Saving the Jeffco WRHS GT Center

16402626_1295186623885088_5424815077130559609_oIf you attended or watched the Feb. 9 Jeffco School Board meeting, you know that many, many students from the Wheat Ridge High School GT Center program spoke passionately in support of the program after Superintendent Dan McMinimee directed his staff to include the program on the list of recommended budget cuts introduced at the Jan. 26 meeting.

You also remember that after hours of parents, students, teachers, and community members pleading with the board to not close schools, cut programs or cut other resources that impact Jeffco classrooms, McMinimee did an about-face and told his staff to try a new approach that relies on retirement savings rather than classroom resource cuts and school closures.

The result?  Most of the originally proposed cuts are now “deferred,” unless estimated state funding drops considerably.

Board member Ali Lasell told staff that she would like to see the WRHS GT Center program taken off the cut list entirely so that cuts weren’t merely “deferred” but completely off the table.

After some discussion district staff told board members that their goal was to fund the program through $150,000 of money from the district from another year, but then to fund the program through student-based budgeting dollars–just like every other GT Center program in Jeffco’s elementary and middle schools currently is. The result, staff said, would be a budget savings and would be more sustainable in the long run.

A long discussion ensued with district staff — specifically, Terry Elliot, Chief School Effectiveness Officer, and Kevin Carroll, Chief Student Success Officer — assuring board members that the program could be funded through SBB dollars with money left to spare.

Our impression from listening to this conversation in the board room was that Lasell and the other board members were very clear in directing district staff to remove this from a budget cut list and make sure it never returned. In fact, Amanda Stevens brought the issue up again later in the discussion to emphasize to McMinimee and staff in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want to see the program proposed for cuts again, not this year and not any year.

That said, we also recognize that this conversation took place well after midnight. So we’d like to include this transcript of the discussion and then ask a question. First, the transcript, with the caveat that some items without quotation marks around them have been paraphrased for clarity (remember, it was well after midnight and everyone was exhausted):

Amanda Stevens: “We’ve had a request to take some things off the table. To not defer, but just say no to some things.”

Ali Lasell:  “There are some Ds [deferred items] I have a problem with. A “D” can come back, right?”

[staff confirm that deferred items could be considered for cuts later if the state funding picture changes]

Lasell: “Here is what I want to propose: out of respect for the Wheat Ridge GT program, I’d like to vote to take that off the table right now, to take that off the D, and take it off the list.”

Kevin Carroll (Student Success Officer): I’ve talked to WRHS principal, we agree it’s the right program. We propose using some one-time dollars to fund the GT program this coming year [2017-18] and then look together and work with community to look at the $583,000 that come with these students each year, which is enough to fund 8 teachers. I believe we can work in partnership with finance and the high school to see what the long-term sustainable possibilities are to make it work with SBB just like elementary and middle school GT programs currently do. …. When transitioned to SBB, the center programs were run through programs they received students. The program attracts 95 students who choice in, making it mutually attractive for the GT Center and WRHS.

Ron Mitchell: Is there pressure on anyone if program is funded through SBB?

Carroll: No, it should be doable.  “We can make it a sustainable program, which is what it should be.”

Lasell: “Sustainable how?”

Carroll: “Sustainable so that it is funded by the students who participate within the program so it does not become at risk through budget cutting at the district level from year to year, just like we do with every other GT center program, similar to how we do with any other unique program at high schools right now.”  (Mentions pathways program, etc, says no additional funds come in to fund those beyond SBB dollars.)

Carroll:  “The dollars that come as a result of them being there [the GT students] should be leveraged to support their needs.”

Terry Elliot (Chief School Effectiveness Officer) explains that IB programs are supplemented to cover administrative costs such as testing and other elements that are specific to IB, but that funding does not cover the teaching FTE needed for IB; SBB covers FTE costs for IB.

Lasell: “I feel like this is a program, not just a premiere program in the state. I feel like it’s a nationally-recognized program, it is a center program for high school, and it is attracting kids from all over the district. The great thing about having it at WR is WR is pretty centrally located so it provides more opportunity for more people…..I think it’s a great location. But I also know that in general, high schools costs a lot more to operate because you have all these other specialized classes. In general their class sizes are a lot smaller than our middle and elementaries. I want us to respect the gems we have right now.”

Elliot: “I think what Mr. Carroll is saying is that we have a lot of gems that self-fund. Why is this one uniquely receiving additional dollars? The reason it got it original is undisputed: it was a start-up process, that’s the way we allocated FTEs to schools in the past but as we rolled to the SBB process we took all the dollars that were being allocated from here and pushed them into the per-pupil factor so that schools could continue to run their programs. WR is essentially getting paid twice for that class because if students come with a full schedule of six classes as part of the funding the school receives and one of those six classes is the GT program class that they take, and nobody  has ever said it’s anything other than a great program, but those dollars are kind of inherently built into our budgeting process. However, we’re giving that school an additional $150,000 to offer that program, so in a sense, they’re getting two dollars for that class, they’re getting paid twice for that class.”

