Middle 1 1 2 High/Secondary 1 1

1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 137 19 Page 6 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster V

Elementary (16) Bush Hill • Cameron • • • Clermont • • Crestwood • • • • Forestdale • • • Franconia • Garfield • • • Halley • Laurel Hill • Lynbrook • • • Mount Eagle • • • Newington Forest • Rose Hill • • • • • • Saratoga • • Silverbrook • Springfield Estates • Middle (3) Key South County Twain • • High (3) Edison • Lee • South County Special Ed Center (1) Key Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 16 8 1 2 2 7 Middle 1 1 High/Secondary 2 1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 139 20 Page 7 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster VI

Elementary (17) Bonnie Brae • Cardinal Forest • Cherry Run • • Fairview • • Hunt Valley • Keene Mill • Kings Glen (4-6) • Kings Park (K-3) • Laurel Ridge • • Oak View • Orange Hunt • • Ravensworth • • Rolling Valley • Sangster • • Terra Centre • • West Springfield • White Oaks • Middle (1) Irving • High/Secondary (3) Lake Braddock (7-12) • Robinson (7-12) • • West Springfield Special Ed Center (1) Burke Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 16 3 4 1 Middle 1 High/Secondary 1 2 1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 141 21 Page 8 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster VII

Elementary (16) Brookfield • • • • • Bull Run • • Centre Ridge • • Centreville • Daniels Run • • • Eagle View • Fairfax Villa • Greenbriar East • Greenbriar West • • Lees Corner • Oak Hill • • Poplar Tree • • Powell • • Providence • • • Union Mill • Willow Springs • • Middle (4) Franklin Lanier Liberty Rocky Run High (3) Centreville Chantilly Fairfax Alternative HS (1) Mountain View Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 16 1 1 7 3 3 Middle High/Secondary 1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 143 22 Page 9 of 9 Budget Question #11 School Organization

Programs Cluster VIII

Elementary (19) Coates • • Crossfield • Cub Run • Deer Park • Dogwood • • • • Floris • • Forest Edge • Fox Mill • • Hunters Woods • • • Lake Anne • • • London Towne • • • • • McNair • • Mosby Woods • Navy • • Oakton • • Sunrise Valley • Terraset • • • Virginia Run • Waples Mill • • Middle (3) Carson • Hughes • • • Stone • High (3) Oakton South Lakes • Westfield Total Programs FDK IB M K-3 FLI FLES PSI T1 Elementary 19 1 5 3 5 4 2 Middle 1 3 1 High/Secondary 1 1 Funding of $1.0 million will expand FLES and FLI programs in FY 2014. Schools will be identified during FY 2013.

Fairfax County Public Schools—FY 2014 Proposed Budget 145 23 CD# PR-02 Question #12

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: January 29, 2013

Question: Can you please provide the comparable five-year trends in numbers of positions and costs associated with positions in each of the accounts other than the operating fund, and indicate whether they are school-based or nonschool-based?

Response: Please see the chart below which includes regular salary dollars and positions and the percent change for each between FY 2009 and FY 2014. In FY 2009, it should be noted that over $7 million in school- based funding in the Grants and Self Supporting Fund was budgeted to extend teacher contracts for summer school. In FY 2014, the majority of summer school funding for teachers is hourly (which is not included in this chart since it is not position associated).

FY 2009 FY 2014 Dollar FY 2009 FY 2014 Position FUND TITLE Approved Proposed Change Positions Positions Change OPERATING FUND 1,308,283,045 1,420,976,670 8.6% 22,311.3 23,837.6 6.8% School-Based 1,188,175,884 1,297,385,904 9.2% 20,552.9 22,180.7 7.9% Nonschool-Based 120,107,161 123,590,766 2.9% 1,758.3 1,656.9 -5.8% FOOD AND NUTRITION FUND 2,627,671 3,032,773 15.4% 41.5 43.5 4.8% Nonschool-Based 2,627,671 3,032,773 15.4% 41.5 43.5 4.8% GRANTS AND SELF SUPPORTING FUND 34,223,398 32,265,769 -5.7% 429.0 521.1 21.5% School-Based 28,186,105 25,612,870 -9.1% 341.7 433.1 26.7% Nonschool-Based 6,037,293 6,652,898 10.2% 87.3 88.0 0.9% ADULT AND COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND 4,572,614 2,863,836 -37.4% 81.8 38.5 -52.9% School-Based 2,470,071 1,707,223 -30.9% 37.9 22.5 -40.6% Nonschool-Based 2,102,543 1,156,613 -45.0% 43.9 16.0 -63.6% CONSTRUCTION FUND 6,826,046 7,085,095 3.8% 93.3 87.3 -6.4% Nonschool-Based 6,826,046 7,085,095 3.8% 93.3 87.3 -6.4% INSURANCE FUND 647,253 701,086 8.3% 10.3 10.3 0.0% Nonschool-Based 647,253 701,086 8.3% 10.3 10.3 0.0% HEALTH AND FLEXIBLE BENEFITS FUND 938,319 1,250,830 33.3% 14.0 18.0 28.6% Nonschool-Based 938,319 1,250,830 33.3% 14.0 18.0 28.6% CENTRAL PROCUREMENT FUND 57,273 89,659 56.5% 1.0 1.0 0.0% Nonschool-Based 57,273 89,659 56.5% 1.0 1.0 0.0% ER-FC FUND 2,238,663 2,189,452 -2.2% 32.3 29.3 -9.3% Nonschool-Based 2,238,663 2,189,452 -2.2% 32.3 29.3 -9.3%

24 CD# PH-02 Question #13

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Pat Hynes

Answer Prepared By: Office of the Superintendent

Date Prepared: March 4, 2013

Question: Please provide a list of what the PSI money would be spent on for FY 2014, with the cost of each item. If that's not possible (I assume principals have some discretion and may not have made decisions yet), please provide the cost of continuing to fund the instructional coaches at PSI schools.

Response: Based on preliminary discussions and pending available funding, schools in the PSI program in FY 2014 will be categorized into three tiers with estimated average cost per school below:

• Tier 1 school support will include leadership assessment and development, an instructional coach, and substitute funding for data dialogues. • Tier 2 schools will be provided tier 1 support plus funding for parent involvement and extended teacher time for classroom teachers, ESOL, and special education teachers. • Tier 3 schools will be provided tier 1 and 2 support plus funding for a pre-kindergarten class and other support as determined by the school intervention team. Tier 1 (approximately 10 schools): Leadership assessment and development $3,000 Instructional coach 85,000 Substitute funding for data dialogues 25,000 Total per school $113,000 Tier 2 (3-5 schools): All Tier 1 components $113,000 Parent Involvement Activities 40,000 Extended teacher time (for intervention and professional development) 75,000 Total per school $228,000 Tier 3 (2-3 schools): All Tier 1 and Tier 2 components $228,000 Pre-kindergarten class (amount per class) 115,000 Other needs as determined by Intervention Team 100,000 Total per school $443,000

The FY 2014 advertised budget includes $4.3 million for the Priority Schools Initiative. The remaining PSI budget will be utilized (along with FY 2013 carryover) to ensure that all 30 PSI schools in the initial three year pilot will continue to have an instructional coach in FY 2014 to assist them in the transition year.

Funding an instructional coach in FY 2014 at 30 schools will cost approximately $2.6 million. 25 CD# ES-02 Question #14

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Cluster Assistant Superintendents

Date Prepared: March 4, 2013

Question: Please provide information by elementary, middle, and high school enumerating:

1. The number of rooms set aside for students placed on “in-school suspension” and which schools use such rooms for students who have not been suspended; and 2. The number of positions, title and cost for staff who supervise students on “in-school suspension.”

Response: At the middle school level, FCPS has implemented the Alternative Instruction Arrangement (AIA) program. AIA is designed for middle school students who are first-time offenders for excessive tardiness, unexcused absences, and/or use of profanity. The program was established in lieu of out- of-school suspension. Notices are sent to teachers who give students their work assignments for the day. Students spend the day in a designated room doing schoolwork. The room monitor is a safety and security assistant designated by the school. This program serves 23 middle schools and the middle school students at three secondary schools and includes 26.0 school-based safety and security positions to monitor students. The in-school monitor at each school ensures that students assigned to the program for the day complete class assignments in lieu of out-of-school suspension. The FY 2013 AIA budget is $1.2 million.

At the elementary and high school level, each school’s principal determines the school resources to utilize if students are placed on in-school suspension. The following chart provides information by elementary, middle, and high school levels for rooms set aside or used for in-school suspension (ISS) and related issues as well as for positions and costs for staff who supervise students on in-school suspension.

26 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #14

Level # Dedicated Rooms AIA Costs Other Positions/Costs Comments ES 2 schools report using No position or funding Schools use standard staffing and a room specifically set allocations are resource allocations when needed. aside for ISSP/AIA. assigned directly to schools as part of 1 school reports funding a 1.0 24 schools report using staffing. instructional assistant position to support a staff office or work these duties at a cost of $26,275 plus area. School administration benefits. determines various 1 school reports using disciplinary actions one room for ISSP/AIA and staff and other discipline. assignments.

Level # Dedicated Rooms AIA Costs Other Positions/Costs Comments MS 1 room is dedicated at $1.2 million for a 2 schools fund a total of 1.67 safety and School administration may each middle school. safety and security security assistants at a cost of $43,063 utilize additional ratio-based assistant (US-11, plus benefits. staff in a similar capacity as 1 school reports using 190-day contract) as the AIA assistant. ISSP/AIA room for part of the AIA Special Education Staffing Standards other discipline. program at each include 5.0 safety and security assistants middle school. (US-11, 190-day contract) and 1.0 safety and security specialist (US-20, 194-day contract), but these positions not exclusively assigned to ISSP/AIA.

Level # Dedicated Rooms AIA Cost Other Positions/Costs Comments HS 19 schools report using No position or funding 10 schools fund a total of 6.0 HS staffing standards provide an ISSP/ AIA room. allocations are instructional assistants, 2.0 safety and safety and security personnel assigned directly to security assistants, a 0.5 resource whose duties may include in- 6 schools report using schools as part of teacher, and an hourly position to school suspension monitoring a staff office or work staffing. provide support for ISSP/AIA rooms at a as well as many other duties area. cost of $0.3 million. and assignments. School administration determines various HS and Special Education Staffing Most commonly, no single disciplinary actions Standards include 29 safety and safety and security official is and staff security specialist (US-20, 194-day assigned to in-school assignments. contract) and 87.0 safety and security suspension full-time. assistants (US-11, 190-day contract), but these positions are not exclusively assigned to ISSP/AIA.

Prior to 2009, twenty schools used time out rooms for in-school suspension and related issues. This program was utilized before referring a student for disciplinary action. Funding for time out rooms, $0.7 million for 20.0 instructional assistant positions, was eliminated in FY 2009 at eleven elementary, four middle, and five high schools.

27 CD# ES-03 Question #15

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Sloan J. Presidio

Date Prepared: March 4, 2013

Question: Please provide the number, job title and cost for each of the: 1. Additional staffing provided to schools with International Baccalaureate for each of the eight high schools offering the International Baccalaureate program; and 2. Additional staffing provided to schools with International Baccalaureate for each of the five middle schools offering the Middle Years Program.

In addition, please provide a breakdown of: 1. The total cost listed by staff, test fees, facilities, and any other cost center for the International Baccalaureate program for the last five years; 2. The number of students enrolled in the IB program each year, by school; and 3. The number of candidates who earned an IB diploma each year, by school.

Response: OVERALL SUMMARY

A. The FY 2013 Program Budget reflects the total cost of the International Baccalaureate (IB) High School program, grades 11–12, at $2.6 million. This includes $0.7 million in contracted salaries for the 9.0 additional teachers, who coordinate the program at the eight high schools; $0.1 million in hourly salaries; $0.3 million in employee benefits; and $1.5 million in operating expenses. The teacher positions are 194-day standard teaching contracts with the job title: Teacher - Instructional Support. This funding is essential to meet the required IB standards and practices and to maintain status as authorized IB programs in FCPS. The operational expenses include the annual fees, professional development, and the IB test fees that the school board has approved to support access and successful participation in IB courses. B. The FY 2013 Program Budget reflects the total cost of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program (IBMYP), grades 6-10, at $0.9 million. This includes $0.5 million in contracted salaries for the 6.5 additional teachers, who coordinate the program at five middle schools and four high schools; $0.1 million in hourly salaries; $0.2 million in employee benefits; and $0.1 million in operating expenses. The teacher positions are 194-day standard teaching contracts with the job title: Teacher- Instructional Support. C. Please reference the FY 2013 Program Budget for detailed information on IB (pages 56-57) and IBMYP (pages 111-112), available at the following link: www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/documents/approved/FY13/FY2013ProgramBudget.pdf.

28 Page 2 of 3 Budget Question #15 STAFFING 1. Following is the distribution of the nine teacher positions assigned to the IB high school program:

FY 2013 International Baccalaureate Program High School Positions Annandale 1.25 Mount Vernon 1.00 Edison 1.00 Robinson 1.50 Lee 1.00 South Lakes 1.00 Marshall 1.00 Stuart 1.25

2. Following is the distribution of the 6.5 teacher positions assigned to the IBMYP:

FY 2013 International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program Positions Middle Schools High Schools Glasgow 1.00 Annandale 0.75 Holmes 0.50 Mount Vernon 0.50 Hughes 1.00 South Lakes 0.50 Poe 0.50 Stuart 0.75 Whitman 1.00

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1. The total cost listed by staff, test fees, facilities and any other cost center for the International Baccalaureate program for the last five years: International Baccalaureate (IB) Program Budget - Five Year History* Approved Program Budget FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Contracted Salaries (9.0 Positions) $699,568 $665,884 $691,867 $673,845 $684,059 Hourly Salaries (teacher and professional, curriculum development, and substitutes) 127,753 127,753 127,753 129,031 130,644 Employee Benefits 268,613 259,135 260,303 251,072 309,173 Operating Expenses (accreditation, professional development, instructional supplies, and IB tests) 1,175,860 1,332,739 1,134,685 1,429,966 1,486,362 Total Program Cost $2,271,794 $2,385,512 $2,214,609 $2,483,914 $2,610,237 *Does not add due to rounding

2. The following chart reflects the number of students enrolled in at least one International Baccalaureate diploma program course (Grades 11-12), as of October each year, from FY 2009 through FY 2013. High School FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Annandale 452 545 553 535 575 Edison 599 624 557 558 569 Lee 444 396 424 458 462 Marshall 605 617 691 764 808 Mount Vernon 460 387 374 416 417 Robinson 925 1,076 1,148 1,146 1,263 South Lakes 566 669 770 923 1,030 Stuart 361 399 438 548 612 Total 4,412 4,713 4,955 5,348 5,736

29 Page 3 of 3 Budget Question #15 3. The following chart reflects the number of candidates who earned an International Baccalaureate diploma in the last four years, FY 2009 - FY 2012, by school (FY 2013 data is not yet available): FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012 IB Diploma IB Diploma IB Diploma IB Diploma IB Diploma IB Diploma IB Diploma IB Diploma High School Candidates Awarded Candidates Awarded Candidates Awarded Candidates Awarded Annandale 16 12 26 20 31 21 31 23 Edison 39 37 26 25 28 26 33 26 Lee 35 17 29 22 24 16 37 22 Marshall 96 84 73 63 77 56 93 84 Mount Vernon 21 9 29 15 12 9 25 12 Robinson 63 57 92 75 97 89 115 92 South Lakes 67 34 71 46 95 45 103 70 Stuart 44 33 35 27 48 36 49 29 Total 381 283 381 293 412 298 486 358

30 CD# BOS-01 Question #16

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Supervisor McKay

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: March 14, 2013

Question: In the FCPS budget, provide a summary of the one-time balances used in development of the FY 2013 and FY 2014 budgets. Also, provide a summary of the amount unspent at year end that was carried forward for use in FY 2013 and FY 2014 budget development. Identify spending by quarter with emphasis on comparing the fourth quarter spending level to that seen in the first three quarters for the last five years.

Response: To mitigate state budget reductions, in FY 2011 the General Assembly adopted a significantly lower than actuarially recommended Virginia Retirement System (VRS) rate and deferred employer contributions for school divisions. In order to meet this future obligation, FCPS set aside $45.0 million in recurring VRS savings in a reserve. Recurring funds available in FY 2012 were added to the VRS reserve bringing the total to $60.6 million. Reserve funds were used to pay the rate increases in FY 2012 and FY 2013. The remaining $16.9 million will be expended in FY 2014.

In addition to the VRS reserve, FCPS has utilized a budgeted beginning balance to meet anticipated future budget year shortfalls. A budgeted beginning balance is the result of conserving resources and reducing spending during the fiscal year where possible. As a result of these actions taken during the fiscal year, the net funding available at year-end is presented to the School Board as an available balance after commitments. Recently, this funding has been allocated for beginning balance for the next or for a future budget year instead of being spent for current year needs. However, reliance on one-time funding for recurring needs has created a structural imbalance in the budget. This imbalance will grow in future years because the VRS reserve is depleted and the retirement rates are increasing. The chart below shows the use of one-time funding since FY 2011.

One-Time Funding Used ($ in millions) Beginning VRS Reserve FY Balance 1-Time Use Balance 2011 $53.5 $0.0 $45.0 2012 $57.3 $0.0 $60.6 2013 $57.5 $43.7 $16.9 2014 $65.7 $16.9 $0.0

31 Page 2 of 3 Budget Question #16 Regarding unspent funds, because of the requirement to operate within a balanced budget, state and local governments typically end the year with an available balance to ensure that they meet revenue projections and do not exceed expenditure appropriations. As a result, FCPS, like Fairfax County Government, historically has ended each fiscal year with an ending balance. Included in the ending balance is carryover for encumbered obligations or undelivered orders which reflects orders for goods or services that have not been received or performed as of June 30. In addition, FCPS has a carryover policy that allows schools to automatically carryover unspent funds in certain noncompensation accounts. This encourages multiyear planning and provides flexibility to principals to meet student needs. The specifics of what is included in automatic carryover may change from year to year depending on budget circumstances. Automatic carryover also applies to project and grant balances in the operating fund because they are budgeted on a multiyear basis. Automatic carryover for schools in FY 2012 amounted to $26.4 million; however, these funds are not used to balance the budget. Attachment A provides further details, including definitions, of the items comprising the FY 2012 ending balance. The FY 2012 Year-End Budget Review is available at: http:// www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=8WCHMC4917BA

Below is a chart that shows the percent of budget expended by quarter for the last five years. For FCPS, spending is uneven among quarters within the year, but fairly consistent across years. In the first quarter, expenditures are lower because of the summer break for schools. Spending tends to peak in the second quarter, which is when most transfers to other FCPS funds are made. Transfers are made from the School Operating Fund: to the Grants and Self-Supporting Programs Fund for FECEP and summer school; to the Construction Fund for equipment for new construction and renovation and for building maintenance; to the Consolidated Debt Service Fund for debt service on the consolidated administrative building; and to the Adult and Community Education Fund for the adult English for Speakers of Other Languages program. In FY 2012, transfers were delayed until the third quarter due to the implementation of FOCUS. Transfers in the last five years averaged nearly $30 million.

FCPS Percent of Budget Expended by Quarter

Quarter FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Quarter 1 15.8% 15.4% 15.2% 15.1% 14.9% Quarter 2 29.1% 28.9% 29.7% 28.3% 27.6% Quarter 3 27.5% 27.5% 28.0% 28.0% 30.1% Quarter 4 27.6% 28.2% 27.2% 28.6% 27.5%

32 Page 3 of 3 Budget Question #16

FY 2012 Ending Balance Composition ($ in millions) Definition Revenue $2,371.6 Set Aside for Beginning $52.5 This is funding set aside in a prior year for a future year beginning balance. Balance VRS Reserve $45.0 When state officials set VRS rates lower than actuarially recommended to provide fiscal relief and declared that future year’s would require repayment with interest, FCPS opted to establish a reserve to try to mitigate the financial impact of these decisions on future budgets. Compensation Reserve $3.0 Fully expended to balance the FY 2012 budget. Total Funds Available $2,472.1 The total of revenue and funding set aside for future years' beginning balances. Total Disbursements $2,215.6 The total expenditures and transfers out to other funds. Ending Balance $256.5 Prior to actions at the final budget review Less Actions from the Final Budget Review: Flexibility Reserve $8.0 The School Board flexibility reserve is normally maintained at $8.0 million to meet unbudgeted needs. Any unused portion is carried forward to the next fiscal year with School Board approval. For this reason, the flexibility reserve is only reflected in the current year estimate and is not included in the approved budget totals. Undelivered Orders $46.0 An obligation of funding for orders where goods or services have not been received or performed as of June 30. Automatic Carryover $26.4 Unobligated funding from the current year that is moved forward to the next year. This form of carryover is reserved for schools and primarily covers their supply and hourly accounts. It allows schools the flexibility of multi‐year planning for a portion of their funding and has been especially helpful during the economic downturn. Unencumbered Carryover $5.2 See “automatic carryover” with the exception that this funding must be requested by the department and approved by the Superindentent. Also referred to as “critical needs” carryover, this is the avenue for schools and departments to carry forward funding to the next fiscal year for non‐recurring costs. Examples include the carryover of the balance of special funds (equal opportunity, neediest kids, etc) and to cover the anticipated costs of the implementing the health care reform requirements. Grant Balances Carryover $0.0 The unobligated balance available in a subsequent grant period. This funding must still be used for purposes as stated in the grant. Centralized Textbook Fund $7.7 Beginning in FY 2013, FCPS will centralize textbook purchasing for math. FCPS will fund the purchases centrally, and then reduce per‐pupil textbook funding allocated to elementary, middle and high schools annually and return that funding to the central account. At the end of six years, the centralized fund will be completely replenished through these per‐pupil reductions. VRS Reserve $60.6 When state officials set VRS rates lower than actuarially recommended to provide fiscal relief and declared that future year’s would require repayment with interest, FCPS opted to establish a reserve to try to mitigate the financial impact of these decisions on future budgets. Teacher Evaluation $2.0 Resources were provided to develop and implement the new teacher evaluation system mandated by the Virginia Department of Education. Implementation is required by July 1, 2012. Clinical Support for Students $0.4 Funding was provided to expand clinical support (psychologists and social workers) to schools to assist in special education eligibility assessments where volume is high; to coordinate community resources for high‐need schools; and extend contracts for six social workers to manage intervention cases during the summer. ACE Transfer $1.0 The Adult and Community Education Fund ended FY 2012 with a shortfall of $1.0 million, primarily due to lower than projected tuition revenue . In the FY 2013 Approved Budget, ACE had restructured its course offerings, streamlined its administration, and reduced its staff. To support the FY 2013 projected revenue and expenditure assumptions, a one‐ time transfer increase of $1.0 million was provided. Set Aside for Budgeted An amount of funding identified from the current or prior years to assist with balancing Beginning Balance the budget of the coming year. FY 2013 $57.5 FY 2014 $41.6 Total Available $0.0 Remaining available funding after all items above have been accounted for.

33 CD# BOS-02 Question #17

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: March 15, 2013

Question: Please provide a breakdown of school-based positions, including how many are in-class teachers, how many are counselors etc. How are these figures used to determine reported class size metrics?

Response: Average class sizes and students per teacher-scale position are reported in the Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) Guide enabling residents to compare local school jurisdictions. Below is the class size chart from the FY 2013 WABE Guide including footnotes explaining the methodology agreed upon by the WABE jurisdictions for these calculations. The entire WABE Guide is available here:www.fcps. edu/fs/budget/wabe/2013.pdf

Students per Classroom Teacher1 Students per Teacher-Scale Position2

Middle / Middle / School Division Elementary Intermediate Secondary / High Elementary Intermediate Secondary / High Alexandria City 20.9 18.0 19.7 10.2 11.3 14.0 Arlington County 20.8 20.4 19.5 10.1 16.2 16.6 Fairfax County 21.4 24.4 24.9 14.1 19.9 20.9 Falls Church City 22.3 24.6 23.9 13.3 18.9 18.4 Loudoun County 24.7 24.3 25.8 17.1 22.4 22.1 Manassas City 21.3 20.5 24.7 11.6 17.5 17.6 Manassas Park City 18.6 29.1 27.7 12.1 20.3 19.9 Montgomery County 17.7 24.7 25.9 13.2 21.4 23.2 Prince George's County 23.5 24.5 24.7 14.8 16.5 16.8 Prince William County 22.8 28.8 29.2 15.1 20.4 21.9 Note: Chart excludes teachers and students in pre-K, kindergarten, alternative schools, and self-contained special education. 1 Classroom teachers are positions used to determine class size. 2 Students per teacher-scale positions include classroom teachers and other teachers such as ESOL/ESL, librarians, reading, coaches, mentors, music, art, physical education, etc. The FY 2013 Approved Budget includes 13,468.4 in-class teacher positions. The “students per classroom teacher” calculation as determined by WABE excludes 5,688.0 of these in-class teachers. Excluded are kindergarten teachers (597.0), special education teachers (2,946.8), English for Speakers of Other Languages teachers (862.1), elementary art/music/physical education teachers (739.7), reading specialists (199.0), alternative education teachers (186.7), and band and strings teachers (156.7).

The following chart is a breakdown of school-based positions:

34 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #17 Total in-class teachers 13,468.4 Other teacher-scale positions School counselors 546.0 Librarians 237.0 Staffing reserve teachers 200.1 Instructional support teachers 176.1 Physical/Occupational therapists 90.0 Advanced academic resource teachers 69.5 Audiologists 14.5 Total teacher-scale positions 14,801.6 Other school-based positions Principals and assistant principals 646.5 Specialists and technical personnel 1,033.8 Classroom assistants 2,968.5 Office assistants 1,086.5 Tradespersons and custodial 1,381.0 Total school-based positions 21,917.8

O:\OBS\Groups\Budget Questions\FY 2014 Budget Questions\Board of Supervisors\BOS02\BOS-02 position tracking chart Page 1 of 1 Sheet1 3/19/2013 35 CD# PH-01 Question #18

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Pat Hynes

Answer Prepared By: Terri L. Breeden

Date Prepared: March 1, 2013

Question: Please provide the cost of delivering cultural sensitivity training to all new teachers during their first year.

Response: Cultural sensitivity training is currently included as part of the Great Beginnings: The Next Generation program that is offered to all new FCPS instructional employees each year. Great Beginnings embeds cultural competence and the importance of honoring and valuing different backgrounds and perspectives into the year-long program. While it is the expectation that all new instructional employees participate in Great Beginnings, it is not mandatory as a condition of their employment. Therefore, not all new instructional employees participate in Great Beginnings. For the most recent year, 72 percent of new teachers received cultural sensitivity training through Great Beginnings.

To make Great Beginnings mandatory and thus ensure that all new instructional employees received cultural sensitivity training, new employees could be paid for five additional contract days at a cost of $2.0 million. While not making Great Beginnings mandatory, but to encourage more teachers to attend Great Beginnings, the stipend could be raised from $50.00 a day to $100.00 a day. This increase would cost $0.3 million.

In addition to the cultural sensitivity training offered through Great Beginnings, there is an online course that is currently available. It can be viewed at: www.fcps.edu/fairfaxnetwork/cultural_ competence/video_segments.html

36 CD# ES-05 Question #19

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Maribeth Luftglass

Date Prepared: March 13, 2013

Question: Please provide the detail for the following allocation of Multimedia Services in the FY 2013 Program Budget:

1. $4,548,169 in Grant Funding to the bulleted items, including a copy of the Grant Funding documents. 2. $3,793,032 in nonschool-based costs to the bulleted items. 3. A list of the 780 video projects produced annually.

Response: The Multimedia Services program in the Department of Information Technology provides enterprisewide services in video production, cable television distribution, multimedia design, logistics and event support, online and face-to face training, multimedia content for instruction, and media outreach to schools. The impact of this program on the operating fund is $3.8 million; the program also receives $4.3 million in grant funding through the cable franchise agreement. The cable communications grant also provides $0.2 million and 2.0 positions to the Department of Communications and Community Outreach to coordinate the content for public information programs on FCPS cable channels, program the cable bulletin boards, create the cable programming schedule and publish the online cable guide, FineTuning. These positions collaborate with Multimedia Service Center staff to create public service announcements and other marketing multimedia products for FCPS. A description and the costs associated with the activities listed in the FY 2013 Program are shown below:

Activity SOF Nonschool-Based Funds Positions Multimedia Design $ 794,959 9.0 Multimedia Engineering 301,095 2.0 Digital Media Production 327,104 1.0 Logistic and Master Control 228,460 2.5 Media and Training 1,151,066 5.0 Multimedia Service Center Management 218,817 2.0 Communications and Community Outreach 0 0.0 Employee Benefits 771,531 0.0 Capital Equipment 0 0.0 Total $ 3,793,032 21.5

37 Page 2 of 14 Multimedia Design Budget Question #19 • Professional design services for more than 1,500 projects annually including those for print and publication media, video graphics and set design, presentation, web and interactive multimedia, photography and display.

Logistics and Master Control • Management of master control for FCPS’ six-channel cable network, audio/video duplication, satellite receive systems, and distribution of programming via satellite to schools throughout North America. • Master control is also linked to remote studios at the Luther Jackson School Board Room, and distance learning classrooms and videoconferencing systems throughout FCPS, at the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center, and at Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens. • Management and oversight of the logistical support for more than 125 major, mission-critical events annually, such as Leadership Conference, enterprise wide in-services, public forums, boundary and other community meetings, staff development conferences, and special commemorative events.

Media and Training • Professional resources to FCPS teachers through outreach operations such as the Teaching Materials Preparation Center (TMPC). This service, which is accessed daily by teachers, provides quality consultation and instruction, as well as access to equipment and materials required to meet individual and school needs. • Cable programming, procurement, and distribution of instructional programming throughout the enterprise, as well as national outreach through the Fairfax Network. • Management and delivery of hands-on technology training for FCPS personnel, and support for eLearnIT online training, a key component in FCPS departmental professional development plans providing skills development training via the Internet that is available to all FCPS employees.

Multimedia Service Center Management • Program oversight is provided by the multimedia service center management section and is comprised of one coordinator and one technician position.

38 Page 3 of 14 Communications Grant - Capital Equipment Budget Question #19 • The Cable Communications grant requires that $250,000 be spent each year on the replacement of cable-related equipment. The activity it is spent on varies year to year, so it is listed separately.

