At a joint meeting of the Marblehead School Committee budget subcommittee and the Marblehead Finance Committee school-liaison subcommittee, staff reviewed a draft FY27 staffing-and-salary budget and discussed a recent enrollment drop the public described as 216 students, or roughly 8 percent since June.

The decline was raised in public comment by resident Sarah Fox, who said: “On June enrollment... our enrollment was 2,727. Today's enrollment was 2,511. In less than 6 months, that's a 216 student decline, which, is 8 percent.” The remark set the tone for much of the subcommittee’s discussion about where wage, special-education and program costs could be adjusted if enrollment trends hold.

Why it matters: enrollment and per-pupil staffing levels drive recurring salary costs and therefore the district’s ability to present a balanced FY27 budget to the town. Subcommittee members repeatedly pressed staff for clearer linkages between enrollment changes, classroom staffing and the salary lines that will be part of the town budget presentation early next year.

District staff member Mike walked committee members through a line-item spreadsheet that groups salary and operating costs by department — schools, athletics, student services, teaching and learning, finance and HR, technology and facilities. Staff said student services (which includes special education and some transportation) is budgeted at roughly $2,700,000 and that the district budgets some summer special-education salaries from IDEA grant funds.

Committee discussion focused on where the budget can be varied without harming services: members asked how instructional coaches differ from lead teachers (staff said the budget includes four instructional coaches with a current cost estimate of about $405,000), whether counseling or adjustment-counselor positions are correctly classified for state reporting, and how much of transportation should be coded to special education versus general education.

Special education accounted for much of the budget concern. One member estimated the lower-end share of total salary costs attributable to special education at about 25 percent once certain transportation lines were removed; staff and other members cautioned that intensity of services (hours per IEP, out-of-district tuition placements) drives variability and that reducing tuition placements requires time and program development.

On next steps, staff and committee members agreed to meet with building principals to identify critical positions and to return with analyses before the holiday break. The subcommittee was given a calendar outlining a school-committee presentation in early February, a public hearing tentatively set for Feb. 26 (with March 5 as an alternate date), and later FinCom and warrant-hearing dates.

The meeting closed with a short procedural vote to approve prior meeting minutes; the committee adjourned at 3:56 p.m.

The subcommittee’s immediate work is to translate the spreadsheet into a wages-and-positions plan that shows (a) where head-count or duties could be adjusted if enrollment declines continue and (b) which changes would require multi-year program development rather than one-time savings.