Litchfield board weighs class‑size increases and staffing cuts to close $3.5–4.5M gap
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board members debated two class‑size options and other staffing changes to close a projected $3.5–4.5 million budget shortfall, with tradeoffs between larger classes, fewer certified support positions and preserving intervention services. No final decision was reached; the board agreed to continue talks next week.
The Litchfield Elementary School District Governing Board spent more than three hours Feb. 10 weighing how to close an estimated $3.5 million to $4.5 million budget shortfall, focusing on two proposed class‑size models and reductions to certified and classified school support staff.
Administration presented two options for general‑education class targets. Option 1 raises target class sizes by one student across grades and tightens the staffing trigger; the district estimates it would reduce the need for 17 teaching positions and save roughly $1,020,000. Option 2 raises targets more substantially and would reduce up to 27 teaching positions, with an estimated $1,620,000 in savings. CFO Vaughn said the figures combine projected staffing needs from a grade‑by‑grade, school‑by‑school staffing model and remain estimates because enrollment can fluctuate.
The board also discussed school‑level certified supports (instructional and behavior coaches, EL specialists) and classified positions. One concrete proposal would restrict full attendance clerks to campuses of 700 or more students, an administrative option estimated to save about $230,000. Reclassifying school office supervisors to salaried "office manager" roles to reduce overtime was estimated to save roughly $105,000.
Board members pressed for specificity about who would actually see larger classes under each option. "Can you tell me how many students will be in larger classrooms next year than they are this year?" asked one member; administrators said they could produce that granular report from the staffing spreadsheet used to model the options.
Several trustees urged caution about raising middle‑school class sizes because research and local experience show middle grades are where students most often struggle. Others said that, without meaningful enrollment growth, the district has few realistic levers to reach the multi‑million dollar target other than class sizes and certified support reductions. President Zaidema said she favored the larger savings in Option 2 as the "best" way to move the district closer to balance while trying to preserve core supports.
Trustees asked the administration to return with more detailed, school‑level projections and suggested exploring additional revenue‑focused measures—most notably a targeted recruitment campaign to recapture students who have left the district. CFO Vaughn advised that timely guidance is needed to maintain the district’s staffing timeline; issuing teacher contracts on March 16 may be delayed if the board does not reach consensus.
The board did not vote on a class‑size policy. Members agreed to schedule a follow‑up budget meeting next week to review more granular scenarios and narrow preferred options before staff begins implementing staffing changes.