The Reading Post of Reading, Massachusetts, accepts Letters to the Editor. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or refuse letters. Letters containing hearsay, rumors, personal attacks, name-calling, or anything that could be considered defamation, slander, or libel will not be published. The Reading Post reserves the right to end debate on a topic after both sides have had ample chance to express their views. All letters are posted as received, unless otherwise noted. All letters are subject to editing for style, mechanics, and grammar. editor@thereadingpost.com
To the Editor:
Between now and November 3, thousands of Reading voters will make an important decision about the future of our community. As Chair of the Reading School Committee, I urge residents to vote YES on the operational override, because the consequences of a failed override would be too significant to ignore.
At our October 15 School Committee meeting, the Superintendent and Central Office leaders presented reductions for the Committee to consider if the override fails. Closing the projected budget gap of up to $4M would likely mean eliminating 40 or more positions. With 81% of our budget going to staff compensation and a lean administrative structure, there is no path to sufficient cuts without eliminating roles that would directly affect students across every level of our district.
Here are some examples of what these cuts will look like in practice. Elementary class sizes could increase to as many as 28 students, making it nearly impossible to deliver the small group instruction that is a hallmark of modern teaching. Small groups allow both struggling students and students who are excelling to receive the differentiated support they need. Literacy specialists and reading tutors who provide targeted support to students before they reach the point where expensive interventions are necessary could see their numbers reduced. Art, music, and library programs could be reduced in scope.
Middle school students could lose the team model that gives them a consistent network of teachers and support at a time that can be extremely challenging for many students. At the high school, courses with smaller enrollments, including some Advanced Placement, arts, dual-enrollment, and career pathway offerings, could be consolidated or eliminated. Fees for athletics and other extracurriculars may be raised, reducing the ability for some students to participate in the things they love to do.
All of these are options at this point, not final decisions. But it is clear that no single option will close the gap, in fact many of these options will have to be employed. This is not a scare tacticor a bluff, it is the difficult financial reality facing our schools.
I recognize that some residents question why our schools need additional funding when we have added some positions in recent years. Why can’t we just reverse those decisions?
It is true that we have made targeted staffing investments. But those investments are not administrative excess. They directly affect students’ experiences, in many cases were necessary to provide special education services, and often are investments that help defer future costs.
These roles help students feel a greater sense of belonging, have contributed to improvements in chronic absenteeism, and support the new curricula we are implementing to improve academic outcomes. They strengthen our ability to respond to students’ academic, social, and emotional needs. Removing these supports would risk reversing progress and leave remaining staff responsible for picking up the slack.
Of course we should evaluate our investments and demand results. But we should also recognize that improving educational outcomes requires more than adopting a new curriculum or setting higher expectations. It requires the people and resources to make those ambitions a reality.
Another common objection is that Reading approved an override just eight years ago. Doesn’t that suggest something has gone wrong with how our money is managed?
No. Proposition 2½ is designed to limit the growth of property tax revenue, not to guarantee that revenue will keep pace with the cost of providing public services. While the levy limit generally allows annual growth of 2.5%, many major costs – including employee benefits, salaries, and transportation – can rise faster.
Overrides are not a failure of Proposition 2½; they were instituted because it was foreseeable that communities might need additional revenue to maintain valued services. Without them, towns can be forced into a cycle of steadily cutting staff, programs, and services until little remains of what residents value. The override eight years ago was expected to last for 3-5 years, and has instead lasted for 8 thanks to outstanding financial management. Yet no override can indefinitely solve the structural gap between capped revenue growth and expense categories that rise faster than revenue is permitted to grow.
Our responsibility is to scrutinize spending, make thoughtful choices, and use taxpayer dollars wisely. It is also to be honest about what those dollars buy—and what happens when we no longer have them.
Reading’s schools are doing important work to improve learning, expand career pathways, support students who struggle, and provide the outstanding educational experience that makes our community special. Administrators have also estimated that our in-district special education investments in recent years have helped us avoid more than $12 million in out-of-district costs.
Strong programs and appropriate supports are not simply expenses; they can also help us use public resources more effectively. Our district delivers 90th percentile performance with per pupil spending below the state average and near the bottom of our group of peer communities.
I appreciate that an override represents a meaningful financial commitment, and do not take that lightly. But the decision before us is not whether we can avoid a difficult financial choice. It is whether we are willing to make the investment necessary to preserve the educational opportunities our children deserve.
As a community, we should not wait until class sizes grow, programs disappear, and student supports are diminished before recognizing the cost of underfunding our schools.
Please join me in voting YES on or before November 3. Let’s protect the quality of Reading’s schools and continue investing in the future of our children and our community.
Shawn Brandt
Chair, Reading School Committee
