Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enrollment And Choice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District projects small enrollment shifts; choice seats, QBE changes and voucher law flagged as future risk
Summary
Staff explained how the district models enrollment, allocates staffing to school choice programs and earned QBE positions, and said the recently passed voucher bill (approx. $6,500 per eligible student) could reduce enrollment in future years though not necessarily next school year.
District staff and board members discussed enrollment projections, staffing allocation rules for choice programs and the potential future impact of a state voucher bill.
Paige Cooley, presenting budget and staffing projections, explained that earned FTE rose by 22 positions under the state QBE calculation despite overall district enrollment declines; the additional positions were attributed to increases in gifted, special‑education and vocational categories. “We are earning it because we have, like, more kids in gifted, which earns more per person. We have some we got some more special ed kids… and then we also got some more vocational,” Cooley said.
Board members asked for and received clarification on how staffing allocations are compiled: the staffing summary in the preliminary budget includes all school‑based positions (teachers, counselors, clerks and other site staff). Staff said principals receive site allocations and then vet those numbers locally; the district reconciles and finalizes staffing during the first 10 days of school, and schools may request above‑allotment positions through an established process.
On choice programs, staff said projections account for capacity (slots) at choice sites rather than principal waiting lists, and that when one school grows another may shrink because student movement within the district often transfers enrollment rather than adding new students overall. Mr. Beller (district assignment staff) explained that schools set the number of seats for their choice programs and staff use those capacity figures in allocations.
Board members asked about a recent state voucher measure providing roughly $6,500 per eligible student. Staff said eligibility rules require a student to have previously attended a public school to qualify and that most private‑school tuitions exceed the voucher amount; staff therefore estimated the voucher would be a larger concern in future years than for the coming year but acknowledged it is a material unknown. “I think it is going to possibly hurt us… I think it will become more pertinent in the future,” one board member said during the discussion.
The committee discussed reconciliations, above‑allotment processes and the role of choice capacity; no policy changes were adopted. Staff agreed to provide more detailed staffing and enrollment spreadsheets privately and to follow up on the extent to which choice non‑selection leads families to leave the district.
Board member Austin Sprague also asked staff to research CTAE (career/technical) program alignments that could support pool operations (for example, hospitality/recreation certifications and energy systems), and staff agreed to follow up.
