Not sure what was wrong
If I remember enrollment numbers were reported as a +473 in October of '05. Not only were they not proven wrong, the State went onto award the district one of the highest awards you can get for financial reporting.
If student count had been mis-represented that wouldn't have occured. The entire district's budget process and funding mechanisms are driven off of enrollment.
I believe Ted was disappointed that the enrollment numbers were as high as they were but you can't change facts. The 473 is less than the previous year which I think was 531. He was concerned the district didn't know about it until August.
Student count ended this year at 9730 if what a principal I was talking with was correct. The figures that are reported in October compare October to October as a state requirement. I'm not sure what the Oct '05 number was but I think the 9730 is a little higher than where they were in October.
Papers have stated they are projecting about 425 students for next fall.
By guess again
If I remember enrollment numbers were reported as a +473 in October of '05. Not only were they not proven wrong, the State went onto award the district one of the highest awards you can get for financial reporting.
If student count had been mis-represented that wouldn't have occured. The entire district's budget process and funding mechanisms are driven off of enrollment.
I believe Ted was disappointed that the enrollment numbers were as high as they were but you can't change facts. The 473 is less than the previous year which I think was 531. He was concerned the district didn't know about it until August.
Student count ended this year at 9730 if what a principal I was talking with was correct. The figures that are reported in October compare October to October as a state requirement. I'm not sure what the Oct '05 number was but I think the 9730 is a little higher than where they were in October.
Papers have stated they are projecting about 425 students for next fall.
By guess again