Presentation by the Boxborough School Committee on the impact of job sharing and in-house reductions.

1. Analysis of Impact of Job Sharing and
In-House Reductions
Boxborough School Committee presentation to the
Boxborough Board of Selectmen
March 19, 2012

2. Presentation Includes:
• Background on Exploring New Administrative Models
• Job Sharing
 Overview
 Estimated savings
 Advantages
 Disadvantages/Changes
• In-House Reductions
 Overview
 Estimated savings
 Advantages
 Disadvantages /Changes

3. Background on Exploring New Admin Models
• Enrollment at Blanchard has been declining
over the last 3-4 years
• Correspondingly, per pupil expenditures are
increasing
• BSC concerned that continued declining
enrollment will:
 Negatively impact educational program (eliminating
too many sections)
 Result in ever-increasing per-pupil expenditures and
an unsustainable financial model

4. BSC Took a Proactive Approach to Issues
• Short-term
 Creating a 5-year rolling enrollment projection
 Eliminating several grade sections
 Taking in limited choice students to bolster budget
• Long-term
 Working with ABRSC to establish Regional Study
Committee to assess Pre-K to 12 regionalization
 Examining job sharing with Harvard
 Assessing in-house reduction options

5. Job Sharing Overview
• Shares selected jobs across 2 or more school
districts
• Typically central office positions shared
• Principal is not a shared position
• Maintains local school committees but also
establishes a “union” school committee to oversee
union positions only
• Requires a vote of the School Committee
• Interested towns need to work out a mutual
agreement

6. Job Sharing Estimated Savings
• Share with Harvard with 30% to 33% of shared
positions plus related office space
• Includes Superintendent, SPED Director, Food
Service Director, Admin Assistant to SPED Director,
Data Support
• Saves $45,900 to $78,500 compared to current
structure, depending on positions and allocations
• Saves $137,600 to $170,300 compared to full
administrative model
• Differential is $92,000 between models

7. Job Sharing Advantages
• Opportunity to share costs of system-wide staff
positions
• Town maintains full control of school district
 Separate school committees for each town
 Local school committee oversees school district
 No cross over of policies, curriculum, etc.
• Blanchard would have its own full-time Principal
• Principal oversees hiring of teachers/staff

8. Job Sharing Disadvantages/Changes
• Less face-to-face time with Superintendent; time
with SPED Director is comparable
• Principal becomes the curriculum leader
• Requires state approval to dissolve
• Does not address declining enrollment and small
class sizes
• BSC will likely need to continue to open Blanchard
to choice students to bolster the budget

9. In-House Reductions Overview
• SC realizes the full administrative model is not
financially viable
• If no regionalization or job sharing, in-house
reductions would be necessary
• Followed logic if we could decrease central
office through job sharing, we could cut in-house
• Models cut Superintendent to 30%, 40% and
50% and SPED Director to 30%

10. In-House Reductions Estimated Savings
• Saves $43,300 to $69,900 compared to current
structure, depending on allocations
• Saves $135,300 to $161,900 compared to full
administrative model
• Differential is $92,000 between models

11. In-House Reductions Advantages
• Town maintains full control of school district, for
finances and policies
• No state approvals needed to change
• Blanchard would have a full-time Principal
• Principal oversees hiring of teachers/staff

12. In-House Reductions Disadvantages/Changes
• Would need to find Superintendent and SPED
Director who are interested in part-time positions;
could limit or change pool of applicants
• Less face-to-face time with Superintendent and
SPED Director
• Would need staff to be flexible to handle crises
• Principal becomes the curriculum leader
• Does not address declining enrollment and small
class sizes
• BSC will likely need to continue to open Blanchard
to choice students to bolster the budget

13. Questions?

14. Regionalization Update
• MGL Chapter 71, Section 14E allows for 5 ways to
structure a regional school committee:
 (1) electing committee members by voters in member
communities with each community’s representation
apportioned according to population;
 (2) electing members in district-wide elections to be held at
the biennial state elections;
 (3) electing members with residency requirements in district-
wide elections to be held at the biennial state elections;

15. Regionalization Update
• MGL Chapter 71, Section 14E allows for 5 ways to
structure a regional school committee:
 (4) weighing the votes of committee members according to
the population they represent; and
 (5) appointing committee members by locally elected
officials such as school board members