Randolph County school leaders lay out options to close $2M‑plus budget gap, including staff reductions
Loading...
Summary
Superintendent (Speaker 1) presented an early package of options to address a projected $2M–$2.5M shortfall for 2026–27, including cuts or sharing of lead teachers, student advocates and assistant‑principal months, and flagged an enrollment-based loss of 337 students that will reduce allotments next year.
Speaker 1 opened the session by telling the board staff had prepared a list of “options and ideas” to respond to a funding shortfall heading into the 2026–27 school year and said the district has already implemented earlier reductions. “As of today … we’ve already reduced our budget by $4,015,000,” Speaker 1 said, framing the list as possible next steps rather than final recommendations.
The presentation identified several discrete personnel and program line items that together could materially reduce spending. The largest single possibilities discussed were 17 reading‑specialist positions (Speaker 1 estimated roughly $1.3 million in salary/benefits if eliminated) and 13 lead‑teacher positions in middle and high schools (Speaker 1 said eliminating all 13 would save about $1,040,000; cutting half those positions was presented as an alternative). Speaker 1 stressed that lead teachers in Title‑I elementary schools are funded by federal Title‑I money, so removing those positions would not produce the same countywide savings.
Board members pressed definitions and distributions. Speaker 1 outlined how state allotment formulas underfund the district’s current staffing—he said the state funds far fewer assistant‑principal months than the district currently pays for—and offered examples of how many months the state formula covers at larger schools. He noted the district currently funds roughly 30.5 AP months while state allotments would cover about 15.5 months, creating a local funding gap that the board already covers with flexible local dollars.
Speaker 1 also warned that state enrollment accounting will further reduce funding: the district’s Day‑40 lock will produce an allotment for 2026–27 based on 337 fewer students, which Speaker 1 said will translate into a loss of roughly 14 regular teacher positions and additional reductions in counselors, nurses and instructional‑support allotments. He described the district’s preference to use displacement and vacancies to absorb those reductions and avoid immediate layoffs where possible.
Board members and staff discussed tradeoffs: preserving K–3 class size targets, the instructional value of reading specialists, and the benefits and risks of sharing positions between feeder schools. Speaker 1 recommended a series of follow‑ups—detailed cost scenarios, neighborhood‑level enrollment projections and extra work sessions—before the board makes any formal decisions.
The board did not take a formal vote. Speaker 1 said staff would begin assembling more precise, school‑level options and that the district will follow its displacement and vacancy process during the March staffing cycle if reductions are needed.
