School Committee - February 26, 2025
School Committee, 2/26/25 - Meeting Summary
Date: 2/26/25
Type: School Committee
Source: https://tv.sharontv.com/internetchannel/show/14631?site=2
Generated: September 13, 2025 at 08:35 PM
AI Model: Perplexity
1) Meeting Metadata
- Date: February 26, 2025
- Format: Remote meeting via Zoom
- Committee Members Present: Avi Shemtov (Chair), Alan Motenko (Secretary), Julie Rowe, Jeremy Kay, Georgeann Lewis, Adam Shain, Dan Newman (Vice Chair)
- Supporting Staff: Superintendent Dr. Patelow, Peter (budget presenter), others
- Documents: FY26 Proposed Operating Budget Presentation, Correspondence Summary, Meeting Minutes from prior meetings
- Subsequent Meetings Scheduled: February 28 and March 3, 2025, for follow-up budget discussions and votes
2) Agenda Overview
- Extensive public comments and correspondence review
- Student Advisory Committee update
- Superintendent’s remarks including FY26 operating budget presentation
- Detailed School Committee discussion of budget priorities, proposed and considered cuts
- Policy updates vote (non-controversial policies excluding JIH)
- Approval of prior meeting minutes and overnight trip approvals
- Planning for further budget discussion and fee reviews at upcoming meetings
3) Major Discussions
| Topic | Avi Shemtov | Alan Motenko | Julie Rowe | Jeremy Kay | Georgeann Lewis | Adam Shain | Dan Newman |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-day Kindergarten Fees | Clarified fees discussion was on agenda; stressed transparency and legal review before final cuts | Asked about projections for fee revenue and participation impact | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Opposed eliminating fees immediately, but open to reduction |
| Teacher and IA Compensation | Emphasized transparency on cuts impacting staff and contractual obligations | Praised comprehensive budget presentation; sought clarity on assumptions | Facilitated discussion; urged actionable feedback | Supported refining impact details; emphasized balance | Not documented | Highlighted enrollment impact; asked about contract feasibility | Encouraged collaboration; probed feasibility of reconfiguration |
| Budget Transparency | Advocated for earlier and clearer budget discussions to build trust | Asked about prioritization and salary assumptions | Urged clear, actionable committee input | Advocated benchmarking and transparent trade-off analysis | Not documented | Asked for prioritized potential cuts and enrollment trend clarity | Emphasized building collaboration with town committees |
| Middle School Team Cuts | Asked for legal and STA input before decision making | Questioned impact on instructional offerings | Strongly objected to dismantling educational structures; emphasized teacher stress | Concerned about class sizes and program cuts; supported PE importance | Not documented | Asked about contractual feasibility | Asked about PE and specials flexibility for savings |
| Elementary PE Reduction | Sought assurances for maintaining instructional quality | Not documented | Strongly opposed reducing PE frequency, citing health impacts | Stressed importance of PE for student focus and well-being | Not documented | Not documented | Inquired about options to avoid reduction |
| DEI Director Position | Emphasized district inclusivity policies and clarified role context | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented |
| Athletic and Transportation Fees | Supported fee review deferred to next meeting; raised concerns about fee impact | Clarified cuts and impacts; concerned about fee revenue assumptions | Not documented | Not documented | Not documented | Highlighted concerns over fee increases ability to affect participation | Not documented |
| Budget Cut Prioritization | Praised thoroughness; recommended transparent trade-off modeling | Detailed how less painful cuts prioritized first; clarified cost estimates | Urged members to submit clear feedback | Encouraged detailed trade-off analysis and peer benchmarking | Not documented | Asked for prioritized contingency cuts and contract implications | Advocated collaboration and transparency in future budgeting |
4) Votes
- Full-Day Kindergarten Fee Vote (prior meeting referenced): 6-1 to keep fee; Dan Newman dissenting favoring gradual reduction rather than elimination[1]
- Policy Updates: Unanimous approval of non-controversial policies excluding JIH (no dissent)
- Approval of Minutes and Overnight Trip: Unanimous consent
No additional motions or budget votes were taken during this meeting; detailed budget vote deferred to subsequent meetings on Feb 28 and Mar 3.
5) Presentations
-
Public Comments: Multiple speakers addressed budget transparency, full-day kindergarten fees, teacher compensation, special education and DEI programming, and district administrative lean needs. Notable quotes:
- Avi: “I appreciate your transparency in your answer. I think that’s the kind of transparency this district needs and we need to move towards.”
- Shauna Lewis: “Going from two to one [PE classes] is a really big impact on kids, especially kids who don’t have other opportunities.”
- Jeremy Kay: “PE is super important… It has been shown to help kids focus in class, improve, reduce nearsightedness.”
- Adrienne DeMarco: “Blame being put on DEI for our declining school ranking… ignoring what benefits DEI initiatives provide to our students.”
- Mr. O’Brien: Opposed gender-neutral bathrooms citing “ideological brainwashing.”
- Erin Silver: “Losing experienced, dedicated teachers only hurts our students in the long run.”
-
Correspondence Synopsis: 36 letters focused on FY26 budget priorities, including maintaining East Elementary staff, instrumental music, opposing cuts to special education and DEI, and fee concerns[1][2][8].
-
Student Advisory Committee (Isha Agarwal): Reported on positive student activities: counseling appreciation, sports, debate success, clubs, mentoring, dances, and blood drives despite budget pressures.
-
Superintendent Dr. Patelow’s FY26 Budget Presentation:
- Salaries represent 84.5% of $ budget; special education 30% layered costs
- Enrollment projected to decline slightly, pressuring per-pupil costs
- Proposed 4% increase aligned with Priorities Committee recommendation; require $791,000 reductions
- Major reductions include elimination of standalone DEI Director (~$95,000), elementary specials staff reductions (PE frequency cut), middle school team elimination raising class sizes to 22-25, and high school arts and PE staffing cuts
- 15% fee increases proposed for athletics and transportation, plus 9% rise for early childhood fees in next meetings
- Careful balancing of contractual, educational, and financial constraints emphasized
-
Budget Cut Options and Priorities (Peter): Detailed options considered but not recommended (technology staff, further reductions in STEM and English, elementary section cuts, specialist cuts) totaling $830,000 for more severe education quality impact[2].
6) Action Items
- Defer detailed discussion and votes on additional budget cut options to meetings on February 28 and March 3, 2025
- Staff to provide further information on fees (transportation, athletics, early childhood, clubs) for next meeting consideration
- Committee members to forward clear, actionable feedback on budget priorities before upcoming meetings
- Continue collaboration efforts with Finance Committee and Select Board to refine budgeting process and build between-committee trust
- Legal and Sharon Teachers Association consultation requested regarding contractual impacts of proposed staffing reductions before final budget vote
7) Deferred Items
- Further cuts beyond initial $791,000 target reductions and related trade-offs pending additional analysis and committee feedback
- Detailed fee increase discussions, specifically athletics, transportation, early childhood, middle and high school clubs
- Final budget vote scheduled for March meetings
- Policy JIH review excluded from current non-controversial policy update vote
8) Appendices
- Correspondence Summary: 36 letters reflecting diverse community views, emphasizing program preservation, transparency, DEI retention, fee concerns, and manageable class sizes
- Public Comment Verbatim Highlights: See quotes in Presentations section for key statements from committee members and public speakers
- Budget Cuts Breakdown: Summary of proposed and considered cuts with associated estimated savings and educational impacts as presented by Superintendent and Peter
- Committee member roles:
- Avi Shemtov – Chair, transparency and legal compliance focus
- Dan Newman – Vice Chair, cautious fee reduction advocate, collaboration emphasis
- Alan Motenko – Secretary, detail- and clarity-oriented
- Julie Rowe – Facilitator, process oversight
- Jeremy Kay – Analytical on trade-offs and program impact
- Adam Shain – Enrollment and staffing detail-oriented
- Georgeann Lewis – Present but not prominently recorded in discussion excerpts
All records of agendas, minutes, and communications are publicly accessible on the Sharon Public Schools website[2][8].
Document Metadata
- Original Transcript Length: 184,655 characters
- Summary Word Count: 1,282 words
- Compression Ratio: 17.9:1
- Transcript File:
School-Committee_2-26-25_1ef188f1.wav
Transcript and Video
Good evening and welcome to the February 26, 2025 meeting of the school committee.
This meeting will be conducted remotely over Zoom.
Attendance by the committee members will be remote.
Remote attendance shall count toward quorum. The meeting will be broadcast live and recorded by Sharon TV.
If you elect to enable your webcam, your image and background may be broadcast with or without sound.
I would like to make a request before we start public comments.
There's been some Zoom bombing around the other meetings this week, so I would very much appreciate it. If you are going to comment, please put your full name. And if you could please turn on your camera or at least turn on your camera when you raise your hand so I can see that you're, you know, who you say you are.
And then you can turn it off during while you make your comment.
I would very much appreciate that.
Is there anything to add on that note, Brian?
Jane?
No? Okay.
All right. So we will now go to public comments.
Okay.
Okay.
Katie Conroy. Hello.
My name is Katie Conroy.
Two years ago, our town offered free full-day kindergarten to all students entering kindergarten.
It was supposed to be free full-day kindergarten going forward, funded by our school budget.
As we know, this was rescinded for the current academic year.
I reached out to the school committee and Dr. Botello on Monday to request a breakdown of the $600,000 that residents are currently paying for full-day kindergarten per year at $3,635 per student.
I am wondering why the cost for full-day kindergarten is so high, considering that the buildings are paid for, each grade has classrooms allocated, so the classrooms that are used are already accounted for, and all utilities, electric, heat, and water are paid for in the building.
I still have not received a response with the budget breakdown.
I did, however, have the opportunity to speak with Avi on the phone about free full-day kindergarten.
During our conversation, I learned that the school committee requested $600,000 from the finance committee per year to fund free full-day kindergarten, which was granted.
This money was given by the finance committee with the understanding and expectation that it would be specifically used to fund free full-day kindergarten each year.
This means that full-day kindergarten is fully funded in the school budget through our taxes, and the parents of kindergartners are essentially being double-charged when they enroll their child in full-day kindergarten.
The school committee is taking the funds specifically earmarked to completely fund full-day kindergarten and using it for other items in the budget.
This is unacceptable.
It is a travesty that our school committee members, who are supposed to have the best interest of our students at heart, have chosen to take away a level playing field for our youngest learners when they should be providing the best foundation possible.
This is when all students should be provided with the same opportunity to learn instead of using the required fee as a deterrent and obstacle for young families in town. I also sent an email to the school committee and Dr. Batella on Monday, formally requesting an agenda item be added to tonight's meeting to publicly discuss free full-day kindergarten.
I was unaware that the funds required for full-day kindergarten are already included in the school budget until I spoke with Avi, so I believe that our community has the right to know and publicly discuss why this money is not being used as it was intended.
I have not received a response for my request of an agenda item for a public discussion to be added to this meeting from any of the eight people my email was sent to. It's very disappointing to me as a shareholder. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
Next up is Ms. Fuller.
Julie, can I – I'm sorry.
I don't want to – Oh, go ahead.
Go. Sorry.
Sorry, Ms. Fuller.
I just wanted to state for clarity's sake that I did ask for that to be agended, and we agreed that there's already an agenda item regarding fees, so it just – it was redundant, but that request was heard, and that discussion is going to happen.
Thanks, Avi.
Okay, Ms. Fuller.
Thank you. Good evening. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Sharon Teachers Association.
We have concern over the lack of transparency in the budgeting process.
We deserve clear and accurate information about how funding is being allocated.
This is especially true when it comes to positions and their salaries, as well as accurately depicting the structure of the schedule and program offerings.
Our schools are the reasons why many families choose Sharon.
Our education budget should reflect that priority.
We must also address the narrative that teacher compensation is the sole cause of our budget issues.
Teachers deserve fair compensation for the work we do, and the contract we settled has been categorized as a fair contract by the school committee members.
Meanwhile, we've seen raises for administration while teachers face this year's financial strain. This only undermines the value of the educators who make the district what it is.
Additionally, we must highlight the crucial need for fair compensation of our IAs, who play a critical role in supporting our students.
Their work is invaluable, and they too deserve wages that reflect their contributions to the classroom.
This constant threat of cuts creates an unstable work environment and significantly impacts morale.
When talented educators are faced with uncertainty year after year, they begin to seek employment elsewhere.
Losing experienced, dedicated teachers only hurts our students in the long run. Instead of focusing solely on cuts, we need to be asking, how do we fund a budget that meets the needs of every student?
Prioritizing the well-being of our educators ensures we continue to provide the high-quality education our students deserve.
This is done through maintaining smaller class sizes, continuing to offer robust course offerings at the high school, and supporting opportunities for enrichment and diversity in instruction at all levels.
Thank you very much for your time this evening.
Thank you, Ms. Fuller and Matt Fenlon.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Before the school committee submits its final budget, I wanted to once again highlight the fact that nearly 95% of school districts in Massachusetts offer free-folded kindergarten, and Sharon is an extreme outlier as one of only 5% that currently does not.
The school committee has an opportunity to begin lowering the kindergarten fee with the next budget proposal, which is the stated goal of the majority of members to do so.
Kindergarten is essential for a child's education and should not be treated as a user fee for four- and five-year-olds.
Thank you so much.
Okay, thank you. I see Liz Krasowski.
Hi, thank you.
My name is Liz Krasowski.
I'm a kindergarten teacher at Cottage Street School in a classroom that would not function without our full-time kindergarten instructional assistant.
We have a tradition at Cottage of compiling shout-outs to staff members on Friday afternoons at Cottage. Tonight, I just want to highlight just a few of more than 65 that have been submitted specifically about our IAs. The most used adjectives throughout include dedication, flexibility, being team players, compassion, kindness, and professionalism.
Here are some actual submissions from teachers at Cottage.
Thank you for being so helpful in supporting our kids during writing time.
I don't know how I would manage all of the students' needs without you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
students that need it and your kind and supportive approach makes the kids feel at ease when working with you. You are great organizers and leaders and you teach with such grace and patience.
For loving the kids the way you do and supporting whatever they need, whenever they need it, we love working with you. You are the heart of the school.
To every single IA in the building, I'm floored on a daily basis by what I witnessed.
The love, compassion, patience, flexibility, and professionalism that you all bring to cottage every single day is astounding.
I, for one, need to take a page from this playbook and start implementing it into my own practice. Way to go, friends.
I'm proud to call you my friends and colleagues.
And lastly, I don't know what we did to deserve you. So thank you, thank you, thank you for being amazing, present, helpful, honest, and caring. I know I'm just speaking about specifically about cottage IAs, but I'm certain that this sentiment is echoed across the district.
Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Krasovsky.
Lisa Gilman.
Oh, sorry. Okay. Got it. That's okay. Thank you. I'm a music teacher primarily at Cottage Street School, but I do teach instrumental music at all the elementary schools.
I am, I've been here for many, many years, completing year 28. And I have seen many, many changes within the instrumental program in my time from the amount of time we meet with the kids to what instruments we offer.
The one thing that has not changed, however, has been the number of enrollments of our students.
We see a huge number of kiddos starting every year, can't wait to start in on our instrumental program, and nobody is left out.
Fame has been incredible.
Our teachers have been incredible with encouraging students to take part in this. I'm not going to take your time to talk about the benefits of instrumental music because I know you already know that. What I would like to do is invite you, the school committee, to Cottage Street School, to my music room. Every Thursday at 8 a.m., I open my doors to students who want to come in for extra playing, extra help, just to play with others.
It's incredible.
Any teacher who walks through Cottage Thursday mornings, they see that joy and camaraderie from the students as they come in and help each other out. And I would love for you to take part and to see what it is that they get out of that.
To put it after school, that we've tried that before, it hasn't worked.
And I implore you to please reconsider and keep our instrumental program during the school day. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Zianette Frost.
Thank you for hearing me. I would first like to ask the community to please continue to carry number 17, Rohan, in your thoughts and prayers.
I would also like to ask the school administration to keep our real customers in mind, the parents and students.
Students need quality education, diverse programs and services, and safe and reasonably sized classrooms.
Teachers are continuously asked to do more with less.
Taxpayers are continuously asked to pay higher taxes while considering additional layoffs.
I would like to ask the school administration to take steps towards running leanly instead.
Where can the school administration minimize costs from within so that our final customers benefit?
Please do not ask taxpayers to continue paying more for less. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Frost.
Adrienne DeMarco.
Thank you.
I wanted to speak on behalf of the proposed removal of the DEI director position.
Many people in town fought very hard for the creation of that position.
And I have spent a lot of time advocating for DEI initiatives.
But it wasn't until my son was diagnosed with a rare genetic muscle condition that I truly saw the benefits of DEI for people and children with special needs. We knew after the recent school committee elections that regardless of our budget, this position was going to be eliminated.
So it's really not a surprise, but it's still really disappointing.
Given the national cuts to the Department of Education and the possible cuts to Medicaid, many students are going to be losing their services or funding for their services.
I am hopeful that Massachusetts will continue to support our special needs students.
But what at a town level are we doing to support all students when you won't pay IAs a living wage, leaving some students without aides, and you're removing the DEI director position?
When my son started early intervention, we heard time and time again how lucky we were to live in Sharon because they have some of the best resources for special needs kids. We personally know people that moved to Sharon from surrounding towns specifically to get better services for their special needs children.
It is infuriating to see blame being put on DEI for our declining school ranking and test scores while ignoring what benefits DEI initiatives provide to our students.
I'm concerned that my son can't safely access the classroom and school building.
I'm concerned that he doesn't have anyone in the school that walks like him or has to wear braces like him. I'm concerned that he might get bullied or picked on for his limitations.
I want him to feel seen and I want him to be represented.
I appreciate that we're able to live in a town with the great school system, but what makes it great should not be rankings, but how we treat and care for our most vulnerable students.
When this school committee ultimately decides to remove the DEI director position, proving that diversity, equity, and inclusion are not values you prioritize, I hope the superintendent follows that up with, um, follows up that decision with at least a public statement on how you will make up for the amazing work Hina has been doing and then action it because words are hollow if there's no follow through and our students deserve better.
Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Marco. Uh, Ms. Silver.
Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Uh, my name is Erin Silver and I'm speaking as a co-president of the Sharon Teachers Association.
Our educators in this district have been very invested in the past couple of weeks, understanding the budget spreadsheet that was released. That paired with the information shared at the last school committee meeting often left educators confused and eager for clarification.
Some areas we found confusing at the middle school level was a special educator on the split team. Currently, we do not have the staff for this as we rely on special education liaisons to oversee multiple teams due to high numbers.
