Reading Public Schools · staffing since FY22
Staffing grew sharply. Enrollment barely moved. Academic outcomes were mixed.
Reading served 3,846 students in 2022 and 3,862 in 2026—an increase of 16 students, or 0.4%. Over the post-FY2022 period, Reading’s school budget materials identify 33.7 FTE of staffing investments, representing roughly $2.5 million per year in staffing costs to taxpayers. These investments span classroom instruction, student support, administration, health services and specialized programs. Academic results over the same general period were mixed, with MCAS performance improving in several grades and subjects while declining in others.
The contrast
About 34 FTE investments. Roughly $2.5 million per year. 16 additional students.
The numbers raise a straightforward question about priorities.
| Measure | FY22 | FY27 / post-FY22 | Numeric change | Percent / composition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Student enrollment | 3,846 | 3,862 | +16 students | +0.4% |
| School staffing investments | Baseline | 33.7 FTE of staffing investments FY26 reported district staffing: 659.4 total FTE (operating + grant-funded). | +33.7 FTE | New positions · FTE expansions · funding conversions |
What was added
33.7 FTE of staffing investments. Roughly $2.5 million per year.
These are the staffing investments identified in Reading’s FY23–FY27 school budget materials that were not supported by the local operating budget in FY22 but are supported by it in FY27. Together, they represent roughly $2.5 million in annual costs to taxpayers—an ongoing cost for as long as the positions remain funded.
Of the 33.7 FTE, 8.1 were teacher positions and 25.6 were non-teacher positions. The table below shows the classification position by position. The central question is the return on investment from each of these staffing decisions: what need each position addresses, what results it has produced, and whether it remains among Reading’s highest priorities.
| FY23 | Elementary School Adjustment Counselor/METCO Coordinators — 5 positions1 | Non-teacher | 5.0 |
| FY23 | Middle School Adjustment Counselor | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY23 | RMHS Adjustment Counselor | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY23 | REACH Social Worker | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY23 | RMHS Academic Center Coordinator/Teacher2 | Teacher5 | 1.0 |
| FY23 | English Language Teacher | Teacher | 1.0 |
| FY23 | Nurse | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY23 | Computer Science Teacher increase | Teacher | 0.4 |
| FY23 | Data Specialist increase | Non-teacher | 0.4 |
| FY23 | Stepping Stones Teacher increase | Teacher | 0.2 |
| FY23 | English Language Coordinator increase | Non-teacher | 0.2 |
| FY23 subtotal | 12.2 | ||
| FY24 | Elementary Assistant Principals — 5 positions | Non-teacher | 5.0 |
| FY24 | K–8 Math Coaches — 2 positions | Non-teacher6 | 2.0 |
| FY24 | Multilingual Learner Teachers | Teacher | 1.5 |
| FY24 | Joshua Eaton Special Education Teacher | Teacher | 1.0 |
| FY24 | Middle School Adjustment Counselor/METCO Coordinator | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY24 | RMHS METCO Coordinator | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY24 | Secondary Transition Specialist | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY24 | BCBA | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY24 | 1-to-1 Nurse | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY24 | RISE Team Chair increase | Non-teacher | 0.4 |
| FY24 subtotal | 14.9 | ||
| FY25 | Speech-Language Pathologist increase, 0.4 → 1.0 | Non-teacher | 0.6 |
| FY25 | Elementary LEAD Program Teacher3 | Teacher | 1.0 |
| FY25 | Secondary Guidance Counselors transferred from ESSER — 2 positions4 | Non-teacher | 2.0 |
| FY25 | Middle School Special Education Teacher transferred from ESSER4 | Teacher | 1.0 |
| FY25 subtotal | 4.1 | ||
| FY26 | Kindergarten Teacher | Teacher | 1.0 |
| FY26 subtotal | 1.0 | ||
| FY27 | Inclusion Specialist replacing IDEA-funded BCBA7 | Non-teacher | 1.0 |
| FY27 subtotal | 1.0 | ||
| Teacher positions | Teacher | 8.1 FTE | |
| Non-teacher positions | Non-teacher | 25.6 FTE | |
| Total staffing investments | 33.7 FTE | ||
1. METCO funding: The five elementary School Adjustment Counselor/METCO Coordinator positions represent 5.0 FTE of staffing. Their costs were split between the district operating budget and the METCO grant; the FY23 operating-budget calculation therefore reflected only 2.5 FTE.
