West Hempstead superintendent warns of $2 million instructional shortfall; proposes retirement incentive, staffing review and new behavior coordinator

The West Hempstead Union Free School District Superintendent, Mr. Raymond, told the Board of Education on March 24 that the district faces an approximate $2,000,000 shortfall in the instructional budget for the 2026–27 school year and outlined several staffing and program changes being considered to close the gap.

"We are facing approximately a $2,000,000…it’s just over $2,000,000 instructional budget shortfall for the fiscal 26, 27 school year," Mr. Raymond said. He told the board the administration would prioritize decisions "against our educational mission" and would "not compromise developmentally appropriate class sizes."

Why it matters: Instruction represents about half of the district’s budget, and Mr. Raymond said the shortfall stems from several converging factors including a flatting New York State Foundation Aid trajectory, rising transportation costs, expanding special-education mandates and contractual salary obligations. The superintendent said every program and position will be reviewed for student impact and demonstrated need.

What administrators proposed: Mr. Raymond described a set of measures the district is exploring: a voluntary retirement incentive intended to produce natural vacancies and multiyear savings; use of the legal "accessing" process governed by New York State Education Law section 25 10 to reduce positions by seniority when necessary; creation of a district behavior coordinator (a K–12 administrative role to lead behavioral investigations and evidence-based supports); and a phased transition from an integrated co-teaching (ICT) model toward a consult-teacher (CT) model that emphasizes targeted pull-out small groups and specialist coaching.

"We have agreed to terms to investigate involuntary retirement incentive," Mr. Raymond said, adding the district would prefer a voluntary approach that "puts dignity first" and could yield sustained savings if retirements create openings that can be filled at lower salary steps. On the accessing process he stated: "It is not a performance evaluation. It’s a staffing reduction driven by programmatic need…Excess staff are placed on a preferred eligibility list and retain recall rights for 7 years," referencing state law that governs the process.

Special-education delivery: Mr. Raymond defended the proposed shift from ICT to a consult-teacher model by citing decades of research that, he said, supports targeted small-group instruction and specialist-led intervention. He described the CT model as a way to free specialists to serve more students through coaching, pull-out instruction aligned to IEPs and data-driven individualized interventions. He and other administrators emphasized that legally mandated services and IEP protections would continue regardless of delivery model.

Board reaction and public questions: Board members expressed mixed feelings. One member said, "I'm riddled with mixed feelings," acknowledging both appreciation for district achievements and concern for staff and students who could be affected. Other board members voiced support for the administration’s approach while asking for clearer operational details about how CT services and pull-outs would be scheduled and how many students a special-education teacher might serve in a consult role.

Budget line items and constraints: The district’s business official presented preliminary instructional-category numbers, including teaching regular school ($16,472,089) and special education ($14,165,214), and said numbers are still in flux. Officials noted transportation as a major cost driver (figures discussed in the meeting referenced roughly $13 million in transportation costs) and explained that many expense-based state aid categories reimburse prior-year expenses rather than immediately lowering the current-year levy.

Timeline and next steps: Administration said it will continue to refine numbers and share updates with the community. The superintendent and business office referenced internal and public-deadline milestones: the superintendent mentioned an internal April 14 checkpoint; the business official outlined the public hearing and vote timeline referenced in the presentation (public hearing/possible workshop and a May budget hearing and the May school budget vote). The district said it plans further community engagement before any formal staffing reductions or contract changes.

What was not decided: There were no formal votes at the March 24 session to adopt the budget, approve a retirement incentive, or change instructional models. Administrators repeatedly emphasized that a voluntary retirement incentive is under investigation and that any accessing decisions would follow state law, contractual obligations and required notice timelines.

Documents: Administrators said the presentation materials and charts would be made available online for public review.

Next procedural step: Officials said they will continue consultations with staff and stakeholders and will update the board and public as numbers are finalized leading into the district’s budget adoption process.