Closing a $220,000 Building Budget Gap
At Cedar Middle School, 720 students, the district projects a $1.8 million shortfall and has assigned each principal a building reduction target. Cedar must cut $220,000, about 6% of its discretionary budget, before next fiscal year. The current building budget includes a 0.5 assistant principal ($48,000), three counselors ($225,000 total), one gifted intervention specialist ($72,000), one media specialist ($68,000), six paraprofessionals ($240,000), $60,000 in supplies, $30,000 in professional development, and $25,000 in extracurricular stipends. About 14% of students receive special education services, 11% are English learners, and 48% are economically disadvantaged. The district requires that cuts not violate IEPs or Title I requirements and asks principals to protect core instruction. Staff have submitted anonymous suggestions, including eliminating the assistant principal, cutting a counselor, ending gifted services, and charging fees for extracurriculars. The principal must recommend cuts with a rationale and communication plan.
1. What criteria and process should the principal use to evaluate possible cuts?
Read the worked answer
I would start with guardrails: special education services, English-learner services, Title I requirements, safety, and contractual obligations cannot be cut just because they are line items. Then I would rank remaining options by direct impact on students, reversibility, and effect on the most vulnerable. I would ask the leadership team for enrollment, caseload, and scheduling data: how many students see a counselor, what the media specialist does that cannot be covered by classroom technology, which paraprofessionals support IEP minutes, and what gifted participation would look like without the specialist. I would distinguish one-time savings from ongoing savings; cutting supplies is reversible, cutting a counselor is not. I would consult the union and site council, but I would not use seniority as the only criterion. The process should produce a short written rationale for each cut, including what risk it creates and how it will be monitored.
2. Recommend a specific package of cuts and explain the tradeoffs.
Read the worked answer
One defensible package is: eliminate the 0.5 assistant principal ($48,000); reduce media services by eliminating the full-time specialist and contracting library coverage ($68,000); cut professional development by $20,000 and supplies by $25,000; reduce extracurricular stipends by $15,000; and eliminate two paraprofessional positions only if a review confirms they do not serve IEP minutes ($44,000). That totals $220,000. I would not cut a counselor or the gifted specialist in the first round because those roles directly affect access and identification, and I would not eliminate paraprofessionals who deliver required services. The assistant principal cut is a real tradeoff: discipline and teacher support will shift to the principal, so I would build a supervision plan and revisit if safety incidents rise. I would state the tradeoffs publicly rather than pretend the cuts are painless.
3. How should the principal communicate the reductions to staff and families?
Read the worked answer
Staff need the number, the criteria, the timeline, and a clear statement of what is not being cut. I would meet with the leadership team and union first, then hold an all-staff meeting where I take questions and record concerns. For families, I would explain how core instruction and mandated services are protected, what will change in library and extracurricular access, and how they can give feedback. I would avoid saying “everything is fine” when the assistant principal and paraprofessional roles are disappearing. I would create a monitoring plan-discipline referrals, counseling referrals, gifted participation, IEP service minutes-and report to the site council each quarter. If revenue improves or a cut causes serious harm, I would recommend restoration rather than defend the original decision.