[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6392600,"mediaKeyId","2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be","parentId",2109615,"title","Stratham School Board holds public hearing on FY26 budget; residents split on staff cuts and taxes","audioSeconds",5623,"startMs",124000,"endMs",5747000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be&start=124&end=5747","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be/thumbnail_124000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6392600/New-Hampshire/Stratham-School-Board-holds-public-hearing-on-FY26-budget-residents-split-on-staff-cuts-and-taxes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392600-a01ed420503bfbaad24b02823218dd04/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136213&Signature=GSKtMeH1NhyG9j3frAWYEodLskcsB6vfa1mPx0oGnsXGkJXgdnxBTBdqQXipFPhCi2CEsxxkj-anhe6dX4sKzCPHNNnodcWsYhKakTViVBmhY2wzTqTJ4zgjQ~DO-mD2fFKjCdTlLO5jGsi9pF7kjGT~-jp~l0VG3qfkVYRDN0PHnjp4WvNSpAx23S~Px3~AUgkrC03hMc1SUz7t1Co~K-WRRTFC8iDV3W8D05rne0RVoQ4SquV3dyX4-I7LAah5GjPvIKhWAfo9VkRG-UFQLP22OgfoDKE4KtwKgVYNj9P4qEOS9M-7XjE7zVP8sqOOLQl9BtooRz3Bp8Om6XqGdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Stratham School District NH","date","2025-01-14T08:21:40.737Z","article","The Stratham School Board opened a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget on Jan. 8 at Stratham Memorial School, inviting residents, staff and volunteers to give three-minute statements. Board members emphasized the hearing was fact-finding ahead of a March vote on the final budget recommendation.

The hearing drew roughly three dozen speakers over two hours. Many parents, teachers and school staff urged the board to preserve current staffing levels and class sizes, arguing cuts would harm personalized instruction. Other residents — including longtime homeowners and taxpayers — urged restraint because of recent property-tax reassessments and the town’s changing demographics.

Board Chair Jennifer (first name only in transcript) opened the meeting by describing the process: the board will collect public comment, the Financial Advisory Committee (FACC) will review and endorse or not endorse the budget, and the board will vote on its recommendation before the public deliberation and final vote on March 4.

Administrators described the current proposal and its drivers. Kate (first name only in transcript), who presented the budget overview, said the FY25 approved operating budget was $15,021,286 and that the FY26 proposal as read aloud in the meeting was “15,000,000 637,374,” a change the presentation identified as roughly $416,000 and 2.73% over last year. Kate listed major cost drivers as special education, curriculum resources (+$35,799 called out on the slide), professional development and increased numbers of English-language learners. She also described areas of the budget that are contractually driven or otherwise limited in flexibility.

Several teachers and staff described classroom realities and effects of larger class sizes. Third-grade teacher Whitney Forbes testified that teachers are responsible for a wide range of academic and socio-emotional needs and supported preserving staff so that students receive individualized attention. Other staff and parents repeated similar concerns: smaller class sizes help with screening, intervention and social‑emotional support, they said.

Opposing speakers emphasized tax pressure. Several residents without children in the schools said recent reassessments and prior tax increases make larger expenditures difficult for households on fixed incomes. Debbie Sandberg, a Stratham resident, said she supported the recommended maintenance work to the building but could not back an operating increase at this time. The board heard questions about enrollment trends: presenters cited a 2023 enrollment study that modeled five scenarios (all projecting either steady enrollments or increases), while the board and some residents noted short-term declines in actual enrollment and asked which trend the district should follow.

Board discussion and next steps
Board members discussed staffing scenarios generated after an early‑retirement incentive (the district offered $15,000 incentives and five employees accepted). Administration and finance staff presented options that would reduce the FY26 operating ask by not refilling up to two positions (presented generically as “one teacher and one specialist” in the budget scenarios) and estimated related savings. Trustees said they prefer an adaptive, year‑to‑year approach that aligns staffing to verified fall enrollment and avoids automatic last‑in, first‑out layoffs under a RIF process. The board asked administration for specific implications (grade-level effects and student assignment changes) before any final staffing decisions.

Trust funds, building maintenance and other fiscal items
Business/finance staff Chris (first name only in transcript) walked through three trust funds the district holds: a technology trust that currently holds $10,000; a Special Education Trust Fund cited in the meeting as $516,702; and a building repairs/maintenance trust listed during the meeting as $228,296,296 (the minutes and presenters also referenced a target of at least $250,000 for that fund). Chris said the Special Education Trust balance could cover two students placed out of district for roughly one year at current prices, and recommended monitoring that fund as special‑education costs fluctuate.

Votes at a glance
- Motion to allow teachers from Stratham Memorial School (and later out‑of‑district teachers) to speak at the meeting: approved by voice vote (Chair: “All in favor… Aye.”; recorded as passing).
- Motion to approve public and non-public minutes (both sets): passed by voice vote.
- Non-public motions (personnel items): the board reported it denied a personnel request and accepted a resignation (both motions passed; actions occurred in non-public session and were announced on return).
(See the actions[] array below for the formal motion text, movers/seconders where recorded, and outcomes.)