Included with this response are excerpts of three summaries from the County Board of Supervisor’s meetings which provide the funding allocation to FCPS. Additionally, the links to the lengthy franchise agreements for Media General/Cox, Comcast, and Verizon are provided below: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/regulation/franchise/cox/franchise_agreement.pdf http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/regulation/franchise/comcast/comcast_franchise_2005.pdf http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/regulation/franchise/verizon/verizon_franchise_2005.pdf

Multimedia Video Projects Supporting FCPS Needs Produced in FY 2012

Instructional Content and Support for Students and Teachers (53) • Meet the Author – Carmen Agra Deedy • Funding a Nation • Funding a Nation Extra – audience Q&A • Robert Wright: One Nation Under Debt • Meet the Author – Lane Elementary Student Authors • Aerospace Academy – Design a Satellite • Meet the Author – William Joyce • I Ain’t No 3/5 of a Person: Slavery and the Constitution • Meet the Author – Brandon Mull • Flight School: On the Red Planet • Cultural Competency Program • Meet the Author – Discover Shakespeare! • Hear My Story • Best Practices: Shared and Guided Reading Expanded • Best Practices: Object-based Learning Plus • Relationships – Student Voices • SR&R Update (students) • SR&R Update (parent intro) • SR&R Update (Spanish subtitles) • The Cappie Awards • Overview of the Institute for the Arts • Sixth Grade All-County Choral Festival • Best Practices: Mentortext • Best Practices: Unwrapping Standards • Best Practices: Responsive Instruction • Best Practices: PBIS, Creating a Safe Learning Environment • Best Practices: Data Driven Dialogues • Best Practices: Engagement • Differentiated Instruction in Math • Diversity Institute Student Keynote 39 Page 4 of 14 • Priority School Initiative: Student Voices of Pride Budget Question #19 • Best Practices: Online Course in Engagement • SR&R Rewind (Students) • SR&R Rewind (Spanish Subtitles) • Cluster 8 Welcome Back Message • Finance Park Overview • American Sign Language Support • Extended School Year Welcome • In the Science Classroom: Teaching Cell Division Through the E’s • In the Science Classroom: Teaching Photosynthesis Through Formative Assessment • In the Science Classroom: Teaching Natural Cycles Through Cooperative Learning • 9-11 Remembrance Speakers at TJHSST • President Obama Signs the American Investment Act • Restorative Justice Training Recording • Support for Online Training Courses in the form of scripting, video, and audio (9) • Developmental Reading Assessment 2 – Word Analysis • Elementary Mathematics Instructional Sequence • Elementary Mathematics Differentiation • Standards Based Grading and Reporting – Overview • The Elementary Standards-Based Progress Report • Administering the Kindergarten WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) • Kindergarten Mathematics Reasoning Assessment • Closing the Minority Achievement Gap • Orientation to Special Education

Professional Development (34) • Emergency Preparedness: Kindergarten Transportation • Emergency Preparedness: Preparing for a Tornado • Emergency Preparedness: Power Outages • Emergency Preparedness: Heavy Rains • Employee Benefits Update • FCPS Mission and Vision for Employees • New Employee Orientation • Leadership Conference Coverage • Leadership Conference Video: Opening 20/20 Vision • Leadership Conference Video: Former Student Profiles (3) • Charles Burke • Jose Llana • Ann Monday and Dean Tistadt • Leadership Conference Video: Spillane Nominee Profiles (12) • Hayfield Pyramid Kick-Off – Student Comments • Acceptable Use Policy • Information Technology Functional Team Case Study • Support for Online Training Courses in the form of scripting, video and audio (7) 40 Page 5 of 14 • Teacher Evaluation Standards Budget Question #19 • ERFC Legacy Webinar • Title I Principals’ Meeting • Discrimination and Harassment Training • Information and Accounts for New Employees • Administering the Kindergarten WIDA-ACCESS Placement Test (W-APT) • Kindergarten Mathematics Reasoning Assessment

Public Information (567) • FCPS Honors Awards Ceremony Coverage • SchoolScene assembled programs and segments (273) • Cappies Gala • Institute for the Arts • Tech Adventure Camp • FCPS Sports Journalist of the Year • Coates ES Summer Reading Program • Lanier Eco School Award • Celebrating Clifton Open House • Mural@Mosby Woods • Meeting of the Minds@Westfield • Patriots Day@Waynewood • FCPS Summer Food Program • Big Truck Day@Floris • FCPS Retirement Ceremony • Fairfax County Summer Reading Program • FCPS Leadership Conference • End of Year Student Projects • Robinson Summer Theater Camp • Outdoor Garden Party at Hollin Meadows • Epilepsy Foundation Contest Winner • WordMasters@Twain MS • Expanding Social Media Outreach • Project LIFT • Vietnamese Summer Health Fair • Summer Literacy Institute@Annandale HS • Summer Activities@Crestwood ES • Westfield Summer Stage Presents Chicago • Girls Basketball Camp@Annandale HS • Summer Sports Start-Up • TJHSST Summer Research Class • School Bus Driving Center • Kindergarten Jumpstart@Centreville ES • Meet the Student Artist • Schools Under Construction 41 Page 6 of 14 • West Springfield Dance Team on America's Got Talent Budget Question #19 • AVL on Buses • TJ MS Summer Institute • Summer Field Trips to DC@Springfield Estates • Leveled Literacy Intervention • Keene Mill Eco-Hero Award • We Care@School • Hayfield & South Lakes Pyramid Kick-Offs • TJ Book Buddies • Crouch School Move • Jay McClain: Cluster Director • Dawn Hendrick at Woodlawn ES • Meet the Student: Taylor Jarrell • The First Day of School • President Obama Visits TJHSST • Remembrance of 9/11 at Chesterbrook ES • School Bond Referendum • Chip Rome and the Fringe Festival • New FCPS Website • FCPS Para-Professional • New Track at Robinson SS • Fairfax Education Summit Promo • Fairview Students Deliver Flowers • JASON Project • Field Day at Washington Mill ES • What’s In A Name: Dunn Loring Center & Holmes MS • The How-to-Guy on the IB Program • Extra Credit on Science Kits • First Day of Full-day Kindergarten at Silverbrook ES • Lane ES Students Publish a Book • Under the Sea at Key Center • Readers Cover • Virginia TOY Finalist • Michelle Obama Visits Annandale HS • Fairfax Education Summit • Latino Festival at Cameron ES • Chalk4Peace at Armstrong ES • FCPS College Fair at Fair Oaks Mall • 5K Wounded Soldier Run at Chesterbrook ES • International Walk to School Day at Cunningham Park ES • Feal Good Foundation at TJHSST • Innovation Institute at Leis Center • Lee HS’s WAT Partnership with McDonalds 42 Page 7 of 14 • New Turf Field at Chantilly HS Budget Question #19 • What’s In A Name: Fort Hunt ES and Twain MS • Procedural Support Liaison • Meet the Student: Colby Dezelick • Centreville Football • Walk for the Homeless at Churchill Road ES • FCPS Graduation Rate • National Teen Driver Safety Week • Fort Hunt ES Trip to Huntley Meadows Park • Mt. Eagle ES - A Model PLC at Work • South County Secondary's Haunted House • Life Skills Baking Program at Vienna ES • New Online Building Use Scheduling System • 95210 • Mock Trial at Little Run ES • Joining Forces, & Get Caught Engineering at Newington Forest ES • Flabbergast Wizard and Dogwood ES • Youth Bicycle Rodeo • Prevention Connections@Lake Anne ES • Meet the Student: Ken Ekanem • Teen Chefs on the Move • Book Buddies at TJHSST • Migratory Songbirds@Fairhill ES • Veteran's Day@Washington Mill ES • Haycock ES & Robinson • FCPS SB Passes • A Live Chat with the ISS • Monopoly@Marshall HS • Clothing Drive at Bren Mark Park • The Big Dig@Armstrong • Deer Park ES Artwork@INOVA Fairfax Hospital • A Food Drive@Westgate ES • The Ellis Island Immigrant Experience@Robinson SS • The Trust & Confidence Assessment Press Conference • Toys for Military Families@Franklin Sherman ES • Warm Hands, Warm Hearts@Fairview ES • Silverbrook Donates to Haiti • Annandale Terrace Giving Tree • What’s in a Name: Stone MS and Union Mill ES • Langley HS Pearl Harbor Day Ceremony • Boys Leadership Conference@Dogwood ES • Lynbrook ES in the Marine Corps Healthy Kids Run • Kindergartners Networking at West Springfield 43 Page 8 of 14 • Fort Belvoir ES Gingerbread Houses Budget Question #19 • Holiday Craft Fair@Flint Hill ES • Marshall Academy Opens 5-Star Market • Art Plus@Colvin Run ES • Game Night@Springfield Estates ES • Meet the Student: Alyssa Huffman • I Like My Life at Herndon • Bring your Own Device • The GIVE Program • January is Mentoring Month • Chris Sheppard Goes to Washington • CIP Update • US Air Force LIDAR Specialist Visits WSHS • Woodlawn ES Performs at National Airport • Whistle Blowers@Halley • Wolftrap ES Students Sing to Seniors • Cooper MS & Pine Spring ES Holiday Party • Global Water Experiment @Sleepy Hollow ES • Calligraphy@TJSST • Northern Virginia Wrestling Classic • Peeps Mobile@Franklin MS • Reducing Obesity • Meet the Coyer Twins from Oakton HS • The First Lady and the Cast of iCarly Visit Hayfield SS • FY 2013 Budget • Students Taking AP & IB Exams • Luther Jackson MS Computer Donations • Marshall Academy Celebrates Chinese New Year • Twain MS Electives Extravaganza • Earth, Wind, Water & Fire at Fairfax HS • Aquatic First Responder@Forestville ES • Family Learning Night at Coates ES • New Allergy Management Guidelines • Annandale Pyramid Men's Chorus • Healthy Youth Day at Franconia ES • First Lady Visits Parklawn ES • Realtime at Glasgow MS • Super Science@Waples Mill ES • FCPS to Streamline ACE • Living Fit in Fairfax Project • Miss Virginia Visits Longfellow MS • PJammin Day@Centreville HS • Heritage Night@Sunrise Valley 44 Page 9 of 14 • GEMS@Dogwood Budget Question #19 • Read-A-Thon@Vienna • West Potomac Academy Fashion Design Event • Special Education Conference Promo • Langley HS Wrestling Captures District Title • Oakton HS Boys & Girls Swim & Dive Team Undefeated • Samantha Bryant from Woodson HS wins a David's Bridal Dress Design Contest • Vulcan Materials + Halley ES Partnership • The Career Center @Stuart HS • Collect For Kids • Animal Sciences Rescue Dog Wash@Edison Academy • History Alive@Vienna ES • Black History Program@Hybla Valley • Lucy Gunter named new FCSB Student Representative • In the Cut Poetry Festival @WPHS • Parent Lunch n' Learn@Woodley Hills • Mosby Town@Mosby Woods ES • Fairfax County Bullying & Cyberbullying Video • International Nights • History Night@Whitman MS • How Schools Can Feature Events on SchoolScene • Bryant Alternative HS's Winter Graduation • Career Day@South Lakes HS • Teacher of the Year and Principal of the Year Winner Announcements • My Part for Peace Student Mediation Conference • National School Breakfast Week at Lynbrook ES • Mountain View AHS & St. Baldrick's Cancer Charity Event • LINK Food Donations from Dranesville ES • Bobcat Boot Camp @Pine Spring ES • iPads @Sunrise Valley ES • Secret Pal Luncheon at Hayfield ES • Authors' Tea at Westbriar ES • The QR Trail at Chesterbrook ES • Space Shuttle Discovery Fly-by • Belvedere ES Named Title I Distinguished School • Forums on College Drinking Culture • FCPS Summer Enrichment Camp Applications • Law Day with Sandra Day O'Connor at Columbia ES • Living Wax Museum @Fairfax Villa ES • Daniels Run ES & the National Cherry Blossom Festival • Snacks and Facts at Ravensworth ES • Math Night at Terraset ES • Career Day at Hunters Woods ES 45 Page 10 of 14 • 5K Fun Run and Walk at Longfellow MS Budget Question #19 • Arts for All at Franconia ES • Peaceful Bus at Forestville ES • South Lakes HS Latina Danza Company Award • Mt. Vernon Pyramid Art Show • Brainy Bunch Robotics at Kilmer MS • Cappies Review: Footloose, Pride and Prejudice, Crazy For You • FCPS Honors Awards Ceremony • Institute for the Arts • Kim Dillard-Physical Education Teacher • National Bike to School Week • Butterfly Garden Beautification at Cub Run ES • Facilities Planning Blog • JEB Stuart HS Prom Donation Drive • International Festival at McNair ES • Author-Illustrator Showcase at Canterbury Woods ES • Screech at Poplar Tree ES • Junior Solar Spring at TJHSST • Falls Church HS Students Visit the Japanese Embassy • Hispanic Leadership Alliance • Sixth Grade All-County Choral Festival • International Night at Dranesville ES • Cappies Review: Arabian Nights, How to Succeed in Business and Alice in Wonderland • Math Tricks Extra Credit • Gail Zukosky - Nurse of the Year • Virginia Lottery Teacher of the Year • Netbooks at Lees Corner ES • Learning Lab Groundbreaking at Wolftrap ES • Harvesting Vegetables at Providence ES • Spring Picnic & Book Exchange at White Oaks ES • 5K Autism Benefit at Rose Hill ES • Mosby Woods ES Mural Project • 50 for 50 at Marshall Road ES • CHSL 2012 Student Journalist of the Year • National Elementary Honor Society at Cameron • South County Crew Teams Win State Championships • Criminal Justice Field Day at the FC Police Academy • Strategies Lab at Aldrin ES • Visual Learning at Lane ES • Meet the Student: Emily Whitworth from Mt. Vernon HS • "No Worries Now" Prom • Priya Krishnan Named U.S. Presidential Scholar • Paid Internships for Students with Disabilities 46 Page 11 of 14 • World War II Oral History Day at Rocky Run MS Budget Question #19 • Harvest Time at Terra Centre • Longfellow Students Bisit the Supreme Court • In2Books at Herndon HS & Hutchison ES • Museum & Art Reach Night at Bailey's ES • Service Learning at West Potomac HS • Economics Fair at Oakton ES • AAA State Jubilee at Westfield HS • Battle of the Books at Stenwood ES • Insight assembled programs and segments (95) • Performer’s Corner Camp at Franklin MS • Renovations Update • Spotlight: Math Differentiation • Dr. Dale Discussing the New School Year • CTE / Fashion Camp at Chantilly • STEMS Camp at Ft. Belvoir ES • Dr. Dale Soundbite from Leadership • Student School Board Representative EJ Coleman • Dean Tistadt: Transportation at the Beginning of School • Driver’s Education Spotlight • Geothermal Heat Pump at Lacey Site • Moving Crouch School to Liberty MS • Centreville HS Art Teacher Troy Hayes • Dr. Dale and Scott Brabrand: Priority Schools • Profile of Mike Campbell • Concussion • Kindergarten Math Reasoning Assessment Spotlight • Fabio Zuluaga and Principal Ryberg • TJ Admissions Tanisha Holland • Learn and Earn at Irving MS • Camelot Kindergarten Learning Modalities • SR&R Clip • Peter Noonan Interview • Dr. Dale Interview • SAG Languages (re-package) • SAG: Fine and Practical Arts (re-package) • CTE Camp for Counselors at West Potomac HS • Dave Jagels, Principal of Mountain View Alternative HS • Dr. Dale: Increasing Enrollment, Retirement • SAG Social Studies (re-package) • SAG: Language Arts (re-package) • Mentoring Essay Finalists • Dan Parris, Cluster Director 47 Page 12 of 14 • Dr. Dale: Trust and Confidence Survey Budget Question #19 • Gingerbread Houses at Edison Academy (re-package) • Habits of the Mind at Sunrise Valley ES • The Cedar Lane Library is the Center of the School • Bob Waters of Northrup Grumman, Karen Molloy Chantilly HS • Dr. Dale Interview • One Question at TJ • Hybla Valley ES/Church Partnership • McLeadership • Chad Conway and Dan from FPAC • Dr. Dale: Budget Intro • Financial Literacy at Chantilly - Donny • SAG (re-package) • Social Workers Myriam Goldin and Amy Parmentier • Maribeth Luftglass and Student Adel Lahlou • Dr. Dale Interview • Online Textbooks • Restorative Justice • Student: Jake Hirsch, Student, Oakton HS • MaryAnn Lastova from McLean HS PTA • Dr. Dale and Kim Dockery: Interview • Best Practice: Unwrapping the Standards at LJMS (re-package) • Pathways to Success Conference at Deer Park ES • Marie Hernandez, Student from Mountain View HS • Andre, student musician from South County SS • Dr. Dale Interview • Co-Teaching at Herndon • Art and Music Therapy at Woodson HS • Jay McLain on Virtual School • Jennifer Hines and Levi Folly: Summer School • Dr. Dale and Michael Molloy • MentorWorks Essays • New Elementary Report Cards (re-package) • FECEP at Cunningham Park ES • Student, Karen Ewell plays the cello • Dr. Dale Interview • Library READesign at Mt. Vernon Woods ES • Teacher of the Year: Sabatier • Principal of the Year: Cochran • Marsha Manning: New Schools Opening • Dr. Dale Interview • Burke School and Voices of Now (Arena Stage) • Following Paul 2012 (4th Year) 48 Page 13 of 14 • Judy Heard: Elementary Progress Report Budget Question #19 • Maribeth Luftglass: DIT Awards • Student Shauna Kaplan: takes FLES Chinese • Public Service Announcements (2) • Collect for Kids • Foundation for FCPS • In Other Words Assembled Programs and Segments (15 programs, in 5 different languages for a total of 135 projects) • Parent Orientation Class • Parent Services Center • Closing the Minority Achievement Gap • Extracurricular Activities • New FCPS Social Media Resources • New Elementary Report Cards • Tips on How to Stay Involved in Your Child's Education • Preventing Sexting • Encouraging Children to Lead Healthy Lives • Volunteering for FCPS • Reducing Childhood Obesity • School Attendance Responsibilities • How to Find Tutors • Inclement Weather and Emergency Closing Procedures • The GLOBAL Program • Helping Children Succeed on Standardized Tests • FCPS Cafeterias Respect Religious Food Restrictions • Standards of Learning Tests • International Nights • AP & IB Courses • Online ESOL Summer Classes • Free & Reduced Price Lunches • Registering Students • Limiting Screen Time • Home Alone-When Is My Child Old Enough? • TDAP Vaccine • ESOL Update • Freedom Hill ES Boundary Study Overview • School Board Regular Meetings (22) • School Board Public Hearings (6) • School Board Retirement Ceremonies (2) • School Board Special Meetings (2) • Student Achievement Goal School Board Reports (8) • SAG Report: Fine & Practical Arts • SAG Report: Languages • SAG Report: Social Studies 49 Page 14 of 14 • SAG Report: Language Arts Budget Question #19 • SAG Report: Math & Science • SAG Report: Goal 3 – High School Students Teaching Elementary Students About Protecting the Environment@Westbriar ES • SAG Report: Goal 2 – Elementary Students Working to Protect the Environment@Westbriar ES • Passages Report • Spotlight on Learning (5) • Gingerbread Houses@Edison Academy • Music & SOLs@Crestwood ES • New Elementary School Progress Report@Sunrise Valley ES • International Baccalaureate Fair@South Lakes HS • Get 2 Green – Environmental Stewardship • Arabic Classes Broadcast (90 programs) • Foreign Language Testing CDs (6 programs)

Additional Services • Encoding and streaming of media for web access (376) • Encoding and authoring of DVDs for various needs (15) • Studio tours for staff and students (6 studio days)

50 CD# PR-06 Question #20

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: March 14, 2013

Question: When FCPS prepares per pupil costs, what numbers are used in the calculation? Specifically, do we include debt service in that calculation? I understand that Falls Church City does not but believe Arlington County does. This issue may make it difficult to make accurate relative comparisons across jurisdictions.

Response: Each year the Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) committee approves a uniform formula for calculating per pupil costs in order to report this statistic consistently across divisions. The cost per pupil calculation includes all expenditures for the school operating fund; locally-funded summer school; transportation; plant operations; pay-as-you-go capital outlay; police and security services; preschool programs; entitlement programs such as IDEA; and social security, retirement and FICA costs paid by the state on the district’s behalf. The calculation excludes adult education; self-funded summer school programs; food services; debt service; health services; bond-funded construction and renovation costs; and grant programs receiving discretionary or competitive funding.

The first chart below displays the FY 2013 cost-per-pupil calculations form. Arlington has a separate debt service fund which was not included in the cost-per-pupil calculation. The second chart shows the average costs per pupil for all WABE jurisdictions as reported on page 31 of the FY 2013 WABE Guide. WABE Guides since FY 2000 are available at www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/wabe/.

51 Page 2 of 3 Budget Question #20

FY 2013 WABE Cost Per Pupil Submissions FY 2013 Approved School Operating Fund a. EXCLUDING the following items from the calculation: ~ Adult education ~ Summer school program (self-funded portion), ~ Food services ~ Bond-funded construction, and renovation costs ~ Debt service ~ Health services (clinic aides, nurses, health room, private placement costs) ~ Grant programs receiving discretionary, competitive funding, such as ear-marked funds b. INCLUDING the following items in the calculation: ~ Locally funded summer schools ~ Transportation services ~ Plant operations ~ Pay as you go capital outlay ~ Police/security services ~ All costs associated with preschool programs. ~ Social security, retirement and FICA costs paid by the state on the district's behalf ~ Entitlement grant programs such as IDEA, etc. c. WABE adjusted School Operating Fund: d. FY 2013 Approved Enrollment (from 4a) e. FY 2013 WABE average cost per pupil

52 Page 3 of 3 Budget Question #20 $10,619 $14,880 $10,163 $18,675 $17,024 $16,612 $13,564 $12,296 $12,108 $11,595 FY 2013 Approved e cost per pupil $9,888 $9,852 $14,776 $18,047 $17,618 $16,309 $12,820 $11,753 $11,478 $11,014 FY 2012 Approved 31 1 2 WABE 2013 WABE n/a n/a $9,577 $17,322 $16,983 $16,729 $12,597 $11,611 $11,351 $10,833 Cost Per Pupil FY 2011 Approved School Division Alexandria City Falls Church City Montgomery County Fairfax County Prince George's County Manassas City Loudoun County Manassas Park City Prince William County Arlington County reported here may differ from that in individual distr icts' budget documents or other reports. Montgomery County Public Schools did not participate in the WAB E Guide FY 2011. Manassas Park City Public Schools started participating in the WABE Guide FY 2012. Note: Uniform formulas were developed by the WABE committee for consistency areawide. These numbers are comparable; however, t h 1 2

53 CD# SE-03 Question #21

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo

Date Prepared: March 13, 2013

Question: In the answer to the Dec. 10 Work Session question, response #13-13 on the HR Monitoring Report provided the categories of FCPS employees currently paid below the living wage. It totaled 337 employees, primarily custodians, food service workers and transportation attendants. As Mr. Moon pointed out at Thursday’s work session, this would change with the 3 percent increase due to the VRS shift and a 1 percent MSA. If we do both of those, would all of these employees be brought above the living wage? If not, how many would remain below? If any remain below, what would be the cost to bring them up to the living wage?

Response: The previously provided response of 337 employees paid below the living wage only included new hires. The current total number of employees paid below the living wage is 1,120. If the compensation adjustments included in the FY 2014 Advertised Budget are implemented (a one percent market scale adjustment and a three percent increase in the salary scales required to complete the Virginia Retirement System rate shift) 243 employees will move above the $13.13 living wage leaving 877 employees below the living wage.

Excluding food service employees who are paid from the self-supporting Food and Nutrition Services Fund, it would cost $0.4 million to bring the remaining employees to the living wage. If food services personnel were included in the living wage calculation, it would cost the Food and Nutrition Services Fund $1.1 million. While the hourly wage for entry level food service positions falls below the living wage, food services staff working 15 hours per week in FCPS are benefit eligible which is atypical in the food service industry.

54 CD# JS-01 Question #22

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Jane Strauss

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: March 25, 2013

Question: Following is the chart from page 55 from the FY 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Please explain each fund balance item. What is the purpose of each of these items or "reserves"? Why do these appear on the KPMG audit as unspent items at year end?

Response: The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) provides an overview of the financial position and results of operations for FCPS as of June 30th each year. The CAFR is prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The fund balance categories are defined by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) No. 54 for the purposes of financial reporting presentation. The chart above, from page 55 of the FY 2012 CAFR, is included in the Notes to the Financial Statements which is provided to enhance user understanding of the information presented in the financial statements. This chart includes FCPS’ governmental funds, and the following chart details which of FCPS’ funds are included in the governmental funds classification.

55 Page 2 of 3 Budget Question #22

As required by GASB 54, fund balances in CAFR are presented in five reporting categories. The classification of fund balances in these categories is based on legal and external constraints, and School Board actions. This is a different presentation from the budget, which presents available fund balances by their intended functional purpose as approved by the School Board.

CAFR Fund Balance Categories

The nonspendable portion of the fund balance reflects the value of items such as inventory and prepaid items. As of the end of a fiscal year, a portion of the fund balance is not available since the funding for prepaid items is budgeted in the following fiscal year.

The restricted portion of the fund balance includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated by constitution, external resource providers, or through enabling legislation. Included in this classification are funds from Food and Nutrition Service, Grants and Self-Supporting Programs, and School Construction. These fund balances have been primarily accumulated from external sources, including bond proceeds, and their use is restricted to these programs.

The committed portion of the fund balance includes amounts that can be used for the specific purposes determined by Board action during or prior to end of the fiscal year. The items represented in this category (the flexibility reserve, VRS reserve, and 2013 budgeted beginning balance) had been approved by the Board as part of the 2011 Final Budget Review.

The assigned portion of the fund balance classification represents the amounts that are intended to be used for specific purposes, but includes items that do not meet the criteria to be classified as restricted or committed. Included in this category are the actions taken as part of the FY 2012 Final Budget Review which allocated funding for textbooks, clinical support to students, teacher evaluation, Adult and Community Education, and other school operations which is the combination of undelivered orders/schools carryover.

56 Page 3 of 3 Budget Question #22 The unassigned portion of the fund balance includes amounts not contained in the other classifications. Due to reporting differences between CAFR and budget fund statements, the CAFR prepaid items when added to the unassigned fund balance, results in the combined total of critical needs carryover and the FY 2014 budgeted beginning balance as reflected on the budget fund statement. Also included in the CAFR fund balance are the audit adjustments recognized after the final budget review.

Following is the reconciliation of the School Operating fund statement to the CAFR fund balance.

School Operating Fund Statement - FY 2012 Final Budget Review Ending Balance by Pupose VRS Reserve $ 60,600,000 1 FY 2013 Budgeted Beginning Balance 57,491,613 1 School Board Flexibility Reserve 8,000,000 1 Undelivered Orders 45,981,611 2 Schools Carryover 26,381,406 2 Critical Needs Carryover 5,196,256 3 Grants Carryover 2,171 2 Centralized Textbook Fund 7,723,500 2 Teacher Evaluation 2,036,537 2 Clinical Support for Students 442,335 2 ACE Transfer 1,000,000 2 FY 2014 Budgeted Beginning Balance 41,632,202 3 Ending Balance $ 256,487,631 Audit Adjustments 2,599,655 CAFR FUND BALANCE, JUNE 30 $ 259,087,286

1 Committed CAFR Fund Balance Category 2 Assigned CAFR Fund Balance Category 3 Nonspendable and Unassigned CAFR Fund Balance Categories

57 CD# ES-04 Question #23

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: March 25, 2013

Question: Please provide a detail for the last three fiscal years for the monopole revenue by monopole tower, including the tower's location, and the allocation of the revenue.

Response: The attached spreadsheet provides the monopole revenue received over the last three fiscal years (FY 2010-FY 2012), including amounts disbursed to individual host sites. The revenue that has not been disbursed to host sites is used to fund areas as specified in the narrative below. Note that monopoles are either owned by FCPS or by a third-party who leases property from FCPS; the revenue sharing models are different depending upon whether FCPS owns the tower or leases the land to a third-party tower owner.

1. Monopoles Owned by FCPS: The hosting site receives a one-time site access fee of $5,000 for each new carrier co-locating to the monopole. The school system also receives a one-time application fee of $5,000 from each new carrier to cover administrative and legal expenses.

Carriers pay a monthly rent of approximately $2,500. The hosting site receives 15 percent of the rental income while the remaining 85 percent is allocated to fund areas such as emergency preparation technology for Safety and Security, DIT projects, and communication devices.

2. Monopoles Owned by the Contracted Telecommunications Management Company: The hosting site receives a one-time fee of $25,000 for the initial monopole and carrier installation. Subsequent carriers co-locating to the monopole also pay a one-time site access fee of $5,000 to the hosting site.

Carriers pay a monthly rent of approximately $2,500 of which 40 percent is retained by FCPS and 60 percent is retained by the contract telecommunications company which manages the carrier leases, funds the construction of the monopole, and monitors on-going maintenance at the sites. The hosting site receives 15 percent of the rental income received by FCPS, the remaining 85 percent is allocated to fund areas such as emergency preparation technology for Safety and Security, DIT projects, and communication devices.

58 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #23 4,000 3,651

35,524 64,115 22,839 33,700 10,634 11,645 67,590 21,314 93,195 11,836 32,976 34,593 55,521 45,226 50,467 27,988 22,714 22,739

131,938 157,710 154,025

Used Needs 1,115,938

for Related for Systemwide Systemwide $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -

5,482 3,306 5,047 1,841 1,230 8,234 5,194 7,934 7,813 7,688 3,502 8,917 3,280

11,208 20,878 25,818 25,000 11,323 10,705 19,710 14,684 25,693

234,487

FY 2012 FY FCPS Site FCPSSite $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Disbursed to to Disbursed 3,651

41,006 26,145 38,747 75,323 36,452 13,486 29,000 78,913 32,019 13,066 41,210 39,787 63,455 53,039 58,155 31,490 31,631 26,019

152,816 177,420 107,879 179,718

Total 1,350,425

Revenue Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - - - 1,200 5,323

29,035 14,215 27,401 56,695 12,698 67,446 81,443 91,682 27,729 42,089 43,034 39,911 17,826 20,445 13,549

121,548 104,364 998,133 180,501

Used Needs for Related for Systemwide Systemwide $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - - -

4,002 7,590 4,764 1,365 8,734 3,793 6,623 7,071 5,689 2,240 1,465

29,191 11,970 17,953 25,000 10,283 30,000 13,183 29,964 25,255

246,135

FCPS Site FCPSSite FY 2011 FY $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Disbursed to to Disbursed - - -

33,037 21,805 32,165 68,665 14,063 76,180 26,200 91,726 35,323 31,522 48,712 50,105 45,600 20,066 45,700 15,014

150,739 122,317 104,865 210,465

1,244,268 Total Revenue Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ------2,097 8,253 3,861

20,691 13,283 26,553 78,221 35,027 57,496 80,979 74,191 16,445 36,168 42,671 27,559

111,899 754,211 118,817

Used Needs for Related for Systemwide Systemwide $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ------4,272 1,597 4,175 5,816 9,924 1,587 3,165 6,299 5,618

26,717 25,000 41,329 10,790 39,887 42,711 21,194 25,000

275,081

FCPS Site FCPSSite FY 2010 FY $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Disbursed to to Disbursed ------

9,840

31,831 14,880 30,728 47,408 84,037 27,097 45,817 67,420 19,610 42,467 48,289 28,861

153,228 120,866 116,902 140,011

1,029,292 Total Revenue Revenue $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total: - Oakton HS Oakton - - MadisonHS - - HerndonMS - - Hayfield HS Hayfield - - Edison HSEdison - - McLean HS- - Lorton Center Lorton - - Lee HSLee - - Irving MS Irving - - Thoreau MS- - Chantilly HS Chantilly - - Langley HS Langley - - Westgate ES Westgate - - Bryant Alternative Bryant - - Annandale HS Annandale - Monopole Revenue Received* MonopoleRevenue Complex*** Woodson - - ThomasHS - Jefferson - Smartpole Licensing Fees Reimb** Fees Licensing Smartpole - - RobinsonSS - - CarsonMS - - Centreville HS Centreville - - South Lakes HSLakesSouth - - South County HS County South - *There may *There be timing may differences betweendisbursed. revenue received and revenue for monopoles. FCPS-owned **Credit from company management adjustment independent withassociated received revenue HS ***Woodson priorGoing forward,years. will revenue monopole Complex Woodson be divided betweenFrost and MS. HS Woodson

59 CD# BOS-07 Question #24

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity

Answer Prepared By: Richard Moniuszko

Date Prepared: March 28, 2013

Question: Please provide an itemized cost of all expenses for the Priority Schools Initiative since the program's inception.

Response: Designed to help address and close the achievement gap in thirty designated elementary and middle schools, FCPS’ Priority Schools Initiative was undertaken in FY 2011 as a three-year pilot program. The Priority Schools Initiative provides schools with additional support in order to meet their benchmarks for student achievement. Support is provided to the principal and school staff by staff members from across the division including FCPS’ Leadership Team. For more information on the Priority School Initiative, including participating schools and a description of the method of service provision, please access the FY 2013 Program Budget Book, pages 122-124: www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/documents/ approved/FY13/FY2013ProgramBudget.pdf

The following table itemizes, by expenditure category, expenses for the Priority Schools Initiative since the program’s inception. Priority Schools Initiative Expenditures FY 2012-FY 2013 ($ in millions) Professional Leadership Learning and Direct Intervention Parent Year Development Coaching Intervention Materials Involvement Total Univeristy of Instructional Resource Instructional Parent Examples: Virginia Coaches/DRA Teachers Supplies Liaisons FY 2011 $0.8 $0.6 $1.0 $0.4 $0.0 $2.8 FY 2012 $0.5 $0.9 $2.6 $0.0 $0.0 $4.1 FY 2013 Projected $0.1 $2.2 $3.3 $0.4 $0.1 $6.0 Total $1.4 $3.6 $6.9 $0.8 $0.1 $12.9

Does not add due to rounding

60 CD# BOS-05 Question #25

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 1, 2013

Question: Please provide a five-year analysis of all FCPS end of year balances that were transferred back to the Board of Supervisors.

Response: Attached is a chart that details FCPS’ year end balances for FY 2008-FY 2012 as included as part of the County’s Carryover Budget Review. These balances are approved to be carried forward and reappropriated in the succeeding year by the Board of Supervisors in supplemental appropriation resolutions.

61 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #25

Ending Balance FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Composition ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) Definition Revenue $2,250.3 $2,289.1 $2,262.8 $2,348.0 $2,371.6 Set Aside for Beginning 0 $5.7 $23.9 $33.9 $52.5 This is funding set aside in a prior year for a future year beginning balance. Balance VRS Reserve 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $45.0 When state officials set VRS rates lower than actuarially recommended to provide fiscal relief and declared that future year’s would require repayment with interest, FCPS opted to establish a reserve to try to mitigate the financial impact of these decisions on future budgets.

Compensation Reserve 0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.0 Fully expended to balance the FY 2012 budget.

Total Funds Available $2,250.3 $2,294.8 $2,286.7 $2,382.0 $2,472.1 The total of revenue and funding set aside for future years' beginning balances. Total Disbursements $2,144.4 $2,176.7 $2,097.0 $2,121.8 $2,215.6 The total expenditures and transfers out to other funds. Ending Balance $105.9 $118.1 $189.7 $260.2 $256.5 Prior to actions at the final budget review Less Actions from the Final Budget Review: Flexibility Reserve $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 The School Board flexibility reserve is normally maintained at $8.0 million to meet unbudgeted needs. Any unused portion is carried forward to the next fiscal year with School Board approval. For this reason, the flexibility reserve is only reflected in the current year estimate and is not included in the approved budget totals. Undelivered Orders $33.1 $39.1 $57.5 $53.4 $46.0 An obligation of funding for orders where goods or services have not been received or performed as of June 30. Automatic Carryover $5.9 $15.7 $31.5 $29.6 $26.4 Unobligated funding from the current year that is moved forward to the next year. This form of carryover is reserved for schools and primarily covers their supply and hourly accounts. It allows schools the flexibility of multi-year planning for a portion of their funding and has been especially helpful during the economic downturn. Unencumbered $4.2 $3.4 $5.3 $7.0 $5.2 See “automatic carryover” with the exception that this funding must be requested by the department Carryover and approved by leadership. Also referred to as “critical needs” carryover, this is the avenue for schools and departments to carry forward funding to the next fiscal year for non-recurring costs. Examples include the carryover of the balance of special funds (equal opportunity, neediest kids, etc) and funding for change management training for the joint county-schools ERP project.

Grant Balances $1.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 The unobligated balance available in a subsequent grant period. This funding must still be used for Carryover purposes as stated in the grant. Centralized Textbook $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.4 $7.7 Beginning in FY 2012, FCPS will centralize textbook purchasing starting with online social studies Fund textbooks for middle and high schools. FCPS will fund the textbook license up front and reduce per- pupil textbook funding allocated to middle and high schools each year. At the end of six years, the up- front funding will be completely replenished.

VRS Reserve $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $45.0 $60.6 When state officials set VRS rates lower than actuarially recommended to provide fiscal relief and declared that future year’s would require repayment with interest, FCPS opted to establish a reserve to try to mitigate the financial impact of these decisions on future budgets.

Compensation Reserve $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3.0 $0.0 Fully expended to balance the FY 2012 budget.

Teacher Evaluation $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.0 To meet the July 1, 2012, implementation deadline set by the Virginia Department of Education for school systems to provide a new teacher evaluation process, the FCPS’ Teacher Evaluation Task Force has agreed that: the new evaluation instrument would be fair and reliable and the new evaluation process would promote growth. As required by VDOE: the evaluation would be rated at the level of each of Virginia’s new seven standards (not at the indicator level as previously done in FCPS); the final evaluation would have one holistic rating; a conference with the teacher and evaluator would be required at the final evaluation; and clear direction and training would be provided to teachers and principals before the new evaluation process begins.

Clinical Support for $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 Funding was provided to expand clinical support (psychologists and social workers) to schools to assist in Students special education eligibility assessments where volume is high; to coordinate community resources for high-need schools; and extend contracts for six social workers to manage intervention cases during the summer. ACE Transfer $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.0 The Adult and Community Education Fund ended FY 2012 with a shortfall of $1.0 million, primarily due to lower than projected tuition revenue . In the FY 2013 Approved Budget, ACE had restructured its course offerings, streamlined its administration, and reduced its staff. To support the FY 2013 projected revenue and expenditure assumptions, a one-time transfer increase of $1.0 million was provided.

School Board $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5 $0.0 A placeholder was established for future School Board directed management audit activities. Placeholder for Management Audit School Board $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.4 $0.0 A placeholder was established to enhance FCPS’ efforts to provide academic support to students who Placeholder for are serving out of school suspensions. Discipline Support Set Aside for Beginning An amount of funding identified from the current or prior years to assist with balancing the budget of Balance the coming year. FY 2009 $50.0 FY 2010 $28.0 $0.0 $0.0 FY 2011 $23.9 $53.5 $0.0 FY 2012 $0.0 $33.9 $57.3 FY 2013 $0.0 $0.0 $51.6 $57.5 FY 2014 $41.6 Total Available $2.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Remaining available funding after all items above have been accounted for.

62 CD# BOS-08 Question #26

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Board of Supervisors

Answer Prepared By: Barbara Hunter

Date Prepared: April 3, 2013

Question: Please provide a list of all publications produced by FCPS that are mailed to more than 5,000 recipients. Please include the total costs of these publications, the number of recipients, and the frequency of the mailing.

Response: The chart below details the FCPS publications mailed to over 5,000 recipients each year, along with the number of recipients, frequency, total cost, and the FCPS fund utilized to pay for mailings.

