Milwaukee educators press board to protect pay, board debates budget direction and declines to lock in full COLA

Hundreds of Milwaukee Public Schools employees and union representatives traveled to the Central Services Building on Jan. 22 to press the Board of School Directors to protect pay and benefits as administrators prepare the district's FY27 budget.

The administration opened the meeting with an early budget update, warning of a structural imbalance in the district's five-year forecast, continuing declines in enrollment and state-imposed limits on revenue. Budget Director Nick Sinram said the district expects enrollment to fall about 1.4% next year and flagged a key risk: state special-education reimbursement may be funded at roughly 35% rather than the 43% projected in earlier planning. Aicha Sawa, the district's chief financial officer, said the district recently completed multiple audits and is pursuing tighter reconciliations, a soft hiring freeze for nonessential roles and reviews of utilities and consultant contracts to control costs.

After the presentation the board took public comment. For more than three hours classroom teachers, paraprofessionals, cafeteria workers and other frontline staff gave testimony, many speaking on behalf of the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association (MTEA). They described holding multiple jobs, living paycheck to paycheck, and widespread vacancies across schools. Repeated demands included a full cost-of-living adjustment of 2.63%, restoration of salary steps and no cuts to health insurance.

'When you freeze COLA, you're effectively cutting pay,' said Lucas Wearer, a member of the public; similar appeals came from dozens of educators who recounted vacancy counts (for example, numbers cited in testimony included more than 100 teacher vacancies and dozens of paraprofessional and kitchen staff openings).

Speakers repeatedly urged the board to 'chop from the top'''reducing central-office positions, re-examining consultants and contracts'rather than asking frontline staff to bear the burden. Several public commenters asked the board to direct the superintendent to prioritize staff retention in the proposed budget and to present transparent analyses of administrative spending and contract costs.

Board members then debated a motion that would have accepted the administration's report and directed the superintendent to present a proposed budget that: retains current staff and attracts new staff; provides a full COLA allowed by law and salary steps for eligible workers; makes no cuts to health-care benefits; and commissions a comprehensive review of all MPS contracts. The motion, offered by a director during the meeting, also asked that principals share proposed school budgets for staff and family input in March.

During discussion several board members voiced support for COLA and protecting benefits but cautioned that a flat, districtwide COLA would also increase pay at the top of the pay scale and argued for exploring targeted approaches or salary caps for higher-paid administrative positions. The superintendent said the administration is already conducting deep dives into contracting and central-office growth and plans to bring a five-year forecast and audit results to the board on Feb. 5.

When the board took a roll-call vote the motion did not pass at that time: the tally reported on the record was four ayes, two abstentions and two noes. The discussion closed with the superintendent and staff committing to a transparent, public process that will include additional analysis, community engagement sessions and more detailed budget documents before the board must adopt a final budget in June.

The board also approved other routine and calendar items that evening and retired to closed session as permitted under state law to consider personnel and litigation matters. The administration emphasized that no final budget decisions were made at the meeting and that the process would continue with public hearings and committee work in the coming weeks.