WAREHAM, Mass. — Superintendent Matt D'Andrea on Dec. 4 presented a proposed FY27 Wareham Public Schools budget that would total $38,244,000 after offsets, an increase the district describes as roughly $2.16 million (about 5.97%) over the current year.

"The FY27 budget proposal prior to our offsets is $41,800,000," D'Andrea told the joint hearing of the school committee, select board and finance committee, later summarizing the net figure as "we're looking at a $38,244,000 budget for FY '27." He said the bulk of the spending increase — roughly $1.6 million — stems from negotiated salary and benefit obligations across multiple bargaining units.

District officials emphasized several cost drivers. Technology replacement and licensing needs account for an estimated $260,000; out‑of‑district tuition increases and associated transportation add to pressure on the bottom line; and curriculum licensing and other instructional costs also rose. D'Andrea said the district offsets some costs with revenue sources including circuit breaker reimbursements, Title I, special‑education grants and revolving accounts, which together reduce the gross proposal to the net figure presented.

Why it matters: Wareham leaders say rising special‑education tuition and contractual salary commitments leave little flexibility in tight budgets, and those pressures influence whether the district can restore programs or add staff. D'Andrea noted the district has enacted roughly $2–$3 million in staffing cuts over recent years and said administrators are ‘‘very thin’’ on capacity to serve high‑need students.

Special education and tuition out: D'Andrea walked through out‑of‑district tuition line items, explaining these are students whose needs the district cannot meet and who therefore attend collaborative or private special‑education programs. He said tuition out totals about $4.2 million — including roughly $1.3 million to send 14 students to a special‑education collaborative and about $2.8 million for 19 students attending private special‑education schools. "This is becoming very, very challenging for us," he said.

Public concern over enrollment and Upper Cape Tech: During public comment a parent who did not give a name urged the district to act to retain students, warning that changes at Upper Cape Technical School (UCT) could substantially reduce Wareham High School’s future enrollment. "The critical question is the loss of a 100 students to UCT would cripple our school system in the long run," the parent said, citing that 52 Wareham eighth‑graders had applied to UCT.

D'Andrea and other administrators responded that they did not expect UCT to take all Wareham students and stressed the district is adding pathways and programs — including an EMT program, American Sign Language classes and expanded athletics — meant to increase high‑school engagement. Administrators also said a new state requirement for pathway visits will be implemented earlier in future years to give students more information before application deadlines.

Plans and limits on bringing students back in‑district: District special‑education staff described staffing barriers to returning tuitioned students, listing positions they would need to hire (a board‑certified behavior analyst, more counselors, additional nurses and an assistant principal focused on special‑education at the elementary level). Staff said bringing significant numbers of students back would require up‑front investment (a figure of roughly $600,000 was discussed as an example), parental agreement in IEP processes, and careful planning to avoid legal challenges.

Procedural note: The hearing did not include a formal vote on the FY27 budget; toward the end of the session the school committee took a motion to recess. The committee recessed after a voice vote.

What’s next: Administrators said they will continue to work with the town and finance committees to refine the proposal and identify offsets and priorities before formal adoption. The district also said it would pursue longer‑term strategies to reduce tuition out and expand in‑district program capacity.

Reporting note: Quotes and figures in this story are taken from the public joint hearing transcript and the district presentation given at that meeting. Some commenters spoke without identifying themselves by name; where a speaker’s name was not provided in the transcript this article attributes remarks to "a parent" or "district staff" as indicated in the record.