Rockport school leaders outline $1 million budget gap and propose staffing cuts ahead of Feb. 5 vote

Superintendent Mark Branko told the Rockport School Committee on Dec. 18 that the district faces a preliminary FY26 budget gap of just over $1,000,000 and outlined a slate of proposed staffing and stipend reductions to close the shortfall.

Branko, presenting a 0-based budgeting model, said a placeholder town contribution of 2.9% and an array of cost drivers — salary adjustments, consortium tuition and transportation, and modest increases in fuel and utilities — leave the district about $1 million short of last year’s spending level. “All of the reductions together are just over $1,000,000,” Branko said. He added that the leadership team will continue to refine options in January and return to the committee before the planned Feb. 5 vote.

Why the district-wide increase can appear larger than negotiated contract percentages drew questions from members. Committee member Amy Oakes asked why a 3–4% contract increase can look smaller than the district’s percentage. Branko replied that contracts include COLA but also step and attainment increases (for master’s, CAGS or doctoral credits), retirements, and replacement hires, and that those factors together can raise total payroll cost beyond base-percent figures.

The presentation highlighted several specific proposals to reduce costs: - Seven full-time equivalent teacher positions: Branko said staffing reconfiguration driven by declining enrollment and a proposed 6–12 model would produce the equivalent of seven FTE reductions. Leadership will conduct confidential, individual conversations with potentially affected staff before making public recommendations. - Six curriculum coordinator stipends: the administration proposed consolidating multiple K–2 and 3–5 coordinator roles into K–5 content leads, eliminating six stipended coordinator roles. - Paraprofessional reductions (placeholder of five equivalents) and one full-time administrator reduction: the superintendent described these as tentative, contingent on an audit of special-education deployment and further refinement.

Branko emphasized the district’s effort to protect direct student services. “No student services are going to be negatively impacted,” he said, adding that an external audit of the special-education department will guide decisions. Acknowledging the difficulty of cuts, he warned of the limits to relying on reserves: “We can’t continue to make million dollar cuts every year.”

Members pressed for clarity on offset assumptions. June Sanfilippo, business manager, explained that circuit-breaker and school-choice offsets are trending down statewide — reducing those revenue lines — and that circuit-breaker reimbursements depend on the state’s formula and available funds. On consortium placements, Branko said the district is budgeting a conservative 10% increase in consortium costs because of recent facility investments by the consortium partner that may raise tuition and staffing costs.

The administration also described a workshop with middle-school content teachers that produced a draft approach to divide future grades 6–8 into two cohorts per grade (a two-cohort model) to address declining enrollment; Branko said a licensure audit and seniority patterns could cause ripple effects across grades and that no staff assignments have been finalized.

After accounting for post–town-meeting reductions already implemented (assistant principal, a middle-school special-education teacher and an elementary paraprofessional) and the proposed measures above, the superintendent said the budget currently shows roughly $187,000 still to close. Branko said the leadership team will continue to “sharpen our pencils” in January, consider additional operational efficiencies and, if necessary, discuss limited use of reserves with the town.

Committee members acknowledged the difficulty and timing of the process during the holidays. “This work creates anxiety for the people who sit in the room and do the work,” Oakes said, urging sensitivity to staff while keeping work transparent.

Next steps: administration will draft models and hold confidential one-on-one conversations with affected employees, return with a refined staffing model in early January and seek a committee vote by Feb. 5 to meet the town meeting schedule set for April 5.