Speed

Kim: Community members are concerned about speed at which we are moving in this process. What are the consequences of not implementing proposal?

Susan: Started planning for reducations. What drove timeline was staffing. Regretfully we are getting rid of over 200 people. This is the reason for the 6 week timeline. Worked backwards from 6 week timeline and started working out ways to respond to the parents.

Feel very responsible to respond to the community-- there may not be agreement, but there needs to be understanding.

Rich: Built the calendar based on legal obligations. There are financial obligations as well.

Dean: One more question: The whole proposal was wrapped as an $800k savings for repurposing schools. In looking at what has been proposed, magnet moving, it feels like there was a desire to put in programs that we did not have and are now expanding during a budget crunch. Does the $800k stand on it's own. Is this just an opportunity to expand on these programs.

Susan: The impotence for closing two schools was the budget reduction. Based on our class sizes we could close 3 schools. Because we said we said that with this budget reduction we want to align the budget with our strategic plan rather than just cutting everything. We are reducing and expanding at the same time to reach our strategic paln. The impotence for the school closing was budget reductions we needed to look at what needed to expand and make better at the same time.

Bold statement: I don't think it should be done for just budget reasons. It is not an important enough reason.

So we should not do this for budget reasons.