School Committee Meeting - February 26, 2025
Summary of Sharon School Committee Meeting - February 26, 2025
Date: February 26, 2025 Duration: Approx. 2 hours
Introduction
The Sharon School Committee conducted the meeting remotely via Zoom, with over 131 participants. Acknowledging ongoing fiscal constraints, the meeting focused on the FY26 budget proposal, concerns about cuts to school programs, and addressing transparency issues in the budgeting process.
Key Topics and Discussions (Timestamped)
1. Kindergarten Fees and Budget Allocation Misuse
Time: 00:01:43 – 00:04:46 Speaker: Katie Conroy
- Issue Discussed: Parents are being charged for full-day kindergarten despite a prior agreement that public funds would cover it. Conroy presented evidence suggesting the $600,000 allocated for free kindergarten is being redirected to other budgetary items.
- Key Quote: “Parents of kindergartners are being double charged… this is unacceptable.”
- Action Suggested: Transparency and public discussion of how earmarked funds are used.
Disagreement: While public comments criticized the perceived lack of transparency, Vice-Chair Avi clarified that fees were already part of an agenda on general fees, signaling a misunderstanding or miscommunication.
2. Instructional Aides (IAs) and Teacher Morale
Time: 00:06:41 – 00:07:55, 00:16:19 – 00:17:19 Speakers: Sharon Teachers Association (STA) representatives and parents
- Issue Discussed: The critical role of Instructional Aides (IAs) in maintaining student equity and adherence to Individualized Education Program (IEP) requirements. Currently, low wages and potential layoffs for IAs threaten educational services and morale.
- Key Quote: “We must address the narrative that teacher compensation is the sole cause of our budget issues.”
- Action Suggested: Protect IAs from layoffs and advocate for a living wage to retain talent.
Disagreement: Some community members argued that administrative overhead could be reduced instead of IA cuts.
3. Proposed Elimination of the DEI Director
Time: 00:12:31 – 00:14:43 Speaker: Adrian DeMarco
- Issue Discussed: Community members expressed disappointment over the planned removal of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Director role, citing its importance for special needs and marginalized communities.
- Key Quote: “Removing the DEI director proves that diversity, equity, and inclusion are not values you prioritize.”
- Outcome: The superintendent later acknowledged the role and stated the reduction was budget-driven but committed to ensuring equitable practices moving forward.
Disagreement: Advocates for the DEI position strongly opposed its elimination, while some individuals critiqued DEI initiatives as unnecessary or costly.
4. Transparency in the Budgeting Process
Time: 00:05:50 – 00:06:36, 01:20:13 – 01:25:00 Speakers: Teachers, community members, and committee members
- Issue Discussed: Multiple speakers, including educators, raised concerns about discrepancies in the budget process and a lack of clear explanations for proposed cuts. Public requests for additional line-item clarity were echoed by committee members during discussions.
- Action Suggested: Superintendent was asked to ensure clearer communications via a public memorandum and to address misinformation circulating in the community.
- Key Quotes:
- “We need a memorandum to reassure parents and students that all means all.”
- “Disparities in line-item budgets cannot simply remain unanswered.”
Outcome: Superintendent Botelho promised to consult legal counsel and discuss key concerns with union leadership before finalizing the budget.
Major Decisions and Action Items
1. Budget Proposal Presentation
Superintendent Botelho presented a draft FY26 operating budget targeting a 4% increase (up from 2.76%). Key inclusions:
- Middle school consolidation saving ~$800K.
- Increased fees for athletics and transportation.
- Eliminating standalone DEI Director (~$95K savings).
- Elementary reconfiguration: Reducing Spanish (FLESS) for K-2 students, but increasing grades 3-5 services.
2. Points of Transparency and Concern
- Uncertainty on how middle school cuts align with teacher contract maximums (class size beginning at 22-27).
- Reconfiguration concerns, such as potential harm if Spanish is scaled too much at elementary levels.
3. Proposed Next Steps
- Additional meetings scheduled for clarification and deeper discussion before the March budget vote.
- Obtain legal input on middle school class size compliance.
- Explore alternative proposals for reducing cuts (e.g., reducing administrative salaries, exploring grant opportunities).
Disagreements & Controversial Issues
1. Kindergarten Double Funding
- Misalignment between public expectations (free full-day kindergarten) and financial execution.
- Committee members acknowledged valid concerns but cited competing budget needs for reallocated funds.
2. Cuts to DEI
- Parents and advocates argued for maintaining the role to support marginalized students.
- Budget pressures necessitated the decision, sparking community criticism.
3. Fee Increases
- Athletic and transportation fee hikes sparked concerns about reduced participation in extracurriculars, disproportionately affecting lower-income families.
Transparency & Process Recommendations
1. Improved Communication
- A formal district-wide memo clarifying budget changes, especially how specific line-items are allocated, should be sent to parents and teachers.
2. Equity
- Calls for maintaining or improving equity programs (e.g., DEI, IA wages) amidst cuts.
Final Notes: Action Items and Next Steps
- Upcoming Meeting on March 3, 2025: Focused on finalizing the budget vote.
- Parent Involvement Opportunities: Attend fee review discussions and provide feedback via written correspondence.
- Memo from Superintendent: To reassure inclusivity and equity for students.
Conclusion
This meeting underscored significant budgetary constraints and how the balance between fiscal responsibility and educational equity is being debated. While some areas of concern (e.g., teacher contracts, funding allocation) remain unresolved, the upcoming meetings aim to find a balance that minimizes harm to Sharon’s students and families.
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 of the, 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 gonna 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 who you say you are.
And then you can turn it off 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, 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. Botello 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.
Katie, you're running over.
Wrap it up.
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.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Next up is Ms.
Fuller.
Julie, can I?
I'm sorry.
I don't want to.
Oh, go ahead.
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 Fenley.
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.
For taking the reins in the classroom whenever needed.
For being so flexible and caring and responsive to the students' needs.
For always going above and beyond to help all of the students in my classroom and keeping me on track when I've forgotten what I was doing.
For staying longer than required to continue to support students in the classroom.
For being a tremendous help during math.
You're always willing to help any 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, Ms.
Krasavsky.
Lisa Gilman.
Oh, sorry.
Okay.
Thank you.
Um, 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.
I'm completing year 28 and I have seen many, many changes within the instrumental program.
What in my time from, uh, 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 enrollment 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 to 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.
Adrian 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 gonna 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
follows up that decision with at least a public statement on how you will make up for the amazing work Keena 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, Ms.
DeMarco.
Ms.
Silver.
Good evening.
Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.
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 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 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 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 FinCon, 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 in 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 Eastern 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 of 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 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 Doge 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, 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 web page and the student or excuse me, 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 minority's proposals would have us operating counter to those who are higher up on the food chain.
No, 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.
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?
Got it.
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 you're dealing with.
And I also want to say I think the threatening nature that Mr. Botehlo 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.
MacArthur.
And we will now move to our next item on the agenda, which is correspondence.
Shana, 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 at 9 a.m.
and February 26th at 9 a.m.
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 salary.
Suggestion to allow students to bring their own laptops.
Suggestion to appoint a volunteer community 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 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 27th, 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 Congressman, and I apologize, I do it every time, Jake Oshensloss.
Oshensloss.
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, Shawna.
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 Ms.
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 San Francisco 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 at Hawks 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...
first time 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 seasons, 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 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 Shrewsbury 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 to a panel of judges.
Club leaders will recruit leaders...
We'll 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 theater company will compete in the Massachusetts Theater Guild Festival with an amazing performer, this little woman.
Prelims are 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.