Why it matters
The board and administration must balance two visible fiscal pressures: near‑term taxpayer capacity after a townwide reassessment and long‑term programmatic and special‑education obligations that can create large, often unplanned costs. The public hearing illuminated sharply divided community views: employees and families urged protection of staff and class size while some taxpayers pointed to affordability concerns. The board signaled it will finalize a recommendation after the Financial Advisory Committee’s endorsement and additional staff analysis of enrollment and staffing implications.

What’s next
The board plans to continue outreach on the building bond over the next month and to finalize the board’s recommendation at a future meeting before the public deliberative session and the March 4 vote. Administration will provide more granular staffing and enrollment scenarios ahead of the board’s final vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Stratham School Board Meeting 1/8/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Stratham School Board opened a public hearing on the proposed FY26 budget on Jan. 8, drawing lengthy public comment as teachers and parents urged preserving staff and class sizes while some residents urged restraint because of recent tax reassessments.","taxTitle","Stratham School District, School Districts, New Hampshire","taxId",76477,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6392591,"Stratham administrators outline new data, MTSS and special‑education plans after spring test results",8226,611000,8837000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be&start=611&end=8837","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be/thumbnail_611000.jpg","/articles/6392591/New-Hampshire/Stratham-administrators-outline-new-data-MTSS-and-specialeducation-plans-after-spring-test-results","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392591-b3bf4fb5a67fedc6a3ede317d0cf962f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136213&Signature=GxUegkoSTZhWoiKxGmM13451-s5mfGtvd4GX-oxtRlYA7GFsfkACqlnHDlD8hTRnU-jVy8ISgxfq3cUUxyOElmsSTphXhRvzkLMC1BziEThgm8PwIclyxwIFS1ZoRV4hhxXgJb-tglFlMboCsTVZS5z5-zCKa82v32AZoH26VwoM9XVu15gk3-DF8aNM3wKRu8KPepE11YDrRVVujCj72Pvgp69-51gwkRHw0lKHS9KvFUl~gAexmIAhBaRD1uzWX5leh-P3T0eOSF7Y~2NPVpy3MSyxsIrkrie0rmMKSt2rvkPJyCbUyoSd1GiLc0r~JMz0u6mUMNhNYvKzltGSug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","School administrators presented a data‑driven response plan on Jan. 8 after results from spring assessments showed declines in some grade‑level proficiency measures. The presentation linked district screening work, new routines and staffing changes to a plan intended to identify students earlier and target instruction more precisely.

What administrators presented
Principal/administrator Kate summarized district proficiency snapshots and emphasized that federal Every Student Succeeds Act accountability requirements remain met, but that the district must analyze trends and intervene to raise proficiency. The school reported that a substantial number of students were “partially proficient” on the New Hampshire assessment; teams calculated that moving students just on the cusp of proficiency would substantially increase overall proficiency percentages in several grades.

To tighten instructional alignment and monitoring, the school described four main responses:
- New and expanded screeners. The district added I‑Ready Literacy (K–5) in addition to I‑Ready Math, and expanded the universal number‑sense screener (previously K–3) to K–5. Administrators also continued use of Acadian’s (as stated in the meeting) dyslexia screening and other short, curriculum‑aligned progress monitors.
- Curriculum pacing and progression reviews. Teaching teams completed grade‑level pacing guides aligned to standards and to unit sequencing so that critical units are taught prior to district or state assessments.
- MTSS and data workflow. The district emphasized its multi‑tiered system of supports (MTSS) with a district MTSS coordinator (Brianna Martin) who consolidates thousands of classroom data points into actionable next steps and helps coordinate interventions and enrichment within the school’s ‘gradient support’ blocks (time set aside during the day for differentiated services).
- Frequent, granular progress monitoring. Teachers are documenting student mastery of specific standards and lessons; the presentation included example teacher tracking sheets that show standard‑by‑standard evidence for each student.

Special education trends and cost pressures
Director of special education Raymond Pillsbury (transcript) summarized long‑term special‑education demand and cost drivers. He said the percentage of students receiving special education has remained within typical ranges at Stratham, but he emphasized that needs are increasingly complex and that referrals and eligibility evaluations have risen. Pillsbury noted factors that drive costs: out‑of‑district tuition placements, specialized contracted services (behavioral health, audiology, vision, feeding, etc.), transportation for specialized placements and rising contract rates for specialized providers. He warned that state special‑education reimbursement and federal grants do not fully cover those escalating costs.

Administrators said the additional screeners and tighter pacing are intended both to accelerate learning for students close to proficiency and to identify students who need earlier, less‑restrictive interventions — which can reduce the need for costlier out‑of‑district placements.

Why it matters
The district’s approach shifts toward more frequent, standards‑level progress monitoring and better alignment across grade levels so teachers can more quickly recognize who needs help and who is ready for enrichment. Administrators argued that earlier, targeted interventions and clearer team data will help students while controlling longer‑term special‑education cost escalation.