Stevens: “Which allows the principal to direct his other SBB dollars to the kinds of offerings and wraparound services”

Elliot (interjects): “very low class student ratios,”

Stevens: “Let me ask you this. That conversation that would proceed with the principal there, would it be about size, where the equation shifts and it’s a shared cost?”

Carroll: “What we’re proposing is to not have to share any costs this year, but that we would pay the whole $150,000, but that we would transition them for the year after. Right now, on top of the existing two teachers, he could afford to pay for those teachers plus five more, 5-1/2 more, almost 6 teachers that he could use in other ways across his building, where right now he’s able to use all 7.87 teachers outside of these current teachers that are being paid for with central dollars.”

Susan Harmon: “I understand what you’re saying and I assure you, it’s a fabulous program. Every kid who stood up, I could listen to them for hours. But we’re also trying to create equity, there’s a lot of other great programs across the board, there are some other amazing gems, out there, and in the name of equity, we’re not taking that away. We’re going to manage it…”

Carroll (interjects): “Absolutely And if we got to the point and I would never propose this, but if the local school that gets to control the SBB dollars through a community process, a collaborative process with SACS and shared leadership, if they determine that through the SBB dollars that they did not believe they were able to house this program at Wheat Ridge High School I would find another place for it within the county. This program needs to continue so that’s not in question. It will continue. And my greatest hope is that it will continue at Wheat Ridge High School because there’s such a beautiful partnership that is going on there, and a wonderful program. I don’t think there’s any question that this type of program is absolutely necessary for these students.”

Mitchell: “And the likelihood of being able to work out a long-term solution collaborative you would guess, Mr. Carroll, is very good?”

Carroll: “I believe is very high given the amount of resources that come with these students.”

[a some time later, after a few other budget items have been discussed]

Stevens: I’d like to revisit the GT issue and request that it be a shared cost model that isn’t requiring 100 percent school dollars or 100 percent district dollars. Says she wants to make sure that it doesn’t become a one or the other, where the program might get pulled out of WRHS and sent elsewhere if WRHS decides its SBB dollars aren’t sufficient to make it fully self-funding next year.

Lasell: “I think you’re hearing us that we want that program to stay and we want it to stay at Wheat Ridge.”

Elliot: “We’re all on the same page.”

Lasell: “I just want to be really clear so you have your direction from us. So let’s figure it out and not hear about this possibility again, ok?”

Mitchell: “Yes, we would like to not come back to this one.”

[Mitchell closes that agenda item and moves to the next item.]

https://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310/videos/148985602

We’ve heard from from some community members that their impression is that the WRHS GT Center is only funded for one more year, and their future is uncertain after that. We’re not sure why, as the board members made it clear that they didn’t want to see the program on the chopping block again–and were assured repeatedly by staff that funding the program through SBB dollars like every other GT Center wouldn’t be a problem.

One objection the WRHS school accountability committee chair made at the meeting was that WRHS needs to direct more resources toward boosting student achievement scores among their very large free and reduced lunch population. However, WRHS is hardly alone in that respect. About half of Jeffco’s 16 GT Center schools that have considerable FRL populations, and four of those have much larger FRL populations than WRHS:

  • Kendrick Lakes – 29.3 percent
  • Hackberry – 31.1 percent
  • Sheridan Green – 32.1 percent
  • WRHS  46.2%

  • Creighton Middle School – 57.7 percent
  • North Arvada Middle School – 57.8 percent
  • Everitt Middle School – 66.5 percent
  • Stevens Elementary – 70 percent

CDE School Dashboard

http://www2.cde.state.co.us/schoolview/dish/schooldashboard.asp

WRHS is hardly alone in serving a diverse population of learners, both academically and socio-economically, so we don’t understand the WRHS SAC chair’s argument. Other GT Center schools have to balance those same issues, and continue to do so.

One other point: the board members asked about how other high school programs, such as IB, were funded. Elliot said that while IB programs do get some extra money, that money is reserved strictly for IB-specific administrative costs (related to testing requirements for IB students), but that the IB teachers are funded through SBB.

That said, we wonder if there’s a missing piece about the current WRHS GT Center that hasn’t been addressed in the budget discussion. JCSBW fully agrees that the WRHS GT Center is a valuable program that should not be a candidate for budget cuts, and wonder what more can be done to ensure a stable future for the program.

So we’d like to toss this question out to those in the WRHS GT community: what would you like to see the Jeffco School Board members do to ensure that the program is protected from budget cuts during the next decade?

Feel free to leave a comment below or to email us at MtEvans2015@gmail.com. As always, we’re happy to keep your responses anonymous, especially if there’s additional information we’d like to share with our readers to better understand this situation.

