The Westford School Committee opened a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2026 school budget on Jan. 7, allowing residents three minutes each to raise budget-related issues ahead of the committee’s planned Jan. 21 vote and the town’s March 22 annual town meeting. The hearing was opened by motion and closed later in the evening after roughly two hours of public testimony and replies from district leadership.

Why it matters: The hearing drew sustained attention to program-level impacts from last year’s budget reductions and the district’s FY26 proposal. Multiple students and parents urged the committee to restore music staffing at Westford Academy, questioned how PE graduation requirements affect scheduling and elective access, and sought clarity about changes to reading and math interventions for younger students.

District leaders described how some line‑item changes reflect reallocated positions rather than new cuts, and said the FY26 proposal seeks to hold or stabilize services in key areas while using one‑time reserves and non‑general fund balances to smooth near‑term impacts. Doctor Chu, superintendent, and Ginny Lynn, director of finance, answered technical questions and outlined next steps for committee votes and town-level review.

Public concerns centered on Westford Academy’s music staffing. Several students and parents, including sophomore Madarika Silva Kumar and seniors Isabella Hessey and Maria Reuther, said orchestra and other ensembles have been combined and that staff reductions have stretched the remaining music teacher across band, orchestra and multiple extracurricular ensembles. “It isn’t fair to him nor to us to have a teacher that is spread out so thin,” Madarika Silva Kumar said, speaking for orchestra students, and other students described fewer ensemble sections and reduced repertoire as a result.

Administration said the apparent 18 percent decrease in the WA music line reflects an accounting shift rather than a new cut for FY26: one 0.4 full‑time equivalent position used in FY25 was absorbed into another department and the district recorded that FTE under the department that ultimately uses it. “What you see in the change in the line item as an 18% decrease is not a change in what is actually happening in FY25,” Ginny Lynn said, explaining that the 0.4 FTE was redeployed to support world language courses.

Speakers also questioned the district’s PE graduation requirement and scheduling. Parents and students argued that the current requirement for students to take a PE course each school year reduces flexibility for students who want additional electives or AP courses. Committee member Patty Wong and community members pointed to other districts (Acton‑Boxborough was cited) that deliver required PE with fewer staff by adjusting schedules; parents and students suggested hybrid models that split large classes into A/B groups with a mix of teacher‑led and self‑directed activities. Administration said program changes of that scale are being considered by the policy subcommittee and that any policy or program changes would be phased to allow planning and training.

On interventions, speakers and some committee members pressed for clarity about changes to the MTSS (multi‑tiered system of supports) model and how students were identified for extra reading and math help. Committee members said the district has changed the assessment windows and identification criteria this year (for example, different percentile cutoffs and use of i‑Ready data), which affects the number of students receiving pull‑out services; administrators said they are scheduling cross‑level data reviews in February to track impacts and adjust assignments if needed.

Other budget questions included whether contractual “lane changes” (teacher salary increases for degrees or coursework) produced line‑item increases for some departments — notably PE — and how the district is using non‑general fund balances as short‑term offsets. Doctor Chu said the PE line shows an increase driven primarily by negotiated salary lane changes for several staff who completed degrees or coursework, not by added positions. He also reiterated that the district’s non‑general fund guide outlines planned offsets that can be used for multiple years but are not permanent revenue sources.

Process and next steps: The committee plans a formal vote on the FY26 school budget at its Jan. 21 meeting, which the district intends to present to the town finance committee on Jan. 23 and then to town meeting on March 22. Committee members encouraged parents and students to submit written comments and to follow the scheduled subcommittee and review meetings the administration described. Doctor Chu said the district will provide mid‑year data reviews and an update after the February data meetings to show whether interventions or other changes need course corrections.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved a consent agenda at the start of the meeting (motion made and seconded; vote: unanimous), voted to open the FY26 budget public hearing at 7:xx p.m., and later voted to close the public hearing after public comment. The committee scheduled a budget vote for its Jan. 21 meeting and reiterated the town meeting date of March 22.

Community response and outlook: Students, parents and staff used the hearing to press for restorations and to propose alternative program models to preserve electives and extracurriculars amid limited resources. Committee members repeatedly acknowledged the emotional and educational toll of incremental cuts and said they remain committed to documenting impacts and seeking options — including longer‑range revenue measures — to stabilize the district’s finances.

The committee adjourned after the hearing; members said they would continue the FY26 discussion in the Jan. 21 meeting packet and through upcoming subcommittee sessions.