Guilford School Board Approves $525,000 in Cuts

Board of Education · Meeting of June 1, 2026

GUILFORD — The Guilford Board of Education voted unanimously to cut $525,000 from its 2026-27 budget after a second failed referendum. The nine-member board, chaired by Kathleen Balestracci, approved taking $200,000 from medical insurance, $70,000 from professional development, $122,000 from a vacant instructional coaching position, $107,852 from site improvements and $25,148 from an unfilled paraprofessional slot. Superintendent Dr.

Freeman said the package brings total reductions this budget cycle to roughly $2 million and warned the district remains about $3 million short of what it needs if the June 16 referendum fails again. Members rejected cutting an interventionist position outright, with one calling it "a hard no," and chose to spare a proposed high school course-section reduction. Public commenters, including parent Colleen Farrell of Guilford Families for Schools, urged the board to "protect the people and programs closest to students."

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 3,445 words

Source: the Board of Education meeting of June 1, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

Checked against the record: before publication this article was automatically compared with the meeting transcript.

The Full Article

Public Comment on Staffing Priorities

Background and stakes: The special meeting followed the Board of Finance's order, issued at its meeting the prior Tuesday, that the school district cut an additional $525,000 after Guilford voters rejected the school budget in a referendum for the second time. Eight speakers used the board's 45-minute public comment period, several addressing a proposal, among many on the table, to reduce an instructional coaching position.

The question before the body: whether and how to weigh public input before deliberating line-item cuts.

Substantive content: Banu Pan, a parent and co-president of PROS, the high school orchestra parents' group, asked the board to preserve 0.5 FTE of music staffing at Adams Middle School, citing the district's two consecutive years as a "Best Communities for Music Education" designee from what she called the NAM Foundation (likely the NAMM Foundation). Jenny Shay, a third-grade teacher at Guilford Lakes Elementary, defended instructional coaches Christian Balsamo and Paul Salem by name, saying they work in her classroom weekly and tailor resources to individual students' needs. Resident Michael Denzo argued coaching positions, which he said cost "100 plus thousand a year," are a "luxury" compared with a $35,000 IT associate position also under consideration, and said the public hearing felt "predetermined." Resident Renee Fagan said she submitted written budget questions in advance and received no substantive answer, and cited a Freedom of Information request showing the superintendent's total compensation, once a leadership stipend, car allowance, transportation reimbursement and a Teachers' Retirement Board payment are added to a base salary of $272,382.50, reaches $343,535; she was asked to stop after her three-minute limit and sparred briefly with board leadership over the interruption. Parent Chris Jones, who said he attended the Board of Finance meeting, voiced support for coaching as "the standard of care" in modern districts. Colleen Farrell, identifying herself as a member of Guilford Families for Schools, asked the board to prioritize protecting interventionists, paraprofessionals and world language instruction over other line items, saying the district has already compressed middle school Spanish from two years to one. Ansley Roach, a parent, argued the district's roughly $440,000 Chromebook purchase for kindergartners, fifth graders and ninth graders should be reduced before staff positions. Emily Fornier, a literacy coach at Melissa Jones School and a parent, defended coaching as essential to "equitable instruction" and described her own children's experiences with coached teachers.

The deliberation: Balestracci and Peck opened the meeting by urging residents not to treat a "no" vote on the referendum as a message to the Board of Finance, noting the finance board "has never increased the budget after a referendum goes down" in Balestracci's 14 years on the board.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote occurred on public comment items; comments informed the subsequent discussion.

Implications and what is next: Several specific requests from commenters, protecting interventionists, paraprofessionals and the coaching position, surfaced directly in the board's subsequent line-by-line deliberation.

Health Insurance Line: A Phased Payback

Background and stakes: Last year the district and town agreed to draw the school budget's medical insurance line down by $585,000, relying on a medical surplus fund, with an understanding that the reduction would be phased back to zero over time.

The question before the body: whether to take $200,000 of this year's required cut from the medical insurance line as a partial restoration of that drawdown.

Substantive content: Freeman, referencing page 52 of the original budget book, proposed carrying a $200,000 reduction rather than returning the full $585,000 to zero in one year, softening what he called a budget "cliff" by spreading the restoration over roughly three years. Linda Trudeau, identified in the discussion as the finance staff member handling the detail, confirmed the original plan was always to phase the drawdown back in. Freeman said the district is self-insured, has saved an estimated 8 to 12 percent annually compared with private insurance over the past seven or eight years, but has seen medical costs rise sharply the past two years, erasing roughly a decade of prior savings. He said the district expects to return $300,000 to $400,000 in unspent special education tuition funds to the town this year, due to an unusually favorable year of student placement changes, and will recommend that money be directed to the medical surplus fund, though the ultimate decision rests with the Board of Finance.

