Scituate School Committee hears FY27 $55.0M budget proposal; district keeps services level while investing in curriculum and technology
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Scituate School Committee reviewed a proposed FY27 budget totaling $55,029,061 (about a 4–5% increase). District leaders described it as a 'level services' plan that preserves staff, funds curriculum review and professional development, advances technology refreshes, and targets a handful of new positions if additional funding becomes available.
Scituate — School district leaders presented a $55,029,061 proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 at a public hearing, describing the plan as largely “level services” that would avoid staff cuts while funding targeted curriculum updates, technology refreshes and a small number of staffing requests.
“I’m very pleased to present our FY27 school budget in the amount of $55,029,061, or 4 and a half percent more than our current year,” said Dr. Raab, who opened the presentation and framed the plan as built on steady enrollments and the district’s strategic objectives. He said the budget combines town support with roughly $4.7 million in state and federal grants and other revenues such as nonresident tuition and fees.
Why it matters: the budget balances district priorities and town support. Central leaders said salaries remain about 80% of spending, with the district proposing incremental investments rather than broad program expansions. The committee heard roughly flat enrollment projections (2,726 students, down 18 from last year) and a total staffing level that would rise modestly to about 519.45 full-time-equivalent positions to address enrollment shifts and program needs.
Curriculum and classroom investments: Assistant Superintendent Ryan Lynch and department chairs described concentrated funding for a multi-year curriculum review. Laura Messner, 6–12 English lead, said the largest near-term increases are for professional development, text purchases and instructional technology to support adolescent-literacy work and new benchmarks. Heather Allen, STEM curriculum coordinator, told the committee the math budget changes are minor but the district will continue an adopted online fluency program for upper elementary and increase science supplies and professional development tied to a potential new elementary science program.
Staffing requests and classroom impacts: presenters pressed for several targeted additions if funds become available. The high school would receive a 0.6 drama teacher already proposed in the plan; several elementary principals asked for additional reading or math specialists and a shared library/media specialist. Hatherly principal said growth will require an additional elementary teacher and third classroom at that building. Jenkins principal Mary Goldak highlighted a roughly $35,000 increase to a “building new equipment” line to phase in replacement desks and chairs.
Technology and facilities: Director of Educational Technology Jackie Frangelo outlined device refresh plans (6th-grade 1:1 and a targeted refresh for grades 3–5), firewall and VMware licensing costs (VMware licensing noted to be rising substantially), and a Jenkins network-switch project planned for coming months with partial E-rate reimbursement expected. Athletic director Scott Payne described level-funded athletics operations with recent facility improvements paid through partnerships and a new in-gym scoreboard expected to generate advertising revenue.
Special education and out-of-district costs: Director Michelle Boatberg said the out-of-district tuition budget remains near $3.9 million (give or take about $50,000) and the district is managing placements with staff realignments to maintain least-restrictive environments while controlling costs.
Questions and next steps: committee members pressed for more granular line-item notes in the budget binder (for example, the reason Gates and the high school have different supplies totals) and requested an itemized list of stipends and coaching allocations ahead of an equity audit due April 30. Finance staff agreed to share detailed spreadsheets and follow-up materials. There was no vote on the budget at this meeting; public comment was nil and the meeting adjournment motion was made and seconded.
What’s next: district leaders said they will return with updated materials and that the committee can request further adjustments before formal adoption. The budget remains a proposal until the committee completes its deliberations and any town appropriation process.