Number Frequency Publication Annual Cost FCPS Fund of Recipients of Mailing Employee and Retiree Briefings & 35,922 Once annually $ 34,050 School Operating Confirmation Statements ACE Class Catalogs (Fall, Winter, Spring, 399,538 Four times annually $ 407,735 Adult and Community Education Summer) Retiree Annual Summary Report 13,000 Once annually $ 8,000 Educational Employees' Supplementary Retirement System of Fairfax County Retiree Benefit Profile (Statement of 27,000 Once annually $ 17,000 Educational Employees' Account) Supplementary Retirement System of Fairfax County Retiree Review Newsletter 12,500 Twice annually $ 14,000 Educational Employees' Supplementary Retirement System of Fairfax County Free and reduced meal applications, fee 147,000 Once annually $ 65,000 Food and Nutrition Services waiver consent forms, and parent notification letters Elementary Summer Institute for the Arts 36,660 Once annually $ 12,827 Grants and Self-Supporting Programs Catalog (eIFTA) Summer Institute for the Arts Catalog (IFTA) 63,466 Once annually $ 50,857 Grants and Self-Supporting Programs

63 CD# BOS-04 Question #27

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor McKay

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: April 4, 2013

Question: What is the spend-down rate on FCPS bonds over the last five years? Are bond proceeds being spent yearly?

Response: From FY 2008 to FY 2012, the percent of bond proceed spent has fluctuated between 61 percent and 113 percent. FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Exp/Proceeds % 90% 87% 61% 113% 90% Acknowledging lower expenditures in FY 2010, the bond sale funding request in FY 2011 was reduced to $130.0 million from $155.0 million. Looking ahead in the FY 2014 – FY 2018 Capital Improvement Program (www.fcps.edu/fts/planning/cip/cipbook2014-18.pdf), expenditures are projected to be $193.2 million, or 125 percent, in FY 2014 and $207.5 million, or 134 percent, in FY 2015. Expenditures in FY 2014 and FY 2015 that exceed bond proceeds will be funded utilizing the unspent proceeds from the prior years. Unspent proceeds in prior years can be attributable to the following factors:

1. Severe weather which delayed projects. 2. Delays in project starts due to various permitting challenges. 3. Project savings due to an unexpected continuation of favorable market conditions that provided bids at lower than estimated project budgets. As savings occur and whenever possible, FCPS reschedules projects to start earlier than originally projected to further take advantage of favorable market conditions, while still considering the bond proceeds funding limits. Although project savings are useful for moving projects forward, the savings are not known until a project bid has been accepted or a project has been completed and closed.

64 CD# BOS-03 Question #28

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Hudgins

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: April 9, 2013

Question: When considering their CIP requirements, what consideration has FCPS given to integrating transportation requirements in this analysis? What options are FCPS considering to reduce the costs of school renovations?

Response: When considering Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) requirements and creating the CIP, FCPS considers any possible effects that the locations and settings of school facilities and boundaries might have on the student transportation program. Invariably, FCPS looks at proximity of students and transportation distances, attendance adjustments, and potential impacts from grandfathering students at their current schools. The most recent boundary study is an example of considering proximity of students to schools so that in responding to community desires, students are moved closer in proximity to facilities that are closer to their homes. In addition, FCPS has considered ways to utilize public transportation and Fairfax Connector bus lines, which have presented challenges related to peak demand periods. FCPS has also explored the potential use of Fairfax County Fastran bus services; however, the Fastran vehicles are not built to meet legally mandated school bus standards in Virginia. Although public transportation has been considered, internal transportation has continued to be the most efficient and effective transportation method.

FCPS continually examines renovation costs to meet its current and future needs. FCPS has much lower bids on a cost per square foot basis compared to other local jurisdictions. Requirements continue to evolve that affect renovations such as:

Enrollment Growth: Increases in enrollment growth is one of the two main factors impacting the size of a school, therefore increasing the cost of renovations. The variables impacting enrollment are economic trends and commercial and real estate development trends

Programmatic Changes: This is the significant second factor influencing the size of a school. During the early 1990s we began adding full-sized gymnasiums, libraries, music rooms, special needs, and extended-learning spaces to adhere to these programmatic changes. Space requirements have evolved within our schools. Currently, schools have spaces dedicated to preschool, speech and reading specialists, self-contained rooms for children across the special education spectrum, music and fine arts, extended learning spaces, just to name a few.

65 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #28 Code Requirements: Many of these learning spaces have increased in size over time based upon code requirements. For example, science classrooms sizes have almost doubled over the past 25 years based upon the code requirements. Transportation: Modifications to the parking area and vehicular access increase costs but are necessary. Schools are often located within the heart of a community, therefore the impact of our buildings on the quality of life for the nearby residents is always considered. To alleviate the impact to the local residences, we’ve constructed kiss and ride lanes on our property when possible.

Environment Sustainability: Implementation of sustainable features, many of which are mandated by code requirements, although the majority are in response to FCPS’ desire to be good environmental stewards. Last fiscal year we spent nearly a quarter of the capital funding on sustainable features such as high efficiency mechanical and electrical systems, new trees and shrubs, cool roofs, and storm water management.

County Partnerships – SACC: Another essential aspect of our renovation projects is the creation of new spaces to support county initiatives. Currently, there are School Age Child Care programs operating at 137 schools.

Several options to reduce costs exist; however, they negatively impact FCPS’ need to meet current and future needs listed above. These options include:

Extending the renovation period: This option creates a long and extensive renovation cycle, therefore additional maintenance and facility inequities become more pronounced.

Renovating buildings without any space configuration or additional square footage: The impacts are: absent reconfiguration and addition it is likely that the facility could not meet the current educational planning; inequities between schools become severely pronounced. The approximate savings with this option: 15-20 percent for elementary schools, 25-35 percent for middle schools, and 25-35 percent for high schools.

Renovating, and constructing additions to buildings where they would fit best on site: This option ignores program relationships to already existing interior programs. Also, this option does not include reconfiguration of existing interior spaces. The lack of interior reconfiguration can negatively impact full implementation of educational programs. The most significant impact would be inequity between facilities renovated under this model and those renovated prior. The approximate savings would be: 15-20 percent.

Upgrading infrastructure and utilities only: The first impact is that it does not remedy the program or architectural deficiencies in the building. The second is that inequity between the schools is extremely large. The approximate savings: 45-55 percent per school.

66 CD# BOS-09 Question #29

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 9, 2013

Question: The response to FCPS Budget Question #25, states, in part, the “Automatic Carryover” reserve “has been especially helpful during the economic downturn.”However, the balance of that reserve has increased from $5.9 million in FY 2008 to $26.4 million in FY2012. • Specifically, what projects or expenses is this reserve held for? • Specifically, if not allocated in the FCPS budget, who decides when and how this reserve will be spent? • In a recent budget Q and A, FCPS estimated that the one-time capital facilities cost required to expand the Family and Early Childhood Education program to fully utilize the state match and eliminate the waiting list is $5,670,000 under the first scenario that would use existing space and $18,900,000 under the second scenario that would construct new space. οο Rather than growing this reserve, could a portion be utilized to fund the one-time capital costs associated with expansion of the early education initiative?

Response: • Schools are allowed to carryover unspent balances in primarily hourly and supply accounts. Carryover was expanded in FY 2009 to include hourly accounts to provide schools with a way to plan for the significant budget reductions implemented including materials, custodial, clerical, and class size. Allowing carryover facilitates multiyear planning and helps prevent a “use it or lose it” approach. Carryover provides schools with options for addressing individual school needs including additional instruction and classroom support, equipment, and instructional materials and supplies. • The FY 2012 automatic carryover of $26.4 million included $19.5 million in school funding and $6.9 million in multiyear project balances. The following chart reflects the increase in the FY 2012 carryover compared to FY 2008, by schools’ expenditure type. The FY 2012 carryover was less than $100,000 per school on average. • All automatic carryover funds are not in a reserve account but rather reallocated to the schools or projects the next fiscal year. The school principal, under the direction of the cluster assistant superintendent, determines how school funding is utilized. Projects are overseen by program managers under the direction of department assistant superintendents. • Carryover is a policy decision made by the School Board. If FCPS eliminated the process of allowing schools to carry forward unspent supply and hourly allocations (automatic carryover), the Board could utilize the one-time funding available at the end of the year for other purposes. Spending

67 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #29 this one-time funding on a one-time purpose, like facility modifications, is preferred over recurring expenditures. In the case of utilizing the funding for FECEP facilities, FCPS would then have the facilities available, but ongoing funding to hire teachers and operating expenses for those facilities would be required. FCPS School Automatic Carryover FY 2008 FY 2012 Increase ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) Schools Carryover By Expenditure Type Hourly Overtime $ 0.0 $ 1.0 $ 1.0 Hourly Transportation (0.0) (0.2) (0.1) Hourly Field Trip Transportation 0.1 0.1 0.0 Hourly Salaries 0.0 4.7 4.7 Subsititutes - 0.1 0.1 Salary Supplements - 0.3 0.3 Reimbursable Salaries - 2.4 2.4 Materials & Supplies 5.4 10.3 4.9 Contracted Services 0.0 0.1 0.1 Staff Training 0.4 0.5 0.1 School Initiatives - 0.1 0.1 Schools Total Carryover $ 5.9 $ 19.5 $ 13.6

68 CD# BOS-10 Question #30

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 10, 2013

Question: Employee VRS Contribution: • How much money would be saved in FY 2014 if an additional 1 percent rather than 3 percent of the VRS contribution is shifted to employees? • What are the costs and benefits of completing the shift in FY 2014? • What are the costs and benefits of making the shift incrementally over the next three years?

Response: If FCPS were to shift only the required 1 percent VRS contribution to employees, rather than shifting the remaining 3 percent and completing the state mandate, it would cost $10.8 million less in FY 2014 than projected in FCPS’ FY 2014 Advertised Budget. This assumes that employees would not be held harmless in terms of the reduction to take home pay.

Completing the VRS shift (3 percent) would cost $16.6 million in FY 2014, assuming no hold harmless provision. If no other salary increases are provided to keep employees’ pay from decreasing, an additional $4.9 million would be required to hold employees harmless. Benefits of completing the shift in FY 2014 include slightly lower overall cost than the incremental increases; doesn’t add to the projected shortfall for FY 2015; and improves equity in employee pay since current and new employees will be contributing the same rate to retirement.

Shifting only the required 1 percent would cost $5.8 million in FY 2014, excluding any hold harmless provision. With hold harmless, the cost would be $7.0 million. If FCPS were to not complete the shift, we would be deferring the liability to future years. Based on the projections for FY 2015 that were presented to the School Board and Board of Supervisors at the March 12, 2013 work session, this would create additional fiscal pressure as FCPS works to address the projected budget shortfall and employee compensation needs. In addition, beginning in FY 2016 expenditures would be $0.5 million higher each year in perpetuity if the shift were completed incrementally. This amount will be even higher if employees receive salary increases in FY 2014, FY 2015, or FY 2016.

69 CD# BOS-14 Question #31

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 9, 2013

Question: For FY 2012, the total of reserves and carryover amounts for the FCPS School Operating Budget exceeded $260 million. • Could any portion of the FCPS reserves and other carryover funds be included in its FY 2014 proposed budget for the beginning balance of the School Operating Fund? οο If so, please describe and identify the amount that can be added to the Beginning Balance. οο If not, please explain in detail why none of the reserves and carryover amounts are unavailable to include in the Beginning Balance.

Response: A total of $159.7 million of the $259.1 million funding available at the FY 2012 Final Budget Review was used for beginning balance. Following is a chart detailing the funding used for beginning balance.

FY 2012 Ending Balance Amounts Funding Used for Beginning Balance ($ in millions) FY 2013 Budgeted Beginning Balance $57.5 FY 2014 Budgeted Beginning Balance $41.6 VRS Reserve Used In FY 2013 $43.7 VRS Reserve Used in FY 2014 $16.9 Total $159.7

The remaining funding available from the FY 2012 ending balance was allocated for other specific purposes approved by the School Board. Following are the details of the FY 2012 ending balance allocations approved by the School Board and as detailed in FCPS Budget Question 16 for FY 2014.

70 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #31

FY 2012 Ending Balance Composition ($ in millions) Definition FY 2013 Budgeted Beginning $57.5 An amount of funding identified from the current or prior years to assist with balancing the budget of Balance the coming year. FY 2014 Budgeted Beginning $41.6 Balance VRS Reserve Used in FY 2013 $43.7 When state officials set VRS rates lower than actuarially recommended to provide fiscal relief and VRS Reserve Used in FY 2014 $16.9 declared that future year’s would require repayment with interest, FCPS opted to establish a reserve to try to mitigate the financial impact of these decisions on future budgets.

Flexibility Reserve $8.0 The School Board flexibility reserve is normally maintained at $8.0 million to meet unbudgeted needs. Any unused portion is carried forward to the next fiscal year with School Board approval. For this reason, the flexibility reserve is only reflected in the current year estimate and is not included in the approved budget totals. Undelivered Orders $46.0 An obligation of funding for orders where goods or services have not been received or performed as of June 30. Schools and Projects Carryover $26.4 Unobligated funding from the current year that is moved forward to the next year. This form of carryover is reserved for schools and primarily covers their supply and hourly accounts. It allows schools the flexibility of multi-year planning for a portion of their funding and has been especially helpful during the economic downturn. Critical Needs Carryover $5.2 See “automatic carryover” with the exception that this funding must be requested by the department and approved by the Superintendent. Also referred to as “critical needs” carryover, this is the avenue for schools and departments to carry forward funding to the next fiscal year for non-recurring costs. Examples include the carryover of the balance of special funds (equal opportunity, neediest kids, etc) and to cover the anticipated costs of the implementing the health care reform requirements.

Grant Balances Carryover $0.0 The unobligated balance available in a subsequent grant period. This funding must still be used for purposes as stated in the grant. Centralized Textbook Fund $7.7 Beginning in FY 2013, FCPS will centralize textbook purchasing for math. FCPS will fund the purchases centrally, and then reduce per-pupil textbook funding allocated to elementary, middle and high schools annually and return that funding to the central account. At the end of six years, the centralized fund will be completely replenished through these per-pupil reductions.

Teacher Evaluation $2.0 Resources were provided to develop and implement the new teacher evaluation system mandated by the Virginia Department of Education. Implementation is required by July 1, 2012.

Clinical Support for Students $0.4 Funding was provided to expand clinical support (psychologists and social workers) to schools to assist in special education eligibility assessments where volume is high; to coordinate community resources for high-need schools; and extend contracts for six social workers to manage intervention cases during the summer. ACE Transfer $1.0 The Adult and Community Education Fund ended FY 2012 with a shortfall of $1.0 million, primarily due to lower than projected tuition revenue . In the FY 2013 Approved Budget, ACE had restructured its course offerings, streamlined its administration, and reduced its staff. To support the FY 2013 projected revenue and expenditure assumptions, a one-time transfer increase of $1.0 million was provided.

Audit Adjustments $2.6 FCPS is audited by an external auditor each year. Any adjustments made after year end are included as an audit adjustment. This funding was available and allocated to the FY 2014 Beginning Balance.

TOTAL $259.1

71 CD# ES-07 Question #32

FY 2014 BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 2, 2013

Question: Under the Office of Procurement Services, FCPS utilizes a Springfield warehouse location, the Johnie Forte, Jr. Support Center. 1. Please provide the detail for the cost to lease, maintain, and staff the facility 2. Detail the operational function of the facility 3. Identify the inventory, and value thereof, stored at the facility 4. Describe the inventory management for the facility.

Response: The Johnie Forte, Jr. Support Center is a joint (shared) Fairfax County Government and Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) facility. The facility, which is a 65,000 square foot building, was purchased jointly by the County and FCPS in the 1980’s. The FCPS portion of the facility houses the Department of Financial Services, Office of Procurement Services, Warehouse and Mail Operations and Science Kit Production; the Department of Facilities and Transportation Services, Bus Driver Training Operations; Department of Instructional Services, Science Program; and PLA Student Testing operations.

Lease and Maintenance Costs for the Johnie Forte, Jr. Center FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Lease Costs* - - - Utilities-Electric $66,852 $64,286 $72,717 Utilities-Natural Gas $37,019 $34,675 $22,521 Maintenance $38,169 $27,346 $43,275 TOTALS $142,040 $126,307 $138,513 *Since the facility is owned, there are no lease costs. Staffing at the Johnie Forte Jr. Center Office of Procurement Office of Student Office of Services Testing Transportation Totals Fulfillment and Distribution 31.6 31.6 Science Kit Production 9.7 9.7 Mail Services 9.7 9.7 Test Distribution Services 5.0 5.0 Bus Training 0.0 0.0 TOTALS 51.0 5.0 - 56.0

72 Page 2 of 3 Budget Question #32 Operational Function of the Facility To fulfill FCPS requirements, Warehouse Operations (WO) orders, receives, and stores needed products, and delivers textual materials, supplies, and equipment to schools, centers, and departments on a daily basis. WO also manages the textbook rebinding program, moves furniture and equipment between schools, provides logistical support for graduation, science fairs, and concerts, and maintains a “pool” of tables and chairs that are loaned to schools for testing and special events; WO is the key distribution center for FCPS and redistributes more than 7,000 pieces of excess furniture and equipment annually.

Annually, the warehouse staff prepares more than 5,500 elementary science kits. For this activity, the facility is operated as a production warehouse. Product parts are ordered and received. Staff then builds science kits from the parts. Completed science kits are distributed to individual elementary schools. As kit components are used and/or consumed, they are replenished by materials requisitioned and delivered by the warehouse.

On a daily basis, the internal mail function delivers more than 8,000 pieces of internal mail and related information to all schools, centers, and administrative offices. The courier service picks up and processes more than 6,000 pieces of outgoing US Postal mail for schools and administrative centers daily.

Professional Learning and Accountability (PLA) Office of Student Testing (OST) currently occupies approximately 5,200 square feet of space at the Johnie Forte Jr. Support Center as its Test Distribution Center (TDC) for all of FCPS. OST currently has five staff members located at the TDC to handle test materials received from vendors and schools, and pack and ship testing materials to schools and scoring services. Tests that the TDC process include Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT), and the Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test (IAAT), along with students’ collection of evidence (COEs) for the Virginia Grade Level Alternative (VGLA) and the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP).

The Office of Transportation utilizes the Johnie Forte, Jr. facility as a School Bus Driver Training Center. All new, prospective, and existing drivers, as well as bus attendants and activity drivers receive continuing instruction, testing and certification at this facility.

Inventory Value An inventory of 619 line items valued at approximately $1.1 million is maintained in the warehouse with a goal of inventory turnover three times annually through sales to FCPS customers. Inventory levels fluctuate throughout the year based upon events such as seasonal demands, product availability, and ordering patterns to take advantage of price discounts offered for bulk purchases. The inventory activity is accounted for in the Central Procurement Fund.

The science kit program utilizes 740 items that are purchased and distributed through this activity. While physical counts are maintained, no value is assigned since charges are made to the science program when items are purchased.

Inventory present at the TDC include the reusable test booklets for the various aptitude tests, as well as students’ collection of evidence (COEs) for the VGLA and VAAP that FCPS is required to retain. No value is assigned since the majority of these materials are used when purchased.

73 Page 3 of 3 Budget Question #32 Inventory Management The Central Procurement Fund is the primary means by which items for warehouse inventory are replenished. A volume inventory purchasing method ensures better pricing and availability. The Office of Procurement Services places bulk orders with contracted vendors to maintain warehouse stock.

Schools, centers, and central offices place orders for warehouse stock items through the Fairfax County Unified System (FOCUS). The Office of Procurement Services fills the orders and delivers the items. Individual schools, centers, and offices are charged for their purchases when the orders are filled, replenishing the Central Procurement Fund.

The warehouse operation consolidates individual orders by delivery location, reducing the paperwork and administrative burden associated with ordering hundreds of thousands of items annually and enabling schools to take advantage of vendor discounts for large orders. As vendors are able to provide materials utilizing just-in-time delivery directly to individual locations at prices competitive with those obtained via the FCPS warehouse, just-in-time delivery is implemented and the item is eliminated from FCPS’ warehouse.

To ensure the most efficient and effective management of the warehouse inventory, staff utilizes the Material Requirements Planning (MRP) Module in FOCUS. Procurement activity for the required lines is entered into the system, seasonal trend analyses are performed, and reorder points are determined. The system shows the inventory on hand on a daily basis, as well as outstanding orders in the system. It also alerts the buyers when scheduled or emergency actions are required. This information promotes a more accurate forecast of procurement requirements.

Inventory control policies in effect include daily and weekly reviews of the MRP in FOCUS, with emphasis placed on high usage items; monthly reviews are conducted on low usage items; and seasonal reviews are conducted for events such as school openings and weather related issues.

The process used to order, receive, account for and manage the various testing materials varies depending upon the test and types of materials. All test distributions and collections follow requirements set forth by the testing institutions or by the state of Virginia.

74 CD# BOS-12 Question #33

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 15, 2013

Question: The Annual Report of Expenditures that FCPS submits to the State each year shows that 67.61 percent of FCPS’ expenditures in FY 2012 were for “Instruction.” During the budget process, FCPS typically maintains that about 93 percent of its costs are “school based.”

• Specifically, what “school based” costs are not included in the “instruction” costs reported to the state? • Are any “Instruction” costs reported to the state not considered “school based”? οο If so, describe those expenditures.

Response: The cost associated with providing the instructional programs represent over 85% of the School Operating Fund. The 93% figure represents the school-based positions in the School Operating Fund.

FCPS defines instruction to include all costs and positions allocated to the schools as well as for instructional support provided by the departments. Both the ASR and FCPS reporting formats include school-based and nonschool-based expenditures. An example of nonschool-based expenditures within instructional programs is Instructional Services personnel who work on PreK-12, Career and Technical Education, Physical Education, and Fine Arts curriculum.

The differences between the Annual School Report (ASR) and how FCPS defines instruction results from the following: • The ASR reports data from various school funds including the Food and Nutrition Services Fund and the Construction Fund • Instructional technology is reported as a separate function in the ASR • The ASR includes a number of functions that FCPS defines as instruction within other categories in the ASR. For example, public health attendants are included in Administration, Attendance and Health in the ASR. These are all school-based positions. οο Audiologists οο Psychologists οο Public health attendants οο Public health training assistants οο Safety and security specialists and assistants 75 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #33 οο School-based technology support positions (SBTS and TSSpecs) οο School-based custodial staff • Certain specific programs like the Governor’s Regional Program (Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology) are presented on separate reports. FCPS’ FY 2012 ASR total expenditures of $2.5 billion include instructional expenditures of $1.7 billion, or 67.61 percent of total expenditures. Following is FCPS’ FY 2012 ASR summary of actual expenditures:

FCPS FY 2012 Annual School Report (in millions) Percent Classification of Expenditures Amount of Total Instruction $ 1,721.8 67.61% Administration, Attendance and Health $ 76.2 2.99% Pupil Transportation $ 118.7 4.66% Operation and Maintenance Services $ 192.3 7.55% School Food Services & Other Non-Inst $ 75.8 2.98% Facilities $ 164.5 6.46% Debt Service and Fund Transfer $ 53.1 2.09% Technology $ 144.2 5.66% Contingency Reserve $ - 0.00% Total $ 2,546.6 100.00%

The FY 2012 approved expenditure budget in the School Operating Fund totals $2.2 billion, and includes $1.9 billion, or 85.7 percent, allocated to instructional programs. FY 2012 School Operating Fund actual expenditures were $2.2 billion, of which $1.9 billion, or 85.1 percent, were instructional expenditures. In the approved budget, FCPS separates out the instruction category shown on the “Where it Goes” pie chart to show the budget for individual instruction subcategories which include elementary, middle, high, special, adult and community, and instructional support. The following is the FY 2012 approved budget and actual expenditures for all FCPS’ programs within the School Operating Fund.

FCPS FY 2012 Programs ($ in millions) Approved Budget Actual Expenditures Percent Percent Program Amount of Total Amount of Total Elementary School Education $ 728.3 32.4% $ 720.8 32.6% Middle School Education 208.9 9.3% 200.4 9.0% High School Education 474.5 21.1% 464.3 21.0% Special Education 396.5 17.7% 392.4 17.7% Adult and Community Education 0.7 0.0% 0.5 0.0% Instructional Support 116.3 5.2% 106.0 4.8% Instructional Programs $ 1,925.2 85.7% $ 1,884.5 85.1%

Student Transportation $ 124.0 5.5% $ 121.9 5.5% Facilities Management 94.3 4.2% 95.6 4.3% General Support 88.7 3.9% 98.5 4.4% Central Administration 13.5 0.6% 14.0 0.6% Support Programs $ 320.5 14.3% $ 329.9 14.9%

Total $ 2,245.7 100.0% $ 2,214.4 100.0%

O:\OBS\Groups\Budget Questions\FY 2014 Budget Questions\Board of Supervisors\BOS12\FCPS FY 2012 ASR

O:\OBS\Groups\Budget Questions\FY 2014 Budget Questions\Board of Supervisors\BOS12\FY 2014 Proposed w 5 Year Comparison 11-29-12 CD# BOS-15 Question #34

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 9, 2013

Question: A comparison of the School Operating Fund Expenditures-Budget to Actual shows that FCPS may over- budget for expenditures by an average of over 6 percent, or more than $140 million, each in FY 2011 and FY 2012. The most significant over-budgeting appears to be for Facilities Management (20.19 percent in FY 2011 and 13.09 percent in FY 2012) and “Administration and Support” (17.51 percent in FY 2012).

• Could any reductions in the FCPS budgeted expenditures be made in the FY 2014 budget? οο If so, please describe and identify the amount of the reductions. οο If not, please explain in detail why no reductions in the budgeted expenditures can be made.

Response: Due to the requirement to operate within a balanced budget, state and local governments typically end the year with an available balance to ensure that they meet revenue projections and do not exceed expenditure appropriations. As a result, FCPS, like Fairfax County Government, historically has ended each fiscal year with an ending balance. Included in the ending balance is carryover for encumbered obligations or undelivered orders which reflects orders for goods or services that have not been received or performed as of June 30. In addition, FCPS allows schools to carryover unspent funding from their supply and hourly accounts. This carryover encourages schools to use a multi-year planning effort to meet student needs.

FCPS looks for reduction opportunities at each stage of the budget development process, as well as throughout each fiscal year, as part of the quarterly review process. For example, during the fiscal year reductions from the costing of new teacher positions resulted in savings of $2.9 million and changes to bus inspection requirements resulted in savings of $0.8 million at the Midyear Budget Review, and reductions to the utilities budget of $2.0 million at the Third Quarter Budget Review were included as savings in the FY 2013 budget. Any future year recurring savings related to all quarterly review items was also included in the FY 2014 advertised budget. Historically, savings recognized during the year and funding available at year end has been set aside as budgeted beginning balance to help address future year’s budget needs.

In terms of variance between budget and actual expenditures, FY 2012 actual School Operating Fund expenditures (excluding federal grants), after accounting for School Board commitments such as the flexibility reserve, the budgeted beginning balance, purchasing obligations, and carryover, were $44.4 million, or 1.9 percent, lower than the FY 2012 final budget estimate, as reflected in the FY 2012 Third 77 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #34 Quarter Budget Review. Most of this difference, $34.3 million, is due to savings experienced from higher position turnover than initially anticipated as well as utility savings because of milder weather than anticipated in the budget projections.

Likewise, for FY 2011, actual School Operating Fund expenditures (excluding federal grants), after accounting for School Board commitments such as the flexibility reserve, the budgeted beginning balance, purchasing obligations, and carryover, were $56.9 million, or 2.5 percent less than the FY 2011 Third Quarter Estimate. Greater vacancy and turnover and ongoing efforts to conserve resources and achieve efficiencies resulted in these savings. The FY 2012 budget incorporated a recognition of higher turnover through a decrease in the salary base and an increase in budgeted lapse.

78 CD# BOS-19 Question #35

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisors McKay, Bulova, and Hudgins

Answer Prepared By: Office of the Superintendent

Date Prepared: April 12, 2013

Question: Please provide a report on the priority schools initiative, including how the FY 2014 budget impacts this program and what criteria were used when the program was established.

Response: PRIORITY SCHOOLS INITIATIVE (PSI) Fairfax County Public Schools April 10, 2013

Budget reductions for FY 2011 resulted in the loss of a number of longstanding FCPS initiatives. Among these initiatives was the EXCEL schools program that had been in existence since the late 1990’s as a support to schools with substantial challenges. In order to provide some support to high needs schools beginning in FY 2011, and as part of Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) commitment to closing the achievement gap, thirty (30) elementary and middle schools were designated as Priority Schools in June 2010.

Since school demographics and school needs had changed significantly since the late 1990’s, the Priority School Initiative (PSI) designation was based on current performance data-- the number of students not passing the Virginia SOL tests in reading and mathematics (grades 3-6), and the gap in student achievement between Black and Latino students and White and Asian students provided from the School Support Composite Index (SSCI). The PSI designation provided support to these 30 schools in order to improve student performance and close the achievement gap.

Expected outcomes for PSI were as follows: • Continuous improvement in student performance on the SOL tests, • Adequate Yearly Progress as designated by Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and • Progress in closing the achievement gaps as measured by FCPS’ School Support Composite Index (SSCI). The initial selection of Priority Schools in May 2010 was based on one of two criteria: 1. School Support Composite Index (SSCI) is a ranking that provides equal weighting to the number of students not passing SOL reading and mathematics tests from a 3 year average and the percentage of the achievement gap between White/Asian subgroup and Black/Hispanic subgroup.

79 Page 2 of 6 Budget Question #35 2. Schools identified by the Federal Title I legislation for School Improvement based on the Federal definition (Adequate Yearly Progress). The FCPS School Board allocated funding of $4.3 million annually beginning in FY 2011 for the PSI as a three-year pilot project. Since educational research suggests that a 3-5 year time period is needed to turnaround school performance, the intent of the PSI was to begin the process over a three-year period (through 2012-13), then review each school’s rate of improvement to determine the future course of action. Additional Priority Schools could be designated in subsequent years of the three-year pilot.

PSI Support Components Informed by national and local research on best practices in closing the gap, key components of the FCPS Priority Schools Initiative were developed. Each school was assigned a cross-functional team known as the School Support Team to consult with the principal and school staff regarding the needs of each school. Additional services were as follows:

Priority Staffing Since the classroom teacher is of primary importance to student achievement, Priority Schools received preferential consideration in hiring new staff, as well as priority in the assignment of instructional resources, including: • Early access to early hires • No limit on the number of early hires placed in a priority school • Principals can select de-staffs, but they will not be subject to the placement of destaffs from other schools in priority schools. School Turnaround Training Twenty PSI principals were designated to participate in the School Turnaround Specialist Program, a partnership of the Darden School (Business) and Curry School (Education) at the University of Virginia. The Turnaround Specialist program is a two-year program designed to address the leadership and performance needs of education leaders charged with making the changes necessary to have an immediate impact on student achievement. It included coursework, case studies, and discussions to analyze school achievement data and share information and practical experience in proven business and education turnaround strategies. Content areas included assessment of personal leadership qualifications, skills to lead change, data analysis, decision-making, setting targets, and creating action plans.

School Support Team A cross-functional team with up to five-members was assigned to each Priority School. The School Support Team met on a regular basis throughout the school year to review the school’s current data and planning processes, then leverage any additional resources from FCPS departments and Leadership Team. The School Support Team advocates for the school, and makes recommendations to the Leadership Team for additional resources (e.g. funds for additional learning time for students, parent education, teacher training, or other instructional support) that were needed to ensure continuous improvement in student achievement.

Principal Leadership Training All PSI principals participated in a leadership assessment structured interview process based on School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success developed by Public Impact Group. This research- based interview technique is a formative assessment of principals in the following areas:

80 Page 3 of 6 Budget Question #35 • Academic achievement • Team leadership • Initiative and persistence • Developing others • Monitoring and directiveness • Analytical thinking • Planning • Conceptual thinking • Impact and influence •Self-confidence

The School Turnaround Specialist Program (STSP) included a summer leadership institute developed jointly by FCPS and UVA. A mid-year retreat for the principal and selected school staff members included assistance with change management, data analysis and monitoring. For Title I schools in School Improvement, the PSI and STSP were used to meet the Virginia Department of Education requirements.

Instructional Coach In order to ensure high functioning teacher teams (Collaborative Teams), each PSI school was provided with a full-time Instructional Coach.

Regular School Visits with Feedback Cluster Assistant Superintendents or Cluster Directors used a formal process to visit PSI school classrooms on a weekly basis (Year 1) and regularly in Years 2 and 3. In addition, teams of UVA faculty visited each PSI school participating in STSP and provided both the school and FCPS Leadership Team with written feedback.

Teacher Release Time for Data Analysis Each PSI school was provided a budget so that teachers could meet each quarter to review the progress of every student in reading and mathematics.

The following chart details PSI expenditures and was previously included as part of the response to Budget Question #24 Priority Schools Initiative Expenditures FY 2011-FY 2013 ($ in millions) Professional Leadership Learning and Direct Intervention Parent Year Development Coaching Intervention Materials Involvement Total Univeristy of Instructional Resource Instructional Parent Examples: Virginia Coaches/DRA Teachers Supplies Liaisons FY 2011 $0.8 $0.6 $1.0 $0.4 $0.0 $2.8 FY 2012 $0.5 $0.9 $2.6 $0.0 $0.0 $4.1 FY 2013 Projected $0.1 $2.2 $3.3 $0.4 $0.1 $6.0 Total $1.4 $3.6 $6.9 $0.8 $0.1 $12.9

Does not add due to rounding Priority Schools for 2013-2014 (PSI-2)

Monitoring the results from the PSI pilot, the Leadership Team reviewed effective practices and lessons learned in designing PSI-2 for 2013-14. The funding for PSI of $4.3 million remains in the FY 2014 Advertised Budget. We have reviewed a comprehensive amount of student achievement data and determined which schools should continue in PSI, which schools have sustained improvement, as well as schools that should be included in PSI-2. 81 Page 4 of 6 Budget Question #35 Identification of schools for the original PSI was determined using a School Support Composite Index (SSCI), based on the number of reading and mathematics SOL test failures at each school as well as each school’s achievement gap. The information used to identify PSI-2 schools includes a wider range of student achievement data with emphasis on early reading and math performance, as well as student characteristics, school leadership and school climate.

The following data were used to Identify PSI -2 Schools

1. Kindergarten Achievement This measure is the achievement level of students in reading as they enter kindergarten, based on the DRA Word Analysis assessment. Three years of data were used (SY 2010, 2011, and 2012).

2. End of Grade 2 Achievement This measure is the achievement level of students in reading and math at the end of grade 2. The information represents the results of a school’s efforts to have students meet grade-level reading (DRA2) and mathematics (MRA) performance at the end of grade 2. Three years of data were used (SY 2010, 2011, and 2012).

3. SOL Achievement (grades 3-6) This measure reflects the achievement level of all students taking reading and mathematics SOLs within the school, including the average number of students failing the SOLs in comparison to all other FCPS schools. For most of the elementary schools, the SOL achievement values include students in either grades 3 through 5 (when feeding into Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe) or grades 3 through 6 (when feeding into all other middle and secondary schools)1.

4. Student Progress by Grade 2 This measure represents the progress schools made in reading and math from kindergarten to the end of grade 2, addressing the challenges of underperforming students at kindergarten entry. This value indicates whether schools are able to perform comparatively better or worse than expected based on the number of failures that incoming kindergartners demonstrated.

