At the School Committee meeting on Monday, Jan. 5, committee members held a public hearing on the proposed fiscal year 2027 (FY27) school budget and expressed growing concerns about the district’s long-term financial outlook heading into FY28. Projected class sizes across the district and rising utility costs were also major discussion points during the hearing.
The proposed FY27 budget was first introduced to the committee on Dec. 1, 2025 by Superintendent Christopher Chew. On Jan. 5, there was a school committee meeting aimed at providing transparency regarding the budget, and opening the chance for residents to provide public comment. The committee will meet on Tuesday, Jan. 20 for a tentative vote on the proposed budget, and the final school budget will be presented at the Town Meeting on Saturday, March 28 for residents to vote on.
FY27 Budget Overview
Director of School Finance Jenny Lin presented the FY27 budget, explaining that approximately $480,000 in excess balances and revolving funds are being used to support district operations during FY27. Lin noted that these funds, which include balances from school choice and special education accounts, will be fully depleted by the end of the fiscal year.
“[The budget is] kind of temporarily sustained or artificially sustained because that $400,000 that we’re using from the excess balances from the revolving accounts will be gone,” school committee member Valery Young said.
The district is proposing a total FY27 budget of approximately $71.5 million, representing an increase of just over 3% from the current fiscal year. Lin explained that reductions were made to the committee’s initial budget request, along with the use of revolving account offsets, in order to present a balanced budget.
Despite these challenges, Lin explained that the proposed budget avoids major staffing cuts.
Chew noted that the reductions required to balance the FY27 budget are significantly smaller than those seen in FY25 and FY26, which followed the town’s failed override vote. While that change may suggest some stabilization, he emphasized that the district’s reliance on temporary funding sources continues to raise concerns about long-term sustainability.
Looking Ahead to FY28
Looking ahead, committee members expressed concern about the district’s financial outlook beyond FY27, particularly as it relates to special education spending. While current special education costs are being partially offset by higher-than-average Circuit Breaker reimbursements from the state, members emphasized that those reimbursements fluctuate annually and are not guaranteed.
Circuit Breaker funding reimburses school districts for a portion of high-cost special education expenses that exceed the requirements set by the state, but reimbursement rates vary each year based on state funding levels and are often received after districts have already used up the amount that would have been fulfilled by the reimbursal.
During the discussion, committee members noted that special education expenses, especially out-of-district placements and specialized services, represent some of the district’s most unpredictable legally-mandated costs.
Committee members noted that any reduction in reimbursement rates, combined with rising service needs or additional placements, could significantly widen the district’s projected FY28 budget gap.
The district is also budgeting funds from Grant 240, the state’s largest special education entitlement grant, which is primarily used to offset out-of-district tuition costs for non-Westford residents with special needs who attend Westford Public Schools. While the grant provides short-term relief, administrators cautioned that it does not eliminate broader structural budget challenges.
The committee also discussed uncertainty surrounding Chapter 70 funding, which is the state’s primary source of education aid for public school districts. Any changes to Chapter 70 allocations, combined with rising operational costs and the continued difficulty of passing local overrides, could further strain district finances.
“It’s not necessarily the budget we would like to see […] we’ve seen class sizes are increasing, MCAS scores [are decreasing],” school committee member Kathryn Clear said. “We’re doing our best, but it’s not exactly the school district I think we would like to see.”
Class Size Adjustments and Enrollment Shifts
A significant portion of the discussion at the meeting focused on projected class sizes, particularly at the elementary level. At Day Elementary School, fifth-grade class sizes are expected to average approximately 25 students across four sections, a figure committee members described as concerning but increasingly common given current financial constraints.
Chew explained that adding an additional fifth-grade classroom section would lower class sizes but would require hiring additional staff, which the FY27 budget cannot support. Instead, the district plans to monitor enrollment throughout the summer and provide additional support through educational support personnel where possible.
Chew also noted that two upcoming retirements will help offset staffing needs, and no layoffs are expected as a result of the adjustment.
Utilities Cost Uncertainty
Utilities were identified as another major area of uncertainty in the budget. Lin reported that heating costs were underbudgeted by approximately $200,000 in FY25, prompting the district to rely on actual spending data when projecting future utility expenses.
The town is currently operating under three-year electricity and natural gas contracts, but those agreements are set to expire partway through FY27. Lin explained that this creates uncertainty for the final months of the fiscal year, as future energy rates are unknown. While net metering credits from solar energy production continue to offset some costs, utilities remain largely outside the district’s control.
