Submitted by Doug Fenton
On Tuesday, we learned of a last-minute proposal by the BET Republicans to cut the Greenwich Public School’s budget by $4.05 million dollars. I have reviewed the written rationale for this spending reduction, the previous public remarks of BET members, and the seeming reliance on the data points from a speaker at last week’s school budget public hearing. It appears there is some confusion about our schools and the budget. I will try to address it below.
Greenwich Enrollment has declined roughly ~500-600 kids from its peak in 2018-19. This is true, but it lacks any context and incorrectly implies that enrollment will continue to decline. First, in the 4 years prior to the enrollment peak, GPS enrollment actually increased by ~300 students while GPS staffing was basically flat over that time. Second, enrollment has been pretty stable over the past 3 years, and that trend is expected to continue, based on the rising local birth rate post-COVID. Most importantly, the BOE budget and staffing already reflect the COVID-era enrollment decline. In the BOE budget, K-12 General Education teachers will have been reduced by 30 in the past 3 years. The # of K-5 classrooms has been reduced from 210 to 192 (-9%) since 2017, with average K-5 class sizes expected to be near the pre-COVID levels next year. GenEd headcount has also been reduced at GHS and the middle schools. Those 18 K-5 classrooms are mostly being utilized by increased Special Education needs, both Pre-K and K-5 students, with a Pre-K classroom requiring much more staff (3) than a K-5 classroom (1). Our K-12 special education population (and the associated required staffing) has grown significantly over the last decade, as early identification has improved (though Greenwich’s prevalence remains below the state average). The argument to “cut the approved budget because enrollment is down from the peak” reflects a lack of basic analysis of how the ‘business’ of Greenwich Schools has been operated.
Greenwich cost per student is ‘high’. Our spend per student is modestly higher than CT peers (though significantly lower than any of our Westchester neighbors).
We already have higher staffing efficiency than our CT peers, with fewer FTE, administrators, and paraprofessionals per student than Darien, New Canaan, and Westport. One reason for the higher spend per student is our larger population of high needs students (for example, our much larger English Language Learners population requires additional staffing vs those districts). The primary reason is higher teacher salaries, which are necessary to attract and retain the best teachers, to compete against private schools and Westchester, and to encourage many of our teachers to make a longer commute to Greenwich. However, as the BET should have heard at the Public Forum last week, good teachers are increasingly leaving GPS due to the lack of resources, and our district HR is finding that attracting new teachers is getting more difficult.
“Greenwich academic performance is exactly where it was in 2019.” This statement is not true and also pretends that Greenwich exists in a bubble (rather than a country still rebounding from COVID-era learning loss). According to the Education Recovery Scorecard, Greenwich is one of few Connecticut school districts performing above 2019 levels in both Math and Reading. Connecticut District Performance Index data echoes this trend, with GPS student academic improvement in Math, Reading, and Science versus our peers and Connecticut as a whole since 2019.
In the proposed amendment to reduce the budget, the author(s) cited “high [staff] absentee rates and the use of personal days adjacent to holidays and vacations” as a primary reason for their $4.05mm cut. Reducing absenteeism rates will not yield $4 million in savings. The district’s total budget for temporary substitutes is roughly $2 million per year. Further, Greenwich’s share of its budget spent on “Building and Day Substitutes” is roughly in-line with peer towns, despite several of these districts using General Education paraprofessionals as substitute teachers (staffing that GPS does not have). Pre-COVID, Greenwich was spending ~$1.2m per year on substitutes, with significant inflation in day rates statewide since. There is not “$2 million of savings” in this budget line-item.
Finally, the BET’s proposed amendment also cited “cabinet compensation increases and stipends” as a reason for the cut. The GPS cabinet of 7 employees (Superintendent, etc) have salaries increasing by 2.7% (a total of just $40k) in the budget, slightly less than the increase for the First Selectman and his peers of +2.75% (unanimously approved by the BET Budget Committee in February, which raised his increase from an initial +2.5%). More broadly, the total dollars spent by GPS on “Administration” actually declined from 2015 to 2024. There is not a justifiable reason to suggest that the school administrators should see pay rise less than other Town employees.
What’s most concerning is that all of the information I covered here was provided to the full BET in the weeks and months leading up to Decision Day. Perhaps the information was not understood or just ignored. If so, how can the basic workings of our town’s largest ‘business’ not be understood by the people elected to oversee and determine its funding?! I am disappointed in our elected officials. As a parent, going through this fire drill every year to ensure my children and our district’s 8,500 students have an excellent education is exhausting. As a homeowner, taxpayer, and voter, it comes across as irresponsible. Greenwich residents deserve better. Sadly, we need to go through this exercise again this year. Please email the BET asking them to fully fund the School Budget (link is here).
Thank you,
Doug Fenton