I recently read a letter in the February 24th Austin American-Statesman from a woman who wrote that "the mark of a good manager is someone who uses staff strengths to the whole organization's advantage." She went on to say that we should allow our principals the power to "cut costs to achieve the most savings with the least damage to education." I could not agree more. And that's what we have done.
Our philosophy and actions all along have been to keep the campus staffing decisions as close to the campus as possible. In fact, contrary to the letter writer's assertion that I posted "without warning a list of 1,000 positions to be eliminated," we have been working with our campus principals since this time last year. As a matter of fact, last year after Board consideration of financial exigency, our school-based leadership requested that, if reductions in staffing were to be necessary for the 2011-12 school year, we revise our policy (DFF Local) to provide the best ways to reduce our staffing while maintaining classroom quality. As the fiscal projections about State funding support for public education grew more dire, our discussions with principals moved from smaller reduction-in-force scenarios to larger scenarios that would provide savings adequate to keep AISD afloat, as well as to eliminate our long-standing structural deficit. In addition, we brought the most likely proposals, including increased class size (which leads to staff reductions) to the public in a series of community meetings. At those meetings, we also received recommendations that we considered carefully. I also met with teachers and teacher groups on the proposed reductions.
Following required Board parameters for budget preparation, our district leadership has been engaged in a very public process since before winter break. With your help through community meetings and surveys, we were able to recommend to the board a staffing formula that would lead to a reduction in 485 positions. Then, at the Board's January 24th meeting, it voted to approve the staffing formula that serves as the base for all future reduction strategies.
From that, the beginning of the Reduction-in-Force list was created. The campus principals worked with the formula as their framework in making specific campus position reduction decisions with the assistance of our Human Resources department.
How did the number of positions eliminated increase from 485 to 1153? The remaining 668 reductions in staffing are the result of staffing formula decisions by campus principals and department heads to meet the individual needs of campuses, carefully working through district funding by grants, such as the two-year federal ARRA funding that ends this year, and reductions in Federal Title dollars, for which we only recently received reduction targets. All the employees in the positions funded with these external funds were well aware that their positions would only last as long as their outside funding lasted. Further, in order to better support schools with this new reduced design, it also required that the Central Administration be organized to better support schools in these new times, resulting in more reductions and a reorganization of key departments in Central Administration.
At its February 28th meeting, the Board is scheduled for action on financial exigency. This early action is necessary to make sure we comply with current law related to employee rights and provide our employees several months to determine their next assignment--either within the district by applying for other positions that may be open, or outside AISD.
The approach that the District is taking in implementing the proposed RIF at the campus level offers flexibility and is the most effective tool in making the best use of limited resources. A Districtwide RIF can be a blunt response that does not allow the district and individual principals to identify areas that may be overstaffed or that have experienced population changes or student-need changes. In September 2010, the Board adopted budget parameters. Later last fall, it then supported the following administrative guiding principles for budget reductions:
Not to make across-the-board cuts without considering the various funding sources used by campuses;
Not to make unilateral decisions;
Not to make allocation decisions that are not transparent;
Not to jeopardize federal funding;
Not to continue programming that is not aligned with the Strategic Plan.
Guided by those principles, we have been working closely and diligently to craft a process that puts student success first. We know one size does not fit all, and that's why we are working with individual campus principals to get it right.
I have confidence that campus-based leadership, rather than a top-down approach to reduction in staffing, provides a much better approach that will provide the quality education our students and their families deserve.
Thank you again for your ideas and support during this difficult time.
