MANSFIELD — Teachers, staff and community members sat in stunned silence at Monday night’s Mansfield Board of Education meeting.
After an hour-long, closed-door session, the Mansfield City Schools board voted 5-0 to approve a plan to cut $5.3 million from next year’s operating budget and submit it to the state.
The board then voted to end the meeting, offering no details to the public on what those cuts would entail. One woman asked if the public would be given more information. Board president Chris Elswick referred her to local media reports.
The district provided a copy of the approved plan to Richland Source Monday evening. Tuesday morning, the plan summary and workbook were posted on the district’s website.
The plan calls for eliminating 14 administrators, dozens of educators and the district’s adult education program next school year.
How did we get here?
Mansfield City’s most recent five-year forecast, submitted in November, projected an operating deficit of $3.9 million for the 2024-2025 school year. It also projected the district would run out of operating funds before the end of the 2025-2026 school year.
As a result, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce required Mansfield City Schools to submit a deficit reduction plan by Feb. 28. It’s the second such plan the state has required of the district in the last eight months.
The approval of Monday night’s plan came after months of school board work sessions. Board members considered recommendations from school district administrators, the staff union and two different consulting firms.
“This is a very difficult process. It’s not something we want to do. It’s something we have to do,” Elswick said before the vote. “We’re overstaffed and we are in deficit spending.
“We’ve asked the community for a levy. It was turned down. We’ve exhausted all of our opportunities.”
The plan approved Monday night isn’t binding — the board will have to vote separately to take actions like eliminating positions and programs.
Nevertheless, Elswick said he expects the plan to be enacted — if not in full, with only minor exceptions.
“There may be some little things here or there that may change, but this is the plan,” he said. “The state’s going to watch to make sure we implement it,” he said.
If implemented, the proposed plan will reduce district costs by $5.3 million next school year and about $7.2 million each in the next three school years.
Treasurer Tammy Hamilla said the reason next year’s projected savings are lower is because the district will have to pay out certain costs associated with retirements and staff cuts.
These costs include severance payments, unused vacation days and the district’s share of unemployment compensation for employees who lose their job and aren’t able to find a new one.
Hamilla also said the district will continue looking at other ways to save money.
“We will be looking at department budgets. We will be looking at our purchased service contracts and things like that,” Hamilla said. “This is kind of the beginning, not necessarily the end.”
What is attrition? What is a reduction in force (RIF)?
There are two primary ways to decrease public school staffing — a reduction in force and attrition. The Mansfield City Schools plan incorporates both.
Attrition occurs when employees who retire or resign are not replaced.
A reduction in force (RIF) occurs when an agency eliminates positions. During RIFs, employees with less seniority may lose their jobs while more senior employees may be reassigned to different positions. The school board must reach an agreement with the Mansfield School Employees Association before “RIF”ing any union employees.
What cuts are included in the plan?
The plan voted on by the board would remove 14 administrator jobs and include a reduction in force of 29 certified positions and seven classified positions next school year.
According to a statement from the board, it will act on the reductions at its March 4 meeting and employees who will lose their jobs due to the RIF will be notified by April 30.
Other proposed teacher and classified staff cuts include:
- Eliminating 19 positions through retirement-based attrition, including 10 teaching positions, three paraprofessionals, two intervention specialists, a nurse, a preschool secretary and positions listed as “digital literacy” and “special education transition.”
- Eliminating five positions in the career technical education program.
- Not replacing three teachers who are resigning.
- Not renewing five contracts with educators who retired and were rehired.
Proposed administrative cuts include:
- Eliminating its Human Resources department, which consists of four people, and outsourcing the department’s work.
- Eliminating its Academic Services department, which consists of two people. Richland Source asked for clarity on which positions these are and did not receive an answer.
- Eliminating two positions in the special education and pupil services department, including a behavior analyst and executive assistant.
- The transportation director will be reduced to a 3-day-per-week job, contracted through the North Central Ohio Educational Service Center.
- Eliminate one position in the treasurer’s department.
- Eliminate a central registration position and a floating principal position.
- Eliminate and rehire assessment coordinator through a contract with the North Central Ohio Educational Service Center.
- Rehire the director of school improvement on a three-day-a-week contract and not be eligible for insurance.
Brad Strong, president of the Mansfield School Employees Association, called the plan a “hell of a start” on necessary spending cuts.
“The MSEA was a little disappointed, as we thought there would be more administrative cuts,” Strong said. “That said, I want to thank the board for making these tough decisions. It was not easy.
“RIFs suck. Nobody likes to do a RIF,” Strong added. “But I think it shows the board is headed in the right direction of being fiscally responsible.”
The MSEA has been critical of school administrators and the board for not decreasing the district’s costs gradually over the years as enrollment has declined.
“We’re going to lose great teachers,” Strong said. “Had we been better fiscal stewards of our money, we could have been right-sizing along the way.”
What’s the difference between certified and classified staff?
In the context of public education, certified staff includes those who need a certificate, license, permit or other credentialing document. This includes people like teachers, intervention specialists, educational aides, nurses, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, counselors, librarians and school psychologists.
Classified staff are non-teaching school personnel whose positions that do not require a certificate, license, permit or other credentialing document. Classified staff include people like bus drivers and mechanics, food service personnel, secretaries and facility maintenance workers.
Board to put a new operating levy on the ballot in November
If the district implements all the cuts outlined in the plan, Hamilla projected the district will maintain a positive fund balance through the 2027-2028 school year.
But staffing cuts aren’t the only cost-saving measures on the table.
The district is working on increasing class sizes, cutting departmental budgets where appropriate, and reducing purchased service contracts, according to a statement released Monday night by the school board.
The statement also said the board will continue looking for ways to save on the district’s self-funded health-insurance plan.
“The district’s premiums are significantly higher than the average premiums of other districts,” the statement read. “Due to these costs, the district will go out for bids this spring for an independent insurance consultant to help us find a lower-cost alternative to the current insurance plan.”
The district will likely have a new operating levy on the ballot in November.
“The amount and type of levy have not yet been determined,” the statement read. “If a levy does not pass, the district realizes that additional cuts will be needed.”
The district had a levy on the ballot last year that would have generated $7.8 million per year in additional operating funds for the district. It failed, with more than 69 percent of voters opposing it.