5. Achievement Gaps Two types of gaps were used to identify PSI-2 schools. The “ethnicity gap” is the difference in the average performance levels for White and Asian students versus Black and Hispanic students on all reading and mathematics SOLs in SY 2009-10, SY 2010-11, and SY 2011-12. The special populations gap is the gap between the overall student membership at a school and the performance of students with limited English proficiency, economically disadvantage, or disabilities on all reading and mathematics SOLs in SY 2009-10, SY 2010-11, and SY 2011-12.

6. Student Characteristics This information is a composite of three demographic factors: • Number of students living in poverty • English-language learners • Student mobility during the last three school years ______1The exception to this is Kings Park (which depicts only grade 3 reading and mathematics SOLs) and Kings Glen (which depicts grades 4 through 6 reading and mathematics SOLs).

82 Page 5 of 6 Budget Question #35 7. School Culture This information is a standardized composite of the current functioning of each school on four school culture factors as rated by cluster superintendents: • Instructional practice • Working conditions • Leadership development • Collective efficacy and collaboration

A combination of each of the above factors was ranked for all elementary and middle schools, and placement was based on the highest ranked schools for inclusion in PSI-2. Student achievement outcomes were weighted 60 percent, school culture factors 30 percent, and student characteristics 10 percent in determining the rankings.

PSI -2 Schools The final recommendation for PSI 2 schools was determined by FCPS Leadership Team based on the rankings. The following 15 schools were recommended to continue from PSI to PSI-2:

Brookfield ES Crestwood ES Dogwood ES Dranesville ES Glasgow MS Herndon ES Herndon MS Hollin Meadows ES Hybla Valley ES Mt. Vernon Woods ES Riverside ES Rose Hill ES Sandburg MS Whitman MS Woodlawn ES

The following 14 schools will be new PSI-2 schools for 2013-14:

Annandale Terrace ES Bailey’s ES Braddock ES Coates ES Deer Park ES Forestdale ES Fort Belvoir ES Fort Hunt ES Glen Forest ES Hutchison ES Kings Park ES Parklawn ES Saratoga ES Woodley Hills ES

The following 15 schools will no longer be considered a PSI school but will be provided with an instructional coach in 2013-2014:

Beech Tree ES Bull Run ES Bucknell ES Centre Ridge ES Clearview ES Cunningham Park ES Hughes MS Hunters Woods ES Kings Glen ES London Towne ES Lorton Station ES Poe MS McNair ES Twain MS Washington Mill ES

PSI -2 Support Services Based on the PSI 2010-2013 model and lessons learned, the following services will be provided to these 28 schools beginning summer 2013 utilizing the $4.3 million annual budget for PSI:

83 Page 6 of 6 Budget Question #35 Priority Staffing Since the classroom teacher is of primary importance to student achievement, Priority Schools will receive preferential consideration in hiring new staff, as well as priority in the assignment of instructional resources, including: • Early access to early hires • No limit on the number of early hires placed in a priority school • Principals can select de-staffs, but they will not be subject to the placement of destaffs from other schools in priority schools. Leadership Assessment and Development All PSI-2 principals will participate in a leadership assessment structured interview process based on School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success developed by Public Impact Group (if they have not done so already). Each school also will participate in leadership development for principals and school teams with data analysis training provided by FCPS staff.

Instructional Coach In order to ensure high functioning teacher teams (Collaborative Teams), each PSI school will be provided a full-time Instructional Coach.

Teacher Release Time for Data Analysis Each PSI school will be provided with release time for reading and math teachers, so they can meet at least each quarter to review the progress of every student in reading and mathematics.

Parent Involvement Program FCPS will assist PSI-2 schools to expand parent education and support services to improve student achievement.

Summer Instructional Unit Development A team of PSI-2 teachers from each grade level (K-8) will be employed summer 2013 to develop a set of instructional units for each grade level, so that PSI-2 Collaborative Teacher Teams can “hit the ground running” at the start of the school year.

Additional Time for Teachers Each reading and mathematics teach at PSI-2 schools will receive an additional day prior to the opening of school to receive training on the instructional units developed for their grade level in preparation for the school year.

Additional Preschool or After-School Classes Based upon the kindergarten readiness data used to identify PSI-2 schools, selected elementary schools will be provided funding and resources to serve 4-year old students who need a quality preschool program. PSI-2 middle schools may be provided additional resources for an after-school instruction program.

Intervention Teams PSI-2 schools with the greatest needs will be assigned an Intervention Team to assist with planning and implementation of the instructional program. The Intervention Team will provide access to other resources, as needed, for the school to make substantial achievement gains.

84 CD# BOS-20 Question #36

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Cook

Answer Prepared By: Office of the Superintendent

Date Prepared: April 11, 2013

Question: Please provide updated information regarding FCPS students’ preparation for college level courses, including the Pathways to Baccalaureate Program.

Response: About 80 percent of FCPS high school graduates enroll in two- or four-year colleges and universities that are included in the National Clearing House database (see ATTACHMENT A, a bar graph representing those students part of the National Clearing House cohort having taken key high school courses in preparation for college). The National Clearing House does not have data on the other 20 percent of our graduates. Many private colleges do not participate in the Clearing House. Also note that the data does not track enrollment in post-graduate technical training or the military.

Of the graduates FCPS is able to track, approximately 74 percent attend four-year institutions and 26 percent attend two-year institutions. Less than 1 percent of those attending the four-year colleges enroll in courses that would be considered “remedial” or less than freshman level courses. Of those attending the two-year institutions, for which the majority attend Northern Virginia Community College (NOVA), anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent enroll in courses that would be considered “remedial” or less than freshman level courses. Please see ATTACHMENT B, data from the COMPASS (NOVA’s placement testing system) Placement Results for Fall 2011.

Beginning the summer of 2012, NOVA altered the process for determining “remediation” needs for mathematics. With these testing updates, NOVA began using a methodology where “remediation” was given in mathematics for only those units where students demonstrated deficiencies, instead of requiring an entire course to be completed. FCPS has not yet received data from NOVA on this new process, but anecdotal comments from NOVA staff report that the “remediation” rates have significantly dropped.

Under the Umbrella of FCPS’ College Success programs, the Pathway to the Baccalaureate program began in 2005. Pathway to the Baccalaureate is a cooperative program between FCPS, NOVA, and George Mason University. This program identifies students in the 12th grade who may be at risk and guides them from high school graduation, through an associate degree at NOVA, and on to a baccalaureate degree at George Mason University. The students are treated as a cohort while on the college campuses with activities and training designed specifically for their needs. The program director and NOVA counselors work with FCPS counselors, students and parents to achieve success. A full program description of the Pathway Program and all College Success programs can be accessed

85 Page 2 of 5 Budget Question #36 beginning on page 164 of the FY 2013 Program Budget: http://www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/documents/ approved/FY13/FY2013ProgramBudget.pdf. ATTACHMENT C shows that the associate degree graduation rate for this program is double the normal NOVA graduate rate. It is clear this program has been highly successful.

86 Page 3 of 5 Budget Question #36

87 Page 4 of 5 Budget Question #36

88 Page 5 of 5 Budget Question #36

89 CD# BOS-21 Question #37

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Smyth

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: April 12, 2013

Question: Provide a chart showing FCPS proffer contributions, including what has been received, in what location, and where it was spent.

Response: FCPS regularly provides the County with bi-annual reports showing all proffers received and how the funds have been expended. Following are copies of these reports. Some work has been performed and we are in the process of moving the appropriate expenditures and as a result, actual balances may be less.

90 Page 2 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT South County SS Equipment Acct SS Equipment County South Acct SS Equipment County South ES Station Lorton S.C (Const Acct) S.C (Const Acct) S.C (Const Acct) S.C (Const South County SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton S.C (Const Acct) S.C (Const Woodson Project HS- Renovation Hayfield station ES- computer SS- Auxiliary Gym County South SS- Auxiliary Gym County South SS- Auxiliary Gym County South SS- Auxiliary Gym County South SS- Auxiliary Gym County South SS- Auxiliary Gym County South MS- Project Jackson Lorton Station ES Station Lorton Acct) S.C (Const ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton FM Projects SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton ES Station Lorton ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South FM Projects SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton ES Station Lorton ------UN-SPENT

800 400 3,200 1,600 7,000 6,800 3,200 1,600 7,200 2,400 1,200 4,800 2,400 8,400 6,800 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 5,600 2,800 5,600 2,800 4,000 2,000 4,800 2,400 6,400 3,200 5,200 13,000 10,000 11,250 17,850 80,250 11,200 10,000 15,000 13,600 14,400 16,800 13,600 10,400 22,400 10,000 170,400 811,650 600,000 EXPENDED

PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 1 ofPage 11 1 PROFFER STATEMENT Predevelopment costs for S.C & new Lorton Station ES to be built Station Lorton Predevelopment costs for S.C & new S.C proposed of the Design/Const 2001 Capital in S.C as stated proposed of the Improvement Design/Const Program 2001 Capital the in S.C as stated proposed Improvement of the Construction Program 2001 Capital the in S.C as stated proposed Improvement of the Construction Program built built ES to be Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new built Predevelopment costs for S.C & new Lorton Station ES to be built Station Lorton Predevelopment costs for S.C & new project renovation Support of Hayfield's prg support in stations tech computer Purchase ES Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new ES Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new ES Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new ES Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new ES Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new ES Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton ES to be Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton ES to be Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new built interparcel access." of the construction the "…toward Design/Const of the proposed S.C proposed of the Design/Const Predevelopment costs for new Secondary & new Lorton Station ES to be Station Lorton & new Secondary Predevelopment costs for new Construction of the proposed S.C as stated in the 2001 Capital the in S.C as stated proposed Improvement of the Construction 800 400 7,000 6,800 3,200 1,600 7,200 2,400 1,200 4,800 2,400 8,400 6,800 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 1,600 3,200 5,600 2,800 5,600 2,800 4,000 2,000 4,800 2,400 6,400 3,200 5,200 1,600 13,000 10,000 11,250 10,000 15,000 17,850 80,250 13,600 14,400 16,800 13,600 10,400 22,400 10,000 11,200 811,650 600,000 170,400 AMOUNT

DE14753 DE14753 DE14704 DE14677 DE14698 DE14888 DE14951 DE14798 DE14821 DE14850 DE14850 DE14862 DE14862 DE14871 DE14871 DE14891 DE14891 DE14896 DE14896 DE14900 DE14900 DE14903 DE14903 DE14915 DE14915 DE14922 DE14922 DE14926 DE14926 DE14933 DE14956 DE14956 DE14959 DE14959 DE14964 DE14964 DE14969 DE14969 DE14971 DE14971 DE14973 DE14973 DE14975 DE14975 DE14944 DE14966 DE14933 DE14788 DE# DE14944 REZONING CASE 2000-MV-066 2000-MV-066 2001-MV-002 2001-MV-010 2001-MV-025 2001-BR-022 2001-LE-048 1999-MV-053 2000-MV-019 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2001-MV-018 2002-PR-040 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-019 2001-MV-018 TOTAL FY 2003 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount McLaughlin Braddock- Megan Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Patty Reed Providence- Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount FY 2003 2004

91 Page 3 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT Declining card to Robinson FM for HVAC to FM for HVAC SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton to FM for Asphalt Andrew Chapel or Colvin Run ES or Colvin Chapel Run Andrew Oak View ES-Declining Card to school SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South FM- Dry ponds correction correction FM- Dry ponds SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton to FM- removing carpeting SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ------UN-SPENT

800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 7,500 6,050 1,450 7,095 3,550 2,400 1,200 3,200 1,600 4,800 2,400 5,600 2,800 8,400 1,600 72,000 20,000 15,000 26,400 13,200 16,800 345,500 EXPENDED

PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 2 ofPage 11 2 PROFFER STATEMENT .. Designed to installing.. Designed classroom modular facilities "… for purchase of equipment including but not limited not but including to computers, of equipment for purchase "… & students for the furniture and equipment books, resources reference teachers." for technology program for technology program for technology purposes Technology of Robinson's support in banks of computer purchase toward the "… project…" technology specific It is"… to FCPS at time $20,000 not of site contribute approval plan by FCPS Planning" a report was done but to Westbriar improvements "…for ..." New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 6,050 1,450 7,095 3,550 7,500 2,400 1,200 3,200 1,600 4,800 2,400 5,600 2,800 8,400 1,600 72,000 20,000 15,000 26,400 13,200 16,800 345,500 AMOUNT

DE50505 DE50505 DE14995 DE50064 DE50576 DE50035 DE50522 DE50013 DE50049 DE50049 DE50051 DE50051 DE50483 DE50483 DE50485 DE50485 DE50487 DE50487 DE50489 DE50489 DE50495 DE50495 DE50498 DE50498 DE50500 DE50500 DE50513 DE50513 DE50515 DE50515 DE50517 DE50517 DE50521 DE50521 DE50526 DE50526 DE50528 DE50528 DE50530 DE50530 DE50532 DE50532 DE50535 DE50535 DE50536 DE50536 DE50539 DE50539 DE50541 DE50541 DE50547 DE50547 DE50556 DE# REZONING CASE 2003-BR-029 2003-BR-029 2003-BR-017 2001-BR-028 2003-BR-012 2002-DR-030 2002-HM-024 2002-HM-041 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 TOTAL FY 2004 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Braddock- Megan McLaughlin Braddock- Megan McLaughlin Braddock- Megan McLaughlin Braddock- Megan McLaughlin Braddock- Megan McLaughlin Braddock- Megan Dranesville- Strauss Jane Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount FY 2005 2005

92 Page 4 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT South County SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton Hayfield FM projects SS- various SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton South County SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South South County SS- Auxiliary Gym County South and @ Gunston FM- Sewer/runoff/stream/gym Hayfield SS rack project at Robinson Kilmer MS- running MS Jackson Kilmer MS- wireless computers Fairhill computers ES- 2 desktop Fairhill ES Lorton Station ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton at HayfieldFM- Replaced concrete SS ES Bull Run ES- New trailer Station Lorton SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES- New trailer Station Lorton South County SS- Auxiliary Gym County South ------52,468 UN-SPENT

800 400 800 400 800 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 800 800 400 800 400 7,532 4,519 2,500 6,400 3,200 1,600 1,600 4,000 2,000 9,600 4,800 8,800 4,400 4,800 2,400 5,600 2,400 1,200 10,400 30,000 37,500 50,000 37,500 15,000 25,000 10,000 432,464 150,000 EXPENDED

PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 3 ofPage 11 3 PROFFER STATEMENT New South County Secondary Secondary County New South ES Station Lorton Secondary County New South ES Station Lorton New South County Secondary Secondary County New South ES, Hayfield. Capital for Lorton Middle Improvements High and ES Station Lorton "… to be applied towards the purchase of Wireless to be applied"… purchase towards the Mobile and Networking Design/Const of the proposed S.C as stated in 2001 Capital in S.C as stated proposed of the Improvement Design/Const Hayfield capital"…for MS/HS.." to Gunston, improvements fulfill"…to Principal's at the discretion…" a need … Fairhill's to support Lab Units project…" technology discretion items, of the to be applied" at the or other toward technology principal." of Wireless to be applied"… purchase towards the Mobile and Networking Fairhill's to support Lab Units project…" technology discretion items, of the to be applied" at the or other toward technology principal." items based technology of wireless or other computers purchase the "…for principal." discretionthe of the at programs Lorton Station ES and New Secondary New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton Lorton Station ES and New Secondary New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton New Secondary ES and Station Lorton Hayfield capital"…for MS/HS.." to Gunston, improvements "…shall directly be given for its use." to Bull Run ES Station Lorton Secondary County New South ES Station Lorton Fairhill to the Applicants computers two desktop shall Elementary contribute 800 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 800 800 400 800 400 800 400 800 400 6,400 3,200 1,600 1,600 4,000 2,000 9,600 4,800 8,800 4,400 4,800 2,400 4,519 5,600 2,400 1,200 2,500 37,500 50,000 25,000 10,000 10,400 60,000 30,000 37,500 15,000 432,464 150,000 AMOUNT

DE50556 DE50558 DE50558 DE50560 DE50560 DE50563 DE50563 DE50568 DE50568 DE50570 DE50570 DE50572 DE50572 DE50574 DE50574 DE14982 DE14982 DE14988 DE14988 DE14997 DE14997 DE50023 DE50023 DE50026 DE50026 DE50067 DE50067 DE50055 DE50549 DE50549 DE50004 DE50553 DE50583 DE50583 DE50589 DE50589 DE50612 DE50612 DE50085 DE50085 DE50634 DE50634 DE50094 DE50699 DE# DE50657 DE50657 REZONING CASE 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2000-MV-057 2002-MV-022 2002-MV-037 2002-MV-037 1990-P-036 2002-SU-039 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2001-MV-039 2001-MV-039 2003-MV-045 2003-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 1998-PR-004 2003-PR-008 2002-PR-047 2002-PR-047 TOTAL FY 2005 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Patty Reed Providence- SmithSully- Kathy Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Providence- Patty Reed Providence- FY 2005 2005 2006

93 Page 5 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT Key MS - renovation projectKey MS - renovation projectKey MS - renovation Mar Park ES- wirelessBren computer Eagle Project school View- new ES Capacity Enhancement projectLongfellow MS- renovation (WO2800551) kitchen HS- culinary Mt Vernon ES WOLane Gym Floor #26075710 WO ($39,389); Replacement Repair #27050880 Boiler WO & Parts ($35,000); Pumps Install #25048402 Floor Tile($26,270); Hayfield ES WO Chiller #27045092 ($83,000) Replacement ES Capacity Enhancement ES Capacity Enhancement ES Capacity Enhancement ES Capacity Enhancement projectLongfellow MS- renovation Edison HS- renovation project HS- renovation Edison ES Capacity Enhancement Glasgow building MS- replacement Cherry Run - MS Run Cherry - 52,468 UN-SPENT

- - 145 ------30,000 294,532 293,475 EXPENDED

33,500 97,500 149,855 14,190 153,000 76,600 30,000 97,500 22,504 52,500 450,000 37,500 357,525 304,244 3,000 27,300 PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 4 ofPage 11 4 PROFFER STATEMENT Schools in Lee District in Schools located schools To BOS for within Wireless Mar ES for Bren computers "… to be utilized for the provision to be utilized"… of facilities for the ES, Lake Run at Cherry Braddock MS or Lake HS…" application the serving property - BOS for mitigating to General 6/29/04 Transferred impacts to FCPS System For capital vicinity located for schools application improvements the in of the property to school pyramid in the vicinity pyramidto school the in of property Fairfax FCPS in for any Funds BOS for FCPS capital improvements to Longfellow Middle School or in vicinity of property provision of capitalfor the facilities pyramid school this serving the within development of capital vicinity the in to schools improvements construction of application property For capital vicinity located for schools application improvements the in of the property FCPS for designated specific for BOS to unit per $1875 fund to be utilized at discretion of BOS: Fund Construction School for transfer to FCPS for projects contained in the CIP for public schools the in to FCPS for projectsfor transfer contained by BOS as determined county within To BOS to be used in any school system in Fairfax County Fairfax system in school any in be used To BOS to capital pyramid located to schools improvements the within for capital improvements to schools 3,000 30,000 347,000 AMOUNT

33,500 97,500 27,300 150,000 153,000 76,600 30,000 52,500 37,500 357,525 304,244 293,475 14,190 97,500 22,504 450,000 DE50606 DE14983 DE50510 DE50732 DE50703 DE50710 DE14992 DE50616 DE50692 DE50056 DE50566 DE50792 DE50748 DE50703 DE 50652 DE14856 DE# DE50629 DE50625 REZONING CASE PCA-1986-W-001- 10/86-P-089-6 2003-DR-031 2002-LE-014 2003-LE-025 2003-LE-048 2001-MA-031 2003-MA-030 2003-SP-021 PCA 79-C-148 PCA-86-W-001- 10/86-P-089-6 2003-DR-049 2002-LE-023 2003-LE-027 2005-LE-017 2002-MA-045 2003-MA-030 2003-HM-042 2001-MA-047 TOTAL FY 2006 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth 1/ County-wide County-wide Dranesville- Strauss Jane Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Evans Sandy Mason- Evans Sandy Mason- Evans Sandy Mason- Evans Sandy Mason- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Evans Sandy Mason- Lee- Tammy Derenak Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- FY 2006 2007 2007

94 Page 6 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT Lorton Station ES Station Lorton South County HS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Capacity Enhancement project MS- renovation Jackson South County HS- Auxiliary Gym County South Fairhill ES- wireless Tech network Laurel HillLaurel ES ES Capacity Enhancement HS- Auxiliary Gym County South ES Station Lorton (WO2800551) kitchen HS- culinary Mt Vernon ES Capacity Enhancement ES Capacity Enhancement Mt Vernon HS- culinary kitchen (WO2800551) kitchen HS- culinary Mt Vernon (WO2800551) kitchen HS- culinary Mt Vernon ES WO Gym Floor #26033169 Gunston WO($37,534); Unit Top Roof #24079241 Replace WO ($12,850); Asbestos #26040938 Tile ($31,766) (WO2800551) kitchen HS- culinary Mt Vernon project -renovation Key MS & Center Hayfield SS- elevator project ($97,500) ES Capacity Enhancement projectLongfellow MS- renovation Mosby Woods project ES- modular projectMarshall HS- renovation Mosby Woods project ES- modular Bull Run ES- 25 classroom doors installmentBull Run (2801757) ES Capacity Enhancement - UN-SPENT

------97,500 - - - 82,500 - 127,500 112,500 281,520 EXPENDED

13,200 36,800 52,500 195,000 22,500 26,400 25,500 112,500 18,400 56,000 172,500 172,500 17,150 25,000 22,500 - 326,835 58,044 202,500 22,500 74,000 127,500 - PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 5 ofPage 11 5 PROFFER STATEMENT $400 for new Lorton Station ES (13,200) ES Station Lorton new for $400 $800 predevelopment cost for new SS (36,800) SS new for cost predevelopment $800 to BOS for capital application improvements to schools serving the schools For capital County Fairfax in improvements BOS for capital improvements for FCPS BOS for capital facilities subject property area of the for schools in the $800 predevelopment cost for new SS (26,400) SS new for cost predevelopment $800 vicinity the in vicinity property For capital vicinity located for schools application improvements the in of the property Capital adopted For capital the in Improvement contained improvements Program (CIP) for public Fairfax schools within County impacted for schools designated specific by the fund development: proposed Wireless for Fairhill computers ES Elementary pyramid the within specific fund for county schools for county specific fund of capital in to schools improvements construction the to BOS for contribute vicinitythe of application property (18,400) ES Station Lorton new for $400 vicinity in to schools for improvements to BOS transferred for capital Hill improvement for Laurel Public Schools (ES/MS/HS) public designated specific TO BOS for school any To BOS, for fund to BOS contribution a school to BOS contribution a school provision for capital of generated facilities$7500/student Woods Mosby at Transferred 6/29/04 to BOS for improvements to schools improvements to BOS for 6/29/04 Transferred transferred to BOS 6/29/04 for improvements to schools in the the in to schools improvements 6/29/04 for to BOS transferred District Vernon Mount the in for schools designated to BOS for specific fund impacted development by proposed CapitalSchool Improvements capital facilities FCPS pyramid within development this serving of schools capital located to schools improvements 26,400 13,200 56,000 17,150 25,000 112,500 281,520 127,500 AMOUNT

22,500 52,500 195,000 326,835 58,044 25,500 112,500 172,500 172,500 127,500 82,500 36,800 97,500 22,500 18,400 202,500 74,000 22,500 DE 50800 DE 50695 DE 50771 DE 50754 DE50683 DE50115 DE50658 DE50564 DE14918 DE14941 DE50802 DE 50800 DE50802 DE 14805 DE 50876 DE50788 DE14949 DE14950 DE50722 DE50750 DE 14721 DE 14786 DE 14953 DE 50591 DE50630 DE50717 DE# REZONING CASE 2000-MV-045 2004-MV-031 2004-MV-032 2004-MV-041 PCA 80-P-039-08 PCA 84-P-007 2002-PR-047 2003-PR-002 2002-MV-026 2002-MV-046 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-051 2003-MV-034 84-P-101-03 2002-PR-025 2002-PR-025 2003-PR-009 2003-PR-037 2001-MV-021 2001-MV-030 2002-MV-020 2003-MV-023 2003-PR-043 2004-PR-018 DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- FY 2007 2007

95 Page 7 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT Stuart HS- Running track HS- Running Stuart Marshall HS- CCTV system (WO2801088) project SS-renovation Braddock Lake Eagle Project school View- new Westfield HS- addition project $51,318 Balance MS- Entrance Carson Stenwood ES- technology project ES- technology Stenwood project SS-renovation Braddock Lake Willow ES WO Springs Retention #25089668 project East ES- renovation Greenbriar Jackson MS- renovation project MS- renovation Jackson Centreville project HS- modular Chantilly Project HS- Modular for title (WO2701319) replacement Rocky Run Chantilly Project HS- Modular South County HS- Auxiliary Gym WO2700108 County South Pond Repairs ($36,360.00) Pond Centreville stalls; HS-shower to modular $3765 project HS- safety improvement Herndon Robinson SS- modular classroom SS- modular Robinson project - renovation Key MS & Center panels SS-Scoreboard County South panels SS- Scoreboard County South panels SS- Scoreboard County South ------30 165,227 UN-SPENT

217,063 - 1,703 - - - 35,215 ------800 6,400 8,272 22,470 20,000 30,000 15,000 27,200 31,200 EXPENDED

5,531,028 22,500 19,582 22,500 203,670 15,000 16,103 28,380 15,000 31,928 158,574 22,500 112,530 82,500 31,200 247,520 PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 6 ofPage 11 6 PROFFER STATEMENT for capital improvements to nearby Capital facilities for schools of capital public in improvements Construction vicinity in schools or property SS(6,400) new for cost predevelopment $800 schools CapitalTo BOS for for Equipment impactedSchools development by proposed servicedin area For capital vicinity located for schools application improvements the in of the property property classroom modular longer is HS. If the no classroom at Herndon modular item of similar an time of record plat the at then needed may be value principal Fairfax discretion by the as determined of the at the substituted Board School County To BOS for capitalTo BOS for improvements to school pyramid in the vicinity pyramidto school the in of property vicinity the in to Schools of property BOS for capital improvements for FCPS Sully in schools for designated District specificTo BOS for fund For capital vicinity located for schools application improvements the in of the property of capital vicinity to public improvements construction the in schools For the property of the Installation Classrooms of Modular for publicSupervisors Board of Lee District in in schools to the (27,200) SS new for cost predevelopment $800 (31,200) SS new for cost predevelopment $800 SS new for cost predevelopment $800 to school pyramid in the vicinity pyramidto school the in of property designated specificTo BOS for fund impactedfor schools by this development For capital vicinity located for schools application improvements the in of the School impactedSchool by development to BOS for capital property improvements to schools serving the AMOUNT 21,285 15,000 28,380 22,500 112,530 82,500 31,200 20,000 22,500 6,400 22,500 5,748,092 22,500 203,670 51,318 173,499 30,000 15,000 27,200 31,200 800 15,000 247,520 31,928 158,574 DE50648 DE50687 DE50578 DE50736 DE50873 DE50840 DE 50830 DE5002-1 DE50000 DE50714 DE50503 DE50736 DE50875 DE50846 DE50834 DE 50874 DE 50868 DE 50865 DE5002-2 DE50518 DE50744 DE50668 DE50686 DE50726 DE# REZONING CASE 2004-PR-033 2002-SU-042 2003-SU-061 2004-SU-009 2005-SU-011 2003-DR-058 2005-MA-030 2000-MV-045 1999-PR-035 2003-SP-018 2004-SP-013 2003-SU-024 2005-SU-011 PCA 86-C-029-10 2003-BR-003 2003-LE-053 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 1999-PR-035 2003-SP-020 2005-SU-013 2002-SP-033 2004-SP-004 TOTAL FY 2007 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth SmithSully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy 1/ McLaughlin Braddock- Megan Dranesville- Strauss Jane Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Evans Sandy Mason- Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth SmithSully- Kathy Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth FY 2007 2008

96 Page 8 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT Falls Church- for computer lab for computer Falls Church- MS- roof repairFranklin Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Bull Run ES- Chiller Bull Replacement Run Lorton Station ES- New trailer Station Lorton ES- New trailer Station Lorton ES- New trailer Station Lorton ES- New trailer Station Lorton ES- New trailer Station Lorton Lorton Station ES- New trailer Station Lorton lab MS- computer Jackson Freedom Hill Project ES- Renovation Check (00599697) to City (00599697) of Fairfax Check Check (#00599697) to City (#00599697) of Fairfax Check ------53 6,787 9,090 UN-SPENT

181,187 ------400 3,200 9,713 7,500 60,000 30,000 13,600 15,600 23,910 22,447 22,500 277,500 232,500 EXPENDED

880,212 PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 7 ofPage 11 7 PROFFER STATEMENT shall be directed toward needs at Lee Corner ES, Franklin ES, Chantilly ES, Franklin HS shall Corner at Lee be directed toward needs Sully Districtthe by determined as Representative Board School lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) computer lab and LCD projector lab and computer vicinityfor capital property subject the in schools of the improvements to the $400 for new Lorton Station ES(3,200) Station Lorton new for $400 ES(13,600) Station Lorton new for $400 ES(15,600) Station Lorton new for $400 ES Station Lorton new for $400 (33,000) SS new for cost predevelopment $500 ES(16,500) Station Lorton new for $250 LCD projector lab and computer For the construction of capital vicinity to public improvements construction the in schools For the property (1st installment) of the Capital property pyramid for school within improvements the serving Capital Improvement or capacity enhancements within the school pyramid school the within Capital or capacity enhancements Improvement property the serving 7,500 AMOUNT

60,000 277,500 30,000 2,750 2,705 2,705 2,705 2,705 2,705 1,061,399 3,200 13,600 15,600 400 33,000 16,500 22,500 232,500 22,500 DE50844 DE50814 DE50886 DE50952 DE50943 DE50942 DE50935 DE50934 DE50933 DE 50830 DE 50874 DE 50868 DE 50865 DE 50876 DE 50876 DE50845 DE# DE50881 DE50860 DE50821 REZONING CASE 2003-PR-009 2004-SU-015 2005-SU-007 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-045 2000-MV-049 2000-MV-049 2003-PR-009 2203-PR-008 2004-SP-002 2005-SP-012 TOTAL FY 2008 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- SmithSully- Kathy Dranesville- Strauss Jane Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Sully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy FY 2009 2008

97 Page 9 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT Jackson MS - auditorium seat replacement MS - auditorium Jackson track Marshall running HS - install epoxy new Garfield title room ES -new for band Stuart HS- replace visitorStuart side bleachers Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system Westbriar, Kilmer , Marshall- replacement radios/batteriessecurity replacement Crossfield, & Oakton- Carson radios/batteriessecurity Kilmer security MS- replacement radios/batteries 2 trailers ES- set up Parklawn chiller replacement Gunston- Springhill Capacity ES- 2009 Bond Enhancement trailers radios/batteriessecurity Stuart HS- gym floor refinishing Stuart 2 & set up Eagle purchase View ES- out-right Eagle View, replacement Fairfax- Lanier, Clermont ES Clermont Marshall field HS- stadium lighting controls system project construction new ES- Coppermine Crossfield ES- gym Floor MS Mark Twain HS Edison Fairfax HS- wallFairfax Stuart HS- gym dividerStuart Carson MS- gym floor Carson ------920 960 850 5,205 10,000 UN-SPENT

- - 17,935 35 262,500 - - 5,478 6,090 7,500 14,280 85,988 61,338 24,800 13,095 73,900 10,000 28,440 10,000 14,050 13,950 175,000 141,772 156,060 EXPENDED

30,000 232,500 841,741 2,048 - PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 8 ofPage 11 8 PROFFER STATEMENT For projects contained in the CIP for public schools w/in Fairfax County that that CIP for public County Fairfax w/in schools the in For projects contained property subject serve the HS) MS & Falls(Camelot ES, Jackson Church of capital vicinity in improvements Construction 2nd is - this of school the RUP final) at 300th installment(and due Hill( Freedom Kilmer ES, Marshall MS & HS) Capital (Crossfield, 8 schools for Cluster improvements Oakton) Carson, Capital site serving for school (Wolftrap, Improvements Kilmer, Madison) Hayfield) MV district in To school impacted (Gunston, by development $2,705 per lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) HS as deemed ES, Glasgow of Parklawn For improvement MS,Stuart appropriatelyadministration Schools' by appropriatelyadministration Schools' by capital or repair improvements, For construction, of deferred maintenance, classrooms of modular pyramid for school property (Spring serving purchase Hill, Longfellow, McLean) (Eagleproperty View, Fairfax) Lanier, (Eagleproperty View, Fairfax) Lanier, CIP for public FFX within To be utilized schools the in for projects contained CO (Garfield Lee HS) ES, Key MS & $10,000 each to Clermont ES, Mark Twain MS & Edison HS & Edison MS Mark Twain ES, Clermont to each $10,000 $2,705 per lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) ES -capitalCoppermine facility improvements Capital (Crossfield, 8 schools for Cluster improvements Oakton) Carson, HS & Edison MS Mark Twain ES, Clermont to each $10,000 HS & Edison MS Mark Twain ES, Clermont to each $10,000 HS as deemed ES, Glasgow of Parklawn For improvement MS,Stuart dwelling per $780 capital for unit the serving schools to improvements Capital vicinity in for schools improvements East, of property (Greenbriar Fairfax) Lanier, Construction of capital to public improvements Construction vicinity in schools of property HS) Forest ES, Glasgow( Glen MS & Stuart $780 per dwelling per $780 capital for unit the serving schools to improvements For improvement of Parklawn ES, Glasgow MS,Stuart HS as deemed HS as deemed ES, Glasgow of Parklawn For improvement MS,Stuart appropriatelyadministration Schools' by Capital (Crossfield, 8 schools for Cluster improvements Oakton) Carson, 2,083 30,000 232,500 262,500 AMOUNT

2,705 2,705 61,338 24,800 73,900 5,478 175,000 10,000 859,676 2,705 156,060 29,400 10,000 10,000 15,200 141,772 7,500 85,988 14,900 13,950 DE50988 DE50926 DE50925 DE50917 DE50904 DE50927 DE50937 DE50893 DE50967 DE50932 DE50949 DE50917 DE50967 DE50967 DE50927 DE50931 DE50921 DE50970 DE50973 DE50974 DE50931 DE50927 DE# DE50917 REZONING CASE 2003-PR-008 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2006-HM-020 2007-HM-015 2002-MA-015 2002-MV-020 2002-PR-016 2005-LE-032 2005-DR-006 2003-HM-046 2006-HM-020 2005-LE-032 2005-LE-032 2002-MA-015 2005-SP-019 2006-SP-011 2003-LE-011 2005-MA-008 2005-MA-014 2005-SP-019 2002-MA-015 2006-HM-020 TOTAL FY 2009 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Lee- Tammy Derenak Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Evans Sandy Mason- Evans Sandy Mason- Patty Reed Providence- Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Evans Sandy Mason- Mason- Sandy Evans Sandy Mason- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Mason- Sandy Evans Sandy Mason- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Hunter Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes FY 2009 2009 2010

