Methuen School Committee begins FY26 budget debate as special-education staffing, class sizes and custodial cuts loom

Methuen School Committee members and district leaders spent most of their March 31 meeting focused on the Methuen Public Schools’ preliminary fiscal year 2026 spending plan, with the superintendent warning that staffing shortfalls for special education and English‑learner services could force costly out‑of‑district placements.

The discussion, which followed one public commenter’s call for clearer budget accounting and contractor performance records, ranged from requests for finer service‑level data and class‑size scenarios to potential short‑term savings tied to bus routing and longer‑term ideas such as redistricting and expanded vocational (CTE) certification.

Dr. Kwong, the district superintendent, told the committee that about $1.3 million in “net new positions” are needed to maintain federally and state‑required services, and that without some requested positions “we will 100% be out of compliance for service delivery for our English learners.” She said special‑education positions and related services (speech, occupational therapy, 1:1 nurses and paraprofessionals) reflect statutory obligations, and that failing to fund them would shift costs into compensatory services or out‑of‑district placements—both of which generally increase the district’s expense.

Why it matters: committee members repeatedly emphasized that the district is operating near the state’s net school spending floor and that contractual increases, transportation and special‑education tuition make balancing a FY26 budget especially difficult. Several members urged immediate outreach to state legislators for higher circuit‑breaker reimbursement and other adjustments to state funding formulas.

Most important facts first: Dr. Kwong provided enrollment and special‑education counts (1,395 students with disabilities in 2021 versus 1,581 in the most recent year; subseparate placements rose from 209 to 286). She also said the district’s FY25 spending line includes extensive contract payments and that a widely reported “$20 million increase” in the superintendent’s presentation represents an aspirational set of needs, not a finalized request; the mayor and superintendent said the city’s final contribution will be shared with the district that week.

On class sizes and redistricting: committee members pressed for concrete class‑size scenarios. The superintendent presented school‑level grids that show how reducing a teacher in a grade typically increases class size by roughly five students; in some Tenney and Timoney grade levels, a one‑teacher reduction would put classes above 30 students. Several members said they would not support a budget that restored class sizes to the high levels seen in prior decades.

Transportation and short‑term savings: members asked staff to model targeted bus‑route reductions in neighborhoods with sidewalks and safe walk routes, rather than wholesale grade‑band cuts. The district agreed to prepare maps and estimates for the committee’s next workshop. Staff also said some grounds work has been contracted over the summer (a recent five‑school contract ran about $80,000) and that custodians have taken on additional grounds duties as staffing has declined.

Facilities and custodial staffing: the superintendent presented a 10‑year comparison and said custodial and maintenance staffing is down about 17.5 positions since FY2014. Committee members and the superintendent discussed how summer contracts, municipal chargebacks with DPW and use of rental‑fee revenues currently support some custodial positions and overtime; the rental‑fee policy likely needs revision.

Budget drivers and state policy: district staff reminded the committee that state formulas assign different foundation amounts by student type (a FY25 foundation amount cited in the meeting was roughly $11,042 per high‑school student, with a vocational/CTE weight of about $16,490). The committee also discussed the “circuit breaker” special‑education reimbursement (the district received about 44% reimbursement this year) and heard members urge state action to increase the reimbursement (some urged a target of 90%). The superintendent noted a technical reporting issue had placed the district slightly below required net school spending in one year, a gap the FY25 budget was intended to address.

CTE and timing of state aid: staff said expanding chapter‑74 vocational certification (for example, a media production pathway) could yield higher per‑pupil state funding, but any additional foundation revenue would arrive with a one‑year lag (enrollment counted Oct. 1 affects the following fiscal year’s funding).

Clerical and administrative staffing: the superintendent reported a loss of about nine clerical positions since 2014 and said parent‑liaison staff perform translation and IEP meeting support rather than routine receptionist functions. Members raised workload questions and asked for more detail about school‑level office incident counts and the proposed risk‑coordinator positions.

Public comment and transparency requests: a commenter submitted written remarks asking the district to present the FY26 budget in the same chart of accounts used on the city’s transparency dashboard, to define account usage, to separate labor, contract and general expenses, and to provide contractor performance information. The superintendent acknowledged the request and said some narrative corrections had been made in response to committee feedback.

Process and calendar: the committee set an additional budget workshop for Wednesday, April 16, at 6:00 p.m. (the superintendent said the mayor would provide the city contribution “this week” and staff would incorporate that number once received) and agreed to bring more detailed staffing, class‑size and transportation scenarios to the next meeting.

Quotations used here come from speakers recorded in the meeting transcript and are attributed to the speakers identified by the committee during the session.

Looking ahead: staff said they will provide requested breakdowns—by service type for special education, by school for custodial and clerical staffing, and by neighborhood for potential bus‑route changes—before the committee’s scheduled May budget vote. Several members urged constituents to contact Beacon Hill about circuit‑breaker and formula changes that could materially affect Methuen’s FY26 outlook.