The Board of Education unanimously approved a $25,415,480 operating budget for the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year Tuesday.
The budget shows a spending increase of $1,195,000 — or 4.9 percent — from the current budget.
Rose McKinnon, board chairman, said the increase is due to rising health insurance costs, proposed new staffing and state mandated special education costs.
Finance Director Al Pullo could not provide the final percentages Wednesday, but here are some of the areas to where more money is going:
Special Education: Increasing by $391,000
New Teachers: $479,000
Health Insurance: $700,000
McKinnon said the budget focuses on lowering class sizes, updating textbooks and addressing computer needs in the district.
“All the things we set out to do are intact,” she said.
The board anticipates hiring five teachers and four non-certified staffers a throughout the district in the budget to address increasing class sizes.
According to a March 2008 study prepared by Superintendent Dr. Judy Palmer, class sizes in throughout the district range from 22 students in kindergarten to 28 students in eighth grade.
Staff increases include a third grade and fourth grade teacher at Center School, a social worker and a special education teacher at Center School and a technical instructor at Great Oak School.
Non-certified positions in the budget include a custodian and a clerk/typist at the high school, a paraprofessional for Quaker Farms School and a special education paraprofessional for the district.
However, reductions in the budget include eliminating the assistant principal from Great Oak Middle School and a financial services assistant paid for through the American Reinvestment Recovery Act.
Board member Paula Guillet opposed cutting the assistant principal, noting in past years the board fought to have that position included in the budget.
“I don’t want to see things moving backward,” she said.
Oxford High School Principal Frank Samuelson agreed.
“To think that the principal at Great Oak School can handle all of the responsibilities is unfair,” he said.
Board member Mike Macchio said the cut was made due to the high cost of health insurance.
“It was a tough decision to make,” he said. “No one wanted to do that.”
McKinnon added the position could possibly be added back at a later date, if money is freed up through retirements.
The budget now goes to the Board of Finance for budget workshops before being presented at a town meeting May 3.
The town has scheduled a referendum for both the town and education budgets on Tuesday, May 11.
This board seems more interested in fulfilling campaign promises than setting up a responsible budget.The loss of the assistant principal is moving the district backward. The insurance has gone up. But it appears that line item reviews were not done properly. If that were the case, the board would have properly budgeted for the stipends at the high school and would not have been able to find 85,000 in 15 minutes. While I understand technology needs to improve, can’t we take 1/2 of the 127,000 and use the remainder to pay for the increase in staff. There is no need for a technical instructor as there is a teacher already doing this job. This board also cut a state mandated extended year program for Special Ed. While I agree that class sizes need to be reduced, these staff increases will not make an impact on the current class sizes more than 2 kids in a class.I do not appreciate my kids education centering around Ms. McKinnon’s political goals. She is a poor leader and disrespectful members of the public who wish to ask questions. This town has to accept that the high school is here and we need to “own it”. There are still things to be done to insure accreditation that our children will not be refused by the college of their choice.Yet this board has shown that they are not supportive of doing the right thing unless it supports a campaign promise. The loss of a financials services assistant paid for by a grant is just personal. The grant was approved as it was submitted and may not be able to be amended. Therefore, we lose both the position and funding.. Way to go Oxford BOE.. I’m sure that the BOF will support this budget without adjustment. Oxford politics at it’s worst!!
This board is making decisions without the input or expertise of educational professionals primarily to serve their own agendas. Cutting the AP position at the middle school is ridiculous. We have been down that road in the past and with terrible results. You would have hoped we would have learned from our history. And don’t tell me the system is top heavy in administrators, we have 4 schools with 4 principals and 2 APs (now 1). I know many on this board don’t like the fact that Oxford has a high school but it’s here and we have to fund it properly. This baord is bent on bring education backwards.
I understand the tough decisions needed to put a workable budget together with necessary cuts,but this BOE group is moving backwards on the elimination of the AP position. They increase teachers to lower class size, a good thing, but where are we putting them?
Need new books, long overdue.
Need new lawyers? How can a board legally meet with only three members and decide to replace the existing law firm and have the new law firm take effect the day of the BOE meeting without a quorum present at that meeting and without a vote by the entire board. Who’s watching the store folks? Back room politics at it’s best and no one brought that out at the BOE meeting. Good lawyers or not, this isn’t right.
Who said Kukla Fran and Ollie don’t have to follow the rules?
I doubt that the Board of Education read the administrator’s contract before eliminating the Great Oak Middle School assistant principal’s position. There is a clause that states that if an administrative job is eliminated and if the individual who was serving in that capacity chooses to take another professional job within the district, (which he or she has every right to do) the former administrator will still be paid on the administrator’s salary schedule, minus $2,000. In other words, the Board of Education has removed a vital element of the Great Oak educational structure to save…$2,000. Great Oak parents, please take note and take action.
McKinnon’s Court, I mean the BOE, is beyond help. They didn’t even start a line by line review of the budget until two weeks ago and then presented a budget that has many errors in it. Others (a current BOF member and a former BOE member) helped the BOE with this budget because this finance subcommittee has people on it that have no clue what they are doing!
I feel really bad for the kids, parents, teachers, and admins because this BOE is doing more harm then good and it is all for political reasons.
The only thing that rings true is McKinnon’s Court is in session!
All Hail the Queen!
There is no way Oxford will support a 4.9% budget! So many people have lost their jobs, houses, etc. Smaller class sizes are needed but not at the expense of losing the Assistant Principal at GOMS. What are they thinking???
In reflecting on the actions of the BOE I finally figured out what was troubling me, it’s their process. No one would argue with the fact that all boards, businesses and families are facing very difficult choices in these economic times. Tough decisions need to be made and that may include cutting positions. However, this BOE did not come at this decision in an honest or open manner. I have now read the minutes from the Finance sub-committee meetings since the first of the year and there is NO, I repeat, no discussion on eliminating either the AP or finance position. No input from the Superintendent, principals, business manager, teachers, parents or the public was sought. Perhaps if there was someone would have known that the admin contract allows for only a $2000 reduction in pay for administrators who are reassigned. Instead they spring it on everyone at the last minute so there is no ability to have a serious discussion. Same holds true with the decision on firing the board’s attorney. I don’t begrudge the board from wanting their own attorney. As long as they hire competent attorneys, and by all appearances the new legal firm is qualified, than it should be their choice. But again instead of having an open and honest discussion, they hold secret discussions and take surprise actions. Then instead of gracefully ending the 20 year plus relationship with Mr. Houston, they have to belittle and denigrate him on the way out. This is the sign of very, very insecure people.
This board will someday need the support of the community, parents, teachers or administrators and who in their right mind would be willing to work with a group that has demonstrated their total lack of respect for everyone but themselves. This does not serve the best interest of Oxford.