Richfield leaders warn cuts to compensatory and early‑intervention supports would gut services for students in poverty

Richfield Public School District officials told state legislators at a Feb. 2 study session that looming state budget and policy decisions could sharply reduce supports for students living in poverty and those needing early academic intervention.

"As you know, in regard to compensatory revenue, when we went to universal free meals, Richfield had at risk $1,900,000," Superintendent Yudnowsky said, warning that without an extension of the current 'hold harmless' provision the district could face about $2,000,000 in reductions. He said compensatory dollars pay for reduced class sizes, counselors, paraprofessionals and roughly 20 staff positions tied to those programs.

Yudnowsky also flagged proposals under consideration by the governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force, which he said is charged with identifying about $250,000,000 in statewide savings. "Right now we have 11.3 positions funded by ADDSIS," he said, referring to intervention staff who keep students out of special education. "If those supports disappear, that is most of our reading and math intervention at elementary and much of our social‑emotional intervention at high school."

Board members and district staff framed two possible approaches legislators might take: spread reductions across all districts (an "across the board" cut) or eliminate specific programs (a "portion‑out" method). Yudnowsky said the district would press for an even distribution of any cuts so that Richfield would not disproportionately lose targeted intervention funding.

District leaders also raised related policy priorities on the platform they asked legislators to back: protecting immigrant and refugee families from measures that would expose private data, reducing paperwork mandates in special education, and preserving districts’ ability to select and retain self‑insured employee benefit plans. On insurance, Yudnowsky said Richfield’s self‑insured model has kept employee costs lower than statewide alternatives and asked lawmakers not to remove local control.

On paperwork, the district committed to provide sample statutory language and follow up on bills that could reduce special‑education administrative burdens. "There have been a number of bills to try, but trying to figure out the wording…we'll make some suggestions," he said.

Legislators in attendance — including Representative Howard and Senator Woodland — acknowledged the risks and asked the district for data and narratives to back state action. Representative Howard said lawmakers might consider directing resources for mental‑health supports and targeted funding to address emergent needs tied to recent local events. Senator Woodland noted larger fiscal pressures the state faces and said she will check back as session progresses.

No formal votes or policy changes occurred at the meeting. District leaders said they will supply elected officials with reports on current ESSER/COVID‑era spending, the staffing those funds supported, and data showing which programs drove student recovery after the pandemic. Those materials are intended to inform potential hold‑harmless language and any proposals to shield ADDSIS‑type supports from cuts.

The district asked for legislative support on multiple fronts but emphasized limited fiscal space across state government. The study session concluded with a request for continued communication between district staff, board members and legislators as the session advances.

The officials who spoke are listed in the meeting record and are available for follow‑up; the district said it will provide the requested ESSER expenditure reports and staffing lists to legislators.