What’s next
Administrators will continue work in PLCs (professional learning communities), roll out the winter and spring screening windows, and monitor outcomes. The district plans to report back in future meetings on how fall→spring progress monitoring affects state assessment outcomes in the coming year.","After spring assessment results showed declines in some grade‑level proficiency measures, Stratham Memorial School administrators described expanded screening, revised pacing, a newly emphasized MTSS coordinator role and more frequent progress monitoring to identify and support students earlier.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6392596,"Stratham building subcommittee trims school renovation plan; proposes $12M bond focused on systems and safety",509,934000,1443000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be&start=934&end=1443","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109615-0bfd9a0b397e27bdec5ddc1e299d18be/thumbnail_934000.jpg","/articles/6392596/New-Hampshire/Stratham-building-subcommittee-trims-school-renovation-plan-proposes-12M-bond-focused-on-systems-and-safety","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392596-3e229936dba6e5af68bd97613ed9d6dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136213&Signature=HtZft8ZuWtE-41wG0N666S2mnqWxz2aBbAvM5MmRSjq8-EFFoYHEy6ZyIKSwgJ~TKdXAL-URd71WeTliDIVjXprMNiPYkbgKpPqUMToe~nfRyKOLJAtBQ0RySI6ZNwiTUyB~iCxY8Cu7mKC7739v2NEt~xtRng~LZHqe6VT5N1uE-VQE-8wxvXkicp3nEqQp99XUqblMviYDOYgBnBUYe8GC0uWN3DG0JnvfW4YNxgNxTLaTfN-ayzvLfML~6ANgOCvXWu0qa4aLj5oR1WMQJh~-doEci7lG2VGev6lP-CeHYBNzrIakGqSb2pV1sutZS38adRWiDSNdBG23zA149g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Stratham School Board’s building subcommittee reported on Jan. 8 that design work and budgeting have reduced a previous, comprehensive renovation that was estimated at roughly $46–50 million to a more narrowly focused bond request of about $12 million.

Paul (first name only in transcript), a building‑subcommittee member, said the subcommittee worked with Corino Construction (firm name as reported at the meeting) to identify and cost a “basics‑first” package that addresses the school’s infrastructure and safety priorities. The scope the subcommittee described includes replacement of aging boilers (the building is about 35 years old and one of three boilers has failed beyond repair), replacement or upgrade of air‑handling units and expanded air conditioning to second‑floor classrooms, full sprinkling of the building, a new roof with added insulation, conversion from oil to gas heating, an increase in cafeteria floor area by roughly 20% (intended to reduce lunch rotations from three to two), redesign of administrative areas to improve visitor security and four new permanent classrooms to replace long‑term temporary classrooms.

Paul said the subcommittee included board members, district administrators and construction‑industry volunteers; he praised Corino Construction’s responsiveness and noted the firm had a local preconstruction manager who is a Stratham resident. The $12 million figure includes a contingency intended to cover unanticipated discovery items and the cost of an owner’s representative.

Energy and maintenance strategy
Subcommittee members and administrators emphasized energy efficiency measures as part of the package: conversion to gas boilers, LED lighting upgrades tied to expiring state rebates, improved roof insulation and addressing insulation leaks around soffits. The team also discussed staged investments for remaining building elements such as window replacement, which Paul estimated could cost roughly $500,000 to replace the whole school’s windows; the subcommittee suggested using the maintenance trust to fund phased window work rather than adding it to the bond.

Outreach and timeline
The board and subcommittee plan at least six community presentations before the March vote (two virtual, four in person) and have posted detailed materials and the Corino presentation on the district website. The subcommittee asked the board to approve outreach materials and dates so public communications can proceed. If approved by voters in March, the package would fund the first significant systems replacement and make the school safe and energy efficient for another multi‑decade use, subcommittee members said.

Why it matters
The narrowed bond seeks to prioritize safety and systems rather than a full replacement school. Voters will decide in March whether to finance the package; if approved it will affect the town tax rate and the district’s capital plan. The subcommittee emphasized contingency budgeting and a line item for an owner’s representative to protect district interests during construction.

What the meeting did not decide
The board discussed numbers and outreach but did not finalize exact financing term lengths at the Jan. 8 meeting; administration said the Municipal Bond Bank schedules would be used to model repayment and that staff would provide exact taxpayer‑impact figures as outreach continues.

Next steps
The building subcommittee will finalize outreach language and dates, post materials and present at community sessions in January/February ahead of the March vote.","School board members and the building subcommittee presented a pared‑down bond plan to modernize Stratham Memorial School. After a prior conceptual renovation priced near $46–50M, the subcommittee condensed the scope for a roughly $12M bond that concentrates on boilers, HVAC, sprinklers, four classrooms, cafeteria expansion and energy efficiency.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Stratham School Board holds public hearing on FY26 budget; residents split on staff cuts and taxes

Stratham administrators outline new data, MTSS and special‑education plans after spring test results

Stratham building subcommittee trims school renovation plan; proposes $12M bond focused on systems and safety