The Grand Forks School Board engaged in a thorough examination of proposed budget cuts totaling $4.9 million during a retreat held on February 2, 2024. Over the course of four hours, board members and school leaders scrutinized the administration’s 52 budget concepts aimed at addressing a significant budget deficit of $4.4 million for the upcoming 2025-2026 school year. This gathering marked the fifth and final retreat in a series focused on the district’s budget realignment efforts.
During the discussions, some board members and school leaders expressed reluctance to eliminate cherished programs and personnel. They emphasized the potential consequences of not implementing the necessary cuts. “As we have stated multiple times throughout this process, we’d love to continue with all of our programming,” stated Matt Bakke, Assistant Superintendent. “But as a district, we are not at that point. We cannot continue to provide everything when we have a $4.4 million deficit.”
The deliberations come in response to an announcement made in September regarding the projected deficit. District officials have been working to identify budget cuts or opportunities for additional revenue that will help stabilize the financial situation before the 2026-2027 budget. Among the proposed cuts, six concepts target various music programs, sparking public concern.
At a previous special meeting on January 12, 2024, community members vocalized their support for the music department, expressing frustration that they were once again “having to fight for a storied program that this district doesn’t value the way it deserves to be valued.”
During the recent retreat, Jay Hepperle, Associate Principal at Red River, acknowledged the importance of the music program but also highlighted pressing needs elsewhere in the district. “I walked out of evaluating a social studies class that was a multi-lingual class, one teacher, one para, 12 different languages, 30 kids,” he said. “I love music. I spend all of my free time doing music. But I also love kids feeling supported.”
The conversation shifted toward prioritizing state and district requirements. Catherine Gillach, Associate Superintendent, emphasized the need to focus on essential services. “What is required? And what are the things that are really lovely, and we want to offer, but might be extras?” she asked. The discussion reflected the difficult choices facing the board, particularly regarding staffing and program cuts.
Board member Sherry Houdek raised concerns about the implications of cutting staff or programs, questioning whether responsibilities would simply be redistributed among existing employees. “I’m concerned that if we don’t hear what the alternatives are going to be… we may end up as a board hearing later that we took the transportation person out of play, but we added to the other duties of the other people,” she stated.
Jonasson added that school leaders must consider the “unwritten expectations” placed on teachers. She expressed the need to be mindful of the pressures on classroom educators, both directly and indirectly.
Discussions also touched on the administrative structure, with Houdek asking whether the board had evaluated the necessity of each administrator’s role. She urged the need for transparency in assessing administrative positions, expressing skepticism about whether this had been thoroughly examined.
Community concerns were echoed by board member Amber Flynn, who noted public dissatisfaction with the focus on cuts to lower-level staff rather than administrative roles. “The public is wanting the administrators… to say ‘we will freeze our pay for a year,’” she said. Flynn’s comments highlighted a desire for equitable sacrifices across the board.
Supporters of the administrative staff argued that eliminating these positions would only increase the workload for teachers and principals. “The complexity of our deliverables has changed exponentially,” Gillach stated. “There was a lot of consternation about being able to support classroom-level teachers by making that team even skinnier.”
Throughout the retreat, district leaders reiterated the urgency of the situation, reminding attendees that a final decision on the budget realignment will be made at the upcoming School Board meeting on February 9, 2024. There, board members will likely vote on the proposed concepts as a collective package rather than individually.
The retreat also covered additional budgetary considerations, including the reduction of a transportation coordinator role, delays in curriculum adoptions, the discontinuation of the virtual high school, cuts to interventionist positions, and adjustments to physical education requirements.
For those interested in reviewing the proposed budget concepts, more information can be found on the district’s budget realignment process website. The School Board’s next meeting will allocate nearly 40 minutes for public comments, allowing community members to voice their opinions on the proposed cuts and broader concerns.