2. FY23 title: Later budget materials use somewhat different terminology for this investment. This table uses the original FY23 budget terminology where possible.
3. LEAD: The later retrospective describes the LEAD teacher as a 1.0 FTE position. This table therefore counts the position as 1.0 FTE.
4. ESSER conversions: The 3.0 FTE represented by the two secondary guidance counselors and one middle-school special education teacher were existing ESSER-funded positions moved into the operating budget. They are funding conversions, not three newly created jobs.
5. Academic Center: The FY23 budget describes this 1.0 FTE position as an Academic Center Coordinator/Teacher. Because the position explicitly includes a teaching role, it is classified as a teacher in this table.
6. Math coaches: The two K–8 Math Coach positions are classified as non-teacher positions here because the staffing investment was for instructional coaching rather than classroom teacher FTEs. This classification describes the role, not the employee’s licensure or qualifications.
7. FY27 funding conversion: The FY27 budget moves one Inclusion Specialist into the operating budget in place of an IDEA-funded BCBA. Because Reading taxpayers were not supporting that FTE through the operating budget in FY22 but are supporting it in FY27, it is counted here as a 1.0 FTE staffing investment. The FY27 budget also moves four Special Education Paraprofessional FTE from the operating budget to the IDEA 240 grant. Those four FTE are noted but are not subtracted from this post-FY22 investment total because none appears among the documented FY23–FY26 staffing investments listed above; the available budget records reviewed here do not establish that those four positions were added after the FY22 baseline.
Questions the data raise.
Changing student needs may explain some of that growth. But 33.7 FTE of staffing investments is significant enough to examine position by position: what need drove each investment, whether it represented new headcount or a funding conversion, and what measurable result was expected.
The investments span classroom instruction, student support, administration, health services and specialized programs. MCAS is only one measure of school performance, but the 2022-to-2026 results were mixed rather than uniformly improving.
During and after the pandemic, Reading used temporary federal funding to support additional school staffing. Because those positions did not initially require recurring local operating revenue, it was easier to add staffing while the federal money was available.
But temporary funding eventually ends. When it did, Reading chose to retain some of those positions by moving their costs into the operating budget. Those temporary funding decisions therefore became recurring local commitments.
Now that Reading is confronting a recurring budget gap, this is an appropriate time to examine those investments.
Which positions have delivered the greatest value? Which continue to address our highest priorities? And which staffing levels made sense with temporary federal funding but may no longer make sense when they must be supported with recurring local revenue?
Maybe we need them. Maybe we don't. That's why we need to see the workload, the results and the priorities.
Academic outcomes
The longer-term picture is mixed. The latest ELA results show a broader decline.
From 2022 to 2026, Reading’s MCAS results improved in some grades and subjects and declined in others. The first chart shows that longer-term comparison. The second isolates the most recent year-over-year change from 2025 to 2026.
The 2026 ELA results show a notable pattern: compared with 2025, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding expectations declined in six of seven tested grades. Grade 5 was the only exception. Math was more mixed: two grades improved, four declined and Grade 10 was unchanged.
Grade 5 is also worth watching as a cohort. The students in Grade 5 in 2026 are the Class of 2034, a cohort that has posted comparatively strong MCAS results as it has moved through Reading’s schools. From 2025 to 2026, that cohort’s meeting-or-exceeding rate rose by 10 percentage points in ELA and 13 points in math.
