Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Teacher, students and residents urge RSU 10 board to protect classroom supports

Western Foothills Regional School Unit 10 School Board · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple public commenters — including a teacher whose job is slated for elimination — urged the RSU 10 board to reconsider staffing cuts, citing impacts on ESL, concurrent college credit and supports for special‑education students.

At the start of public comment, residents and school community members told the board proposed cuts risk student programs and supports.

A resident raised ongoing concerns about bathroom arrangements at the new school and asked for another full tour of the building. Carol Daigle addressed budget worries and asserted the superintendent’s pay is "an average of $140,735 a year," a figure she presented as context for her concern about building size and long‑term operating costs; the board did not confirm that number during public comment.

Dylan Kayer, a Mountain Valley High School graduate and English teacher of 15 years whose job was listed for elimination in the proposed cuts, described program losses the cut would cause. He told the board the district would lose ESL‑certified instruction at Mount Valley, concurrent college‑credit opportunities and scholarship‑application support. "By eliminating this position, you are lowering the bar to such a substantial degree," he said, and later urged the board: "I strongly urge you to reconsider, not for myself, but for our students." The teacher framed his plea around program equity between schools and class‑size effects.

Student speaker Wyatt Perra, a senior, thanked the board for the effort of preparing a budget but asked members to weigh educational and extracurricular impacts on students and families, including access to speech and occupational services for younger siblings.

Board response and next steps: the chair reminded public commentators that questions during comment are limited and that the board would pursue further line‑by‑line public review of budget options at the next meeting. Administrators invited members of the public to submit follow‑up questions by email for clarifications.