Superintendent Peter outlined the district’s FY26 budget position and described plans to solicit outside consultants to evaluate larger structural changes as enrollment and funding pressures continue.

The meeting served as an update on the preliminary FY26 budget. Superintendent Peter said there are no new adjustments to the numbers presented at Budget Saturday, and that recently increased insurance enrollments and additional out‑of‑district placements reduced flexibility in the plan. He told the committee that leadership has reviewed many options but cannot recommend adding staff back into the FY26 proposal because of new expenses.

Why it matters: Committee members framed the review as a response to steadily falling enrollment — Peter said the district has lost about 600 students over eight years — and rising costs that, if left unchecked, will further erode program stability and staff capacity.

Committee members asked the superintendent’s office to move quickly while protecting opportunities for meaningful staff and family input. School Committee member Becca (role: School Committee member) pressed for stronger teacher and staff involvement in any redesign, saying educators’ on‑the‑ground experience should shape proposals. Another member, who registered “deep concern” about a proposed reduction to a special education coordinator post at McCarthy/Town and the Compass program, said she will pursue further conversations with families and staff before any final decisions.

Process and timeline: The superintendent said staff are preparing a request for proposals (RFP) to hire consultants with experience in district reconfiguration. The draft RFP was expected to be available for committee feedback at the committee’s March 13 meeting. The district plans a workshop on April 3 to discuss restructuring options and other priorities and anticipates assembling an evaluation group to review consultant proposals. The superintendent’s office said it hopes to select a consultant by the end of the school year so work could begin over the summer. The earliest plausible implementation date for major changes discussed would be fall 2026 (the 2026–27 school year); the superintendent also said some proposals could be scoped for a later FY28 start.

Scope and considerations: Committee members repeatedly cautioned that structural changes could require capital adjustments, such as furniture or physical reconfiguration, and that any savings are not guaranteed. Several members urged a broad stakeholder process to include staff, families and community members and to surface both educational tradeoffs and anticipated capital costs. The superintendent and others noted examples from neighboring districts conducting similar work and suggested a stakeholder advisory group and rapid community visioning to balance speed with community input.

Next steps: The committee asked for the RFP draft at the March 13 meeting and signaled it will review consultant proposals and assemble an advisory group. Committee members emphasized they do not plan changes to school assignments for the coming 2025–26 school year; any reconfiguration would require additional analysis and, if adopted, would likely take effect no earlier than fall 2026.

Ending: Members agreed the process must be transparent and include educators’ perspectives while moving swiftly enough to address the district’s structural fiscal challenges.