Educators were also confused as the most recent MOA specified that class sizes would start at 22. With this current student numbers at the sixth grade, there would be more than 22 students per class to start at. At the elementary level, educators were perplexed to hear that foreign language in the elementary schools is a contractual obligation.
However, that portion of time is spent in data meetings, which is not a contractual obligation.
Educators at all levels are worried about how these cuts will affect classroom numbers.
At the middle school level, class sections could exceed 26 students, which cannot be only difficult to manage physically, but also make individualized attention with students more difficult.
Plus, many students at the middle school level are not physically equipped for exceeding 24 students.
The seventh and eighth grade model at the middle school is a split model at the middle school is a difficult model to carry out. Because the team is not a seventh grade or eighth grade team fully, the schedule it runs is different for both grades.
In a profession where collaboration and consistency can be important, the split team model makes it difficult for teachers to find a common time to collaborate across grades, as well as disciplines.
In a year where eighth grade students now have four different MCAS tests, as well as a state mandated project, collaboration is key within each subject and very difficult to do with a split team schedule.
At the high school, these cuts would drastically affect the selection of classes that students currently have. With many of these cuts, priorities would be standard core classes and interesting election electives that enrich students' academic experiences with discipline.
Classes that include AP Psych, AP Bio and Biotechnology, and Anatomy and Physiology.
While we understand the budget is a difficult process to come up with, we do feel everyone should understand the difficulties with the cuts being proposed.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Silver.
Judy Crosby.
Thank you, Julie.
So I have other things to talk about, but before I do, I need to correct a misconception that was stated here. It was claimed that the vice chair told a citizen that FinCom agreed to fund full day K forever moving forward.
That's not a thing.
Priorities and FinCom agreed to give exactly one year of $590,000 during the FY23, FY24, during FY24, which is 23-24 school year, to fund what was presented as a gap year for full day K, after which allegedly state aid would fully cover the cost. They didn't understand how state aid worked.
They didn't understand that the district had been a minimum aid district for 11 of 13 of the prior years. They didn't understand that state aid would have had to go up by twice as much as the maximum state aid increase that had ever been received by the district in order to fund all that. In short, your school committee are the ones who screwed up, not FinCom, not priorities.
The other things I wanted to talk about, some have already been discussed, specifically the IAs. These make students' lives possible in the building for certain of our students.
I have now received at least 10 different parents reaching out to me to find out what their legal rights are because the district is not providing their students what's listed in their IEPs. I very happily explained to all of them how they should go up the chain within the district and then how they should file with DESE and sue because you are not providing the legally mandated requirements under their IEPs. Lastly, your budget keeps assuming that level services is appropriate and that every dollar you spend is a good spend. Meanwhile, our student population has dropped by about 145 to 150 students from fiscal year 23 per DESE data, and that has not been discussed.
You also assume every minute in the day is well spent and FLESS proves otherwise.
Be a little creative.
You have options.
Thank you, Ms. Crosby.
Ms. Hogan.
Thank you for hearing me out.
I've attended budget meetings for over the past 10 years, and the past two years have felt to me like the budget was presented as a scare tactic, not a creative, thoughtful approach to solving the problems that we're encountering in our town with clear data and explanations.
According to the slides from two weeks ago, no other AP classes were put in quote-unquote danger except for science classes, and what I'd really like to know is the logic and reasoning behind cutting only science APs. This time careers and sciences are the fastest growing career paths in our country, and these classes are very popular with our students, so I really want an explanation or reasoning as to why science APs are being cut over any other subjects like math and English.
Sharon High School is recognized as an excellent school by many of the colleges and universities that our students apply to. I personally have toured about 30 with my kids. We've heard many times how admissions love to get SHS kids because they're aware of the academic rigor, strong and well-prepared students, but if you're going to eliminate AP classes and sections of math and English at the high school, how is that going to maintain the high standards that Sharon High has come to have for future students?
And I think parents are rightly focused on protecting the schools where their children are currently enrolled, but I want to point out that cuts to the high school are definitely going to impact younger students and vice versa. Elementary and middle school teachers, cutting those teachers is just as detrimental to the students.
Smaller elementary and middle school classes allow teachers to spend more time with students, notice and cultivate a spark of interest, give a student that little bit of extra time that they may need. My kids certainly benefited from these small classes when they were at East and Middle School, and it resulted in strong students who took high-level classes at Sharon High. I think our schools are like a ladder, not like the silos that were presented in the budget, and if you're going to cut the runs at the bottom or the top, it's going to affect everybody, and I really hope that all the parents who are listening tonight are going to recognize that.
Thanks Charlotte.
Okay, and batting cleanup is Mr. O'Brien.
Thank you. With it still being Black History Month, I will remind everyone that Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X both said that the biggest threat to America and to black people are white liberals.
I will add on to that to say that white liberals are single-handedly a threat to the education system. You use the word inclusive.
That is one of your woke cult words. It means exclusive of anyone who isn't supportive of the woke cult. The all-gender bathroom sign at Cottage that I keep beating the drum against is a sign is woke cult language in pursuit of controlling the way elementary school children think and thereby controlling them. It is ideological brainwashing through language and control, also known as indoctrination.
This violates one of President Trump's executive orders.
I continue to write letters to the White House letting them know that this state and school districts like Sharon are disobeying an executive order. Federal funding should be stopped.
I have reached out to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts as well as Attorney General Pam Bondi to draw attention to this.
Administrators have told me face to face at various levels that they have never seen an all-gender bathroom sign anywhere except for the one I brought to the school committee's attention, but that they can't do anything about it unless there is a law. I will remind them an executive order is a law and it should be obeyed.
The Department of Education has terminated 226 million dollars in grants to its comprehensive center which has been pushing schools to reject the gender binary fact of life. Teachers unions, critical race theorists, radical gender activists, and other left-wing groups have destroyed public education.
I look forward to the complete destruction of the Department of Education.
Sharon needs its own version of DOGE. It needs a DOES department of Sharon efficiency so we can get rid of any remaining DEI positions.
Again, DEI stands for didn't earn it and these positions that remain also go against President Trump's a different executive order from President Trump. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
And batting clean up is Ms. Weider.
Thank you for allowing me to speak.
So first of all, I'd like to quote from Jane Fonda who just recently said, woke just means you give a damn about other people.
It means that you're aware of what other people are going through and you have empathy.
So let's start from there. I'm actually going to read just a portion of the email that I sent to the school committee just the other day because I think it's probably worth repeating.
My request was to please not make any changes to any gender neutral bathroom access or the ability of teachers to use students' preferred pronouns.
I understand there's a small but vocal group within the community that's trying to enforce restrictions on SPS, but there are three reasons why that idea, those ideas are terrible.
First, let's be logical about this. Every human being needs access to a bathroom at some point during the day. It's unhealthy to go too long without using a bathroom, particularly for students who are menstruating or who have chronic illnesses.
Taking actions that will make students less comfortable managing basic required bodily functions borders on cruel. It's a bathroom for Pete's sake. A gender neutral bathroom can be used by any gender, just as on an airplane or on a train or in a person's home. The only reason to shut these bathrooms down is to be mean and that's not who we should want to be. Second, both of these restrictions run counter to our own policy which states, I quote, Sharon Public Schools does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender identity, homelessness, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
This policy is so important.
It's on every SPS webpage and the school committee agendas.
As I've written to the school committee previously, I think it's worth having this said at the beginning of every school committee meeting so there's no confusion as to where we stand on discrimination.
And finally, adopting the minorities' proposals would have us operating counter to those who are higher up on the food chain know an EO is not law, so let's not pretend.
Very important, just to finish this off super, super quickly, a recent federal appeals court decision and DESE's own guidance say that diversity, equity and inclusion are values we honor and cherish in the commonwealth.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Ms.
Davis.
Yes, hi.
I just, I can't be very quiet after hearing that.
I, executive orders are not laws. They have no power over anything other than federal organizations and states make up their own laws. Let's be real about this. We need to remember who we are here for and that is for all students.
We need to remember what our job is. Our job is to represent every student at every level and meet them where they're at. Our job is to make sure that we support and defend our students regardless of how they identify.
I am done hearing people tell me that my job is indoctrinating kids. If I could indoctrinate a kid, it would be to get off their phone.
It has nothing to do with that.
And we need to stop the ideological brainwashing that is happening on the right and not just on the left. Enough.
I don't want to have my students cry anymore over what they hear on these meetings.
Remember who is listening to your words.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms.
Davis and Wendy MacArthur.
Oh, sorry.
Did you get it? Got it? Good. I just want to again thank Shauna for the school committee meeting where she stated the school committee's position on some of the things that were said here tonight and how all students mean all students.
So thank you again Shauna for doing that. I also want to mention that or remind the school committee meeting that when you are looking at the superintendent's evaluation, remember all of the stuff you are hearing on these meetings and his lack of communication to parents, to teachers and to students that he believes every student matters, even though half of them are freaked out by what they're hearing at the school committees and in the classrooms from other students and from their leadership.
I thank you all the teachers for doing what we are dealing with. And I also want to say I think the threatening nature that Mr. Patello has done to teachers threatening to take away part of their jobs, making their living below a living wage is unacceptable.
And please consider this when you're writing his review.
Thank you. Okay.
Thank you, Ms. McArthur.
And we will now move to our next item on the agenda, which is correspondence.
Shauna, you ready?
Yep. Hold on one second.
Can you hear me? Yes. All right.
So correspondence for today, February 26, 2025.
The school committee has received 36 pieces of correspondence between February 12th and February 12th at 9am and February 26th at 9am. We received feedback from a variety of stakeholders in the community regarding the FY26 operating budget development.
The themes of feedback included concerns regarding the proposed budget reduction at East Elementary School, concerns regarding proposed cuts to East Elementary, particularly grades one and two, and across the district, support for the instrumental music program at the elementary schools, concerns regarding the impact of staff reductions on class sizes, student teacher relationships, and the overall quality of education in the district, concerns about the possibility of increased athletic fees for our students and families, suggestions to explore alternative funding sources, let it be naming rights, higher fees for facility rentals, etc., concerns regarding the impact of layoffs and non-renewals of staff, particularly at SHS, suggestions to prioritize science and AP offerings at Sharon High School, suggestions to reduce more at the administrative level, curriculum coordinators reduce the superintendent's salary, suggestion to allow students to bring their own laptops, suggestion to appoint a volunteer community committee committee to develop a zero-based budget for the school district next year, support to retain the DEI director position in the budget, support for the dean of academic affairs, requests to ensure that the budget development process focuses on transparency and be collaborative, concerns about the impact of a split team at Sharon Middle School. Next, a parent wrote in to request that the district remain all, uh, retain all signage related to gender neutral bathrooms and continue to recognize student preferred pronoun use. We have received a request to include a discussion of kindergarten fees on the February 26, 2025 agenda.
We received a reminder regarding the Sharon Pluralism Network Community Leader meeting. A community member wrote to provide feedback on a school committee member's engagement on social media.
Several community members wrote to express their policy of JIH, student searches, as presented in the school committee during a previous meeting. In particular, this support highlighted the need for investigations by law enforcement to be allowed and to happen as soon as possible to support student safety.
We received an invitation to the Black Student Union's Black History Month Assembly, scheduled for February 27, 2025. We received Millie's Metco newsletter that highlighted Metco Headquarter Teen Ambassadors, MDPE Educator Diversity Career Fair, and the launch of Everyone 250, a celebration of justice, anti-racism, and belonging.
We received notifications of several events with congressmen, and I apologize, I'm gonna, I do it every time, Jake Oshenslaus.
Oshenslaus.
That, him, yes. Good day Metro South and a virtual Q&A session.
Fred Turkington, town administrator, provided the school committee with information in preparation for the priorities committee meeting.
We received information on the healthy kids before and after school program. Thank you.
Thank you, Shana.
And now it is time for our student representative report.
So I'm going to unmute Isha Agarwal, wherever you are. Yes, thank you so much.
My name is Isha Agarwal, and I will be presenting today from the Student Advisory Committee.
To begin, the senior class organized giant cards for each counselor to help Miss Phelps to show their appreciation for the National Counseling Appreciation Week. Seniors are so grateful for their hard work, compassion, and unwavering dedication to help every student thrive. Thank you to the senior class planning board and for many other students who made and signed cards for our counselors.
Sponsored by FAME, the Tri-M Music Honor Society, the music department had an exciting field trip to see Boston Symphony Orchestra just before break. A treat to those who auditioned at the National Music Competition Festival, where many successfully passed. This was an amazing opportunity for us. Tri-M hosted a community concert right before break, with many musicians showcasing their talents and skills with wonderful pieces of music. Thank you to everyone who came out to watch. Student Council had a winter sports rally right before break. There was a lot of engagement and attendees while we showcased our varsity sports winter sports teams. We also had an intense teachers versus students basketball game. Our athletes had an amazing season, including athletes like Leo Tran, who is the D2 swim state champion in the 100 meter.
Cyrus Jones is the D2 wrestling state champ, and Nina is the track state champion in the 55 meter and took second in the 300 meter.
Nina, Linda Jenner, Imani Vaughn, and Callie Weider took second in the four times 200 meter. Josie Brown-Wright finished sixth in the state meet in the 300 meter. Our cheer team took fifth ad hoc and made it to the all-state finals, which will occur next weekend.
Our co-op hockey players had a MIAA tournament game on Wednesday.
And our student council is hosting their second blood drive of the year on February 28th. We are so grateful to our school committee members who have donated in the past, and we will reserve spots for any who are interested.
Thank you especially to Julie Rowe, who will again support us this Friday, as well as many other teachers and staff.
The goal is to introduce this life-saving endeavor, but we'll always have extra slots for teachers and parents that might want to donate with their child. Many of our athletes step up to donate when it's between us, so kudos to all of them who embrace the opportunity when they can, and to all of the adults who model this life-saving act of service.
From our speech and debate team, Marcus Myers won first at the NSDA qualifiers last month, which qualified him to enter in the national tournament for the second year in a row. The debate team competed in four separate tournaments over break with many exciting moments.
Junior Andrew Zinn and his brother, sophomore Anthony Zinn, won the Evergreen Debate tournament this past weekend after nine grueling rounds over two days of virtual competition with competitors from around the country.
The team heads to Shoesbury this weekend.
Web Development Club and Girls Who Code are planning for the March 25th hackathon, during which middle school students will be invited to participate with high school students on teams to solve a challenge using innovative technology and to produce their solutions with to a panel of judges. Club leaders will recruit leaders, will recruit adults who would like to share their expertise or knowledge with these inquisitive young adults. Ms. Jolliker and Ms. Newman are the adult advisors for this event, so if anyone wants to learn more or get involved, please contact one of them. We would love to have some volunteer judges who can help our students gain knowledge from people who have expertise to share.
Over 50 students will head to Boston this weekend for the DECA States competition.
Good luck to all of our DECA Eagles.
Our amazing theatre company will compete in the Massachusetts Theatre Guild Festival with an amazing performance on this little woman. Prelims start this weekend.
Our Science Olympiad team will be sending 15 members to compete in the Wentworth State Tournament this Saturday as well. And student mentors from the high school spent time with middle school students helping them to prepare for the transition to high school. Our beloved counselor Ms. Fuguzat oversees this program.
Tickets are on sale for the freshman sophomore dance for March 7th and tickets for both the junior and senior proms go on sale this week. It is indeed a very exciting time at Sharon High School. This past week the Student Advisory Committee met with Ms. Keenan to discuss a range of topics that impact students and how we can lend our voices to make decisions that have impact.
For example, we discussed how the budget process occurs and how challenging it is to balance the needs of various schools, students and salaries. We look forward to discussing meetings with members of the School Committee and Ms. Keenan to continue our discussions about topics that impact students and are grateful for these opportunities.
Once again, I'm Isha Agarwal from the Student Advisory Committee and thank you so much for letting me come on today.
Eesha, it's always a pleasure and that was a fantastic update.
Congratulations to everyone who's participating and all the people who are succeeding so well and we will see you soon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
The next item on the agenda are general updates.
So Dr. Patelow, take it away.
Julie, can I just ask for something before we go into the conversation?
Yes. All right. By the way, yes, Isha, that was an amazing update. Dr. Patelow, before you start your updates, would you mind speaking to or are you willing to speak to the district's stance on some of the things we've heard here tonight? To the best of my knowledge, there have been no policy, well, I'm well aware there have been no policy changes at this table. So the policies that were read from our district still very much stand. I, the only reason I ask is that after the last two meetings, I've, I don't know if other school community members have experienced this also, but I've been approached by people who truly misunderstand how our meetings work. And sometimes folks in public comments statements can be taken as, as though they are also being sort of mirrored back by our committee or our administration.
So I think in the interest of, of clearing up confusion, even just a simple statement about where the district stands would go a long way as to eliminating any confusion. Absolutely.
So, you know, I'm in a hundred percent in unified with our entire administration and staff that we continue to do everything in our power to support all students, whether they be of different races, cultures, cultures, our LGBTQ plus community.
They, they all are, you know, every student is important to us. Every student comes with their unique differences and we do everything in our power to make sure that they feel included and have an opportunity to thrive.
And every individual, you know, parent and student that we work with, we will continue to emphasize that knowing them individually, but also knowing their particular circumstances.
And I know that again, our, our, our, our administration and our teachers are a hundred percent.
We look at kids as individuals and they all come with unique experiences and backgrounds.
And especially for folks that are feeling left out or feeling disenfranchised, whether it's by something that's going on in the school or by the outside of community, we'll do everything in our power to support them and make sure that they feel comfortable.
Okay.
Shana, did you want to add something?
Oh, sorry.
Shana, can you unmute?
Yeah.
Can you hear me? So we have 131 participants on this right now. I would like Dr. Patel to respectfully ask, and I've asked this of you before.
Um, I would like to see a memorandum go out to the entire district stating exactly that your stance that all means all and students, regardless of any protected class, um, are welcome, are going to be safe and will be loved and nurtured, um, as they progress through our schools.
It is imperative.
We have, we have students who are really scared.
We have parents who are scared and rightly so. Some of the things that they overhear on these meetings are horrible, quite frankly, and we can't do anything about it, but listen, but we need our leader to stand up. And right now, and we need you to please, please send out a memo so that parents can read to their kids, kids can read for themselves that know that they have, you have their back. Thank you. All right.
Uh, thank you, Shauna.
Um, Peter is your go.
A time for the student updates.
Okay.
Jane's gonna throw that up there.
Um, part of it is, uh, um, um, Isha has already stole my thunder, so I'm not gonna repeat, um, one of the slides.