Fugazot, 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, Isha Agarwal from the Student Advisory Committee, and thank you so much for letting me come on today.
Isha, 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.
Okay.
The next item on the agenda are general updates.
So Dr. Botehlo, take it away.
Julie, can I just ask for something before we launch into the group?
All right.
By the way, yes, Isha, that was an amazing update.
Dr. Botehlo, 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 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 though they are also being criticized.
sort of mirrored back by our committee or our administration.
So I think in the interest 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.
I'm 100% 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, our LGBTQ plus community.
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 100%.
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 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?
Yep.
Can you hear me?
So we have 131 participants on this right now.
I would like Dr. Botehlo to respectfully ask, and I've asked this of you before, 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 are welcome, are gonna be safe,
and will be loved and nurtured as they progress through our schools.
It is imperative.
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 you have their back.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Shauna.
Peter, it is your go.
Time for the student updates.
Jean's going to throw that up there.
Part of it is
Isha has already stole my thunder, so I'm not going to repeat one of the slides.
But first of all, the calendar has been published and shared for next year.
It's linked on the district website.
It begins the week before Labor Day and ends on June 16th, the day 180, assuming no snow days.
So everyone can start making their plans with a more normal calendar this year.
We have some great events coming up.
The middle school
Production of Cinderella opens March 13th.
We also have Read Across America with our Black Student Union and Muslim Student Association.
We'll read at the elementary schools in the upcoming week and then a series of events at the middle school and high school celebrating Black History Month and educating our students.
And again, I'm not gonna repeat the second slide because Isha did such a wonderful job, not only talking about our awesome athletes and their performance, but also many other folks that are doing great things at the high school.
So congratulations to our athletes and for their great successes and good luck in their continued events.
Hey.
Thank you very much.
And now, for the moment everyone's been waiting for, we would like to see the fiscal 26 proposed operating budget.
And so after Dr. Botehlo presents it, then I will open it up to the committee for discussion.
We're not voting at this time.
We're merely going to be discussing elements
of the budget.
So, okay.
Thank you.
And Julie, I wanted to confirm that we also have added an additional meeting on next Monday and next Wednesday to give additional time.
I do recognize and apologize for folks getting this in their packet just an hour before.
I know that's not ideal.
the work going into this as we're trying to project what the most, the least painful cuts are, kind of are going up to the very minute as we're looking at changes in enrollment and trying to predict enrollment in classes, especially at the high school next year.
So I apologize for the lateness in that.
But tonight we're gonna review the development, budget development context and process, including budget priorities, drivers,
In process to date, highlight mandatory required components, review critical and additional components.
I'm going to present the budget recommended based on the revised 4.4% priorities allocation.
We'll have time to collect feedback from the school committee.
Continue that on next Monday and then clarify next steps going in.
First of all, it's just important to recognize that the budget development takes into account a range of consideration.
There was tons of work over the last several months consulting with school and district leaders, as well as teacher leaders to identify needs and priorities.
Calculating costs 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.
Some of the creative work and looking at how we might reconfigure things, working collaboratively with the town, managing risk while identifying areas for reduction.
Uh, it 1st 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 maintain educational excellence and set in Sharon and in doing so that means meeting the needs of all students.
That's partly by supporting our ever evolving MTSS multi tiered system of support process, which is a state expected system in all schools.
And in doing so, making sure we have equitable and inclusive learning for our kids in our continuing to promote a culture that really promotes growth among students, but also among our capacity as adults.
We also considered the school committee's budget priorities that were identified and presented early last fall.
So part of it is using the town priorities by budget allocation as a baseline.
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, reinstating a high school assistant principal was one thing that was favored, 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 going through various iterations of understanding the budget as well as developing our capital programming till we come to today to present the operating budget.
We're in the same boat as many, many districts of really having waited for as good figures as we can from town revenue as well as state revenue.
We're still looking at the revenue expectations from the state.
I know they're pushing for a larger allocation for us, minimum aid districts.
The number that has been
looked at with my colleagues is $150 per pupil.
That's not something that's being budgeted within the priorities allocation, but it's something we're hoping for.
And so as we wait for some of that information, that allows us to make a budget that's going to really stick for the following year.
Now, when we look at our primary budget drivers, 84.5% of budget is driven by salaries, and 30% of our budget is driven by special education costs.
Now, some of those overlap, so some of that 84.5% of salaries is special education salaries, but it just shows that there's a great, great majority of our budget
is really dictated by things that are largely beyond our control.
Certainly, we look at enrollment, and when enrollment dictates a lessening of staff, then that can affect our salaries numbers, obviously.
We also always try to control special education costs while doing everything in our power to ensure that all
kids with special needs get the mandated needs that they require in order to make progress.
We also deal with other increased costs around that inflation is affected like transportation and other operational costs that really impact our schools.
And this is just another way, but again, the main point is the FY26 budget focuses on trying to maintain high levels of service while we have escalating costs of our budget drivers.
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 decreases in enrollment.
So we're predicting, and again, this is still early because grade K kindergarten and first grade numbers in particular,
are often fluctuate quite a bit during the summer.
So this is those the numbers that go into this enrollment predicting for 25, 26 and 26, 27 are predictive numbers based upon what our current numbers are in kindergarten going into first grade.
what some of the NASDAQ reports and other reports are saying to project as far as numbers in kindergarten and first grade over the next several years.
But it does look like we are looking at a bit of a decrease from 24-25 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, at the middle school, as we've been contemplating middle school cuts, our numbers for 25, 26, and 26, 27, they maintain a pretty steady.
So we have a strong sense of if we impact changes there,
what the numbers should be.
And then one of the really key factors in something, though I don't always see eye to eye with the FinCom, 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 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 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, the numbers, again, are going down a little bit over the next several years.
So those are things that we consider as we project what classes kids are going to be choosing and how we make sure that we can still have a large array of offerings while considering various cuts, 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 the reductions that are already built into my initial budget.
So you see that in grade two at Cottage,
That's 61, three sections, and it's got a little minus next to it.
Last year that had four sections.
So that cut is already built into our current budget, but it would still allow us to have a fairly favorable 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 is basically an even range.
evens out one reduction, one addition.
But then in grade four at Cottage, it's another area where we have 64 kids.
If we had three sections instead of four, we could have 21 to 22 kids there.
So it's a reasonable class size.
So right there at Cottage, we see two reductions and one addition for a net of one reduction.
And then if you look over to grade five at heights last year, we had five sections because we had quite a big class and four sections is doable with the numbers twenty two to twenty three.
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 at the elementary school.
There were other cuts that were considered, especially as we were looking at the 2.76 reduction, and were even considered with a 4% reduction, but you'll see actually when I present the 4% that I'm not recommending those for next year.
Or this year's budget.
Okay.
So this is just a little bit of summary.
I think I covered it, you know, pretty much in that last explanation.
Okay.
Now, again, we look at the main drivers of our budget.
Salaries are 84.5%.
Special education, that's non-salary.
Special education is 6.9%.
And again, we looked at the pie together.
It's 30% when you include special education, both salaries and other contractual services and other things.
And then you have smaller places like utilities, facilities and maintenance, athletics, transportation.
Then 3 percent 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.
And that when we did the zero-based budgeting based upon real need, would have been increased this year.
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, we're going to have to do with less whenever possible.
But the transportation and utilities, those things do go up.
And so those are increases that we have to take into account as we're dealing with a difficult budget year.
Now, as far as our personnel, 76% are our teachers, 8% are IAs, 7% others, and 1.9%
is district-wide administration, and 3.7%
is building-level administration.
