Gresham-Barlow SD 10J budget approved despite community pleas to save elementary music

The Gresham-Barlow SD 10J budget committee on May 20 approved the district—udget proposed for fiscal 2026-27, setting fund-level maximums and levy notifications for the board while rejecting several committee amendments to reallocate technology transfers toward instruction.

The vote followed more than an hour of public testimony in which students, parents and teachers implored the committee to preserve music education. "If the proposed budget is passed as it stands today, Emily will not be able to continue her career alongside the students that love her," said Ethan Carter, a senior and Gresham High School band member, referring to his band director (named in testimony by speakers). Several speakers said the proposal would eliminate roughly 9.5 elementary music teacher positions, saving about $1.3 million, and urged half-time alternatives or other tradeoffs.

Superintendent Flannery opened the meeting by describing the scale of the district—hallenge and explaining why the reductions were proposed. She told the committee the district faces a multi-year funding gap tied to long-term underfunding, rising PERS obligations and growth in costs for students with special needs. "We don't have the same options as we had in 2008," Flannery said, adding that about 80% of district spending is personnel and that failing to adopt a budget by June 30 could freeze the district's ability to spend.

Administrators presented the fiscal tradeoffs that drove the plan: protecting high-need student services and safety, preserving special-education and counseling roles where possible, and proposing a performing-arts specialist plus five educational assistants to replace some elementary direct-music FTE. Staff said restoring half-time elementary music across the district would require four additional licensed FTE and remove reserves the district expects to use to manage fall enrollment "bubbles." The district also described a plan to use PERS-liability reserves (about $6 million) over the next two years to smooth the impact of reductions.

Several parents and teachers offered specific proposals. Michelle Barrier, a parent, urged a compromise: reduce elementary music teachers to half-time to retain approximately 4.75 licensed FTE for about $650,000 rather than eliminate direct instruction. Students stressed music's role in attendance and mental health; Alan Bobbitt, a junior in choir, said music had been "the thing that saved my life." Others warned that cutting elementary music would have downstream effects on middle- and high-school ensembles and equity in access.

During committee deliberations members proposed amendments to shift approximately $920,000 from planned technology transfers to instruction to preserve positions; administrators warned that deferring technology replacements could raise future costs and undermine a multi-year replacement plan. Committee members also asked staff to clarify class-size projections; staff showed scenarios that adding music FTE without offsets would increase the number of classes with 29 nd 31+ students and would leave few reserves to respond to enrollment changes.

After extended discussion and failed amendments, the committee voted on the proposed budget motion. The chair recorded the vote as unanimous (nine "I" votes). The committee approved the fund-level totals and tax-levy notifications that will go to the board; the board will hold the official budget hearing and adopt the budget in June.

What happens next: the budget committee's approval sets maximum expenditures at the fund level and not detailed line items. Committee members and the public asked district leaders to return with additional context on ending fund balances, multi-year projections and how any restored dollars would be allocated across instruction and student supports. The board will consider the committee's recommendation at its June hearing, where members can still recommend function-level reallocations prior to adoption.

Direct quotes above are taken from public testimony and district presentations during the May 20 budget committee meeting. The committee's action was recorded as approving the proposed budget; staff provided class-size and multi-year funding slides and noted the consequences of both cutting and delaying technology and other long-range maintenance.