Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Title Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EdTech says she was blindsided as board reallocates Title funds to create literacy teacher
Summary
An EdTech 3 told the MSAD 11 board she learned weeks after budget discussions that her position would be reclassified; the board voted to shift federal Title funding to create a literacy teacher at Laura E. Richards School, a change administrators said targets interventions where student‑achievement data and funding rules indicate the greatest need.
Paige Dennison, an EdTech 3 in the district’s pre‑K program at Lyerly, told the MSAD 11 school board during public comment that she felt “blindsided” when her job title and duties were discussed at recent board and finance committee meetings. "It feels as though my dedication in the district isn't valued or considered," Dennison said, describing 12 years in the role and saying the reassignment would both reduce wages and move her out of her certified early‑childhood area.
Superintendent Katie Gould told the board that curriculum and finance staff reviewed the district’s Title I, II, IV and V funding at a May 5 curriculum committee meeting and recommended reallocating Title resources to better target literacy interventions. Under the recommendation, staffing at Laura E. Richards School (L E R) would shift from two EdTech 3 positions to one literacy teacher funded by Title I so the school could provide certified instruction in literacy where student achievement and funding‑need calculations show greater need. Gould said the estimated incremental cost was modest in the short term and that hiring could come in under high‑end salary estimates.
Board members discussed the tradeoffs and the constraints of federal Title rules and rank‑and‑distribution calculations that determine where federal dollars can be spent. Andrea Dish, the district business manager, confirmed staff used conservative high‑end salary and benefits estimates when modeling the change and said the district would monitor hiring costs; if a hire came in below budget staff would return to the board to consider additional allocations.
A motion to implement the staffing reallocation as recommended was moved and seconded and carried by voice vote. The board recorded no roll‑call tally in the meeting minutes; administrators described the action as a federally permitted reallocation within Title program rules and said they would continue to monitor funds and return to the board if revised staffing costs created additional flexibility.
Dennison’s comment underscored the personnel impacts of that budget choice: she asked the board to consider better advance notice and more direct employee communication before public meetings where staffing changes are discussed. "It made my stomach sink thinking that no one had the decency to even give a heads‑up that this was coming," she said. Superintendent Gould responded in the later Title funding discussion that federal funding rules and the timing of committee deliberations can create communications challenges and invited employees with concerns to follow up with administrators to review specifics and any available options.
What happens next: staff said they will proceed with the hiring process under the approved staffing model, monitor actual salary offers against the conservative estimates used in planning, and return to the board in June if there is funding flexibility that would allow additional positions or adjustments.
