The June 30 Cliff and the Empty Classrooms
Enrollment has fallen 6.4% in four years and is projected to fall another 3% next year. Nine of your eleven schools operate below 70% of capacity; one elementary is at 104% and uses six portable classrooms. Transportation costs rose 18% in one year under a three-tier bell schedule, and 27 unfilled driver positions mean the district runs double routes most days. On June 30, $4.3 million of positions funded by federal relief money expire. The general fund balance is projected at 6.8% of expenditures. A $2.1 million roof replacement at the overcrowded school cannot wait past next winter. The board has publicly stated it will not consider school closures.
1. How do you build the budget reduction recommendation -- what criteria and what process?
Read the worked answer
Name the structural problem first, because the process depends on it. The $4.3 million is recurring positions funded with one-time money. Unless enrollment or revenue reverses, that is a structural deficit, and a one-time patch (drawing the fund balance) converts a budget problem into a solvency problem in two years.
Criteria, adopted publicly before the analysis is done -- this is the single most important move, because criteria adopted in advance survive the political fight that follows:
- Impact on students furthest from opportunity
- Legal, contractual, and safety obligations
- Distance from the classroom
- Reversibility (can we restore it in two years?)
- Equity of impact across buildings
Process:
- Program review with cost-per-student and outcome data, rather than an across-the-board percentage cut. Across-the-board cuts are politically easy, administratively lazy, and they take out the good programs and the weak ones at the same rate.
- Three costed scenarios at roughly $3M, $4.3M, and $5.5M, each with a described consequence for students. Never present one option; a single option makes you the author of the cuts.
- Engage principals and the union early enough that they shape the options. Late engagement is notification, and it will be treated as such.
- Keep the roof in the capital conversation. Do not use capital money for operating costs, and do not defer a safety-critical building failure to save a program. Say out loud that these are two different decisions with two different funding streams, or the board will solve the roof by cutting teachers and the roof will still leak.
2. The board has publicly ruled out closures. What do you actually recommend?
Read the worked answer
Respect the constraint as a board decision, then make its cost visible.
- Do not sandbag. Presenting only the options you know the board will reject is a form of retaliation and it is transparent.
- Price the constraint. If nine buildings stay open below 70% utilization, the operating cost of that choice has a number: utilities, custodial, administration, and per-building fixed costs. Put it in one sentence in the memo. The board is entitled to make that choice; it is not entitled to make it without knowing the number.
- Offer alternatives that achieve the same savings without the word 'closure':
- Repurpose underused buildings as early childhood centers, CTE space, a community hub, or a staff professional development center -- consolidating staff who are currently leased elsewhere.
- Boundary adjustment to relieve the 104% school and remove some portable classrooms, which is cheaper than building.
- Grade reconfiguration (e.g., K-2 / 3-5 buildings) to balance enrollment without closing a site.
- Shared services with the city or county for facilities, purchasing, and transportation.
- Bring the capacity issue to the public, not just the board. A facility utilization study with community meetings changes the political constraint over 18 months in a way a superintendent memo never will.
- Set a trigger. If enrollment declines another 3% next year, what happens automatically? Boards can accept a decision they cannot make today if it is attached to a future condition.
3. How do you handle the bell schedule and transportation cost problem?
Read the worked answer
The 18% and the double routes are symptoms; the levers are the schedule, the wage, and the routing.
- Model the schedule change before proposing it. Moving to a two-tier schedule can reduce the fleet and driver hours substantially, but it changes family start times, childcare arrangements, and after-school work for staff. Calculate the savings and the family impact side by side.
- Do not pilot on the neediest routes. If a pilot goes wrong, late buses land hardest on families without a car or a flexible job. Pilot on routes with the most slack.
- Negotiate early with the union. Start times are typically a bargained effect. A schedule imposed in June for August will produce grievances and resignations you cannot afford at 27 vacancies.
- Attack the driver shortage directly: compare your wage and hours against the private carriers and the warehouse down the road, offer guaranteed hours and paid training, and consider a paid CDL pipeline. You cannot route your way out of a 27-driver gap.
- Communicate six months out, not six weeks. Families can adapt to a new start time given a spring and a summer; they cannot adapt to a surprise in August.
- Name the guardrail: never cut transportation to the point where late buses become routine. A viral bus failure costs more political capital than the savings, and it costs children more than either.