Over the course of the past 6 months, in response to District staff financial recommendations, I have sent what I think were well researched and well thought out alternatives to several of those recommendations to the Board. There has never been a discussion on any of my alternatives. I am only left to wonder ‘Why?’
The first was in response to the Cabinet’s budget reduction recommendation to cut funding to the District’s HS GT program at Wheat Ridge. In this case I recommended that the Board look at the following alternatives and proceeded to outline why those were worthy of a discussion:
Here are 4 options I suggest you consider to save the HS GT program:
- Cut one additional Achievement Director than has already been recommended. This program with 14 current Directors can easily support a reduction to 11 or even 10.
- Use some of the $17.5M in Materials and Supplies Contingency that is hidden in the budget. In 2016-2017 this is actually a $7.5M increase from 2015-2016.
- Reduce the amount of savings you’re looking for. Only one year after negotiating a new contract with the teacher’s union, it is extremely hard for most people to comprehend the need for another $25M in compensation increases. Spending a little less would still be an improvement for teachers.
- Determine if some of the $24M in 2015-2016 budget surplus is sustainable and use some of the sustainable surplus to fund high school GT.
The second was in response to the Cabinet’s equal allocation of additional Alternative Pathways funding instead of equitable funding made on May 4th. In this case I recommended that the Board look at the following alternatives:
How about considering these ideas:
- Create competition. Have schools submit Alternative Pathways program proposals. From this competition allocate additional funding for the best of these.
- Allocate $20,000 to all 17 schools and keep the IB and GT Center funding in place.
- Keep the IB and GT Center funding and allocate $50k in additional Alternative Pathways funding to just the 12 schools which have total matriculation rates below 72%, FRL rates above 14% and 4 year matriculation rates below 55%.
Yet, not one of these reasonable alternatives was even discussed. Surely, if the Board members were really doing their jobs at least one member would have found one of these alternatives interesting enough to warrant a discussion.
But there never was a discussion. It’s baffling to me.
In addition, I’ve heard other community members present reasonable alternatives at Board meetings, but again never any semblance of a discussion on community proposed alternatives.
When you are in a fiscally constrained environment shouldn’t you listen to and evaluate every single idea?
Having worked in resource constrained startups, that is certainly the characteristic that I saw that led to survival.
Yet, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that type of thinking or behavior to me with the current Board.
Actually, all I’ve seen is an arrogant, we know best, and uncreative herd mentality.