98 Page 10 of 12 Budget Question #37 . PROJECT Jackson MS- Turf Field MS- Turf Jackson Chantilly HS - field cameras WO21001443 Lee HS- Cameras /1 Cameras HS- Lee West Springfield HS- Cameras /1 Reserve) ( Dean's Marshall HS- Cameras /1 Marshall HS- Cameras /1 Hold Board member comments - Lee School Custodial ($16,775); MS- New canopy Twain Supplies ($4,400); sidewalkRepaving Custodial lift ($95,000) and ($6,000)- machine 5/10/2012 approved on Dean West Sandburg /1 and Potomac HS- cameras MS- Project /2 MS- Project /2 Marshall Road ES- Project West Potomac HS- cameras /1 and Sandburg West Sandburg /1 and Potomac HS- cameras Marshall HS- Cameras /1 South County SS- resign the SS as HS (FM) the SS- resign County South Fairfax HS- Summer 2011 Roofing project 2011 Roofing HS- Summer Fairfax Mt Vernon HS- Cameras /1 Mt Vernon Marshall HS- Cameras /1 Marshall HS- Cameras /1 Madison HS - Cameras /1 Madison ES - project /2 Cunningham Marshall HS- cameras Hayfield SS- camera - - 2,705 2,705 3,624 2,705 2,083 7,500 2,705 2,705 2,705 15,000 33,600 30,000 81,604 107,548 885,000 UN-SPENT

136,187 15,496 4,314 282,345 ------500 23,994 273,376 EXPENDED

- 29,504 - - 294,052 - PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) Page 9 ofPage 11 9 PROFFER STATEMENT Synthetic Turf Fields Turf Synthetic (Jackson MS) (Jackson (Garfieldcase rezoning to due projected for - only 3 Lot students in increase ES, Key MS, Lee HS) HS) Whitman MS , Mt Vernon For capital pyramid school (Cardinal the within improvements Forest ES, MS, WestIrving Springfield HS) Villa HS) ES, Fairfax ES, Lanier capital for - property only 46 Lot the serving schools for improvements (Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) (Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) capital for - property only 48 Lot the serving school for improvements (Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) (Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Capital Facilities Site Serving For Schools HS) MS, Edison ES, Twain (Franconia capitalTo BOS for Carl Elementary, Sandburg to Groveton improvements Intermediate Westand - $500 still School Potomac High total of $277,500 for grand due West MS, Sandburg ES, HS) Potomac (Groveton West MS, Sandburg ES, HS) Potomac (Groveton utilized Board, to be School DPWES County to Fairfax to the transfer for the for capital improvements Capital adopted Program for Public the in School. Improvement contained (Mosby Woods HS) MS, Oakton ES, Jackson Improvements to school pyramidImprovements serving property ( Woodley Hills ES, Provision of capital facilities site pyramid school ( Fairfax the serving the in lot per $2,705 capital for property serving schools in improvements (Westbriar, Kilmer, Marshall) capital for - property only 4 Lot the serving school for improvements Schools Capital In Improvements For $800 - Unit Per $1200 Elementary Station $400 For Lorton School, Of Secondary Construction School Capital facilities serviced area the within for school Chantilly MS & Franklin Escalation(Navy ES, HS) * Balance of initialBalance DE51052 paid under contribution Capital impacted for schools development by proposed equipment HS) MS , Madison ES, Thoreau (Cunningham capital for - property only 55 Lot the serving school for improvements (Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) For Schools Impacted By Proposed Development Development Impacted By Proposed For Schools (Hayfield ES, Hayfield SS) 7,500 4,314 45,000 576,397 AMOUNT

2,083 15,000 2,705 2,705 107,548 277,000 885,000 136,187 30,000 2,705 2,705 2,705 33,600 500 81,604 2,705 23,994 DE51026 DE51029 DE51056 DE51080 DE51110 DE51052 DE51077 DE50995 DE50997 DE51042 DE51055 DE51059 DE51112 DE51107 DE51006 DE51053 DE# DE51008 DE51070 DE51116 REZONING CASE 2003-LE-011 2004-SP-001 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2010-LE-007 2004-LE-012 2003-PR-022 2005-PR-041 2004-MV-030 2004-SP-027 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2001-MV-018 2005-SU-013 2004-LE-012 2003-PR-026 2005-DR-006 2001-LE-024 TOTAL FY 2011 FY TOTAL TOTAL FY 2010 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Sully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy Lee- Tammy Derenak Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Springfield- Schultz Elizabeth Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- Lee- Tammy Derenak Kaufax Derenak Tammy Lee- FY 2011 2012 2012 2010

99 Page 11 of 12 Budget Question #37 $130K (D&C) $130K PROJECT $73,000 Kilmer MS- additional , bleachers $57,000.00(2120298) project.Marshall bond $58,889.00 HS- balance (D&C) Hill Spring ES- Project Gym floor & Auditorium Cunningham Park ES- Roof top unit, FS's FS's unit, Park ES- Roof top Cunningham estimate $50K (FM) $22K classroom MS- balance furniture Thoreau pilot program (D &C) Marshall Road ES- Project FM will MS- carpet replacement, Jackson review Fairhill , D& C will ES- space configuration provide estimate cost HS- FM projects Falls Church estimate HS- Camera - S&S's Falls Church $27K Lemon Road- pending boundary change change boundary Road- pending Lemon (Spring/Fall 2012). Marshall 3-7-2012) HS- Camera ( meeting FM will MS- carpet replacement, Jackson review Fairhill , D& C will ES- space configuration provide estimate cost HS- FM projects: Falls Church estimate HS- Camera - S&S's Falls Church $27K Shrevewood ES- gym floor ES- gym 25K (FM) Shrevewood , Kilmer quad new MS- hold- - 7,500 2,705 2,705 3,126 2,705 2,705 2,705 2,705 72,100 34,375 885,000 398,078 433,357 156,899 UN-SPENT

3,033,311 ------57,000 175,000 EXPENDED

529,870 White Oaks ES, Lake ES, Lake White Oaks Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Marshall MS, Kilmer ES, Westbriar Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Marshall MS, Kilmer ES, Westbriar Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Marshall MS, Kilmer ES, Westbriar PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) PROFFER STATEMENT Page 10 of 11 Page 10 Braddock Secondary) Braddock For improvements to Luther Jackson Middle Jackson School to Luther For improvements Capital ( Improvements 2nd installment (of total $950K due) for public school funding for installment for public (of total2nd funding school $950K due) construction, or lease capital or purchase repair improvements, of deferred maintenance classroomsof modular pyramidfor school property (1st installment serving collected under DE50893) Hill (Spring HS) ES, Longfellow MS, McLean ( PUBLIC SCHOOLS SERVING PROPERTY For capital (Westbriar area serving to schools improvement ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) For capital (Westbriar area serving to schools improvement ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) For capital (Westbriar area serving to schools improvement ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) For Capital Area Serving To Schools Improvements HS) MS, Madison Park ES, Thoreau (Cunningham Capital ( Improvements to the DPWES for the transfer to Fairfax County School Board, School DPWES County to Fairfax to the transfer for the Capitalto be utilized adopted for capital the in contained improvements Program for Public Improvement School. HS) (Mosby Woods MS, Oakton ES, Jackson Bos To Development By Projected Generated Be To Student Per $12,400 That School At The For CapitalCapacity Enhancements And Improvements WillStudents Attend. (Fairhill HS) MS, Falls ES, Jackson Church Capital ( Improvements Capital (Freedom Hill improvements ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Capital & Capacity Enhancements Improvements (Fairhill HS) MS, Falls ES, Jackson Church $11,630 Per Expected Student For Capital Improvements For Any School School Capital For Any For Improvements Student Expected Per $11,630 Will By Development Generated Students That - Building 4 Only Attend Kilmer ES, (Shrevewood MS, Marshall HS) AMOUNT 7,500 175,000 3,126 2,705 2,705 2,705 3,563,181 2,705 72,100 2,705 885,000 398,078 2,705 34,375 433,357 213,899 DE51079 DE51062 DE51191 DE51129 DE51156 DE51182 DE51154 DE51106 DE51190 DE51078 DE51105 DE51184 DE# DE51060 DE51115 DE51087 REZONING CASE 2004-PR-008 2002-PR-016-02 2010-BR-003 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2005-DR-006 2009-PR-021 2005-DR-006 2003-PR-022 2005-PR-041 2005-DR-006 2004-PR-006 2005-PR-041 2007-PR-001 TOTAL FY 2012 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Dranesville- Strauss Jane Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Dranesville- Strauss Jane Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- McLaughlin Braddock- Megan Dranesville- Strauss Jane Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- FY 2012 2013 2013

100 Page 12 of 12 Budget Question #37 PROJECT 994 8,250 2,705 19,047 19,353 37,512 194,454 190,919 190,919 113,000 796,509 4,717,007 UN-SPENT

------9,961,049 EXPENDED

Oakton ES, Jackson MS, Shrevewood ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall ES, Kilmer Shrevewood Shrevewood ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall ES, Kilmer Shrevewood Westbriar ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Marshall MS, Kilmer ES, Westbriar PROFFERS (FY2003-FY2013) PROFFER STATEMENT Page 11 of 11 Page 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ( IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL $750/Unit to South County Secondary School (11 Units)(Laurel Hill (11 Units)(Laurel School Secondary ES, County to South $750/Unit HS) County MS, South County South School Capital For Any For Improvements Student Expected Per $11,630 Will By Development Generated Students That - Building 4 Only Attend Kilmer ES, (Shrevewood MS, Marshall HS) HS) ( IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL HS) ( IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL HS) PROVISION OF CAP FACILITIES WITHIN SERVING THE PYRAMID DEVELOPMENT HS) Chantilly MS, ES, Franklin ( Brookfield WITHINFOR CAP FACILITIES SERVING DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS HS) Chantilly MS, ES, Franklin ( Brookfield Capital Improvements for schools serving property- balance of proffer due Capital due of proffer property- balance serving for schools Improvements Navy ES, ( time at for payment of accounted escalation cost not on based MS, ChantillyFranklin HS) For capital (Westbriar area serving to schools improvement ES, Kilmer MS, Marshall HS) Capital ( Improvements 19,353 796,509 14,678,056 AMOUNT

190,919 8,250 194,454 190,919 113,000 19,047 994 37,512 2,705 DE51178 DE51155 DE51145 DE51179 DE51181 DE51162 DE51164 DE51153 DE51141 DE51189 DE# REZONING CASE 2007-PR-001 2000-MV-019 2007-PR-001 2007-PR-001 2010-PR-010 2010-SU-015 2011-SU-003 2005-SU-011 2010-HM-006 2005-DR-006 TOTAL FY 2013 FY TOTAL DISTRICT SUPERVISORY TOTAL UN-SPENT BALANCE ( FY2003-FY2013) BALANCE UN-SPENT TOTAL Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- SmithSully- Kathy Sully- Kathy SmithSully- Kathy Providence- Patty Reed Providence- Patty Reed Providence- SmithSully- Kathy Mount Vernon- Dan Storck Dan Vernon- Mount Hunter Mill-Hunter Pat Hynes Dranesville- Strauss Jane FY 2013

101 CD# PH-03 Question #38

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Pat Hynes

Answer Prepared By: Terri Breeden

Date Prepared: April 8, 2013

Question: Related to the cost and allocation of instructional coaches: a) How many instructional coaches does FCPS have in total? b) What is the total cost of those positions and the cost per position? c) Who determines if a school has an instructional coach?

Related to the responsibilities of instructional coaches: a) Please provide the job description for an instructional coach. b) What percentage of instructional coaches’ time is spent in schools? c) What percentage of time do instructional coaches spend working directly with students?

Response: Cost and allocation of instructional coaches: a) How many instructional coaches does FCPS have in total? There are 78 instructional coaches.

b) What is the total cost of those positions and the cost per position? An instructional coach is funded at the same rate as a teacher on a 218-day contract. The cost per instructional coach is $107,774 (based on average salary and benefits); total cost for 78 instructional coaches is $8,406,372. However, instructional coaches are funded in various ways. There are 22 positions that have been in the baseline budget since FY 2006. Ten positions are funded through Title I funding and 19 are funded through another federal grant, Title II-A. The PSI initiative funds 11 instructional coaches and individual schools are funding 16 positions.

c) Who determines if a school has an instructional coach? For FCPS funded coaches, Cluster Assistant Superintendents work with their schools to determine where instructional coaches should be placed and a component of the PSI was to place a coach in each of the schools. Title l and Title ll-A are federal grants and the positions are based on grant criteria. For school funded coaching positions, principals determine if he/ she would like to fund a coach. All instructional coaches are supervised and evaluated by their principal.

102 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #38 Responsibilities of instructional coaches: a) Please provide the job description for an instructional coach. The purpose of the Instructional Coaching program is to raise the student achievement in reading and math, close the achievement gaps, and develop cultures of collaboration. The instructional coaches follow a specific plan of action in working with teachers in their schools. This action model cycle specifies how the instructional coaches do their work and mirrors how teachers work with students. For example, instructional coaches first must build relationships with colleagues, just as teachers work to build relationships with students. At any given point, instructional coaches are able to identify how they are working on the continuous cycle. The coaching work, whether with a new teacher, a veteran teacher, or a group of teachers, will always center on the bottom line: reading, math, and closing the gap in a culture of collaboration. The instructional coaches are also guided by their FCPS Instructional Coaching Standards to ensure there is an alignment with district and best practices research.

The instructional coaches work mainly with teams of teachers when performing the coaching work. Instructional coaches in FCPS allocate their time so they spend 60 percent working with teams of teachers, 30 percent working with individual teachers, and 10 percent on their own professional development. In addition, building capacity within teachers and teams creates a culture of teacher leaders who are comfortable with data analysis, collaboration, and facilitating professional development. Creating this culture supports the mission of the Instructional Coaching program which is to build the adult learners' capacity to advance the achievement of all students and to close achievement gaps.

b) What percentage of instructional coaches’ time is spent in schools? Ninety percent of the instructional coaches’ time is spent in schools.

c) What percentage of time do instructional coaches spend working directly with students? Instructional coaches work directly with students if the coach is modeling or co-teaching in the classroom.

103 CD# RM-01 Question #39

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Ryan McElveen

Answer Prepared By: Terri Breeden

Date Prepared: April 9, 2013

Question: How much would it cost to fund only the training cost of the national board certification for teachers? Only the stipends? How much funding does the state provide for national board certification, and how has that amount changed over time?

Response: The training cost for the National Board Professional Teaching Standards program is approximately $35,900, which includes the costs for providing courses and professional development for teachers, and paying a National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT) an hourly rate to manage the program.

The FCPS stipends for National Board Certified Teachers were eliminated in FY 2011. Prior to the stipends being eliminated, FCPS provided a $3,500 stipend to NBCT’s in high-need schools and a $1,750 stipend to teachers in nonhigh-need schools. NBCT teachers teaching in nonhigh-need schools had the option to complete a special project for an additional stipend of $1,750. If all 303 eligible NBCT earned the full $3,500, the stipend cost would be $1,060,500.

The Virginia State Department of Education provides a stipend of $2,500 to continuing NBCTs and a stipend of $5,000 to new NBCTs, for a total award to FCPS in FY 2013 of $840,000 which is then disbursed to NBCTs by FCPS.

A state grant that provided $1,250 toward the NBCT candidate’s assessment and processing fees was available through FY 2013. That grant has been discontinued.

104 CD# BOS-11 Question #40

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Terri Breeden, Maribeth Luftglass, and Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 16, 2013

Question: What are the costs and benefits of maintaining, reducing or eliminating the following: 1. Administrative Intern Program ($1 million) 2. Locally funded” portion of the video production group ($3.8 million) 3. eCART 4. Extended teacher contracts ($3.5 million) 5. Consulting and other expenses for professional training, facilitators, and speakers (over $10 million).

Response: 1. Administrative Intern Program The Administrative Intern Program is a key part of FCPS’ Administrative Succession Plan. Under the guidance of highly-qualified mentor principals, each of the ten interns serve as a member of a school-based administrative team at two schools during a school year. This job embedded professional development provides real-life, real-time experiences for the intern and provides additional support for schools.

The administrative intern curriculum is designed and delivered by Professional Learning and Accountability’s Office of Leadership Development, in collaboration with the principals of host schools. Interns are selected through a competitive panel process and leave their schools or central office positions to assume the duties of an intern. Nearly all the cost of the Administrative Intern Program is to pay 10 teachers to replace each intern for the year of his/her internship.

FCPS has hired 261 administrators from October 2009 through April 2013 (177 Assistant Principals; 84 Principals), indicating an ongoing need for highly qualified leaders in FCPS’ schools. The Administrative Intern Program has a 10-year history of producing successful assistant principals, principals, and assistant superintendents.

This program is designed following the research of Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos, 2009. With the “graying” of the baby boomer generation, now more than ever, FCPS must continue to prepare administrators for its leadership positions.

2. “Locally funded” portion of the video production group The Multimedia Services program in the Department of Information Technology provides enterprisewide services in video production, cable television distribution, multimedia design, logistics and event support, online and face-to-face training, multimedia content for instruction, and

105 Page 2 of 6 Budget Question #40 media outreach to schools. It should be noted that the $3.8 million for the “locally funded” portion of the video production group referenced in the question in fact reflects the entire Multimedia Service Center’s operating budget. The video production group represents funding in the amount of $0.3 million.

The description of the services provided with the $3.8 million from the operating fund and the impact of eliminating these funds follow:

Digital Media Production • Television and video production services to meet the requirements of the instructional, public information, and staff development programs. Some of this programming is distributed nationally and attracts major grants. More than 780 video projects are produced annually. • Live coverage of School board meetings and work sessions. Archived video streams of past meetings and work sessions • 24/7 live streaming of FCPS Channel 21. In FY 2012, FCPS video streams were accessed 259,058 times (school board meetings accessed 63,041 times) Without operating funds, live video streaming of FCPS Channel 21 (public information programming, school board meetings) and archived (on-demand) streaming of board meetings, work sessions, public information programs, and Best Practices for Teaching and Learning videos would be cut. Additionally, support video production for public information, instruction and staff development would be reduced by 25%.

Multimedia Design • Professional design services for more than 1,500 projects annually including those for instruction, assessment, and professional development • Video graphics for public information, instructional and staff development and training programming including online courses • Presentation graphics for meetings, in-service training, conferences, school board meetings • Photography services for all Multimedia products; photography support for events Without the operating budget, Multimedia Design services would be reduced by more than 80 percent. Photography support would no longer be provided for design, event or web support. Services impacted would include design and creation of instructional and assessment materials, public information material, custom online courses for teacher training, and support for the FCPS public web and intranet sites.

Multimedia Engineering • Support for the design, specification, procurement, installation, repair, and support services for video infrastructure, production equipment, video streaming, fiber, satellite, and mobile systems. • Management of all televised School Board meetings and engineering for special events is also provided. Support is provided enterprise-wide for major video infrastructure and school production facilities. Without the operating funds, support to the technical FCPS production and cable distribution facilities would be reduced by 40 percent. Support to schools for design and installation of TV production facilities, and support for videoconferencing would not be provided. Support for remote production facilities at Luther Jackson MS, Gatehouse Administration Center, and the electronic classroom at Hayfield Secondary School would be reduced. 106 Page 3 of 6 Budget Question #40 Logistics and Master Control • Management of master control for FCPS’ six-channel cable network, audio/video duplication, and satellite receive systems. Over 30,000 hours of programming broadcast in FY 2012 including 360 hours of televised Arabic I,II and III classes. • Master control is also linked to remote studios at the Luther Jackson School Board Room, and distance learning classrooms and videoconferencing systems throughout FCPS, at the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center, and at Mount Vernon Estate and Gardens. • Management and oversight of the logistical support for over 200 mission-critical events annually, such as Leadership Conference, enterprise wide in-services, public forums, boundary and other community meetings, staff development conferences, and special commemorative events. Without operating funds, Logistics and Event support would be cut by 50 percent, reducing support for county in-services, principals meetings, community engagement events, and school events. Audio and video duplication services to the schools would no longer be provided.

Media and Training • Management and delivery of online educational multimedia content to schools to support instruction. Media and Training budget funds the annual licensing fee for this video service where teachers downloaded over 274,000 videos for classroom use in FY 2012. • Professional resources to FCPS teachers through outreach operations such as the Teaching Materials Preparation Center (TMPC). This service, which is accessed daily by teachers, provides quality consultation and instruction, as well as access to equipment and materials required to meet individual and school needs. Over 4,200 visits (in person and online service requests) in FY 2012. • Management and delivery of online technology training for FCPS personnel, a key component in FCPS departmental professional development plans providing skills development training via the Internet that is available to all FCPS employees. The Media and Training budget funds the annual contract with SkillSoft to provide online courses. Over 46,000 employees accessed these courses in FY 2012. • Management and delivery of face-to-face technology training for FCPS personnel. Over 100 courses in Microsoft Office and Adobe applications were offered to FCPS staff in FY 2012. • Cable programming, procurement, and distribution of instructional programming throughout the enterprise, as well as national outreach through the Fairfax Network. FCPS programming was distributed to over 16,000 schools in North America in FY 2012, Without the operating funds, support to classroom instruction via digital streaming media would not be provided. Teachers would no longer have access to a facility to produce instructional materials such as posters, displays, and classroom videos. Technology integration consulting to schools and support for school TV studios would not be provided. Technology training (online and face-to-face) would no longer be offered to FCPS staff.

3. eCART eCART, which provides teachers with curriculum, assessments, resources and tools for teaching and learning, is a key component of the technology-enhanced instructional model used in FCPS that enables differentiated instruction, reinforces learning, and addresses individual needs of students. eCART also supports the work of collaborative teams. eCART is used to deliver assessments, resources, and programs of studies for more than 170 different curricular areas. Usage of the eCART tool has grown every year since the tool was introduced divisionwide. 107 Page 4 of 6 Budget Question #40 eCART includes a Curriculum Repository used to manage and share the program of studies, assessment items, and instructional resources. Currently the repository includes the standards, benchmarks, and indicators for more than 170 content areas (subjects), 13,984 instructional resources (including lesson plans), and 34,492 assessment items. eCART also includes the Horizon assessment system that provides for teacher-created, as well as, district-created assessments. In school year 2011-2012 students completed 3,419,751 assessments—only 16 percent were district mandated assessments. Further, EDSL eCART provides for the longitudinal data reporting of student assessment results in alignment with the standards, benchmarks, and indicators. In 2012, teachers and staff accessed EDSL eCART dashboards and reports 64,520 times.

Elimination or reduction of the program would have the following impacts:

a) Teacher work load would further increase: eCART provides teachers access to curriculum, resources, and assessments that support teaching and learning. Without this tool, teacher work load would increase because teachers would be forced to look multiple places for resources. Additionally, the use of data for formative assessment would require significantly more effort to analyze and respond to. Teacher efficiency and productivity would be reduced because they would be forced to spend time determining if they have the most up to date programs of studies and instructional resources. b) Student achievement may be affected: eCART provides students with access to information on their performance on eCART assessments. This data helps students to take ownership of their learning and results in increased student learning. Without this tool, student achievement may drop because students would not have easy access to information about assessment results. c) Support for schools would decrease: With the eCART tool, FCPS is able to easily respond to school need. Recently schools requested Technology Enhanced Items to use with students. Instructional Services was able to respond, develop these resources, and deliver them to schools through eCART. Without eCART in place, this type of responsive support would not be possible. d) Curriculum updates would become very burdensome to teachers and instructional personnel: The Virginia Department of Education has a seven-year revision cycle for state standards of learning. This requires FCPS to update programs of studies and related assessments and resources. eCART tools allow FCPS to update programs of students, realign centrally provided resources and assessments to the new standards, and update teacher created questions to the new programs of studies through automated processes. Without eCART in place, implementing curriculum updates would require significantly more effort by people throughout the school division. e) Management of FCPS intellectual property would be difficult: eCART serves as a central repository for FCPS intellectual property. Without eCART, FCPS would not have a central system to manage FCPS intellectual property, which would result in inefficient content management.

The eCART budget covers the costs for the Curriculum Repository, Horizon, and EDSL eCART. The budget is differentiated between recurring maintenance funds necessary to use eCART and development funds to cover enhancements requested by the schools. The maintenance and development budgets are detailed below.

The annual maintenance and support budget for FCPS eCART effective in FY 2013, including budgeted positions, is $2,769,332. The annual maintenance budget breaks down as follows:

108 Page 5 of 6 Budget Question #40 • Hosting and maintenance costs for FCPS eCART applications: $1,350,118 • Horizon assessment application hosting and maintenance • eCART Resource Search and Retrieval tool software maintenance • EDSL eCART data warehouse and reporting application software maintenance • Curriculum Repository software maintenance • Application support staff funding: Hourly - $110,086 • Processing assessment results for the more than 670,904 paper and pencil assessments administered: Contracted - $103,700 • Printing and distribution of over 130,000 booklets supporting the two district assessment administrations each year: Contracted - $65,000 • Budgeted positions with benefits: • 4.0 Instructional Services FCPS 24/7 Learning curriculum area specialists: $577,329 • 1.0 Instructional Services eCART Program Manager: $171,444 • 1.0 PLA psychometrician supporting assessment and assessment item analysis: $131,680 • 2.0 IT technical specialists providing support for EDSL eCART: $259,975

In addition to the annual maintenance budget, there is $989,857 for development. The development budget addresses mandatory overhaul of the curriculum to align with the Standards of Learning, as well as enhancements requested by the schools. The FY 2013 development budget breaks down as follows:

• Instructional Services curriculum development to align with state standards and to refresh assessments and instructional resources for the new school year: $350,000 • Curriculum Repository enhancements to support new question types that students will experience on SOL tests and to provide a more “Google-like” instructional resource search: $136,229 • EDSL eCART enhancements to support reporting longitudinal assessment results by elementary class enrollments and current class roster, to provide enhanced dashboards to support cumulative standards, benchmarks, and indicators performance, and provide reports on teacher- scoreable assessments: $351,180 • Northrop Grumman and Blackboard support for the items above: $152,448

The total FY 2013 budget, including maintenance and development, is $3,759,189 .

In addition, Project Management Oversight Committee (PMOC) funding of $372,022 was used in FY 2013 to support eCART; however, this funding is not part of the annual eCART budget. PMOC funding is not dedicated to a specific project and may be allocated to other initiatives in future years.

4. Extended Time for Teachers The FY 2014 budget includes $3.5 million to extend teachers’ time to support their collective work building professional learning communities that employ best practices to close the achievement

109 Page 6 of 6 Budget Question #40 gap. On FCPS’ 2012 Working Conditions Survey, “time” was the most frequent response to the question “Which aspect of working conditions is most important to you in promoting student learning?” This additional time will benefit students and teachers by increasing the time available to FCPS teachers. This initiative was reduced from $6.5 million in the proposed budget to $3.5 million in the advertised budget to fund a FECEP expansion. Further reducing or eliminating this initiative will limit efforts to build professional learning communities and provide no improvement in teacher working conditions.

5. Consulting and other expenses for professional training, facilitators, and speakers Other professional services represents when FCPS hires an external organization to provide a professional service to FCPS. Of the $16.4 million budget in FY 2014, $15.5 million in this category is for information technology support for systems such as eCart, data services, enterprise application integration, network support, software support, and the student information system; payments to the County for school nurses; costs associated with the Early Identification Program and Pathway to Baccalaureate partnerships with George Mason University; maintenance contracts for the financial and human resource systems; and costs associated with the applied Behavioral Analysis program and the individualized education program (IEP) online program.

The remaining $0.9 million is for professional training and development. Professional development is important because it fosters the emergence of forward-thinking, excellent leaders through cultivating and empowering FCPS employees. Programs are standards based and focused on best practices in leadership, remaining current with changing technologies and emerging trends in education.

110 CD# BOS-13 Question #41

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn and Maribeth Luftglass

Date Prepared: April 16, 2013

Question: The Annual Report of Expenditures also shows that between FY 2009 and FY 2012, FCPS expended between $130 million and $144 million per year for “Technology” (approximately $800 per year per student.) • Specifically describe the expenditures that are included as “Technology” expenditures, describe the benefits derived from those expenditures, and describe what FCPS is doing to control Technology costs.

Response: The technology category on the Annual School Report (ASR) includes all technology related expenditures systemwide—instructional as well as enterprisewide business systems. A majority of the expenditures, 62 percent, in the state’s technology category are for employee compensation for both school-based and nonschool-based positions. The Virginia Standards of Quality require that local school boards employ two full-time equivalent positions per 1,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12, one to provide technology support and one to serve as an instructional technology resource teacher. Other expenditures include telecommunication lines and devices, central computer center charges paid to the County, the purchase and maintenance of technology software, hardware and infrastructure, and replacement and additional computer purchases and leases.

FCPS always strives to provide the most efficient and effective technology support possible. To help control costs and improve operational efficiencies, IT implemented a continual service improvement program (IT-CSI) over five years ago. This program has strengthened FCPS IT’s service delivery and service support processes by using the international industry standard best practices identified in the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL®). The implementation of ITIL best practices has allowed FCPS to efficiently support an extensive technology infrastructure including more than 140,000 computers, 20,000 interactive electronic whiteboards and projectors, 16,000 servers, 28,000 phones and voicemail accounts, 40,000 e mail accounts, 100,000 keyless door access devices, 202,000 network ports, 4,500 LAN devices, 10,500 wireless access points and over 100 mission critical instructional and administrative divisionwide systems.

In addition, last year, FCPS implemented a program allowing students to Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). The FCPS BYOD initiative promotes and supports the use of student-owned devices, with the intent to increase student access to online digital instructional resources in every classroom and to supplement existing school computing resources. FCPS-owned computer equipment, such as laptops and desktops, used by students and faculty is aging with 33 percent of the computers in the inventory being over five years old. To maintain a five-year refreshment cycle of all FCPS school computers would 111 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #41 cost $23 million in annual funding; however, FCPS does not have such funds to implement or sustain a five year refreshment cycle. The current annual spending for school replacement computers has been approximately $3 million. The FCPS BYOD program not only augments student access to online digital instructional resources, it is a means for reducing some of the FCPS unfunded school replacement computer requirements.

112 CD# BOS-16 Question #42

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 16, 2013

Question: For years 2011 through 2014, what is the assumed attrition rate used by FCPS? For each of the fiscal years, what is the total savings realized under the assumed attrition rate (estimated and actual)? How are these savings reflected in the FCPS budget documents? For years 2011 and 2012, what was the actual attrition rate and savings?

Response: Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) manages compensation, employee salary and benefit accounts, centrally. Position salary and benefit budgets are managed on behalf of all schools and departments by Financial Services. As a result, savings generated from both turnover and vacant positions produce systemwide savings.

Position turnover represents the savings realized when experienced employees retire or leave the system and are replaced by workers with less experience, who earn a lower salary. In the FY 2014 Advertised Budget, turnover was budgeted at $27.5 million. Position vacancy is savings due to position vacancies anticipated throughout the year. In the FY 2014 Advertised Budget, vacancy savings are budgeted at $13.7 million.

Schools and departments are given hiring authority based on position counts and types. For example, when a school has an experienced teacher retire, the school is allocated one teacher position to fill. Financial Services automatically reduces the school’s budget for salaries and benefits for the next year based on the turnover impact of the school hiring the new teacher resulting in savings for the following year.

In addition to the budgeted turnover and vacancy that FCPS projects to occur during the year, FCPS reduced the compensation base budget in the FY 2014 Advertised Budget by $38.5 million to reflect two changes: recurring position turnover from FY 2013 and a reduction in the salaries used to budget for positions vacant at the time of budget preparation. When combined with FCPS’ budgeted savings for turnover and vacancy during FY 2014 of $41.3 million, this results in a combined budget savings of $79.8 million or 3.5 percent. This methodology results in a more current salary base which takes into account the prior year’s lapse savings and more accurately reflects the actual current salaries of active employees each year when the budget is developed.

113 CD# BOS-18 Question #43

FY2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity

Answer Prepared By: Sloan Presidio

Date Prepared: April 12, 2013

Question: For FY 2014 through 2011, provide counts of ESOL students, division-wide, by grade and by ESOL level (1, 2, 3, and 4). Also include data for each of the years on the length of time students are in the ESOL program.

Response: Staffing for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) services is provided at a school level and not by grade level, therefore the attached reports show the data at the kindergarten, elementary, middle, high, transitional, alternative high, and special education levels. The following chart provides the number of students receiving ESOL services divisionwide by ESOL level (1, 2, 3, and 4) for FY 2011 through FY 2014. FY 2014 data is the projection for the 2013 14 school year.

114 Page 2 of 3 Budget Question #43

ESOL Membership 2011-2014

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 School Level Lvl Jan 31 Jan 31 Jan 31 App K L1 709 612 613 638 L2 746 388 367 375 L3 2,618 673 698 723 L4 1,877 1,802 1,764 1,864 5,950 3,474 3,442 3,600 ES L1 3,590 3,702 3,702 3,924 L2 2,485 2,862 2,783 2,952 L3 5,354 6,575 6,765 7,180 L4 4,290 5,789 5,825 6,176 ES Subtotal 15,719 18,928 19,075 20,232 MS L1 294 320 245 259 L2 315 370 354 375 L3 922 1,264 1,152 1,220 L4 1,145 1,615 1,676 1,773 MS Subtotal 2,676 3,569 3,427 3,627 HS L1 598 613 562 593 L2 621 627 575 608 L3 992 1,283 1,249 1,315 L4 923 1,855 1,985 2,088 HS Subtotal 3,134 4,378 4,371 4,604 Transitional L1 360 277 313 323 L2 161 175 211 218 L3 27 35 40 42 L4 2 1 1 1 Trans. Subtotal 550 488 565 584 Alternative HS L1 41 33 30 30 L2 53 40 57 57 L3 51 66 105 105 L4 38 66 84 84 Alt. HS Subtotal 183 205 276 276 Alternative Programs 52 80 80 80 Special Education 336 296 296 320 Grand Total with Kindergarten 28,600 31,418 31,532 33,323

115 Page 3 of 3 Budget BOSQuestion-18 #43 The chart below provides data on the length of time students receive ESOL services. CurrentPage research 3 of 3 demonstrates that it takes an average of five to seven years for ESOL students to acquire academic EnglishThe necessary chart below to beprovides successful data inon school. the length The of chart time below students provides receive data ESOL on the services. percent Current of students whoresearch receive ESOL demonstrates services for that four it takes years an or averageless, which of fiveis less to seventime thanyears research for ESOL designates. students toThe data acquire academic English necessary to be successful in school. The chart below provides data is disaggregatedon the percent by ofESOL students students who who receive are notESOL also services students for with four disabilities, years or less, ESOL which students is less whotime also havethan disabilities, research anddesignates. the total Theof those data twois disaggregated groups. ESOL bystudents ESOL studentswith disabilities who are notmay alsohave cognitive disabilitiesstudents that with affect disabilities, the rate ESOL at whichstudents they who are alsoable haveto acquire disabilities, language. and theData totalis provided of those for two FY 2010, FY 2011groups. and ESOLFY 2012, students as FY 2013 with disabilitiesand FY 2014 may data have is not cognitive yet available. disabilities that affect the rate at which they are able to acquire language. Data is provided for FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012, as FY 2013 and FY 2014 data is not yet available.