Um, but first of all, um, the calendar, um, has been published and shared for next year. Um, it's linked on the district website, uh, begins the week before Labor Day and ends on June 16th of the day 180, assuming no snow days. Um, so everyone can start making their plans, um, with a more normal calendar this year. Uh, we have some great events coming up. The middle school, um, production of Cinderella opens March 13th. We also read across America with our Black Student Union and Muslim Student Association.
We'll read at the elementary schools, um, in the upcoming week, and then a series of events at the middle school and high school, uh, celebrating Black History Month and, uh, educating our students.
And again, I'm not gonna repeat the second slide because Isha did such a wonderful job, not only, uh, talking about our awesome athletes and their performance, but also, uh, many other folks that are, um, are doing great things at the high school. So congratulations to our athletes and, uh, for their, their great successes and good luck in their, uh, continued, uh, events.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
And now, um, for the moment everyone's been waiting for the, um, we would like to see the fiscal 26 proposed operating budget.
And so after Dr. Patel presents it, then I will open it up to the committee for discussion.
We're not voting at this time.
Um, we're merely going to be discussing elements of the budget.
So, okay.
Thank you. And Julie wanted to confirm that we, so we also have added an additional meeting on next Monday and next Wednesday to give additional time. Um, I do recognize and apologize for, um, folks getting this in their packet just an hour before.
I know that's not ideal. Um, the work going into this, as we're trying to project, um, what the most, the least painful cuts are, uh, kind of are going up to the very minute as we're, um, looking at changes in enrollment and trying to predict, uh, enrollment in classes, especially at the high school next year. So, um, I apologize for the lateness in that. Um, but tonight we're going to review the, uh, development budget, development context and process including budget priorities drivers and process to date highlight mandatory required components review critical and additional components.
I'm going to present a budget recommended based on the revised 4.4% priorities allocation.
Uh, we'll have time to collect feedback from the school committee continue that on, um, next, uh, Monday and then clarify next steps going in. Okay. Uh, first of all, it's just important to recognize that the budget development takes into account a range of consideration.
Um, I, you know, there was tons of work over the last several months consulting with school and district leaders, uh, as well as, uh, teacher leaders to identify needs and priorities.
Uh, calculating costs, uh, uh, to comply with contractual obligations and legal mandates.
Also looking at enrollment and class size, looking to maximize resources by restructuring, shifting and reducing as possible.
Um, some of the creative work and looking at how we are might reconfigure things working collaboratively with the town, managing risk, um, while identifying areas for reduction.
Uh, it first of all starts with our district plan and our district goals.
So in all of the work and all the decisions that we make, we're looking to, um, maintain educational excellence in, in Sharon.
And in doing so, that means meeting the needs of all students.
Uh, that's partly by supporting our, uh, ever evolving MTSS multi-tiered system of support process, which is a, a state expected, um, system in all schools.
Um, and in doing so, that means, um, and in doing so, that means, um, and in doing so, making sure we have equitable, uh, and inclusive learning for our kids in our continuing to promote a culture that, um, that really promotes, um, growth among students, but also among, um, our capacity as adults.
Um, we also considered the, uh, school committees budget priorities that were, um, were identified and presented early, uh, last fall. Um, so part of it is using the town priorities by a budget allocation as a bus line baseline, uh, supporting the new ELA rollout, strengthening our special education, especially coming back from some cuts we made last year, maintaining small class sizes, especially at the elementary, um, reinstating a high school assistant principal was one thing that was, um, favored, um, not necessarily dictated, but favored.
And also looking at the kindergarten fee and what we could do to reduce that. So throughout this process, starting back in August and continuing through the last several months, we've been, um, going through various iterations of understanding the budget as well as developing our capital, uh, programming till we come to today to present, um, the operating budget.
Um, we're in the same boat as many, many, uh, districts of really having waited for as good figures as we can from town revenue as well as state revenue.
Um, we're still, you know, looking at the, the revenue expectations from the, from the state.
I know, um, they're pushing for a larger allocation for us minimum A districts.
Um, uh, the number that has been, um, looked at in, um, with my colleagues is $150 per.
Um, per pupil. That's not something that's being budgeted within the priorities, uh, allocation, but it's something we're hoping for. And so, um, as we wait for some of that information that allows us to make a budget, that's going to really, uh, stick for the following year.
Okay.
Now we look at our primary budget drivers.
Eighty-four point five percent of budget is driven by salaries. And 30 percent of that, of our budget is driven by special education costs. Now, some of those overlap.
So some of that 84, four point five of salaries is special education salaries.
But it just shows that there's a great, great majority of our budget is really, um, dictated by things that are, um, largely beyond our control.
Um, certainly we look at enrollment.
And when enrollment dictates, uh, um, uh, lessening of staff, uh, then that can affect our salaries numbers, obviously.
Um, and we also always try to control special education costs while, um, doing everything in our power to ensure that all kids with special needs get the, um, the mandated needs that they require in order to make progress.
We also, um, deal with other increased costs around, um, that inflation is affected, like transportation and, um, other operational costs that, um, really impact our schools.
And this is just another way, but again, the, the main point is the FY26 budget focuses on trying to maintain, um, high levels of service while we have escalating costs of our budget drivers.
Okay.
So, um, now, one thing we need to look at as far as the context is the kids.
And we first start off with looking at kids by looking at numbers. So, we are seeing some, um, decreases in enrollment.
Um, so we're predicting, and again, this is still early because great kindergarten and first grade numbers in particular are, um, often fluctuate quite a bit during the summer.
Um, so this is, um, those, the numbers that go into this enrollment predicting for 25, 26, and 26, 27 are predictive numbers based upon, um, what our current numbers are in kindergarten going into first grade.
What, um, some of the, um, NASDAQ reports and other reports are saying to project as far as, uh, numbers in kindergarten and first grade over the next several years. But it does look like we, um, are looking at a, um, a bit of a decrease, um, from 24 to 25 to 25, 26.
And then a little bit more of a decrease the following year. So that is taken into account as we make our decisions.
In particular, um, at the middle school, as we've been contemplating, um, middle school, uh, cuts. Um, our numbers for 25, 26, and 26, 27, um, they maintain a pretty, pretty steady.
Um, so we have a strong sense of if we impact changes there, um, what the numbers should be. And then one of the really key factors in something, um, though I don't always see eye to eye with the FinCom, um, I think them looking for us to try to create a sustainable budget is a valid point in any town. And so seeing that the numbers in the middle school are projected to go down over the several years, if we do make, um, some kind of cuts this year and we deal with like this year and next year, which will be the tougher years, then going forward, those should be pretty manageable, um, for the foreseeable future based upon these trends. So that's a big decision.
It's about, yes, how it's going to impact kids right off the bat, but also sustainability.
Is there a model that's a little bit more efficient, but still will provide high quality education for our kids that we can consider as we're trying to make prudent decisions around budget. At the high school, um, the numbers, um, the numbers, again, are going down, uh, a little bit over the next, uh, several years. So those are things that we consider as we project, uh, what classes kids are going to be choosing and how we make sure that we can still have a long, a large array of offerings, uh, while, um, while, um, considering, uh, various cuts, um, both this year and potentially in the future as well. And we look at elementary.
So this is based upon next year's projections with, uh, the, um, reductions that are already built into, um, my initial budget.
So you see that in grade two at cottage, um, that's 61, um, three sections, and it's got a little minus next to it. Last year that had four sections.
So that, that, that, that kind of is already built into, um, our current budget, but it would still allow us to have a fairly favorable, um, um, class size of 20 to 21 kids. Then you see grade three, that actually is a big group.
So actually a teacher there kind of moves up and that is growing by one. So if you look at grade two and grade three cottage, it's basically an even, uh, even, um, you know, even, uh, even, uh, evens out one, one reduction, one addition.
Um, but then in grade four at cottage, uh, it's another area where, um, we have 64 kids. If we had three sections instead of four, we could have 21 to 22, uh, kids there.
So it's a reasonable class size. Um, so right there at cottage, um, we see, um, two reductions in one addition for, uh, uh, a net of one reduction.
And then if you look over to, um, grade five at Heights, last year, we had five sections cause we had quite a big class and four sections is, uh, doable with numbers 22 to 23. So those are the two reductions in elementary that due to enrollment, we have already built into the budget because we think we are able to do those reductions and still have favorably small class size, um, at the elementary school.
There were other cuts that were considered, uh, especially as we were looking at the 2.76 reduction, um, and we're even considered with a four, uh, 4% reduction, but you'll see actually, uh, when I present the 4% that I'm not recommending those for, uh, next year.
Or this year's budget.
Okay.
So this is just a little bit of summary.
Um, um, I think I covered it, uh, you know, pretty much in that, in that last explanation.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Okay.
Okay. Now we can, we look at the main drivers of our budget.
Salaries are 84.5%.
Um, special education, uh, that's non-salary special education is 6.9%.
And again, we looked at the pie, um, together it's 30% when you include special education, both salaries and other contractual services and, and other things.
And then you have, you know, smaller places like utilities, facilities and maintenance, athletics, transportation.
And then 3% of our budget is really this non-salary line items.
Now those things include things that we've talked about before, supplies and materials.
Those are things that we have reduced time and time again.
Um, and that when we did the zero-based budgeting based upon real need, uh, would have been increased this year. Um, we've maintained the same level of funding because of the reality of the budget year. And we know that despite inflation and increased costs in all these areas, um, we're going to have to do, um, with less, uh, whenever possible.
Uh, but the transportation and utilities, those things do go up.
Um, and, uh, so those are, those are, uh, increases that we have to, uh, take into account as we're dealing with a, uh, difficult budget year. Now, as far as our personnel, you know, 76% are our teachers, 8% are our IAs, 7% others.
And, uh, 1.9% is district-wide administration and 3.7% is building-level administration.
Um, I don't have the figures right here, but I'm happy to get them. If, uh, they're, they're really not that readily available on the department website. I tried to get them, but they're, they're really, the way they categorize admin is not always, uh, very accurate.
But, um, I do know that our admin levels in the district are not high.
Uh, they're definitely on the low side. We've really tried to cut back on with this additional cut, um, that's going, coming, um, down the pike this year.
Uh, there really is not a great deal to, um, be able to cut beyond what we already have. Okay.
So, again, as I said, these other budget drivers, whether that's our contractual obligations or our special education costs or transportation, uh, those things are also escalating as we're, um, you know, dealing with, you know, kind of modest budget increases.
Salaries.
Salaries themselves, um, you know, um, if we look at based on step lanes and COLA, um, have an incremental change of 5.1%.
So they went up 5.1% over, uh, last year.
Again, that's based upon COLA, but also steps and lanes. Um, and this 5.1% represents a 4.35%
increase in the overall budget.
So if we did nothing else, maintain the same number of people and gave them the contractual step lanes and COLA, we would already be over the priorities target by 0.35%.
So we have to get creative in how we reach the 4% priorities target, um, while, um, providing these contractual increases, um, that are guaranteed.
In addition, special education costs are always in district budgets, one of the most variable and difficult parts of the budget.
Um, there's to our precious kids who need, uh, special education services and we, um, are committed to serving them as well as we can, but it is a costly endeavor.
So, um, about 1% of our students attend out-of-district special education placements, so that's a great place in that we're keeping all of our kids in the district, which is both better for them to be able to be educated with their peers whenever possible, but also is a cost saving.
So we have to continue to provide robust services and supports for those kids so that we don't lose kids out of district costing more money and also not serving kids in their district, which is preferred, I think, for everyone.
Um, we do see increases out of, um, tuition costs, not the 14%, but, uh, we're looking at, uh, um, an increase of about 3.67%.
Um, and so these increases in tuitions as well as transportation costs, uh, drive the increases in special education, which is a, which is a key kind of uncontrollable part of our budget. Okay.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Okay. So when we look at, um, our, our costs for next year, we're looking at, um, projected out of district tuitions of almost $6 million.
And then, uh, these other aspects of, of the, uh, special education budget, which is a big portion of our budget that, uh, is mandated and we must provide.
Okay.
And 30% of our, uh, our operating budget is devoted to special education that includes personnel, transportation, supplies, materials, and for both in and out of district students.
Okay.
So now we're getting to, um, the, uh, operating budget and my proposed budget here. You can see, like in those COVID years, there was a bigger increase.
Um, and, um, and now, you know, we have increases that are still, um, significant last year, uh, less than 4% and then a 4%. We look at our, some, I kind of just reached out to some of the districts in the region and, uh, most that are in a similar place. Canton, um, increase that's expected according to the superintendent is about almost 5%. Foxborough is 3.5%, but they're also putting almost a million dollars into a special education stabilization fund, which are, they're going to access basically all that money this year in order to offset some costs. King Phillip at 4.38%
Midway is expecting 8.4% increase.
Uh, Norton, a 3.8% increase, but they're also expecting, um, additional funds through, uh, the student opportunity app because of their population.
They're getting more of that money than we are in Walpole hasn't settled yet, but they're looking at between 3.4 and 5.7%. 5%. So we're in similar company, uh, with other districts.
Okay.
So this was the budget that initially, um, you know, if, if we were to create, uh, continue the same level of, uh, staffing and roll forward, um, um, all of like our non, non, um, personnel, um, aspects to level funding, even though, uh, we'd have to cut back on SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: services because of some increases with inflation and increasing costs. It would be a 5.4%. Um, and then, uh, we would have to cut back on services. Okay.
Okay.
So this was the budget that initially, um, you know, if, if we were to create, uh, continue the same level of, uh, staffing and roll forward, um, um, all of like our non, non, um, personnel, um, aspects to level funding, even though, uh, we'd have to cut back on services because of some increases with inflation and increasing costs. It would be a 5.48%
increase.
That's broken down with, again, 5.1% of that is salaries.
And then, um, then increases, uh, 5.1% of the, uh, increase in salaries and then other increases in utilities, special education, facilities and maintenance.
We're looking to get trimmer with athletics is increasing transportation in other non salary is 1.9%. So that all other non salary, which is really the part of the budget you have the most control over is, um, just increasing a slight bit. Um, um, but everything else, uh, those uncontrollable aspects are increasing to 5.48% before any cuts. Um, and then we added in, um, our elementary special education administrator, our high school principal, some additional special education support.
So with those additions, um, it goes to 5.95%.
And then we had some offsets to try to, um, manage that a little bit. So some, uh, high school club fees, which have not been used before.
So that, um, not only athletics, but kids who are doing clubs are paying a modest fee, uh, increases in ECC tuition.
As well as doing some increased revenue from having, uh, students who do pay tuition, um, are non special education students in ECC. Um, and then those two elementary reductions that I talked about, uh, that we can do based upon enrollment.
So with all of those offsets, we, uh, slightly lower to 5.46%.
Okay.
So on Tuesday, February 18th, the private community approved an adjusted target of 4% increase over F.O.I. 25. This is up from the initial 2.76.
Um, as many people know that Monday, the finance committee, which has representatives on the priorities committee voted as a group not to support the 4% priorities charter.
So that's something certainly we're, uh, following, um, they're demanding a, a, a 3.4% increase or less. Um, my recommended budget, um, is, is going with that priorities committee, uh, allocation since, um, that is the group that's made up of FinCom as well as school committee, as well as, uh, select board. Um, to, to kind of set a reasonable target.
Um, so where are we between, between, um, that 5.46.
Um, which included the additions of, um, um, the high school administrator, our special education administrator at the elementary and some minor clerical in our, our other budget.
Uh, and then the 4% allocation, we have a 1.46%
gap or about 791,000.
Um, so you've seen, um, um, various iterations of, uh, potential cuts going up to 1.7, um, million dollars.
So you're going to see today, um, a list of cuts or offsets that, um, that closes that $791,000 gap. And it's going to include some district restructuring, um, some elementary specials, um, and plus reconfiguration.
Um, some middle school reductions, some high school reductions, and then proposed increase in athletic and transportation fees as well as a dumpster offset.
Uh, offset.
So, um, and I get into especially the first two things a little bit more in the next couple slides, but we're looking at some risk district restructuring.
Um, that in fact, unfortunately is, uh, reducing our, um, standalone director of, uh, of DEI. And also getting some additional savings from, um, the hiring of new administration and other staffing at lower, um, uh, salaries than currently.
Also in elementary specials reconfiguration, which I'll explain to you a little bit. Um, and then it does include, um, that combined, um, seventh and eighth grade middle school team. Um, in one of the grades, um, the seventh grade, they'll have, uh, approximately 22 to 25 students.
The average is more around 22, but with different levels, you can sometimes have some groups that are a little bit bigger. And then, um, the eighth grade groups would have on average about 23 students.
But again, with the different levels, you could have some classes that are a little bit smaller and also a little bit bigger. Um, certainly if in a perfect world, we wouldn't be making those, uh, reductions, but because of what I described before, as far as, um, being able to, um, to, to deal with them in the short term with, um, with some pain. But then also in the long term, it being fairly sustainable.
That is why I recommended those. Um, we have a resignation in our visual arts at the high school.
And so I'm, um, suggesting that we do not fill that resignation.
Um, most of our classes, as far as photography, um, and other visual arts classes will still be, be running.
But there's some specialty classes around animation and gaming that this individual taught, um, that will likely not be offered.
Um, and then, um, I'm also looking wherever in retirement and wellness at the high school.
And I'm looking to, to saying that we do not fill that, um, that would result in most of our 11th and 12th graders fulfilling their physical education requirement through waivers.
That means if they play a sport, they could, um, complete a waiver that, uh, shows that they're completing enough hours in physical, uh, physical education.
They also could, um, be doing some kind of, uh, internship, uh, through the high school.
They also could be, they could take a regular 11th and 12th grade class. There'll be a small number of those or do some kind of other waiver where they belong to a gym or a dance studio. They fulfill their physical education requirement through that. It also would give students the positive in that it would give students an opportunity to have a free spot in their schedule that would allow them to take something else. Um, and then it, this also, um, shows the athletic increase of 15% in transportation increase.
Um, this results in, uh, that the total that is actually 820,682, but then, uh, there's a cost, uh, there's a cost and benefit benefit to us taking over the dumpsters, uh, through the district budget.
So there's a $16,000 cost that we have to include.
Um, so that puts the total reductions above the 791 at 804,682, which gives us a, a, a variance of 13,467.
Again, some of these, um, some of these, uh, savings are based upon, you know, hiring new people that, you know, cost a bit less.
That gives us some variance in play in that, um, when we replace individuals, um, to, to, to do that. So that's, that's where, that's my proposed, uh, way to close the gap. When again, the district restructuring breakdown, um, what that is, is a reduction in our director of diversity, equity, inclusion, and central office administration.
Um, that results in about, um, $95,000 that can go, um, back into the budget, uh, or be reduced for, or, or used for other, to offset other things.
