The presentation showed 17 students currently placed out-of-district (slide 20), but the budget covers 7 private placements + 13 BOCES placements = 20 total students. Please provide the actual current count of students in each category and explain the discrepancy. What is the historical utilization rate of budgeted "contingency" slots over the past 5 years? Where does unspent contingency funding go at year-end?

Private tuition is budgeted at $1,100,000 for "5 students + 2 contingency" ($157,143 per student). BOCES is budgeted at $1,800,000 for "10 students + 3 contingency" plus itinerant services. Please provide: (a) the actual cost breakdown separating BOCES tuition from itinerant services, (b) the per-student cost for each category, and (c) a 5-year trend showing average cost per out-of-district student in both private and BOCES placements.

Out-of-district placements increased from 14 to 17 students (+21.4%) while total classified enrollment remained essentially flat. Out-of-district tuition is increasing $520,000 (+21.8%). What specific factors are driving this growth? Has the district conducted a cost-benefit analysis of adding in-district program capacity versus continuing out-of-district placements?

The presentation stated that 270 students (94.08%) are served in-district. What is the current capacity utilization of in-district special education programs? Could any of the 17 out-of-district students be served in-district with reasonable program modifications or additions? If not, what specific services or supports are unavailable in-district?

For the past 5 fiscal years, please provide: (a) budgeted versus actual out-of-district tuition costs by category (private, BOCES tuition, BOCES itinerant), (b) number of students budgeted versus actual placements, and (c) total variance between budget and actual. If this line consistently shows significant unspent funds, why is it budgeted at levels that exceed likely actual costs?

Teacher aide costs are budgeted at $5,555,491 (117 aides serving 287 students = 2.45 students per aide). Learning Center Instructors are budgeted at $3,272,021 (40 positions serving 287 students = 7.18 students per instructor). Combined, this represents 157 support staff for 287 students (1.83:1 ratio) costing $8,827,512—40.2% of total special education spending. Please provide peer district comparison data (Great Neck, Syosset, Roslyn, Manhasset, Half Hollow Hills) showing: (a) aide-to-student ratios, (b) total support staff costs as percentage of special education budget, and (c) support staff ratios.

What specific services do Learning Center Instructors provide that differ from special education teachers or teacher aides? Please provide detailed job descriptions showing distinct, non-overlapping responsibilities. Has the district evaluated whether any consolidation could occur while maintaining IEP compliance and service quality?

The presentation stated Learning Center Instructors and Teacher Aides are budgeted "as needed" with current staffing shown (40 and 117, respectively). Please provide: (a) actual staffing levels for each of the past 5 years (not budgeted), (b) the criteria and process for determining "as needed," and (c) budget-to-actual variance for these lines for the past 3 fiscal years. If positions are consistently budgeted but not filled, why are they included at levels exceeding likely actual utilization?

The district is reducing special class teachers by 0.8 FTE and co-teachers by 1.4 FTE (total -2.2 FTE certified positions) while teacher aide costs are increasing $412,482 (+8.0%). Please explain: (a) the rationale for this staffing shift, (b) documentation that this maintains IEP compliance and instructional quality, and (c) the net fiscal impact of reducing certified positions versus increasing aide costs.

Professional Services (code 2250.449) is budgeted at $1,500,000—unchanged from the prior year—covering 10 different service categories including academic support, behavior intervention, consultations, evaluations, home instruction, OT, PT, speech, and skilled nursing. Please provide: (a) a vendor-by-vendor breakdown showing service provider name, services rendered, and annual contract amount, (b) competitive bid history for each contract, (c) contract terms and renewal dates, and (d) budget-to-actual expenditures for this line for the past 3 fiscal years.

How can professional services remain flat at $1,500,000 when out-of-district tuition is increasing by $520,000, aide costs are increasing by $412,000, and total special education is increasing by $622,758? Please explain: (a) what services are being reduced or eliminated to keep this line flat, (b) whether this line has historically been under-spent, and (c) if so, why it continues to be budgeted at this level.

