The BHPSNJ Admin Equation: Less Students + More Overhead = Budget Deficits

With the referendum and 2026-2027 budget looming for Berkeley Heights School District, there has been talk of potential deficits and the possibility of having to cut programs and staff.  It’s past time for the district to find ways to reduce our administrative overhead.  Should the superintendent balk at this, let’s take a look at how our administrative costs have taken shape over the last roughly 20 years. 

Searching for current and previous numbers of administrators for our distinct proved challenging.  After spending nearly an hour on this alone, here is what I found.  According to our district website, there are 34 district-level staff members.  Removing maintenance and transportation staff (but leaving the heads of those departments), and not counting two members of the Child Study Team (CST), there are currently 23 administrative positions.  This does not include building principals, assistant principals and office staff. 

There were no similar pages or archives that I could find to compare numbers to previous years, so I had to rely on NJ State Report Cards for data.  I wanted to go back to 2006, because that’s the year Berkeley Heights voters approved a referendum for a $24,000,000 bond.*  Unfortunately, data on the state website is only available from 2011-2012 onward, though I was able to find a random site with a report card for Columbia Middle School for 2008-2009, so that will be used as a starting point for comparisons.

As of 2008, Berkeley Heights School District had 18 administrative staff positions, and 150:1 was the ratio of students to administrators.  The 2008 report card did not list student-to-teacher ratios, but according to the National Center for Education Statistics, we had approximately 249 teachers.  Given the number of administrators and the ratio, we can extrapolate that there were approximately 2,700 students enrolled.  This would give a student-to-teacher ratio of approximately 11:1.

For 2016, the report showed a 12:1 student/teacher ratio, with 248 teaching staff.  In 2016-2017 we had 21 administrators, giving a ratio of 128:1. 

Current enrollment numbers are hard to pin down, with the most recent available being for the 2023-2024 school year, at which time we had 2,441 students. This gives us a 10.65:1 ratio of students to teachers, with 226 teaching staff.  These numbers indicate that the student-to-teacher ratios have not changed drastically, while the student-to-administrator ratio has.  

Using these numbers, our current student to administrator ratio is an incredible 106:1.  The national projected (2024) ratio for students to administrators is 242:1.

To reiterate, we have added administrative positions, even as we have fewer students in the district.  

This trend of more administrators and fewer enrolled students seems to hold true at Governor Livingston High School as well.  With the departure of Ms. Jackie Bartlett, an Assistant Principal at Governor Livingston High School, the district has a chance to show that they are willing to consider taking a hard look at administrative positions, not merely promoting scare tactics by threatening cuts to programs and teaching staff. (The Millburn BOE agenda shows Ms. Bartlett being hired by their district, joining Mr. Nixon, who was hired as the principal at the high school.) The district should consider NOT filling this position with an interim hire, and should reevaluate whether the position is needed.  

For a small district, our total number of employees stands at 470 (FTE). Compare us to the New Providence School District, which has a similar 2024 enrollment of 2,352 – just 89 fewer students.  They show 330 staff members.  (Both sets of enrollment and staff numbers are the most recent available; 2023-2024.)

In doing research on these numbers, I found an article regarding the 2006 referendum and budget.  It is well worth a read by all, and is linked below, but here is a summary.  The budget for the year was $41,435,553, a 9.4% increase over the previous year’s budget. The residents of Berkeley Heights would fund 78% of that amount through taxes. The remainder would come from a free amount of $405,855 in the school budget, debt service aid, state aid and tuition from non-resident students. 

The budget included a five-year facilities plan, updates to curriculum items, upgrades in technology, and additional staff (eight teachers, a guidance counselor and a reading specialist). Also mentioned was the addition of Spanish in elementary schools and Latin beginning in sixth grade, as well as three elective classes at the high school.  The budget had money allocated for music and science equipment at CMS and GL. Superintendent Ratner noted that state aid had been flat for five years straight.  [This is important to note, since our current administration is using state aid as both a carrot (we get aid for the referendum) and a cudgel (we can’t depend on state aid for the budget), depending on what they are discussing.]

Business Administrator, Michael Kistner, stated that of the $24 million approved in the December referendum, “part… has been spent on architects’ and attorneys’ fees”.  The school tax for that year, for a home with an assessed value of $299,000 was $4,933.50. He also said, “There are less relatables in the area to support the tax levy.”  

What should Berkeley Heights residents be aware of as we move forward, and what can you do to help shape the future of our schools?  

For those who will vote “yes” on the new referendum… that’s not enough.  The $24-32 million spent 20 years ago was for school renovations, yet we have people saying that nothing has changed in 70 years.  While renovations don’t last forever, we see from the 2006 article that the regular budget was supposed to address a five-year facilities plan.  The district has been spending money yearly for upkeep to the schools, yet they are in “dire need”.  Please take this energy you have and spend some of it on holding the district accountable for where the money has been used and how we can bring our numbers back in line, so that in another dozen years we aren’t being told we need to spend $75 million or cut programs and teachers.  This isn’t a one-and-done deal.  There are substantial changes that need to be made.  

For those voting “no”… same deal.  While, in the unlikely event the referendum doesn’t pass, it would send a message to the district about priorities and accountability, those in charge need to hear from you regularly, and you need to be more aware of what has been happening with the yearly budget and other decisions that affect spending.  

You can also join the NJ21st staff.  Benefits include being told you’re spreading misinformation, being ignored by those in power in favor of others who provide pay-for-play, yearly bonuses of $0, and our editor’s wicked sense of humor.  Seriously, though, NJ21st welcomes contributions, whether written/editorial or financial.

*(The headline for the article I referenced said $32 million, but in the body of the article it said $24 million.  That difference may be due to state aid, but since that’s conjecture on my part, I’ve gone with the lower amount.)

References

2009-10 SCHOOL REPORT CARD

2016-2017 School Performance Report

2022-2023 School Performance Report

Herald Article on 24M Article