Reluctantly –

School Budget Cut

By Tanjua Damon

The Board of Education voted unanimously Tuesday night to send a $42.8 million budget to the Legislative Council for the 2001-2002 budget. The budget represents an 8.5 percent increase in spending. The vote came with the concern that the children of Newtown may be best served by the budget now on its way to the council

Superintendent of Schools John R. Reed unveiled a slightly higher, $43.2 million budget on January 23. The proposed budget was $800,000 over the 7.5 percent cap that the council’s finance committee recommended for this budget year. The school board spent four additional nights discussing where cuts could be made.

It came up with $400,000 in cuts, leaving the school system with a $42.8 million budget. Many on the school board believed that further cuts would adversely impact the education of Newtown’s children.

Board Vice Chairman Vincent Saviano was reluctant to vote in favor of the 8.5 percent increase because of the needs of local students. Mr Saviano believes that the Board of Education should be submitting a budget that fits the needs of the children throughout Newtown, not submitting a budget based on a number that has been preset.

“I’ve really thought about this a lot.” Mr Saviano said. “I think the original budget of 9.5 percent is what the kids need. If we don’t do that I think we are failing our children.”

Budget talks brought $400,000 in cuts to the proposed budget. Those cuts include: $186,770 – four teachers (two full-time teachers, .4 music teacher, .8 foreign language, .14 life management, and .33 educational assistant); $65,000 – the fire code project at the middle school; $20,000 – professional services; $2,730 – non-technology equipment; $25,000 – health insurance (from projected increase); $5,000 – summer school; $68,000 – reduction in teacher salary (to be saved by anticipated turnover); $20,000 – electricity; and $7,500 – out-of-district non-special education tuition.

Other board members agreed that the 8.5 percent increase being sent to the Legislative Council does not provide any flexibility for issues that may arise during the school year, like special education tuition and electricity.

“I’m in agreement with Vinny,” Margaret Hull said. “I don’t want to go below the 8.5 percent.”

Lisa Schwartz is concerned that cutting too much will affect future budgets and the board will be spending too much time trying to play catch-up.

“I’ve grappled with this for a majority of the weekend. I do feel strongly that if we don’t address our needs, we’re only digging ourselves a bigger hole,” Mrs Schwartz said. “If the council is going to create a number, I don’t see why we need a Board of Education. I’ve come to the conviction that I will go with the 8.5 percent, but I agree with Margaret, it should be 9.5 percent.”

 The school board understands the issues the town is undertaking with the proposed 5/6 school and the possible purchase of Fairfield Hills, but the needs of children still need to be provided for in the budget.

“I think we have looked at the reality the town is facing,” Earl Gordon said. “I don’t see that it makes any sense to try to cut this any further with a number that has been quasi floated out there. It’s our charge to carry to the Legislative Council what the needs of the schools are.”

The school district the past two years has frozen spending on special education, making some board members question how “fat” the budget really is.

“We’re going to talk about a spending freeze again. This is the third year in a row,” Mr Saviano said. “How can you say we have a fat budget when you have to have a spending freeze for special education. It just adds fuel to the fire.”

Having to cut the budget has not been an easy process for the school board, according to Chairman Elaine McClure. Cutting teachers in already overcrowded schools is painful, she said.

“It’s hard to sit here year after year and have cuts come. We see our schools doing well without much money,” Mrs McClure said. “It’s difficult to see a budget that has already been cut by the superintendent to cut it more. Reluctantly, I will support the cut of $400,000.”

Dr Reed told the board that fine tuning a budget is always difficult, especially when you believe it to be what the children need.

“I think you are always trying to profile things. We fine-tune the budget up until the end. You make your budget tighter,” Dr Reed said. “The culture of the town hasn’t changed. We’re sort of the victim of our own success. When you fine-tune something to the wire, it doesn’t give you room to respond when things come up. That’s why we have the very tight budget we have.”

Dr Reed told the board that there are not too many things that they can control. “You control the number of teachers you employ and the projects we do,” Dr Reed said. “There just isn’t anything else there. I don’t think we need to apologize that our budgets are tight. If we go beyond this, the vast majority would be in teacher positions and maintenance projects.”

The board feels that if it has to cut another one percent from the budget, everyone will suffer. Principals asked the board to not cut teachers during the budget process.

“If we are forced on the path of another one percent in reductions, every school will suffer,” Mr Saviano said. “They [principals] pleaded not to cut teachers.”

“More this year than ever,” Mrs Hull added.

With some of the reduction of teachers in the budget, some fourth and fifth graders will have a class size of 28 to 29 students, according to Mrs Schwartz.

“It’s daunting to me that classes in fourth and fifth grade will have 28 to 29 students,” she said. “I think the vast majority of people can understand that’s not a normal class size.”

There are already many classrooms over the school board’s classroom number guidelines.

“Two-thirds of classrooms are over our guidelines,” Mr Saviano said. “We’re just making the situation work. We do a great job of hiding the pain. We won’t be doing our job if we take these teachers away from them.”

The district’s budget must be given to the council by February 21. In the school board’s motion, it allowed board members to review their decision before the deadline if they felt it necessary.