By Allison McDonald

The Amherst School Committee held an extended FY27 budget hearing on Tuesday, March 17, hearing a detailed presentation from district administrators and taking public comment on proposed cuts before turning to its own deliberations on next steps.

The draft budget reflects the consolidation of the town’s elementary schools and proposes reductions to specialist and special education positions that drew strong pushback from educators, families, and advocates. 

Committee members, in turn, pressed administrators for clearer breakdowns of costs by school and program, and signaled they may seek ways to restore key services before a final vote.

Presentation of the Draft FY27 Budget

Administrators opened with an overview of the FY27 proposal, built around the consolidation of Fort River and Wildwood schools into the new Amethyst Brook school and opening the Chestnut Street Academy for sixth graders at the Regional middle school. The district now serves roughly 1,049 elementary students, with particularly high needs: about 28% are students with disabilities, 10% are English learners, and 27% are economically disadvantaged; a subset are “dual-identified” with especially complex needs.

The proposed budget includes a $1.1M (3.85%) increase in overall spending, to $29.4M, in line with the guidance from the Amherst Town Council. But within that framework administrators identified both cost pressures and over $800K in cuts. 

They cited rising obligations for contracted salary increases, health insurance costs, and special education out-of-district transportation, while also pointing to anticipated efficiencies from consolidation, including savings in utilities and transportation. Additional support is expected from school choice funds and contributions from UMass Amherst and Amherst College.

To close the remaining gap, the proposal reduces or restructures positions across several areas; most of the changes are related to the consolidation from three to two school buildings and the greater efficiencies that brings to providing student services. Presenters outlined planned cuts to clerical staff, “specials” (such as art, music, and library), English language learner (ELL) positions, and reading and math intervention staff. Special education leaders described realigning related service providers—such as BCBAs, physical therapists, and speech and language staff—to meet IEP obligations while shifting some roles, and elementary administrators emphasized that classroom sizes will remain aligned with district policy.

Public Testimony Focuses on Specialists, Interventions, and Equity

Public comment was dominated by teachers, parents, students, and community members urging the committee not to proceed with the proposed reductions to specials and special education staff. Speakers argued that the cuts would undermine both academic progress and the broader well‑being of students, particularly those with disabilities and other high needs. 

Parents and educators warned that eliminating or shrinking the elementary math intervention program would reverse recent gains for struggling students, who have benefitted from targeted, small‑group instruction. Several teachers cited data showing strong improvement in math outcomes under the current model, and urged the committee to preserve the program intact. 

Special education advocates, including representatives from the Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC), highlighted a plan to reduce four special education teaching positions and increase caseloads. They shared their perspective that the change would make it harder to deliver individualized instruction and to maintain effective co‑teaching models that support both students with IEPs and their peers. They believed the change was especially harmful for students with disabilities, neurodivergent students, and others who rely on consistent, intensive support. 

Music, art, and other specials also emerged as flashpoints. Multiple speakers, including music teachers, argued that cutting general music and other arts instruction would narrow the curriculum and exacerbate inequities in access to arts education. They emphasized that music and art help many students find success and belonging in school, and that specials teachers often run extracurriculars like chorus, plays, and after‑school activities that build community but do not show up on simple performance metrics. 

Teachers warned that consolidating specialist roles while serving hundreds of students across grade levels would stretch staff to the breaking point, increasing workload, burnout, and turnover. Librarians said further reductions would compromise a program already under strain, with implications for literacy and information skills. Several speakers closed by urging the committee to seek more revenue—from the town, local colleges, or other sources—rather than balancing the budget on reductions to student‑facing services.

Committee Questions and Demands

Following public comment, the School Committee shifted into discussion with administrators, focusing on the structure of the new consolidated system and the details behind the numbers. 

A portion of the discussion centered on Chestnut Street Academy, including staffing, rent arrangements with the regional district, and how costs are being tracked and reported. 

Sarah Marshall pressed for clarity on rent Amherst will pay to the regional district for Chestnut Street space. District finance director Shannon Bernaccia explained that the district will “use an alternative funding source that’s not within the operating budget” to cover the rental expense to the Regional district but noted that it would come into the operating budget in future years.

After some pressing from other Committee members, Bernacchia explained further that the plan is to use a portion of the approximately $450K in capital funds from the Town that had been earmarked for the sixth grade move to the middle school to cover the annual rental expense.

The new elementary configuration, including the sixth‑grade move to the Chestnut Street Academy at the middle school, was described by Marshall as “experimental” and still evolving. Concerned about making cuts before the reconfiguration is in place, Deb Leonard said “Once it’s gone, it’s gone… It would make way more sense to do a moderate consolidation and see where we are a year from now than to do something that fits within a certain‑size box and then try to build that box back out.”

About the impact of the reduction in specials teachers, Crocker Farm Principal Derek Shea said “It’s not ideal. It’s not what we want. Again, if we had lots and lots of money… but this is a place where I think we can still continue to thrive with really strong specials folks.”

As they talked through the draft, committee members returned to questions of equity and long‑term sustainability. Some argued that, if cuts must be made, they should fall more heavily on higher‑paid central or administrative roles rather than on classroom‑level services and specialists. 

Laura Jane Hunter said she “would like to see what it would look like for central office to cut 15% of central office funding and how much of the student‑facing critical stuff we could keep,” and suggested the cuts should come by redistributing salary increases from the highest-paid to lower paid staff.

Others stressed that any approach to cuts must be grounded in student impact and in the district’s responsibilities to high‑needs populations. 

Committee members repeatedly asked for a more granular budget breakdown by school and by educational program. They said they need to see how many specialists, interventionists, and other staff are assigned to each building, and how proposed cuts would play out in actual classrooms so that they can evaluate appropriateness. 

Bridget Hynes noted that having the detail about individual programs within the school buildings would enable them to decide whether the staffing sounds like “doable number” or “that sounds very difficult for one sole human to handle.”

The Committee began to compile questions and data requests in advance of their final review and vote on the budget proposal. Several members requested scenarios showing what it would cost to restore different tiers of positions—such as specials or intervention teachers—so they can weigh restoration options if more funding becomes available. They emphasized that, while the town’s financial constraints are real, the committee’s role is to advocate for a budget that meets students’ educational needs rather than simply accepting a number and then trimming programs to fit.

The School Committee anticipated its next meeting to be March 24 (though no meeting is on the Committee’s calendar as yet), and it must submit its final, adopted budget to the Amherst Town Manager by April 1.

An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this article by summarizing a recording of the meeting which was reviewed and adapted by the writer.