The presentation mentioned "AAC Consultant," "Reading Consultant," and "Behavioral intervention consultation with Jericho behaviorist." For each consultant service: (a) what is the annual cost, (b) who is the provider, (c) what is the contract term, (d) when was it last competitively bid, and (e) has a cost comparison been performed between consultant fees and hiring equivalent district staff?

For all professional services and consultant contracts, please provide documentation showing: (a) why each service cannot be provided by existing district staff, (b) what attempts were made to bring services in-house, and (c) analysis of cost savings that could be achieved through competitive rebidding or alternative service delivery models.

Special education administrative staffing includes 1 Director, 2 Curriculum Associates, 3 Facilitators, 1 Coordinator (Transition/CPSE/OOD), 1 504/ENL Facilitator, and 1 Secretary—totaling 8 administrative positions serving 287 classified students, costing approximately $1,947,667. Please provide: (a) a detailed functional responsibility matrix showing how each position's time is allocated, (b) peer district comparison of administrative staffing ratios in special education, and (c) analysis of potential consolidation opportunities.

The district employs separate facilitators for Elementary, Middle School, High School, 504, ENL, and Transition/CPSE/OOD serving 287 total classified students and 138 total 504 students. Please provide: (a) documentation supporting this administrative structure, (b) comparison to peer district models, and (c) analysis of whether a more consolidated structure could deliver equivalent services at lower cost.

How does the special education administrative cost per student ($6,783) compare to: (a) the district's guidance administrative overhead ($83.52 per student), (b) psychological services administrative overhead ($14.76 per student), and (c) peer districts' special education administrative structures? What accounts for this differential?

Slide 22 shows post-graduate outcomes: 38% earned Regents diplomas, 62% earned Advanced Regents diplomas. Please provide: (a) comparison to the district's overall graduation rates, (b) comparison to state averages for students with disabilities, (c) 5-year trend showing whether outcomes are improving, stable, or declining, and (d) post-graduate employment and college enrollment rates for special education students.

What metrics does the district use to evaluate special education program effectiveness beyond graduation rates? Please provide 5-year trend data for: (a) percentage of students meeting IEP goals, (b) percentage of students declassified, (c) percentage of students moving to less restrictive environments, and (d) special education student performance on state assessments compared to state averages.

The district operates multiple special education program models (co-teaching, resource room, consultant teacher, special classes, etc.). Please provide: (a) cost per student for each service model, (b) capacity utilization of each program, and (c) analysis of whether any programs are under-enrolled and could be consolidated to improve efficiency.

Nurse salaries are increasing 8.7% ($748,711 to $813,966) with zero change in staffing (7 nurses). Please provide: (a) explanation of what is driving this increase (contractual steps, schedule changes, other factors), (b) the nurse salary schedule or contract provisions, and (c) comparison to peer district nurse compensation.

With 7 nurses serving 5 buildings (3 elementary, 1 middle school, 1 high school), please provide: (a) the coverage model for each building showing how many nurses are assigned to each location, (b) comparison to National Association of School Nurses recommendations, and (c) peer district staffing models.

BOCES Health Services cost $180,000 (up from $162,000, +11.1%). Please provide: (a) detailed service breakdown showing what is purchased, (b) number of students served, (c) per-student cost, (d) competitive bid history or explanation of why this is sole-source, and (e) analysis of whether these services could be provided in-house or contracted separately at lower cost.

Out-of-District Health Services cost $40,000. Please clarify: (a) what services this covers, (b) whether this is for the 17 students in out-of-district placements, (c) why this is a separate line item from out-of-district tuition in code 2250, and (d) whether health services are included in tuition contracts or purchased separately.

Health Services supplies are budgeted at $22,000 (flat from prior year). Please provide: (a) itemization of what is included in this category, (b) comparison to peer district supply budgets, and (c) budget-to-actual expenditures for the past 3 years to determine if this line is appropriately sized or conservatively over-budgeted.

The district is adding one elementary counselor, bringing total counselor staffing to 12 for 3,592 students (299:1 ratio). Please provide: (a) documentation of what is driving this addition (enrollment trends, needs assessment, state requirements), (b) current counselor distribution across buildings and grade levels, and (c) comparison to American School Counselor Association recommendations (250:1), state requirements, and peer district ratios.