A member asked whether the $200,000 figure could instead be set closer to $268,000 or $292,000 to split the $585,000 difference evenly. Freeman and Trudeau said any change beyond $200,000 would require fresh consultation with the district's medical insurance consultant and the town's financial office, which could not be completed before the board needed to finalize a decision ahead of the June 9 town budget meeting.

"It just shows as a reduction... we're not hurting people in the paper." — unidentified board member, during discussion of the medical line

Procedural steps and outcome: The board reached informal consensus to keep the $200,000 medical reduction on the final list without expanding it.

Implications and what is next: The $200,000 reduction does not reduce what the district will pay employees for coverage next year; it is a repayment adjustment tied to last year's surplus-fund drawdown.

Professional Development Reduction and State ECS Funds

Background and stakes: Freeman proposed cutting $70,000 from the professional development line, flagging it as a one-time reduction he hopes to restore next year.

The question before the body: whether to accept the cut on the expectation that an additional $70,000 in state Education Cost Sharing (ECS) funding, which has traditionally flowed to the town rather than the district, might offset it.

Substantive content: Freeman said the reduction, if not offset, could force the district to scale back outside professional-development partnerships, including work with the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Partners for Educational Leadership on math instruction. Member Amy Fenollosa asked Freeman to describe the potential impact; Freeman said he expects "no impact at all" if the ECS offset materializes but could not guarantee it.

Procedural steps and outcome: The board indicated general agreement to keep the $70,000 cut on the list, with Skretta confirming no objection by phone.

Implications and what is next: The outcome depends in part on a conversation with the town over whether the additional ECS allocation is redirected to the schools, a conversation Freeman said is not yet resolved.

Third Instructional Coach Reduction

Background and stakes: The district has grown its instructional coaching cohort from three positions 16 years ago to 14 currently. The board had already cut two coaching positions in earlier rounds of this budget process.

The question before the body: whether to eliminate a third coaching position, made vacant by the board's recent decision to promote a sitting coach to principal of Calvin Leete Elementary School.

Substantive content: Freeman said the cut would net $122,000 with no layoff, since the position is already vacant. He said a fourth coaching cut, by contrast, would only save about $78,000 net, because coaches have contractual teacher seniority rights and would likely bump a lower-salaried classroom teacher rather than leave the district. He said the reduction brings the coaching cohort cut to roughly 21 percent, compared with an overall teaching-staff reduction of about 3 to 4 percent, and said no other employee group faces a cut of that magnitude this year. The reduction would shift remaining coaching capacity toward elementary grades and away from grades 7-12.

Member DellaVentura asked about the programmatic impact of losing a filled position; Freeman said the district is moving coaching resources to protect "coherence" of the K-6 model at the expense of secondary-level coaching support. Member Skretta, participating by video, said he believes the efficacy of coaching is "irrefutable" and asked the board and public to understand its long-term payoff. Fenollosa said she continues to support interventionists more strongly, noting that in staff round-table discussions, teachers "absolutely insist" on interventionists despite 15 years of coaching investment, and referenced a comparison to Milford's model, where coaches also perform some intervention duties.

Procedural steps and outcome: The board indicated general support for including the $122,000 coaching cut in the final package, with no objections raised.

Implications and what is next: The cut does not produce a layoff; the vacancy created by the recent principal hiring absorbs the reduction.

High School Course Sections Spared

Background and stakes: Freeman's working list included cutting one full-time-equivalent's worth of course sections at Guilford High School, which the board had rejected in prior meetings.

The question before the body: whether to accept a reduction equivalent to five course sections, spread across roughly ten high school departments.

Substantive content: Freeman said the reduction would likely show up as slightly larger class sizes and potentially fewer section offerings in high-interest, low-enrollment courses, but should not eliminate any course offering outright and should not produce a loss of full-time status for staff, given recent retirements in the PE and science departments. Enrollment at the high school has dropped below 1,000 students for the first time.

A member pressed on student impact, asking directly whether reduced sections mean larger classes or reduced flexibility; Freeman confirmed "it's exactly both of those things" but said the effects should be negligible.

Procedural steps and outcome: Member Jennifer Baldwin said she "really" opposed the high school cut, a position another member seconded. The board substituted the one vacant paraprofessional position's value ($25,148) and shifted the remaining balance onto site improvements rather than take the $65,000 high school reduction.

Implications and what is next: The high school will not see this reduction in the 2026-27 budget as finalized.

Interventionist Position Rejected

Background and stakes: The district expanded its interventionist cohort from six to eight positions in the base budget this year; Freeman had proposed returning it to seven, a reduction he had also proposed, unsuccessfully, in a February 9 reduction list.

The question before the body: whether to cut one of the two newly added interventionist positions, both filled internally by current classroom teachers rather than new hires.

