Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fund 80 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

La Crosse board hears broad Fund 80 plan to expand early childhood, after-school and justice supports

La Crosse Board of Education · August 5, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

District staff presented a multi-pronged Fund 80 proposal on Aug. 5 to expand birth-to-three services, support Boys & Girls Club sites, hire coordinators and bolster diversion/restorative programs; trustees asked for more data on costs, staffing ratios and partner contributions before any levy change.

District staff laid out a four-part vision for Fund 80, the school-board controlled levy used to pay for services outside the standard curriculum. The presenter opened the workshop by telling trustees, "we're not making any final decision so no one here should feel any pressure that we've got to make a decision tonight," and said the discussion was intended as an exploratory budget and program review.

The plan centers on four strategies: (1) enhancing early-childhood work (birth-to-three), (2) expanding out-of-school-time programming through community partners such as Boys & Girls Club, (3) strengthening community-school strategies and cultural liaisons, and (4) fostering school-and-community justice through restorative practices and diversion programs. Staff cited local data tying poverty to academic outcomes — Dr Engel told the board that "students experiencing poverty are 33% less likely to meet School Readiness indicators at age five" and presented state/local correlation measures to illustrate the scale of the challenge.

Trustees pressed for additional cost and accountability detail before any levy change. Board members asked for baseline service levels from partners, clearer staffing-ratio expectations, the partners' financial contributions and a clearer cost–benefit accounting (including the "cost of not doing the programs"). District staff said it would return with a more detailed levy proposal and supporting data at a subsequent meeting.