Uh, 72,000 of her salary, it was like 71,637, um, is from the operational budget.
But then there's other parts of the salary, um, that are through grants that can be used to offset other costs and therefore reduce those costs. Um, we're also having some new hires in administration, including a new elementary principal.
Um, Jane Martin, our incredible executive assistant will be, uh, retiring and so we'll be hiring that and have in, and having, um, some, some savings though.
Uh, we could never, we could never, uh, uh, spend enough to get someone like Jane. Um, and then some additional new hires savings.
So that's a total of $120,000.
Um, and then some other, um, we could never have a student, um, an assistant superintendent for curriculum instruction, assistant superintendent for finance, a facilities director, a special education or student services administrator, and then other, um, kind of specialists in, in HR and transportation.
Um, we will be as slim as public.
We have one executive assistant where, when I started, it was like two and a half and it's been reduced to one. Uh, Jane does the work of five. So, um, but we'll be doing it with, uh, someone who's not Jane. So we're going to be about as slim as we can in central administration at the end of this year and, and, and doing everything in our power to maintain, um, the level of, you know, support and services that, that is, is expected.
As far as the elementary reconfiguration.
So one thing that I've been talking about, we've been looking at the elementary schedule to try to find efficiencies within it. And one thing we saw was our official education.
We had two teachers who were traveling a lot. And part of that travel time is not direct time with kids. Um, we also saw that one of the reasons that some people, uh, critique our, um, FLESS program is because, um, that we tried the model and it was beneficial in some ways that younger kids got exposure to Spanish in an early grade. And so, um, we're looking at, uh, our, our proposal, which will save approximately $90,000 will be to, uh, reduce, uh, physical education by 1.2 FTE.
So we'll have one physical education per teacher per, uh, school plus another 0.8, uh, teacher who travels across, um, east and heights to fill the, the remaining sections that need to be filled.
We'll have a 0.1 reduction in elementary.
I'm sorry, that's, should say art. And that's something that does happen customarily.
When you have lower enrollment, you have less sections in your schools and there is a fluctuation that has happened in art based upon the number of sections.
So we can do that, uh, while still fulfilling all of our art for our kids. Um, K through two kids would get art, music library, and two P's like, like they are currently, um, plus an additional special for DCM. So they would no longer receive Spanish in K through two, um, in the past in kindergarten.
Um, uh, they have not, and then they started to do it in the last couple of years, but they will not, but what will happen is in grades three through five, um, those kids will get Spanish twice a week. Um, and so, um, I, we, from, from our understanding of language acquisition, uh, Dr. Jocelyn was able to speak.
We've talked about this quite eloquently.
And we also spoke with, uh, some of our world language, uh, professionals in the, in the district.
Um, by, even though they're getting a little bit later by having it twice a week, the opportunity for really, for the, the bill and build a stronger foundation or stronger.
Um, and so, this will maintain the same amount of, uh, um, um, Spanish, um, FDs 2.4 while giving them two additional, but not having it in K through two. So, those three through five kids will get art music. And instead of two P's, one P, they will not get library.
Library will be something that they will work with the librarian, but they won't have a separate library class. Um, uh, plus again, in both, both situations, getting an additional special for DCMs. Um, so that was one question about the, um, yes, there are five contractual prep periods.
But the, with our data collaboration meetings, which is a cornerstone of our MTSS process, where we analyze kids' needs, uh, based upon data to make sure they get the proper interventions.
And making sure that they're not being placed in special education because they're struggling, but only when they really need specialized instruction, those data collaboration meetings are a key component.
And we cannot do that during one of the five, uh, contractual prep periods.
So, that is that additional six period, um, where I've spoken about, you know, FLESS. You can't just drop FLESS and save all the money because if not, you would need to cover the data collaboration meetings in different ways. So, the savings for that is approximately 90,000.
Now, I want to share, because I know the FLESS situation has come up a lot. There is some savings and actually it's greater savings with FLESS. It is not the full $240,000 of, um, salaries for our Spanish teachers.
Um, what it would be is $240,000, uh, $240,000, um, would be reducing in Spanish, but you would need to increase some FDEs in other ways and you would lose some of that efficiency.
You would need to know that efficiency with physical education because you would now still need the five teachers instead of the, um, the, the 3.8 that I'm proposing in, um, the elementary reconfiguration.
So, you would, um, no longer have FLESS.
You would, um, again, $240,000 in Spanish teachers reduction, but you'd have to add an additional $550,000 approximately, um, of specials, um, including, you know, physical education, additional physical education, uh, teachers in order to provide, um, the same, uh, uh, K through 5 art, music, library. And two VEs that we, um, that we have now.
Um, so that savings would be $190,000.
So that's, uh, the value judgment.
Yes, you could save approximately $100,000 more by reducing FLESS.
Um, but in my judgment, um, but in my judgment, I strongly believe that in a community like Sharon and in a world, uh, like ours, where, uh, learning an additional language or two is so vital that, um, cutting an entire program, um, for a savings of $100,000 is not worth it. It's not about cutting in a person where getting into a particular class might be a little bit hard. This is cutting an entire experience, uh, for our, in this case, three through fifth graders, um, and not building a foundation elementary.
And I don't think that's a wise decision in our district.
Um, so these are, these were, um, additional, um, reductions that were considered, but that are not part of the 4.0. Uh, do we want, I don't know if we want to, this, this, there's a lot to this. Do we want to stop Julie and ask about, talk about the, my proposal first or want me to keep on going?
Uh, Shauna?
Did you?
Oh, I was just getting ready to ask questions.
All right, Avi, did you want to, do you want to pause or do you want to keep going? Um, I guess that's up to you and Dr. Patello.
I have a list of questions already.
So I don't know if it's more productive to ask now and then continue forward or I'm comfortable with whatever the group wants.
Or just, I mean, so the remainder are cuts that I did not consider.
I did not, I considered, but I did not place into, uh, my 4.4% proposal.
Um, some of which you've seen, uh, some of which you just saw on a list, but not in, um, with more figures and stuff.
So, it's, so I think Julie, if it's okay, then my questions right now are, are more clarification on a few, few slides and a few things that God said. Maybe, maybe now is an okay time there. Um, is there, is there a whole lot of slides left or we almost done or should we go back? Well, there's about, there's a, there's a bunch of slides again with, um, there was, you know, requests of some members to have, um, share additional, uh, reductions that were not part of the proposal.
So that's what the majority of the slides are. Okay. All right. Well then let's do buckets. So the first bucket that will be everything before this. So your, your proposed reductions.
Okay.
So Avi, go ahead.
Okay.
Um, do you want, Dr. Tell it, do you want me to ask all these questions up front and then you can kind of answer them or do you want me to go? I think I know when I was chair, I did, I preferred people didn't go question, answer, question, answer, but I don't know what you'd prefer or what Julie would prefer. How many you got?
I got one, two, three, four, five, six. Yeah. Let's do the first three and then we'll go from there. Okay. Um, question one, we heard the, one of the co-presidents of the STA bring up an interesting point during public comment.
How can we, how can we cut a middle school section if class sizes will in fact begin over 22 in your slide?
It said 22 to 27. Um, if that's an issue contractually, can you explain the thinking there and what, what the solution is? Uh, another question is regarding Fless.
Um, somebody again in public comment brought up, um, something that I also understand to be true, which is that DCM are not contractual obligations, but correct me if I'm wrong there. Uh, while they, they're, they are valued, not just in our district, I think in education in general right now, but the question is, could we consider getting rid of DCMs and would that then make removing Fless a viable solution save us money? Um, and then another question I have is, um, you had mentioned that, um, it was possible that minimum aid, uh, may still change.
And I think it's, it's more than possible.
It's likely, I think before, before phrasing it as a question, I would state that as a priorities member, I was there when, when the priorities committee agreed to a higher number than the governor's number already based on the, the understanding that that number will raise. But knowing that Sharon doesn't change the allocation after priorities, I guess I would just ask you to explain why that's relevant.
And if you are in fact in any way banking on that, because if you are, I would caution you not to. So there's one through three and looking through this, I actually think that's probably good enough.
The others look closer to notes and they do questions. Those three are probably good for me. So on the middle school classes, what I think from discussions at the table, when we were talking about that, starting with the 22, we talked about when we plugged that into a power school in order to make classes, we start with that cap. And then when classes fill up in certain areas, then we have to do kind of hand scheduling.
And if that occurs and it throws it up above that cap, as long as it stays within the other guideline, we're okay. And this might be, this probably is something that would be, you know, a discussion.
You know, I'm not sure if the, the essay would see it exactly the same way, but that was, that was my recollection of the conversation we had that, you know, we start, we started to plug it in and then we hand schedule.
And then we know that there will be times that it will have to, because of exigent circumstances, go above it. So I appreciate, by the way, maybe I should have said this to start off with. I appreciate that you acknowledged at the beginning of your presentation that, and apologized for the fact that this presentation was provided to us an hour before this meeting.
I think that's problematic, both from a practical standpoint, it's also problematic because the expectation of the committee was that we would have it on Monday. To me that, that this, this issue right here that you're stating is perhaps, first of all, I appreciate your transparency in your answer, in your answer. Let me be clear about that. I think that's the kind of transparency right there, that answer that this district needs and we need to move towards. But I also think it's probably a fair assumption, given that a co-president of the STA brought this issue up during public comment, that the STA does not read it that way. I would just expect, as a member of this committee, that prior to that being included in the budget proposal, which we are going to vote in a week, that it be clear with our council and then it be discussed with the STA leadership.
I think that's the question, because obviously it goes without saying, if in fact the STA were to disagree with that, and in fact we were to be in the wrong, we would have a pretty impactful budget problem.
And I think we would need to be as a committee here, we would be remiss if we didn't discuss possible cuts that would equal those amounts, which we should be prepared to make in the event that that that is not a possible, that that's not a possible cut. To me, I can't in good conscience even consider a budget that has an item that depends on the loose understanding with a unit that we bargain with.
Understood.
I can just say that there's every, you know, cuts that none of the cuts of the high school are kind of.
Not guaranteed to stay within our limits either, based upon. Now again, I think the high school we have more leeway, we can just, we can cut sections and cut, cut, you know, non like elective courses, in order to continue to manipulate and get below that.
But, yeah, so just, we would not having the exact figures.
The exact figures, those, those, you know, can cause some problems too that, you know, are beyond our, beyond our, our ability to see until the schedule is actually run. Well, again, I appreciate the transparency in that answer.
I would appreciate, I think, I think it's appropriate to have those considerations mentioned up front. Yeah.
Because, you know, I'm a big believer that when you problem solve, you have to start with rocks and hard places. Those are possibly rocks and hard places.
And I think for this committee, every decision that we have to make during this budget cycle is a difficult decision. Unfortunately, some are impossible.
So, you know, for example, if we were to increase the fee somewhere or cut something that is not mandated, not contractually obligated, and really hurts some families, some students, it would be a terrible cut, but it is a possible cut. If we're, if we make cuts that we're, that put us in violation of our contract, that's a different, that's a different thing altogether.
And I think that when this committee is considering this budget, we have to be fully made aware of what, what the ramifications of certain cuts would be. Again, in some cases, those are, I mean, to be frank, let me use, you know, you referenced the hot button topic that FLES is. So I understand that in this community, there are folks that, that are proponents of getting rid of FLES. There are folks that are proponents of keeping FLES. I think we all understand that FLES is something that you believe in educationally and a lot of people do. But if we were to remove FLES, we would not be violating our contract.
We may be failing kids in some ways, you know, from some perspectives, but that is a cut we could make if there are cost savings with that. Let me read you, like, this is one of the things why I believe we're in good stead.
There's a very clear paragraph that I remember us discussing at the table. If for educational purposes determined by the principal, the number of principals in a class is increased to a figure above the normal maximum, it is agreed that the teacher of such class shall not, shall not be given a number of students per day in excess of the sum of the maximum classes to which the teacher is assigned, provided that a single teacher's total caseload shall not exceed 120 students unless mutually agreed upon by the principal and an individual teacher. This paragraph shall not agree to specials.
So it was this type of, when we were having discussions about our concerns about having too rigid of guidelines, those, there was that type of statements that I'm relying upon to, you know, to say that we were in good stead, because that was the exact kind of conversation.
But I will certainly touch base with counsel and then with the SCA as well.
All right. I would ask that that happened before Monday's meeting. Yep.
And so the next, the other question was about DCMs are again, understanding that, or with the assumption that DCMs are things are something that you believe as an educational leader are deeply important.
So is, is, is removing DCMs and thereby not, not needing to, let me ask this the right way.
Could we remove, practically speaking, could we remove DCMs and thereby remove FLESS with a greater savings?
With a greater savings, yes.
Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
I think those are my questions.
But I think I will make some further.
Um, though DCMs are not guaranteed in a school, we have been, you know, there's been several audits that we've been part of that have critiqued our, uh, MTSS process prior to this time.
Um, of which, you know, the DCM process and the intervention process that's built out of it have corrected.
Um, and so there is an expectation in the, in the state, especially at the elementary level, but including at the other levels that you have a robust system of analyzing student data, especially around literacy and math, providing interventions.
Um, and, and, um, so that's, that's the purpose of our DCM.
So it's partly based upon a belief that that's how we serve kids well, but it's also based upon, um, an expectation that comes in some of our monitoring process called the tier focus monitoring process, as well as the special education review talked a lot about not just special education, but about tier two intervention and things that prevent special education.
So that's, you know, that's, you know, that's a big part of, um, of why, um, I, I see DCMs as being an essential part. They also, uh, prevent special education from being the only game in town when you don't have robust, um, tier two interventions where kids who are non-special education have opportunities to get intervention without specialized instruction.
Then more and more kids fall into special education, even though they don't need specialized instruction, which costs a heck of a lot more in the long run, um, than a tier two intervention system.
So, um, where we could cut that and it would be a short term savings.
Um, I think there's a lot of reasons why, um, I see it as being an essential part. And if we have it, it does need to be provided, um, in a time beyond the buy preps.
Well, I appreciate very much your educational expertise on that and you stating it. Um, you know, to be clear, I'm not advocating for or against removing DCMs.
Um, yeah, in the end, everything, everything considered equal financially.
I'm, I'm going to be voting a budget based on your educational expertise, but it's important.
I think for us to all understand our rocks and our hard places. If we got to a place where we were talking, cutting something that would violate our contract versus cutting something that wouldn't, but would be detrimental educationally.
I think we could all agree just about every cut we're going to make is detrimental in some way.
So I just wanted to understand that, but thank you. Those are my questions.
Okay. Thank you, Avi.
Uh, Alan, you are next. Well, I think the horse is out of the barn on this, but I would just say we, we voted unanimously to look at a budget proposal that consider what all the alternatives were.
And now we're talking about a budget.
Decision without looking at the other 10 slides in the proposal and that would have probably made a different decision, but.
Um, I hope we do get back to those other slides because there is stuff on them that I don't think we've talked about at this table before. At least this year, but you tell I'll stick with the theme of threes and asking three questions at once.
Um, first, let me, let me, let me pay you a compliment and say that I think this is by far the most comprehensive, including the slides we haven't shown yet.
And thorough budget presentation.
Uh, you, you provided since we started this process, as you indicated back in September, um, question one would be, is there a reason that this cannot be the template for budget presentations going forward?
Even from September of let's say 26, excuse me, September of 25 or next year that we can't begin with this template and then continue to edit it.
As you move forward. That's question one.
And in fact, it's, and it's not a question. I would encourage you to do that question two.
Um, while you covered a lot of ground here, I don't think what hasn't been addressed is the question that was asked and has been asked for the last week or so. Um, about the differences between line of budget that was presented our last meeting and the figures on your previous slide decks and why those numbers were different.
Um, here again, you have different numbers as well. So at some point, if you could, you and Ellen or Ellen could sort of explain the difference between the line of budget numbers and the previous slide decks, and then the difference between the numbers shown here and the numbers shown previously.
And then the third question would be, I know there's a discussion going on later in the agenda about fees. I see that you're basing, you know, uh, 80 and 43, 123,000 or so of the 791 on fees.
Um, one of the questions I had with regard to fees is whether we've considered what the loss of interest would be, or, um, you know, people that decide not to continue playing sports or not riding the bus. When we raise the fees, I don't know that we've ever talked about that.
I don't know that's in the fee presentation either.
Um, but I also just want to throw out there that since we haven't talked about fees yet, you know, do we have any concern with putting 120 of this 791 under the fee bucket and not talking about, well, what if, what if we don't raise the fees or what if we decide to raise the fees for a lesser amount? So those are my three questions.
Okay.
Uh, the first one in the template, there are certainly, there's aspects of this presentation that can be moved up, could be presented earlier.
There's certain parts that can't be presented in October because we don't have the information yet, but there are certain parts. So we can certainly do that and then decide, uh, to what degree we repeat them or we just have them for people's reference.
Usually, uh, this budget presentation, not just here, but another district is the most comprehensive one, but I understand the value of having, um, some of that information prior. So, yes, there's certain aspects, uh, we could do it so we can kind of maybe go through that slide by slide following this process and decide what can be moved up and how quickly various parts, uh, can we have the information for them for the next cycle.
Um, as far as the light item, one aspect of the, so the difference in the past, um, I've used the precise numbers earlier on in the presentations.
And because those sometimes can be drawn back to individuals, like it could be difficult.
And so I've used more estimates, um, you know, in the beginning and now that these are actual, um, numbers based upon our best predictions of, you know, lowest seniority numbers or, uh, cuts that would occur.
So that's part of it. Um, was there another part of the line item variation that you questioned?
And I, I know that one thing that people were questioning is, um, they were seeing less savings than they thought, um, from a particular line item when they thought they saw a reduction.
And part of that has to do with, um, when you're, let me let, Ellen, can you speak to that part?
You can explain that better than me. Sure.
For instance, with the teachers, when we take the teachers at the adjusted budget amount for FY25, and we move all those teachers, um, in that budget line, uh, across on the salary scale, um, give them their step.
They get the COLA. That increases the FY26 budget amount.
Then if we decrease it by one FTE, $75,000, you're not going to see an actual decrease of the full 75,000 in the Delta.
You're going to see the difference between what the increase was from FY25 to 26 minus the 1.0 FTE. So I've gotten a lot of feedback on this and I do appreciate, um, that it is confusing.
So I had talked through a couple of different, um, ways that I'm going to remedy this. And moving forward, when the next line by line item budget comes out, once the budget is voted and approved by school committee, I'll actually put in another line.
