Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Learning Acceleration Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee questions learning-acceleration staffing, asks for metrics and review amid budget tightening
Summary
Committee members pressed district leaders to produce outcome metrics for the Learning Acceleration Plan and to reconsider staffing allocations — especially the classification and roles of deans and coaches — given budget pressures and declining enrollment.
Participants at the Roaring Fork School District No. Re-1 budget subcommittee meeting spent substantial time examining the district’s Learning Acceleration Plan (LAP), questioning whether positions created under the plan — including deans and instructional coaches — are delivering the intended results and whether those positions should remain funded as currently classified on the certified salary schedule.
“Is there data to suggest that having a coach is more effective than filling all these positions of classroom assistance?” asked Speaker 5 (committee member), summarizing a recurring concern. Speakers repeatedly asked for explicit outcome metrics, such as changes in achievement gaps on CMAS or SAT, to assess whether the LAP is closing the gaps it was designed to address.
District staff said the LAP was introduced under the previous administration as a multi‑year initiative and that many of its positions were integrated into the district’s School Resource Allocation Framework and Unified Improvement Plan (UIP). A district leader explained that the district’s newer strategic plan includes performance measures and that a public dashboard tied to those measures would go live at the end of the month; those metrics, staff said, will help evaluate whether coaching, deans and other supports are producing measurable benefits for students.
Committee members raised several specific concerns:
- Classification and pay: Several speakers said some positions created under the LAP were placed on the certified salary schedule, which the committee called the district’s “fair share” pool for certified staff. Because those positions draw from the same certified-salary pool as classroom teachers, adding administrative-style positions to that pool reduces funds available for teacher salaries and hiring.
- Role clarity: Members asked whether deans and coaches are spending sufficient time in classrooms with students and teachers or are performing primarily administrative duties. Several asked that job descriptions and schedules be reviewed to ensure time on task is student-facing where that is the intent.
- Evaluation timeline: Committee members noted the plan has been in place for about a year and a half and asked for interim outcomes; district staff cautioned that curriculum and program evaluation commonly requires multiple years but said the strategic-plan metrics and an upcoming dashboard would allow interim checks.
- Alternatives and trade-offs: Participants suggested comparing costs and outcomes across options — for example, increasing direct classroom interventionists versus funding coaches — and asked that the subcommittee prepare specific scenarios showing the fiscal and programmatic implications of staffing changes.
District leaders said the LAP’s initial investments were supported by $2.6 million received in spring 2022 and grant funds, and they acknowledged the program’s intent to close achievement gaps, particularly for students of color and emerging bilingual students. Staff also said some state and one-time funds that supported parts of the LAP have changed and that ongoing funding now appears within the district’s resource-allocation formulas.
Ending: The subcommittee asked district staff to assemble outcome data, job descriptions and cost scenarios for review. Members recommended tying any review to the district strategic-plan metrics and to the forthcoming public dashboard so the committee can evaluate program effectiveness before recommending significant budget changes.