Substantive content: Freeman said the cut would save $68,000 and would not constitute a layoff, since the affected teacher would revert to a classroom role. He distinguished interventionists, who work directly and intensively with a small number of struggling students, from coaches, who work through classroom teachers and reach a broader population.

Three board members in sequence rejected the proposal outright. Fenollosa said teacher feedback at round tables consistently prioritizes interventionists even after years of coaching investment, and cited research that early intervention reduces downstream special education costs.

Procedural steps and outcome: With no board support, the item was removed from consideration, leaving the board needing to find $68,000 elsewhere.

Implications and what is next: The eight-member interventionist cohort, expanded this year, remains intact going into 2026-27.

Paraprofessional Vacancy Reduction

Background and stakes: The district has struggled statewide-level shortages in filling paraprofessional positions, running between roughly three and nine vacancies through the year; the line finished the past two fiscal years roughly 90 percent spent.

The question before the body: whether to cut one or more of the paraprofessional positions added this year, bringing the total count back toward prior-year levels.

Substantive content: Freeman said the district added paraprofessional positions this year anticipating need, but has been unable to fill them due to a statewide shortage tied in part to a parallel shortage of certified special education teachers. He said cutting one position, worth $25,148, would return the paraprofessional count to roughly 100, close to last year's 99.5 count after two prior-year reductions. He emphasized the district is contractually obligated to meet any student's IEP-mandated paraprofessional support regardless of whether a specific position is filled or funded.

A board member asked pointedly how many paraprofessional positions are "needed but unfilled" right now; Freeman said he would need input from a staff member referred to in the discussion as Mr. Stanziano (the name was rendered inconsistently in the audio) and the district's special education coordinators to answer precisely, but confirmed the district has been reassigning staff across buildings to meet emergent needs.

Procedural steps and outcome: The board settled on cutting one paraprofessional position ($25,148), using it to help offset the preserved high school position.

Implications and what is next: No individual currently holds the eliminated position; the vacancy is unfilled.

Site Improvements Absorb the Balance

Background and stakes: The site improvements line funds routine, non-bonded maintenance such as carpet, ceiling tile, blinds and bathroom updates. The district has worked for 15 years to build the line toward 1 percent of the annual budget and had already cut it twice this budget cycle, by $50,000 in February and $19,749 in March.

The question before the body: how large an additional cut to the site improvements line the board would accept to balance the remaining reduction target.

Substantive content: Freeman said further cuts would likely defer planned carpet, ceiling tile and bathroom renovation projects to future years rather than create emergency conditions, since facilities staff member Mr. Gernham sequences discretionary projects late in the fiscal year after emergency repairs are addressed. Member DellaVentura argued for taking the remaining balance from this line rather than cutting more positions, saying "this year may not be the year" to protect the maintenance line given the alternative was additional staff reductions.

Procedural steps and outcome: After the board chose to preserve the high school position and the interventionist, and settled on a single paraprofessional cut, the remaining balance needed, $107,852, was assigned to site improvements.

Implications and what is next: Freeman said the district will need to "thoughtfully and consciously" rebuild the site improvements line in future budgets.

Curriculum Stipends Debate

Background and stakes: Four curriculum-writing stipends, $6,625 each, were created in recent years to replace a prior model relying on summer volunteer committees, which Freeman said stopped functioning reliably after the pandemic. Two of the four currently go to teachers who also serve as instructional coaches, though the stipends themselves are open to any teacher.

The question before the body: whether to eliminate the four stipends, worth roughly $26,500 total, as a late addition to the discussion.

Substantive content: Freeman said curriculum in several subject areas has not had a major revision since 2017 and that the district only this year restarted a regular revision cycle, covering social studies, geometry and Algebra 2. He said cutting the stipends, on top of eliminating three district-wide curriculum specialist positions and two coaching positions already in this budget cycle, would leave Dr. Goss, identified in the discussion as the district's remaining central curriculum staff, with a shrinking pool of teacher voices contributing to curriculum revision. He noted Madison reports eight central office administrators in a smaller district, compared with Guilford's four.

A board member identified in the audio only as "Jen" asked Freeman to confirm the curriculum had gone largely unrevised for close to a decade and asked who would do the revision work if the stipends were cut; Freeman said the district would likely fall back to unpaid summer volunteer committees, which had stopped working reliably. DellaVentura said he would "much prefer" to absorb a further site-improvements reduction than cut the stipends on top of three coaching cuts. Another member, identified by the chair afterward as Jennifer Baldwin, interjected after roughly two and a half hours of discussion, pressing the board to move toward a final number.

Procedural steps and outcome: The board did not cut the curriculum stipends; the final package left the four stipends intact.

Implications and what is next: The curriculum office retains its stipend-supported teacher-writer model heading into the next revision cycle.

