Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and staff urge Marlboro Township School District board to rethink coach and special‑services cuts amid tentative budget
Summary
At a public meeting, parents and an instructional coach asked the Marlboro Township School District Board of Education to reconsider staffing reductions tied to the district's tentative budget, raising concerns about impacts on RTI, social‑emotional supports and special education services.
Parents and staff addressed the Marlboro Township School District Board of Education during the public‑comment period to urge the board to reconsider cuts to instructional coaches and special‑services staffing tied to the district’s tentative budget.
A resident who identified themselves as Barabono of Nashua Drive said the district should prepare alternative plans earlier in the budget process and pointed to a recent successful school referendum in North Brunswick as a local example of a campaign that used outreach and a website to pass. Barabono said the North Brunswick vote had “no tax increase” and focused on facilities and HVAC work.
An instructional coach described being “blindsided” by staffing changes and detailed her daily work across multiple schools, saying she travels “with the cart, school to school, with all my materials” and often does not have a classroom or prep time. The coach said the reductions will harm Response to Intervention (RTI) supports and students who need more intensive interventions: “There’s so much more to this … I’m begging you to go back to the drawing board.”
Another commenter summarized state‑level fiscal concerns, citing reporting that New Jersey Governor Murphy’s budget relies on nearly $2,000,000,000 in nonrecurring, “one‑shot” revenue sources and that roughly 3% of the state’s approximately $58,000,000,000 budget for the upcoming fiscal year could be backed by such sources. The commenter framed that as context for local budget planning and said a district referendum could be one way to seek additional local funding.
Speakers repeatedly emphasized the potential effect of cuts on students’ social‑emotional development and on continuity of services when coaches and aides are reduced or reallocated. A parent who previously received coaching services described concerns about students’ opportunities for peer modeling and consistent supports across grade levels.
Board chair and members moved to close public comments and later voted to enter executive session; board members stated they would not return to public session for more action that night. The public record in the transcript shows a second for the motion to enter executive session by “Miss Dandy” and the meeting then proceeded into executive session with no further public votes or actions recorded.
The speakers who addressed the board framed their remarks as requests for the board to revisit staffing decisions and to consider redistricting or other alternatives that might preserve supports for students with learning challenges. Several speakers asked the board to explore communication and outreach strategies if a referendum is pursued and to consider the timing of budget decisions so alternatives can be developed before the last moment.
The board did not take further public action after moving into executive session. The transcript does not show any board vote to adopt or amend the tentative budget during the public meeting segment provided.