Clerical salaries (3 positions: 2 HS, 1 MS) are increasing 12.9% ($141,155 to $159,403) with no staffing change noted. Please explain: (a) what is driving this increase, (b) whether it is entirely contractual, and (c) how the average clerical salary ($53,134) compares to the district's general clerical salary schedule.

The presentation mentions "evening guidance hours" within the instructional salaries line. Please provide: (a) annual cost of evening guidance, (b) utilization data (students served, hours used), and (c) analysis of whether this service could be provided during the regular school day through schedule adjustments to eliminate overtime costs.

BOCES Guidance Information System costs $23,000 annually (flat). Please provide: (a) identification of what system this is (Naviance or other), (b) services included, (c) date of last competitive bid, (d) alternatives that were evaluated, and (e) comparison to other guidance management systems available to school districts.

Psychologist salaries are increasing 4.1% ($1,298,640 to $1,351,777) for 8 psychologists serving 3,592 students (449:1 ratio). Please provide: (a) explanation of what is driving this increase, (b) comparison of the average salary ($168,972) to market rates for school psychologists on Long Island and peer district compensation, and (c) comparison to the district's teacher salary schedule.

Please provide: (a) breakdown of how psychologist time is allocated (percentage to evaluations versus counseling versus consultation versus other services), (b) comparison of the 449:1 ratio to National Association of School Psychologists recommended ratios and peer districts, and (c) analysis of whether current staffing levels are aligned with service demands.

Consultant Services in psychological services cost $15,000 annually. Please provide: (a) identification of what consultant services are purchased, (b) provider name and contract details, (c) justification for why 8 district psychologists cannot handle this work in-house, and (d) competitive bid history.

Social Work Services cost $297,008 for 2 social workers (average salary $148,504), increasing 5.3%. Please provide: (a) detailed role descriptions showing how social worker functions differ from psychologists, counselors, and special education staff, (b) comparison to recommended staffing ratios and peer districts, and (c) analysis of whether current staffing is aligned with caseload demands.

The district employs 8 psychologists, 2 social workers, and 12 counselors—22 total mental health and student support professionals serving 3,592 students. Please provide: (a) a functional responsibility matrix showing distinct, non-overlapping roles for each position type, (b) peer district comparison of total mental health staffing, and (c) evaluation of whether any service overlap exists that could be addressed through consolidation or restructuring.

Librarian salaries are increasing 5.6% ($727,084 to $767,987) for 5 librarians. Please provide: (a) explanation of what is driving this increase, (b) comparison of average salary ($153,597) to the district's teacher salary schedule, and (c) clarification of whether librarians are on the same salary scale as teachers or a separate schedule.

Support staff salaries (library aides and clerk) are decreasing 21.4% ($101,309 to $79,600). Please explain: (a) what position was eliminated or reduced, (b) whether this was a retirement not replaced, (c) what functions were lost or reassigned, and (d) how library operations will be maintained with reduced support.

The district employs 5 librarians + 2 aides + 1 clerk = 8 staff across 5 buildings. Please provide: (a) staffing model at each building, (b) comparison to state library staffing requirements, American Library Association recommendations, and peer districts, and (c) analysis of whether elementary library services could be consolidated to improve efficiency.

BOCES Library Automation Program costs $98,000 annually (up from $95,000). Please provide: (a) identification of what system this covers, (b) services included, (c) date of last competitive bid, (d) alternatives that were evaluated, and (e) comparison to other library management systems available to school districts.

The total books budget across all buildings is approximately $65,500 ($13,100 per building average). Please provide: (a) comparison to New York State library standards for school library collection development, (b) per-student benchmarks, (c) peer district book budgets, and (d) analysis of whether the collection is being maintained or declining.

Total subscriptions cost $52,125 district-wide. Please provide: (a) line-item list of databases and subscriptions with costs, (b) utilization data for each resource, (c) analysis of duplications with resources available through BOCES, Suffolk Cooperative Library System, or other sources, and (d) opportunities to eliminate underutilized subscriptions.