I don't have the figures right here, but I'm happy to get them.
They're really not that readily available on the department website.
I tried to get them, but they're
Really, the way they categorize admin is not always very accurate, but I do know that our admin levels in the district are not high.
They're definitely on the low side.
We've really tried to cut back on this additional cut that's coming down the pike this year.
There really is not a great deal to be able to cut beyond what we already have.
So again, as I said, these other budget drivers, whether they start contractual obligations or special education costs or transportation, those things are also escalating as we're dealing with kind of modest budget increases.
Salaries themselves, if we look at based on step lanes and COLA, have an incremental change of 5.1%.
So they went up 5.1% over last year.
Again, that's based upon COLA, but also steps and lanes.
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 in 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 while providing these contractual increases that are guaranteed.
In addition, special education costs are always in district budgets.
1 of the most variable in difficult parts of the budget.
There's 2 are precious kids who need special education services and we are committed to serving them as well as we can.
But it is a costly endeavor.
So.
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 savings.
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.
We do see increases out of tuition costs, not the 14%, but we're looking at an increase of about 3.67%.
And so these increases in tuitions as well as transportation costs drive the increases in special education, which is a key kind of uncontrollable part of our budget.
Okay, so when we look at our cost for next year, we're looking at projected out of district tuitions of almost $6 million.
And then these other aspects of the special education budget, which is a big portion of our budget that is mandated and we must provide.
Again, 30% of 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 the operating budget in my proposed budget.
Here you can see, like in those COVID years, there was a bigger increase.
And now, you know, we have increases that are still significant last year, 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 most are in a similar place, Canton,
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 they're gonna access basically all that money this year in order to offset some costs.
King Phillip at 4.38%.
Medway is expecting an 8.4%
increase.
Norton, a 3.8% increase, but they're also expecting additional funds through the Student Opportunity Act because of their population, they're getting more of that money than we are.
And Walpole hasn't settled yet, but they're looking at between 3.4 and 5.7%, 5%.
So we're in similar company with other districts.
So this was the budget that initially, you know, if we were to continue the same level of staffing and roll forward all of like our non-personnel aspects to level funding, even though 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 increases, 5.1%
of the 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 and 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 just increasing a slight bit.
But everything else, those uncontrollable aspects are increasing to 5.48% before any cuts.
Then we added in our elementary special education administrator, our high school principal, some additional special education support.
So with those additions, it goes to 5.95%.
And then we had some offsets to try to manage that a little bit.
So some high school club fees, which have not been used before so that not only athletics, but kids who are doing clubs are paying a modest fee increases in ECC tuition.
as well as doing some increased revenue from having students who do pay tuition, our non-special education students in ECC.
And then those two elementary reductions that I talked about that we can do based upon enrollment.
So with all of those offsets, we slightly lowered to 5.46%.
So on Tuesday, February 18th, the priorities committee approved an adjusted target of 4% increase over FLOID 25.
This is up from the initial 2.76.
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 target.
So that's something certainly we're following.
They're demanding a 3.4%
increase or less.
My recommended budget is going with that priorities committee allocation since that is the group that's made up of FinCom as well as school committee as well as select board members to kind of set a reasonable target.
So where are we between that 5.46, which included the additions of the high school administrator, our special education administrator at the elementary and some minor clerical in our other budget.
And then the 4% allocation, we have a 1.46%
gap or about 791,000.
So you've seen various iterations of potential cuts going up to $1.7
million.
So you're going to see today a list of cuts or offsets that closes that $791,000 gap.
and it's going to include some district restructuring, some elementary specials, and plus reconfiguration, some middle school reductions, some high school reductions, and then proposed increase in athletic and transportation fees, as well as a dumpster offset.
And I get into especially the first two things a little bit more in the next couple slides, but we're looking at some district restructuring that unfortunately is reducing our standalone director of DEI and also getting some additional savings from the hiring of new administration and other staffing at lower levels.
Salaries than currently also in elementary specials reconfiguration, which I'll explain to you a little bit.
And then it does include that combined 7th and 8th grade middle school team.
In one of the grades, the 7th grade, they'll have 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 the eighth grade groups would have on average about twenty three students.
But again, with the different levels, you could have some classes that are a little bit smaller and also a little bit bigger.
Certainly, if in a perfect world, we wouldn't be making those reductions.
But because of what I described before, as far as being able to.
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 lots at the high school and so I'm suggesting that we do not fill that resignation.
Most of our classes as far as photography and other visual arts classes will still be running, but there's some specialty classes around animation and gaming that this individual taught that will likely not be offered.
And then I'm also looking wherever we retirement in wellness at the high school, and I'm looking to saying that we do not fill that.
That would result in most of our eleventh and twelfth graders fulfilling their physical education requirement through waivers.
That means if they play a sport.
They could complete a waiver that shows that they're completing enough hours in physical education.
They also could be doing some kind of internship through the high school.
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.
And then this also shows the athletic increase of 15% in transportation increase.
This results in.
That the total that is actually 820,682, but then there's a cost.
There's a cost and benefit benefit to us taking over the dumpsters through the district budget.
So there's a 16,000 dollar cost that we have to include.
So that puts the total reductions above the 791 at 804,682, which gives us a variance of 13,467 against some of these.
Some of these savings are based upon hiring new people that cost a bit less.
That gives us some variance in play in that when we replace individuals to do that.
So that's my proposed way to close the gap.
When again, the district restructuring breakdown, what that is, is a reduction in our Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Central Office Administration.
That results in about $95,000 that can go back into the budget or be reduced or used to offset other things.
72,000 of her salary.
It was like 71637 is from the operational budget, but then there's other parts of the salary that are through grants that can be used to offset other costs in there for reduce those costs.
We're also having some new hires in administration, including a new elementary principal.
Jane Martin, our incredible executive assistant, will be retiring, and so we'll be hiring that and having some savings, though we could never spend enough to get someone like Jane, and then some additional new hire savings.
So that's a total of $120,000.
I will say with the administration, so currently we will have a superintendent, an assistant superintendent for curriculum instruction, assistant superintendent for finance,
a facilities director, a special education or student services administrator, and then other kind of specialists in HR and transportation.
We will be as slim as possible.
We have one executive assistant where when I started, it was like two and a half, and it's been reduced to one.
Jane does the work of five, but we'll be doing it with someone who's
So we're going to be about as slim as we can in central administration at the end of this year and doing everything in our power to maintain the level of support and services that 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 physical education, we had two teachers who were traveling a lot.
And part of that travel time is not direct time with kids.
We also saw that one of the reasons that some people critique our FLESS program is because that we tried the model and it was beneficial in some ways that younger kids got exposure to Spanish at an early grade.
It really wasn't as effective as we wanted it to be.
And so we're looking at our proposal, which will save approximately $90,000 will be to reduce physical education by 1.2
FTE.
So we'll have one physical education per teacher per school, plus another 0.8
teacher who travels across East and Heights to fill the remaining sections that need to be filled.
We'll have a point 1 reduction in elementary.
I'm sorry that 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 on the number of sections.
So we can do that while still fulfilling all of our art for our kids.
K through two kids would get art, music, library, and two PEs like they are currently, plus an additional special for DCM.
So they would no longer receive Spanish in K through two.
In the past in kindergarten, 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, those kids will get Spanish twice a week.
And so, from our understanding of language acquisition, Dr.
Johnson was able to speak this quite eloquently, and we also spoke with some of our world language professionals in the district.
By even though they're getting a little bit later by having it twice a week, the opportunity for really effort to build and build a stronger foundation or stronger.
And so this will maintain the same amount of.