For that same budget line underneath showing, you know, what the actual increase for the line was or what the 25 to 26 Delta was. And then I will show underneath it, the 1.0 FTE coming out and what the net was off of that.
If that makes sense.
Thank you. Just, just to clarify.
Thank you, Ellen. Just to clarify, Dr. Patel. So the numbers we're seeing on this slide right now are as, as best as we know them to the penny accurate.
Correct.
As best that we know them. Yeah.
You know, someone else resigns and it's a different, you know, or yeah, there's, there's things that can happen where it's not, uh, that it might, but it's best that we know based upon, um, seniority or resignations or retirements.
Um, yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
And then the last question I had was about the fees, please.
Um, so can you repeat that question again?
Yeah. Just basically you have 120,000 of the 791 based on fees. Yeah. And so we haven't talked about fees yet. I don't know that in the fee presentation itself, it even talks about the risk that when you raise fees, you risk losing customers.
Um, are you, how comfortable are you with 120 of the 791 being based on fees versus other potential cuts? Um, I mean, considering the decisions that need to be made, I'm comfortable with it. Do I prefer it? No, I prefer to be going the opposite direction as far as fees, but, um, based upon trying to really, um, minimize.
I don't think we have any more cuts in administration that we can do. Um, trying to minimize cuts in elementary, um, in elementary classrooms, um, and trying to target high school ones that will have the least impact.
I think these fee increases, um, you know, with the cost of inflation, um, for those programs, um, is, is better than the alternative.
Uh, but certainly if, if, um, those aren't supported, then, uh, we'll look to some of the other, um, cuts that were considered, uh, to make up for them.
Okay.
Thanks. I'll jump in for now. Thank you.
All right.
Um, thank you, um, Alan.
And now Shauna.
Thanks.
Um, I'm just going to ask if we can, um, on the slide deck that you provided.
Um, I think that's the, um, the slide deck that you provided us, we are missing the slide where you had the, to the table.
Could you. Yeah. Well, there was a couple of small changes there make, so Jane will provide you the.
No, no, I just, in order to kind of lead the discussion.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Yep.
Shauna, are you asking for those slides to be pulled up right now? Oh yeah.
Can we just go back? Sorry. Can we go back a slide or two?
Where you were talking about the restructuring of, uh, FLETH and elementary PE.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Yeah.
One more.
Okay.
Yep.
Uh, yes. This one. Um, so help me understand if we were to go with the left side.
So the elementary reconfiguration, right?
Yeah. For net savings of $90,000.
Yep. You are saying that we're going to reduce 1.2 FTEs in PE, which would, which would what?
Would it take, would it take away from the sections of, of PE that our kids are receiving?
Yeah.
Great. In grades three through five, instead of having two physical education a week, they would receive one.
Okay.
They would receive two Spanishes per week. Okay. So, so given the obesity epidemic in this country and given everything that we know about health and development, we, we as a district, we can't support that.
We need to really look at that going from, from two to one is, is a really big, big impact on kids, especially kids who don't have other opportunities.
Um, so I, I just have real concern about that.
Um, I'd also like to look at, um, if we can go to the, to the previous, uh, to the next slide deck where we were talking about middle school, the elimination of the middle school section.
Sorry.
Yep.
There. I'm a visual learner. Um, so here we have a net savings of several hundred thousand dollars for the middle school.
You are taking away a team of eighth grade, seven and eighth grade teacher.
First of all, our middle school is built upon the teaming system.
Sixth grade teams, seventh grade teams, eighth grade teams. So the whole experience of our kids is going to be changed.
First of all, second of all, let's think about the teachers and what their undue stress is going to be. If you now have eighth grade civics that needs to have a full project, it is a half a year. Um, you know, project at minimum.
Then you have science teachers who are content level teachers, right? We're not just talking about elementary science where it's a bit easier, a bit broader, right? We're really going delving deep here. We're looking at MCAS still.
Um, we're looking at cutting sections and what is special ed going to look like?
How are we going to maintain, um, balanced classes?
Why is it that we're looking at taking away from middle school?
If you look at our projections that you gave us, our projections for high school are only getting smaller and smaller and smaller down to almost under a thousand or close to a thousand within two to three years.
If we build an effective master schedule at the high school, that's going to maximize every single classroom and every single teacher.
We can do away with more at the high school without as much of an impact.
If we were to cut an elective class for social studies, that's a nice to have.
That's, that's the reality of it, right?
We're a public school district.
I think we have to also remember that we're not a public private school, right?
We want to offer a large variety of classes and courses for our students, right?
But we also have to know with what we can and cannot do right now. We're trying to shave off anywhere possible.
And I don't think that we should honestly be shaving off anywhere that isn't at the high school or administration.
This is not going to bode well for our kids.
If we are more diligent in what we're doing, I know I've done it myself.
I have had many iterations, hand-drawn schedules.
It's not easy.
Bob can tell you he should probably, he probably has already started sectioning despite the kids not having done it.
But without that, coupled with the rigidity that, quite frankly, we put ourselves into the hole of having, you know, certain numbers and caps in how many students we can teach, right? That's on us. That's what we negotiated for the STA. I'm glad for the STA. I can tell you having 140 students is nearly impossible.
Having to grade 140 papers is awful, right?
But we have to look at what we can do and where we can cut that is going to make the least impact.
Cutting a team at the middle school is not going to be that. Cutting PE for our third, fourth, and fifth graders, where puberty is hitting earlier and earlier, where body changes, where obesity is hitting.
What are we doing?
I don't know.
I have great concerns.
I hear your concerns about the middle school.
And one thing I do want to go back to is the middle school numbers are dropping significantly over the next five years.
I do not think we're going to be able to maintain three, based upon the budgets that I'm kind of foreseeing, three full teams in each grade for very long.
So that was one of the rationales of kind of making this change now. But I understand that your perspective is certainly look more at the high school than the middle school cuts.
I mean, I've worked in the middle school for 20 years prior to central administration.
I've definitely been in situations where we've had either smaller teams or teachers that taught a couple of sections of seventh grade, a couple of eighth grade.
They still are kind of, it's still, they're still getting to know the same number of kids. It's just half of them are seventh and half of them are eighth.
And they're still able, and those smaller groups of cohorts of kids are, you know, still together.
So there is a teaming aspect to it, but it's not, it's not, you know, it's not perfect when, but I don't see us being able to maintain a full three teams per grade for very long at the middle school. And that's one of the reasons I put it forward.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you, Peter.
Jeremy.
Well, thank you for this presentation.
I do think it's a step in the right direction.
So thank you for taking my advice on some of these things. For those watching remote, there are additional slides with other considerations that haven't been presented before, as Alan mentioned, but it is incomplete.
And, you know, it's a little last minute, you know, we received this at 6 p.m. and the slides have changed since then.
So, you know, I think it does make sense now for us to kind of highlight where we would like to see additional details and to give you time to fill out a bit more of these impact slides, these impact boxes.
So we cut this, then this, here's the classes that may go.
I know that we probably won't have time to add many benchmarks, but I agree with Shauna on basically all of her points.
You know, there's increasing evidence that PE is super important.
A lot of countries and districts are starting to mandate more and more.
It's been shown to, like, help kids focus in class, improve, reduce nearsightedness.
And similar to the comments about SHS, I think I saw in Boston Magazine that Sharon High has relatively small class sizes compared to other districts that I would consider peers.
Now, I'm not going off Boston Magazine, but I think that's where things like benchmarks could be helpful.
You know, I, next year and hopefully this year, if we can get them.
But, you know, this presentation is at least starting to present options, which I'm happy for. I'm glad that we're taking a hard look at FLESS.
This is a difficult budget year and it does seem as though there are significant savings there. One of the changes that have been cost saving that I know Dan has been a big advocate for and given the size of the change, you know, I would love to know more on what do other districts do is switching to the department head model.
It's not in this presentation, but when we discussed it back in December, you'd mentioned 170K savings.
So, you know, that's a big chunk.
And we would need to balance it against, I am all for keeping, you know, classroom sizes low, but I'd love to understand the impact and what similar size high schools do. Like I understand that a certain scale curriculum coordinators make sense. But yes, I think that this is a step in the right direction, but we really need time for the community to respond.
So, you know, we should try to get an updated version of this presentation out there for people to see.
We should have an updated version for us that has fuller details.
And then on Monday, we can start talking about some of the trade-offs here.
So, you know, I think this is moving the right way, still incomplete.
This is kind of where I had expected us to be in December so that we could dig in to each of these items and understand the impact, look at peer districts, look what they're doing. But it is what it is. So, yeah, I mean, I'm happy to follow up after if you send the updated slides over to answer questions.
I don't want to have them here, but I think that, you know, we can maybe focus on deliberating on Monday.
Here it's really like clarifying what's going on.
Thanks.
Thanks, Jeremy.
And I do think that that was what we decided at the beginning of this discussion was to sort of talk up until this point and then look at the rest of the potential cuts after everyone had a chance to speak. So I think we're still going to we still have time to talk about the rest of the stuff.
Adam.
Thanks, Julie. And I would actually take that a step further.
I think we need to talk about trade-offs tonight. That discussion needs to, at the very least, start. And I share the sentiment that has been expressed both in terms of appreciation for more detail, but wishing that we had more time to prepare for that discussion.
And I say that simply because I think we want, and for committee members who haven't been through this before, I think we want to give the feedback tonight that can then be incorporated into a budget that is brought back to us on Monday, which will really be kind of the last time that we can see or give feedback, especially if we want public comment before having to vote it on Wednesday.
So we are a little bit trapped from a time perspective.
And I think the meeting on Monday is to give us time to both give feedback tonight and then see how that was incorporated into the budget. The other note I wanted to make just in terms of making sure that we're on the same page, because Sean, I know you spoke very passionately, and I'm not arguing for or against kind of high school kind of nice-to-haves versus middle school.
But just in terms of looking at the enrollment, I think the projected drop in the middle school is kind of roughly 100 students compared to 50 in the high school.
So again, not trying to argue which is more or less or what we can do with the high school schedule or what we cannot and what courses we should be offering.
But I just want to make sure we're all operating from the same place in terms of where we're seeing larger enrollment drops.
So Dr. Patel, I have four questions.
So I will give them all to you. And if you want, I can come back to them. But so the first is we had talked about, or I think there was discussion about potentially offering some form of early retirement as a way of potentially kind of generating some cost savings from some of our kind of more senior teachers who might be close to retirement.
And was that ultimately offered?
And if so, kind of is that incorporated into kind of cost savings here?
I think there were a couple of retirements mentioned, but I'm curious to know if that was or was not effective.
We have had some people who have expressed some interest, but it's not a sizable amount that where the cost savings would be significant.
I think the benefit, though it wasn't even that beneficial in this way because they didn't really overlap with some of the cuts, would be potentially not losing some of our young staff that we value.
Well, we're still having conversations with a couple of those people to see if they're truly interested because they were trying to reach out to the retirement board to see what the impact would be.
Okay. But it seems like not.
Either it has like retirements have more or less been incorporated.
We shouldn't be hoping or count on potential change there.
I don't think significant, unfortunately.
Okay. So, I know in the presentation, and it's a relatively small percentage of the budget, but it jumped out to me a little bit. Just in terms of the utility costs and the forecasted increase, I think was 8%. I admittedly am by no means an expert in school or public utility expenses.
I know from my own utility bills and kind of hearing in town spaces, we have seen our bills increase substantially more than 8%. So, is that – is 8% a reasonable target or is that something that we need to kind of adjust higher? Do you want to speak to that, Ellen?
Yes.
So, Mr. Turkington actually has contracts for the utilities for our kilowatt hours as well as our therms for gas.
So, the increase was based upon what we know in terms of transfer delivery charges.
I spent quite a bit of time talking to Fred about this to make sure that we were in the right ballpark and targeting it correctly. Okay.
Amazing.
I wish I could get those contracts.
The other question or the third question I have – so, we're talking about fees or maybe this is more a concern I guess I want to express and we can get to this when we have fees.
But as we increase athletic fees, I'm concerned that – or I'm concerned that we are proposing both to increase athletic fees as well as utilize athletics as a way to offer a waiver for PE.
So, we're effectively kind of for those students who need some sort of – you know, who need that PE waiver, you know, potentially kind of forcing them down a path where they end up doing a sport and now paying a much higher fee.
And so, I don't know if there's been thought given to differentiating fees for different sports as we think about kind of lower cost sports.
And you can certainly imagine students who, in order to get that PE waiver, are running track or something like that.
And they are kind of getting some physical activity and they're a part of the track team. But they're not necessarily the most competitive track athlete, which is fine.
And track is a wonderful sport in that it allows for both very competitive as well as kind of less competitive athletes who are just looking to get some athletic work in. But I do have concern kind of using athletics as the way to offset the PE waiver, but then also increasing PE. Let me clarify that one, Adam.
They're – not only because it's right, but it's also required.
There will be a – there will be free options.
They could take a course with us or they could, you know, just be kind of logging their own running on their own or with a partner.
They'd have some kind of adult in addition to someone at school who would kind of validate it. But we have to and we believe it's right that there will be – there definitely will be free options so that kids are not pressured into taking sports.
But if they do take sports, they certainly could use them, whether it's a sport at our school or a sports someplace else or some other dance or any kind of yoga, any kind of acceptable physical activity. Okay. Thank you.
That's a great clarification and I think a good note.
And then I think my last question was just – and maybe you addressed this a little bit with Alan, but I think in some of the earlier presentations we had seen, as we thought about like district restructuring and what we can do from an admin perspective, and I know we are already, I think, super thin.
And when you compare our district to other districts, you see very consistently larger finance departments, additional admins, additional kind of executives.
So I already think we are very thin. But in the earlier presentations, I think that cost savings estimate was higher.
Like I think we had estimated kind of $160,000 in cost savings.
And so I just want to know what kind of happened to that $40,000.
It was partly looking at the making sure that when we are – part of that was filling new positions and we are filling new positions, we have enough leeway to hire high-quality people.
So it would slightly reduce the savings that we can expect when we're hiring new individuals.
Gotcha.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Okay. Thank you very much.
Yep.
Thank you, Adam.
And Dan.
Yeah. I'll reserve questions or comments of a holistic nature until the end of the presentation because, like others, I'm eager to get to that and see what all these tradeoffs are. So my understanding is we're just asking questions about content that we covered too now. So I'll just have two quick questions in that regard.
My first question is, first of all, I appreciate the discussion around potential restructuring of less.
I agree that it's possible to both value world languages at the same time we're evaluating these kinds of programs regularly and seeing if we're offering them in the best way that's the most cost-effective way, that's the most instructionally effective way. I don't see those at odds, and I think it's healthy to do that at this point.
So in the spirit of that, I appreciate the inclusion of this in this budget discussion.
I also share concerns expressed by other members about using a reduction in physical education for elementary age students to do that restructuring.
Is that a set package?
Do you feel that is a set package deal and the only way in which restructuring would be feasible?
Is it by reducing the frequency of physical education?
Or are there other options by which we could restructure and not reduce PE? I mean, we could look at what other configurations.
I think...
I know it's a challenge in a complex scheduling situation.
So I appreciate it. I'm just eager to hear if that's a firm recommendation or if there are other possibilities.
I mean, I guess we could explore...
I mean, it doesn't matter what you wanted to explore.
It explores like two Spanish, two PE, music, art, and like...
So not losing the second PE in maintaining art and music, I assume, for a full year.
We could look at that.
The trouble with that is part of the inefficiency in our schedule is the travel part.
And so that's why I was trying to not only improve, you know, Spanish education by giving it twice a week, but also minimize the inefficiencies that come with having two individuals that are traveling to multiple buildings because that is causing a lot of loss periods.
So you can certainly look at it to see if there's a possibility of increasing PE in grade three through five. But I was feeling the savings would be diminished quite significantly.
When you say losing periods, could you explain what that means?
Are we paying staff to travel and not...
Yeah, when you pay them to travel, they really...
It ends... Even though it might take 10, 15 minutes to travel, they're not able to get...
They're not... They're basically having the entire period as a travel period because they're missing that period.
And that period can't be used as their prep because it's not a full prep period. So you're losing time through travel in an inefficient way.
Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'll be interested to hear more about that and what might be possible.
Is technology and laptops specifically at the high school something we'll cover later in the presentation or should we discuss it now?
That's more part of our capital expenses.
So I don't think it's... It's probably something we should discuss it kind of even at a different time.
Oh, okay.
So that may be your ultimate answer.
But we received correspondence and I get inquiries throughout the year about the laptop program specifically and questions about the budget implications of it. If there's a potential savings there, I understand it might be part of a separate process.
But a number of parents have asked, is it possible to make that program voluntary and allow people to bring their own laptops in?
And is there a potential savings there? Can I get something I'm saying?
There wouldn't be a saving to the operating budget.
There'd be a savings to our capital request.
And there's lots of pros and cons to that.
So we can certainly discuss it, but it probably... We're better off discussing it. It's not part of the operation budget, but part of the review of capital requests and such.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thanks, Dan.
So Shauna, Adam, and Jeremy, I see your hands are up, but can you save your questions until we go through the rest of the presentation?
Or do you really want to talk to this stuff?
I have a question directly related to this. SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Okay. Go ahead.
Have we checked or spoken with DESE that we would be able to obtain close to 500 waivers?
Or if we were to say that kids could take the class, a third of the kids take the class, so what, 200, 300 waivers?
Yeah.
About this...
I know about 25 districts in the state that use the waiver process.
There's lots of models that have been out there for years, so we would...
And those have been reviewed by DESE, so we would use, you know, a method similar to theirs.
For, like, hundreds of kids?
For, yeah, whichever kids want to take advantage of it, yeah. In the bulk of hundreds, not, like, one-offs.
Right.
Okay.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Yeah.
Thanks, Shauna.
Adam, is it about this, or do you...
I just had a quick note for Dan, which is...
So I had actually asked, like, prior to some of those emails coming in about the Chromebook program, just to try to understand kind of what potential impact would be. And Dr. Jocelyn can speak to it, but he got a very thoughtful reply from kind of the head of IT in terms of the challenges that kind of the district faces there.
So we're beyond the capital process at this point, although there's ultimately kind of one pot of money that the town is funding from. And I think it is a useful discussion, but, you know, maybe in the future, maybe kind of Joel can just bring that up, or Dr. Jocelyn, rather, as a presentation point to speak to, because there was just a lot of really good, thoughtful response in terms of device management, support, et cetera.
Thanks a lot, Adam.
Oh, wait, did... Peter, did you want to address that?
No? Okay.
Address what Adam said.
Oh, just what Adam said, but... Okay, Jeremy, why didn't you... I just had a quick question before we go into the ones that were considered but not proposed.
