1. “Academic ends” are the most important. (Ends Prologue, par. 8.)

2. “Literacy” is “the highest priority” of the academic ends. (Ends Prologue, par. 8.)

3. Additional academic programs for which we establish ends policies but no priority ranking. Next up on our list are ends policies for writing, math and science. (Obviously, if we wish to elevate any of these in priority then that affects the rank ordering. Until we do, however, they would have a lower priority than literacy – except, of course, to the extent that we include “writing” as a part of “literacy.”)

4. Academic programs for which we have not, and do not intend to, establish ends policies. As academic programs they would be accorded a higher priority than other programs and expenditures, but not as high as those for which we have established ends policies. (Of course, “academic programs” is a phrase we may need or wish to define at some point; e.g., would we define it to include music and debate activities?)

5. Non-academic programs affecting students (another phrase needing definition) for which we establish ends policies.

6. Non-academic programs affecting students for which we have not established ends policies.

7. Other non-academic and District programs and expenditures. Priorities within this category would be considered administrative decisions to be made by the Superintendent.

Re: Agenda Item for June 13 Regular Meeting: A Proposal for an Agenda Item for June 27 Regular Meeting (“Prioritizing Ends”)

From: Nicholas Johnson

This is not a proposal that the following item be discussed June 13, when we have a rather full agenda already.

It would be a two-week advance notice to Board members, media and public of an agenda item that would be discussed at the regular meeting June 27 – if that is the pleasure of the Board.

In other words, we would only discuss this item on June 13 with regard to whether we want to put it on the agenda for June 27. We would not be discussing the substance on June 13. The advantage of this approach (i.e., this memo at this time) over merely discussing it orally during “agenda setting time” is that it may enable us to cut two weeks off of the usual processing time. It provides specific language to which all can respond and propose revisions and gives everyone advance notice that it is coming.

Given the facts that this is not a discussion item, and that it will not take Board time, I am taking the liberty of asking Lane to put it on our June 13 agenda for this limited purpose. Of course, this is a default position on the assumption no one raises with me valid reasons for not doing so.

# # #

Al Leff regularly, and properly, reminds us that programmatic consequences (i.e., cuts in some programs) may flow from our ends policies and that we have an obligation to indicate what process we want the Superintendent to follow in ascertaining, and implementing, our priorities.

Don Jackson has suggested to me that we really ought to tend to this – in other words, give some priority to our priorities. I agree.
At the same time, both (a) our governance and ends policies and (b) Board members’ inclinations and available time, preclude our going over our $70 million budget line item by line item to designate what we want to cut.

Thus, rather than start at the bottom with cuts we might wish to start at the top with priorities. That provides some guidance for the Superintendent. It puts some responsibility on the Board. And it is a manageable undertaking.

Based on the policies to which the Board has already committed itself, and without adding anything new, the following would appear to be logical conclusions regarding our present ranking of priorities.

1. “Academic ends” are the most important. (Ends Prologue, par. 8.)

2. “Literacy” is “the highest priority” of the academic ends. (Ends Prologue, par. 8.)

3. Additional academic programs for which we establish ends policies but no priority ranking. Next up on our list are ends policies for writing, math and science. (Obviously, if we wish to elevate any of these in priority then that affects the rank ordering. Until we do, however, they would have a lower priority than literacy – except, of course, to the extent that we include “writing” as a part of “literacy.”)

4. Academic programs for which we have not, and do not intend to, establish ends policies. As academic programs they would be accorded a higher priority than other programs and expenditures, but not as high as those for which we have established ends policies. (Of course, “academic programs” is a phrase we may need or wish to define at some point; e.g., would we define it to include music and debate activities?)

5. Non-academic programs affecting students (another phrase needing definition) for which we establish ends policies.

6. Non-academic programs affecting students for which we have not established ends policies.

7. Other non-academic and District programs and expenditures. Priorities within this category would be considered administrative decisions to be made by the Superintendent.

I simply assume we will all want to add to, delete from, and otherwise revise this list. It may be helpful, however, as a place to start our discussion.