Shortly after the school year, the district received its Title I funding notification from the federal government. That allocation dropped by $169,000, so I recommended that the board cut one remedial position shared by two of our public schools, one remedial position shared by parochial schools, and I approved reductions in supplies equipment to cover the shortfall in revenue. Naturally, people wonder how I came to such a conclusion.

Here are the factors behind my decision. Notice about federal funding lags behind our local budgeting by four months, and Auburn could not afford to absorb the reduction from Congress. Second, Auburn has 20 positions supported by the feds in 2006-07 and had 20.8 in 2004-05. This year we will spread out the loss of one person among the remaining 20 remedial teachers. Next year, knowing of the reduction by the federal government, I can then recommend other measures based on confirmed need.

One alternative this year would have been to collapse four sections of a third-grade class to three sections, and assign a teacher to a remedial position shared by two of our schools. I feel we can do a better job overall by keeping class sizes smaller, and not changing all class lists in September as a disappointing surprise to children and parents. Another alternative would have been to declare an emergency circumstance, add some or all of the cost to the budget pending a vote only by the board, and increase the local tax levy as a result. Neither of those options is acceptable.

So, how can a district afford a capital project given these circumstances, even to include synthetic turf? The answer is driven by the funding source and by timing. Building projects have an entirely different funding stream and permissible use than federal programs. This year our state Legislature has set aside a new category called EXCEL aid ($1.5 million in Auburn) only to be used on capital projects, reducing local costs. Also this year, the federal government has lowered Auburn's share of Title I money which can only be used on remediation. The two funding sources - state and federal - cannot be mixed to support local programs.

This year we will continue to track the performance of all children. If we should need more remediation to support children's learning at local costs, then that will be part of my recommendation for next year.