AV Materials are budgeted at approximately $18,000 across all buildings. Please clarify: (a) what is actually purchased in this category in the digital/streaming age, (b) whether the budget is aligned with current usage patterns, and (c) whether funds should be reallocated from physical AV materials to digital resources.

Across Workshop #2 budget codes, total BOCES spending is $2,101,000: Special Ed tuition/services ($1,800,000), Health Services ($180,000), Library Automation ($98,000), and Guidance Information System ($23,000). For each service category, please provide: (a) detailed service description, (b) contract term and renewal date, (c) historical cost trend over 5 years, (d) expected BOCES aid recovery percentage, timing, and actual recovery in recent years, and (e) analysis of in-house delivery or direct contracting alternatives.

What is the total aggregate BOCES spending across all district budget codes (Workshops #1, #2, and anticipated Workshop #3) for 2026-27? Please provide a comprehensive reconciliation showing: (a) expenditure by budget code, (b) expected aid recovery by code, (c) actual aid received in 2024-25 versus expected, and (d) net cost to the district.

If the district is required to pay BOCES administrative and capital charges regardless of service utilization, is the district maximizing use of available BOCES services to extract value from this mandatory payment? Please provide: (a) list of BOCES services the district currently uses, (b) list of BOCES services available but not utilized, and (c) analysis of whether additional service utilization could provide value.

For all professional services and consultant contracts in Workshop #2 areas (special education professional services, psychological consultants, health consultants, library automation, guidance systems), please provide: (a) complete vendor list with service descriptions and contract amounts, (b) competitive bid history with date of last RFP or quote solicitation, (c) contract terms and renewal dates, (d) performance metrics or deliverables, and (e) documentation of why each service is purchased externally rather than provided by district staff.

For Workshop #2 budget codes (2250, 2610, 2810, 2815, 2820, 2825), please provide a comprehensive 3-year budget-to-actual analysis showing: (a) budgeted amount by major line item, (b) actual expenditure, (c) variance (dollar and percentage), and (d) explanation for significant variances. If certain lines consistently show significant unspent funds, why are they budgeted at levels exceeding likely actual costs?

The professional services line in special education has remained flat at $1,500,000 for two consecutive years while other costs have grown significantly. Please provide: (a) actual expenditures for this line for the past 5 years, (b) explanation of why the budget hasn't been adjusted if historical spending is materially lower, and (c) where unspent professional services funds are reallocated or returned at year-end.

Multiple line items appear to include contingency funding that may not be fully utilized (out-of-district tuition for contingency placements, "as needed" positions that may not all be filled). Please provide: (a) total contingency funding embedded in Workshop #2 budgets, (b) historical utilization rates, and (c) analysis of whether contingency levels could be reduced while maintaining appropriate reserves for unexpected needs.

For "as needed" position categories (Learning Center Instructors, Teacher Aides), please provide: (a) how the budgeted number is determined, (b) actual filled positions versus budgeted for each of the past 5 years, (c) total variance between budgeted and actual salary costs, and (d) whether budgets could be rightsized to reflect likely actual utilization while maintaining flexibility for genuine needs.

The budget presentation states the district will "Continue to pursue efficiencies in all areas of the district budget." Yet all six Workshop #2 program areas increased, ranging from 1.9% to 7.8%, with a weighted average of 3.1%. No program was reduced or eliminated. No services were brought in-house to reduce vendor costs. Please identify specific efficiency initiatives implemented in Workshop #2 areas in the past 3 years with documented dollar savings for each.

Can the administration identify $500,000 in potential savings across Workshop #2 codes (less than 1.8% of the $28M covered) without reducing educational programs or services required by law? Potential sources could include: (a) competitive rebidding of vendor contracts, (b) BOCES service alternatives or direct contracting, (c) administrative consolidation, (d) elimination of over-budgeted line items based on historical spending, or (e) other efficiency measures. If the position is that no savings exist, please explain the basis for that conclusion.

