Reflection on DIP and Budget Committee Research

I thoroughly enjoyed my time working on the district budget reduction committees, especially the committee which focused on personnel costs and solutions to the issue. We went in knowing that personnel made up 82% of the district budget, so this was the area where the bulk of our district wide budget reduction would have to come from .This was also difficult because these were real people and real jobs that would be effected, so it’s not as simple as changing the temperature in the classrooms or deciding to sell advertisements on the side of a bus. The end result of what because a 4 month, thoroughly researched, discussed, and analyzed process were no layoffs, no reductions in pay, and a game plan moving forward that still achieves quality classroom instruction. Beyond that, I felt very validated in all of the research I had done on other school districts, they way they operated, and ultimately, that my opinion on how to fix the situation was very much valued.
Moving forward in College Station ISD, I’d highly advise that the same process that was applied to fixing the budget issue be used to fix any major issue that comes up. Having accepted a new position in Belton ISD for the upcoming school year, I won’t get to see if they follow through with this recommendation, but the end result of the process certainly justified the way in which the process was handled. As a young administrator, I really feel as if I grew a great deal in my ability to see issues from not only the campus level, but from the broader district level. As a school district, this is how you produce leaders who can climb through the ranks and understand what it takes to be a district level administrator. Similarly, the District Improvement Plan committee could benefit from a similar approach, though it is currently being run in a very similar manner. The DIP Committee is headed by the deputy superintendent for curriculum who then selects a review committee from the DAEP (which consists of representatives from all stake holders in the district). This is an outstanding foundation for the group, but to really insure that all factors are being considered, my recommendation would be for the committee to be expanded to include the primary writer of each of the Campus Improvement Plans. At the district level, changes are being made that may affect one school but not another; for instance, several changes in the DIP were for the DAEP, yet there was no representative from the DAEP on the committee. While the changes certainly looked good and the programs being purchased to improve student academic performance looked good, hearing from someone from the DAEP would have been beneficial.