Back to Table of Contents

The Cushman Report

Comparing Enrollment Decline to Staffing Levels by Phase

πŸ“± Mobile Tip: For the best viewing experience, rotate your phone to landscape or swipe horizontally to view the charts and tables.

A. Alignment Trajectory

PhaseAlignment
Level
Trend
Phase I
2007–2013
Mostly aligned (0–3%)Stable, improving
Phase II
2014–2019
Moderate misalignment (2–5%)Volatile, worsening
Phase III
2020–2025
High misalignment (8–16%)Explosive, collapsing

B. Additional Revenue

PhaseRevenueAverage per
Year
Comment
Phase I
2007–2013
$11.3 million – Local$1.9 millionReasonable with massive decline in enrollment.
Phase II
2014–2019
$11.5 million – Local$1.6 millionContrary to critics, it mirrored Phase I funding.
Phase III
2020–2025
$24.4 million – Local
$19.1 million – ESSER1
Total – $43.5 million
$7.3 millionHistoric, unsustainable amid a continued enrollment decline.

1 ESSER represents one-time federal relief funding.

C. School Committee/Superintendent Policy Decisions

PhaseLeadership
Style
Effect on
Alignment
Phase I
2007–2013
Unified, strategicAchieved
Phase II
2014–2019
Fragmented, politicalDrifted
Phase III
2020–2025
Chaotic, reactive, exclusionaryCollapsed

D. Executive Summary of Each Phase

PhaseExecutive Summary of Each Phase
Phase I
2007–2013
Phase One worked because consolidation, staffing reductions, and governance discipline kept excess staffing small and cost under control.
Phase II
2014–2019
Phase Two faltered because consolidation stalled, staff reductions became inconsistent, and political conflict replaced strategic planning.
Phase III
2020–2025
Phase Three collapsed because staffing grew while enrollment declined, ESSER temporarily hid the problem, and district leadership abandoned all structural planningβ€”leading to catastrophic misalignment, tens of millions in excess cost, and eventual state takeover.

E. (2007–2025) Enrollment Reductions

Enrollment
Reduction by
Phase
StudentsCumulative
Decline %
Phase I
2007–2013
βˆ’1,903βˆ’16.4%
Phase II
2014–2019
βˆ’875βˆ’24.0%
Phase III
2020–2025
βˆ’947βˆ’32.2%
Totalβˆ’3,725βˆ’32.2%

Figure 10 – (2007–2025) Change in Enrollment

Detailed enrollment reduction chart from 2007 through 2025

F. (2007–2025) Staffing Reductions

Staffing
Reduction
StaffCumulative
Decline %
Phase I
2007–2013
βˆ’243βˆ’14.4%
Phase II
2014–2019
βˆ’164βˆ’24.1%
Phase III
2020–2025
+24βˆ’22.7%
Totalβˆ’383βˆ’22.7%

Figure 11 – (2007–2025) Change in Staffing

Detailed staffing reduction table from 2007 through 2025

G. (2007–2025) Excess Staff & Cost

Excess
Staff &
Cost
Excess
Staff
Cost
Impact
Sustainability
Phase I
2007–2013
235$20.3
million
Controlled,
manageable
Phase II
2014–2019
283$26.6
million
Growing,
inconsistent
Phase III
2020–2025
871$80.7
million
Critical intervention
needed
Total1,389$127.6
million
β€”

Figure 12 – (2007–2025) Excess Staff & Cost Analysis

Detailed excess staffing cost table from 2007 through 2025

Refer to the methodology section for details on how excess staffing is calculated.

H. (2006–2025) Enrollment & Staffing Cumulative Gap

Staffing to enrollment cumulative gap from 2006 through 2025
Figure 13 – (2006–2025) Staffing to Enrollment Cumulative Gap

I. (2006–2025) Excess Staff & Cost

Excess staffing and annual cost from 2006 through 2025
Figure 14 – (2006–2025) Excess Staff & Cost