There are 10,482 students enrolled in Warwick schools. Or are there 11,582 students?

Actually both figures are correct depending on how students are counted.

In terms of bodies the 10,482 total is correct.

But in terms of the contract with the Warwick Teachers Union some students actually count for 1.5 or even 2 students. That’s because the contract weights those students with an IEP, or individual educational program.

The weighing system is used to determine class sizes that are also set by contract. The maximum elementary school class size is 28, a number that can be dramatically reduced by as much as half by students with IEPs. That can mean the system must hire two teachers rather than one.

Faced with shrinking revenues there is a possibility that the mayor and city council could actually cut school support by more than $3 million in the current budget because of reductions in state aid.

Against that backdrop, the school administration is looking at all ways it can save. Increasing class sizes by eliminating weighting isn’t likely to occur until after the teacher contract expires in August of 2012, if then. Nonetheless, the weighting system that is unique to Warwick is being considered. It’s not the first time.

For as long as school human recourses and counsel Rosemary Healey can remember, elimination of weighing has been on the list of School Committee demands at the opening of contract negotiations. That demand has always been dropped for some other concession.

She said the weighing system was introduced in the 1980s and has been a part of the teachers contract ever since.

Finances may force that to change.

“You are talking about a significant amount”, Healey says of the personnel costs dictated by the weighting clause of the contract.

“I would rather spend the money on books and supplies, art supplies, specialized assistance programs, sports programs,” says Healey.

Her point is that educators should have the flexibility to adjust classes to meet student needs rather than be dictated by a weighing system. To illustrate how out of kilter the system can become, Healey uses the example of a student with a speech IEP. Such students are weighted as 2 students even though they are likely to have a speech pathologist working with them. Regardless, if that student is in secondary school, they are counted as 2 students in each of their classes. This limits the size of every class the student takes whether it is math, English or social studies.

No one has figured out the precise cost of weighting students, but it is estimated to have resulted in the hiring of an additional 110 teachers. Each teacher is estimated to cost the department $100,000 based on salary and benefits. That’s an annual cost of $11 million.

No one is saying the department should strive to shed 110 teachers although the contractual demand of weighing is being looked at.

Superintendent Peter Horoschak is mystified by the provision. He said he has never seen it used in other districts and views it as an impediment.

Teachers Union President Jim Ginolfi likewise acknowledges the prevision may be unique to Warwick, but also in part credits it for making the system outstanding.

“I think Warwick is in the forefront. Warwick has always been in the forefront with special education students”, he said. Elimination of weighting would not correlate into a reduction of costs since the district would still be obligated to meet the requirements of those students with an IEP, says Ginolfi.

“They’re going to need more time to devote to those students”, he reasons.

Richard D’Agostino says the issue can’t be viewed in black and white terms.

Through early childhood screening, the district is capable of identifying those children who are going to have difficulty performing when they get to school. IEPs are developed for those students with the intent that with the extra attention needed they should be able to proceed through the system. IEPs are developed by a team that can include teachers, parents and specialists, said D’Agostino. They can be changed or even dropped, meaning the weighting could be reduced or eliminated. Likewise, an IEP may be developed for a student already in the system who is having difficulty.

D’Agostino said there are 2,150 students in the system with IEPs, or 20 percent of the student population. This is down a couple of percentage points from where it was three and four years ago.

He attributes the drop to efforts not to over classify or over identify students. He also gives credit to greater parent awareness of potential learning problems at an early age and the work being done at the Drum Rock Early Childhood Center. The district is also using RTI, response to intervention, training to identify a student’s area of weakness and a modification of instruction so as to address that issue. D’Agostino said that RTI training has been completed at six schools and that another six schools are in line to get it.

“When you have exhausted all interventions then you built the case that the child needs support through special education”, he said.

Still there is the matter of weighting.

D’Agostino frames the debate saying, “some will say it’s not fair to be counting imaginary kids”. Yet, he recognizes because of learning problems some students require more work. And even when a specialist is assigned to work with a student, he says it doesn’t excuse teachers from doing their share.

“When you look at elementary schools we have high performing schools”, D’Agostino says. He adds that Warwick has something other districts don’t have although the down side of it is that it costs more.

Ginolfi argues that there is flexibility with weighing.

He observes the district has options. It can put all special education students in a single class; it can move IEP students into resource classrooms for special instruction, and it can introduce special education teachers into classrooms where there is a mix of IEP and regular students.

Until they enter negotiations Ginolfi can’t say whether weighing is one of those issues the union would hold out for. As for trimming costs, Ginolfi offered no suggestions.

“Education is expensive”, he said, “and that is why we need a (funding) formula at the state level.”