Spanish FDs 2.4 while giving them two additional but not having any 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.
Plus, again, in both situations, getting an additional special for DCMs.
So that was one question about the
Yes, there are five contractual prep periods, but with our data collaboration meetings, which is a cornerstone of our MTSS process, where we analyze kids' needs 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 contractual prep period.
So that is that additional six period where I've spoken about FLES.
You can't just drop FLES 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 situation has come up a lot.
There is some savings and actually it's greater savings with less.
It is not the full two hundred and forty thousand dollars of salaries for our Spanish teachers.
What it would be is two hundred forty thousand dollars, two hundred forty thousand dollars.
would be reducing in Spanish but you would need to increase some FTEs in other ways and you would lose some of that efficiency with physical education because you would now still need the five teachers instead of the 3.8 that I'm proposing in the elementary reconfiguration.
So you would no longer have less
You would again $240,000 in Spanish teachers reduction, but you'd have to add an additional $550,000 approximately of specials, including physical education, additional physical education teachers in order to provide the same.
K through five art, music, library, and two VEs that we have now.
So that savings would be $190,000.
So that's the value judgment.
Yes, you could save approximately $100,000 more by reducing FLESS.
But in my judgment, I strongly believe
Then in a community like Sharon and in a world like ours where learning an additional language or two is so vital that cutting an entire program 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 for our, in this case, three through fifth graders and not building a foundation elementary.
And I don't think that's a wise decision in our district.
Okay, so these are these were.
additional reductions that were considered, but that are not part of the 4.0.
I don't know if we want to, there's a lot to this.
Do we want to stop, Julie, and talk about my proposal first, or do you want me to keep on going?
Shawna, did you?
Oh, I was just getting ready to ask questions.
All right, Avi, do you want to pause, or do you want to keep going?
I guess that's up to you and Dr. Botehlo.
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 my 4.4%
proposal.
Some of which you've seen some of which you just saw on a list, but not in with more figures and stuff.
So it's like, so I think Julie, if it's okay, then my questions right now are,
are more clarification on a few slides and a few things that got said, maybe now is an okay time there.
Is there a whole lot of slides left or we almost done or should we go back?
Well, there's a bunch of slides again with, there was requests of some members to have share additional reductions that were not part of the proposal.
So that's what the majority of the slides are.
All right, well then let's do buckets.
So the first bucket,
will be everything before this.
So your proposed reductions.
Okay, so Avi, go ahead.
Okay.
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 preferred people didn't go question, answer, question, answer.
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.
Okay.
Yeah, let's do the first three and then we'll go from there.
Okay.
Question one, we heard one of the co-presidents of the STA bring up an interesting point during public comment.
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.
If that's an issue contractually, can you explain the thinking there and what
what the solution is.
Another question is regarding FLES.
Somebody, again, in public comment brought up something that I also understand to be true, which is that DCMs are not contractual obligations, but correct me if I'm wrong there.
While 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 FLES a viable solution and save us money?
And then another question I have is you had mentioned that it was possible that minimum aid may still change.
And I think it's more than possible, it's likely.
I think before phrasing it as a question, I would state that as a priorities member, I was there when the priorities committee agreed to a higher number than the governor's number already based on 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 plug that into 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.
This might be, this probably is something that would be,
You know, a discussion, you know, I'm not sure if the the S.A.
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 existing 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 that.
at the beginning of your presentation 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 this issue right here that you're stating is perhaps, first of all, I appreciate your transparency 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 uh that it be cleared with our council and then it'd be discussed with the sta leadership um 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 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 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 sections.
Cut.
You know non like elective courses in order to continue to manipulate and get belong below that, but.
Yeah, so did just we would not having 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 the schedules actually run.
Well, again, I appreciate the transparency in that answer.
I would appreciate, and I think it's appropriate to have those considerations mentioned up front because 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 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 make cuts that put us in violation of our contract, 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 the ramifications of certain cuts would be.
Again, in some cases, those are, I mean, to be frank, let me use, you referenced the hot button topic that FLESS is.
So I understand that in this community, there are folks that are proponents of getting rid of FLESS.
There are folks that are proponents of keeping FLESS.
I think we all understand that Fless is something that you believe in educationally and a lot of people do.
But if we were to remove Fless, 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 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 special.
So it was this type of when we were having discussions about our concerns about having too rigid of guidelines.
There was that type of statements that I'm relying upon to say that we were in good stead because that was the exact kind of conversation.
But I will certainly touch base with council and then with the SCA as well.
All right, I would ask that that happened before Monday's meeting.
And so the other question was about DCMs.
Are, again, understanding that, or with the assumption that DCMs are something that you believe as an educational leader are deeply important, is removing DCMs and thereby 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.
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 MTSS process prior to this time, of which, you know,
the DCM process and the intervention process that's built out of it have corrected.
And so there is an expectation 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.
And so 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
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 a big part of why I see DCMs as being an essential part.
They also prevent
special education from being the only game in town, when you don't have robust 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 than a tier two intervention system.
So
Where we could cut that and it would be a shorter term savings.
I think there's a lot of reasons why I see it as being an essential part.
And if we have it, it does need to be provided in time beyond the buy preps.
I appreciate very much your educational expertise on that and you stating it.
Let me be clear, I'm not advocating for or against removing DCMs.
Yeah, in the end, everything considered equal financially
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.
Alan, you are next.
Well, I think the horse is out of the barn on this, but I would just say we voted unanimously to look at a budget proposal that considered what all of 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 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.
I'll stick with the theme of threes and asking three questions at once.
First, 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 you provided since we started this process, as you indicated back in September.
Question one would be, is there a reason that this cannot be the template for our 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 not a question I would encourage you to do that.
Question two, 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,
about the differences between line of budget that was presented at our last meeting and the figures on your previous slide decks and why those numbers were different.
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 80 and 43, 123,000 or so of the 791 on fees.
One of the questions I had with regard to fees is whether we've considered what the loss of interest would be
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.
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 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.
Uh, the 1st, 1, the template, there is 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.
to what degree we repeat them or we just have them for people's reference.
Usually this budget presentation, not just here, but another district is the most comprehensive one, but I understand the value of having some of that information prior.
So yes, there's certain aspects 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 can, we have the information for them for the next cycle.
Um, as far as the light item, 1 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.
It could be.
Difficult and so I've used more estimates, you know, in the beginning and now that these are actual.
Numbers based upon our best predictions of lowest seniority numbers or cuts that would occur.
So that's part of it.
Was there another part of the line item?
variation that you question.
I know that one thing that people were questioning is they were seeing less savings than they thought from a particular line item when they thought they saw a reduction.
And part of that has to do with when you're, let me let, Alan, can you speak to that part?
You can explain that better than me.
Or when, for instance, with the teachers, when we take the teachers, the adjusted budget amount for FY25, and we move all those teachers in that budget line across on the salary scale, 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 that it is confusing.
So I had
talked through a couple of different 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.
And just to clarify, thank you, Owen, just to clarify, Dr. Patel, so the numbers we're seeing on this slide right now are 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 things that can happen where it's not, that it might, but it's best that we know based upon seniority or resignations or retirements, yes.
Okay, thank you.
And then the last question I had was about the fees, please.
So could you repeat that question again?
Yeah, just basically you have 120,000 of the 791 based on fees.
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.
How comfortable are you with 120 of the 791 being based on fees versus other potential cuts?
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 based upon trying to really
Minimize I don't think we have any more cuts in administration that we can do trying to minimize cuts in elementary.
In elementary classrooms and trying to.
Target high school ones that will have the least impact.