Multiple salary line items show growth of 4-9% with no staffing changes noted (nurses +8.7%, librarians +5.6%, psychologists +4.1%, social workers +5.3%, guidance clerical +12.9%). Please clarify: (a) what percentage of these increases are contractually mandated step increases versus other factors, (b) the multi-year cost trajectory under current contracts, and (c) what cost containment strategies exist given contractual commitments.

The district's enrollment declined from 3,674 to 3,592 students (-82 students, -2.2%), yet Workshop #2 spending is increasing $833,731 (+3.1%). Please explain: (a) how the administration reconciles increasing costs with declining enrollment, (b) what the cost trajectory looks like if enrollment continues to decline, and (c) what strategies are being implemented to bend the cost curve.

Across Workshop #2 program areas, total proposed spending is $28,044,270 serving 3,592 students ($7,806 per student). Please provide: (a) comparison of this per-student cost to the same programs 5 years ago (inflation-adjusted), (b) peer district comparison (Great Neck, Syosset, Roslyn, Manhasset, Half Hollow Hills), and (c) comparison to state averages.

For each major program area (special education, guidance, health, psychological, library), please provide: (a) measurable program goals, (b) outcome metrics used to evaluate success, (c) current performance against those metrics, (d) 5-year performance trends, and (e) comparison to state averages or national benchmarks. How does the Board evaluate whether current spending levels are producing desired outcomes?

Please provide a staffing efficiency analysis showing: (a) 5-year trend of actual FTE count (not budgeted) for each position category in Workshop #2 areas, (b) positions budgeted but not filled in each of the past 3 years, (c) total number of non-instructional support positions (aides, clerks, secretaries), (d) how this has changed over 5 years, and (e) technology investments made to improve productivity and reduce manual tasks.

A comprehensive 5-year trend analysis (2021-22 through 2026-27 proposed) showing for each Workshop #2 budget code: (a) budgeted amount by major line item, (b) actual expenditure, (c) variance (dollar and percentage), (d) enrollment served, and (e) cost per student served.

A detailed staffing and cost comparison table showing Jericho versus 5 peer districts (Great Neck, Syosset, Roslyn, Manhasset, Half Hollow Hills): (a) special education students as % of enrollment, (b) aide-to-student ratio, (c) out-of-district placement rate and cost, (d) counselor-to-student ratio, (e) psychologist-to-student ratio, (f) social worker-to-student ratio, (g) librarians per building, (h) administrative overhead as % of program budget, and (i) total cost per student for each program area.

A complete vendor and contract list for all Workshop #2 programs showing: (a) vendor/provider name, (b) service description, (c) annual contract amount, (d) contract term, (e) competitive bid date or sole-source justification, (f) performance metrics or deliverables, and (g) BOCES aid recovery if applicable.

For out-of-district special education placements: (a) 5-year trend of number of students placed and total cost by category (private, BOCES tuition, BOCES itinerant), (b) per-student cost by placement type, (c) comparison to peer districts' OOD rates and costs, (d) analysis of in-district program capacity and utilization, and (e) identification of any students who could potentially be served in-district with program enhancements.

For special education support staff (teacher aides and Learning Center Instructors): (a) detailed job descriptions showing distinct roles and responsibilities, (b) 5-year trend of budgeted versus actual positions, (c) peer district comparison of support staff models, ratios, and costs, and (d) analysis of consolidation opportunities that could occur while maintaining service quality and IEP compliance.

A program effectiveness dashboard for each Workshop #2 area showing: (a) measurable goals, (b) outcome metrics, (c) current performance, (d) 5-year trend, (e) comparison to state or national benchmarks where available, and (f) cost per outcome measure (e.g., cost per student served, cost per successful placement, cost per graduate).

An administrative overhead analysis across all Workshop #2 programs showing: (a) number of administrative/supervisory positions by program, (b) total administrative salary cost by program, (c) ratio of administrators to students served, (d) administrative cost as percentage of total program budget, (e) peer district comparison, and (f) functional responsibility analysis showing potential consolidation opportunities.