Board debates operating budget: Central Middle School staffing, redistricting and start-time tradeoffs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a board retreat focused on next year—s operating budget, staff presented class-size data showing Central Middle School—s average class sizes below other middle schools, prompting debate about proposed FTE reductions, open-enrollment and possible redistricting; start-time and transportation costs (including a $2.5M non-lapsing transportation figure) were discussed as key budget drivers.
The Board of Education held an extended discussion of the proposed operating budget and its implications for Central Middle School (CMS), transportation and district staffing.
District staff presented charts showing CMS sixth-grade averages near 12 students per class compared with higher averages at other middle schools. Staff said that, on current projections, Central would need roughly 64 additional students across grades 6 and 7 to reach parity with the other middle schools. The presentation included a numerical example and a projection that reaching the same average could require adding roughly 32 students per grade.
Board members discussed several options: (1) full redistricting (not recommended between now and September because it is a year-long effort), (2) targeted open enrollment or magnet strategies to entice additional students, and (3) staffing adjustments. The superintendent and budget staff said open enrollment is operationally feasible but warned it is typically implemented across the district and that transportation would likely be the families— responsibility if they opt into a different school.
On staffing, the proposed budget would reduce FTEs at CMS (discussed figures included roughly a 4 FTE reduction at the school). Several board members urged caution about scheduling disruptions and operational fragility at small staff levels; one member suggested adding back 2 FTEs if the board prefers to remain under the stated guideline, while others said adding back positions would require offsets elsewhere or approaching the BET for additional funding.
Board members also reviewed the broader operating picture: staff said a $2.5 million nonlapsed transportation item from the current year reduces the presented year-to-year percentage increase (the superintendent and finance staff explained the budget looks like a 3.13% year-to-year increase when that nonlapsed amount is used as the starting point; otherwise the comparator would be ~4.4%). The superintendent warned reverting last year—s start-time changes would be expensive (staff estimated roughly $2.9 million).
Members debated tradeoffs across high school, middle school and elementary staffing and asked for schedule and enrollment contingency plans. The finance team said interims and supplemental appropriations could be used later in the year if enrollment or special education needs change.
Ending: The board agreed to continue the budget conversation and scheduled votes for next week on the operating budget and a separate food-service budget item; no final operating budget vote occurred at the retreat.