This gap, this is to the 4%, but we're actually...
It's going to be larger, right? Like, FinCon has given a number of priorities, one is a recommendation, but we have, like, a number from FinCon, so we will likely need to choose things from the next set.
No, can I speak to this?
Yes, go ahead.
So I've been...
So there's a misunderstanding in town, and at the moment, it appears at FinCon, and I've clarified this.
Right now, there's conversations happening not with school council, but town council. I've spoken to the town moderator.
I've spoken to the town administrator.
The priorities committee, which consists of two members of our committee, two members of FinCon, and two members of select board, sets the allocation.
And it's not a recommendation.
They set the allocations.
We do that by vote.
And there was a vote of 4-2. Understandably, the two no's were the FinCon.
In fact, the chair of the FinCon, which was one voting member of the priorities committee, did state during the priorities committee after that vote, we'll handle this at the finance committee.
So it was not a surprise that the finance committee chose to take the vote that they did.
But the finance committee, there's some history here that they used to be called the warrant committee.
Their chief responsibility is to write the warrant.
The question that's being settled right now is which budget will appear in the warrant. The belief is that it will be the school committee's budget, that the school committee has the right to put forward their budget.
The finance committee can recommend for or against it. I assume if we put forward a 4% budget, finance committee has made it clear that they'll vote against it, which is certainly their right.
But it isn't their right to usurp the priorities committee and set an allocation.
At least that's my understanding at the moment. In fact, if it were, then the priorities committee is rendered useless because essentially what's being provided to FinCon is a veto power over priorities, obviously which the school committee and select board do not have to exercise.
Ultimately, I think what's really, really important for everyone to understand here is that the town ultimately sets our budget.
That's what happens at town meeting. And so the school committee certainly can choose to put forward a budget at the number that FinCon has taken a vote and said they'd like to see, or we can choose to set a budget at the number that the priorities committee, which is in every single year ever, until right at this moment, the only number that is accepted and understood.
For me, I think that answer is clear.
Priority sets the allocation.
That's just, that's the process and that's how it goes.
The finance committee is not a committee I sit on. I don't oversee and I have no interest in telling them what to do or what not to do. It wouldn't matter anyway. I have no authority over them.
But similarly, their authorities over us are extremely limited and they are limited to reserve fund transfers.
They can make a recommendation in the town warrant and at town meeting on our budget.
That is, that is their job.
And, and again, that is, I respect that, right? But they don't set our allocation.
Priorities does and priorities set the allocation at 4% increase.
Thanks, Sadia.
I think you explained that really well.
I just said one, after all that, I just have one quick question, Peter.
And that is, where is the instrumental music?
Is that like back in the schedule again and not a fee-based program after school?
In my, in my proposed reductions, it's not, it's, it's, it's maintained.
Okay. So the instrumental music isn't changing from like this year. Great.
Great. Thank you.
Please continue with the presentation.
Okay. So these are additional cuts that were considered that these all were actually part of the 2.76. So technology integration.
This was, you know, certainly a cut I heavily considered, you know, in conjunction with the, the, the wellness cut at the high school.
This would, this would reduce the technology.
That impact part is incorrect.
I apologize for that. This would reduce the technology integration as to supports teachers at the high school, as well as runs the help desk at the high school with kids. And would have teachers really be kind of learning about technology integration.
Collaboration collaboration together. And having someone else at the high school.
Either one of our technology people or our library media specialists or the two of them, two people combined, take over the help desk at the high school.
And the, it would, it would, yeah.
So that would reduce that at the high school.
Spanish teacher.
We, you know, we look at it well, our world language classes.
Spanish is the place where kids take the most of this most opportunities to perhaps combine sections.
And so this would result in some, some high class, higher class sizes up in the mid to high twenties at times.
It also might need to consider, you know, some multi-level classes.
So for example, if we weren't able to fit all of the sections in without having, you know, say we had a small group of kids taking, you know, Spanish two.
And we had another small group of kids wanting to take honors Spanish two.
They might have to be in the same class, but have, it's pretty much the same class, but have somewhat different expectations in order to earn the honors credit for that.
So that might be necessary in order to manage a cut of a full FTE in Spanish.
The English and math are quite difficult because it's, our numbers there are a little bit smaller in English and therefore cutting a full FTE four or five sections of English would really put class sizes very high.
So that's one that I have a hard time based upon current projections considering math.
We could do it, but it would result in some of our electives.
It could, some of our electives include some of our APs. It could result if you had small numbers of kids trying to take an elective or trying to take an AP. It could impact that, but it's less likely with the APs. We have less APs in math than we do in science.
So that's one of the reasons why it's mentioned in science more than math, but certainly some of the electives would be in jeopardy.
And it also would result in higher class sizes up in that mid to high 20s in classes.
You know, at the high school level, we're able to go into the high 20s as long as we keep the overall caseload under 100. So we'd have to really balance out teacher schedule to keep under 100 while knowing that some classes based upon kid selections might go up into that mid to high 20s in classes.
I'm sorry to cut you off.
Just procedural thing here. It's occurring to me that because of the way that the slides appear, not necessarily meant as a major criticism, but hindsight being 2020, I wish there was like some kind of a graphic on these pages that said not being cut in your proposal.
I think maybe just every couple of minutes, if you could remind us and the community that these are the cuts you consider that are not proposing, only because folks do come in and out of the meeting.
And I think that there are folks who could easily be understandably confused if they tuned in just at this moment.
These are alarming cuts. I'm glad, at least in most of their cases, that they're not being proposed.
I would hate for somebody tuning in right now to think they just walked into a park where they were seeing these as cuts.
Yeah. And I can certainly change them to cuts not proposed in the next iteration.
But again, science is something, again, where we could, you know, fathom the cut, but it would really put in jeopardy some of the – because we have a lot of authoring in science.
So kids being able to double up in science, as well as if certain courses are running with lower enrollment, those ones would likely not be able to run.
They might be able to take it the following year if they're a sophomore or junior and selective or something, but it does limit your capacity to run every course section.
So those – it's about a 409,000 worth of cuts that were considered but are not part of the proposed cuts.
Next slide, Gene. So again, these are – we had two elementary reductions based upon enrollment that are already part of my proposed budget.
But these are additional elementary sections that are not part of the proposed budget.
In grade one and two, they would likely result in around 22 to 24 students in some of the lower elementary classes.
And then if there were additional cuts in any of the additional grade one or two, it would be a little bit higher, up to 25 students.
And then if there was a fourth cut, it would likely be 25 to 26.
This is based upon current numbers.
Those, again, our current projected K and first grade numbers are very imperfect because we always have, you know, more kids, you know, enrolling in kindergarten during the summer.
And those numbers change.
And in first grade, we have the same thing. That's the one place where we really have – at times have a big jump of, like, 20 kids where our current – our current class is our – our – our preparing for a group – growth of about 15 or 20. But if we had more than the grade one classes in particular would be – could be problematic.
But we have kind of conservatively projected.
So those are the elementary, partly because of, you know, obviously the value of having as much individualized attention at the early grades and about the wishes of both the committee and the community.
Those are not part of my proposed cuts.
Elementary – our teacher, I'm sorry, is part of the proposed cuts. So that shouldn't be there.
Elementary librarian.
We haven't kind of reduced that in that it does help provide some coverage for our data collaboration meetings.
And so I haven't put that 0.5 elementary librarian cut in that.
And the instrumental music, if we cut that all together, that would be approximately $80,000.
We'd maintain our three full-time music teachers, but we would no longer have the equivalent of a 1.0 FTE of a string teacher as well as a part-time instrumental music teacher.
So that would be cut. But instrumental music, I think, is really, really important, as is learning a language.
I think the way that when you're learning a language or when you're learning an instrument at a young age, it really does – there's research about how that really does expand your brain and your thinking in different ways than traditional education.
And so that's part of the reason that I've maintained both elementary instrumental music and – it's also – we do have, as Ms. Gilman said, there's lots of kids who participate.
It really is an impressive number. And so it is – it really is a kind of a somewhat inefficient program because, you know, you're really trying to get kids in smaller groups based upon their instruments.
But it is a very valuable program.
So this is another $421,000 in cuts that were considered but not in my proposed cuts.
So this is another $421,000 in credit card. So we're looking at our students.
So we're looking at these students. Then literacy specialists and math specialists, you know, that's the total budget for them.
But if you cut back, you know, kind of one, you could divide either of those numbers, that first number, 518 by 5 or 4.7, or divide the math specialist by 3. We really have to do some cuts to specialists in previous reductions.
It really is incredibly important at the elementary level to have specialists to provide interventions.
And so that's why it's not as much as if we had a lot of these.
I know like this one district I was talking to recently had like 10, you know, kind of literacy specialists across two elementary schools.
And so they were those were being reduced by like, you know, to six and like but we don't have that.
And so that's why it's not uncut.
Also, the elementary, the literacy coordinator and the math coordinator at the elementary level, we only have one for all three schools.
We wouldn't have been able to do our literacy selection process without that coordinator.
She's also going to be critical to the to the training and supportive teachers.
So I wouldn't propose that as well as our math coordinator is critical.
She's stretched across three schools.
Ideally, we would have more than that. But I think because of the great needs of elementary kids, I would not propose that cut either.
And then the coordinators that we've discussed.
Again, this is really imperfect.
I know I gave the number one hundred and seventy thousand as we crunched it differently.
It was even less based upon actual salaries of people.
There's different ways of running. So this is based upon if instead of having five, six through twelve coordinators, you had five department heads at the high school, five department heads at the middle school.
Because I've never seen a department head model where teachers only teach four out of five classes, go six through twelve.
So it's not a model that I've ever seen in a district this size. So you'd have additional department heads. They would all teach four classes instead of just teaching one class.
So that would be your gain.
But the reason that you don't get that one hundred and twenty six thousand dollar loss is because you are, first of all, not losing that individual because they're higher on the seniority list.
You're losing a senior teacher.
Then you're paying your department heads a salary, a stipend.
And I have the stipend still set up to 10 percent of their salary.
So it's a problem.
Approximately, you know, twelve thousand per person for one hundred twenty thousand.
And then you need to now get coverage for one section, which is a point two FTE for those ten individuals.
So that's approximately two hundred thousand. So the if you do the model that I put forth here, it's a minimal savings.
I'm sure there are slimmer models that could be considered.
And but if you're going to still maintain some decent level of instructional support at the secondary level, it's going to be it's going to be fairly costly.
I'm not saying that, you know, again, it could be more of a savings than eighty thousand if you didn't pay them, pay them a 10 percent stipend.
So I don't think you're going to get people or if you if you were able to absorb some of that FTE teaching at the high school.
The middle school, it also is very, very difficult to give a teacher one period off to do it. So perhaps you did a middle school model where they taught all five.
You're really not going to get much as far as leadership by a teacher teaching full time and just getting a stipend.
So there's lots of pros and cons. The bottom line is, and I've said it time and time again, as much as these positions seem like because they're not forward facing teaching full time positions.
In my mind, this level of instructional leadership is most critical and having consistency and improving education and teaching in a district.
I think without this, you have teachers, some of which all many of which are very, very good, but they're doing their own thing without the same level of consistency and, you know, similar standards.
And that's one of the biggest things that I feel like parents really want when they want to know when they go into a classroom that that things are as consistent as possible.
And this was, again, just some of the explanation that I provided previously.
Additional non-mated areas that certainly like we talked about, like, yeah, like, again, dire circumstances, you know, would we cut athletics?
Would we not cut part of it, cut, you know, cut its expensive programs?
I don't think a district like ours, you know, should be a district that doesn't have athletics.
I think it's, you know, the education of a kid goes beyond the academics.
And so I think athletics as well as after school clubs, especially some of our robust theater and drama programs are really critical.
So those are the costs for those, you know, whether you cut portions or I don't, we, again, we discussed those in our zero-based process, but we decided very quickly that those are really just critical areas.
And we'd rather, unfortunately, increase fees than cut back the offerings in those.
Non-mandated transportation, unfortunately, would not see a positive result because we still would have to, you know, provide all the mandated transportation and not collect any kind of fees.
So when Ellen and our transportation director crunch those numbers, it's really not a positive aspect to just do mandated transportation.
Technology support, we're already really short-staffed with the technology that we have.
And so we do have a number of people who support technology, but without a director and without full-time tech support people in every building for us to cut back beyond what we have now. And so that's why we have a number of people who are in the world. And so that's why the tech integration is a little bit different.
They certainly provide some level of support in keeping our systems and devices running.
But these people are the ones who just do the bare bones of making sure that we're operational as far as technology.
And when it comes to even like that discussion around, you know, not providing Chromebooks and providing, having kids bring their own devices, we would actually need to increase technology support because there's a lot of complexity that goes into supporting different types of devices instead of one type of device.
Customer maintenance, you know, you heard about from Kenworth earlier on that really we're not really at a place where we have the staffing that should be in our district.
So we have about 18.5 people.
We could reduce that, but it's really not a wise decision based upon our need to keep our buildings up and running for our kids, as well as building-based admin and secretary support.
We're already very slim there, so I wouldn't suggest.
Normally, if we had some fat in either one of those areas, any of the areas, technology support, custody elements, and admin and secretary support, those would be one of the first places that I would go. And I think we have gone there in the past, but I don't think we're at a place where we can go there any further, even though those would be places that I value, you know.
My grandfather was a custodian, and I value his work. If we had too many of those people, we certainly want to go there instead of a teacher or an IA.
So just some final notes.
The initial budget was based upon the 546, and that represented fiscal support necessary to maintain kind of level service, level high, similar quality of education for our kids with some variations in how we do that. The priority target of 4% represents my proposed budget, and it shows, again, some reduction in services and programming, along with increases in class sizes and caseloads.
And these kind of greatly impact students, so that's why I continue to advocate for as much of an increase as we can, because the cost of education is going up while, unfortunately, our budgets are not going up as robustly.
This is what we're trying to do.
Educational excellence for all students and doing it in an equitable way so that all students have an opportunity for success.
And unfortunately, that costs money. Yeah, this is just some additional slides on per-people expenditure.
I've iterated this at the priorities that, unfortunately, we're below the state in per-people expenditure.
We know it's because the tax base is not very big in Sharon, but it is a reality that, you know, say, compared to Westwood, you know, we're spending $3,500 less per student than they are, $2,900 less than Needham or $1,900 less than Waylon.
And then it's really difficult to maintain the quality of education while being below the state in that.
So, I think we can skip that one, Gene.
Right.
That's a lot to think about.
Avi.
Two questions or one statement, one question.
The statement I would just make is I don't want to oversimplify per-student per-pupil expense.
But obviously, I've always said I think it's a good measure of how much a district is spending.
But I would also like to point out that the first thing I thought of when you put up your enrollment numbers earlier tonight is that in a few years, our per-pupil, because so many of our costs are, I wouldn't necessarily say fixed, but I wouldn't say directly attached or directly correlated to our pupil numbers.
In a couple of years, our per-pupil expense will go up tremendously, it looks like, just based on the enrollment drop.
So, I didn't, I didn't, I talk about per-pupil expense here and other town meetings enough that I wanted to make sure I pointed that out. Since your enrollment numbers do drop, we'll be, I think, perhaps more in line with some of those districts you just showed.
The question that I had was, you had the art teacher there, but then I think you stated that the 0.1 was going to be reduced.
So, in yours, you are reducing the 0.1, correct?
Yeah. Yeah, and again, that is, like, we increased that a couple years ago when our enrollment, when our number of sections was bigger.
And so, that's something that goes down and up based upon course sections.
So, enrollment warrants it, and it's something that those teachers are accustomed to. It's not an abnormal thing to either go up and down based upon the number of sections.
Okay, so there won't be any change to students, to what we're delivering students, right?
No, no. It allows us to fulfill all of our sections.
Understood.
Thanks, Avi. Alan? Alan? So, in terms of how you prioritize the things that we are not in your revised budget, to the last nine slides we just looked at, I think when you went through them, you know, at the secondary level, at the elementary level, etc., I think you sort of talked through a prioritization, you know, with regard to Spanish maybe being the easiest to cut among all bad options at the high school level, and science being maybe the most difficult to cut among all the bad options at the high school level. But if you were to break all of that out and not look at it by elementary versus secondary, do you have recommendations around prioritization of the things that you ultimately chose to leave out of your 791? Yeah, I think, you know, some of the, a couple of those high school cuts that were a little less painful, including tech integration, and I hate talking about this because people are, you know, are part of these discussions, but tech integration, world language, or Spanish class, those two I think are more, would be more, would be, you know, higher on that list that I would consider more.
We almost made the proposal.
The science would be next.
Math and English are much more difficult at the high school right now based upon our analysis of the numbers. The elementary, I really am resisting, so that's lower on the totem pole as far as potential cuts.
And then again, the specialists and coordinators, again, I think support all this, so that was lower.
And then again, the lowest were some of those operational stuff, which again, unfortunately, we've already cut back enough that I can't see. So that's basically the order.
It's a handful of the high school cuts that are least painful.
Then it's, and then it's probably a couple of the more painful high school cuts or continuing to analyze.
I think it would be really talking about specific numbers. If we're predicting like 23, 24 in a class in elementary, that probably would be in one class, like that might be more favorable than one of like the math or English section at the high school.
Because of the, just the realities of the numbers that we're trying to project based upon.
We really use this year's numbers to try to project what the reality would be as far as class sizes at the high school as well. And staying under caseload limits at the high school as well.
Thanks for that.
So if we're, if we're talking about, if the committee ends up talking about ad backs that, so I know there was a discussion earlier about people have some concern about the middle school cuts that you're proposing.
Yeah. If, if we're talking about changing some of those, if someone like me wants to change those, the figures that you listed in the cuts that are not being proposed are, are some of them appear to be more rounded cuts, right? Like, you know, the, the, the high school fat, the high school salary numbers are round numbers, 80,000, 80,000, 80,000, 70,000, 70,000, 70,000.
Fair to say though, that those are not exact numbers, right? I mean, those are more estimates.
The, the first rounds of them you'll see are, are, are, um, our actual numbers.
But as you get into more of the, the secondary cuts, those, those are more round numbers because.
Okay. So, so if the first thing to go was a Spanish teacher, it would be 80,000, for example, it would be an 80,000 savings.
I think the Spanish, maybe, let me say, I thought the Spanish teacher had a more of a, um, maybe that was the number.
So let me see.
Do you want me to put the presentation back up?
I'm going to find it right now.
I mean, I think it would be helpful, Jane, for the community, but I'm looking at the one that we have and it says Spanish for 80,000.
Yep.
Yep. So. That's an actual number. That's an actual figure.
