Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wauwatosa board reviews staffing alternatives, delays vote to next week
Summary
Board members reviewed four staffing models that trade off curriculum coaches, intervention teachers and social-emotional staff; administrators recommended a plan that would reconfigure student-facing supports and increase psychologists/social workers while preserving intervention capacity; no vote tonight.
Wauwatosa — The Wauwatosa School District Board spent more than two hours on April 21 reviewing alternative staffing plans to address multi-year budget reductions, but took no formal vote and directed district staff to return a revised recommendation for the board to decide at its next meeting.
Dr. Means, who opened the staffing presentation, told the board that People & Family Supports currently includes "52.5 FTEs" and that the district must reduce positions over the next several years while trying to "sustain the positive momentum" in student supports. He emphasized that some specialist roles were initially funded with temporary ESSER dollars and "were not supposed to be sustained over a long period of time." (Dr. Means)
The administration presented four alternative models that change the balance between curriculum-and-instruction (CNI) specialists (coaches) and academic intervention teachers. Example counts shared with the board included: Model A — 12 CNI specialists and 14 intervention teachers; Model B — 10 CNI specialists and 15 intervention teachers with a second district behavioral specialist; Model C — 11 CNI specialists and 14 intervention teachers; and Model D — deeper cuts (examples shown: 10 CNI and 14 intervention teachers plus reductions to educational assistant staffing) intended to free FTE to negotiate with the teachers’ association.
Administrators said the trade-offs are practical and pedagogical. They argued that more targeted coaching—"push-in" instructional support embedded in English 9 and 10 and focused implementation of an integrated math sequence—could improve outcomes for groups of students, while intervention teachers remain critical to meeting K–3 reading obligations under state law.
Parent Carrie Sykes, who identified herself as having children at Eisenhower and Whitman, urged officials to preserve at least the social-emotional staff at Eisenhower because of the relationships and measurable improvements she associated with that role. Sykes cited district material presented in February that "there were 100 incidents in his class alone in Eisenhower" during a prior period and said that particular school saw improvements after a site-based specialist worked there. (Carrie Sykes)
Board discussion covered many specific points: how to distribute coaches across 13 buildings, whether a pull-out intervention model suits high school students, and how to maintain relationship continuity as staff roles change. One board member asked whether the district could create a "bridge year" and retain two of five SEAL (social-emotional) specialists while new behavioral specialists and school psychologists/social workers ramp up. Jason (staff/board member), who proposed the phased approach, said retaining two SEAL specialists for a year would provide a "runway" and allow knowledge transfer while the new structure forms. (Jason)
District staff also provided operational counts and constraints: the district reported 22 regular education assistants and 67 special education assistants currently; Title I funding priorities affect placement; and any reductions in accounts-payable or payroll positions would force slower cycles for routine financial transactions. Staff cautioned that technical and support functions (IT, payroll, benefits) are already lean and that cutting them would degrade service levels.
Administrators said the plan increases psychologists and social workers in order to provide more consistent, full-time presence in schools rather than the fractional coverage that has been common. Staff described moving some expertise (for example, SEAL-related work) into school psychologists and mental-health specialists so buildings retain boots-on-the-ground support; they said they expect to hire for about two positions, but many vacating SEAL staff have landing options elsewhere in the district.
On student-impact data, Brenda Jones, elementary literacy coordinator, told the board that roughly "9%" of SK–8 students currently work with an academic intervention teacher, down from about 14% in prior years — a change the administration said reflects progress in early-grade reading services.
Board members expressed differing priorities: some urged preserving coaches at the elementary and secondary level to sustain curriculum work, others argued for more intervention teachers or for retaining SEAL specialists in the short term to preserve relationships. After wide-ranging discussion the board signaled support for a midline compromise (discussed as roughly 12 CNI specialists and 13 academic intervention teachers) and asked staff to bring a revised staffing recommendation and supporting placement plan for a vote at the board’s next meeting. No staffing motion or vote occurred at the April 21 meeting; the board adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
The meeting included one formal board motion before adjournment: a motion to adjourn that passed by roll-call vote. The public comment period, multiple technical staffing questions (including counts of educational assistants and IT staff), and legal reminders about Wisconsin open meeting law filled the remainder of the agenda.
