 |
 |
Dr. David Hopson |
||||||||||||
April 16, 2007 In response to the towns’ requests, the school committee reduced the overall town assessments by $347,868. This was done by a combination of reducing expenditures and showing increased revenues (both actual and anticipated). In reducing expenditures, they eliminated restoring full-year contracts for secretaries, took out the requested technology/engineering teacher in the high school, reduced middle school professional development and textbook accounts, eliminated the requested increase in student supply accounts, reduced the technology budget, and eliminated one custodial position. This budget is essentially a level-service budget, providing a level of services next year that is similar to those we currently have. In the event that this revised budget (Version 2.0, voted April 11th) is also not acceptable, the school committee reviewed other potential steps to decrease town assessments further. To do this, the committee compared differences between Version 1.1, Version 2.0 and other alternatives. After much discussion and many questions, it was evident that to provide any additional significant reductions in town assessments would require consolidating our five elementary schools into two, because any other reductions to equal that amount of savings would cause a tremendous loss of educational services to students from pre-schoolers to high school seniors. One significant problem in looking at further cuts to the budget—by either consolidating schools or making other reductions—is that these cuts make the district less palatable to students and parents, which increases school choice out of the district. Thus, we have to anticipate and factor in an increase in school choice as we determine a net savings to the district. In consolidating schools (Version 3.0 on the district website) we’ve estimated that half the savings would be lost due to school choice. In reducing other services in order to decrease assessments to the towns, but keep five elementary schools, we estimate school choice losses to be even higher. The comparison chart used by the school committee is available, along with all other budget information, on the district’s website (www.grsd.org). In the end, the net savings of either additional set of reductions (Version 3.0 or “other”) equals just less than $300,000. A complicating factor is the fiscal impact of the timeline for having towns ratify the district’s budget. According to state law, the district must have a ratified budget in place by July 1st or go to a 1/12th budget based upon the prior year’s budget. For Gateway this would result in a fiscal emergency requiring an immediate closing of three elementary schools and laying off additional staff in order to reduce the current year’s expenditures by approximately $1 million. If a ratified budget were not in place by December 1st, the fiscal control of the district would revert to the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Education. Tied to this is the requirement that we notify staff of their potential lay-off by June 1st. Any staff laid off at this time, and not ‘rehired’ by July 1st can then start collecting unemployment, even if we adopt a budget on July 1st that restores their positions. Its easy to see that not having a ratified budget in place by July 1st causes many problems and decreases our ability to use money for student services by requiring that additional amounts be paid for unemployment compensation. The situation can thus be easily summarized. We are presenting Version 2.0 of the budget to the towns. To reduce town assessments any further, the school district has the ability to consolidate all elementary students into Littleville and Chester Elementary schools. This has traditionally been strongly opposed by community members but would not negatively impact educational services to students, although it would affect the towns that currently have these schools. Any other significant cuts would negatively impact students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels and cause a drastic and negative impact on student services. As reported regularly, the problem isn’t with the school’s budget (which has only increased an average of 2.6% over the last five years) but with the state’s support of the district through Chapter 70 and regional school transportation reimbursement. As we move through the town approval process, I would ask that you keep the alternatives in mind, take some time to review the more in-depth budget information found on our website, and then participate in your local annual town meeting. ### |
||||||||||||