Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment And Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arcadia board outlines contingencies for shortfalls after TEA questions on enrollment and budget
Summary
TEA staff asked how Arcadia High School would respond if first‑year enrollment was substantially below the 240‑student projection. Applicants described staffing flex, administrative consolidation and fundraising commitments, and noted a donated facility that reduces rent pressure.
TEA finance staff pressed Arcadia Schools on how the proposed Arcadia High School would respond if actual year‑one enrollment fell far short of the 240‑student projection; in a scenario posed by a TEA questioner, applicants were asked to explain how they would address a roughly $1.5 million deficit if enrollment were 100 rather than 240 students without immediate budget changes.
John Garland, a TEA questioner, presented a hypothetical: "If we take those 240 students and we change it to 100 students ... without making any staff changes ... you'd be at a deficit about 1,500,000." Proposed superintendent Mohammed Maroof and proposed finance committee member Eduardo Contreras described steps the board and leadership would take to realign the budget while preserving instructional resources.
Arcadia's stated priorities for realignment include preserving resources “closest to students” and maintaining the team‑teaching model where possible. Applicants said options would include increasing student:adult ratios modestly (for example, changing from the proposed 12:1 to 15:1), reducing the number of teaching fellows in classrooms, and delaying or reducing nonessential renovation work. Maroof said he could serve as campus principal in early years to save administrative costs if necessary. Contreras added that the staffing model is built around cohorts of roughly 60 students, and cutting to smaller cohorts would allow elimination of entire teaching teams if required while retaining the model’s core structure.
Applicants also detailed fundraising and in‑kind support that would reduce the need to scale back instruction. The team reported written commitments for planning‑year private funds (two anonymous donors at $50,000 each and a $250,000 Brown Foundation commitment were cited) and estimated approximately $350,000 in private contributions already confirmed. They said School Empowerment Network (a nonprofit with ties to several board members) has provided in‑kind support during planning; Alex Shube, School Empowerment Network CEO and a proposed board member, said the nonprofit has provided salary support for planning and would provide post‑opening support in kind, but that board members with ties to the nonprofit would recuse themselves from any future votes in which the nonprofit was a contractor.
Board members said they ran multiple budget scenarios during planning and built a contingency line in the model; applicants said their long‑term projection shows the school balanced at scale without additional outside funds. Applicants also cited a rent‑free facility donation (discussed separately) as a material cost reduction that improves sustainability. TEA finance staff asked for more detail on ownership and capitalization of renovations; applicants said the intention is to structure the facility agreement so school renovations can be capitalized and amortized but acknowledged some items will be cosmetic upgrades rather than capital assets.
