Budget & Reduction Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Find more information on the district budget webpage.

FGSD staff, share your questions by completing the RIF Question Submission Form.

Students, families, and community members, share your questions by submitting this form.

Are the budget reductions just a Forest Grove School District problem?

Why is Oregon's financial health and revenue forecast changing?

Why are expenses like PERS increasing and will there be additional cost increases?

Districts do not control PERS rates. The PERS fund and PERS rates are managed by an independent state agency. PERS rates are driven by factors like the performance of the PERS investment funds, the number and type of beneficiaries, and the pace of hiring across the state. In 2027-28, most districts, including Forest Grove School District, will see a spike in PERS rates.

Additionally, costs have increased across the board for benefits and salaries, service contracts, materials and goods, etc. The state school fund calculation does not account all cost increases. Therefore, we must decrease our expenditures to balance our budget and account for these cost increases.

Do we have savings we can use to weather the storm without taking immediate action?

We do have savings, which we refer to our “ending fund balance”. Right now, our ending fund balance is in line with our School Board policy. However, over the past few years, we have been spending it down to cover costs. We need to end our deficit spending now so that we have the resources to weather financial ups and downs. Across Oregon, we are seeing what happens when districts lack these resources. For example, some districts have implemented mid-year layoffs, furlough days, shortening the school calendar, etc.

Our Ending Fund Balance (EFB) is essentially a “rainy day fund,” which is also sometimes referred to as “financial reserves.” An EFB supports cash flow and allows us to cover expenditures in the new school year. Building an ending fund balance is a strategic balancing act. We build reserves through annual savings. Since we operate with little room for error, generating savings involves a mix of proactive careful fiscal oversight, operational efficiencies and savings, and timing. Generally, position vacancies account for our greatest savings. Since the amount and duration of vacancies varies significantly year to year, we cannot make predictions. At a time when many school districts, municipal and state agencies, and private businesses in the state are making similar staffing reductions, we expect less turnover.

For this budget cycle, we are planning for an 11% EFB as this will lift the district out of deficit spending. Our policy requires an EFB of no less than 8%, which in an emergency will cover expenses for about one month. Lowering our EFB to 8% would mean another year of deficit spending, which means another year of spending our savings. An 8% EFB will result in additional reductions necessary for the 2027-28 school year.

Why is the Forest Grove School District reducing the number of staff within the District? Can the financial reduction be absorbed by operating costs only?

During last school year’s budget process, the Budget Committee recommended and the School Board approved $2 million in reductions for the 2025-26 school year. We were able to make these reductions primarily through operational adjustments and with only small adjustments to FTE.

However, for the 2026-27 school year, we must make further reductions. About 80% of our budget goes directly to salaries and benefits. When needing to reduce $4.6 million, or about 5% of our expenditures, we cannot do this without reducing the number of adults in our district.

How did the district decide on a reduction of 51 FTE?

We allocated staff positions to our schools based on student enrollment and specific programs (e.g., PALS, Family Resource Center). As our enrollment is lower than it has been in several years, our allocated staff positions are also less than they have been in several years. Department allocations are based on functions, our desired service levels, and our improvement efforts. For example, we must have staff who can process payroll, administer benefit programs, and support instructional improvement.

Before determining the need to reduce our workforce, we first funded our essential programs, functional needs, and legal requirements. We then strove to honor what we heard during our engagement sessions and preserve safety and security efforts, preserve electives and extracurricular activities, and minimize impact to class size. The process to reach a recommendation to reduce 51 FTE was long and involved many inputs and the regular analysis of the impact of ODE funding adjustments to our cash flow.

