Kensington hearing on warrant article 5: residents warn per-pupil cap could force teacher cuts, staff detail special-education costs

A public hearing on warrant article 5 in the Kensington School District drew several residents and school staff who said a proposed per-pupil budget cap would force significant cuts to school programming and personnel.

Wendy Larson, a Kensington resident and candidate for the Kensington School Board, said the proposal — which would require the district not to submit a recommended budget higher than $28,500 per pupil times average daily membership as of Oct. 1 plus an annual CPI-U inflation adjustment — would “mean letting teachers go.” Larson said, “if this was to pass, it would be about a half a million dollar cut to the budget, and that would mean letting teachers go.”

The petition text read at the start of the meeting cites RSA 32:5-e and specifies that adoption would require a three-fifths majority of the school district; it also ties annual increases to the CPI-U for the Boston–Cambridge–Newton, Mass.–N.H. area published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

School staff described how the district’s legally mandated special-education obligations and facility needs limit where cuts could be made. A school staff member explained that special-education placements and services are governed by federal and state rules, require evaluations by qualified professionals and often require dedicated therapy spaces and practitioners. “We are now mandated by law to provide therapy spaces,” the staff member said, adding that those spaces can take the place of classrooms and that some students require feeding or medical attention during the school day.

At the hearing the district reported that the cap, as written in the petition, would create roughly a $500,000 shortfall relative to what the petition’s formula would allow and that the district’s total budget is in the low single‑digit millions (discussion referenced figures around $4.4 million to $4.5 million). A school staff member provided the current special-education caseload as 22 students with individualized education programs (IEPs) and two additional students “in process” of evaluation.

Multiple residents said the cap could damage the district’s ability to serve students and could discourage families from moving into Kensington. One resident who identified herself as having worked with middle-school interns said the additional supports for students are “well worth” the expense. Another speaker noted that charter schools receive a different state funding structure and that local districts often remain responsible for special-education costs for charter students.

Board members and meeting moderators emphasized that the board is not recommending the warrant article and that the budget they recommended followed a year of discussion and reductions. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn that passed by voice vote.

The hearing did not include a formal vote on the warrant article; it served as a public input session on the citizen petition’s language and potential impacts.