Cumberland committee approves amended 2026–27 budget, cutting three positions and reallocating 0.5 guidance counselor in 4–3 vote

The Cumberland School Committee voted 4–3 on June 11 to amend the district’s 2026–27 budget, accepting additional town and state aid but trimming three positions and reassigning a 0.5 school counselor to address identified student need.

Superintendent Dr. Thornton told the committee that after the town added $372,000 and the state roughly $95,000, and with about $1.05 million proposed to be placed into breakage, the administration recommended removing three positions to balance the budget: a kindergarten teacher at BF, an assistant principal shared by BF and Garvin (position left vacant), and a multilingual learner (MLL) teacher at Cumberland High School. The superintendent framed the recommendations as a way to retain six earlier‑identified “essential” positions while meeting fiscal constraints.

A district finance staffer warned the amended budget would remain “very tight,” citing major concerns about utility overages and inflationary pressure on purchased services.

Alicia, a district staff member who reviewed student support data, defended reallocating half a school counselor from Community to BF Norton. "The decision…was not a reflection of the value of school counselors but rather a broader effort to manage budget reductions responsibly while still prioritizing student needs," she said, explaining the decision drew on multiple metrics including IEP/504 counts, referrals, safety‑care reports and the number of students in tier‑2 and tier‑3 interventions.

Several committee members and parents stressed that the change felt like a cut for Community families and praised the incumbent counselor by name. "Many families and teachers spoke incredibly highly of Miss Wolowski," one member said, relaying constituent concerns that students who rely on that counselor might lose continuity of service. Alicia and other staff said MTSS teams, school psychologists, social workers, related‑service providers and interns would be used to meet needs and that the administration would revisit assignments if student needs shifted.

Committee members pressed for alternatives to student‑facing cuts. Mr. Dean and Miss Smith argued for looking at administrative or non‑student‑facing reductions instead, stressing the committee’s limited ability to line‑item veto positions once the town’s allocation is set. Dr. Thornton said the administration based its recommendations on operational necessity and student‑need priorities but noted the committee could propose amendments.

The formal motion to amend the budget was offered by Miss Goldstein and seconded by Miss Shay. The roll‑call vote recorded the following: Miss Shay — yes; Mr. Dean — no; Miss Feather — yes; Miss Smith — no; Miss Goldstein — yes; Mr. Bacon — no; chair — yes. The motion passed 4–3.

Next steps: the administration will proceed with the approved amendments and continue to monitor enrollment and student‑support needs; any unanticipated mid‑year staffing needs (for example if new students enroll over the summer) would be handled using the fund balance with formal budget amendments brought forward later in the fiscal year if necessary.

Clarifying details: the committee and staff said the district is watching the number of students in BBP placements (previously budgeted for ~304 students at a cost cited as roughly $2.8 million annually) and estimated the fund balance target (per policy 2–4% of audited expenses) would be around $1.2 million under current projections. The administration also described a proposed $890,000 capital lease tied to Chromebook purchases that would offset technology expenses if the town council approves the master lease.

The committee’s discussion reflected a broader tension: members acknowledged the district’s strong student outcomes and staffing but warned that state funding formulas and limited municipal revenue make sustaining those services difficult. The committee adjourned at 8:23 p.m.