On What Basis Should Public School Programs Be Identified For Reduction Or Elimination?

Please note the following is not intended to comment on the actions of a past, present or future Board of Education or any of its members. How does or should a Board of Education as a practical matter decide to eliminate or reduce public school educational programs? This question has become and increasingly will become more relevant as school districts deal with the pressures of the cost of employee benefits, over which the school district has little or no control, with the limitations on the ability to increase the primary source of revenue to fund programs. When told that the school district does not have an ability to secure funding by better or more efficient use of assets or by improved management to lower the cost of doing business, and thus is at the point where a program or activity must be cut, what does a Board of Education do? Does the Board look to the administration with instruction to make recommendations for cuts and subsequently the Board does as it is told, and represent to the public "we are relying on our educational experts, that's why we hired them". Is that an abdication of responsibility and in such case, why do we need a Board of Education? Does the Board ask the administration for studies and data relating to the value of programs, however that is defined, after first devising the metrics to be used to make the evaluation, and expect that the studies will show why a program is better or worse than any other program, and/or compare the value of an educational program to non-educational programs like a sports activity, and then make a decision? Are these steps practical? Does the Board listen to anecdotal information from members of the public who either say they personally benefitted or whose child benefitted from participation in the program and based only on such say so, decide to keep the program and cut something else, until that group comes a knocking? Or does the Board of Education take a jig saw puzzle approach, identify how much needs to be cut, take the fewest number of programs that impact the fewest number of people and which together add up to the magic number? On the other hand, does the Board turn to its business staff and challenge the assumption that there is not a penny more available to fund programs and instead make educational programs the priority by not holding back available monies which have been designated for possible use in case of an emergency or unforeseen circumstance, but which situation has never occurred in the past and thus the likelihood of such emergency in the coming year is at best remote? Is it better that the Board hold on to assets at hand because experts have told them to do so and instead eliminate programs which will have an immediate, certain impact, without a defined or articulated policy for making that decision?