With union contract unresolved, Springfield district says it will cut 27 jobs mid-school year

Springfield Public Schools announced plans Thursday, Jan. 8, to make midyear layoffs, citing “insufficient funding to sustain current licensed staffing levels.”

The district plans to cut 27 full-time equivalent licensed positions at the high school, middle school and district level by the end of January, said Jonathan Gault, president of the Springfield Education Association, the district’s union for licensed employees.

The reason for the cuts, however, is a point of contention between the union and district. 

In an email to staff, Superintendent Todd Hamilton said the $2.34 million budget shortfall was due to the fact that the district accounted for no cost-of-living increase for licensed staff in its 2025-26 budget process. In a Nov. 7 post on the district’s website, the district stated it budgeted for no cost of living adjustment “to avoid pre-determining outcomes through bargaining.”

When the school board passed Springfield’s budget last year, Brett Yancey, the district’s chief of operations, said that any increase in pay and benefits from bargaining would result in positions having to be cut. The district has not specified when these cuts would occur, but noted in the Nov. 7 post that the district would reduce licensed positions once the contract is “agreed upon.”

The district is still bargaining with the Springfield Education Association over a contract that would include the current school year, however, and Gault said the two parties have not come to a temporary agreement on pay and benefits. This means any additional expenses the district is factoring in now are an estimate of what the contract will include.

Hamilton said the district cut positions over the summer in the classified and administrative employee groups in order to balance out the groups’ 2025-26 cost-of-living increases.

“Reductions to licensed staffing have been delayed for as long as possible,” Hamilton wrote in the email to staff. “However, to align expenditures with available resources for the 2025-26 school year, the District must now take comparable steps within the licensed group.”

He said laying off staff at the end of January will minimize disruption because it marks the end of a semester.

But with bargaining still continuing, Gault said the district is using the cuts to get a more favorable contract outcome. He thinks the district should have hired fewer teachers in the fall, knowing the cost-of-living adjustment was going to be higher than 0%. The district presented their first pay-increase proposal in bargaining on May 7, offering a 2.5% increase in 2025-26 and a 2% in the following two years. By Aug. 27, the district had increased their offer to a 4% pay increase this year and next.

“I’m calling this a manufactured crisis,” he said. “We didn’t need to be in this place.”

Brian Richardson, the district’s director of communications and community engagement, said the district has been open about its budget realities with the union.

“These decisions are driven by fiscal realities and the Board-adopted budget, not a leverage in contract negotiations,” Richardson said in response to Gault’s claim.

The Springfield Board of Education has the final say on staff reductions. Members will vote on the district’s resolution at the Monday, Jan. 12 meeting.

Future cuts for 2026-27

Like many districts in the area, Springfield is using budget reserves this year. The district projects they will spend $7.8 million in reserves to cover an “unanticipated loss of enrollment,” according to a budget forecast filed in the Jan. 12 board packet. Springfield plans to end the year with $13 million in reserves.

In a budget committee work session Jan. 8, the district said that Springfield’s enrollment was 302 students fewer than expected in September. Since then, another 171 students have left the district, according to a Dec. 19 count. The district had 8,901 students enrolled at the end of 2025.

Yancey said while the district typically sheds students over the course of the year, this year’s loss is greater than usual. 

School buildings with fewer students means less efficient operations, Yancey said. The district will have to take enrollment versus school capacity into consideration when budgeting for the 2026-27 school year.

Yancey said the district plans to present more information about the district’s expected budget shortfalls at the next budget committee work session on Feb. 12.

Springfield’s current budget 

The budget committee received an update on the district’s management of the 2025-26 budget on Nov. 8, with projections showing the district on track to receive more revenue and spend less than expected.

The district is projected to have 8.5% of its general fund in reserves by the end of the fiscal year on June 30. The board has a policy to keep at least 5% of the general fund in reserves.

However, the need for unexpected infrastructure improvements is creating uncertainty, Yancey said. The district may need to repair several aging wooden trusses in old buildings due to a recent declaration from its insurance company.

In order for the insurance company to cover buildings that are more than 50 years old and have a large-span wooden truss, the district must get the trusses inspected and certified by a structural engineer. Trusses are triangular frames that usually support roofs.

“We reasonably expect that there is going to be a significant amount of repairs to some of those trusses,” Yancey said.

He talked to a district that is further along in certifying its trusses, and that district had spent over $1.5 million on design and repairs. The district is similar in size to Springfield and has buildings of similar ages. Yancey budgeted $1.9 million for capital projects this year and the district has used $29,500 so far.