JeffCo Proud!

Guest Post: Jeffco Schools Budget Cut Recommendations

urgent
Today we feature a guest post by one our readers, Bob Greenawalt, a Jeffco parent, taxpayer, and community member, regarding some of the Jeffco Schools budget cuts recommended by the district. Our five Jeffco School Board members are preparing to vote on these recommendations on Thursday and need your input. Greenawalt highlights some of the potential cuts in his post.

On January 26, 2017 the Superintendent’s Cabinet, among other things, recommended:

  • Eliminating all (30) social and emotional learning specialists and a coordinator.
  • Eliminating all (20) literacy interventionists.
  • Eliminating four of 16 resource teachers who help support teachers of students determined to be gifted and talented.
  • Cut the 2 GT teachers who run the District’s only HS GT program at Wheat Ridge.

Let’s hope that the Board was as surprised by these recommendations as I was.

By all indications, these programs are successful and working to help our kids. Schools nationwide are investing in social emotional work, which helps students develop skills to manage their emotions, resolve conflicts and make responsible decisions. District research shows that the literacy interventionists are “closing the gap for our most highly impacted populations.” The targeted cut of the 2 GT teachers includes a 2017 Colorado Teacher of the Year Finalist.

All of these successful programs were designed to help students on the margins. It makes me wonder what message the Superintendent and his Cabinet is sending to teachers, students and the community with these recommendations?

The Board has an opportunity to show the community that it really does care about kids and their education by rejecting these recommendations and finding other ways to fund their desired compensation investment of $25M.

If the Board accepts these recommendations, we will be left questioning their priorities and reasoning, and an at-risk population will be deprived of vital resources.

The School Board needs to remember its responsibility to put the kids first!

We at JCSBW want add that the issues with compensation are real and that $25 million would go a long way toward making salaries in Jeffco Schools competitive with our neighboring districts. However, the board has not yet landed on a specific plan for compensation and the cuts district staff recommended surprised everyone at the Jan. 26 meeting.

District staff recommended the $25 million number. Given that District staff were then only able to present a little over $20 million in recommended cuts, we don’t expect to see anything close to $25 million go toward compensation this year. We also know board members were not a proponent of closing any schools for the 2017-18 school year, or accelerating any timelines regarding the move toward K-5, 6-8 configurations. 

Board members have placed a high priority on teacher compensation because of how important having a great teacher in every classroom is to student success. Jeffco risks losing some of its best educators.

We pointed out recently that in 2010, a Jeffco Schools teacher with a master’s degree and 10 years of experience earned $52,330. In 2017, that same Jeffco Schools teacher only earns $49,839 — compensation has gone DOWN. In neighboring districts, that teacher can earn $57,733. Are those teachers going to head to Boulder or Cherry Creek to earn nearly $8,000 more per year? Sure — especially if they have kids headed to college. It’s a real issue.

However, some of the recommended cuts, such as those mentioned above and the recommendation to close five schools, will have a major impact on our Jeffco students and communities.

The question for board members will be how to balance keeping good teachers in Jeffco while also continuing to invest in educational innovations that we know help Jeffco students achieve.

If you can’t make the meeting tomorrow, please watch the live stream at this link: https://livestream.com/accounts/10429076/events/3542310

1.26.17 Board Meeting – Be Sure to Tune In: Supt Search, Budget & 6th Grade Recommendations!

The Board of Education’s next board meeting, a study session, will be this coming Thursday, Jan. 26, starting at 5 pm. If you can’t attend in person at the Ed Center, we encourage you to tune in via livestream. There will be some very important conversations regarding the superintendent search, budget recommendations, and suggested direction for moving 6th graders to middle schools district-wide.

Before we jump into the agenda for the upcoming BOE meeting, we would first like to emphasize the importance of participating in the budget process. Please start with this brief video, which provides an overview of the budget crisis. Note that we are funded $985 less per student than Amendment 23 requires and $2,200 less PER STUDENT than the national average! Our teachers make, on average, 10% less than surrounding school districts, and they make, on average, 17% less than similarly educated individuals nationally, requiring many to work 2nd and 3rd jobs to make ends meet.

Bottom line: we need competitive compensation to attract and retain the best and brightest teachers and staff for our children. Please be sure to complete the budget survey by Feb. 10.

In addition, the district will host four telephone town halls where you can learn more and make your voice heard: Feb. 1 and Feb. 7 at 6 pm and 7 pm on both nights. The number to call is 855-312-2107. Please plan to participate.

If the budget tool and the tele-town halls aren’t for you, you are encouraged to email the board at board@jeffco.k12.co.us to share your concerns. They are going to be making some tough decisions with the budget. Make sure to let them know your thoughts.