Uh, that is a projected figure.
Yes. Okay.
Okay. Plus or minus by grant.
Well, it's, it's.
What you need to understand is.
Within the non-professional pool.
There's a number of teachers.
The salary range about that most likely would result is 80,000.
We, it doesn't go by strict seniority.
When you're a non-professional.
So you don't have a precise number.
When you have a retirement, you have a precise number.
Um, when you know, there's only one person who is in that department, you have a precise number.
So there's some places where you don't have precise numbers because, um, you don't know until the actual cuts exactly what the salary will be.
Okay. Thank you. That's, I think, an important thing to, for the community to understand.
One last question.
You mentioned, uh, last meeting that we're now part of the tech collaborative, right?
Yep.
Does the tech collaborative allow us to potentially offer some courses?
Like I'm thinking like an AP science course of some kind that to students where maybe the district can't offer it in house, but could students take it through tech?
Yes.
Yeah.
You can't do it on mass, but yes, we will have about, I think it was about 60, uh, 60 courses.
So 60 individuals could take a course, um, that doesn't fit in their schedule or they need for some other purpose, um, through tech collaborative.
And, you know, with opportunities to pay for more, but yes.
So theoretically, I'm, again, I'm not trying to, I don't want to pigeonhole you, but just theoretically.
So let's say we had to cut, uh, a science teacher.
And as a result of that science teacher cut, I'm making this up, AP, AP bio gets cut.
And there were 20 kids that wanted to take AP bio.
Theoretically, at least those 20 kids could potentially take AP bio through tech club. Theoretically, the more likely scenario that would work is these, you know, three kids, it doesn't fit into their schedule and they really want it. And they take AP bio versus a whole section of kids.
Um, so if, if, if it's something that we're not offering at all, then that would be problematic because even tech collaborative, tech gets filled up as well.
But if it was like, you know, we're offering it, but there's a handful of kids who it doesn't fit in their schedule because we're offering less sections, then that's where it would be more, um, beneficial.
But it will, it will help.
Okay.
Thank you. Thanks.
Thank you, Alan. Dan.
Thanks.
I'm, I'm encouraged by the nature of the discussion we're having right now, because it feels to me, at least like we're getting much closer, uh, when we're talking about exactly where that line is on our priorities list. And if, you know, the restructuring of FLESS should be above or below the line and what the trade-offs that would be, I'm very encouraged that we're getting closer. Um, so I found this all very helpful.
Um, so I found this all very helpful. Um, when we have this follow-up discussion, we already talked about potentially including other options.
You know, if FLESS is really tied directly to that physical education or if there's other options.
Um, but, you know, if we don't go that direction, uh, really understanding what the ramifications of whatever that other ad back would be instead, um, from your other list of additional potential cuts would be really helpful.
Because I, I do feel we're getting close and I think that could really get us there.
Um, I, I, I have, um, a closing request just around process.
I, I just want to appreciate the enormous amount of work from the administration and stakeholders that went into this presentation tonight.
Um, I, I think I saw the number of total slides at the end and it was very, very high and the slides were good information that we need. So, um, I, I know that that was a monumental effort and, um, I want, I hope that for the rest of this year and for next year, we can, I know some people have made similar comments already.
We can capture all that great work and use it in our process because I don't, I don't want to lose any of that or have to redo it. Um, because I think the, the discussion we had tonight was by far the most productive and there was a lot of great, uh, information included here that I think could even help other committees.
Like I, I recognize some of the information here is things that other committees have, have asked for earlier in the process. So the extent we can do that, um, I, I think you'll, we'll be being kind to our administrators and not having to repeat that work. Um, it'll be helpful for us and we'll have a much better, stronger process going forward.
Uh, I just want to say, I, I consider, um, the members of finance committee and our select board to be partners in this process.
Um, I, I, I have been disappointed that, um, that those relationships have not been as collaborative as I had hoped at the beginning of this year at times.
I'm not blaming anyone for that. Um, for me, it's a, it's a process issue that we should all be working together to correct.
So, uh, to the extent that we can have, you know, hash this out with them in a collaborative nature, um, figure out the right way to get them the information that they actually need. Um, that would be very much appreciated because, um, I know we, we all want to have a strong process for the rest of this year and next year, and hopefully all work together, um, to get a budget that everybody can support.
So, uh, just for example, like if, if finance committee in the future is asking for something, um, if you're the administration and our chair determined that it's reasonable, um, and I would be supportive just, just give it to them. Um, and maybe that's been happening, all right.
But if it's something that for some reason there's a disagreement or is not reasonable, let's bring it to the table and let's talk about it and we can make decisions about it and maybe reach some sort of a compromise.
So I just hope we can use this year as an opportunity to just hash some of this stuff out so we don't have a repeat next year and it's just a better process everybody can feel good about next year. So that, that's my request.
Thank you.
Oh, thanks.
Thanks for that. I'm just going to jump in Adam for one second.
And Dan, that is something that, um, I was hoping we could agenda for like when we get out of this, like a sort of postmortem.
Um, and I think that would be a valuable discussion, um, going forward.
Adam.
Thank you, Julian.
Thank you, Dr. Mitello.
Um, so I had a couple of questions.
Um, so the, the first, uh, maybe this is more of a validation, but I, my personal belief, um, and I think research backs this up, is that when we think about the cost of specialists.
Um, it's actually a savings to the district from a cost perspective, because if done well, and if we're kind of doing early intervention and helping children at a young age, um, kind of get their, uh, kind of reading and math skills to a better place, then it potentially saves the need for more expensive services later on. Um, but is that something you can kind of validate just as we think about, um, kind of long, long range costs or long-term costs involved with some of these positions?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think it's, it's the company, it's, it's the combination of, um, you know, again, say our elementary, you know, literacy coordinator who helps to, to run those data collaboration meetings.
So teachers are talking about kids based upon real data and then them working with our specialists to, you know, specialists provide interventions to some of our more challenging kiddos.
And then our teachers provide interventions as well during the wind blocks to a second set.
And all of that allows for kids to have growth.
Like the kids who are doing interventions are generally growing.
And if they're not, after time and time again, those kids probably do have some kind of disability that's getting in the way. So yes, it's, it's definitely a, if we've done well and built well, it's a cost savings.
And it's a real collaborative effort that's, you know, shown in, in good schools.
Thank you. So my next question, um, when, when we look at the, the courses in danger, um, and kind of, you know, at, at the high school level, kind of which, um, which teachers may be impacted, um, or subjects, um, in which courses, um, you noted those are based on enrollment.
Is that a case of, we would run fewer sections of a given course, or is that a situation where the enrollment maybe doesn't merit running that course at all for a given year?
Yeah, it depends on the course.
In most cases, I would say, in most cases where we typically run multiple sections, um, we'd be looking at, you know, again, so say if you cut one, um, one teacher in, um, in, in, uh, say science, you know, so, uh, if, you know, with some of those core courses, you, you would run, you know, less sections.
But there also might be some courses that you only use typically run one section and it's, it's enrollment is low that you wouldn't be able to offer that here. Now, in those cases, you can, you know, try to get a sense of, like, who signed up for them and, you know, whether or not it, if it fits in their schedule, they can take it the next year with, uh, you know, maybe two grades worth of kids. So it's, uh, uh, kids in multiple, you know, say 11th and 12th grade or 10th and 11th grade as an elective.
So they still might be able to take it, but it's, it's harder to fit into the schedule.
So, um, we look at things like that.
Um, thank you.
So I think that's helpful and it's helpful.
I don't know that during my time on the school committee in general, I think we've asked Ruta, but I don't know that we've ever seen kind of a, a true list of kind of enrollment, um, and student interests and kind of where, kind of which courses are oversubscribed.
And, and kind of kids don't all necessarily make it in to those courses they want in, which courses are, you know, kind of running with kind of lowish enrollment.
Um, so I think it'd be super helpful as we have these sorts of conversations, if we can get some insight into that. And that's true, you know, whether we're talking about the sciences or like world languages, I have no concept just in terms of, you know, we, we offer a range of languages, which is fantastic.
Uh, but I have no idea kind of which of those languages are super popular and which ones, you know, maybe struggle with enrollment kind of year over year. So, yeah.
And that's part of the complexity, especially of the high school schedule is that, you know, in a, in a, in a comprehensive high school, like Sharon, especially a high quality one, you want to give a array of, um, options yet the more options you have, the, the less efficient it is. And so, um, one thing I know we will be discussing, I'll probably want to just start discussing it even, you know, um, certainly early fall, if not, um, before that is one thing I discovered is, um, in some of our, um, math, like, so for example, in ninth grade, even though like we talk about levels and like, okay, we want to make sure we have at least two or three levels.
Let's say in math, we actually ninth graders could be in the equivalent of five levels, you know, but I don't think most of us realize that they'd be taking regular algebra.
They could be taking accelerated algebra.
They could be taking, uh, regular geometry.
They can be taking accelerated geometry. They can be taking honors geometry.
So, you know, we're breaking our kids into five segments.
I don't, you know, I don't think we all realize that we think about the three sections of geometry or the two sections of algebra. It's like, oh yes, we don't think teachers can differentiate, um, to only have, you know, one level or two levels.
But when we actually have all ninth graders are in five, the equivalent of five different levels, that might be more than we need. And it creates massive inefficiencies.
So not in service to de-leveling, but just in, uh, perhaps looking at where we have a wide array of levels in a particular grade, uh, for a particular subject and reducing the number of levels, um, in a way that we think will still serve kids, but building efficiencies, build efficiencies that allow us to, you know, do with, with less FTEs, then that's something we should, we should have discussions about. Yeah, I think, I think those sorts of discussions, especially when we're bringing the enrollment data and, and kind of what you just described to the table, I think, I think makes for just a really fulsome discussion of kind of how and which courses we, um, are able to offer, um, to kind of maximize our resources.
Um, so the, the last question, this is kind of less a question and it's a little bit to the committee.
Um, but so the, the point was brought up earlier in terms of, you know, uh, finance committee not recommending the priorities allocation.
Um, and ultimately, uh, this will be decided at, at town meeting, um, right.
The town will end up voting on, um, you know, our top line budget, um, and the top line budgets of, of other sectors.
Um, if the town elects, uh, not to follow the guidance of, um, kind of the elected officials and the, the professional town administration, um, and instead does follow kind of the finance committee recommendation.
Um, I do think it would be helpful as we think about these, um, kind of next cuts to just understand what those cuts would mean.
Um, so that as the town is making its determination of whether to follow kind of the recommended allocation from the town, um, or to follow, uh, kind of FinCom's recommendation, um, they understand the difference in, in how maybe that, that lower number will impact.
So I know that the cuts, you know, as presented, um, or the, the non cuts, so to speak, weren't necessarily prioritized.
Um, and you answered this a little bit in Alan's question, but I think for Monday, it would also be helpful to have, um, a prioritized list just to say like, Hey, if, so we're not kind of scrambling to budget on the fly at town meeting, we end up with a lower number than the town has allocated to us. Um, kind of through its, um, kind of through its organizational structure. Um, you know, here's what that would mean.
Um, and here's what we would do.
So, and this is also maybe, I guess, I know the committee that I think now is the time to give that feedback so that we can incorporate that, um, into the Monday presentation.
Um, and then have a chance to give feedback on that, um, and have public kind of transparency, uh, before voting on Wednesday.
Um, thank you, Adam.
Avi.
Um, I wanted to piggyback a little bit on what Dan had to say.
Um, Dr. Botello, I, I thought that this presentation was, and, and again, also to piggyback on Jeremy's point earlier in the meeting that it's, we're not there yet. Um, but it's a step in the right direction for me. It's, it's a very big step.
This was a really thorough presentation.
I think it gave us a lot more of an opportunity to make a really informed set of decisions.
I would ask that next year, this be the type of presentation that kicks off budget.
For me, if this was the very beginning of December, I actually think we'd avoid a lot of heartache.
And the community, certainly there'd be a different, perhaps a different kind of heartache.
There'd be folks, you know, I understand the fear as you've communicated to me before is that a lot of these very painful decisions would appear as though they were in limbo. When in reality, once that number came down from priorities, they never had to be.
But I would also say that for me working, um, you know, during my time as chair and now as vice chair, um, you know, somewhat closely with you and with doc, with, uh, Ellen.
And I, I, I get to see that these are numbers you project out over, you know, ahead, ahead of time, like the prior year that you're watching these numbers that, that you're aware of them. But for me, I think unless we can see them in this form with context, with deep understanding and with narrative, it really, it's very hard.
And I mean, this with, with a lot of respect, it's, it is hard to escape having doubt in our heads that it's being watched.
I think when you're an elected member of a committee, like the school committee, you have, you have a hard time putting full trust in administrators, knowing that if we make the wrong decision on bad advice, that will really detrimentally affect our community and children in this community.
And so to me, when we can see the work in front of us, and when it can be explained to us, it certainly gives us a lot more confidence that the things that we're not experts in, and we're not going to understand are things that you are experts in, and you will understand it. And it builds up a lot more trust.
And so the earlier in the process that you can build that trust with not just us, but also all the stakeholders that have been very involved through this process and are every year. And I know, for all of us, we receive phone calls and emails, and it's a busy time of year, because we're, we're hearing from all our community members, and we're learning a lot about what their students are going through and what matters to them.
And so for us, when we can then lean on you as our educational leader, to give us context and explanation around what how those how those are affected by the budget decisions, it's, it's a, it's just a very different experience.
So that leads me to just want to make one point about something Julie commented on that Dan said, which was, you know, a postmortem after the fact, I just want to say, I don't know that it's too late.
To try to earn back that trust from our finance committee, I would point out that our finance committee, who I know I've given plenty of grief to over the years. In particular, their, their chair is somebody who when has when he is presented with information, in particular, the information that he's asking for.
He will question I mean, that's just his nature is to sort of press and prod, because that's what he believes.
And he's, I think he's correct is his responsibility.
But ultimately, he's supported the school and the school's budget year over year since I've sat, since I've sat on this committee.
Today, we have to remember, most of our finance committee members, if not all, either have children in our schools or grandchildren in our schools or had children in our schools.
So they're not people that don't support sharing in public schools, and don't want to see us be the best schools we can.
Their role is just a little different than ours. And I see a presentation like tonight, and I just want to reiterate what Dan said, if there are things that we can provide to them, including in this budget cycle, that may sway them to understand our financial position and what's best for sharing public students.
I personally am confident that we don't have to sort of play the game of who's right priority or who's in charge priorities or FinCom, who's more important school committee or FinCom.
I think we could get to a point where there's a collaboration, because ultimately, finance committee and school committee and select board all want the same thing, which is for sharing to be a great town, to do our community the service that they believe that they deserve.
And I believe that they deserve. And ultimately, what that really comes down to is supporting our schools.
Right. That's we are like it or not. We sit on the board that oversees the thing that people move to sharing for. And our finance committee is not blind to that. And our select board is not blind to that.
I think that they just want to see information.
And after a presentation like tonight, I hope that the takeaway for administration is when you show us the hard truths.
We don't bite. I mean, I think that my colleagues were incredibly respectful tonight and asked really good questions.
And proved, hopefully, that we are sincere in our request to see more information, not to play gotcha, but to feel like we fully understand what's going on. And I'm not sure that we're fully there yet, but I think we took a step towards there. And I appreciate that. And I'll just say, yeah, I agree with some of the pushing that Jeremy has made and the finance committee has made to try to get us to be more creative, to try to look for sustainability is beneficial.
You know, it's like we need I know I know our reality.
We want great schools and our tax base has limitations.
And so we're going to have to, you know, get as creative as possible.
You know, while, again, I'm always going to be advocating for what I think is going to be able to maintain a high quality district.
And yet I understand that we have to do that as financially efficient and frugal as possible.
So, you know, yeah, I think, you know, I think we can come a long way with finance committee as well.
And and we'll we'll we'll work to try to, you know, kind of have those have those conversations that help them to understand.
And again, I respect their pushing on, you know, trying to make us as fiscally, you know, lean as we can be. All right.
Well, thank you very much.
And I think that I agreed with a lot of things my colleagues said tonight, and I don't feel like I need to add to them.
So I'll just say thank you, Peter.
Thank you, Ellen.
Thank you, Joelle, for all the work that went into this document.
And so now we're going to move forward.
We have like a batch approval of some policy updates and recommendations.
And this does not include policy J.I.H.,
which is something we wanted to evaluate separately.
These are all things.
Fees.
Fees.
We're doing fees or not. Oh, shoot. Are we doing fees right now?
It's oh, shoot.
Yes, I guess we should.
Sorry.
I didn't go ahead.
All right.
Let's do fees.
Julie, can I just jump in with a quick question?
Yes.
Because I so thinking back to to last year, which was, I think, a very challenging budget process.
We ended up in a position where I think we we got an initial budget presentation and the committee had a lot of feedback that was delivered to Dr. Botello and administration.
And then on Monday, kind of in the meeting, we added there were a lot of changes.
A lot of that feedback was incorporated to get to a budget that, for better or worse, the school committee supported.
I feel like I heard questions tonight and there was some feedback given.
But I don't know if I'm sitting in Dr. Botello's shoes, like, I don't know that my presentation on Monday is substantially different than what we saw tonight.
Like, I didn't hear super strong feedback of, like, hey, we're really concerned about X or we're really concerned about Y. I don't think there was there was no kind of. There were maybe some questions raised about kind of flesh and questions about kind of the value of P.E. versus kind of get one P.E. a week versus two things of that nature.
But, like, I don't walk away from this meeting saying, like, oh, there is clear guidance to administration to incorporate X, Y, Z feedback into their budget.
And so maybe that's true. Maybe there is not.
But I want to just make really sure across the entire committee that, like, if you saw the same presentation on Monday, you say, yep, I'm good.
Thank you. I support this budget because if you don't and you have feedback, you'd like the administration to incorporate, like, now is the time to provide it.
Yeah, I think that's a really good point.
Thanks for bringing that up, Adam.
Avi?
Yeah. So for me, and I did ask for this, and I think Dr. Botello at least passively agreed to do it, if not actively agreed.
I could be very, very close to supporting this budget, or I could be a mile away, depending on whether or not our council and the SCA somehow.
I need to know that the middle school changes and some of those high school changes are going to be able to actually happen without any ramifications because of our contract.
And those are big dollar amounts.
So if, you know, if we find out those become rocks and hard places, then I would say all of a sudden we're looking further down that list of cuts that we just, you know, we evaluated through the lens of this isn't happening.
And all of a sudden we'd be looking at those are happening. So for me, that's my biggest ask.
