This year’s school budget is increasing by $8 million. While the Greenwich Board of Education (BOE) requested a $12 million (5.1%) increase, the Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) approved a 3.5% increase instead. That still represents meaningful growth. Given the overall $247 million school budget, we believed it was appropriate to ask for modest efficiencies – just 1–2% savings. This wasn’t about cuts. It was about oversight and long-term sustainability. When spending rises, it warrants scrutiny. Especially under state law, which locks in each year’s increase as the new baseline, ensuring permanent budget growth. If student needs truly cannot be met within this increased allocation, the BET retains the ability to revisit the budget midyear through a formal adjustment.
Why We Approved an $8 Million — Not $12 Million — Increase
Our decision was grounded in data — not politics or ideology. We examined spending trends and benchmarked Greenwich against comparable towns like Darien, New Canaan, and Fairfield. While we deeply value public education, Greenwich spends 10–15% more per pupil than these towns but does not consistently outperform them academically. Many residents also urged us to keep increases closer to the rate of inflation — below 3%. As BET members, we are responsible for the entire town which means balancing school funding with other vital priorities — such as public safety, infrastructure, and taxpayer affordability.
Where Could the $4 Million in Savings Come From?
Some have asked why we didn’t dictate specific cuts. The charter does not allow us to modify line items — but we do have a responsibility for the overall budget. The BET sets the total budget allocation; the BOE determines how it is spent. Still, we highlighted areas worth a closer look:
• Overhead and bureaucratic costs
• Early Childhood Education: Greenwich spends over $5 million on early childhood education compared to $1.5 million in Darien — despite having only about twice as many special education Pre-K students.
• District-wide Services: Costs for administration, Pre-K, facilities, and transportation have grown by 44% in five years — from $47 million to $68 million. While some growth reflects expanded services, the pace of increase deserves scrutiny — particularly givenbthat K–12 enrollment has declined by nearly 500 students over the same five-year period.
That’s why we proposed a modest adjustment — not to underfund our schools, but to encourage a closer look at spending priorities. Most households start with excess spending — not essentials — when trimming budgets. The same principle should apply here.
Where the $4 Million Should NOT Come From
Our intent is not to underfund classrooms but to encourage smarter prioritization. Like any household, trimming budgets should start with non-essential and administrative expenses — not core programs. Unfortunately, the Superintendent’s initial suggestions included cuts to the Advanced Learning Program (ALP), world languages, and shifting high school start times — all highly visible changes likely to generate concern. These proposals were designed to provoke public backlash and shift attention away from areas where meaningful savings exist. We encourage the BOE to refocus the conversation on identifying those opportunities — without using students as leverage.
A Responsible Budget, With Room to Adapt
From the beginning, we’ve aimed for a thoughtful and collaborative budget process. On budget day, Republican BET members offered a compromise — reducing the increase by $2 million rather than $4 million. But without any willingness from Democratic colleagues to engage, advancing a motion would have served no practical purpose. At the most recent BOE meeting, Democratic BOE members declined to identify a single dollar in potential savings, and the conversation remained stalled. We continue to believe that identifying reasonable savings — particularly outside the classroom — is both possible and necessary.
If, after a thorough review, it is determined that essential student needs cannot be met within the approved budget, a midyear adjustment may be considered. Public service requires tough decisions and careful stewardship — not soundbites. We stand by a budget that protects students, respects taxpayers, and remains open to adjustment if needed. We believe that transparency, not fear, leads to better outcomes for students and taxpayers alike.
Submitted by David Alfano, Nisha Arora & Lucia Jansen – Republican members of the BET