First up on the agenda for the evening is the legislative update. It isn’t good news. The Gallagher Amendment will reduce the Residential Assessment Rate almost 1.5 percent, which will in turn reduce school district property tax collections by approximately $135M! To address this shortfall, the Governor has proposed legislation to reduce the Senior Homestead Exemption by half, which would save the state $68M. He has also proposed legislation to raise the tax on recreational marijuana from 8.0-12.0 percent, which would raise $42M.

We don’t see how either of these “band-aids,” which will hurt seniors and make the discussion even more confusing regarding pot money and schools, will help our funding crisis. We need real solutions.

Also in the legislative update, we’ll hear about some interesting proposed legislation, including these bills: a bill to require an additional $42M for Full-day Kindergarten, a house bill to let districts decide whether to administer certain state tests, a house bill to allow concealed carry in public schools, a senate bill to provide handgun safety training for school employees, a house bill to prohibit corporal punishment (just in case you thought that wasn’t allowed already!), a house bill to address teacher shortages in CO, a senate bill that requires districts to equalize mill levy override payments with charter schools (Jeffco already does this), and many others. Check them out! As a refresher, here are the board’s legislative priorities.

Next up is an update on the superintendent search. If you missed our last post about the board’s decision to move ahead with a national superintendent search, please read it and understand the expectations our BOE has for Jeffco’s superintendent. Note that the search needs to begin no later than January to take full advantage of a national candidate pool. Looks like attachments providing more info are coming soon, but as of the release of this post, attachments had not yet been provided.

Following the superintendent search update, we’ll hear from staff with an update on the Jeffco 2020 strategic plan. The presentation highlights that 20 percent of Jeffco schools are implementing Performance Based Learning (PBL) and Assessments (PBA) that allow for collaborative partnerships with the community and businesses and measure students’ abilities by allowing students to problem-solve in real-world context as opposed to traditional testing.

Slide 12 shares the results from the 2015-16 employee survey (with 5,666 employees participating!) of Jeffco 2020 questions by school level and shows that while teachers highly rate the job Jeffco does at increasing student performance in content mastery, the results are clear across school levels that “self-direction and personal responsibility” is rated the lowest by employees. Just above that is civic and global engagement.

Parents — we can really help out here. Self-direction, engagement, and personal responsibility are skills that must be taught and reinforced at home as well in order for our kiddos to be successful at school.

Next, we will hear an update on employee negotiations. JCEA negotiations began on Jan. 19 and will be streamed. Here’s the negotiations schedule. You can watch the livestream here. At this time, there is no recording from the Jan. 19 negotiations meeting, but we’re assuming that will be available soon.

Note the concern on slide 6 that as a result of Jeffco not passing our mill levy override while other surrounding districts did, we are even further away from the mark in providing competitive compensation to Jeffco employees, which puts us in danger of losing and/or not attracting the best and brightest teachers and staff. While the BOE had asked staff to find $25M to be allocated for teacher compensation, we’re seeing on slide 10 in this presentation that the ask is for a commitment to find a minimum of $12M to keep us level — but “level” does not make Jeffco competitive in the marketplace.

Next, cabinet will present their recommendations for the budget. Staff will address the impact of the reduced property valuations on our budget (the Gallagher Amendment). A few items of note from the presentation are:

  • a projected 242 student decrease across the district
  • $6M retirement/turnover savings – possibly as much as $9M
  • Cabinet has prioritized a four-phased system of reductions and fee changes to provide $20.4M towards the BOE’s $25M goal for compensation increases (the worksheet detailing the recommended reductions will be available on BoardDocs by Jan. 27)
  • the General Fund ended the year with $24M more than anticipated, a portion of which can be used to supplement urgent facility needs and provide a contingency for unforeseen state budget shortfalls
  • a public hearing on the proposed budget will be held in April and the budget will be adopted in May
  • next steps include implementation of Phase I reductions and preparation for implementation of the next phases set to begin on March 16, 2017. That means budget cuts will affect this school year.

The next item (2.06) addresses recommendations from facilities staff in light of the failed 2016 bond effort and the budget crisis. There are no attachments, and thus no details available at this time on BoardDocs to give us insight into what staff recommendations may be.

However, we know items for consideration include closing schools and boundary adjustments. It does seem from the wording, “the approach presented will involve recommendations for moving sixth grade, implementing limited capital improvements to middle schools…” that we can expect to see staff make recommendations to move forward with plans to transition to K-5 elementary schools and 6-8 middle schools across the district, at least to some degree.  This should be an interesting conversation you don’t want to miss if you have elementary-aged children.

Finally, the BOE will review board/staff linkage (B/SL) policies per the annual work plan.

As you can see, this upcoming meeting is one you don’t want to miss. We’ll post after the meeting to let you know what happened if you’re busy with after-school activities and more.

JeffCo Proud!