The most notable issue during the meeting was the proposed cuts to math and science teaching positions. Concerns were voiced by Danielle Tinum, a Science and Technology content coordinator, who warned of the detrimental impact larger class sizes could have on student learning and teacher support. Tinum emphasized that struggling and at-risk students would be the most affected by these changes, noting that larger class sections hinder the development of meaningful relationships between students and teachers. Echoing these sentiments, a chemistry teacher highlighted that smaller class sizes have historically allowed for better student understanding and relationship building, both of which are threatened by the proposed cuts. Additionally, there was worry over the reduction in hallway monitors, which could compromise student safety.

Public comments also focused on the allocation of resources for the School Resource Officer (SRO). A speaker suggested that the SRO’s salary should be shared more equitably with the police department, arguing that this could facilitate the reinstatement of crucial teaching positions, particularly in the math and science departments. The speaker expressed concern that the current budget does not adequately support these educational needs, fearing future complaints about declining MCAS scores due to larger class sizes.

The reduction of interventionist positions was another focal point of the discussion. A parent shared a personal story about their child’s progress in mathematics, attributing significant improvement to the support provided by an interventionist. They expressed heartbreak over the potential loss of such positions, which are often the first to be cut in budget reductions. The parent implored the committee to carefully evaluate the impact of these cuts on student outcomes, emphasizing the critical role interventionists play in enhancing students’ educational journeys.

Concerns were further amplified by Tracy Franco Madas, a school adjustment counselor, who highlighted a proposed cut to the guidance counseling department. Madas pointed out that the current student-to-counselor ratio is already above the recommended level and warned that further reductions would exacerbate this issue, potentially impacting the department’s ability to support students effectively. The importance of guidance counselors in achieving school improvement goals, particularly in postsecondary planning and psychological safety, was underscored as essential to maintaining educational quality.

Liz Clement, a special education teacher, expressed apprehension over cuts to support services that directly benefit students. She described the challenges faced in instructional strategies classes, where the number of students with learning disabilities necessitates more support than currently available. Clement highlighted the critical role teachers play in their students’ academic success and urged the committee to consider alternatives to budget cuts that would not compromise the quality of education provided.

The broader financial context was also a topic of discussion, with the chair acknowledging the interconnectedness of the educational needs of Somerset K to 8 and Berkeley K to 8. Concerns were raised about the reliance on uncertain federal funding, with committee members expressing a desire to advocate for education while being mindful of the overall financial landscape. A motion was made to table the approval of the budget, allowing for further consideration of public input and absent committee members. This decision was supported by several members, emphasizing the importance of all committee members hearing the public’s concerns before making any decisions.

The committee expressed gratitude to the policy committee for their efforts in preparing policies for review, including bullying prevention and intervention and an acceptable use policy, which were unanimously approved during the meeting.