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

% of students in % of students in % of students in ESOL ≤ 4 yrs. ESOL ≤ 4 yrs. ESOL ≤ 4 yrs. ESOL students without 80% 85% 81% disabilities ESOL students with 53% 49% 36% disabilities Total ESOL Students 78% 83% 76%

116 CD# BOS-22 Question #44

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity/Foust

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 16, 2013

Question: What is the cost to access the state partial compensation match if you didn’t do the one percent VRS shift, but provided a pay increase to VRS employees midyear.

Response: Assuming a balanced FY 2014 budget and using the FY 2014 Advertised Budget as a starting point, if FCPS implemented the minimum 1.0 percent VRS shift required instead of the 3.0 percent shift included in the FY 2014 Advertised Budget, the $16.6 million that is currently budgeted would be reduced by $10.8 million. This adjustment provides funding slightly in excess of the cost of a 1.0 percent midyear pay increase (beyond the 1.0 percent market scale adjustment already included in the School Board’s FY 2014 Advertised Budget), and would allow FCPS to access the state partial compensation match of $6.3 million. However, the following considerations highlight significant challenges with this option:

1. Any reductions required to balance the FY 2014 budget, depending on the county transfer, will need to be addressed before FCPS can consider this option. 2. The midyear pay increase is a recurring expense that will increase the FY 2015 budget by the full-year cost of $18.9 million for the 1 percent MSA making it more difficult to balance the FY 2015 budget. 3. The state partial compensation match of $6.3 million is one-time funding and adding recurring expenditures to secure this one-time funding only adds to FCPS’ structural budget imbalance. 4. This option increases the cost to implement the future required VRS shift(s) by at least $0.5 million per year in perpetuity. This cost grows with any additional employee pay increases included in the future.

117 CD# JS-02 Question #45

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Jane Strauss

Answer Prepared By: Luftglass, Breeden, Presidio

Date Prepared: April 11, 2013

Question: Please estimate the total amount of resources devoted to ECART on an annual basis, including contractor costs, as well as staff positions and dollars.

Response: The following response updates FY 2013 Budget Question #34 to reflect current year data. eCART is a key component of the technology-enhanced instructional model used in FCPS that enables differentiated instruction, reinforces learning, and addresses individual needs of students. eCART also supports the work of collaborative teams. eCART includes a Curriculum Repository used to manage and share the program of studies, assessment items, and instructional resources. Currently the repository includes the standards, benchmarks, and indicators for 169 content areas (subjects), 13,984 instructional resources (including lesson plans), and 34,492 assessment items. eCART also includes the Horizon assessment system that provides for teacher-created, as well as, district-created assessments. In 2011-2012 students completed 3,419,751 assessments—only 16% were district mandated assessments. Further, EDSL eCART provides for the longitudinal data reporting of student assessment results in alignment with the standards, benchmarks, and indicators. In 2011-2012, teachers and staff accessed EDSL eCART dashboards and reports 64,520 times.

The annual maintenance and support budget for FCPS eCART effective in FY 2013, including budgeted positions, is $2,769,332. The annual maintenance budget breaks down as follows:

• Hosting and maintenance costs for FCPS eCART applications: $1,350,118 • Horizon assessment application hosting and maintenance • eCART Resource Search and Retrieval tool software maintenance • EDSL eCART data warehouse and reporting application software maintenance • Curriculum Repository software maintenance

• Application support staff funding: Hourly - $110,086 • Processing assessment results for the more than 670,904 paper and pencil assessments administered: Contracted - $103,700 118 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #45 • Printing and distribution of over 130,000 booklets supporting the two district assessment administrations each year: Contracted - $65,000 • Budgeted positions with benefits: • 4.0 Instructional Services FCPS 24/7 Learning curriculum area specialists: $577,329 • 1.0 Instructional Services eCART Program Manager: $171,444 • 1.0 PLA psychometrician supporting assessment and assessment item analysis: $131,680 • 2.0 IT technical specialists providing support for EDSL eCART: $259,975

• Instructional Services curriculum development to align with state standards and to refresh assessments and instructional resources for the new school year: $350,000 • Curriculum Repository enhancements to support new question types that students will experience on SOL tests and to provide a more “Google-like” instructional resource search: $136,229 • EDSL eCART enhancements to support reporting longitudinal assessment results by elementary class enrollments and current class roster, to provide enhanced dashboards to support cumulative standards, benchmarks, and indicators performance, and provide reports on teacher-scoreable assessments: $351,180 • Northrop Grumman and Blackboard support for the items above: $152,448

The total FY 2013 budget, including maintenance and development, is $3,759,189.

119 CD# RM-02 Question #46

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Ryan McElveen

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo

Date Prepared: April 15, 2013

Question: What would be the cost to allow central support staff with a valid teacher license to transfer to classroom-based positions for a year, by choice, at their current pay grade while backfilling their support position for the year? What is the historical data on central administrator use of such an incentive, if any?

Response: Currently, the only support positions for which certification is tracked is on our educational positions required to hold licenses under the Virginia Department of Education. Of this, there are 233 positions that are tracked. The estimated cost to allow the above (instead of hiring a new teacher) would be between $30,000 and $60,000 per position depending on the specific positions being backfilled and the final salary and benefits of the candidates hired for the backfill.

There is no historical data as this has never been brought up as an option in the past.

120 CD# BOS-23 Question #47

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Gross

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: April 17, 2013

Question: Provide a comparison between the late 1990’s and today as it pertains to trailer usage. Please include the number of trailers, where they are located, what are the number of students attending class in the trailers, and why a significant number of trailers are still required.

Response: Although FCPS would like to reduce the number of portable classrooms, we are not able to at this time. With the expansion of multiple programs such as Head Start, SACC, and the implementation of Full Day Kindergarten coupled with the significant student growth we lack the capacity to accommodate both community and student needs within our buildings. Nevertheless, we are continuing to expand our facilities as quickly as possible to provide spaces for our students and community partners. We all share the goal to eliminate these trailers as quickly as possible. The following chart shows the number of trailers as of September 30 each year.

121 Page 2 of 4 Budget Question #47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 75 50 25 75 75 25 50 75 50 50 50 50 50 150 150 150 350 100 125 375 225 125 300 275 225 175 125 200 100 150 100 250 175 125 275 125 200 250 150 475 175 675 400 # of Students 2012 0 0 6 6 2 6 0 0 0 4 5 2 9 5 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 9 1 7 0 5 8 4 3 3 1 6 0 2 4 0 3 7 2 5 2 0 5 2 2 2 0 8 6 0 7 0 0 14 15 12 11 10 11 10 19 27 16 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 25 75 50 75 25 50 75 50 25 25 50 50 50 125 150 150 325 100 100 325 200 100 275 175 225 175 175 125 200 100 100 100 100 250 175 125 225 125 200 100 150 425 175 825 500 # of Students 2011 0 0 5 6 2 6 0 0 0 4 4 0 8 4 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 7 9 7 7 0 5 8 4 4 3 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 7 2 5 9 1 0 5 1 2 0 2 8 4 6 0 7 2 0 13 13 11 10 17 33 20 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 50 50 25 25 50 75 25 50 75 50 50 25 50 75 50 175 275 100 250 325 100 250 175 275 175 175 125 225 100 100 250 175 100 175 125 200 175 175 825 475 # of Students 2010 1 0 0 2 2 7 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 7 7 0 5 9 3 0 1 4 0 2 0 4 0 3 2 7 4 2 7 1 0 2 5 0 0 3 8 0 7 2 0 7 0 11 10 13 10 11 10 33 19 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 75 25 25 25 50 50 50 75 75 50 50 200 100 200 125 200 175 200 350 200 400 225 275 125 150 100 125 200 250 225 175 100 150 200 100 375 350 350 # of Students 2000 3 0 1 8 3 4 0 8 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 2 7 2 8 0 0 8 0 9 0 2 0 5 6 4 5 8 0 9 0 0 7 3 3 4 0 6 0 0 2 0 2 0 8 0 4 0 0 0 14 16 11 10 15 14 14 # of Temporary Classrooms DOGWOOD ES DRANESVILLE ES DANIELS RUN ES DANIELS RUN DEER PARK ES CUNNINGHAM PARK ES CUNNINGHAM CUB RUN ES CUB RUN CROSSFIELD CROSSFIELD ES CRESTWOOD ES COOPER MS COOPER MS COLVIN RUN ES RUN COLVIN COLUMBIA ES COLUMBIA COLIN L.COLIN POWELL ES FROST MS FROST MS COATES ES CLERMONT ES CLERMONT ES CLIFTON FREEDOM HILL ESHILL FREEDOM CLEARVIEW ES FRANKLIN SHERMAN ES SHERMAN FRANKLIN CHESTERBROOK ES ROAD ES CHURCHILL FRANKLIN MS MS FRANKLIN CHANTILLY HS CHANTILLY CHERRY RUN ES RUN CHERRY CENTREVILLE HS FRANCONIA ES FRANCONIA FOX MILL ES FOX MILL CENTREVILLE ES FORT HUNT ES HUNT FORT CENTRE RIDGE ES RIDGE CENTRE CARDINAL FOREST ESCARDINAL CARSON MS CARSON MS FORT BELVOIRFORT ES FORESTVILLE ES CANTERBURY WOODSCANTERBURY ES CAMERON ES CAMERON FORESTDALE ES CAMELOT ESCAMELOT BUSH ESHILL FOREST EDGE ES BUCKNELL ES BULL ES RUN FLORIS ESFLORIS BROOKFIELD ES BREN MAR PARK ESBREN MAR FLINT HILL HILL ES FLINT BONNIE BRAEBONNIE ES BRADDOCK ES FALLS HS CHURCH BELLE VIEW ES BELVEDERE ES FAIRVIEW ES FAIRFAX VILLAFAIRFAX ES FAIRHILL ES FAIRHILL BEECH TREE ES BAILEYS ES EDISON HS EDISON HS FAIRFAX ANNANDALE HS ANNANDALE TERRACE ES ES ARMSTRONG EAGLE VIEW ES ALDRIN ES ALDRIN School

122 Page 3 of 4 Budget Question #47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 75 50 75 75 25 25 50 25 50 25 25 75 75 50 50 100 200 100 350 200 625 100 100 400 200 225 200 125 550 150 350 125 175 150 125 175 225 175 100 325 300 250 100 100 # of Students 2012 0 4 0 2 3 0 8 0 0 0 2 4 3 0 8 3 0 4 4 8 1 9 0 1 8 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 5 1 7 6 0 5 7 9 7 1 4 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 4 2 4 0 14 25 16 22 14 13 12 10 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 50 75 25 75 25 50 25 50 25 75 50 50 50 100 200 125 250 175 100 625 100 275 200 225 200 125 350 225 200 125 175 225 175 200 100 100 325 175 150 150 100 100 # of Students 2011 0 4 0 0 3 0 8 0 0 0 2 5 3 0 7 4 0 4 0 8 9 1 3 8 1 5 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 0 5 0 7 0 2 9 7 8 4 4 1 0 0 3 7 2 6 6 0 2 4 4 2 0 10 25 11 14 13 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 50 75 25 75 25 25 50 25 25 75 50 50 50 125 200 125 150 175 150 625 100 325 200 225 200 125 275 275 150 125 175 100 175 200 100 300 175 125 150 100 100 # of Students 2010 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 3 5 6 0 7 6 0 4 0 8 1 9 3 1 8 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 2 7 0 1 4 1 7 8 4 0 3 0 7 2 5 2 6 0 2 4 4 25 13 11 11 12 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 75 50 50 50 75 75 25 25 50 50 50 25 25 125 300 125 325 250 200 200 600 175 450 575 100 125 125 150 275 275 275 400 175 125 250 175 100 375 275 300 150 150 350 125 150 125 350 175 275 325 100 # of Students 2000 0 5 2 3 0 5 2 0 8 2 8 0 7 2 3 0 3 1 4 0 5 5 1 6 0 7 0 5 0 7 2 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 6 6 5 6 5 0 7 1 4 12 13 10 24 18 23 11 11 11 16 10 15 11 12 14 14 11 13 # of Temporary Classrooms LIBERTY MS MS LIBERTY LEMON ROAD ESLEMON LEES ES CORNER LAUREL ES RIDGE LEE HS LAUREL ESHILL LANIER MS LANIER LANGLEY HS LANE ES LAKE BRADDOCK SEC LAKE BRADDOCK MS LAKE ANNE ES KINGS PARKKINGS ES KINGS GLENKINGS ES KILMER MS MS KILMER KEY MS KEY MS KENT GARDENS ES JEFFERSON HS TECH ESKEENE MILL ISLAND CREEKISLAND ES HYBLA VALLEY ES MS IRVING HUTCHISON ES HUTCHISON HUNT VALLEYHUNT ES WOODSHUNTERS ES HOLMES MS MS HOLMES HUGHES MS NORTH SPRINGFIELD ES SPRINGFIELD NORTH NEWINGTON FOREST ES HERNDON HS HERNDON MS HERNDON MEADOWSHOLLIN ES NAVY ESNAVY HERNDON ESHERNDON HAYFIELD MS HAYFIELD MOUNT VERNON WOODSMOUNT ES HAYFIELD HS HAYFIELD MOUNT VERNON HS MOUNT HAYFIELD ES HAYFIELD HAYCOCK ESHAYCOCK MOUNT EAGLE MOUNT ES MOSBY WOODSMOSBY ES HALLEY ES MCNAIR ES MCNAIR MCLEAN HS MCLEAN GUNSTON ES MASON CREST ES MASON GREENBRIAR WESTGREENBRIAR ES GROVETON ES MARSHALL HS MARSHALL ROAD MARSHALL ES GREENBRIAR EASTGREENBRIAR ES LYNBROOK ES HS MADISON ES MANTUA GREAT FALLS ES LUTHER JACKSON MS LUTHER JACKSON MS GRAHAM ROAD ES GRAHAM LOUISE ARCHER LOUISE ESARCHER GLEN FOREST ES LORTON STATION LORTONES STATION GLASGOW MS LONDON TOWNE ES LONGFELLOW MS LITTLE RUN ESLITTLE RUN GARFIELD ESGARFIELD School

123 Page 4 of 4 Budget Question #47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 75 50 75 25 25 50 25 75 50 50 50 50 50 300 175 175 125 150 125 150 100 175 225 100 375 125 250 100 425 100 125 125 375 150 175 175 150 125 100 250 175 450 300 325 150 200 300 125 200 22,475 # of Students 2012 7 7 5 0 6 5 6 3 1 3 4 0 7 2 0 9 4 0 0 5 0 0 4 3 1 4 0 5 0 1 0 5 6 7 7 2 1 6 5 3 2 4 7 2 2 6 8 0 5 2 2 8 12 15 10 17 15 10 18 12 13 12 899 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 25 75 75 50 75 25 25 50 75 50 25 75 50 50 75 50 50 50 300 175 175 125 150 125 150 100 225 225 125 100 400 100 125 100 125 375 150 200 100 125 100 225 175 400 400 300 100 300 100 150 20,625 # of Students 2011 7 7 5 0 6 5 3 6 1 1 4 0 3 3 2 9 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 3 4 5 1 4 0 5 0 1 0 2 6 8 3 2 1 4 5 3 2 4 9 7 2 3 2 4 0 4 2 2 6 12 16 15 16 16 12 12 825 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 75 25 50 75 25 75 25 50 25 50 25 75 50 50 75 25 75 50 50 50 200 175 150 125 150 150 125 175 200 225 225 150 550 300 100 125 125 375 150 200 100 125 225 150 200 400 325 300 100 19,150 # of Students 2010 2 8 7 6 5 0 3 3 6 1 6 5 2 3 0 7 8 9 9 0 6 0 0 0 1 4 5 3 0 1 0 5 0 2 0 1 2 1 6 8 3 2 4 5 0 9 2 6 8 3 1 3 2 0 4 2 22 12 15 16 13 12 766 # of Temporary Classrooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 50 50 75 50 75 50 75 50 25 25 100 150 125 275 175 350 325 225 225 125 100 125 175 275 100 175 150 475 150 100 200 275 150 250 100 250 150 650 22,575 # of Students 2000 4 6 3 2 5 2 0 0 3 0 2 0 7 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 4 5 0 7 0 0 4 7 2 0 6 3 6 2 1 4 0 0 8 0 0 6 0 0 4 6 0 1 0 11 14 13 11 19 11 10 10 26 903 # of Temporary Classrooms WAYNEWOOD ES WASHINGTON ES MILL WAPLES ES MILL WAKEFIELD FOREST ES VIRGINIA RUN ES RUN VIRGINIA UNION MILL ES MILL UNION ESVIENNA TIMBER LANE ES TIMBER TWAIN MS TERRASET ES THOREAU MS THOREAU MS TERRA CENTRE TERRA ESCENTRE SUNRISE VALLEYSUNRISE ES STUART HS STRATFORD LANDING ES LANDING STRATFORD STONE MS STONE MS STENWOOD ES SPRINGFIELD ESTATESSPRINGFIELD ES SPRING HILL ESHILL SPRING SOUTH SOUTH LAKES HS SOUTH COUNTY MS SOUTH COUNTY SOUTH COUNTY HS SOUTH COUNTY SLEEPY HOLLOW ES Total WOODSON HS SHREVEWOOD ES SILVERBROOK ES WOODLEY HILLS ES SARATOGA ES WOODLAWN ES SANGSTER ES WOODBURN ES ROSE ESHILL SANDBURG MS SANDBURG MS ROLLING ROLLING VALLEY ES WOLFTRAP ES ROCKY RUN MS MS RUN ROCKY WILLOW ESSPRINGS RIVERSIDE ES RIVERSIDE ROBINSON MS ROBINSON SEC ROBINSON WHITMAN MS WHITMAN MS WHITE OAKS ES POPLAR TREE ES PROVIDENCE ESPROVIDENCE RAVENSWORTH ES WEYANOKE ES POE MS POE MS PINE SPRING ES SPRING PINE WESTLAWN ES PARKLAWN ES WESTGATE ES OAKTON HS OLDE CREEK ES ESORANGE HUNT WESTFIELD HS WESTBRIAR ES OAKTON ES WEST HS SPRINGFIELD OAK ESHILL OAK VIEW ES WEST HS POTOMAC WEST ES SPRINGFIELD School

124 CD# BOS-17 Question #48

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: April 17, 2013

Question: Please provide a list of estimated versus actual costs associated with each FCPS capital project completed in the last 4 years.

Response: Attached is a list of capital projects, their estimates, and the budget versus actual expenditures during the prior four years. The total budget for construction projects during the prior four years has exceeded $516.0 million. The total of these projects where completed under budget by $27.7 million.

Many of the project savings were due to an unexpected decline in the cost of construction starting in 2008; not only locally but nationwide. Because project budgets are created many years in advance, it is difficult to be accurate. FCPS is generally conservative when creating estimates two to three years prior to the actual construction based upon the experiences of the last decade. Fortunately there continue to be favorable market conditions which have allowed FCPS to accelerate a number of projects by taking advantage of the savings.

125 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #48

List of FCPS Capital Projects Completed During FY 2009 - FY 2012 NEW VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION (Construction Budget SUBSTANTIALLY BOND BUDGET Estimate vs. Actual COMPLETED REFERENDUM ESTIMATE ACTUAL COST Cost) /FULLY OCCUPIED Coates ES $ 19,000,000 $ 19,251,000 $ 18,877,192 $ (373,808) 2009 Laurel Hill ES 24,000,000 22,425,000 19,582,408 (2,842,592) 2009 Mason Crest ES 25,000,000 23,419,000 18,807,380 (4,611,620) 2012 South County MS 52,000,000 40,200,000 32,977,654 (7,222,346) 2012 $ 120,000,000 $ 105,295,000 $ 90,244,635 $ (15,050,365) RENOVATIONS VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION (Construction Budget SUBSTANTIALLY BOND BUDGET Estimate vs. Actual COMPLETED REFERENDUM ESTIMATE ACTUAL COST Cost) /FULLY OCCUPIED Franklin Sherman ES $ 11,700,000 $ 13,303,207 $ 13,873,291 $ 570,084 2009 Woodburn ES 11,100,000 13,782,000 14,606,178 824,178 2009 Woodson HS 68,900,000 75,394,649 78,561,935 3,167,286 2009 Freedom Hill ES 13,500,000 14,339,992 15,387,568 1,047,576 2010 Great Falls ES 15,124,000 15,747,658 16,854,631 1,106,973 2010 Mount Eagle ES 11,841,000 10,822,260 10,901,826 79,566 2010 Sleepy Hollow ES 14,300,000 14,098,708 13,458,403 (640,305) 2010 Vienna ES 12,238,000 14,266,771 14,379,737 112,966 2010 Beech Tree ES 16,300,000 14,060,000 13,143,199 (916,801) 2012 Edison HS* 64,000,000 72,130,821 67,773,009 (4,357,812) 2012 Franconia ES 19,500,000 15,359,000 13,498,527 (1,860,473) 2012 Graham Road/ Devonshire ES 15,323,000 15,113,000 14,456,729 (656,271) 2012 Lake Anne ES 20,200,000 17,039,000 12,607,970 (4,431,030) 2012 Longfellow MS* 41,700,000 31,264,066 30,718,783 (545,283) 2012 Oakton ES 22,900,000 20,665,000 16,840,722 (3,824,278) 2012 Stenwood ES 16,100,000 13,199,000 12,458,173 (740,827) 2012 Westlawn ES 21,000,000 17,025,000 16,834,748 (190,252) 2012 $ 395,726,000 $ 387,610,132 $ 376,355,429 $ (11,254,703)

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT ADDITIONS VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION (Construction Budget SUBSTANTIALLY BOND BUDGET Estimate vs. Actual COMPLETED REFERENDUM ESTIMATE ACTUAL COST Cost) /FULLY OCCUPIED Hybla Valley ES $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,453,923 $ (46,077) 2009 Crestwood ES 4,150,000 4,150,000 3,590,011 (559,989) 2012 $ 11,650,000 $ 11,650,000 $ 11,043,934 $ (606,066)

MODULAR RELOCATIONS VARIANCE CONSTRUCTION (Construction Budget SUBSTANTIALLY BOND BUDGET Estimate vs. Actual COMPLETED REFERENDUM ESTIMATE ACTUAL COST Cost) /FULLY OCCUPIED Modular Relocations 2009 $ 9,750,000 $ - $ - $ - Riverside ES 1,468,000 1,184,433 (283,567) 2009 Haycock ES* 1,518,000 1,192,974 (325,026) 2010 Annandale HS 1,840,000 2,011,562 171,562 2011 Rocky Run MS 1,782,000 1,696,033 (85,967) 2011 Colin Powell ES 1,400,778 1,455,882 55,104 2011 Groveton ES 1,671,144 1,266,292 (404,852) 2011 Centreville ES 1,390,000 1,477,494 87,494 2011 Stonecroft Transportation** 450,000 444,331 (5,669) 2012 $ 9,750,000 $ 11,519,922 $ 10,729,001 $ (790,921) Total $ 537,126,000 $ 516,075,054 $ 488,372,999 $ (27,702,055) * Includes funding from proffers ** Funding from Construction Fund Reserve

126 CD# BOS-06 Question #49

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

Board of Supervisors Member Requesting Information: Supervisor Herrity Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn Date Prepared: April 17, 2013

Question: Please provide a 10 year analysis of total costs and personnel counts for the following FCPS departments: Professional Learning and Accountability, Special Services, Instructional Services, IT, HR, Finance, Facilities and Transportation, Communications and Community Outreach, Division Counsel, and all direct reports to the Superintendent. Note: Include all personnel that may be "school-based" but are reporting to and/or paid through one of these departments.

Response: Please see the attached chart with data from FY 2004, FY 2009, and FY 2014. Since FY 2004, FCPS has undergone a number of organizational changes including two new departments (Communications and Community Outreach and Professional Learning and Accountability) and numerous redesigns including movement of positions between departments. As a result, we are providing FY 2004 data at the aggregate level. Department-level data is provided for FY 2009 and FY 2014.

As detailed in the chart, school-based funding increased at an average annual rate of 3.0 percent from FY 2004 to FY 2014 while nonschool-based funding increased at an average annual rate of 1.6 percent. Average annual position changes are 1.2 percent for school-based and 0.0 percent for nonschool-based.

Average Average Average Average Annual Annual Annual Annual Growth $ Growth Pos Growth $ Growth Pos FY 2004 App FY 2009 App FY 2014 FY 2004 to FY 2004 to FY 2009 to FY 2009 to FY 2004 App Pos FY 2009 App Pos FY 2014 Prop Prop Pos FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2014 School-based 1,105,868,856 19,651.6 1,366,855,853 20,510.5 1,485,831,802 22,123.7 3.0% 1.2% 1.7% 1.5% Schools 898,110,084 17,377.8 1,123,110,719 18,412.1 1,227,431,336 19,997.6 3.2% 1.4% 1.8% 1.7% Superintendent's Office 2,963,502 0.0 2,238,802 0.0 1,969,997 0.0 -4.0% #DIV/0! -2.5% #DIV/0! Communications and Community Outreach 0 0.0 1,487,040 0.0 1,535,891 0.0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.6% #DIV/0! Professional Learning and Accountability 943,861 12.0 3,816,730 50.0 3,452,005 36.0 13.8% 11.6% -2.0% -6.4% Facilities and Transportation 32,480,663 0.0 43,688,355 0.0 46,176,453 0.0 3.6% #DIV/0! 1.1% #DIV/0! Financial Services 15,751,775 45.9 11,798,718 17.7 11,434,749 0.0 -3.2% -100.0% -0.6% -100.0% Human Resources 10,453,792 205.0 14,929,606 225.8 16,459,750 242.3 4.6% 1.7% 2.0% 1.4% Instructional Services 37,483,353 612.9 40,307,840 338.0 48,600,135 357.9 2.6% -5.2% 3.8% 1.1% Information Technology 17,638,134 63.0 17,670,539 100.5 22,221,384 149.3 2.3% 9.0% 4.7% 8.2% Special Services 90,043,692 1,335.1 107,807,505 1,366.3 106,550,102 1,340.8 1.7% 0.0% -0.2% -0.4% Nonschool-based 136,370,060 992.4 166,413,117 1,089.4 159,087,529 995.5 1.6% 0.0% -0.9% -1.8% School Board Office 1,058,551 13.5 1,629,577 15.5 2,230,439 16.5 7.7% 2.0% 6.5% 1.3% Superintendent's Office 4,798,592 32.0 7,805,941 33.6 8,113,356 34.0 5.4% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% Cluster Offices 3,343,580 24.0 3,713,763 24.0 3,351,563 21.0 0.0% -1.3% -2.0% -2.6% Communications and Community Outreach 3,537,331 22.0 2,404,218 20.5 2,352,423 20.5 -4.0% -0.7% -0.4% 0.0% Professional Learning and Accountability 7,946,245 34.0 11,257,623 56.0 11,540,793 48.0 3.8% 3.5% 0.5% -3.0% Facilities and Transportation 4,917,204 48.0 7,220,957 51.0 7,747,926 48.0 4.7% 0.0% 1.4% -1.2% Financial Services 21,490,852 156.5 20,429,860 170.8 19,602,579 155.0 -0.9% -0.1% -0.8% -1.9% Human Resources 20,702,162 141.0 20,886,294 124.5 19,790,982 115.0 -0.4% -2.0% -1.1% -1.6% Instructional Services 16,543,725 141.4 22,155,965 178.5 15,830,865 163.5 -0.4% 1.5% -6.5% -1.7% Information Technology 38,496,827 230.5 53,233,043 262.5 53,921,602 241.5 3.4% 0.5% 0.3% -1.7% Special Services 13,534,992 149.5 15,675,877 152.5 14,605,001 132.5 0.8% -1.2% -1.4% -2.8% Facilities Management 69,545,283 577.9 84,579,076 624.4 93,599,934 622.4 3.0% 0.7% 2.0% -0.1% Transportation 68,033,863 75.0 102,109,805 85.0 105,856,811 96.0 4.5% 2.5% 0.7% 2.5% Benefits 288,488,799 0.0 500,680,656 0.0 648,884,926 0.0 8.4% #DIV/0! 5.3% #DIV/0! Grand Total 1,668,306,860 21,296.9 2,220,638,507 22,309.3 2,493,261,002 23,837.6 4.1% 1.1% 2.3% 1.3%

127 CD# PH-04 Question #50

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Pat Hynes

Answer Prepared By: Sloan Presidio

Date Prepared: April 30, 2013

Question: Please provide a comparison of funding for the AVID program in FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014.

Response: The AVID program funding for FY 2012 – 2014 is detailed below. The FY 2013 estimate includes new grant funding from Title III, approximately $70,000 carried forward from FY 2012 for undelivered orders, and approximately $40,000 in additional funding for field trips and hourly tutors.

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Fund Description Actual Estimate Advertised Operating Salary ‐ Program Manager $ 95,216 $ 98,311 $ 102,242 Fund Hourly Tutors and Field Trips 423,737 447,807 398,413 Materials and Supplies 41,864 58,491 39,912 Staff Development and Contractual 199,716 213,924 172,136 Operating Fund Total $ 760,533 $ 818,532 $ 712,703

Title III Hourly Tutors ‐ $ 51,672 $ 95,514 Grant Materials and Supplies ‐ 44,500 ‐ Grant Fund Total ‐ $ 96,172 $ 95,514 Grand Total $ 760,533 $ 914,704 $ 808,217

128 CD# SE-05 Question #51

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: April 29, 2013

Question: Please provide a breakdown of the $26.4 million in Automatic Carryover (referenceBudget Question #25, p. 2) on a school-by-school basis and provide examples of how those funds were planned to be used by schools.

Response: Attached is a chart that displays the FY 2012 automatic carryover by schools as well as the balances for projects that comprise the $26.4 million in automatic carryover. Project balances are automatically carried over because they are budgeted on a multiyear basis. Examples of multiyear projects include the FOCUS system, student achievement goal (PMOC) initiatives, and the Technology Plan. For schools, unobligated balances, comprised primarily of the current year supply and hourly accounts, are automatically moved forward to the next fiscal year to provide flexibility for multiyear planning and to help prevent a “use it or lose it” approach. The school principal, under the direction of the cluster assistant superintendent, determines how school funding is utilized. The carryover averages approximately $100,000 per school. Examples of typical uses of carryover funds include position trades to provide additional teaching or other positions, hourly support, instructional materials, intervention and remediation support for students, and technology purchases including smartboards and mobile computer labs.

129 Page 2 of 7 Budget Question #51

FY 2012 Automatic Carryover by School and Project

School Amount ALDRIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44,591 ANNANDALE HIGH SCHOOL 189,544 ANNANDALE TERRACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 175,619 ARCHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 83,449 ARMSTRONG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 47,983 BAILEYS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 48,482 BEECH TREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5,537 BELLE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4,087 BELVEDERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 96,515 BONNIE BRAE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 89,154 BRADDOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 49,933 BREN MAR PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 43,701 BROOKFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 48,516 BRYANT ALTERNATIVE HIGH SCHOOL 436,689 BUCKNELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23,838 BULL RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 70,794 BURKE CENTER 40,465 BUSH HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11,166 CAMELOT CENTER -101 CAMELOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 83,153 CAMERON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 33,191 CANTERBURY WOODS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6,528 CARDINAL FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 76,536 CEDAR LANE CENTER 66,835 CENTRE RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 22,587 CENTREVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 18,289 CENTREVILLE HIGH SCHOOL 315,170 CHANTILLY HIGH SCHOOL 400,573 CHERRY RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 53,431 CHESTERBROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 24,134 CHURCHILL ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 31,128 CLEARVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 56,478 CLERMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -14,107 COATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 101,831 COLIN L POWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 106,704 COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 20,226

130 Page 3 of 7 Budget Question #51

FY 2012 Automatic Carryover by School and Project

School Amount COLVIN RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -12,065 COOPER MIDDLE SCHOOL 153,339 CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1,134 CROSSFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 35,983 CUB RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 35,193 CUNNINGHAM PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 21,599 DANIELS RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 31,849 DAVIS VOCATIONAL CENTER 25,847 DEER PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44,522 DOGWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 54,510 DRANESVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 31,641 E PULLEY CENTER 27,987 EAGLE VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -8,502 EDISON HIGH SCHOOL 158,063 FAIRFAX HIGH SCHOOL 99,878 FAIRFAX VILLA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 80,237 FAIRHILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 42,662 FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 115,738 FALLS CHURCH HIGH SCHOOL 120,382 FLINT HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 41,036 FLORIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 85,657 FOREST EDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 42,103 FORESTDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 27,164 FORESTVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 43,227 FORT HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 76,428 FOX MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 76,340 FRANCONIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 15,432 FRANKLIN MIDDLE SCHOOL 66,262 FRANKLIN SHERMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 27,389 FREEDOM HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29,722 FROST MIDDLE SCHOOL 32,243 FT BELVOIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 109,705 GARFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 53,208 GLASGOW MIDDLE SCHOOL 293,028 GLEN FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 237,795 GRAHAM ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23,343 GREAT FALLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44,178 GREENBRIAR EAST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 90,490

131 Page 4 of 7 Budget Question #51

FY 2012 Automatic Carryover by School and Project

School Amount GREENBRIAR WEST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 22,207 GROVETON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 51,402 GUNSTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 53,690 HALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23,420 HAYCOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 53,680 HAYFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 67,236 HAYFIELD SECONDARY SCHOOL 404,416 HERNDON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14,106 HERNDON HIGH SCHOOL 353,784 HERNDON MIDDLE SCHOOL 98,041 HOLLIN MEADOWS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 232,999 HOLMES MIDDLE SCHOOL 118,070 HUGHES MIDDLE SCHOOL 101,787 HUNT VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 41,463 HUNTERS WOODS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86,172 HUTCHISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 177,506 HYBLA VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 280,866 IRVING MIDDLE SCHOOL 431,377 ISLAND CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 54,516 JACKSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 63,068 JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL 240,186 KEENE MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 64,458 KENT GARDENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9,222 KEY CENTER 13,274 KEY MIDDLE SCHOOL 136,322 KILMER CENTER 25,948 KILMER MIDDLE SCHOOL 79,882 KINGS GLEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 92,545 KINGS PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 126,235 LAKE ANNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 84,786 LAKE BRADDOCK SECONDARY SCHOOL 378,295 LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 62,498 LANGLEY HIGH SCHOOL 127,658 LANIER MIDDLE SCHOOL 54,425 LAUREL HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 96,920 LAUREL RIDGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 101,793 LEE HIGH SCHOOL 400,056 LEES CORNER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 47,186

132 Page 5 of 7 Budget Question #51

FY 2012 Automatic Carryover by School and Project

School Amount LEMON ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 51,320 LIBERTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 52,094 LITTLE RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 18,604 LONDON TOWNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 115,885 LONGFELLOW MIDDLE SCHOOL -3,800 LORTON STATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 59,048 LYNBROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 45,839 MADISON HIGH SCHOOL 289,037 MANTUA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 66,842 MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL 189,685 MARSHALL ROAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 53,836 MASON CREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -476 MCLEAN HIGH SCHOOL 367,019 MCNAIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 164,687 MOSBY WOODS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 147,408 MOUNT EAGLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 28,516 MOUNT VERNON HIGH SCHOOL 299,621 MOUNT VERNON WOODS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 101,763 MOUNTAIN VIEW ALT HIGH SCHOOL 375,222 NAVY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 68,671 NEWINGTON FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23,587 NORTH SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 34,360 OAK HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 65,802 OAK VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 75,514 OAKTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 128,358 OAKTON HIGH SCHOOL 58,989 OFFICE OF INTERVENTION & PREVENTION SVCS 155,527 OLDE CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 101,714 ORANGE HUNT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 21,647 ORMOND STONE MIDDLE SCHOOL 117,238 PARKLAWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 157,241 PIMMIT HILLS ALT HIGH SCHOOL -2,274 PINE SPRING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 200,710 POE MIDDLE SCHOOL 48,529 POPLAR TREE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 52,963 PROVIDENCE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 21,456 QUANDER ROAD CENTER 17,670 RACHEL CARSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 162,126

133 Page 6 of 7 Budget Question #51

FY 2012 Automatic Carryover by School and Project

School Amount RAVENSWORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 31,366 RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 95,663 ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL 601,668 ROCKY RUN MIDDLE SCHOOL 53,906 ROLLING VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7,562 ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 90,780 SANDBURG MIDDLE SCHOOL 272,614 SANGSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 123,290 SARATOGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 61,942 SHREVEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 92,045 SILVERBROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2,981 SLEEPY HOLLOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44,029 SOUTH COUNTY SEC SCHOOL 994,464 SOUTH LAKES HIGH SCHOOL 252,318 SPECIAL EDUCATION INSTRUCTION 166,652 SPRING HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 76,638 SPRINGFIELD ESTATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 34,165 STENWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 87,891 STRATFORD LANDING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 26,089 STUART HIGH SCHOOL 246,106 SUNRISE VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44,741 TERRA CENTRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 50,051 TERRASET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 62,809 THOREAU MIDDLE SCHOOL 44,338 TIMBER LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 24,785 TWAIN MIDDLE SCHOOL 144,702 UNION MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 64,136 VIENNA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 32,560 VIRGINIA RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 68,190 WAKEFIELD FOREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 38,553 WAPLES MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 54,163 WASHINGTON MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 41,236 WAYNEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 24,962 WEST POTOMAC HIGH SCHOOL 272,145 WEST SPRINGFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 48,052 WEST SPRINGFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 195,134 WESTBRIAR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 19,527 WESTFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 67,625

134 Page 7 of 7 Budget Question #51

FY 2012 Automatic Carryover by School and Project

School Amount WESTGATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 25,865 WESTLAWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 58,043 WEYANOKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44,220 WHITE OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 30,427 WHITMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL 56,764 WILLOW SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 21,455 WOLFTRAP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 15,753 WOODBURN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 22,219 WOODLAWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 65,197 WOODLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 26,841 WOODSON HIGH SCHOOL 254,796 Adjusting Entry for Reorg/Audit Adjustments 29,578 Schools and Centers $ 19,501,904

Multiyear Projects Amount 24/7 LEARNING ENHANCEMENTS 506,475 BOUNDARY INFORMATION SYSTEM 5,349 CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENTS 573,365 FC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 176,940 FINANCIAL & PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS 262,040 IT - STUDENT SYSTEMS 95,760 LEGACY SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT 2,006,279 MIDDLE SCHOOL AFTER SCHOOL 551,563 PMOC PROJECTS 957,070 STUD ACTIVITY FUND ACCT PROJECT 191,296 TECH PLAN 367,882 TELECOMM LEASES 894,909 TJHST-STATE FUNDING 290,575 Multiyear Projects $ 6,879,502

135 CD# SE-04 Question #52

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo

Date Prepared: May 2, 2013

Question: If we were to transition parent liaisons onto a regular pay scale as full-time or part-time employees, rather than hourly employees, what would be the most logical place for them on the pay scale that’s roughly equivalent to current pay? What would it cost to do this?

