We need to add teachers to maintain class size and keep up with rising enrollment. Since 2008 enrollment has increased by 70 students. Next year, we already know that Lowell and Hosmer, each need another Kindergarten. This is an increase of about 100 students since 2008.

Coupled with the increase in enrollment, since 2006 we also have a decrease in staffing in all areas except Special Education.

These are the class size implications at each percent increase below Level Services to 0 Dollar. If we had the relief of no STEPs next year, we would loose 4 FTEs at 0% and we would not loose FTEs at 1.0%

So far I’ve been mostly describing regular education. However, special education is 35% of our budget for 20% of our students.

Our Special Education costs have been on the rise, and we are working to keep them more predictable by developing in-district programming.

These services are mandated. We know we can provide high quality programs which are better than those we can send children to and for less cost.

We are aiming to provide a strong continuum of in-district special education programming. This is best for the children and it avoids the much higher costs of out of district programs.

For example - We have 2nd and 3rd grade students in a Language-based class. They are moving into 4th and 5th grade. That service needs to continue for them. That service cannot go away for the K and 1st graders who need it and are moving into 2nd and 3rd.

For example – We have about 10-12 MS students in the Social/Behavioral Learning support program, who are going to the HS. That service needs to continue for them. That service cannot go away at the MS because there are still students at the MS who need it.

These cost avoidance prices are based on 30 children possibly going out of district if we do not offer a continuum of Special Education programming. By spending $400,000 we will be avoiding spending $1,300,000 (transportation included). That is a very good return on investment.

The Town has been very generous to the schools. Our technology infrastructure is being built because of the $1,000,000 investment in technology for the schools. To preserve our investment and continue to support an effective learning environment we need to sustain our technology infrastructure with funding for repair and maintenance and replacing broken and dilapidated hardware. Ideally, we should be spending at levels closer to $200,000 a year, but we have scaled this back to $125,000 for next year, and spread out the funding for networking and hardware deployment to accommodate a longer view over 5 years, instead of 3 years.

If we compromise on strengthening our technological infrastructure to support an updated learning environment, we will be dismantling what we have built so far and that will be very hard to recover. If we don’t continue to build this infrastructure, we have no chance of building a strong teaching and learning environment.

This technology is what enables us to work more effectively – do education differently, deliver more resources, and differentiate instruction.

We are at a bare minimum with classroom materials and supplies. This year principals and curriculum coordinators asked for $80,000 of supplies, and this does not even include paper, toner, and pencils. We are so stretched on materials and supplies that we have to let go of some of some other things in order to provide students and teachers with necessary materials.

Professional Development is an investment in constructive improvements of teaching and learning in the district. Our professional development programming is dependent on our grants. If our grants remain level funded, we will continue our professional development programming with appropriate minor improvements. Our grants support the programming, but the operating budget funds the PD days at $94,000 a day (of salary).

Here are the budget scenarios, again. Once we get below preserving level services, what is there to reduce? What’s the bottom line when it comes to not spending money?

FTEs. Our biggest expenditure is staffing. Our teachers are our biggest and most valuable resource. Unfortunately, the only way to not spend significant money is by reducing staff. These are the numbers of FTEs we would have or loose with each scenario.

What is most concerning is the regular education teaching looses. Below Level Services, we start to loose more than 5 teachers and as many as 14. These numbers do not include the additional positions we will have to reduce in order to cover unemployment.

As a review, I have a quick quiz for everyone to take in silence. In your own mind, what do you think?

We need contingency plans for the worse case scenarios - below Level Services. No one likes any of these ideas. These are drastic measures, but they are contingency plans we must consider seriously if we need to bring in a budget under level services. We are analyzing and considering these plans. They each help to close the budget gap, depending on what that gap will be.

 The first two on the list preserve teachers, reduce income, and require all of us to sacrifice. The last three on the list reduce teaching positions.

Forego salary steps – This is a sacrifice from our youngest teachers who are on the beginning of the salary scale.

Have non-paid professional development days and make those days voluntary for staff, taking the risk of not ensuring the professional growth which everyone needs.

Reduce teachers and increase class size – depending on the budget gap we are talking about reorganizing after laying off 5 to 14 teachers, which would raise class size to about 25 to 30 students.

Layoff teachers and decimate specials – We have no choice but to consider program cuts.

Layoff teachers, by reconfiguring and consolidating the grade levels at the elementary schools.

We are currently analyzing these contingency plans.

I’ve talked a lot about preserving level services. However, what I’m really advocating for is that we need to get the school department budget as close to maintaining momentum as possible. There is great cost to not doing this. We will be compromising our children and this school system by not maintaining momentum, and especially by not preserving level services.

This is our reality. It is the description of where we are and where we could be. So, in the midst of this unprecedented financial crisis, I’ll continue to advocate for our children. They are our future. We need to maintain momentum for their future.