I think these increases.
you know, with the cost of inflation for those programs is is better than the alternative.
But certainly if if those aren't supported, then we'll look to some of the other cuts that were considered to make up for them.
Okay, thanks a lot.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Alan.
And now, Shauna.
Thanks.
I'm just going to ask if we can, on 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 small changes that were made, so Jane will provide you the.
No, no, I just, in order to kind of lead the discussion.
Shawna, 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 FLEF and elementary PE?
Okay.
One more.
Okay, yep.
Yes, this one.
So help me understand, if we were to go with the left side, so the elementary reconfiguration, right, for a net savings of $90,000, you are saying that we're going to reduce 1.2
FTEs in PE, which would what?
Would it take...
Would it take away from the sections of PE that our kids are receiving?
Yeah.
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 given the obesity epidemic in this country and given –
Everything that we know about health and development, we as a district, we can't support that.
We need to really look at that.
Going from two to one is a really big, big impact on kids, especially kids who don't have other opportunities.
So I just have real concern about that.
I'd also like to look at...
If we can go 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.
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, seventh 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 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.
we're looking at cutting sections and what is special ed going to look like?
How are we going to maintain 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 1,000 or close to 1,000 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 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 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 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've worked in the middle school for 20 years prior to this.
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 in 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.
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.
We received this at 6 PM, and the slides have changed since then.
So I think it does make sense now for us to 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.
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 help kids focus in class, 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 we can get them.
But 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, I think we'd 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.
Um, but yes, I think that this is a step in the right direction, but we really need time for the community to respond.
So we should try to get an updated versions presentation out there for people to see.
We should have an updated version for us that has fuller details.
Um, 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 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.
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 still have time to talk about the rest of the stuff.
Adam.
Thanks, Julia.
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 like 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.
Botehlo, 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.
um 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 um
We have had some people who have expressed some interest, but it's not a sizable amount 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.
It's 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 kind of forecasted increase, I think was 8%.
I...
admittedly am by no means an expert in kind of school or kind of 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, Alan?
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 we are proposing votes 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, you know,
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 problem.
but then also increasing PE.
Let me clarify that one, Adam.
Not only because it's right, but it's also required.
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 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 sport 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 district restructuring and what we can do from an admin perspective, and I know we are already doing
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 filled, part of that was filling new positions.
And when we are filling new positions, we have enough leeway to hire high quality people.
So it was slightly reduced the
the savings that we can expect when we're hiring new individuals.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
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 trade-offs are.
So my understanding is we're just asking questions about content that we covered to 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 FLESS.
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.
Do you feel that is a set package deal and the only way in which restructuring would be feasible is by reducing the frequency of physical education?
Or are there other options by which we could restructure and not
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, not losing the second PE and maintaining art and music, I assume for a full year.
We can look at that.
The trouble with that is part of,
Part of the inefficiency in our schedule is the travel part.
And so that's what I was trying to, but not only improve Spanish education by giving it twice a week, but also minimize the inefficiencies that come with having 2 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 have a feeling the savings would be diminished quite significantly.
When you say losing periods, could you explain what that means?
We're paying staff to travel and not – Yeah, when you pay them to travel, they really – 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 probably something we should discuss 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
suggest, 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?
I guess what I'm saying is there wouldn't be a saving, you know, 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 as 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.
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?
Yes.
Right.
OK.
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 prior to some of those emails coming in about the Chromebook program just to try to understand what potential impact would be.
And Dr. Jocelyn can speak to it, but he got a very thoughtful reply from the head of IT in terms of the challenges that the district faces there.
So we're beyond the capital process at this point, although there's ultimately one pot of money that the town is funding from.
And I think it is a useful discussion, but maybe in the future, maybe Joel can just
bringing that up, or Dr. Dawson, 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, etc.
Thanks a lot, Adam.
Oh, wait, did Peter, did you want to address that?
No, okay.
Oh, just what Adam said, but okay.
Jeremy, why don't you... I just have 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?
FinCon has given a number of priorities when there's a recommendation, but we have a number from FinCon, so...
We'll likely need to choose things from the next set.
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 FinCom.
And I've clarified this right now, there's conversations happening not with school council, with town council, 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 FinCom 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 four to two.
Understandably, the two no's were the FinCom.
In fact, the chair of the FinCom, 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 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 FinCom 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 FinCom 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 their job.
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, Adi.
I think you explained that really well.
I just have 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 proposed reductions, it's maintained.
Okay.
So the instrumental music isn't changing from like this year.
Great.
Thank you.
Please continue with the presentation.
OK, so these are additional cuts that were considered that these all were actually part of the 2.76 so.
Technology integration.
This was, uh, you know, certainly cut.
I heavily considered, you know, in conjunction with the the the Wellness cut at the high school.
This would.
Um?
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, um, would have teachers really be kind of learning about technology integration, collaboratively together, um, and having someone else, um, at the high school, either one of our technology people or our library media specialists, or the two of them to people combine, uh, take over the help desk at the high school.
Um, and, um,
It would, yeah, so that would reduce that at the high school.
Spanish teacher, 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 higher class sizes up in the mid to high school.
high 20s at times.
It also might need to consider 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 honor 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.
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.
Yeah.
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 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...
this 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, 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 authorings in science, so kids being able to double up in science, as well as if certain courses are running with lower enrollment, those ones wouldn't 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, Jane.
So again, we had two elementary reductions based upon enrollment that are already
Already part of the, my proposed budget, but these are additional elementary sections that are not part of the proposed budget in grade 1 and 2, they would likely result in around 22 to 24 students in some of the lower elementary classes.
And then if there were additional.
additional cuts in any of the um additional grade one or two it'd be it'd 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 um those again our current projected k in first grade numbers are are very imperfect because we always have um
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, then the grade one classes in particular 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.
Um.
Elementary our teacher, I'm sorry is part of the proposed cut.
So that shouldn't be their elementary library and we haven't kind of reduced that in that.
It does help provide some.
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 maintain our three full-time music teachers, but we would no longer have the equivalent of a 1.0
Uh, of, um, a string teacher as well as a part time, um, um, um, instrumental music teacher.
Um, so that would be cut.
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 that 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'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.
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 those numbers, that first number 518 by five or 4.7 or divide the math specialist by three.
We really have did 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, there's 1 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 on the cut.
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 training and support of 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 again, the coordinators that we've discussed.
Again, this is really imperfect.
I know I gave the number 170,000 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 12 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 12.
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 $126,000 loss is because you are, first of all, not losing that individual because they're higher on the seniority list.
You're losing at least senior teacher.
then you're paying your department heads a salary, a stipend, and I have the stipend still set up to 10% of their salary.
So it's approximately $12,000 per person for $120,000.
And then you need to now get coverage for one section
um which is a 0.2 fte for those 10 individuals um so that's approximately 200 000. so the 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 um but um if you're gonna still maintain some decent level of um
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 80,000 if you didn't pay them.
Pay them a 10% stipend though.
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 gonna 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, many of which are very, very good, but they're doing their own thing without the same level of consistency and 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 things are as consistent as possible.
And this was, again, just some of the explanation that I provided previously.
Additional non-maided 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, it's, you know, the education of a kid is goes beyond the academics.
And so I think athletics as well as afterschool 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, or I don't, we, again, I, we, we discuss those in our zero base process, but we,
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
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 wouldn't be prudent.
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.
Um, and when it comes to even like that discussion around, you know, uh, not providing Chromebooks and providing, having kids bring their own diet devices, we would actually need to increase technology support because there's a lot of, um, a lot of complexity that goes into supporting different types of devices instead of, uh, a one, one type of device.