If those are doable, then I think, again, there's a little bit of a discussion as to what our priorities are. I'd also really, Dr. Botello, I really appreciate seeing all the items added back in tonight's version and left out as cuts.
I think that's what I think. In a priority list.
Because for me, you know, I'd like to see just how far apart those middle school ads are from a different financial ask on your table.
You know, if I don't want to make that change at the middle school and I also don't want to make, get rid of flesh at the elementary school.
But I do think it's a serious conversation for this community to have is getting rid of flesh at the elementary school worth saving some middle school teachers because I think those class, I think those cuts will be very impactful to kids. So I'd say for me, it hinges around first and foremost, can we make those cuts?
Are we sure we can make those cuts? And then let's have a real conversation about the tradeoffs between the tangible things like flesh and those and those middle school teachers.
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, I have a list of things in that the top was looking at the contractual aspect of the middle school cuts and making sure that looking at that language of the council as well as the SDA.
And then I have a number of other things from other people as well. Jeremy.
Jeremy.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with Avi. Like, you know, between now and Monday is the time for us to do research, listen to constituents, have more of the tables built out in detail.
And then come prepared to discuss priorities.
Like, I'm generally a lot of the items that have been prioritized to cut I agree with, but specifically the ones Shauna called out, like, I would put other things higher.
So I think, you know, between now and Monday, Dr. Patel, if you could get us what you can on those high priority ones.
And then folks still on the call, if you could reach out, you know, just to help us better understand what the community is interested in. Yeah.
And I can, let me read what I, what some of the things that I'm, so looking at the contractual aspect of the middle school cuts, just in general, providing additional detail in a, in a, you know, a revised version of, you know, of, especially additional detail on various cuts. Consider, consider, consider, from Shauna was like, consider what, what would be the option of kind of more high school cuts and less middle school?
As well as, is there a way to, you know, what would an option look like to maintain the two PEs at the elementary?
So. Yeah.
And I think you did, you did break out like full plus first partial plus.
Yeah.
And there, there's the department head breakdown.
It's a little different than, it's about a hundred K different than the one you presented in December.
Yeah. So I'll, I'll.
Yeah. I'll continue to work on the coordinator one as well as the last one. So we can continue to look at that in a couple of different ways and understand the complexity and make, and discuss that one.
I think Jane, did you want to say something?
Fees.
I heard that's the other thing that I heard that I have in my notes, Dr. Botello is. Yeah. So if, if we weren't to raise the fees either at all or as much, what would be, what would be options to, to not do that?
As well as getting, getting some information, more information about other towns that do the PE waiver to, to get some additional information on that. So those are some things. I heard a little bit of, you know, kind of instrumental versus something else like instrumental we value, but is there something else we, we, we would trade off for.
So those are the main things that I had.
Okay.
All right.
Okay. So, um, should we move on to the fees presentation as well?
I do.
Might make sense in the context of Monday, right? Because we're going to be trading off raising fees first.
Okay. So, okay.
So we'll, we'll go over that now.
Sorry, Dan.
Jump the gun.
Wait.
I think Jeremy was, I, which I, I think I agree with Jeremy, you were saying wait till Monday. Yeah. We can read through this stuff.
Like I skimmed it.
Yeah.
All right. It would be part of the greater discussion.
Right.
It's a trade off. I believe you would.
Yeah. And if you have, if you have questions, when you read it up, just reach out.
Um, okay.
Um, just does it, is everybody cool with postponing fees?
Okay. Adam.
I just wanted to check in. It sounds like Ellen wanted to jump in with a comment. Oh, uh, Dr. Patello said it for me. Um, just if you have questions as you're going through it, please reach out, um, send me an email, uh, with your questions and then I'll turn around the questions as quickly as I can.
Great.
Thank you. Okay. So we're going to move the discussion of fees to Monday night and we will, I guess we can start with it on Monday.
I think that makes sense.
We can then, um, move on to the policy.
I, I just want to clarify that this is not this, this batch that we have here. Um, we can actually prove these in a batch if the committee so decides, because these are basically non-controversial changes based on our previous discussion.
It does not contain policy JIH, which I know we want to, um, discuss more in more detail later. Did I forget anything, Dan?
Let's preserve all that good context, Julie, but I think Avi and I may have the same comment, which was, uh, I, um, I understood we were going to do a quick read through of the fee. So that we could get public comment and then have a discussion or vote next time.
Is that, is that other people's understanding or wish?
So that wasn't my comment, but, but you, your, your point still stands on its own.
Um, I don't know how people feel about that.
My comment was going to be about the fact that, um, the reason that we didn't agenda kindergarten fee discussion as a standalone was because there was a fee discussion.
So I'm okay.
It is 10, 15 at night. I'm okay. Pushing that back. Although I did double check and I see that the, the member of the community that had asked for that to be agended did hang on for this long. Um, but I can, I can respect and understand maybe if, if as more of a holistic conversation, we just agenda that as an item at the next, at the Monday meeting, I'm open to people's feelings about that. I do think we owe this community, at least a conversation about the kindergarten fees. I mean, I didn't see in that budget presentation where we would find it, but I do think that it's a, it's a conversation to at least acknowledge.
Adam. Adam.
I just, I like Dan's point, um, in, in terms of running through quickly, just so it is, um, you know, here for the public to see, um, we can potentially withhold discussion and move all discussion to Monday. Um, but I do think that's, that's helpful just in terms of transparency and making sure we give the public a chance to provide feedback.
Okay.
Okay.
Um, then let's do it. Just for clarification, are we then going to hold the, hold on having the kindergarten conversation until Monday?
Um, I, I don't think we should, I don't think it's, I think it's pretty late to have a, like, really good. I just wanted to make sure that I know we're all stopping my slide deck. Okay.
Okay.
Thank you. Jane, could you queue it up, please? SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Alrighty. So tonight we're going to talk about, um, user fees for, um, we're going to provide the, um, the background information on our current fee structures, gather, um, follow up questions and requests for additional information. As I said a few minutes ago, please, please email me, um, whatever, any questions or comments you have, and I can turn them around as quickly as I can. Um, and then, um, we'll have the discussion on Monday about, um, the district's recommendation, uh, based upon the 4.0 budget increase.
Next slide.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Next slide. So tonight we're going to talk about transportation, early childhood and athletics.
Kindergarten was previously discussed and voted, but we will review that on Monday night as well. Fees are collected, um, via revolving accounts and they are used to offset the operating costs associated with the service area. Um, and school committee has the authority to set fees. Food service does, um, have fees that, um, will be brought back to, um, school committee later in the spring. Once, um, those, um, fees have been determined and recommendations have been made by, uh, the director of school nutrition.
Next slide.
Next slide.
So our revenue history for our revolving accounts, um, going back to fiscal 21 for athletics, transportation, ECC, um, are listed here. Uh, just, uh, point of note, um, for FY21, that was a hybrid year, um, coming out of COVID.
And that year, um, one way transportation was discontinued as an option.
And then you could see, um, with succeeding years coming out of, uh, COVID that our user fees did bounce back.
Next slide.
So for athletics, um, right now the athletic, uh, fee, um, was set in 2019.
Um, three seasons, fall, winter, and spring students, um, who play, um, pay for their first season, um, it's $375.
If they participate in a second season, the fees reduced to 300. And if they participate in a third, um, season, the fees reduced, um, again to 200. Again, um, there is a family, uh, cap per year of $1,350, uh, regardless of how many, uh, students, um, they have playing sports or how many seasons, uh, the free lunch qualifier does, uh, waive our fee. Uh, the reduced lunch qualifier, uh, results in a 50% reduction in the fee. We do have, um, scholarship programs, um, the Rothenberg scholarship, as well as school committee funds that we, um, budget for, um, and that's approximately $10,000.
It's also, um, important to note that, um, Mr. Vitale, um, as well as Ms. Keenan work with our students, um, if there's a financial need, we don't want kids, you know, to not to participate if there's a financial need, um, and they don't qualify for something.
We absolutely work with the families to make sure that everybody's able to participate.
Next slide.
So the fees cover, um, approximately 26 to 28% of the athletic program.
It supplements the operating budget costs, coaching, transportation, equipment, uniforms, etc. We do get some miscellaneous income to the revolving account. Um, gate receipts, um, are collected for football, basketball, and wrestling.
And that supports approximately two to 4% of the athletic program. We're also very fortunate, um, with our boosters.
Our boosters, uh, raise, um, funds to support the athletic program and supplement the athletic, um, needs guided by the athletic director. So funding and costs, um, for 2022-23 school year, our operating budget, um, supported approximately $690,000 for the athletic program and the revolving account, um, offset $271,069, um, in fiscal 24, 287, um, into the revolving account.
And then, uh, budgeted for this year, $687,000 with, um, $295,000 budgeted for fees to be collected.
Next slide, please.
The fee recommendation, um, based upon the concern that the fees haven't been increased since 2019, um, is that we do a 15% increase, um, moving from $375 to, um, for the first season to $431, um, then reducing the second season fee to $345, the third season fee to $230, and then the family cap, uh, would be $1,552.50.
And implementing that fee, um, would result in about a $43,455 increase, um, to our user fee collections.
Next slide, please.
For a regular yellow bus transportation.
So mass general law mandates that we provide students in grades K to six who live outside of two miles radius of the school, um, free transportation.
Um, it also mandates that all students grades K to 12 could qualify for free and reduced lunch also be provided with transportation at no cost. Um, the district, um, did go out to bid for a new, uh, bus contract.
This is the first year of the contract with Conley. So that was effective July 1st, 2024. It is for 14 buses. Um, there are three tiers of bus routes that we have elementary, middle, and high school. There is a 20% increase over three years.
Um, that approximates to $652,680 throughout the life of the contract.
This does not include the late bus that we have, um, that runs, um, several days a week. And the total contract cost, um, is, um, $3,885,840.
Next slide.
So ridership for the 24, 25 school year, 870 students paid.
Um, 88 students qualified for free, um, transportation.
And, um, students living, um, over two miles was 577 students.
And for the 23, 24 school year paid was slightly higher with 912 students.
Our free riders towards 138 and, um, our students living over two miles was 566. Our transportation fees pay and ride is $600 per student.
Um, the late bus, we do not charge an additional charge for that for the students.
This allows our students to be able to participate in after school activities and sports. We do have a scholarship available also, um, for students who may not qualify, uh, for free ridership.
And that's $5,000.
The fee covers, um, an offset of the transportation costs, as well as a portion of the transportation coordinator salary. So for, uh, fiscal 23, the operating budget supported $652,492.
The revolving account took in, uh, slightly less than $498,000.
In fiscal 24, the operating budget, um, supported $671,000.
And took in $529,000 in fees.
For this year, uh, we budgeted 69, $692,200.
And expect, um, to bring in $522,198 in fees.
So the fee recommendation, um, again, would be, um, a 15% increase from $600 to $690.
And doing so would bring in, um, close to an additional $80,000, $79,373.85
was what I calculated.
Next slide, please. And then with early childhood, um, we, the fee history, um, in fiscal 21, the school committee voted an annual automatic 1% increase to the early childhood center fee. In fiscal 20, um, for the 2024-25 school year last spring, school committee did approve a 5% fee, um, increase.
And that was to support a 6 to 9 IEP student, um, community peer ratio.
Provide safe, safer learning environments.
And support additional expenses, salaries, and supplies associated with a new ECC classroom.
The cost for Sharon's program is much less than private schools, um, in Sharon, um, that are located in Sharon.
Many of them cost between $12,000 and $26,000 for a five-day program.
Um, and less than what the districts offer in terms of, uh, the number of hours per day that the student is, that the student is, uh, going to preschool.
Next slide, please. So, right now, uh, the five half-day program costs $4,524.
Five full days is $9,873 for the year for our, um, peer models.
We do have reduced tuition for families who qualify via the free and reduced lunch program.
Um, and that's offered for the half-day program only. If there is a special education student who qualifies for half-day, um, for their IEP, um, service delivery, but the family opts for a full day, then the student does, um, enroll the student in the half-day model.
Um, the fee does subsidize salaries for the, um, children's centers, um, staff as well as the early childhood director and, um, the front office administrative assistant.
Um, it's also used to purchase general supplies and materials for the classrooms. Um, there are restrictions, of course, on the user fees in the ECC program.
Many of the costs are associated with student services and special education, which are, have very strict guidelines, um, for funding sources. So we are very careful that we, with what's out, what salaries we pay for out of, um, the ECC tuition as well as what expenses.
Um, and then the operating fund budget along with the two, the grant, early childhood grant 262 supports the remainder of the cost of the early childhood center.
Next slide, please.
Uh, for the fiscal 23 school year, the operating budget, uh, supported $927,603.
The revolving account took in 216,922 in tuition.
For fiscal 24, the operating budget supported $1,026,878.
The revolving account took in 211,587, um, in tuition.
And then for fiscal 25, with the addition of the classroom, the operating budget supports is supporting 1,277,443 dollars.
And we are expecting to take in 324,904 dollars in tuition.
Um, next slide, please.
I am recommending a 9% increase, um, moving the, um, half day, um, to $4,931 and the five full days to $10,762.
This is still considerably less than what private preschools are charging, um, with a longer school day and a more robust programming.
Next slide, please.
Um, so we are proposing the introduction of these fees for all clubs and activities at the high school and middle school.
Next slide, please. Um, so currently for fiscal 23, the operating budget, um, supported $197,181 dollars for middle school and high school clubs and activities.
In fiscal 24, it was $214,697 dollars.
And then this year, um, we are expecting it to be about $208,641 dollars.
Next slide, please. So when we talked about this last year, Ms. Keenan had come up, um, with tiers for clubs and activities.
So tier one would be, um, an example would be drama and music. And the recommended fee for that would be $100, uh, just due to the costs associated with, um, with productions as well as with music. Tier two would be a program similar to Chess or the yearbook, and that would be $50. And then tier three would be, um, clubs and activities, uh, comparable to like student council and the National Honor Society.
Those would have no cost associated with them. Um, and we are anticipating that we would bring in, um, about $25,000 if we implemented this, um, for fiscal 26. And we're actually going to go back one slide.
We're going to hold off on kindergarten until Monday. And then, um, so if there were questions, um, or clarification, please send me an email and I'll get you the information as soon as I can. All right.
Uh, thank you, Ellen.
Um, to, is that satisfactory for everybody?
Everybody good with that? Great.
Okay.
Okay.
Now we will toss it over to Dan and Dan promised me two minutes.
Yeah.
We're exploiting everyone's fatigue and cramming through a bunch of policy proposal. No, that's not what we're doing. Um, these are the same proposals that you saw on February 5th. Um, these are the, what we consider, uh, more mundane fixes to policies, um, updates to mask model policies, things of that nature.
Um, and, um, I am working with, um, our superintendent and, uh, potentially with council to, um, make some adjustments, incorporate the good feedback we got from, uh, school committee members and the public about policy JAH. And hopefully sometime in the future, bring that back, um, for consideration, um, in, in a version that everyone is comfortable with, but, um, that is not under consideration today. Um, so potentially if everybody agrees, we could do a batch vote of these policies and then they would be done. Um, we wouldn't have to see them again.
Is that amenable to everyone?
Yes.
Okay.
Hearing, hearing no objection. Okay.
All right.
Then, um, is everybody is okay. So I'll accept a motion to accept, um, the batch of these policies, um, to approve them.
Is that, I don't think I said that wrong, but, um, If that's sufficient, so moved. Okay.
Okay.
Okay.
Great.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Avi. Are you going to wait for a second?
Oh, there was a second.
Shauna.
Oh, sorry.
I didn't hear it. Okay.
I'm a yes. Okay.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan.
Yes.
Shauna.
Yes.
Yes.
Dan.
Yes.
And I'm a yes. And way to go, Dan. That was a minute and a half. Thanks everyone.
Very nice job. Okay.
So the next item on the agenda is, um, decision items.
So I'll accept a motion to, um, approve the minutes of February 5th. SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: So moved. Second.
Second.
Great.
Avi.
Yes.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan.
Yes.
Yes.
Um, Sean.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
And I'm a yes. I will accept a motion to approve the minutes of February 12th. SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: So moved. Second.
Thank you. Avi.
Yes.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan.
Yes.
Um, Sean.
Yes.
Adam.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Dan.
Yes.
And I am a yes. Um, we, I will accept a motion to approve the overnight out of state field trip for the high school speech and debate national tournament and June at the University of Iowa. So.
So moved.
So moved.
Cool.
Okay.
Avi.
Yes.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan.
Yes.
Sean.
Yes.
Adam.
Yes.
Dan.
Yes.
And I am a yes.
Um, are there any announcements and updates?
Um, okay.
I see a community member. Does anyone from the committee have an announcement or update?
Okay.
Only what Dr. Patel shared earlier. Okay.
Yeah.
Uh, okay.
Judy, you can go ahead. Thanks.
Um, so I just wanted to give, uh, maybe a good ending to the meeting tonight.
Um, I want to give a shout out to the Sharon High School track team. Our girls indoor four by 200 meter relay team, not only has won the Hawk and one div two finals, but it's going to be competing this weekend at New England regionals.
And they also qualified last weekend to go to nationals at New Balance in two weeks.
Really fantastic stuff. Really fantastic stuff. Also, um, Josie Brown, right? Who competes in the three, the boys 300 meter.
Also qualified for, uh, regionals last weekend, and he's already qualified for national.
So we have five kids.
It's awesome.
Nationals, five kids going to regionals.
It's really, really exciting.
It's awesome.
Thank you so much.
Um, Judy Crosby. I'm going to provide some theater updates.
Um, the Sharon High School Theater Company production of Little Women. It was mentioned earlier that there's a, uh, free showing tomorrow night at seven at the high school. Um, there on Saturday, it is 3 PM at Stoughton High School for prelims.
So that is close. You can buy your tickets online if you want, or at the door, they're $10 per, and they get you in for the last week. And they get you in for the whole day. So you don't have to just, you know, go at three and see Little Women. You can come earlier and see other stuff. And middle school tickets for Cinderella went on sale today.
And I got mine for Friday, March 14th.
It's running the 13th, 14th and 16th. And I can tell you when I bought my tickets at 2 PM today, um, the theater was close to sold out for Friday, March 14th. So, um, I strongly encourage everyone to go buy the remaining tickets now. Thanks.
Okay. Thank you. Um, that is a great way to end the evening and I will accept a motion to adjourn.
So moved.
Second.
Avi.
Yes.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan.
Alan.
SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: Oh, okay. SPEAKER_UNKNOWN: It's time to say yes. Um, Shauna.
Yes.
Adam.
Yes.
Dan.
Yes.
Yes.
And I'm a yes. Good night.
And thank you very much, everybody.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.