TheBakersfieldCalifornian.com

An avalanche of questions about the proposed career technical education program landed in the laps of the Kern High School District board of trustees Monday night.

The workshop was scheduled to discuss strategic priorities for the next three years, but it quickly became apparent the two-dozen or so public — the vast majority of whom were teachers — were far more concerned about the impact of the new program that would guide students to a career-education path or a college-bound track.

Among the many questions:

How would fine arts, including band, instrumental music and other art classes be affected if graduation requirements made it difficult to take these types of electives?

How could a 14-year-old possibly make a career-defining decision so soon after starting high school?

Would an athlete be forced to miss a year of playing time if she transferred to take part in a pathway not offered at her high school?

How could existing programs not face a negative financial impact if additional career tech courses are added to school schedules?

And why weren't teachers and community members made more involved before the program entered its final stages?

"I was surprised," said Mitch Olson, president of the Kern High Teachers Association, who didn't expect to see so many teachers at the meeting.

But they brought up similar questions, he said.

From the podium during the meeting, Olson raised concerns about the transparency of some aspects of the program, and how the second phase due to start in three years would be funded.

After the meeting, he added: "It's a zero-sum game, and they have to cut something to do that. It is incumbent on them to be very clear about how to do that," said Olson, who also made clear the teachers association supports the idea of career technical education.

"If we're really committed to this as a community, maybe we put a parcel tax on the ballot to pay for this," Olson suggested.

Board President Joel Heinrichs said he wasn't completely surprised by the faculty turnout, only that the discussion was nearly bereft of talk about establishing strategic priorities.

Heinrichs acknowledged the board needed to spend more time with parent groups and faculty to clearly explain the career tech program. He said they would do that in the next 30 to 45 days before the board made any decisions.

"We'll take the blame — didn't inform people to have a better conversation. I think once people understand there will be support for it," Heinrichs said.

If there is an area Heinrichs said the board would take the closest look at before any decisions are made, it is fine arts.

"We've got to find a way for kids to be engaged in a pathway and still get fine arts. We need to think that through and make dang sure that doesn't affect that program," he said.

When it was his turn to speak, Golden Valley High parent and school site council member Matt Kedzierski was succinct, asking the board to postpone the decision a year to fully engage everyone who would be involved and affected by the program.

"This will succeed only if you have buy-in," Kedzierski said.

The board will return to its discussion about strategic priorities Friday. It will take public comments, and discuss some more specific ideas, such as online courses and ways to promote smaller learning centers.

The board plans to finalize priorities for the next two years at its March 2 meeting.

A decision about career tech could be pushed out to March, Heinrichs said. Any later might mean the program would have to be postponed one year.