Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District contracts Hanover for program reviews; internal analysis led to 11 eliminated positions
Summary
The district described a year‑long program and budget evaluation partnership with Hanover to analyze course sequences and program outcomes; internal review of staff and programs identified 11 positions eliminated and other staffing changes.
District administrators provided an update on the program and budget evaluation work and a partnership with Hanover (an educational research firm). Chris reported the district identified 48 programs and has evaluated 46; Hanover was contracted to assist with comparative analyses and course‑sequence visualizations to inform program and staffing decisions.
Chris told the board Hanover will compare the district’s secondary academic offerings and graduation requirements with peer districts; the first Hanover project (comparative analysis) was expected to be complete by early November, with a second project (course‑sequence and demographic analysis for math and ELA) projected for completion by mid‑December. Chris said the Hanover engagement covers one academic year and the contract cost was $49,000.
In work the district completed internally, staff reviewed 337 positions: 317 positions were categorized “fill as is,” nine positions remain frozen and 11 positions were eliminated. Chris listed eliminated positions and reductions that contributed to the savings: a reading teacher position; a 0.6 math teacher and a 0.4 business education teacher (combined to 1.0 FTE); a sign language interpreter; reductions at Roosevelt (one kindergarten and one first‑grade section) and Bannock (one third‑grade section) tied to reduced enrollment; a testing center position; several educational assistant (EA) reductions across buildings (McDill, Washington). Chris said many EA reductions reflected resignations or retirements and that principals redistributed duties or adjusted schedules to cover responsibilities.
Nut graf: The combination of internal program review and Hanover’s comparative analysis is intended to identify persistent inefficiencies and inform 2024–25 budget choices; district staff said the work may identify additional savings but that enrollment shifts could affect future staffing needs.
The board asked about timing, cost and scope; Chris said the first Hanover deliverable is due by early November and the second by mid‑December, and that the district will use the Hanover dashboards and findings to refine budget targets for 2024–25.
Ending: Chris said the district remains on track to complete the initial evaluations and that staff will return with Hanover findings to inform any further staffing or programmatic changes.