Um, custodial maintenance, um, you know, you heard about from, uh,
Kenworth earlier on that really we're not really at a place where we're 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 you normally, if we had some fat in either 1 of those areas, any of the areas, technology support, custom elements and admin and secretary support, those would be 1 of the 1st places that I would go.
And I think we have gone there in the past, but I don't think we're the place where we can go there any further.
Even though.
Those would be places though.
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 high.
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 as robustly.
And 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 pupil expenditure.
I've iterated this at the priorities that unfortunately we're below the state in per pupil expenditure.
We know it's because the tax base is not very big in Sharon, but it is a reality that compared to Westwood, we're spending $3,500 less per student than they are, $2,900 less than Needham.
or $1,900 less than whaling in, it's really difficult to maintain the quality of education while being below the state in that.
I think we can skip that one, Jean.
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, 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 years, our per pupil expense will go up tremendously, it looks like, just based on the enrollment drop.
So 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 is so in yours, you are reducing the 0.1, correct?
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, it allows us to fulfill all of our sections.
Understood.
Thanks, Avi.
Alan?
In terms of how you prioritize the things that we are not in your revised budget, so the last nine slides we just looked at,
I think when you went through them at the secondary level, at the elementary level, et cetera, I think you sort of talked through a prioritization 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 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, the, the specialists and coordinators again, I think support all this.
So that was lower.
Um, and then again, the, the lowest for some of those operational stuff, which again, unfortunately, we've already cut back enough that I can't see.
So that's basically order.
It's it's a, it's a handful of the high school cuts that are least painful.
Um.
then it's probably a couple of the more painful high school cuts or continue 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 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 and staying under caseload limits at the high school as well.
Thanks for that.
So if we're talking about, if the committee ends up talking about add-backs,
that there was discussion earlier about people have some concern about the middle school cuts that you're proposing.
If we're talking about changing some of those, if someone on the committee wants to change those, the figures that you listed in the cuts that are not being proposed, some of them appear to be more rounded cuts, right?
Like 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 um are 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 is the spanish teacher would be 80 000 for example it would be an 80 000 savings
I think the spin, maybe, let me say, I thought the Spanish teacher had a more of a, um, so let me see.
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 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.
Plus or minus five grand?
Well, 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.
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.
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...
you don't know until that's what cuts exactly what the salary will be.
Okay, thank you.
That's, I think, an important thing for the community to understand.
One last question.
You mentioned 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, 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 courses.
So 60 individuals could take a course that doesn't fit in their schedule or they need for some other purpose through tech collaborative and, you know, with opportunities to pay for more, but yes.
So theoretically, again, I'm not trying to, I don't want to pigeonhole you, but just theoretically.
So let's say we had to cut a science teacher
And as a result of that science teacher cut, I'm making this up, 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 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.
So if it's something that we're not offering
at all, then that would be problematic because even 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 beneficial.
But it will help.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you, Alan.
Dan?
Thanks.
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 when we're talking about exactly where that line is on our priorities list.
And if the restructuring of FLAS should be above or below the line and what the trade-offs that would be, I'm very encouraged that we're getting closer.
So I found this all very helpful.
When we have this follow-up discussion, we already talked about potentially including other options.
You know, if less is really...
tied directly to that physical education or if there's other options.
But, you know, if we don't go that direction, really understanding what the ramifications of whatever that other ad back would be instead from your other list of additional potential cuts would be really helpful.
Cause I do feel we're getting close and I think that could really get us there.
I, I, I have, I,
a closing request just around process.
I just want to appreciate the enormous amount of work from the administration and stakeholders that went into this presentation tonight.
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 I know that that was a monumental effort.
And
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 want to lose any of that or have to redo it because I think the discussion we had tonight was by far the most productive, and there was a lot of great –
information included here that I think could even help other committees.
I recognize some of the information here is things that other committees have asked for earlier in the process.
The extent we can do that, I think we'll be being kind to our administrators and not having to repeat that work.
It'll be helpful for us and we'll have a much better, stronger process going forward.
I just want to say I consider
the members of finance committee and our select board to be partners in this process.
I have been disappointed 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.
For me, it's a process issue that we should all be working together to correct.
To the extent that we can have hashed this out with them in a collaborative nature, figure out the right way to get them the information that they actually need, that would be very much appreciated because I know we all want to have a strong process.
for the rest of this year and next year, and hopefully all work together to get a budget that everybody can support.
So just for example, like if finance committee in the future is asking for something, if you're the administration and our chair determined that it's reasonable, and I would be supportive, just give it to them.
And maybe that's been happening already.
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's my request.
Thank you.
Thanks for that.
I'm just going to jump in, Adam, for one second.
And Dan, that is something that I was hoping we could agenda for, like, when we get out of this, like a sort of postmortem.
And I think that would be a valuable discussion going forward.
Adam.
Thank you, Julian.
Thank you, Dr. Botello.
So I had a couple of questions.
So the first, maybe this is more of a validation, but my personal belief, and I think research backs this up, is that when we think about the cost of specialists,
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 kind of get their kind of reading and math skills to a better place, then it potentially saves the need for more expensive services later on.
But is that something you can kind of validate just as we think about the
kind of long-range costs or long-term costs involved with some of these positions?
Yeah, absolutely.
I think it's the combination of, you know, again, say our elementary, you know, literacy coordinator who helps to run those data collaboration meetings.
So teachers are talking about kids.
based on 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 it wouldn't done well and built well it's a cost savings and it's a real collaborative effort that's you know shown in good schools thank you so my next question um
When we look at the courses in danger and kind of at the high school level, kind of which teachers may be impacted or subjects in which courses, 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?
It depends on the course.
In most cases, I would say, in most cases where we typically run multiple sections, we'd be looking at, you know, again, so say if you cut one one teacher in in
in, say, science.
So with some of those core courses, you would run less sections.
But there also might be some courses that you only typically run one section, and its enrollment is low, that you wouldn't be able to offer that here.
Now, in those cases, you can try to get a sense of who signed up for them and whether or not, if it fits in their schedule, they can take it the next year with maybe two grades worth of kids.
So it's kids in multiple, 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 harder to fit into the schedule.
So we look at things like that.
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 for it.
But I don't know that we've ever seen kind of a true list of kind of enrollment and student interest and kind of where kind of which courses are oversubscribed and kind of kids don't all necessarily make it in to those courses they want and which courses are not.
kind of running with kind of lowish enrollment.
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, whether we're talking about the sciences or like world languages, I have no
concept just in terms of you know we offer a range of languages which is fantastic 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 at 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 an array of options.
Yet the more options you have, the less efficient it is.
And so one thing I know we will be discussing, I probably want to just start discussing it even, you know, certainly early fall, if not before that is one thing I discovered is 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 say in math, we actually ninth graders could be in the equivalent of five levels, right?
You know, but I don't think most of us realize that they could be taking regular algebra.
They could be taking accelerated algebra.
They could be taking regular geometry.
They could be taking accelerated geometry.
They could 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 to only have, you know, one level or two levels.
But when we actually have all ninth graders are in 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 perhaps looking at where we have a wide array of levels in a particular grade for a particular subject and reducing the number of levels in a way that we think will still serve kids but build inefficiencies more.
build efficiencies that allow us to do with less FTEs, then that's something we should have discussions about.
Yeah, I think those sorts of discussions, especially when we're bringing the enrollment data and kind of what you just described to the table, I think makes for just a really fulsome discussion of kind of how and which courses we are able to offer 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 a town meeting.
Um, right.
The town will end up voting on, um,
our top line budget and the top line budgets of other sectors.
