Grafton school committee approves $47.85 million FY26 budget after public hearing; outlines $809,000 "middle ground" reductions and new tuition plan

Grafton Public Schools’ school committee voted to approve a $47,846,071 operating budget for fiscal year 2026 after a public-budget hearing and discussion of alternate reduction scenarios.

Dr. James Cummings, superintendent of Grafton Public Schools, told the committee that the full “level service” FY26 budget includes contractual increases, five new teaching positions, higher transportation costs and an 11% planning assumption for transportation. Cummings said a novel revenue idea — expanding a medically fragile secondary program to accept tuitioned students from other districts — is expected to reduce district salary needs by about $200,000.

Why it matters: The approved spending plan continues a multi‑year pattern in which the town must choose between maintaining “level service” for schools or reducing programs and positions. Committee discussion emphasized that special-education tuition increases, staffing costs and substitutes are the largest drivers of the gap between revenues and expenses.

The approved figure is an increase over the current year; Cummings summarized key cost drivers as the five new positions, a 3 percent cost-of-living adjustment plus steps and lanes in contracts, increased special-education tuition, higher substitute costs and technology investments. He said those five drivers “make up about 97% of our overall increase.”

Public hearing and comment

Only a handful of people used the public-hearing period. Dan Gasper, a Grafton resident who spoke at the meeting, pressed the committee on long-term planning for overrides. He said the town has used overrides in the past and asked, “What steps are we taking to need another override in five years?” and urged the committee to stretch future overrides when possible.

Lisa Hall, a parent with children in the district, thanked administrators and committee members for efforts to reduce a $1.6 million proposed reduction and warned that cuts that increase class size could harm program quality and school choice enrollment. “It would be catastrophic if we don't keep level service,” she said.

Dr. Cummings and staff responses

Cummings told the committee the district has an updated five-year forecast (to be presented to the select board) and that the district has been effectively operating at very low per-pupil spending for years. He said the district is “override dependent” and recounted past override planning, the select board’s sustainability commission work and the challenge of balancing service levels with funding.

Cummings described the $200,000 revenue plan in detail: instead of dissolving an existing medically fragile program at the high school after one student left, the district will retain the staffing, space and equipment and target tuitioned students from other towns. He said the program as designed would use out‑of‑district tuitions to cover staffing. "With just four students, we will generate a profit of at least $200,000 annually," he said, and estimated tuition would be over $90,000 per student though exact per‑student charges will be negotiated with sending districts.

Middle-ground reductions and implications

Cummings summarized a separate “middle ground” package developed with input from a tri‑committee (finance, select board, school committee). The goal from the tri‑committee discussion was roughly $750,000 in school-side reductions; the package the superintendent described totals just over $809,000 once combined with the revenue idea. The set of reductions would include the following elements as presented by staff (items remain subject to final decisions and state aid outcomes):

- Non-personnel reductions across many lines identified by budget staff (about $162,000 saved in the review). - Hold HR staffing part-time coverage ($50,000) rather than full staff additions. - Reduce preschool from a half‑time section (contingent on projected enrollment). - Eliminate two of three proposed curriculum coordinator positions (reduce from three planned cuts to two). - Reduce an additional technology position (details not final). - Not backfill a custodial/maintenance position tied to a retirement. - Eliminate a math intervention position at the middle school.

Cummings said two of the six positions included could qualify for unemployment. He also warned that cutting positions and supports will likely compound other problems, including potential loss of school‑choice revenue if families choose districts with lower class sizes or more supports.

Vote and next steps

A motion to approve the fiscal-year 2026 operating budget in the amount of $47,846,071 was made and seconded. The roll-call vote recorded the committee’s affirmative votes and the chair closed the public hearing before the vote. The committee moved next to discuss the middle-ground scenario; that scenario was not before the committee for a binding vote that night and would require additional committee and select-board action.

Committee and staff noted state budget timing remains a key uncertainty. Cummings repeatedly said state funding determinations (house/senate conference) in the spring could affect the district’s final position.

Quotes

"With just four students, we will generate a profit of at least $200,000 annually," Dr. James Cummings said of the medically fragile program redesign.

"Small numbers add up," resident Dan Gasper said, urging the committee to seek efficiency and plans that stretch overrides.

"It would be catastrophic if we don't keep level service," parent Lisa Hall said, warning about impacts to class size and school choice.

Ending note

Committee members and administrators said the middle-ground plan is intended to reduce near-term budget pressure while giving the town more time to plan long-term revenue and service decisions. The school committee approved the FY26 operating budget and directed staff to continue refining the middle-ground scenario and to present updated five-year forecasts to the select board and public.