With Manchester’s school district looking to trim its proposed 2027 budget to stay within the city’s tax cap, the Board of School Committee took the extraordinary step of forbidding the district from achieving a balanced budget by laying off educators.
The move effectively elevates raw educator staffing numbers over all other district priorities, even though district enrollment has fallen by thousands in the last two decades.
On May 11, the board made two moves to maintain current educator staffing levels:
- Forbade the administration from reducing the number of certified educators next fall.
- Approved transferring $8.6 million in bonded capital funds to the operating budget to cover ongoing personnel costs.
Using the $8.6 million in bonded funds for next year’s payroll—a move requested by the superintendent—would reduce projected layoffs from 134.5 to 77.5 (saving 57 jobs), according to a memo the superintendent presented to the board.
The ban on educator layoffs ensures that no portion of any additional savings could be found by reducing the number of credentialed educators, which includes administrators and specialists.
Though some board members characterized the vote as a way of preventing unmanageably large class sizes, the district’s student-teacher ratio has fallen significantly in recent years as enrollment has steadily declined and more teachers have been hired.
From 2016-2026, Manchester’s enrollment fell by 1,867 students, according to the New Hampshire Education Department’s annual student-teacher ratio reports.
During that same period, the number of teachers rose by 42.4.
Board members who supported the vote said teacher layoffs would reduce educational quality. Manchester’s academic outcomes are among the worst in the state, with 28% of students proficient in English Language Arts and 18% proficient in math.
In its budget presentation, the district administration stated that lower class sizes improve educational outcomes for students.
But the 1980s Tennessee study the district cited focused on large class size reductions, not small ones. And more recent research indicates that much larger academic gains can be achieved by moving more students into classrooms with highly effective teachers, even if those class sizes are large.
The Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, which studies educational return on investment (ROI), recommends putting more students in classrooms with highly effective teachers rather than dividing students into smaller classes with less-effective teachers.
The Edunomics Lab bases its recommendation on multiple studies showing that larger classes led by better teachers produce significantly greater educational gains than smaller classes led by less-effective teachers.
The trick, of course, is keeping the most effective educators while letting go of the less-effective. But pursuing this strategy has been shown to improve both efficiency and outcomes. Districts can even increase teacher pay this way, which helps to attract better teachers.
Instead, the Manchester School District has spent decades pursuing the 1980s strategy of simply lowering class sizes.
Since 2012, Manchester’s student-teacher ratio has fallen from 15 students per teacher to 11.6, state data show.
The district caps class sizes at 20 in grades K-4 and 25 in grades 5-12. According to the school district’s budget presentation to the Board of School Committee, the necessary budget savings for next year can be found by eliminating teacher positions and increasing class sizes, with caps of 25 in grades 3-4 and 27 in grades 5-12. Most classes would remain below those caps.
With personnel accounting for 69% of the district’s budget, the obvious place to look for savings is in staffing levels or compensation packages. Since the board ruled out educator layoffs, another place to look would be reopening employment contracts, although such a move would be highly unlikely.
If both of those options are ruled out, that leaves the remaining 31% of the budget.
Projected 2027 budget changes include an 80% increase in the district’s phone service, a 155% increase in equipment, and $400,000 to cover school lunch debt for families who don’t pay for their children’s meals.
Relative to what can be found in personnel expenses, rolling back such increases would represent small savings.
However, going back to a 15-1 student-teacher ratio, or close to it, would achieve all of the savings the administration hopes to find. But with personnel efficiencies ruled out, the district must make other tradeoffs.
