On Tuesday, Feb. 24, several Old Saybrook parents submitted a letter to Superintendent of Schools Chris Drezek and Board of Ed Chair Karen Brodeur to voice concerns about the proposed FY 26-27 Budget and its Strategic Plan.  We invite all parents, teachers, and staff in the OSPS community, as well as town leaders and taxpayers, to review our concerns and show their support by signing the petition.

SUMMARY

Transparency in both the reasoning and the evidence behind budget priorities is essential for maintaining trust with families and the broader community. As it stands, the proposed spending does not accurately reflect, and in some cases misrepresents, the priorities of many Old Saybrook families: academically rigorous programming aligned to individual student needs, data-driven decision-making about how resources are allocated, and current, evidence-based instructional practices that best serve achievement in student learning.

Financial and educational resources should be directed first toward initiatives that strengthen academic rigor, support teachers, and improve measurable outcomes for students. Any proposed spending, changes to instructional frameworks, or districtwide goal-setting should be grounded in clear statistical evidence that the approach will meaningfully improve student learning and deliver a measurable return on investment (ROI) in student progress.

CONCERNS

• The Numbers

There is confusion and concern over how the budget was calculated, including whether a portion was offset from the reserve fund to lower the percentage increase and whether the reduction list accurately reflects total costs. At the Feb. 3 BOF/BOS meeting, BOF Chair George Chang presented three pages of notes to flag a number of problems and query the numbers presented (YouTube recording here; refer to his remarks starting at 2:02). His review pointed to quite a few errors and omissions—this has inspired a lack of confidence in the foundations of the budget document. It also calls into question whether the best interests of the district’s student body were at forefront of the budget-creation process.

• Unaligned Priorities

There are concerns that a portion of the budget includes a lot of cosmetic planning like new paint, an electronic sign, glass walls for a "business lab," and a new student union. Families are seeking a clear explanation of how these facility investments directly advance core academic outcomes, particularly in literacy, numeracy, and specialized instructional supports. These areas are fundamental to student success, enrollment retention, and attracting new families to the district. Absent a demonstrated connection to measurable student achievement, it is difficult to understand how facility enhancement expenditures align with the district’s stated educational priorities.

• Unfortunate Cuts

There was a decision to cut the valuable and affordable Summer Enrichment program at Goodwin, citing asbestos abatement and a $200,000 "savings," despite having other buildings where the program could potentially operate. More broadly, when elementary-level programming is reduced due to facility or capital considerations, transparency regarding districtwide capital sequencing becomes especially important. In periods of significant capital investment, visible equity in how opportunities are preserved across grade levels is essential to maintaining parent confidence. The cut is especially confusing because the Summer Enrichment program fulfills all four pillars outlined in the Strategic Plan (i.e., Belonging & Ram Identity; Interest Discovery & Exploration;Academic Skills & Readiness; and Real-World Learning & Community Partnerships): It fosters belonging and Ram identity, supports interest discovery and exploration, strengthens academic skills and readiness, provides real‑world learning, and connects students to the community year‑round. Given this alignment, eliminating the Summer Enrichment program runs directly counter to the framework the Strategic Plan is built on.

• Strategic Plan

We do not support the current "Pathways to Success" strategic plan as presented. The plan reads less as a rigorous, evidence-based framework and more as a promotional narrative emphasizing surface-level, cosmetic changes and loosely defined initiatives, rather than addressing the deeper, systemic factors contributing to declining family confidence and enrollment.

Any proposed initiative that costs significant money and reshapes an entire school system should be grounded in clear data and supported by extensive research. The “Pathways” plan cites no research or data points to justify its sales pitch. Such evidence should include, but not be limited to, programming from higher‑performing districts with similar educational, socioeconomic, and enrollment profiles, as well as the verbatim survey questions sent to students and families and the corresponding response data.

REQUESTED ACTIONS

• Commit to revising the FY 26-27 Budget and Strategic Plan with evidence-based instructional investments that directly strengthen student learning outcomes
• Share full survey instruments and response data used to inform budget priorities
• Provide measurable outcome targets and evaluation timelines for all new initiatives and investments
• Reverse the Summer Enrichment cut and clarify whether relocation or temporary adjustments were fully evaluated before discontinuation was determined to be the most appropriate course of action.
• Specify the Strategic Plan’s academic goals for Goodwin students and how they align with proposed expenditures
• Direct the Superintendent to commission an external review of the ELA curriculum (specifically ARC), MTSS implementation, and Special Education programming to ensure funds are being allocated appropriately, practices align with evidence-based standards, and students' needs are accurately identified and met. Findings could then inform the district's spending priorities going forward.

We are parents who care deeply about our children, our educators, and the long-term strength of this community. We believe that strong schools are the foundation of a thriving town, and we support investing in programs and resources that directly improve student learning. At the same time, we can’t support a budget that prioritizes capital enhancements over core academic investment, or that advances significant structural changes to the District’s PK–12 framework without clear evidence of measurable benefit to student outcomes. Our support is grounded in one principle: academic excellence must remain the central driver of district decision-making.