Public commenters urge board to protect parent‑education and rural ESL programs threatened by new allocation rules

Multiple public commenters told the board the new allocation methodology risks cutting programs that support historically underserved learners.

Jan Giome of South Seattle urged the board to correct wording in resolution 26‑06‑26 because she said some programs — notably parent education — were misclassified into the continuing‑education category and therefore excluded from enrollment funding calculations. She asked, "Why? Who made the change? Where is it documented?" and said the ambiguity "has put at risk programs that have strengthened and sustained our colleges for 80 plus years."

Melanie McCahon, faculty at Peninsula College and FLE coordinator, testified that elimination of funding under the new methodology threatens programs that produce Washington’s evolving workforce and that some colleges are already choosing to carry the financial burden of unfunded programs only short term. Melanie described her own path through a parent‑education program and urged the board to keep pathways open for similar students.

An online commenter identified as Tanya asked the board to consider using emergency or reserve funding to sustain the parent‑education program for at least one year to give stakeholders time to create a sustainable solution, arguing cuts would disproportionately affect immigrant and first‑generation families.

Sean Gomez, an ESL instructor with 17 years at a rural college, described how the model — which in part funds enrollments tied to student transitions into workforce or credential outcomes — is reducing instructional hours for rural ESL classes despite high local demand. He said one rural program was cut from 15 to 10 hours per week and warned the remaining part‑time offerings would further depress transition outcomes.

Board members heard the public comments; staff and board discussion at the meeting focused on clarifying enrollment categories and on providing more detailed analyses of allocations and local impacts. The transcript records requests from public commenters that the board ensure program classification is accurate and that short‑term funding be considered to avoid immediate program loss.