If the town elects not to follow the guidance of kind of the elected officials and the professional town administration, and instead does follow kind of the finance committee recommendation,
I do think it would be helpful as we think about these kind of next cuts to just understand what those cuts would mean so that as the town is making its determination of whether to follow kind of the recommended allocation from the town or to follow kind of FinCom's recommendation, they understand the difference in how
maybe that lower number will impact.
So I know that the cuts, you know, as presented or the non-cuts, so to speak, weren't necessarily prioritized.
And you answered this a little bit in Alan's question, but I think for Monday, it would also be helpful to have 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.
kind of through its organizational structure, you know, here's what that would mean and here's what we would do.
So, and this is also maybe, I guess, a note to the committee that I think now is the time to give that feedback so that we can incorporate that into the Monday presentation and then have a chance to give feedback on that and have public kind of transparency before voting on Wednesday.
Thank you, Adam.
Avi.
I wanted to piggyback a little bit on what Dan had to say.
Dr.
Botello, I thought that this presentation
And again, also to piggyback on Jeremy's point earlier in the meeting that we're not there yet, but it's a step in the right direction.
For me, it's a very big step.
This was a really thorough presentation.
I think it gave us a lot more insight.
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.
In 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 during my time as chair and now as vice chair, somewhat closely with you and with Ellen, I get to see that these are numbers you project out ahead of time, like the prior year, that you're watching these numbers, 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 a lot of respect.
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 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 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 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 how those are affected by the budget decisions, 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, um,
In particular, their chair is somebody who 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 I think he's correct is there's responsibility, but ultimately has supported the school and the school's budget year over year since I've sat on this committee.
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 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 that.
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 Sharon to be a great town, to do our community the service that they believe that they deserve and I believe that they deserve.
Ultimately, what that really comes down to is supporting our schools.
Like it or not, we sit on the board that oversees the thing that people move to Sharon 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.
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.
I know our reality.
We want great schools and our tax base has limitations.
And so we're going to have to get as creative as possible
um 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 um so you know yeah i i i think you know i think we can come a long way with finance committee as well and and uh we'll we'll work to try to
you know, kind of 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 appreciate
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 JIH, which is something we wanted to evaluate separately.
These are all things that... Fees?
Fees.
Are we doing fees or not?
Oh, shoot.
Are we doing fees right now?
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.
So thinking back to last year, which was, I think, a very challenging budget process, we ended up in a position where I think we got an initial budget presentation and the committee had a lot of feedback that was delivered to Dr. Botehlo 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. Patel'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 FLESS and questions about kind of the value of PE versus kind of get one PE 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 XYZ 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. Botehlo at least passively agreed to do it, if not actively agreed.
I'm not...
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 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.
Mattel, I really appreciate seeing the,
seeing all the items added back in tonight's version and left out as cuts 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 get rid of Fless at the elementary school, but I do think it's a serious conversation for this community to have.
is getting rid of fles at the elementary school worth saving some middle school teachers?
Because 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 trade-offs between the tangible things like fles and those middle school teachers.
Yeah, I 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 SCA.
And then I have a number of other things from other people as well.
Jeremy.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with Avi.
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.
Generally, a lot of the items that have been prioritized to cut, I agree with, but specifically the ones Shauna called out, I would put other things higher.
So I think 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.
And I can, let me read what I, 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, you know, a revised version of, you know, especially additional detail on various cuts.
Consider, from Sean, it was like, consider what would be the option of kind of more high school cuts and less middle school cuts.
Um, as well as is there a way to, um, 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, um, yeah.
And there, there is 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 continue to work on the coordinator one as well as the last one so we can continue to look at that in a couple different ways and understand the complexity 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. Pitello.
Yeah, so if we were to raise the fees either at all or as much, what would be options to not do that?
As well as getting some more information about other towns that do the PE waiver 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 would trade off for?
So those are the main things that I had.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
So should we move on to the fees presentation as well?
It might make sense in the context of Monday, right?
Because we're going to be trading off raising fees first.
Okay, so we'll go over that now.
Sorry, Dan.
Jump the gun.
Wait.
I think Jeremy was, which 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 really agree with Jeremy.
Yeah, and if you have questions, when you read it up, just reach out.
Okay.
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, Dr. Botehlo set it for me.
Just if you have questions as you're going through it, please reach out, send me an email 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 move on to the policy.
I just want to clarify that this batch that we have here, we can actually prove these in a batch if the committee so decides, because these are basically non-controversial changes based on a previous discussion.
It does not contain policy JIH, which I know we want to discuss 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 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 other people's understanding or wish?
So that wasn't my comment.
Oh, okay.
But your point still stands on its own.
Yeah.
I don't know how people feel about that.
My comment was going to be about the fact that 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 member of the community that had asked for that to be agenda did hang on for this long.
But I can respect and understand maybe if as more
of a holistic conversation, we just agenda that as an item 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 conversation to at least acknowledge.
Adam?
I just, I like Dan's point.
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 the public a chance to provide feedback okay dope 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, I just wanted to make sure that I know where I'll stop my slide deck.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Jane, could you cue it up, please?
Alrighty.
So tonight we're going to talk about user fees for we're going to provide the background information on our current fee structures, gather follow up questions and requests for additional information.
As I said a few minutes ago, please, please email me with any questions or comments you have.
And I can turn them around as quickly as I can.
And then we'll have the discussion on Monday about the district's recommendation based upon the 4.0 budget increase.
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 via revolving accounts and they are used to offset the operating costs associated with the service area.
And school committee has the authority to set fees.
Food service does have fees that will be brought back to school committee later in the spring once those fees have been determined and recommendations have been made by the director of school nutrition.
Next slide.
So our revenue history for our revolving accounts going back to fiscal 21 for athletics, transportation, and ECC are listed here.
Just a point of note for FY21, that was a hybrid year coming out of COVID, and that year one-way transportation was discontinued as an option.
And then you can see with succeeding years coming out of COVID that our user fees did bounce back.
Next slide.
So for athletics right now, the athletic fee was set in 2019, three seasons, fall, winter and spring students who play.
pay for their first season, it's $375.
If they participate in a second season, the fee is reduced to $300.
And if they participate in a third season, the fee is reduced again to $200.
Again, there is a family cap per year of $1,350, regardless of how many students they have playing sports or how many seasons.
The free lunch qualifier does waive our fee.
The reduced lunch qualifier results in a 50% reduction in the fee.
We do have scholarship programs, the Rothenberg Scholarship, as well as school committee funds that we provide.
budget for, and that's approximately $10,000.
It's also important to note that Mr.
Vitale, as well as Ms.
Keenan, work with our students.
If there's a financial need, we don't want kids not to participate if there's a financial need 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 approximately 26 to 28% of the athletic program.
It supplements the operating budget costs, coaching, transportation, equipment, uniforms, et cetera.
We do get some miscellaneous income to the revolving account.
Gate receipts are collected for football, basketball, and wrestling, and that supports approximately 2 to 4% of the athletic program.
We're also very fortunate with our boosters.
Our boosters raise funds to support the athletic program and supplement the athletic needs guided by the athletic director.
So funding and costs for 2022-23 school year, our operating budget
Supported approximately $690,000 for the athletic program and the revolving account offset $271,669 in fiscal 24, $287,000 into the revolving account.
And then budgeted for this year is $687,000 with $295,000 budgeted for fees to be collected.
Next slide, please.
The fee recommendation based upon
The concern that the fees haven't been increased since 2019 is that we do have 15% increase moving from $375 for the first season to $431, then reducing the second season fee to $345, the third season fee to $230, and then the family cap would be $1,552.50.