What is the turnover rate of parent liaisons? What percentage of parent liaisons have been hired in the past two years? When parent liaisons were asked to reapply for their jobs last fall, were any not rehired and if so how many?

Response: Based upon the 202 employees with parent liaison hours reported to determine benefit eligibility, 85 met sufficient hours to offer at least a 0.5 FTE based upon a 193-day contract at 7.5 hours per day. The equivalent grade for hourly parent liaisons is a US-17.

Of the 85 individuals: • 38 would qualify for a 0.5 FTE contract • 38 would qualify for a 0.75 FTE contract • 9 would qualify for a 1.0 FTE contract The cost to change these hourly employees to 56.5 FTE positions would be a net cost of $1.2 million. This takes into account the current hourly parent liaison funding of $2.1 million to offset the cost of $3.3 million of converting them to contracted FTEs, assuming full benefits.

In regard to turnover data, using the same data set, six of the individuals have terminated since the file was generated and 62 individuals were hired between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012. This cost estimate is very difficult to complete with full assurance of long-term accuracy due to the temporary nature and possible various assignments of these individuals.

136 CD# SE-06 Question #53

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 7, 2013

Question: What is the status of the FOCUS project?

Response: The Fairfax County Unified System (FOCUS) was implemented in two major phases: replacing financial and logistics management “core” systems (FILO) functionality for Fairfax County Government and Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in November 2011 and implementing the core human capital management (HCM) system for Fairfax County Government in June 2012.

The implementation of the HCM module for FCPS has been deferred indefinitely and resources have been redeployed to upgrade FCPS legacy system (Lawson HR).

Since the implementation of FILO, a new purchasing catalog has been deployed to FCPS schools allowing staff to order instructional supplies and materials through an online FOCUS marketplace. County and Schools have also been developing a transparency module where key financial data can be accessed by the public through the internet.

The county has engaged outside consultants to conduct an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) study of FOCUS to ensure that the system is properly configured to maximize efficient use by end-users and to develop a roadmap for future activity. It is anticipated that the results of the study will be provided by June 2013. Recommendations related to the implementation of budget functionality for the County and FCPS will be an output of this study.

137 CD# PR-07 Question #54

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn and Phyllis Pajardo

Date Prepared: May 9, 2013

Question: Please provide a detailed breakdown to substantiate the proposed expenditures for substitutes. Also, please estimate the relative percent use of substitutes by teacher activity, such as: sick leave, annual leave, required training, required meetings, other.

Please comment on the notion of saving funds and offering professional development opportunities by assigning central office professional staff, such as instructional personnel or assistant superintendents, to act in lieu of a substitute teacher in some instances? How much might we be able to trim from the substitute estimate?

Response: Actual expenditures during FY 2012 were $24.9 million on substitute pay and the associated social security costs. The breakdown by activity is 72 percent for sick/personal, 15 percent for staff development/training, 8 percent for vacancies and administrative leave, and 5 percent for other (e.g. organizational leave, short-term disability, student activities). During FY 2012, there were 1.3 million substitute hours utilized by 15,273 teachers and assistants and 0.1 million hours required for vacancies. On average, this equates to 12 days of substitute usage for each of these employees (9 days for sick/ personal, 2 days for staff development/training, and 1 day for other).

Average daily pay for a substitute is approximately $120. This is significantly lower than professional staff daily pay, which varies by position. From this perspective, it would not be a cost efficient use of resources to have central office professional staff act as substitutes. Nevertheless, if half of FCPS nonschool-based employees were to forgo their regular duties and substitute for 3 days each, the substitute budget could be reduced by $0.3 million. The assumption of half of nonschool-based employees and 3 days each is for illustrative purposes only. It is unknown at this time how many nonschool-based employees could feasibly fill substitute vacancies, how many are qualified to do so, what the impact on their daily duties would be, and at what number of days per year this could be done.

138 CD# DS-02 Question #55

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Dan Storck

Answer Prepared By: Sloan J. Presidio, Jeffrey Platenberg, Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 8, 2013

Question: 1. Which planetariums are and are not operable? 2. Which planetariums are still doing showings for students? 3. Which planetariums have teachers who are paid to provide at least some teaching support for the planetarium and any programs? Response: All of the equipment in the planetariums has been maintained and is operable. All of the planetariums except the ones at Edison High School and Sandburg Middle School have been used for instruction for high school science classes, primarily astronomy, during the 2012-13 school year. The Edison High School planetarium was recently renovated and is scheduled to be used for astronomy classes in the coming school year, 2013-2014. As explained in last year’s response to FY 2013 budget question #88, there are multiple spaces within Sandburg Middle School which formerly housed high school spaces and are being converted during the renovation to accommodate the middle school curriculum. The planetarium itself cannot be used for instruction in the future because it is not accessible from a code perspective – meaning that if it were to be converted to a learning space the construction of a new two-story egress stairwell and a full renovation of the space (with the exception of the control system) would cost an additional $200,000.

The teachers at Woodson High School and Hayfield Secondary have provided instruction to elementary and middle school students as their schedules allowed. Only FCPS teachers who have been trained are allowed to operate the planetariums. These teachers are part of the regular staffing of the school. There is not a planetarium position that is supported centrally to provide instruction to students who are not enrolled in classes at the high school. In schools where instruction in the planetarium is provided to students from other schools, the teacher is providing that service during a planning period or during a time that is supported by the administration of the school.

The chart below lists all the planetariums and the status of use.

Planetariums In use Provide Location SY 2013 showings Edison HS Falls Church HS X Hayfield SS XX Herndon HS X Oakton HS X Sandburg MS TJHSST X West Springfield HS X Woodson HS XX 139 CD# ES-08 Question #56

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Kim Dockery

Date Prepared: May 8, 2013

Question: Please advise how much FCPS has spent in the current fiscal year on Support on Suspension, including the amount spent specifically on Homebound Services.

Response: The Out-Of-School Academic Support Services program consists of homebound instruction, home- based instruction, and out-of-school academic support services (OSS).

Homebound instruction is academic instruction provided to students who are confined at home or in a health care facility for periods of time that would prevent normal school attendance. Homebound instruction is mandated by the code of Virginia. High school and middle school students receive 10- 12.5 hours/week while elementary students receive 5 hours/week. Teachers are paid hourly at a rate of $31.09. Hourly homebound teachers have provided 27,312 hours of instruction thus far this school year supporting 544 students. Planning time is also allotted to hourly teachers at 15 minutes per subject per week for secondary students and 30 minutes per week for elementary students for a total of 5,198 hours of planning. An additional $2,700 has been spent thus far in FY 2013 for FCPS students confined to hospitals outside of FCPS. Homebound instruction also includes 4.0 teacher positions for the education of special education students and to support virtual learning via a pilot using APEX Learning software. So far this year 40 courses are being delivered to students via APEX Learning.

Home-based instruction refers to instructional services for special education students who have been removed from a school setting by the school division for disciplinary or other reasons. These students are referred to the program through the IEP process, and the services provided are generally consistent with those for homebound students. Home-based instruction is part of the continuum of services and is mandated by IDEA. A total of 188 students have received home-based instruction thus far in FY 2013. This includes 3,212 hours of instruction and 658 hours of planning time at $31.09 an hour.

The OSS program is available for FCPS students who, in accordance with the FCPS Student’s Rights and Responsibilities (Regulation 2601), are unable to attend school due to a principal’s suspension with a recommendation for expulsion. A total of 433 students have received Out-of-School Support so far in FY 2013. OSS is staffed by 15 case managers and an hourly Spanish speaking parent liaison. The case managers work with students for one hour or more each day and are paid via stipend. The annual stipend for each case manager is $6,000, and disbursements are made in December and June. The June disbursement to case managers will total approximately $45,000.

140 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #56

All OSS programs are supported centrally by five non-school-based positions: a 1.0 functional supervisor position, a 1.0 instructional specialist, and 3.0 business operations assistant positions to support the 1,165 students that homebound instruction, home-based instruction, and OSS have served to date for FY2013.

Fiscal year-to-date expenditures for Out-of-School Academic Support Services as of May 6, 2013 are summarized below:

Description Expenditures Homebound Student Services $ 1,402,436 Home-based Student Services 130,423 OSS/General Ed Support on Discipline 73,667 Central Support 433,244 Out-of-School Academic Support Services Total $ 2,039,770

Additional information about this program is available on page 119 of the FY 2013 Program Budget, available at http://www.fcps.edu/fs/budget/budgetdocuments.shtml.

141 CD# ES-06 Question #57

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 2, 2013

Question: Please provide School Operating Fund Expenditure Detail update with the following additional columns: 1. FY 2013 Actual to Date; and 2. FY 2013 Projected Year End

Response: The following are the FY 2013 actual school operating fund expenditure detail through March 2013 and the FY 2013 third quarter estimate. In the third quarter budget review 74.6, or all but 5.0 positions, were returned from the staffing reserve. The staffing reserve is budgeted centrally. However, when reserve positions are used the position is transferred to the school where it is needed and expenses are posted at the school, but the funding remains in the central account. The $6.7 million remaining in the central reserve is to cover the costs of the 162.5 positions allocated to schools prior to third quarter.

Also, it is important to note that 88 percent of the budget is for salaries and benefits, and the majority of compensation in not expended evenly across quarters. Due to the nature of the contract lengths for teachers and many of the other school-based positions, at the end of the third quarter in a fiscal year, 30 percent of the costs associated with less than 12-month contracts are still remaining. Additionally, payments for other major expenditures (i.e. utilities, fuel, and bus maintenance) are paid in arrears, and the timing of the payments for these obligations impacts the analysis of expenditures to date. In addition to timing issues, historically, FCPS spending across quarters is uneven due to the summer break for schools. At this time, the budget as revised during the Third Quarter Budget Review, is the best estimate for year-end expenditures.

142 Page 2 of 10 Budget Question #57 FY 2013 School Operating Fund Expenditure Detail

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Division Superintendent 312,845 234,663 Deputy Superintendent 228,500 171,374 Assistant Superintendent 2,540,043 1,886,772 Division Counsel 197,284 147,963 Leadership Team 3,278,672 2,440,772 Principal Elementary School 17,022,637 12,598,950 Principal Middle School 2,965,169 2,183,675 Principal High School 3,257,663 2,422,042 Principal Special Education 850,540 640,035 Principal Alternative High School 247,589 185,693 Principals 24,343,598 18,030,394 Assistant Principal Elementary School 17,517,239 12,709,664 Assistant Principal Middle School 5,386,630 3,896,295 Assistant Principal High School 12,711,995 9,390,532 Assistant Principal Special Education 2,685,585 1,986,598 Assist Prin Alt HS 553,018 406,941 Student Activity Director 2,673,016 2,004,763 Guidance Director 5,437,246 4,046,015 Assistant Principals 46,964,729 34,440,807 Director 4,991,507 3,732,011 Coordinator 11,505,861 8,592,792 Supervisors 16,497,368 12,324,803 Hearing Officer 800,365 577,836 Executive Assistant 346,322 259,124 Auditor 374,602 279,981 Attorney 339,085 198,367 Functional Supervisor 8,033,286 5,958,296 Certified Athletic Trainer 1,675,671 1,250,374 Psychologist 11,831,855 8,397,761 Social Worker 11,241,802 7,935,283 Instructional Specialist 12,250,498 9,345,780 Business Specialist 17,859,845 12,930,631 Technical Specialist 49,404,085 35,615,093 Specialists 114,157,416 82,748,526 Technician 18,226,104 12,994,302 Safety and Security Specialist 2,855,051 2,034,511 Career Center Specialist 1,248,177 866,658 Safety and Security Assistant 4,228,553 2,904,375

143 Page 3 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Technical Personnel 26,557,885 18,799,845 Teacher Kindergarten 36,134,563 25,356,661 Teacher ES 239,736,230 164,567,553 Teacher MS 90,545,970 61,321,674 Teacher General Education High School 172,464,366 117,985,398 Teach Musc Art&PE ES 44,135,528 30,796,357 Teacher Reading 11,664,533 8,071,272 Teacher Art Elementary School 235,767 168,384 Teacher Instrumental Music 10,162,104 7,410,259 Teacher Gifted Talented Resource 6,763,943 4,693,268 Teacher Laboratory 1,290,396 903,522 Teacher Instructional Support 28,106,732 21,405,931 Teacher ESOL 6,294,989 4,301,700 Teacher Special Education 194,316,817 131,096,937 Audiologist 1,171,829 832,407 Physical & Occupational Therapist 6,566,200 4,304,369 Teacher Vocational Education Program 21,582,454 14,374,887 Teacher Work Experience Program 316,439 191,728 Teacher Alternative Education 12,087,527 8,154,796 Teacher Professional Technical Academy 4,621,926 3,173,052 Teach Tech Prof Proj 281,592 179,259 Guid Counsel MS & HS 23,483,249 16,294,643 Guidance Counselor Elementary School 14,691,401 10,229,793 Librarian 16,356,854 11,300,798 Teacher Staffing Reserve 6,102,558 0 1/ Teachers 949,113,967 647,114,650 Instructional Assistant Kindergarten 16,388,493 11,397,705 Instruct Asst Gen Ed 8,428,298 5,426,056 Instruct Asst Spc Ed 43,520,527 29,984,024 Instruct Asst Alt HS 275,703 204,111 Instruct Asst Spc Pg 346,852 202,977 Instruct Asst Resrve 590,961 0 1/ Instructional Assistants 69,550,835 47,214,873 Public Health Training Assistant 7,884,825 5,098,861 Special Education Attendant 3,049,280 2,131,307 Specialized Assistants 10,934,106 7,230,168 Administrative Assistant 8,685,332 6,391,010 Office Assistant Elementary School 25,169,815 17,592,005 Office Assistant Middle School 3,973,376 2,895,613 Office Assistant High School 11,771,119 8,596,497 Office Assistant Special Education 1,577,847 1,128,562 Technical Assistant 4,207,742 2,968,165

1/The third quarter estimate reflects 162.5 positions allocated from the staffing reserve to schools prior to third quarter.

144 Page 4 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Office Assistant Personnel 55,385,231 39,571,853 Tradesperson 23,961,430 15,953,098 Security Officer 1,622,490 1,268,834 Trades Personnel 25,583,920 17,221,932 Custodian 46,031,631 33,008,281 Field Custodian 1,244,422 375,196 Plant Operations Monitor 638,818 488,714 Custodial Personnel 47,914,871 33,872,192 Route Supervisor 2,148,532 1,499,948 Transportation Personnel 2,148,532 1,499,948 Turnover 0 0 Vacancy (10,173,753) 0 Incurred To Offset 0 0 Salary Adjustments (10,173,753) 0 Regular Salaries Contracted 1,382,257,377 962,510,763 Overtime 3,194,158 1,953,214 Overbase Salaries 5,555,307 4,096,370 Overtime 8,749,465 6,049,585 Bus Driver 40,815,869 28,979,719 Van Driver 705,415 475,110 Bus Attendant 9,510,808 6,656,912 Bus Driver Field Trip 1,222,363 798,306 Bus Driver Activities Field Trip 8,526 125,613 Transportation 52,262,981 37,035,660 Bus Driver VHSL Field Trip 2,130,681 1,268,938 Bus Dr Mileage VHSL (11,642) 10,930 Field Trips 2,119,039 1,279,868 Hourly Salaries Contracted 63,131,486 44,365,113 Hourly Teacher 13,578,011 7,974,688 Hourly Technical 3,654,191 2,692,850 Hourly Office Assistant 4,837,467 2,811,594 Hourly Custodian 501,915 232,290 Hourly Instructional Assistant 717,115 472,955 Hourly Dining Assistant 956,862 690,331 Hourly Professional 1,786,455 625,944 Hourly Tradesperson 169,012 242,652 Hourly Temp Alt Duty 7,896 14,290 Hourly Parent Liaison 2,509,457 1,713,094 Hourly Public Health Attendant 0 266 Hourly After-School Program Staff 1,449,836 1,008,181 Hourly Act SB Admin 0 297,358

145 Page 5 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Hourly Salaries 30,168,215 18,776,492 Sub Sick or Pers Lve 15,530,503 11,848,832 Sub Offcl or Ann Lve 3,129,367 1,323,262 Substitute Due to Student Activities 66,713 54,004 Substitute Due to Organizational Leave 229,050 277,539 Substitute Due to Staff Development 423,919 2,249 Sub ST Disability 512,861 489,774 Substitute Costs - Leave 19,892,413 13,995,660 Substitute Due to Training 3,487,815 2,207,450 Substitute Costs- Training 3,487,815 2,207,450 Hourly Salaries Non-Contracted 53,548,443 34,979,603 School Board Member 242,000 181,508 Court Supplement 44,339 39,830 Extra Duty Supplement 2,895,163 1,803,833 Coaching Supplement 4,781,058 3,226,605 Recruitment Bonus 133,290 30,000 Salary Supplement 1,083,000 782,500 Department Chair Supplement 541,923 14,289 Supplements 9,720,773 6,078,565 Salary Placeholder 4,705,007 0 Degree Supplement 1,214,087 0 School Testing Requirements 851,884 8,248 Salary Placeholders 6,770,978 8,248 Annual Leave Payment 3,473,252 868,083 Sick Leave Payment 34,190 4,118 Extended Sick Leave 1,018,170 241,185 Severance Payment 0 50,637 Short-term Disability Payment 540,021 561,134 Leave Payments 5,065,633 1,725,156 Salary Supplements 21,557,385 7,811,969 Community Use 4,865,971 2,538,154 General Field Trip 869,367 883,562 School Activities 110,400 22,880 Reimbursable Salaries 5,845,738 3,444,596 Grant Indirect Cost Recovery 0 (362,103) WPFO Contra Account (8,965,707) (7,692,764) WPFO (8,965,707) (8,054,867) Reimbursable Salaries (3,119,969) (4,610,271) VRS State Retirement 188,426,685 125,978,266 ERFC Retirement 69,659,505 46,382,933 County Retirement 31,422,575 22,379,401 VRS Health Employer 14,171,060 9,736,617 Retirement 303,679,825 204,477,218 Social Security 115,123,261 76,955,459 Social Security 115,123,261 76,955,459 State Life Insurance 11,102,183 7,626,632 County Life Insurance 2,264,846 1,111,266 146 Page 6 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Life Insurance 13,367,029 8,737,898 Health Choice 149,454,636 121,463,925 Kaiser 35,806,387 27,002,391 Aetna Dental 11,234,269 9,291,283 Retiree Health Insurance 10,000,000 7,347,670 Health Insurance 206,495,293 165,105,270 Long-term Disability 11,524 615 Salary Protection 11,524 615 Worker's Compensation 9,238,928 9,238,928 Workers' Compensation 9,238,928 9,238,928 Unemployment Compensation 515,000 153,201 Umemployment Compensation 515,000 153,201 Employee Benefits Vacancy (2,543,438) 0 Employee Benefits Turnover (5,086,876) 0 Employee Benefits Placeholders (7,630,314) 0 Employee Benefits 640,800,546 464,668,589 General Office Supplies 1,372,138 1,096,056 Instructional Supplies 29,777,835 17,985,310 Technology Supplies 1,946,793 1,319,996 Cleaning Supplies FCPS 3,681,219 1,734,612 Audio Visual Supplies 149,401 342,707 Textbooks 25,485,837 19,877,878 Tests 6,867,056 2,563,771 Library Collections FCPS 320,555 327,173 Library Materials & Supplies 3,405,030 2,975,372 Periodicals 9,270 3,146 Reference Books 147,825 71,696 Bookbinding 50,000 31,928 Online Textbooks 997,999 79,161 Forms & Stationery 212,065 77,831 Technological Equip Noncapitalized 612,347 2,724,210 Software Purchases Noncapitalized 10,553 45,002 Mailing Costs 1,490,335 909,398 Special Functions 952,227 449,413 Other Equipment Noncapitalized 20,693,979 9,511,596 Materials and Supplies 98,182,465 62,126,257 Maintenance Supplies 7,082,773 6,779,224 Computer Repair Parts 1,921,897 1,371,784 Tools FCPS 595,658 436,481 Telephone Maintenance 451,570 127,220 Repair and Maintenance Materials 10,051,899 8,714,709 Materials and Supplies 108,234,363 70,840,966

147 Page 7 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Fuel Oil FCPS 112,831 93,905 Natural Gas FCPS 7,577,841 4,699,573 Electricity FCPS 30,692,268 17,049,426 Water FCPS 1,439,450 807,130 Sewer FCPS 1,589,662 993,741 Refuse 2,768,089 967,650 Local Telephone 3,519,129 2,138,767 Long Distance Telephone 215,500 32,323 Wireless Devices 1,014,967 783,986 SMDS Lines 4,960,871 3,059,740 ISDN Lines 123,899 55,241 Utilities 54,014,506 30,681,482 Utilities 54,014,506 30,681,482 Local Travel FCPS 1,847,342 826,522 Official Travel 24,142 16,584 Legislative Travel FCPS 23,629 12,637 Recruitment Travel 37,047 24,644 Travel 1,932,160 880,387 Employee Tuition Reimbursements 1,521,864 488,853 Professional Development 2,488,816 986,181 School-based Staff Development 525,588 443,834 Non School-based Staff Development 5,589 0 Technical Training FCPS 219,555 101,659 Staff Training 4,761,412 2,020,528 Academic Awards 7,701 218 Awards Banquets 524,596 71,009 Employee Awards and Recognition 288,329 35,664 Diplomas 17,738 1,610 Awards 838,364 108,501 Uniforms 323,728 199,259 Uniforms 323,728 199,259 Equal Opportunity Grant 199,508 187,930 Official Fees 873,216 380,724 Post-Season Activities 176,250 107,942 School Initiatives 1,265,244 682,163 Strategic Funding 785,733 58,604 School Initiatives 3,299,951 1,417,362 Administrative Indirect Cost 735,752 83,181 Admin/Indirect Costs 735,752 83,181 Accreditation Fee 529,171 178,933 Admission Fee 157,513 53,030 Copyright Fee 9,947 150 Duplication Rights Fee 203,388 98,387 Membership Dues 304,498 185,336 Permits 182,789 168,061 Physical Exams 500,000 154,273

148 Page 8 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Reimbursements 181,557 125,633 Special Education Hearing Appeals 89,830 10,855 Fees 2,158,693 974,658 Contingency Reserve 0 0 Flexibility Reserve 8,207,941 0 School Materials Reserve 3,527,041 2,701 Unallocated Grants 2,171 0 Contingency 11,737,153 2,701 Work Performed For Others Materials (2,114,588) (2,313,341) Work Performed For Others Indirect Cost (2,646,263) (1,852,384) WPFO Materials (4,760,851) (4,165,725) Other Operating Expenses 21,026,362 1,520,851 Communications Equipment Maintenance 0 0 Copier Maintenance Contracts 488,113 213,772 Musical Instr Maintenance 367,070 297,978 Office Equipment Maintenance Contracts 39,109 5,204 Software Maintenance Contracts 0 (80) Technical Equipment Maintenance 11,445,192 6,815,110 Other Maintenance Contracts 17,732,486 7,083,426 Maintenance Contracts 30,071,969 14,415,410 Payments for Student Placements Outs 568,650 324,970 Payment for Homebound Services 1,033 0 Recruiting Advertising 171,421 17,569 Payments for External Student Trans 3,144,659 1,376,939 Audit Services 266,771 238,064 Credit Card Discount Fee 5,000 497 Claims Management Services 675,000 589,919 Engineering Services 118,921 19,383 Legal Services FCPS 5,146,172 604,754 Legal Notice Advertising 1,195 1,168 Medical Services 10,880 34,672 Internal Professional Services 8,880 6,563 Other Professional Services 28,846,361 14,074,453 Technical Services 300 0 Other Technical Services 63,000 27,500 Contracted Services 39,028,243 17,316,452 Copier Rental 6,150,055 5,680,079 Equipment and Furniture Rental 73,000 27,198 Musical Instrument Rental 658,983 645,062 Pool Rental 220,000 210,063 Real Estate Rental 3,598,474 2,903,652 Trailer Rental 4,500 4,500 Rental Fees 10,705,013 9,470,554 Privatized Services 79,805,225 41,202,416 County Vehicle Fuel Charges 11,219,535 5,409,995 County Vehicle Labor Charges 11,961,824 7,251,243 County Vehicle Parts Charges 6,547,731 4,657,712 149 Page 9 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Department of Vehicle Services 29,729,090 17,318,950 County Computer Center Charges 1,717,591 1,717,591 Computer Center Charges 1,717,591 1,717,591 County Fire Marshal Inspection Fee 83,369 39,487 Fire Marshall Inspection Charges 83,369 39,487 County Police Services Appropriated 396,681 178,815 County Police Services Student Activity 1,050 56,140 County Police Dist Reg 0 18,830 County Police Services PTA Sponsored 0 4,410 Police Services 397,731 258,195 County Print Shop Charges 800,215 214,042 Printing 800,215 214,042 County Services 32,727,995 19,548,265 Equipment Expense 6,996,267 2,648,834 FCPS General Capital Expense 858,856 1,590,388 Equipment 7,855,123 4,239,222 School Buses Expense 125,000 0 Bus Leases Principal 3,676,292 859,695 Bus Leases Interest 236,818 71,746 Vehicle Leases Principal 139,589 132,761 Vehicle Leases Interest 4,753 11,482 Buses/Vehicles 4,182,452 1,075,684 Field and Site Improvements 81,347 (62,321) Land and Improvements 81,347 (62,321) Trailer Work and Set-up Services 6,772,677 5,950,084 Portable Buildings 6,772,677 5,950,084 Minor Improvements 3,649,734 1,179,584 Construction-Consultant 266,243 50,000 Construction-Equipment Acquisition 27,016 0 Construction-Technology Infrastructure 345,825 267,923 Facilities Modifications 4,288,817 1,497,507 Equipment Leases Principal 28,000 12,151 Equipment Leases Purchases 28,000 12,151 Computer Software and Licenses Expense 3,200 0 Computer Leases Principal 5,444,209 3,286,698 Computer Leases Interest 508,629 323,345 Computer Leases 5,956,038 3,610,043 Software Leases Principal 1,356 1,356 Software Leases 1,356 1,356

150 Page 10 of 10 Budget Question #57

FY 2013 Third Actuals through Description Quarter Estimate March 2013

Capital Outlay 29,165,811 16,323,726 Construction Contingency 95,826 0 Building Construction 95,826 0 Food Products 593 3,138 Food Service Supplies 162 5,586 Vending Products 150 0 Food Services Costs 905 8,724 Passive Paper Order 12,863 8,072 Goods Receipts Without PO - Technical 0 (101) Central Procurement 12,863 7,971 General Liability Insurance CY 4,679 4,889 General Liability Insurance PY 375,000 375,000 Insurance Coverage 4,468,127 4,468,127 Insurance 4,847,806 4,848,016 Other Funds 4,957,400 4,864,711 Transfer to Grants Fund 8,865,952 8,865,952 Transfer to FCPS Summer School Fund 12,511,040 12,511,040 Transfer to ACE Fund 1,400,000 1,400,000 Transfer to FCPS Construction Fund 6,899,030 6,899,030 Transfer for FCPS Construction Equipment 717,090 717,090 Transfer to County Debt Service Fund 3,776,323 3,776,321 Transfers Out 34,169,435 34,169,433 Transfers Out 34,169,435 34,169,433 Total Expenditures 2,522,276,364 1,728,877,615

151 CD# PR-09 - revised Question #58

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo

Date Prepared: May 13, 2013

Question: Please list by position title and pay level for the nonschool-based personnel under the category of supervisors: Directors and Coordinators.

Response: Attached is a list of the 142.0 full-time equivalent positions in the categories of director and coordinator that are included in the School Operating Fund. The list is organized by position grade, provides the salary range (minimum salary and maximum salary) for each grade, and then lists the positions, indicating the number of FTEs for each position title.

152 Page 2 of 5 Budget Question #58

Grade FY 2013 260-day Position FTE Salary Scale Range US 26 64,996 114,707 Coordinator II, Custodial Operations 1.0 Coordinator II, Facilities Management 3.0 Coordinator II, Grounds Maintenance 1.0 Coordinator II, Satellite Operations 1.0 US 26 Total 6.0 US 27 67,602 119,307 Chief Accountant 1.0 Coordinator III, Accounting Operations 1.0 Coordinator III, Administrative Staffing 1.0 Coordinator III, Benefits Insurance 1.0 Coordinator III, Budget Revenue & Grants 1.0 Coordinator III, Career & Transition Special Education 1.0 Coordinator III, Computing Services 1.0 Coordinator III, Contracts & Procurement 1.0 Coordinator III, Data Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Decision Support 1.0 Coordinator III, Dept. Special Services Financial Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Disabilities & Leave Benefits 1.0 Coordinator III, Document Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Energy Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Facilities Services Administration 1.0 Coordinator III, Facilities Services Financial Management 0.5 Coordinator III, Facilities Services Planning 1.0 Coordinator III, Family Partnerships 1.0 Coordinator III, Field Services 1.0 Coordinator III, Financial Services FASTeam 1.0 Coordinator III, Financial Services Systems & Control 1.0 Coordinator III, Financial Support 1.0 Coordinator III, Fine Arts (K-12) 1.0 Coordinator III, Gifted & Talented 1.0 Coordinator III, Health, Physical Education & Drivers Ed 1.0 Coordinator III, Human Resources FASTeam 1.0 Coordinator III, Information Technology FASTeam 1.0 Coordinator III, Information Technology Project Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Infrastructure & Environmental Engineer 0.5 Coordinator III, Instructional Coach Initiative 1.0 Coordinator III, Instructional Systems 1.0 Coordinator III, ISD eLearning 1.0 Coordinator III, ISD Financial Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Language Arts (K-12) 1.0 Coordinator III, Licensure 1.0 Coordinator III, Mathematics (K-12) 1.0 Coordinator III, Payroll & Benefits Accounting 1.0 Coordinator III, Payroll Administration 1.0

153 Page 3 of 5 Budget Question #58

Grade FY 2013 260-day Position FTE Salary Scale Range Coordinator III, PreK-12 Adapted Curriculum 1.0 Coordinator III, Property Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Salary Services 1.0 Coordinator III, Science (K-12) 1.0 Coordinator III, Social Studies (K-12) 1.0 Coordinator III, Student Registration 1.0 Coordinator III, Student Safety and Wellness 1.0 Coordinator III, Support Employment Services 1.0 Coordinator III, Transportation Planning 1.0 Coordinator III, Warehouse Operations 1.0 Coordinator III, World Languages 1.0 Employee Relations Administrator 1.0 Coordinator III, Field Information Systems 1.0 Coordinator III, Facilities Services Asset Management 1.0 Coordinator III, Professional Learning & Accountability Operations 1.0 Professional Learning & Accountability Special Projects Administrator 1.0 Coordinator III, English for Speakers of Other Language (ESOL) 2.0 Coordinator III, Information Technology Customer Service Center 1.0 Coordinator III, Community & Facility Use 1.0 Coordinator III, Safety 1.0 Coordinator III, Security 1.0 Coordinator III, Transportation 4.0 US 27 Total 63.0 US 28 70,314 124,091 Administrator, Human Resources (HR) Technology 1.0 Administrator, Strategic Communication 1.0 Assistant Director, Design & Construction 0.5 Assistant Director, Facilities Management 1.0 Assistant Director, Transportation Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Budget Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Business & Community Partnerships 1.0 Coordinator IV, Business Systems 1.0 Coordinator IV, Data Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Early Childhood & Family Service 1.0 Coordinator IV, Educational Planning 1.0 Coordinator IV, Facility Services Customer Service Center 1.0 Coordinator IV, Info Tech Program Management & Planning 1.0 Coordinator IV, Instructional Employment Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Instructional Technology Integration 1.0 Coordinator IV, Library Information Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Multimedia Service Center 1.0 Coordinator IV, Network & System Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Nontraditional School Programs 1.0 Coordinator IV, PreK-12 Special Education Instruction 1.0

154 Page 4 of 5 Budget Question #58

Grade FY 2013 260-day Position FTE Salary Scale Range Coordinator IV, Psychological Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, School Counseling Services & College Success 1.0 Coordinator IV, School Support 7-12 1.0 Coordinator IV, School Support K-6 1.0 Coordinator IV, Student Systems 1.0 Coordinator IV, Technology Architecture & Assessment 1.0 Coordinator IV, Technology Support Services 1.0 Director I, Governmental Relations 1.0 Director, Cluster 8.0 Public Information Officer 1.0 Coordinator IV, Eligibility and Due Process 1.0 Coordinator IV, Procedural Support 1.0 Coordinator IV, Special Education Related Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Social Work Services 1.0 Coordinator IV, Budget Compensation 1.0 Assistant Comptroller, Systems 1.0 Assistant Comptroller, Accounting 1.0 US 28 Total 43.5 US 29 73,134 129,068 Director II, Activities & Athletic Programs 1.0 Director II, Administrative Services 1.0 Director II, Benefit Services 1.0 Director II, Employee Performance & Development 1.0 Director II, Equity and Compliance 1.0 Director II, Facilities Services Planning 1.0 Director II, Leadership Development 1.0 Director II, Operations & Strategic Planning 2.0 Director II, Payroll Management 1.0 Director II, Procurement Services 1.0 Director II, Program Evaluation 1.0 Director II, Safety & Security 1.0 Director II, Testing 1.0 US 29 Total 14.0 US 30 76,067 134,244 Comptroller 1.0 Coordinator III, Social Work Services 1.0 Director III , Professional & Life Skills 1.0 Director III, Budget Services 1.0 Director III, Design & Construction Services 0.5 Director III, Employment Services 1.0 Director III, Enterprise Information Services & Assessment 1.0 Director III, Facilities Management 1.0 Director III, Information Technology Support Services 1.0 Director III, Intervention & Prevention Services 1.0 Director III, Language Acquisition & Title I 1.0 Director III, PreK-12 Curriculum & Instruction 1.0 Director III, Professional Practice & Educational Planning 1.0

155 Page 5 of 5 Budget Question #58

Grade FY 2013 260-day Position FTE Salary Scale Range Director III, Special Education Procedural Support 1.0 Director III, Transportation Services 1.0 Director III, Information Technology Operations 1.0 US 30 Total 15.5 Grand Total 142.0

156 CD# PH-05 Question #59

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Pat Hynes

Answer Prepared By: Terri Breeden

Date Prepared: May 15, 2013

Question: How many new instructional coach positions are planned for FY 2014? Of those, how many are part of the PSI funding?

