Portsmouth board backs $983,000 in near-term cuts after $1.57M SchoolCare assessment; request for $250,000 from city fails

The Portsmouth School Board on April 14 approved a package of spending reductions aimed at helping the district absorb a $1.57 million assessment from SchoolCare and a projected 26% rise in health-insurance premiums.

Administration proposed a mix of one-time and operational changes for the current fiscal year (FY26) and for FY27. FY26 items included holding back some professional development reimbursements, realizing projected savings from fewer out-of-district elementary tuition placements, giving back a portion of an unfilled high-school curriculum coordinator position, renegotiating contracted services, reallocating district software costs to IT, and phasing out a central-office position. Together with FY27 proposed adjustments — including moving an assistant business-administrator role into city finance for partial cost-sharing, not replacing one clerical position at the high school and using one-time preschool-fee revenue to fund half of a PEEP teacher — the board’s package met the city’s target for the district portion of the SchoolCare shortfall.

The superintendent framed the issue as urgent and complex, saying staff had worked to identify reductions that would be “as painless as possible.” Board members repeatedly pressed for transparency and asked administration to flag any cuts that would directly affect classroom instruction. One member proposed that any decision that would materially reduce classroom supplies or instruction be brought back to the board; the board voted to receive accounting of reductions at each board meeting to provide that visibility.

A separate motion by a board member to ask the City to provide an additional $250,000 from the health stabilization fund failed 3–6 after members said the timing and the prior council discussion made such a request unlikely to succeed. The vote on the FY26 reductions passed 7–2; the FY27 reductions passed 7–2 as well. Members who opposed some elements cited concern about potential negative incentives (for example, cutting programs that would discourage bringing special-education students back in-district) and about hidden ripple effects in other lines such as transportation and special education.

The board asked for regular reporting so both the board and the public can see the specific departmental reductions and reassess if necessary. Administration said it will continue to monitor in-year variances and report back to the board as the numbers settle.