The Marlboro K-8 School District Board of Education has moved forward with a plan to lay off the district’s instructional assistants and some transportation department employees and to hire those positions from other entities.
Board members said there were no other options available to close a projected $3 million to $4 million gap in the 2011-12 school year budget.
Those measures were some of Marlboro Superintendent of Schools David Abbott’s suggestions on ways to close the looming budget gap.
By law, the school district may not operate at a deficit. The district must develop and operate with a balanced budget.
In the time since the possibility of laying off district employees (instructional assistants and transportation department employees) and hiring those positions from other entities was broached this past fall, parents and staff members have pleaded with the board to keep the employees indistrict.
But as a majority of board members said during a Jan. 25 meeting, there seem to be no other options to fill a projected multimillion dollar gap in the 2011-12 budget.
There are currently 105 instructional assistants employed by the district who primarily assist special education pupils.
According to information provided by the district, 87 of those 105 employees receive health benefits through the Marlboro K-8 School District. It was estimated that outsourcing those positions could save the district about $2.2 million.
The district has its own transportation department, which employs 69 bus drivers and 15 bus attendants. The suggested outsourcing would offer 50 percent of the district’s bus routes to private companies, while maintaining the rest of the routes with district employees.
The cost savings that would result from contracting out 50 percent of the district’s bus routes is estimated to be $1.2 million.
The proposal has been met with a mix of emotions from members of the public and staff, including sadness and anger.
One parent, Earl Rollins, spoke about the loving care his autistic child receives from the instructional assistants in the district. Rollins described how prior to working with these individuals his son could not be hugged or kissed.
“You guys (instructional assistants) made possible in four months what I couldn’t do in his first three years,” Rollins said, praising the staff.
Rollins assured the instructional assistants who were present that evening that he would always fight on their side.
When the topic was opened up for board members to discuss, most spoke about not wanting to outsource the positions, but said their hands are tied due to a lack of options.
“There was no easy solution. The solutions we have in front of us are not only unpleasant, they are disheartening to every single member of this board,” board President Terry Spilken said. Board member BonnieSue Rosenwald said she wished that a white knight would come riding in to save the district’s officials from having to make these decisions.
Board member Victoria Dean said that prior to sitting on the board, she always looked at the issues facing the panel as simple decisions. Now that she is sitting on the board, those decisions are not so easy.
Dean spoke about her child who works with an instructional assistant who was so helpful and said she has seen the dedication of the instructional assistants and the district’s bus drivers. She noted that her children, as well as those of other board members, will be affected now.
Dean said when a person looks strictly at numbers, it appears to be an easy decision, but with those figures attached to people’s jobs it becomes much more difficult.
Board member Paula Fasciano noted that the decision being made on Jan. 25 might not be the final word on the matter. She echoed Rosenwald’s wish for a solution .
The board members unanimously backed the superintendent’s suggestions on how to move forward with the budget.
Two members of the public expressed their dismay, not with the board that is being forced to make these decisions, but with a state government that permits money to flood into some school districts but barely trickles into districts like Marlboro.
Both men noted that the cost of educating a student in Marlboro is about $12,000, while districts such as Asbury Park spend close to $22,000 per pupil.
Michael Messinger said if things are not changed in the way state funding is allocated to school districts, issues such as laying off staff members and outsourcing those jobs will become a perpetual situation in Marlboro.
“It’s instructional assistants this year; next year it’s going to be someone else,” Messinger said.
Former board member Joseph Waldman expressed similar thoughts about the way state aid is allocated among New Jersey’s school districts. He urged those present to write their local legislators and voice their feelings about the injustice of the situation.
“Why is it that a Marlboro student is worth half as much as a student in Asbury Park?” he asked.
The board members will continue to develop a budget for 2011-12 and present it to the public in March. Residents will vote on the budget in the April school election.
In response to the board’s decision regarding the instructional assistants and the transportation department employees, Marlboro Township EducationAssociation President Robin Zegas said, “The entire MTEA staff is disappointed and those directly affected by the outsourcing are devastated by the board’s decision to move forward with Dr. Abbott’s recommendation.
“After three months of staff members and parents speaking at board meetings as to why this is not in the best interest of the children of Marlboro, we had hoped they would have looked at other options presented to them. We are still keeping a positive attitude that things will work out to keep these dedicated staff members as Marlboro employees,” Zegas said.