Pawtucket school leaders defend moving some 12‑month central‑office educators to 10‑month schedules amid $7.4M deficit

Superintendent Buck told the Pawtucket School Committee on April 28 that a review of central‑office, non‑classroom educator roles resulted in a decision to restructure a limited number of 12‑month positions into 10‑month calendars as part of measures to close a projected $7.4 million deficit.

The superintendent said the change “is about how the work is structured and how we align that work responsibility within our financial reality,” and emphasized that the district is not eliminating the work itself: “we're not eliminating roles. We're adjusting the calendar and compensation structure to better align with how similar work is structured across the district.” He added that summer responsibilities would continue and be supported through hourly stipends that were included in the budget.

Committee members pressed for greater detail about how positions were selected, the amount of annual savings and the potential impact on special education services. Committee member Omar Reyes said he asked for the agenda item because he was “still confused as to how those decisions were made,” noting that in other workplaces a shift from 12 to 10 months typically occurs when a position is vacant. Committee member Kimberly Grant urged better communication and said staff deserved “more respect” in how changes were rolled out.

The superintendent said the leadership team’s review focused on central‑office functions such as coordination, outreach and compliance and was guided by comparisons across the district and consultation with financial partners. He told the committee that the district had reported roughly $300,000 in savings from the calendar changes as communicated to the committee; he also noted that including a retiree who was already operating on a 10‑month schedule would raise that figure above $300,000.

Several members raised concern that converting positions would harm students who rely on special education supports and extended‑school‑year (ESY) services. “Cutting 40 teachers in a district that already has pretty big classroom sizes is a huge thing that we're doing,” one committee member said, urging the district to seek alternatives including asking the city for additional funds or exploring leadership concessions.

The superintendent and other administrators warned that while some grant funds (for example Title funds) can be realigned to support student‑facing positions, federal rules limit how funds may be mixed; they also said that shifting costs to other student‑facing budgets could risk instructional services. Administration committed to providing the committee with additional documentation about the positions affected and the funding breakdowns and to continuing conversations with the union and staffing partners.

The committee did not take a final vote on layoffs or eliminations during the meeting; the actions on calendar changes to certain positions were presented as part of the budget‑balancing plan. Members requested a roster (job titles and months of service, not individual names) of central‑office positions earning more than $100,000, and the superintendent agreed to provide that report to the committee by the end of the week.

What happens next: administrators said the district will continue to refine budget figures, communicate with affected employees about stipends and summer coverage, and work with the committee and the city on broader budget options. The committee signaled it may pursue a resolution or request additional city funding before final decisions affecting staff are implemented.