Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Career And Technical Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
College & Career Readiness department seeks two FTEs, adds EMIS coordinator for CTE; board asks funding source clarifications
Summary
Chief Dooley presented a request to expand the newly formed College & Career Readiness department from 6.5 to 8.5 FTE, including an EMIS coordinator for CTE and a second academic coordinator; board members asked whether the positions would come from general fund or grants and discussed continuing a consultant for EMIS work.
The district’s College & Career Readiness department presented its first‑year budget request and staffing plan on March 18, asking for two additional positions (bringing the department from 6.5 to 8.5 FTE). The district described one requested position as an EMIS (education management information system) coordinator dedicated to career‑technical education (CTE) reporting and a second as a CTE academic coordinator to support teachers and program expansion.
Why leaders requested the roles: The presenters said CTE data has previously driven funding shortfalls and that district officials want internal capacity to report CTE program data accurately and to pursue state allocations. "My very first year…we identified a loss of about a million dollars in career tech funds because of an EMIS situation," Superintendent Lawrence said, explaining why the district also has an EMIS consultant in place while seeking a full‑time coordinator.
Budget and nonpayroll details: Chief Dooley walked the board through a non‑payroll budget largely tied to CTE operations: she said roughly $1,400,000 supports 27 CTE programs and one industry‑credential program. Dooley said the department’s requested non‑payroll increases are intended to fund program start‑ups, equipment refreshes and student work‑based learning experiences.
Board questions and clarifications: Board members asked whether the new positions would be paid from general fund versus CTE or grant dollars; staff answered that the positions were planned from the general fund but that one role could be grant‑funded. Board members also asked whether consultant work would end; Dooley said the consultant is distinct from the proposed coordinator and that the consultant would continue while the coordinator is full time.
Next steps: The board did not vote on staffing at the meeting; members requested follow‑up information on funding sources and precise non‑payroll allocations before any personnel approvals.
