Submitted by the Greenwich High School Greenwich Education Association
At the BoE meeting on December 11, 2025, a mere ten minutes were devoted to discussing the upcoming budget cuts to Greenwich High School, which we fear reflects a capricious attitude toward the impact of another year of bearing the brunt of belt-tightening. The Board of Education needs to return to providing effective representation on behalf of the schools and students to the Greenwich community and the BET.
While negotiating the BoE budget is a critical process that requires stakeholder input, data-driven decisions, commitment to strategic goals, and transparency, Greenwich seems mired in a cycle that inadvertently pits school against school. When one community successfully pleads its case to reverse proposed cuts, another school is on the chopping block. The GHS community celebrated the inspiring grassroots efforts of the CMS community at the last Board meeting to reverse proposed cuts to their community. Yet, those efforts distracted and likely expanded cuts to the high school. While budgets seem fixed, it is a zero-sum game when it comes to educating students.
The last few years of budget cycles have resulted in massive cuts to schools. It must be noted that the proposed cuts, once again, focus on the classroom. Under the label of “inefficiencies,” GHS has absorbed the majority of the cuts in teaching and instructional support. Yet, we are told that an additional 6.5 full-time employee (FTE) positions will be cut next year. With the soft promises to look for a workaround to avoid the proposed 4.0 FTE cuts at CMS, the high school numbers could balloon to as many as 10.5 FTE cuts. The promise that it would be in “low enrollment areas” is an exaggeration, at best, or a mischaracterization at worst. It is unfair to pit school against school, and it is frustrating that these decisions are being made without partnership with the GHS administration.
The enrollment decline is not substantive. The projected enrollment for 2026-2027 is 2,531 students, just 67 fewer than the current year. So, while the projected high school enrollment for the next school year is just 100 fewer students than in the 2023-2024 school year, over that same 3-year period, with the additional proposed staffing cuts, the school and the students have had to suffer the consequences of massive cuts of 11.5 instructional positions since 2023. This does not include all of the additional cuts to instruction and support positions in instructional coaching (1.0 FTE), media (0.5 FTE), learning center paraprofessionals (5.0 FTE), learning facilitators (18 stipend positions), and administrative assistants (4.0 FTE), who effectively contribute to teaching and learning. Further compounding these cuts, the district is unable to fill some special education paraprofessional positions for our most needy students.
Dr. Jones described a review of low-enrollment classes, including a few classroom visits and schedule analysis to determine whether small class sizes are intentional or the result of inefficiencies. While that level of scrutiny is appropriate, the GHS GEA believes that a complete analysis must apply the same lens to the other end of the spectrum – those classes that exceed class guidelines.
Currently, many GHS classes routinely carry full rosters of 26 students or more. Any staffing analysis that focuses primarily on courses with low enrollment, without a corresponding review of consistently large classes, risks presenting an incomplete picture of instructional demand and student experience.
Staffing decisions should reflect not only where enrollment appears sparse, but also where class sizes are already at—or beyond—levels that limit individualized instruction, feedback, and student support. A balanced review of both low- and high-enrollment classes would provide a more accurate foundation for decisions of this magnitude.
Many Greenwich teachers began our careers in a district that proudly proclaimed it was “Setting the Standard for Excellence in Public Education.” Over time, the focus appears to have shifted toward efficiency — cutting positions and resources in the name of cost savings. While efficiency matters, it cannot come at the expense of excellence in teaching and student learning.
Sincerely,
Greenwich High School GEA Building Representatives
Bella House: Maria Buono, David (Lee) Bowbeer
Cantor House: Laura Brill
Clark House: Jonathan Herman, Steven Swidler
Folsom House: Dr. Barbara Freedman, Sarah Zeegen
Sheldon House: Elaine Chiappetta, Genta Gusho, Alexandra Stevens
GEA President: Margaret Jackins
GEA Vice President for Secondary Concerns: Lori Mulligan
GEA Political Action Committee Chair: Courtney Powers