Kenosha district cites roughly $22 million shortfall after failed referendum; staff, teachers and community press board to protect classrooms

Superintendent Jeffrey Weiss told the Kenosha Unified School District board on March 20 that the failure of a recent referendum has created “difficult budget decisions” for the coming school year and left the district facing a projected shortfall of about $22.4 million for 2025–26.

That deficit reflects a scenario administration presented that counts planned projects and security upgrades the referendum would have funded; with the ballot measure defeated, administrators are reclassifying or zeroing out items that had been counted in the ask. “We only had 3 and a half million dollars of revenue identified,” the district’s budget presenter, Mr. Hamden, said during the board’s budget update, adding that the district would still need to find about $4.4 million in reductions after removing referendum-funded items.

The funding gap has put a range of district proposals on the table: delaying or reducing a technology “refresh,” cutting or restructuring some nonclassroom and centrally funded positions through attrition, pausing nonessential facility projects and reconsidering curricular material purchases. Administration’s recommended short-term reductions include restoring only $500,000 of an originally proposed $2 million curriculum request and leaving staff compensation at $0 in the proposed scenario unless alternative revenue is found.

Why it matters: The shortfall threatens programs and staffing that teachers say are central to classroom instruction and student supports. At least a dozen teachers, union leaders and community members used the public‑comment portion of the meeting to urge the board to protect direct student services.

In public comment, teachers described the practical effects of the cuts under consideration. “Without a stable wage structure, highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals are forced to look to other districts,” said Amy Goldsmith, a teacher at Bradford High School. Rebecca Arnold, an instructional technology teacher, warned that eliminating instructional-technology teacher (ITT) positions and other specialists would leave staff without the expertise to implement district technology and professional development. “Who will become the expert on instructional programs used in classrooms?” Arnold asked.

Union leaders also urged different priorities. Catherine Andresiak Montemaro, identified as KEA president and a KUSD teacher, called for “strategic reductions” that keep cuts “as far away from the classroom as possible” and urged administrative pay freezes and nonclassroom reductions rather than classroom losses.

Administration and several public speakers urged caution about using reserve funds to cover ongoing operating costs. Mr. Hamden explained that fund balance is not identical to cash on hand and noted the district’s cash‑flow needs related to timing of state aids and federal grant reimbursements. He said some unassigned fund balance is used to manage cash flow and that spending reserves for recurring operations risks future short‑term borrowing and loss of investment income. “Fund balance does not equal cash,” he said.

Special education funding was also a focal point. Superintendent Weiss and others described ongoing advocacy at the state level to raise the special education reimbursement rate from the roughly 30–33% currently reflected in state budgets toward 60%; Weiss said such a change would be “a game changer” for KUSD and estimated roughly $13–14 million of additional revenue for the district if the state moved to 60% reimbursement.

Board members and administration stressed that the current presentation was informational and that no final decisions had been made. Several trustees acknowledged the emotional tenor of public comment and said the board would consider options that balance short‑term mitigation with long‑term fiscal stability. Trustee Bob Tierney later apologized for remarks about coaches that had upset some teachers and reiterated that the board does not directly cut staff lines—administration implements staffing changes.

The district’s list of possible adjustments under review includes: increasing class sizes where policy allows, restoring some staff to classrooms from nonclassroom roles as vacancies occur, reducing some support staffing, reviewing user fees for co‑curricular activities and exploring replacement or reduction of certain testing subscriptions. Administration provided an estimate that eliminating all district‑funded instructional coaches would save several million dollars, but public commenters argued such a cut would harm student outcomes and equity.

The board did not vote on any of the budget choices at the meeting; trustees were presented with the scenarios and were directed to continue review and public engagement as administration returns with formal recommendations.

Ending: The board set follow‑up work and pledged more detailed budget materials for the April meeting; meanwhile administrators said they would continue advocacy with the Joint Finance Committee and the governor’s office on state funding changes that could reduce the district’s gap.