t Adj Sch ‘© Eliminating teaching positions © 2K-5 teachers © 4 Middle School teachers © I High School teacher Decreasing teaching supplies from $80/student to $60/student Reducing teachers cost of living to 2% Eliminating 2 High School Counselors Eliminating 3 Librarian positions Eliminating 4 Special Education aides Eliminating 1 Bus Driver Eliminated Elementary School Assistant Principal Eliminating 1 Administrative Secretary Increasing cost of lunch by $0.25 Instituting an athletic Pay to Play fee of $50 eoccccccce Above lists the actions taken to best deal with our growing deficit as it relates to our school budget for 2008-2009 school year and beyond. The following explanation details why we determined these cuts ‘were most appropriate, reasonable, and necessary. First of all, we went to teacher numbers and explored the options of cuts there. First of all, student ‘numbers in the high school went down slightly by 25. We felt it was necessary to cut one teacher at the High School with the student to teacher ratio remaining at 32:1. The student population decreased at the middle school by 25 as well. Also, the Middle School has had a lower student to teacher ratio of 25:1 in 2007-2008. Due to the decrease in enrollment and lower student to teacher ratio, we eliminated four teacher positions. ‘This raised the student to teacher ratio to 28:1, which is still lower than the high school. Finally, the elementary school decreased by 50 students. We appreciate and support that K-5 classroom numbers must be as low as possible, and we believe we maintained that by cutting only two teachers. The student to teacher ratio was maintained at 28:1 while eliminating two teacher positions, Along with these teacher cuts we decreased the amount allotted for teaching supplies per student. We reasoned that we could survive with $60/student, which was a decrease of §20/student, We also felt that teachers would and should agrec to a 2% cost of living increase, as opposed to the originally sought 3%. Prior to making cuts, the district would have been nearly $700,000 in debt after the 2008-2009 school year. The fact that teachers still received a step increase during this turbulent time, would give us negotiating leverage for 1% less than proposed. Also, it would be politically wrong of us to cut in several other areas other than teachers, which is our largest expense. We decided this would be agreeable, and still worthy of them ratifying. Eliminated other positions throughout the district was also essential in addressing the budget issue. High School counselor numbers were significantly low compared to the state average. Most high schools average at least 400 students per counselor. By cutting two counselors in high school, we could still have less than 400 students per counselor and we most likely would not be creating too many waves with staff. Despite what unions may claim, no one cries too long over counselor cuts. Librarians are another position we felt that we couldn’t afford going forward. The responsibility of checking out booksand maintaining the media center would be placed upon the teachers. Additionally, we eliminated four special education aide positions. This left us with six special education aides. There would still be one for each of our special education teachers. Due to declining enrollment, there was also a reduction in ‘bus drivers by one. Administration also could not go untouched with this unfavorable financial forecast. Elementary Assistant Principals are becoming a thing of the past. Most of us look to our own districts, and all seemed to agree that in the elementary buildings, a principal can lead without an Assistant Principal Although they serve a valuable purpose, we deemed them expendable. There also was a cut from the administration building. There were three secretaries there and we reasoned that they could survive with two secretaries. Part of our solution is also to increase revenue. Putting some of the financial burden back on the community was crucial in our decision making. Although we did not want the perception that we tried to put all financial difficulties back onto the taxpayers, we did feel that these cuts should be diversified and should affect everyone. We instituted a pay to play fee of $50 per athlete per sport and increased the cost of lunch by $0.25. These two increases in revenue will influence change without significantly hurting families. We attempted to divide out cuts between the teachers, other staff, administrators, and through the increasing of revenue though students and parents. We were able to tum a potential ending fund balance of -$700,000 to $945,000.