How are we measuring the effectiveness of instructional coaches?

Response: The same number of instructional coaches, 78, is planned for FY 2014 that we have for FY 2013, except in two situations. A coaching position would be eliminated if the position was funded with a Title I 1003 grant that will have expired. A coaching position would be added if a new priority school does not presently have an instructional coach on staff. Details on the number of instructional coaches and the related funding (including 2013 PSI schools) may be found in FY 2014 Budget Questions, Question #38, page 102.

The instructional coaches program was measured by FCPS' highest audit or accountability standard, a three-year comprehensive evaluation. The results of this evaluation may be found at the Comprehensive Evaluation Snapshot Dashboard. The full three-year study may be found at: www.fcps. edu/pla/ope/multi_year_oe/instructional_coach.shtml.

The instructional coaches program is also monitored by the basic level of accountability, Program Profiles. The profile may be viewed athttp://commweb.fcps.edu/programprofile/overview. cfm?programID=207.

157 CD# DS-03 Question #60

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Dan Storck

Answer Prepared By: Jeffrey Platenberg

Date Prepared: May 16, 2013

Question: What is the length of time between when a school bus is ordered and when it is ready to be put into service?

Response: Based on the last order of 90 buses during FY 2012, the length of time ranged from 5 to 10 months between the date of ordering and being put into service.

158 CD# RM-03 Question #61

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Ryan McElveen

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 15, 2013

Question: What would be the cost to expand FLES to: 1 additional school 2 additional schools 3 additional schools 4 additional schools 5 additional schools 6 additional schools

Response: Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools (FLES) is staffed via a formula providing a 0.5 teacher position per 225 students in grades 1-6. For the purposes of estimating the cost of FLES program expansion under this question, the assumption has been made that selected schools have a student membership between 450 and 675 resulting in the allocation of 1.5 teacher positions. In addition to staffing, an average allocation of $3,800 per school has been added for supplies. The cost to add FLES to additional schools given the above assumption can be found in the chart below:

Foreign Language in Elementary Schools (FLES) Number of additional schools Cost of additional schools 1 $120,716 2 $241,432 3 $362,148 4 $482,864 5 $603,580 6 $724,296

159 CD# PR-08 Question #62

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo and Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 9, 2013

Question: Please provide a detailed substantiation of proposed overtime funds. Also please estimate relative percent use by organization or position type within FCPS. Last, please summarize the current policies regarding overtime requests and approvals, i.e., are these critical activities and must they be approved in advance not to exceed a certain level?

Response: Expenditures in FY 2012 for overtime and overbase salaries totaled $8,038,915 or 86.9 percent of the amount budgeted. Of this amount, $5.4 million, or 67.7 percent, was overbase and $2.6 million, or 32.3 percent, was overtime.

Per FCPS policy 4660.8, Salary Schedules and Guidelines:

The following employees shall be eligible to receive overtime pay: A. Unified salary scale employees in job groups US-1 through US-19. B. Instructional assistant-scale employees. C. All other employees holding positions defined as nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Overtime pay shall be calculated for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at one and one-half times the regular hourly rate of the employee as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1. Hours worked shall exclude unpaid leave; annual, personal, and sick leave; paid nonwork days for transportation and food services personnel; and callback hours. 2. Hours worked shall include holidays and all paid leave types not specifically excluded.

Overbase pay is provided for all hours other than those qualifying in #1 and #2 and is calculated at the regular hourly rate of the employee as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Expenditure Information:

Through May 10, 2013 expenditures totaled $6,557,115 or 73.7 percent of budget. Please see the chart following for more details including a breakout by organization and the amount included in the FY 2014 Proposed Budget.

160 Page 2 of 2 Keep0 0 Budget Question #62

FY 2012 FY 2013 (through May 10) FY 2014

Current Percent Current Percent Proposed Budget Expended Expended Budget Expended Expended Budget Schools 2,301,326 1,267,982 55.1% 2,215,432 1,140,607 51.5% 1,108,150 School Board Office 7,876 7,874 100.0% 9,700 5,995 61.8% 8,030 Superintendent's Office 24,024 23,932 99.6% 1,660 988 59.5% 1,650 Cluster Offices 2,550 2,549 100.0% 1,513 1,513 100.0% 0 Communications & Community Outreach 8,102 7,994 98.7% 4,635 1,951 42.1% 4,159 Facilities & Transportation 6,340,547 6,187,478 97.6% 6,176,337 5,006,430 81.1% 5,638,777 Financial Services 99,664 101,040 101.4% 57,231 95,363 166.6% 67,057 Human Resources 49,948 66,205 132.5% 57,901 21,849 37.7% 57,901 Instructional Services 11,679 6,564 56.2% 4,960 7,099 143.1% 4,600 Information Technology 278,341 236,934 85.1% 283,883 207,340 73.0% 278,774 Professional Learning & Accountability 5,771 4,959 85.9% 1,050 1,869 177.9% 500 Special Services 125,087 125,405 100.3% 78,145 66,111 84.6% 177,110 Grand Total 9,254,914 8,038,915 86.9% 8,892,447 6,557,115 73.7% 7,346,709

There are multiple regulations pertaining to overtime. They include the regular payment of overtime for nonexempt staff assignment for custodial and maintenance personnel for emergency situations, community use of facilities, and the use of personnel when emergency administrative leave is called. Of the overtime and overbase expended in FY 2012, 77.0 percent was used by Facilities and Transportation with the majority of spending attributed to overbase expenditures for transportation. A list of regulations can be provided upon request.

161 CD# ES-09 Question #63

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Terri Breeden

Date Prepared: May 15, 2013

Question: 1. How many former instructional coaches have been through the shadowing program for development as future principals in the last four years? 2. How many personnel have been through this program each of the last four years? 3. What have been the actual incurred costs for this program each of the last four years?

Response: 1. FCPS does not have a shadowing program for future principals; however, there is an administrative intern program. The administrative intern program is a key part of FCPS’ Administrative Succession Plan. Under the guidance of highly-qualified mentor principals, each of the ten interns serve as a member of a school-based administrative team at two schools during a school year. Several instructional coaches have pursued administrative careers; three are currently assistant principals. Although several instructional coaches have been selected for other preparatory programs, no instructional coaches have been selected for the administrative intern program. 2. FCPS has hired 261 administrators from October 2009 through April 2013 (177 Assistant Principals; 84 Principals), indicating an ongoing need for highly qualified leaders in FCPS’ schools. The Administrative Intern Program has a 10-year history of producing successful assistant principals, principals, and assistant superintendents 3. Nearly all the $1.0 million annual cost of the Administrative Intern Program is to pay 10 teachers (average salary plus employee benefits) to replace each intern for the year of his/ her internship. For additional information on the Administrative Intern Program please see FY 2014 Budget Questions, Question #40, page 105.

162 CD# PR-11 Question #64

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo and Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 16, 2013

Question: What is the raw number and relative percentage of positions that are 12 month positions? Please list these positions and indicate whether school-based or non-school based, and include the salaries including benefits.

Response: Of the total 23,528.3 full time equivalent (FTE) positions budgeted in the School Operating Fund for the FY 2013 Approved Budget, 17 percent are 12-month positions. Employees on 12-month contracts include central office positions and the following school-based staff: principal, assistant principal II at high schools, director of student services and student activities, finance technician, administrative assistant, student information assistant at high schools, building supervisor, and custodian. There are more 12-month school-based FTEs than there are nonschool-based FTEs (approximately 2,400 vs. 1,600). The chart below shows the salary dollars, with benefits, and FTEs for each position type broken out by school-based and nonschool-based employees.

Position Type FY 2013 Approved Dollars Positions

Nonschool-based Total 176,681,292 1,610.5 LEADERSHIP TEAM 4,740,022 19.0 ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS 331,428 2.0 SUPERVISORS 23,543,250 142.0 SPECIALISTS 73,610,913 552.3 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL 16,282,006 179.6 TEACHERS 2,697,909 23.5 OFFICE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL 17,120,852 224.1 TRADES PERSONNEL 33,578,352 413.0 CUSTODIAL PERSONNEL 1,649,698 22.0 TRANSPORTATION PERSONNEL 3,126,862 33.0 School-based Total 1,837,971,567 21,917.8 PRINCIPALS 35,194,928 195.0 ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS 66,194,785 450.0 SUPERVISORS 237,041 1.5 SPECIALISTS 84,707,354 725.8 TECHNICAL PERSONNEL 20,901,658 308.0 TEACHERS 1,378,062,965 14,801.6 INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS 102,365,913 2,552.5 SPECIALIZED ASSISTANTS 15,644,344 416.0 OFFICE ASSISTANT PERSONNEL 63,687,461 1,086.5 TRADES PERSONNEL 3,742,084 43.0 CUSTODIAL PERSONNEL 67,233,034 1,338.0

163 CD# DS-04 Question #65

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Dan Storck

Answer Prepared By: Sloan J. Presidio

Date Prepared: May 17, 2013

Question: Are there any differences in the cost of Head Start versus FECEP?

Response: There is no difference in cost between the Family and Early Childhood Program (FECEP) and Head Start as FCPS currently operates. All programs are operating under both the Head Start Performance Standards and Virginia Preschool Initiative requirements. This program is funded with multiple funding sources, including federal, state and local dollars. These multiple funding sources are managed as a single seamless system to ensure continuity of service for families.

164 CD# TDK-02 Question #66

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Tamara Derenak Kaufax

Answer Prepared By: Sloan J. Presidio

Date Prepared: May 20, 2013

Question: What discretion do principals have with regard to the 0.5 advanced academic resource teacher allocated to each school?

Response: FY 2013 Approved budget standard allocation for an advanced academic resource teacher (AART) at the elementary level is: a 0.4 position for student membership under 600 and a 0.5 position for student membership over 600. Schools use this allocation to address their advanced academic needs as outlined in their School Agreement Form. Principals and advanced academic resource teachers meet at the beginning of each year to complete a School Agreement Form that will document how services at the school will align with the FCPS Local Plan for the Gifted. This form outlines the following:

1. How Level 1 – 3 advanced academic services will be delivered 2. SMART goals for the resource teacher at the school 3. A plan for finding and nurturing Young Scholars and twice exceptional learners 4. Plans for professional development and collaboration with grade level teams 5. Communication with parents 6. Screening responsibilities The completed form is signed by the advanced academic resource teacher and the principal and then submitted to the Advanced Academic Programs Office as a record of services provided at the school.

Principals who decide to purchase a full time advanced academic resource teacher trade other staff positions or use funds from their budget. The additional 0.5 is used according to the principal’s discretion. For example, some are used to teach advanced mathematics and others are used to focus on nurturing Young Scholars in K-2.

165 CD# ES-11 Question #67

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Sloan Presidio

Date Prepared: May 21, 2013

Question: Please identify the cost breakdown of a foreign language immersion elementary school, identifying the elements of cost to operate foreign language immersion and the number of students enrolled in immersion by school.

Please identify cost of FLES for each current FLES school and the number of students enrolled in FLES by school.

Response: As addressed in the response to FY 2014 budget question #11, Foreign Language Immersion (FLI) is an approach to language learning where students acquire target language while mastering curriculum in math, science, and health at the elementary school level. As attrition occurs in the upper elementary grade levels, additional staffing is provided to balance class size. At the middle school level, schools receive additional staffing which is used to supplement middle schools’ base staffing. In middle school, students may enroll in a foreign language class as an elective, thus allowing the students to continue to develop their language proficiency.

FLI is currently offered in 14 elementary and 13 middle schools in French, German, Japanese, Korean, or Spanish. The actual enrollment of students served as of September 30, 2012, was 4,112, and the FY 2013 Approved Budget for FLI is $2.1 million. 2012-2013 Immersion Enrollment Compensation for 29.7 positions School (grades 7-8) School Total School (through grade 6) School Total totals $2.1 million and $23,437 Herdon MS 39 Herndon ES 216 Longfellow MS 108 Kent Gardens ES 427 is budgeted for instructional Irving MS 58 Orange Hunt ES 273 supplies in the target language Carson MS 77 Fox Mill ES 248 and staff development. Cooper MS 20 Great Falls ES 133 Glasgow MS 43 Colin Powell ES 45 Sandburg MS 52 Bailey's ES 418 Hughes MS 44 Braddock ES 42 Robinson SS 63 Glasgow MS 31 Stone MS 42 Fort Hunt ES 321 Lake Braddock SS 39 Lake Anne ES 331 Twain MS 36 Laurel Ridge ES 247 Hayfield SS 4 London Towne ES 305 Ravensworth ES 172 Rose Hill ES 278 Immersion Totals 4,112 166 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #67 As addressed in the response to FY 2014 budget question #11, Foreign Language in the Elementary Schools (FLES) is an approach to language learning that allows all students to develop basic communication skills in a language while reinforcing and enriching the concepts taught in the subject areas at the respective grade level. Generally, programs have 30 minutes of instruction two times per week, which is articulated through middle and high school.

Teacher compensation for 55.0 positions totals the entire budget of $4.9 million.

2012-2013 FLES Enrollment School School Total School School Total Beech Tree 378 Columbia 381 Sleepy Hollow 328 Cunningham Park 368 Chesterbrook 593 Daniels Run 639 Clermont 408 Flint Hill 603 Fairhill 506 Floris 630 Fairview 474 Franklin Sherman 329 Hollin Meadows 630 Graham Road 449 Mount Vernon Woods 415 Greenbriar West 913 Oak Hill 724 Little Run 315 Providence 766 Navy 808 Shrevewood 482 Oakton 687 Wolftrap 500 Pine Spring 435 Kent Gardens 480 Poplar Tree 501 Mantua 900 Rose Hill 412 Gunston 448 Sangster 805 Belle View 407 Terra-Center 442 Brookfield 545 Terraset 399 Cherry Run 390 Waples Mill 593 Churchill 400 Willow Springs 842 Clearview 528 Woodley Hills 518 FLES Totals 21,371

The FY 2013 Program Budget provides detailed information including cost breakdown on FLES (pages 29-30) and FLI (pages 108-109).

167 CD# SE-07 Question #68

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Sandy Evans

Answer Prepared By: Phyllis Pajardo, Sloan Presidio, Jeffrey Platenberg, and Richard Moniuszko

Date Prepared: May 22, 2013

Question: What is the cost of the proposed July 5 paid day off for 12-month employees? What would it cost to provide a paid day off for all non-12-month employees on Aug. 26 or Aug. 30?

Response: The cost of the proposed July 5 paid day off for 12-month employees would be negligible. The only potential cost to FCPS would be overtime charges for employees who are required to come in, such as security or technology personnel. Any costs for such personnel would be offset by utility savings in electricity by not having to cool all the administrative buildings for that day, approximately $40,000 in savings. There are approximately 4,000 positions on a 12-month contract. Of these, approximately 2,400 positions are school-based and 1,600 positions are nonschool-based. Of the 2,400 12-month school-based positions, 68 percent are custodians, office assistants and trades personnel. The County Board of Supervisors is also considering granting their employees this paid holiday.

It is also important to note that less than 12-month employees receive up to three paid days each year for inclement weather and are not required to report to work on those days, whereas 12-month employees are required to report to work unless they elect to use their own annual leave. In very severe situations, FCPS has closed the entire system for inclement weather, but that does not typically occur. Over the last three years:

• FY 2013 – All employees were granted three days of which two days occurred in the fall for Hurricane Sandy. • FY 2012 – Less than 12-month employees received one day and 12-month employees received zero days. This was also the year students were released two days early and teachers were provided with two additional planning days. • FY 2011 – Less than 12-month employees received all three days and 12-month employees received one.

When schools have delayed openings or early closings these do not typically impact 12-month employees. Additionally, in fiscal year 2014, there are 261 contract days for 12-month employees versus the 260 days their salaries are calculated upon.

From both an instructional and transportation perspective, it is not feasible to provide a paid day off for all non-12 month employees on August 26 or 30. Providing a day off that week would significantly impact the countywide in-service day as well as other preparations to begin school the following week. 168 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #68 It would also run contrary to Instructional Services’ professional development focus, a new coordinated approach to teacher professional development starting next fiscal year.

For transportation personnel, there are four big in-services scheduled for the end of August that cannot be rescheduled. Drivers and attendants will be retrieving their schedules and completing their dry runs in preparation for the school year. Because of all that needs to be done during this time period, employees would feel compelled to come to work even if granted a day off. This would necessitate overtime pay for those employees.

The cost of providing 12-month employees with an additional paid holiday does not cost the same amount that would be saved if employees were furloughed for one day. As stated in the first paragraph, the cost of having July 5th as an additional holiday would be negligible and would be offset by utility savings. If FCPS were to furlough 12-month employees on July 5th, the savings would be approximately $1.2 million for salaries and FICA. Contributions to VRS would not be impacted. Reducing 12-month employee’s pay in FY 2014 could jeopardize the state incentive compensation which requires a 2 percent increase for employees as compared to the prior year effective no later than January 1, 2014.

169 CD# ES-10 Question #69

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Elizabeth Schultz

Answer Prepared By: Terri Breeden and Phyllis Pajardo

Date Prepared: May 23, 2013

Question: 1. For FY 2013, how many assistant principals are there and how many of participated in the intern program? 2. How have current assistant principals who did not take part in the intern program been certified? 3. How many assistant principal positions opened up for each of the last four fiscal years? 4. How many teachers, counselors, and others are currently certified to work as assistant principals? 5. How many interns have there been for each of the last four fiscal years and how many are now either assistant principals or principals?

Response:

1. For FY 2013, how many assistant principals are there and how many have participated in the intern program? There are 373 assistant principals. 69 have participated in the LEAD Fairfax Administrative Intern program. Additionally, 22 percent of the principals participated in the intern program.

2. How have current assistant principals who did not take part in the intern program been certified? The Administrative Intern program does not provide administrative certification or licensure. All participants of the intern program must hold their administrative license prior to being accepted into the intern program. All assistant principals must be certified to be hired as an assistant principal.

3. How many assistant principal positions opened up for each of the last four fiscal years? FY 2010 92 FY 2011 107 FY 2012 107 FY 2013 109 TOTAL 415

170 Page 2 of 2 Budget Question #69 4. How many teachers, counselors, and others are currently certified to work as assistant principals?

Teachers (including 3 school psychologists) 54 School Based Technology Specialists (SBTSs) 16 Educational Specialists (various positions) 60

5. How many interns have there been for each of the last four fiscal years and how many are now either assistant principals or principals? Each year there are 10 interns, so there have been 40 interns, 27 are now serving as assistant principals. Additionally, four interns are now in other instructional leader positions.

171 CD# PR-10 Question #70

FY 2014

BUDGET INFORMATION FORM

School Board Member Requesting Information: Patricia Reed

Answer Prepared By: Susan Quinn

Date Prepared: May 23, 2013

Question: Please provide a detailed substantiation of proposed travel costs. Please estimate the relative percent use based upon activity and organization to illustrate both the end use/user as well as whether the travel is essential. (For example, past expenses have included mandatory training at UVA for principals and staff for PSI, overseas conferences for LT presentations, Disney seminars for staff development.) Please estimate the proportion of travel related to non-essential staff development, or training that could be offered internally or locally?

To what extent have travel restrictions been in place? Please summarize existing policy regarding plans and approvals of travel.

Response: On November 6, 2012, in a memorandum from Dr. Dale to Principals and the Leadership Team, Guidelines for Consultants and Non-Local Travel were released. Restrictions were effective November 15, 2012 and approval by a Cluster or Department Assistant Superintendent was required for all non- local travel or expenses for any purpose (training, conferences, or presentations.) Any travel or training approved must be deemed “essential” as defined in the guidelines. The restrictions applied regardless of the source of funding (appropriated, local activity, grant, PTA or fundraisers) and travel outside of the United States must be approved by the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent.

Travel for professional development is limited to the following areas: 1) Creating high functioning professional learning communities in every school and department; 2) Closing the achievement gap; 3) Implementing best practices in teaching and learning in every school; and 4) Ensuring we retain systemwide performance knowledge for the future.

Since the optimal place for professional learning is embedded in the workplace, both schools and central office staff were directed to utilize FCPS expertise to the maximum extent to develop proven practices that address these four priorities.

The systemwide FY 2014 Advertised budget of $1.7 million for professional development amounts to $72 per employee. Of the $1.7 million budgeted for professional development in FY 2014, a majority is for school-based activities. Funding totaling $0.3 million budgeted in the schools and special education centers are school-based staff development funds that are included in the standard allocations formula. All schools, alternative high schools, and special education centers receive per-school funding of $750. Each school and special education center also is allocated funds based on a rate of $33.58 per 172 teacher. These funds are used to support initiatives to enhance the academic achievement of students. Additional funding is provided to High School Academies, IB High Schools and elementary schools offering foreign language immersion.

The $1.5 million budgeted in departments includes school-based activities such as Advanced Placement professional development funding for the Summer Institutes that are a requirement of the college board for AP and IB teachers; required staff development for the AVID program so that teachers and tutors to stay up to date with the latest research; required funding for the IB middle school program; funding for teachers and students to travel to the national Science Fair; and funding for the assistive technology and instructional coaching programs. Perkins grant funding is also used for required travel for students and teachers to participate in competitions like DECA. In addition,funding for nonschool- based activities include training in safety and security and emergency preparedness, maintaining industry best practices, developing collaborative teams and professional learning communities, identifying and developing a diverse pool of strong leaders to ensure leadership continuity, and providing career enrichment and advancement opportunities.

The following chart reflects FY 2012 actual expenditures and the FY 2014 Advertised budget for Budget/Actual professional development. Schools/Centers Professional Development FY 2012 Actual FY 2014 Advertised Total Schools/Centers $ 761,492 $ 268,384 Department Professional Development FY 2012 Actual FY 2014 Advertised Cluster Offices 89,206 0 Communications and Community Outreach 33,967 3,246 Facilities and Transportation Services 69,586 95,000 Financial Services 44,774 31,300 Human Resources 40,857 54,189 Instructional Services 668,991 678,730 Information Technology 98,105 110,915 Professional Learning and Accountability 492,924 177,445 School Board Office 33,771 51,500 Superintendent's Office 125,820 36,600 Special Services 129,474 211,830 Total Departments $ 1,827,475 $ 1,450,755 Systemwide Total 2,588,967 1,719,139

173 Click on any entry in the Index to be taken to the corresponding Budget Question FY 2014 Budget Questions TOPICAL INDEX

Question...... Question#...... CD#...... Page #

Budget Analysis of Yearend Balances...... 25...... BOS-05...... 61 Automatic Carryover...... 29...... BOS-09...... 67 Automatic Carryover...... 51...... SE-05...... 129 AVID Program Funding...... 50...... PH-04...... 128 CAFR Fund Balances...... 22...... JS-01...... 55 Expenditures Overbudgeted...... 34...... BOS-15...... 77 Multimedia Services Allocations...... 19...... ES-05...... 37 One-Time Balances and Carryover...... 16...... BOS-01...... 31 Operating Fund Expenditure Detail...... 57...... ES-06...... 142 Overtime Funds...... 62...... PR-08...... 160 Per-Pupil-Cost Calculations...... 20...... PR-06...... 51 Reserves and Carryover...... 31...... BOS-14...... 70

Cost CIP Requirements...... 28...... BOS-03...... 65 Cost of eCART...... 45...... JS-02...... 118 Cost of FECEP/Head Start...... 65...... DS-04...... 164 Cost of FLI and FLES...... 67...... ES-11...... 166 Cost Per Student for Immersion and FLES Programs...... 11...... PR-04...... 15 Cost to Provide 1% MSA or $500 Bonus...... 7...... PR-03...... 9 Cost to Purchase Trailer...... 10...... SE-02...... 14 Cost to put Support Staff in Classroom Positions...... 46...... RM-02...... 120 Costs and Benefits to Maintain,Reduce,or Eliminate...... 40...... BOS-11...... 105 Costs and Personnel Counts for FCPS Departments...... 49...... BOS-06...... 127 Cultural Sensitivity Training...... 18...... PH-01...... 36 Expanding Pre-K Programs...... 5...... TDK-01...... 6 Estimated vs. Actual Costs of Capital Projects...... 48...... BOS-17...... 125 FCPS Publications...... 26...... BOS-08...... 63 FLES Expansion...... 61...... RM-03...... 159 Instruction Costs...... 33...... BOS-12...... 75 Instructional Coaches...... 38...... PH-03...... 102 Instructional Coaches/Principals...... 63...... ES-09...... 162 International Baccalaureate Costs...... 15...... ES-03...... 28 Johnie Forte, Jr. Support Center...... 32...... ES-07...... 72 Living Wage...... 21...... SE-03...... 54 National Board Certified Teacher Stipends...... 39...... RM-01...... 104 Paid Holiday...... 68...... SE-07...... 168 Parent Liaison Contracts...... 52...... SE-04...... 136 PSI Expenses...... 24...... BOS-07...... 60 PSI Funding...... 13...... PH-02...... 25 Substitute Expenditures...... 54...... PR-07...... 138

174 Click on any entry in the Index to be taken to the corresponding Budget Question FY 2014 Budget Questions TOPICAL INDEX

Question...... Question#...... CD#...... Page #

Suspension Support...... 56...... ES-08...... 140 Travel Costs...... 70...... PR-10...... 172 VRS Pay Increase Midyear...... 44...... BOS-22...... 117

Miscellaneous Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... 66...... TDK-02...... 165 Assistant Principal Intern Program...... 69...... ES-10...... 170 College Level Courses...... 36...... BOS-20...... 85 ESOL Students...... 43...... BOS-18...... 115 FOCUS Status...... 53...... SE-06...... 137 Instructional Coaches...... 59...... PH-05...... 157 Planetariums...... 55...... DS-02...... 139 Proffer Contributions...... 37...... BOS-21...... 90 Priority Schools Initiative...... 35...... BOS-19...... 79 School Bus Orders...... 60...... DS-03...... 158 Technology Expenditures...... 41...... BOS-13...... 111 Trailer Usage...... 47...... BOS-23...... 121 Twelve-Month Positions...... 64...... PR-11...... 163

Positions Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... 9...... KS-01...... 12 In-School Suspension...... 14...... ES-02...... 26 Position Title And Pay Level For Supervisors...... 58...... PR-09...... 152 School-Based Positions...... 17...... BOS-02...... 34 Staffing Reserve Positions at Midyear...... 3...... ES-01...... 3 Trends in Positions Other Than Operating Fund...... 12...... PR-02...... 24 Unfilled Positions at Midyear...... 2...... DS-01...... 2

Revenue FCPS Bonds...... 27...... BOS-04...... 64 Grant Revenues...... 1...... SE-01...... 1 Monopole Revenue...... 23...... ES-04...... 58

Salary Promotion Freeze...... 4...... PR-01...... 4 Provide A Salary And Benefit Comparison For Surrounding Jurisdictions...... 8...... MM-01...... 10

Savings Attrition Rate...... 42...... BOS-16...... 113 No New FLI or FLES Programs...... 6...... PR-05...... 8 VRS Employee Contribution...... 30...... BOS-10...... 69

175 Click on any entry in the Index to be taken to the corresponding Budget Question FY 2014 Budget Questions INDEX BY SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER

Question...... Question#...... CD#...... Page #

Board of Supervisors FCPS Publications...... 26...... BOS-08...... 63

Supervisor Bulova Priority Schools Initiative...... 35...... BOS-19...... 79

Supervisor Cook College Level Courses...... 36...... BOS-20...... 85

Supervisor Foust Automatic Carryover...... 29...... BOS-09...... 67 Costs and Benefits to Maintain,Reduce,or Eliminate...... 40...... BOS-11...... 105 Expenditures Overbudgeted...... 34...... BOS-15...... 77 Instruction Costs...... 33...... BOS-12...... 75 Reserves and Carryover...... 31...... BOS-14...... 70 Technology Expenditures...... 41...... BOS-13...... 111 VRS Employee Contribution...... 30...... BOS-10...... 69 VRS Pay Increase Midyear...... 44...... BOS-22...... 117

Supervisor Gross Trailer Usage...... 47...... BOS-23...... 121

Supervisor Herrity Analysis of Yearend Balances...... 25...... BOS-05...... 61 Attrition Rate...... 42...... BOS-16...... 113 Costs and Personnel Counts for FCPS Departments...... 49...... BOS-06...... 127 ESOL Students...... 43...... BOS-18...... 115 Estimated vs. Actual Costs of Capital Projects...... 48...... BOS-17...... 125 PSI Expenses...... 24...... BOS-07...... 60 School-Based Positions...... 17...... BOS-02...... 34 VRS Pay Increase Midyear...... 44...... BOS-22...... 117

Supervisor Hudgins CIP Requirements...... 28...... BOS-03...... 65 Priority Schools Initiative...... 35...... BOS-19...... 79

Supervisor McKay FCPS Bonds...... 27...... BOS-04...... 64 One-Time Balances and Carryover...... 16...... BOS-01...... 31 Priority Schools Initiative...... 35...... BOS-19...... 79

Supervisor Smyth Proffer Contributions...... 37...... BOS-21...... 90

176 Question...... Question#...... CD#...... Page #

Tamara Derenak Kaufax Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... 66...... TDK-02...... 165 Expanding Pre-K Programs...... 5...... TDK-01...... 6

Sandy Evans Automatic Carryover...... 51...... SE-05...... 129 Cost to Purchase Trailer...... 10...... SE-02...... 14 FOCUS Status...... 53...... SE-06...... 137 Grant Revenues...... 1...... SE-01...... 1 Living Wage...... 21...... SE-03...... 54 Paid Holiday...... 68...... SE-07...... 168 Parent Liaison Contracts...... 52...... SE-04...... 136

Pat Hynes AVID Program Funding...... 50...... PH-04...... 128 Cultural Sensitivity Training...... 18...... PH-01...... 36 Instructional Coaches...... 38...... PH-03...... 102 Instructional Coaches...... 59...... PH-05...... 157 PSI Funding...... 13...... PH-02...... 25

Ryan McElveen Cost to put Support Staff in Classroom Positions...... 46...... RM-02...... 120 FLES Expansion...... 61...... RM-03...... 159 National Board Certified Teacher Stipends...... 39...... RM-01...... 104

Megan McLaughlin Provide A Salary And Benefit Comparison For Surrounding Jurisdictions...... 8...... MM-01...... 10

Patty Reed Cost to Provide 1% MSA or $500 Bonus...... 7...... PR-03...... 9 Cost Per Student for Immersion and FLES Programs...... 11...... PR-04...... 15 No New FLI or FLES Programs...... 6...... PR-05...... 8 Overtime Funds...... 62...... PR-08...... 160 Per-Pupil-Cost Calculations...... 20...... PR-06...... 51 Position Title And Pay Level For Supervisors...... 58...... PR-09...... 152 Promotion Freeze...... 4...... PR-01...... 4 Substitute Expenditures...... 54...... PR-07...... 138 Travel Costs...... 70...... PR-10...... 172 Trends in Positions Other Than Operating Fund...... 12...... PR-02...... 24 Twelve-Month Positions...... 64...... PR-11...... 163

Elizabeth Schultz Assistant Principal Intern Program...... 69...... ES-10...... 170 Cost of FLI and FLES...... 67...... ES-11...... 166 In-School Suspension...... 14...... ES-02...... 26 International Baccalaureate Costs...... 15...... ES-03...... 28 Johnie Forte, Jr. Support Center...... 32...... ES-07...... 72

177 Question...... Question#...... CD#...... Page #

Monopole Revenue...... 23...... ES-04...... 58 Multimedia Services Allocations...... 19...... ES-05...... 37 Operating Fund Expenditure Detail...... 57...... ES-06...... 142 Staffing Reserve Positions at Midyear...... 3...... ES-01...... 3 Suspension Support...... 56...... ES-08...... 140 Instructional Coaches/Principals...... 63...... ES-09...... 162

Kathy Smith Advanced Academic Resource Teachers...... 9...... KS-01...... 12

Dan Storck Cost of FECEP/Head Start...... 65...... DS-04...... 164 Planetariums...... 55...... DS-02...... 139 School Bus Orders...... 60...... DS-03...... 158 Unfilled Positions at Midyear...... 2...... DS-01...... 2

Jane Strauss CAFR Fund Balances...... 22...... JS-01...... 55 Cost of eCART...... 45...... JS-02...... 118

178