Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Program Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board runs Academic Return on Investment simulation as district considers program reviews
Summary
At its retreat the Chapel Hill‑Carrboro City Schools board ran a simulation of an Academic Return on Investment (AROI) program review, placing sample programs on a cost‑vs‑impact matrix; administrators emphasized the tool is not solely for cuts and said they will return with a full program list and recommended next steps tied to enrollment and budget priorities.
Administration introduced Academic Return on Investment (AROI) — also described as program review — as a structured method to compare program costs with academic impact. Presenter Jonathan (administration) and Al led an overview of the 10‑step process (plan, collect, evaluate, act) and stressed that AROI can indicate where to invest, refine or, rarely, sunsetting programs rather than functioning only as a cut list.
"It's not a mechanism to cut programs automatically," the administration said during the presentation, adding that AROI combines quantitative and qualitative evidence and that personnel time (about 85% of local cost) must be included in any program cost accounting.
Board members then ran a simulation at their tables using a subset of programs (examples on the artifact: LEAP, Boomerang, TA to Teach, AVID). Tables disagreed on placements: some placed LEAP in a "sunset or fix" quadrant citing transportation and FTE costs, while others debated whether Boomerang's per‑student cost (as presented) justified prioritizing it because of potential behavior and school‑community impacts. Several tables placed TA to Teach in a "prioritize/refine" quadrant given its role in growing local teacher pipelines.
Participants asked for fuller cost accounting (transportation, testing, FTE allocations) and for clearer definitions of program reach and measurable outcomes; administrators acknowledged those data gaps and said a complete program inventory (about 50 programs identified internally) would be returned to the board with recommendations on which programs to study first given the district's enrollment and fiscal trajectory.
Why it matters: As enrollment and funding pressures mount, the district is seeking a repeatable, transparent process to align resources with outcomes; board members repeatedly emphasized that any review must include community engagement and transparent timelines.
Next steps: Administration will produce a full program inventory, recommend an initial set of program reviews tied to near‑term budget priorities and propose a timeline and community engagement plan; any actions to change programs would follow further analysis and public input.
