The School Committee on Monday night spent a contentious two hours trying to nail down the cuts in its proposed school budget for next year, to reach the targets set for it by the Finance Committee after the failed Proposition 2½ override. Several items on the chopping block had been added to the budget only this year, and having to consider scrapping them was clearly painful for most of the board members.
School Superintendent Tom Jefferson presented the board with eight suggested cuts along with two “revenue enhancers,” which would balance the school budget if voters agree to a $200,000 override. This is the base override needed just to pay wage increases called for in union contracts, which had been funded by free cash last fall, and which all the boards support. If even this override fails, another $140,000 in school cuts would be needed, but Jefferson was reluctant to specify what those should be, saying “…you invite teachers to leave, maybe unnecessarily, if you name names.”
—Stu Sklar, Chairman School Committee
The board members were unhappy with the budget changes required even with the $200,000 override, and agreed to push for a higher override level as well, when the tri-boards were to have reconvened on Thursday night. However, coming up with the exact list of priorities, deciding which cuts they could live with and which programs were to be added back in if possible, proved very difficult, and the board meeting lasted past 11 p.m., as each member had different ideas about how vital each program was.
The budget reductions needed to reach the $200,000 override level are:
- $23,000 cut from maintenance staffing, supplies, and equipment
- $30,000 saved by no longer requiring that the Bromfield learning center teacher be a certified special education teacher
- $33,000 saved by cutting the Bromfield writing lab assistant position
- $15,000 saved by not offering the Virtual High School program
- $31,000 saved by reducing five fifth grade teachers to four, (cutting back a teacher actually saves more money, but the original budget had assumed five Choice fifth-graders would be added, but now that they will not be)
- $15,000 saved by laying off one elementary school math tutor
- $9,000 in textbook reductions
- $65,000 saved by not hiring a middle school special education teacher
In addition, Jefferson advocated accepting four new Choice pupils into next year’s first grade, to add $20,000 in new revenues, along with a $25 hike in the bus fees, to $250 per pupil, for another $7,000. Neither of these measures pleased the board.
“I hate more fees,” member Willie Wickman complained.
Student representative Emma O’Rourke-Friel reluctantly suggested that the board institute a parking fee for students, which is common in neighboring towns, rather than hiking the bus fee even higher.
“It is more fair to charge [Bromfield] seniors, who have a choice, rather than 7-year-olds, who don’t have a choice,” on whether to pay for riding the bus, O’Rourke-Friel noted. Jefferson then suggested calling the $7,000 a “transportation offset” and working out the details at a later time.
Adding new Choice first-graders next year also worried several members, because of uncertainties about how big that class may ultimately get, if Harvard wins the contract to educate Devens pupils, and new families move to town. Also, using Choice money in general to balance the budget did not seem wise to new members Keith Cheveralls and Patty Wenger. Chairman Stu Sklar and Wickman, while not happy about adding Choice first-graders, argued that it is preferable to the other cuts discussed.
Cheveralls and Wenger, along with member Virginia Justicz, ultimately voted to include the $20,000 Choice revenue offset in the highest category of priority for items to be added back to the budget if a higher level of override is approved.
Also included in that high-priority list were the middle-school special education teacher, the math tutor, and the textbooks. All five board members agreed that these would be reinstated first, if voters approve a higher level of override.
Designated as a “medium-priority” were items such as the writing lab assistant, the fifth-grade teacher, and the Virtual High School program. Each of these items had passionate defenders, but did not garner as strong support as items on the high-priority list. These were to be added back only after the high-priority items were reinstated.
Finally, the cuts in maintenance staff and supplies, and the change in certification for the learning center teacher were put at the bottom of the priority list. Board members agreed that those were cuts they could live with, along with putting in place the added bus or parking fees.
By the end of the discussions, the board members were clearly unhappy about having to contemplate cutting so much, particularly reducing support staff that help struggling students avoid even more expensive special education placements.
School spending defense
Wickman advocated fighting strongly for everything on the high- and medium- priority lists.
“Our responsibility is to fight for what we need—to clearly articulate our needs,” Wickman said.
“There have been six years of cuts. No, we don’t spend a lot of money [on schools]…every little cut hurts. Last year was the first time we added back in!” Sklar said forcefully, in answer to Wenger’s request that the board find yet another $20,000 in cuts so the schools would not have to take in four new Choice students in next year’s first grade.
Sklar backed up his assertions that Harvard schools are run in a frugal manner with a handout showing Harvard’s school spending, broken down by category, compared to the state averages as computed by the state Department of Education (DOE). For 2007, the most recent data available, Harvard’s overall school spending per pupil was $11,187, or 5.7 percent below the state average.
While some in town argue that Harvard is top-heavy in administration, Sklar noted that under the DOE category of ‘administration’, Harvard’s spending is 16 percent below the state average. There is another DOE category of spending, ‘instructional leadership’, and that, along with the first category, likely cover the sort of school spending that Harvard critics consider as administrative costs: the central office, support staff, and such things as salaries for curriculum coordinators, principals, and the superintendent. When those two categories are combined, Harvard still spends per pupil about 6 percent below the state average for all schools, or $1,102 versus $1,176.
Of the 11 categories of school spending, Harvard spent more than the state average in only three; and one of those, professional development, was only higher by $7 per pupil. Harvard did spend quite a bit more for out-of-district special education tuitions, a result of being a small system that can’t easily provide specialized services. The last category in which Harvard spent more than the average was ‘instructional materials, equipment, and technology,’ where Harvard’s figure was $811 per pupil, or more than double the state average.
“We’ll look into it—it’s an anomaly,” Sklar said of the relatively high spending in that category. The DOE and Harvard have different ways of computing school spending, making direct comparisons difficult. However, the overall picture of Harvard’s school spending shows the town is not spending lavishly on its schools, Sklar noted.
“You’re getting the highest MCAS scores in the state, for 6 percent below the average [in spending],” he concluded.
