Reducing Budgets Through Shared Decision Making

School Administrator, March, 1994 by James E. Mitchell, Sheri S. Williams

Like many school districts, ours now is facing a funding shortage of a magnitude never experienced before. In the past, the superintendent's cabinet was responsible for making recommendations for budget reductions. This time we knew we must approach the situation differently.

We felt the impact of funding cuts on morale and productivity would be lessened tremendously if we actively involved citizens and staff in the process. We considered it imperative that the process reflect the values of participation and consensus.

Armed with a passion for shared decision making, we issued a challenge to our community to help us redesign the way we deliver our programs and services. We asked central-office administrators to help convey the vision that different ways exist to meet the needs of our students.

We established supports to get us started. A communications hotline was opened to ease employee concerns about job security. A district budget team was formed. collegial teams were encouraged to discuss their concerns. A transition support team provided assistance through the uncertainty.

From all of this arose a shared sense of optimism that we could keep people from losing their paychecks and move forward without malice and mistrust.

Five Phases

With the supports established and the shared decision-making process identified, we felt we had a sufficient framework to tackle the budget reductions. We then divided the task into five phases.

* Phase 1: Establishment of a minimum delivery level.

At the outset of our redesign effort, we asked all budget managers to establish a minimum delivery level for their programs and services.

* Phase 2: Community and employee involvement. We called for the formation of critique groups that included members of the community, employees, and students. One group consisted of a parent from each of the district's schools. Another group involved community members from the district budget review committee. Other groups included student leaders and representatives from employee groups.

By listening to the community at large, we believed we could reduce the status issues and protectiveness that often arise in budget reductions. The critique groups were asked to reach consensus on what they would recommend as the maximum reduction of spending in the program areas.

What resulted was the first picture of what our staff and community believed was the minimal level of service that could be offered in the various program areas. These reductions amounted to approximately 70 percent of the total first-year funding shortage. This meant that an additional 30 percent would have to come out of the budgets allocated to the individual schools to meet the targeted reduction.

Before the individual schools were charged with coming up with their own recommendations, the process moved into the next phase.

* Phase 3: Public hearings. The fingerprints of several hundred people were on our budget reduction process even before we moved into the third phase. At this juncture, we scheduled three public hearings to give the community a chance to respond to the proposed spending reductions.

Nearly 500 community members attended the series of meetings. Norms were established in advance so that everyone could be heard and respected. Board members presided over all the sessions. Their presence conveyed the message that difficult budget decisions would not be made in isolation from public opinion.

* Phase 4: School board deliberation. When the staff and community completed their reviews, board members began their own deliberations. Once the input was collected, the board could use the data and develop its final recommendations.

First the school board members agreed on what consensus meant for them. They decided to work toward pure consensus, that is individually agreeing to support the overall decision even if it wasn't the first choice of every member.

When the board announced its decision on funding levels, it stressed the need for further streamlining and consolidation of services. Board members pledged to stand behind citizens and staff in the hard decisions ahead.

* Phase 5: Involvement of site-based school councils. The fifth and final phase involved each of the school improvement teams composed of staff, students, and parents. At least 30 percent of the members were expected to be parent representatives.

The schools were asked to reduce their building budgets while maintaining a commitment to district priorities. Each school was provided a lump sum allocation and the school council's job was to determine how to use the allocation without further reducing support for the teaching and learning environment.

To assist the school councils, the district budget office prepared impact statements for each school building. The impact statements described what kind of reductions in central-office programs and services the schools could anticipate. School councils used this information to finalize the plans at the building level.

A Redesigned Future

Budget reductions are painful for any school district. However, with a process driven by employee and citizen participation, a greater level of acceptance is more likely to occur.