The Final Motion and Vote

Background and stakes: After roughly three hours of discussion, the board needed to finalize a reduction package equaling the Board of Finance's required $525,000.

The question before the body: whether to adopt the combined package of five line-item reductions.

Substantive content: The final package comprised $200,000 from medical insurance, $70,000 from professional development, $122,000 from the vacant instructional coaching position, $107,852 from site improvements, and $25,148 from one vacant paraprofessional position, totaling $525,000.

Procedural steps and outcome: A member moved the motion as read by Chair Balestracci; another member seconded. The board held a voice vote with a hand count; Balestracci counted nine hands and declared a unanimous vote.

Implications and what is next: The reduction package is final for the budget headed to the June 9 town budget meeting and the June 16 referendum.

What's Next: Town Meeting and Referendum

Background and stakes: Under Connecticut's town meeting process, a budget forwarded by the Board of Education and Board of Finance must pass through a town budget meeting before going to referendum.

The question before the body: none; this was informational closing business.

Substantive content: Balestracci said the town budget meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, at Guilford High School, confirmed in the room by a district administrator. The referendum is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, with polls open 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Freeman said that even after the $525,000 and the roughly $2 million in total reductions made this budget cycle, the approved spending plan remains about $3 million below what the district would need to open the 2026-27 school year without further cuts if the referendum fails again.

Procedural steps and outcome: No vote; Balestracci and Freeman urged residents to vote rather than abstain, saying an abstention effectively cedes the outcome to other voters.

Implications and what is next: A third referendum failure would require the district to open the school year on current-year funding levels despite contractual raises and rising costs, according to Freeman.

WHO WAS THERE

Kathleen M.B. Balestracci, Chair, presided over the meeting. Kristen N. Peck, Vice Chair, present and spoke. Jennifer L. Baldwin, Member, present and spoke. Jennifer G. Scoggin, Member, present (possibly the board member referred to only as "Jen" in the curriculum stipend discussion; attribution uncertain). Ralph P. Brooks, Member, present; not directly quoted by name in the transcript. John A. DellaVentura, Member, present and spoke (rendered "Mr. Delvinur" in the audio). Amy Fenollosa, Member, present and spoke. Richard H. Hersh, Secretary, present; not directly quoted by name in the transcript. Arnold F. Skretta, Member, participated via video link (rendered "Arnold Greta" in the audio). Dr. Freeman, Superintendent, presented the recommended reduction package. Linda Trudeau, finance staff, addressed medical insurance fund details (title not stated in transcript). Dr. Goss, curriculum staff, referenced regarding curriculum office staffing (first name and title not stated). Mr. Hamill, HR office staff, referenced regarding staffing and attrition tracking (title not stated). A staff member referenced inconsistently as Mr. Stanziano/Sconziano/Gonzano, regarding paraprofessional scheduling (surname spelling unconfirmed). Mr. Gernham, facilities staff, referenced regarding maintenance work (title not stated). Kevin, referenced regarding the technology capital lease, possibly the same person later referred to as Mr. Mitchell (unconfirmed).

Public commenters: Banu Pan, 41 Ironwood Road, parent and co-president of PROS music booster group; Jenny Shay, 110 North Madison Road, third-grade teacher and parent; Michael Denzo, 41 Wimler Lane, resident; Renee Fagan, 288 Whitebirch Drive, resident; Chris Jones, 55 Tulip Tree Drive, parent; Colleen Farrell, 5 Potter Hill Drive, parent and member of Guilford Families for Schools; Ansley Roach, 18 Orcutt Drive, parent; Emily Fornier, Mist Road North, parent and literacy coach at Melissa Jones School.

ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Board of Finance — the town body that ordered the additional $525,000 reduction after the second failed referendum. NAMM (rendered "NAM") Foundation — cited by a public commenter as having named Guilford Public Schools a "Best Community for Music Education" for two consecutive years. Harvard Graduate School of Education and Partners for Educational Leadership — outside partners cited as at risk if the professional development cut is not offset. Guilford Council of Educational Administrators — cited by a public commenter regarding an October 14, 2025 employment agreement. Teachers' Retirement Board (TRB) — cited by a public commenter regarding superintendent compensation reimbursements. New Solutions — outside evaluation firm cited by Freeman regarding paraprofessional assignment efficiency. Milford Public Schools — cited for comparison on a blended coaching/intervention staffing model. Madison and Clinton — neighboring towns cited regarding a shared special education transition program and central office staffing comparisons. Guilford Transition Academy — district program cited as an example of in-district special education capacity building. Education Cost Sharing (ECS) state grant — cited as a possible offset for the professional development line cut. February 9 reduction list — cited by a board member as an earlier document on which the interventionist cut had already appeared. Page 52 of the original budget book — cited by Freeman to explain the medical insurance line adjustment.