These results do not establish that any particular staffing investment caused—or failed to cause—an academic result. MCAS is only one measure of school performance, and each grade-level comparison involves different cohorts of students. The results do show why staffing levels, student needs and measurable outcomes should be examined together rather than assuming a simple relationship among them.
A reasonable response
AP performance is a real strength. It deserves credit.
Supporters of the override have pointed to Reading Memorial High School’s Advanced Placement results as evidence of strong academic performance. That is a reasonable point, and the results are worth recognizing.
| RMHS AP performance · 2024–25 | Result |
|---|---|
| Total AP exams taken | 636 |
| AP exams scoring 3 or higher | 83% |
| English Language Arts exams scoring 3–5 | 98% |
| History & Social Science exams scoring 3–5 | 92% |
| Math & Computer Science exams scoring 3–5 | 93% |
| Science & Technology exams scoring 3–5 | 63% |
These are strong results, and they deserve to be recognized. AP students are a self-selected group pursuing advanced coursework, so AP performance measures something different from MCAS and should not be treated as representative of every RMHS student. But neither should it be ignored. Reading clearly has students succeeding at a very high academic level.
It also does not resolve the question this page is asking. Strong AP results tell us that an important part of the school system is working well. The broader academic data remain mixed, and the budget question remains: Which investments are producing strong results and should be protected? Which are addressing our highest-priority needs? Which have produced measurable improvement? And where might resources reasonably be reduced, consolidated or redirected?
Giving Reading full credit for its AP success does not make those prioritization questions less important. It makes the case for asking them carefully.
Cost and benefit
The standard: show us the results.
For the staffing investments and funding conversions identified since FY22, show taxpayers: What did we add? What does it cost each year? What student need was it intended to address? And what measurable student outcome improved?
The measure should fit the position. An adjustment counselor might be evaluated using chronic absenteeism, behavioral incidents or student-support caseloads. An academic position might be evaluated using student growth or achievement. An elementary assistant principal might be evaluated using measurable changes in discipline, attendance, instructional leadership or other outcomes the position was specifically created to improve.
Not every valuable position will produce higher MCAS scores. But every significant recurring investment should have some measurable objective by which taxpayers can judge whether it's working.
Then we can have an informed cost-benefit discussion about which investments are delivering enough value to preserve—and which might reasonably be reduced, consolidated or redesigned.
Why it matters now
The override should be the conclusion of this analysis—not the starting assumption.
The current proposal asks for $6.5 million in permanent additional levy capacity and 5.25% school-budget growth to maintain the proposed service level. With about 33 gross FTE investments or funding conversions identified after FY2022, nearly flat enrollment, and mixed academic outcomes, the relevant questions are which investments address continuing student needs, what measurable outcomes they were intended to produce, and what the evidence shows about those outcomes.
Sources & notes
The record
The analysis on this page is drawn from publicly available enrollment, budget and override documents.
Annual district enrollment data, including 3,862 students in 2025–26.
View source →Grade-by-grade ELA and mathematics achievement levels for 2022 through 2026.
View source →AP exams taken and score distributions by subject, including 636 exams overall and 83% scoring 3–5.
View source →FY23 staffing priorities and FTE changes, including the elementary counselor/METCO funding structure.
View source →FY24 staffing priorities and the 14.9 FTE investment.
View source →FY25 staffing investments and ESSER-to-operating funding conversions.
View source →Retrospective review of FY23–FY25 investments and the FY26 kindergarten-teacher addition.
View source →FY27 staffing and funding changes, including the operating-budget Inclusion Specialist conversion and the transfer of four Special Education Paraprofessional FTEs to the IDEA 240 grant.
View source →Current override proposal and school-budget assumptions.
View source →What should come next
Measure first. Decide second.
Measure the outcomes. Examine the reasonable alternatives. Cost them and show us the tradeoffs. Then determine the size of the override Reading truly needs.
Back to priorities