District issues layoff notices as class sizes worry parents

Faced with declining student enrollment and a corresponding decrease in state aid, the Port Washington-Saukville School Board approved layoff notices for five teachers last week even as parents said they are growing increasingly concerned about the impact staffing reductions will have on class sizes next year.

The district issued the notices on Tuesday, March 24, but quickly rescinded one after receiving the resignation of a teacher, Supt. Michael McMahon said.

The district plans to eliminate the equivalent of just more than 10 full-time positions for the 2026-27 school year and hopes to cut as many of them as possible through attrition — retirements and resignations — rather than layoffs.

The board’s action came shortly after parents urged officials to consider the affects of fewer teachers on students.

“I don’t know a ton about budgeting in school districts, but what I do know as a political scientist is when you budget, you make value choices. You set priorities,” Sara Pashak, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who has children in the School District, said. “I just want to encourage the board to ask questions about those budget choices, and I think the top question should always be, how will this help students?

“Taking FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) out and making class sizes bigger is not good for students. There’s nothing about bigger class sizes that help students.”

Barry Mitchell told the board that his family decided to move to Saukville in part because of the schools in the district and has stayed because of its music programs and teachers, who have the expertise to be part of the solution to the budget challenges facing the district.

“I generally trust you are making an effort to do what you think is best for the district with budget constraints, however I think you could do better by finding ways to collaborate with our experienced teachers and staff when making budget decisions that affect them and the kids they teach,” he said.

Kirsten Coenen said board members have chosen to support administrators rather than their constituents.

“Many of you ran on the promise you would not rubber stamp decisions, that you would challenge this administration, yet time and again you fail to do that,” she said. “Many of us stay here because of the teachers. That’s one thing that’s holding this district together, and now even that feels like it’s at risk with these cuts.”

The district implemented an annual staffing review last year timed to comply with state deadlines for issuing layoff notices after years of adding to the teaching staff even as enrollment shrank.

McMahon said the staffing reductions planned for next year will not result in overcrowded classes and, in fact, will bring class sizes in line with other area and high-achieving districts.

Referring to those districts, he said, “These are districts that significantly exceed expectations on the report card, have high achievement in growth and academics and reading and math and are doing so with class sizes larger than those in the Port Washington-Saukville School District.”

Kindergarten class sizes in the Port-Saukville School District next school year are expected to range from 17 to 20 students, smaller than this year’s. The largest class sizes at the elementary level are expected to be in third grade and range from 21 to 25 students.

Those sizes are comparable or slightly smaller than the average elementary school class sizes in the nine school systems the district used for comparison, which include the Grafton, Cedarburg and Mequon-Thiensville school districts.

At Thomas Jefferson Middle School in Port, where class sizes are being affected by a change in the schedule as well as declining enrollment, the district expects an average of between 23.1 and 24.4 students in English language arts and math classes depending on grade level.

Again, that compares favorably with other school systems studied by the district, which have maximum class sizes that range from 25 to 29 students at the middle school level.

With enrollment declining, the reality is the district has to reduce its staff, McMahon said. 

“Every district is facing these challenges, and I truly hope that someday we are an increasing enrollment district and I don’t have to tell a teacher we’re making cuts,” he said. “That’s not what I got into education for, and it’s not what anybody in this building got into education for.

“But the reality is, with 81% of our budget being people and benefits, that’s the first place we have to look.”

The reduction in positions for next school year is expected to save the district $847,250 in salaries, even with a 2.63% — the equivalent of the Consumer Price Index — pay increase for all employees, according to what Director of Business Services and Human Resources Mel Nettesheim described as a “very, very preliminary” 2026-27 budget.

Wages paid to hourly employees are expected to increase by $25,320 because of the pay raise.

The proposed staffing changes come as declining enrollment continues to be a challenge. The anticipated loss of more than 50 students next school year would continue a trend in annual precipitous drops that dates to 2020. Over the last 13 years, enrollment has decreased by 287 students.

With state per-pupil aid remaining at $742 next year, fewer students means less revenue for the district, and there are ancillary revenue reductions associated with declining enrollment, Nettesheim said. 

“We are seeing a decrease in (revenue from) fees, and a large part of that is declining enrollment,” she said. “We don’t have as many students paying the fees.”

This as the district’s costs for everything from utilities to technology continue to increase. 

“The amount we’re paying for things — it’s just a lot,” Nettesheim said. “It’s a lot higher than it was even two years ago.”

Board member Brian Stevens asked how much money the 2.63% raise for all employees represented and how many positions could be saved if raises were not given.

Nettesheim said she did not immediately know how much money the raises for all employees will cost the district but said the pay increases for teachers total only enough to retain two positions.

McMahon, however, said freezing pay would put the district at a competitive disadvantage and deviate from the strategic plan goal of attracting and retaining high-quality educators.

“We could say we’re not going give raises, and our staff could then go to districts that do provide increases,” he said. “We have to compete with the area and how other districts are funding their staffing.”

Nettesheim said not providing pay increases would make the district an outlier in the area.

“We would be one of the only districts not giving an increase,” she said.

If the district doesn’t cut positions, Nettesheim said, it would have to draw on money for capital improvements and reduce funding for extracurricular activities to balance the budget.

“So sports and activities would be cut,” she said. 

McMahon quickly interjected, “The administration is not recommending that.”

Ahead of last year’s successful referendum, which authorized the district to borrow $59.4 million for district-wide maintenance and the construction of a new Saukville Elementary School, it established a goal of creating a capital improvement fund that will allow the district to maintain its facilities without going to referendum.

McMahon said he is not about to renege on that commitment.

“Previously we deferred maintenance,” he said. “We didn’t put new roofs on our buildings, and so we had to go to referendum to pay for that maintenance.

“That’s where we were a year ago, and I don’t want to be there again.”