RSU 10 board approves FY2025–26 budget after heated debate over French class and special‑education staffing

The Western Foothills Regional School Unit 10 school board voted to approve the proposed fiscal year 2025–26 school budget on a motion by Chad (board member), seconded by Bonnie (board member), after more than two hours of public comment and board discussion about program priorities and staffing.

The district’s business manager, Leah, told the board the district’s overall percentage increase is 5.489% and that higher teacher wages and a 13.8% rise in insurance costs accounted for most of the change. Leah also said the state subsidy rose because a bond interest payment for the new school becomes due next year; that change raised both the state subsidy and expenditures but did not alter individual towns’ allocations.

Why it matters: the budget establishes the amount towns will be asked to cover above the state contribution and sets staffing levels for the coming year. The board’s approval moves the proposed budget to the annual budget meeting set for May 28 at Mountain Valley High School.

Board and public discussion

During public comment, resident Diane McAllister pressed the board on why Mountain Valley Community School’s combined budget appeared to increase by $754,584.74 and questioned class sizes and the inclusion of a French teacher at Mountain Valley High School when Buckfield Junior‑Senior High does not offer French. The board and staff reviewed the figures and reported roughly $502,000 of the increase was attributable to higher wages and benefits.

Board members debated several budgetary tradeoffs at length. Darcy (board member) moved to remove Mountain Valley High School’s French program from the budget, citing low enrollment (17 students). Aaron (board member) seconded. After discussion about efforts to remotely extend French to middle‑school students and the program’s role in preserving regional francophone heritage, the motion to eliminate French failed and the program remained in the budget.

Superintendent role, special‑education staffing and related motions

Public commenter Deborah Frino and several board members raised concerns about the superintendent serving concurrently as the district’s special‑education director. Deborah Frino cited state law language in public comment; the board’s legal interpretations differed in discussion. The superintendent (Deb) and other board members said the superintendent had volunteered to perform special‑education director duties and that, by their legal review, that arrangement did not violate state law and produced cost savings. Deb told the board that the arrangement “saves us a hundred thousand dollars a year.”

Board members proposed competing staffing changes tied to that issue. One motion would have removed the superintendent from the special‑education director duties and restored a paid special‑education director position by eliminating an assistant director line; that proposal failed on a tied vote. Board discussion made clear the staffing configuration had been adjusted during budget development — the coordinator role was cut and two assistant special‑education director positions were proposed in lieu of the prior structure — and board members disagreed about whether returning to a prior configuration was appropriate.

Other staffing and program adjustments discussed included moving a restorative‑justice staff member into classroom duties at Buckfield to preserve restorative practices while offering electives, and questions about nursing coverage and how the state EPS (ED 279) formula funds positions. Leah and Deb explained the ED 279 (EPS) calculation and how town allocations are determined (the district’s additional local obligation is apportioned 75% by town valuation and 25% by student counts). Board members asked for and were shown the ED 279 figures.

Votes and outcomes

- Approve FY2025–26 school budget to present to the annual budget meeting on May 28: motion by Chad, seconded by Bonnie; the motion carried. Three board members — Erin, Darcy and Kristen — recorded their opposition in the final tally. The district’s overall percentage increase was cited as 5.489% at the time of the vote.

- Motion to remove the French program at Mountain Valley High School for the upcoming fiscal year: motion by Darcy, seconded by Aaron; the motion failed and the French program remained in the budget.

- Motion to restore a paid special‑education director position and remove an assistant position (i.e., change special‑education staffing configuration): motion made and seconded; the motion did not carry.

- Location of the annual budget meeting: a motion to set the meeting at Buckfield Junior‑Senior High School was amended and put to a weighted roll‑call; the board set the annual budget meeting for May 28 at Mountain Valley High School, and the district agreed to arrange transportation for Buckfield residents.

Clarifying details and context

- The 5.489% district increase reflects the package of higher teacher wages (a tentative teachers’ agreement), higher insurance costs (13.8%), and a state subsidy adjustment tied to bond interest. Leah said about $502,000 of the community‑school increase cited by a resident could be accounted for by wages and benefits; the resident’s $754,584.74 figure was the sum she had calculated when comparing prior separate school budgets to the new combined community‑school budget.

- The board and staff repeatedly noted that ED 279 (the state’s EPS/adequacy calculation) provides a baseline (“adequate” funding, per department language) and the district typically budgets above that baseline for local priorities (extracurriculars, specific staffing, nursing coverage). The business manager explained ED 279-derived amounts and how town shares are computed.

- Several motions were proposed related to personnel and program priorities; some were defeated by board vote and others (the overall budget and the payment plan for paid family medical leave, discussed elsewhere on the agenda) were approved.

Ending

With the vote, the board advanced the proposed FY2025–26 budget to the district annual meeting. The discussion left unresolved tensions among board members over staffing priorities — especially special‑education administration and small‑enrollment elective programs — that are likely to reappear during budget deliberations at the town level and in implementation planning by district administrators.