Ridgefield board hears superintendent’s plan to cut $1.525M; AIG position and electives among proposals

Ridgefield Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Dilva told the Board of Education on April 13 that the district must find $1,524,800 in reductions after the town’s Board of Finance lowered the board’s adopted budget to $123.8 million. The superintendent presented a mix of staffing and operational cuts and said she had worked to protect direct student services while meeting the required target.

The reductions Dr. Dilva described include proposed FY27 FTE and stipend cuts, among them elimination of the district’s current AIG teacher position, a 1.3 FTE reduction in high‑school sections (administration estimates that could remove roughly seven elective courses), a maintenance mechanic FTE, and the decision not to fill a currently open clerical para position. Dr. Dilva also outlined operational savings—deferred equipment and facility projects, reductions to professional learning and purchase services, and smaller technology and repair budgets—totaling about $810,694 that, combined with personnel changes, would meet the $1.525 million target.

“We looked at the least student impact,” Dr. Dilva said, urging the board to weigh short‑term choices against long‑term risk. She cautioned that with roughly 78% of the district budget tied to salaries and benefits, meaningful reductions often require hard trade‑offs. “This feels a little bit like Sophie’s choice,” she said, describing the emotional and programmatic consequences of the choices the administration and board face.

Board members pushed back on personnel‑first cuts and asked for alternatives that would minimize classroom impacts. Several members and public speakers argued the district should prioritize preserving teacher positions and direct student supports. “If we have to make choices, I do not want to see cuts that directly impact students and teachers,” Board member Miss Graph said, urging the board to seek non‑personnel savings where possible.

Members asked administration to rework the plan. Legal counsel and the superintendent confirmed there is no statutory obligation to adopt a revised budget before the referendum; however, the board agreed it would help the community to know the specific contents of any revised appropriation. The board unanimously approved a motion to table final action on the revised budget and directed Dr. Dilva to return with multiple scenarios—labeled A, B and C—shifting savings between personnel and non‑personnel lines for the board to consider at the next meeting.

Public commenters reiterated alternate savings ideas, including delaying or reducing the district’s one‑to‑one Chromebook refresh and consolidating administrative and operational roles across the district’s 11 sites. Emily Fernandez, a parent, asked the board to “cut out the Chromebooks,” saying she believed devices increase anxiety and are an unnecessary capital expense. Dr. Dilva and administrative staff responded that some device replacement timing is driven by end‑of‑life operating‑system support and by assessment and curriculum requirements, but said they would include technology trade‑offs in the next set of scenarios.

Dr. Dilva also explained a number of constrained choices tied to high‑school scheduling mechanics and special‑education variability—areas where fractional FTE and “points of people” (shared or part‑time assignments) make simple one‑for‑one swaps difficult without creating unintended attrition or schedule gaps.

The board’s next steps are procedural and substantive: the superintendent will return with at least three alternative packages that try different mixes of FTE reductions and operational savings, and the board will consider those packages before the budget goes to referendum.