And implementing that fee would result in about a $43,455 increase to our user fee collections.
Next slide, please.
For regular yellow bus transportation.
So Mass General Law mandates that we provide students in grades K to six who live outside of two mile radius of the school, free transportation.
It also mandates that all students grades K to 12 who qualify for free and reduced lunch also be provided with transportation at no cost.
District
did go out to bid for a new bus contract.
This is the first year of the contract with Conley, so that was effective July 1st, 2024.
It is for 14 buses.
There are three tiers of bus routes that we have, elementary, middle, and high school.
There is a 20% increase over three years.
That approximates to $652,680 throughout the life of the contract.
This does not include the late bus that we have that runs several days a week.
And the total contract cost is $3,885,840.
Next slide.
So ridership for the 24-25 school year, 870 students paid.
88 students qualified for free transportation, and students living over two miles was 577 students.
And for the 23-24 school year, paid was slightly higher with 912 students.
Our free riders was 138, and our students living over two miles was 566.
Our transportation fees, pay and ride is $600 per student.
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 for students who may not qualify for free ridership, and that's $5,000.
The fee covers an offset of the transportation costs as well as a portion of the transportation coordinator's salary.
So for fiscal 23, the operating budget supported $652,492.
The revolving account took in slightly less than $498,000.
In fiscal 24, the operating budget supported $671,000 and took in $529,000 in fees.
For this year, we budgeted $692,200 and expect to bring in $522,198 in fees.
So the fee recommendation, again, would be a 15% increase from $600 to $690.
And doing so would bring in close to an additional $80,000, $79,373.85
was what I calculated.
Next slide, please.
And then with early childhood, the fee history in fiscal 21, the school committee voted an annual automatic 1% increase to the early childhood center fee.
In fiscal for the 2024-25 school year last spring, the school committee did approve a 5% fee increase.
And that was to support a 6 to 9 IEP student community peer ratio, provide 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 in Sharon, that are located in Sharon.
Many of them cost between $12,000 and $26,000 for a five-day program and less than what the districts offer in terms of the number of hours per day that the student is going to preschool.
Next slide, please.
So right now, the five half day program costs $4,524.
Five full days is $9,873 for the year for our peer models.
We do have reduced tuition for families who qualify via the free and reduced lunch program.
And that's offered for the half day program only.
If there is a special education student who qualifies for half day for their IEP service delivery, but the family opts for a full day, then the student does enroll the student in the half day model.
The fee does subsidize salaries for the children's center students.
staff as well as the early childhood director and the front office administrative assistant.
It's also used to purchase general supplies and materials for the classrooms.
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 have very strict guidelines.
for funding sources.
So we are very careful with what salaries we pay for out of the ECC tuition as well as what expenses.
And then the operating fund budget along with the early childhood grant 262 supports the remainder of the cost of the early childhood center.
Next slide, please.
For the fiscal 23 school year, the operating budget 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 one million two hundred and seventy seven thousand four hundred and forty three dollars and we are expecting to take in three hundred twenty four thousand nine hundred and four dollars in tuition um next slide please i am recommending a nine percent increase um moving the um
half day to $4,931 and the five full days to $10,762.
This is still considerably less than what private preschools are charging with a longer school day and a more robust programming.
Next slide, please.
It's also important to note that early childhood is consistently running a waiting list for peer model spots.
So that also has been a consideration in looking at their fees.
We also discussed last year during the budget process of implementing new fees at the high school and middle school for clubs and activities.
So we are proposing the introduction of these fees for all clubs and activities at the high school and middle school.
Next slide, please.
So currently, for fiscal 23, the operating budget supported $197,181 for middle school and high school clubs and activities.
In fiscal 24, it was $214,697.
And then this year, we are expecting it to be about $208,641.
Next slide, please.
So when we talked about this last year, Ms.
Keenan had come up with tiers for clubs and activities.
So tier one would be, an example would be drama and music, and the recommended fee for that would be $100, just due to the costs associated with productions as well as with music.
Tier two would be a program similar to Chesser, the yearbook, and that would be $50.
And then tier three would be clubs and activities,
comparable to like student council in the national honor society those would have no cost associated with them and we are anticipating that we would bring in about 25 000 if we implemented this for fiscal 26. and we're actually going to go back one slide
We're gonna hold off on kindergarten until Monday.
And then, so if there are questions or clarification, please send me an email and I'll get you the information as soon as I can.
All right.
Thank you, Ellen.
Is that satisfactory for everybody?
Everybody good with that?
Great.
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 proposals.
No, that's not what we're doing.
These are the same proposals that you saw on February 5th.
These are the...
what we consider more mundane fixes to policies, updates to mask model policies, things of that nature.
And I am working with our superintendent and potentially with council to make some adjustments, incorporate the good feedback we got from school committee members and the public about policy JIH, and hopefully sometime in the future, bring that back.
for consideration in a version that everyone is comfortable with.
But that is not under consideration today.
So potentially, if everybody agrees, we could do a batch vote of these policies, and then they would be done.
We wouldn't have to see them again.
Is that amenable to everyone?
Yes.
Okay.
Hearing no objection.
Okay.
All right.
Then is everybody...
Okay.
So I'll accept a motion to accept the batch of these policies to approve them.
Is that, I don't think I said that wrong, but.
If that's sufficient, so moved.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay, great.
Avi.
Are you going to wait for a second?
Oh, there was a second.
Shauna.
Oh, sorry.
I didn't hear.
Okay.
I'm yes.
Okay.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Shana?
Yes.
Adam?
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 decision items.
So I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes of February 5th.
So moved.
Second.
Second.
Great.
Avi?
Yes.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Shauna?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
And I'm a yes.
I will accept a motion to approve the minutes of February 12th.
So moved.
Second.
Thank you.
Avi?
Yes.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Shauna?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
And I am a yes.
I will accept a motion to approve the overnight out-of-state field trip for the High School Speech and Debate National Tournament in June at the University of Iowa.
So moved.
That's cool.
Okay.
Avi?
Yes.
Jeremy?
Yes.
Alan?
Yes.
Shawna?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
And I am a yes.
Are there any announcements and updates?
Okay.
I see a community member.
Does anyone from the committee have an announcement or update?
Okay.
Only what Dr. Metello shared earlier.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
Judy, you can go ahead.
Thanks.
So I just wanted to give maybe a good ending to the meeting tonight.
I wanted 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 won Div 2 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.
Also, Josie Brown-Wright, who competes in the boys 300 meter, also qualified for regionals last weekend.
And he's already qualified for nationals.
So we have five kids going to nationals, five kids going to regionals.
It's really, really exciting.
It's awesome.
Thank you so much, Judy Crosby.
I'm going to provide some theater updates.
The Sharon High School Theater Company production of Little Women.
It was mentioned earlier that there's a free showing tomorrow night at 7 at the high school there on Saturday.
It is 3 p.m.
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 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 p.m.
today,
the theater was closed to sold out for Friday, March 14th.
So I strongly encourage everyone to go buy the remaining tickets now.
Thanks.
Okay.
Thank you.
That is a great way to end the evening.
And I will accept a motion to adjourn.
Second.
Avi.
Yes.
Jeremy.
Yes.
Alan.
Alan.
Oh, okay.
I saw him say yes.
Shauna?
Yes.
Adam?
Yes.
Dan?
Yes.
And I'm a yes.
Good night.
And thank you very much, everybody.
Thank you.
- School Committee
- Budget
- Transparency
- DEI
- Staffing
- FY26
- Sharon Public Schools
- Special Education
- Class Sizes