Targeted Hiring and Staff Allocation

Firstly, the deviation from the initial commitment to hire $10$ teachers is unsettling. The reduction to $7$ new hires in the first year falls short of what was previously agreed upon, which raises questions about the feasibility of adequately meeting the needs of both educators and students. Furthermore, the subsequent increase to $13$ hires in the following year, while promising, does not fully compensate for the shortfall in the initial phase.

Additionally, the funding approach outlined in the proposal presents potential issues. While we understand the importance of exploring diverse funding sources, relying heavily on property tax increases and community fundraising may not be sustainable or equitable in the long run. Moreover, dismissing the potential benefits of grants and scholarships, which could alleviate some of the financial burden without compromising budgetary constraints, seems shortsighted.

Furthermore, the proposed measures for environmental sustainability, while commendable, should not overshadow the immediate needs of our educators and students. While energy$-$saving initiatives are undoubtedly valuable, they should not come at the expense of crucial resources for the classroom.

In light of these concerns, we urge you to reconsider the hiring plan to ensure that it aligns with the original agreement and adequately addresses the needs of our growing student population. Additionally, we encourage a more balanced approach to funding that incorporates a wider range of options, including grants and scholarships, to alleviate financial strain without compromising the integrity of our budget