We preserved our safety and security infrastructure and staffing, which is consistent with the survey and qualitative feedback we received from our community.
We preserved funding for athletics and extracurricular activities, which is consistent with the survey and qualitative feedback we received from students.
We eliminated temporary positions.
We reduced service, material goods, and discretionary budgets to the degree they do not impact student well-being and safety.
We looked at where FTE growth has happened across the district since the pandemic and examined if we can roll that growth back without directly impacting student well-being and safety. In some cases, we were able to do so. In others, based on feedback, we maintained positions.
We combined position functions or responsibilities where possible.
We postponed professional learning and district plans when doing so did not directly impact the improvement of instruction and student outcomes.
We shifted allowable expenses from the general fund to state and federal grants.
We applied a consistent FTE allocation methodology to all schools within a level.
We adjusted our classroom FTE allocation methodology to a 1:25 ratio (from a 1:24 ratio). This means that we will have a few classes with 25 students, some classrooms with less than 25 students, and some classes with more. We prioritize the smallest class sizes in grades K-2.

Aren't teachers the most valuable role in the district? Why reduce so many teachers?

Why aren’t more administrators being cut?

Is it true that the cost of administrators have increased at a greater rate than other employee classifications?

When comparing General Fund Administrator FTE from 2019-20 to 2024-25, administrator salaries did increase at a greater rate than licensed salaries. However, this increase was primarily due to the addition of a principal at our alternative high school program, Tuality Plains High School (TPHS), formerly Community Alternative Learning Center. During the 2019-20 school year, Brian Burke, a high school assistant principal at the time, oversaw the program and we paid a lead teacher stipend to a staff member. The decision to add a principal to TPHS was a strategic investment in our students for whom a traditional high school program was not working. As TPHS is now a registered Oregon HS, a principal position is required.

When will we know if our position is cut?

If I am transferred to another work location, will I be compensated for extra days to move my classroom?

How do we check our contact information to ensure it is current?

Is the option to retire and work back still an option?

Licensed educators who applied for the retirement and resignation incentive negotiated with FGEA are not eligible to be rehired for the next two years, according to the MOU.

FGSD has a policy which allows for the rehire of PERS-retired staff who did not apply for the retirement incentive. If you are interested in pursuing this option, please read the policy before making a decision, and reach out to your supervisor or to the Human Resources Department if you have questions.

Why are some people expressing surprise at the numbers of employee reductions? Why did the school board approve these reductions without asking questions?

We heard that some believe the School Board did not ask enough questions during the meeting to ensure we have done our due diligence. In fact, the School Board has been actively and deeply engaged in these conversations for over a year. The work of identifying the value of reductions and the potential impact to the district began last spring when we presented the 2025-26 budget, which included a $2 million reduction and a forecast that further cuts would be necessary. Since then, during our board meetings we have regularly discussed our cash flow, the long-term trend of declining enrollment that drives 94% of our revenue, and the impact of state and federal funding decisions. Because these public conversations have built a cumulative understanding over time, it may have appeared that the School Board did not engage seriously with this $4.6 million reduction, but that is far from the truth. Their decision was made after a year of careful study and difficult deliberation. Recordings of past board meetings are available on the district website.

Why are you pushing out new initiatives in a time of cutbacks, such as dual language expansion, classroom management practices, integrated ELD, and updated science curriculum?

Some of the initiatives listed are requirements by law. For example, most content areas are on a seven year adoption cycle, which means that every seven years we are required to update our curriculum. Occasionally, we can delay a response for up to one year. For example, at the board meeting on April 14, 2026 the teaching and learning team did ask the school board to approve the postponement of a social studies curriculum until spring 2027.

Other initiatives are important to help us continue our instructional improvement and the many ways we support students. For example, improving use of SEL strategies supports classroom behavior routines and student prosocial behaviors. Dual language instruction is a strong framework for developing both English proficiency and improving academic outcomes. These strategies are foundational to the improvement of instruction and align with our instructional framework. These strategies also support our most vulnerable student populations.

We also understand that our organization will be going through a transition. Our dual language expansion is being slowed as a result, and we are continuing to look at other efforts that we may need to slow or pause.

Although this is a challenging situation, we must continue to make progress with our improvement efforts. Our students deserve nothing less.