When asked, the district could provide no proof that the State Standards Analysis Report was ever used for planning purposes. And, this is for certain, the board never discussed this report publicly. The board never once reviewed this report. That is fiscal irresponsibility.
How Was the Cut/Reduction List Developed and What are the Cuts?
The list was developed using a combination of factors including the independent State Standard Analysis Report and the cut list from the 2004 operating levy. The superintendent stated that his intent was to protect core instruction as much as possible.
Had the board reviewed this report when it was issued two years ago, they could have cleared with ease the $2 million deficit reported for FY09.
Yet, in the interim, the district carried on, business as usual, spending close to $300 million. Don't you think that with a little planning, the district could have found 7/10th's of a percent in cost savings over that time?
But here we are with a superintendent crying the end of the world, telling tales to get his levy passed. The reality is that, if the levy fails, the district negotiates a fair contract -- fair to teachers and taxpayers -- and programs remain.
Simple solutions to a superintendent's spending problem.
notes: I've posted on this report many times. It has as much chance of speaking its truths in public as Scott Galloway. The Galloway watch is fast approaching two weeks -- bunker mentality I suppose.