For Paul Navarra, the process begins with structure. “I oversee the creation of the master schedule, which is based on fulfilling Colombian and American diploma requirements and attempting to be responsive to student interests,” he explained. In other words, funding decisions at TCS are not just about money; they are about how the school organizes time, courses, teachers, and opportunities to meet both external requirements and student needs.
That process starts early in the academic year. Navarra explained that “during the 1st semester, we audit our current offerings and then work with Emily Butterworth, the curriculum coordinator, and the teaching staff to propose changes or modifications to our course offerings.” These proposals are not implemented immediately. “This has to be approved by our department chairs before it can be included into the Plan de Estudios, which is ultimately approved by the Consejo Directivo,” he added. This layered system shows that decisions are carefully reviewed and must align with broader institutional goals before reaching students.
Navarra emphasized that these decisions have a direct and lasting impact. “It has a profound effect on students,” he said. “That is why we try to be as responsive as possible to student learning needs and interests, while at the same time fulfilling all external academic requirements.” His response highlights a key tension: the school aims to adapt to students while also complying with national standards and accreditation expectations.
However, not every idea can be funded or implemented. Navarra acknowledged the limits the school faces: “We always have to balance initiatives and decide which ones are priorities and which ones are not. Leadership is often about making hard decisions around resources allocation.” He added that “we cannot offer courses for everyone…we have a limited amount of staff and classrooms…and we must make decisions that are best for the whole school.” These constraints reveal that funding decisions are not simply about preference, but about practicality and long-term planning.
From the student leadership perspective, the process looks slightly different. Maria del Mar Aaron, a senior leader in STUCO, explained that direct student involvement exists, but it is not always constant. “It’s not that frequent that students actually approach me for these matters,” she said. “It’s more to talk with the administration or ask questions about events happening during our senior year.” Despite this, she plays an important role in connecting students with decision-makers.
Aaron described how student concerns are formally communicated. “Each month I have a meeting with the high school administration in which we talk about the proposals we made at the beginning of the year and concerns that have come up,” she explained. “We discuss what steps we will take to make changes or how we could adjust certain things.” This shows that student input does reach leadership, even if indirectly.
There are also clear examples where student voice has influenced outcomes. “Most of the changes, for example, for X-Block are because the students’ concerns are being heard by the administration, and that’s why they gave us back X-Block time,” Aaron said. This demonstrates that student feedback can lead to real changes when it is consistently communicated.
She also described a longer-term initiative that required sustained effort. “It has been something that has been proposed by many personeros over time, and it has been all the different shirts for PE class. This year, we’re actually working with the foundation and have been going to meetings for us to finally change the actual PE shirt, so that it is made from a different material and possibly a different design,” she explained. This example highlights how some decisions take time and collaboration before they are approved and funded.
Despite these efforts, many students still feel disconnected from the process. Nicolas Jimenez, a regular student, said, “As a regular student, we don’t really see the process behind it.” Instead, students often experience only the results. “Most of the time we just notice changes after they happen, like new equipment or programs, but we’re not told much about why those decisions were made or the process overall.”
Jimenez also pointed out an imbalance in how resources appear to be distributed. “For example, sports teams or popular extracurricular activities often get better equipment, more funding, or more recognition compared to smaller clubs or certain academic areas,” he said. From his perspective, this can make it seem like some interests are valued more than others, affecting how students experience the school.
When explaining why this might happen, Jimenez offered a broader interpretation. “I think decisions are influenced by factors like how popular a program is, how much it represents the school’s cost, and what the school thinks will benefit its reputation,” he said. This suggests that visibility and impact on the school’s image may play a role alongside student needs and institutional requirements.
Taken together, these perspectives reveal that funding decisions at TCS are shaped by multiple forces. Administrative structure, academic requirements, student input, and institutional priorities all play a role in determining what gets funded and what does not. While leaders emphasize balance and responsibility, students often experience the results without fully understanding the process behind them.
In the end, the question is not simply who decides what gets funded at TCS. The deeper issue is how those decisions are made, whose voices are prioritized, and how those choices shape the everyday student experience. Even if the process remains largely invisible, its impact is felt by every student, every day.