Submitted by David Alfano, Nisha Arora, Karen Fassuliotis, Harry Fisher, Lucia Jansen and Leslie Tarkington (Republican members, Greenwich BET)
This year’s school budget is increasing by $8 million. While the Greenwich Board of Education (BOE) requested a $12 million (5.1%) increase, the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) approved a 3.5% increase instead. That’s still meaningful growth. In a $247 million school budget, asking for modest efficiencies — just 1–2% — felt appropriate.
This wasn’t about cuts. It was about oversight and long-term sustainability. When spending rises, it warrants scrutiny. Especially under state law, which locks in each year’s increase as the new baseline, ensuring permanent budget growth. If student needs truly cannot be met within this increased allocation, the BET retains the ability to revisit the budget midyear through a formal adjustment.
Why We Approved an $8 Million — Not $12 Million — Increase
Our decision was grounded in data — not politics or ideology. We examined spending trends and benchmarked Greenwich against comparable towns like Darien, New Canaan, and Fairfield. Greenwich spends 10–15% more per pupil than these towns, yet doesn’t consistently outperform them. Many residents also urged us to keep increases closer to the rate of inflation — below 3%. As BET members, we are responsible for the entire town which means balancing school funding with other vital
priorities — such as public safety, infrastructure, and taxpayer affordability.
Where Could the $4 Million in Savings Come From?
Some have asked why we didn’t dictate specific cuts. State law does not allow us to modify line items — but we do have a responsibility for the overall budget. The BET sets the total budget allocation; the BOE determines how it is spent. We did, however, highlight areas worth reviewing:
• Overhead and bureaucratic costs
• Early Childhood Education: Greenwich spends over $5 million on early childhood education compared to $1.5 million in Darien — despite having only about twice as many special education Pre-K students.
• District-wide Services: Costs for administration, Pre-K, facilities, and transportation have grown by 44% in five years — from $47 million to $68 million. While some growth reflects expanded services, the pace of increase deserves scrutiny — particularly given that K–12 enrollment has declined by nearly 500 students over the same five-year period.
That’s why we proposed a modest adjustment — not to underfund schools, but to encourage a closer look at spending priorities.
Most households start with excess spending — not essentials — when trimming budgets. The same principle should apply here.
Where the $4 Million Should NOT Come From
Our intent is not to underfund classrooms but to encourage smarter prioritization. Like any household, trimming budgets should start with non-essential and administrative expenses — not core programs.
Unfortunately, the Superintendent’s initial suggestions included cuts to the Advanced Learning Program (ALP), world languages, and shifting high school start times — all highly visible changes likely to generate concern. These proposals were designed to provoke public backlash and shift attention away from areas where meaningful savings exist. We encourage the BOE to refocus the conversation on identifying those opportunities — without using students as leverage.
A Budget Built on Facts, Not Fear
From the beginning, we’ve aimed for a thoughtful and collaborative budget process. On budget day, Republican BET members offered a compromise — reducing the increase by $2 million rather than $4 million. But without any willingness from Democratic colleagues to engage, advancing a motion would have served no practical purpose. At a BOE meeting last week, Democratic members declined to identify a single dollar in savings. Then, in a hastily scheduled meeting just days later, they unveiled a long list of proposed classroom-facing cuts — including reductions to media assistants, world language, PE, and key student support positions. Another meeting is already scheduled to consider additional changes — many of which are likely to raise significant public concern. Meanwhile, local party emails are urging voters to “elect Democrats to stop the cuts,” despite the fact that these proposals are being generated and advanced by the BOE itself. The pace and posture of these decisions suggest a political strategy aimed at generating outrage, not finding solutions. Through it all, we’ve remained focused on facts, not theatrics — and on encouraging real solutions that don’t rely on stoking fear or politicizing education.
Public service requires tough decisions and careful stewardship — not soundbites. We stand by a budget that protects students and respects taxpayers. We believe that transparency, not fear, leads to better outcomes for students and taxpayers alike.