School Committee recap: July 23, 2026
(9-minute read)
For residents looking to stay up to date on key town matters, this recap highlights the major takeaways from the School Committee meeting held on Thursday, July 23, 2026 via Zoom.
Watch the full meeting here on RCTV’s Youtube page.
Review the full School Committee packet here.
Key takeaways
A 5.25% increase would keep the schools level funded in FY28, and district leaders said the size of the override, combined with the town’s use of free cash, will determine how deep any budget reductions need to be.
If no override passes, the district outlined reductions ranging from $1M to $4M, with the deepest scenario cutting up to 15 educators, 20 paraprofessionals, and 7 non-union positions, along with higher activity fees and a possible return of full-day kindergarten tuition.
The committee voted 5-0 to send the Select Board a letter backing the Finance Committee’s $6.5M and $9.8M override figures and adding a $5M option, for three amounts on the November ballot.
The FY28 budget picture
Superintendent Dr. Henry Turner opened by noting that he had met with school staff across the district since the committee last convened two weeks earlier, and he acknowledged that the Select Board, not the School Committee, sets both the override amount and the level of free cash the town draws on.
The current FY27 budget is a level-service budget, but reaching that point required the district to use $800,000 in non-recurring funds. Turner said the remaining $917,000 in community priority funding will be essential to keep the district level funded in FY28. A 5.35% increase would represent a level-service budget for FY28.
The figure rests on several assumptions, including no added positions, collective bargaining cost-of-living adjustments and lane changes, and $274,000 in non-personnel increases tied to literacy and transportation. On the revenue side, the district is counting on a school choice offset of 128 students, a special education increment of roughly $1.1M, and continuing Deaf and Hard of Hearing revenue.
Making the case for the schools
Before turning to potential cuts, Turner, Assistant Superintendent for Learning and Teaching Dr. Sarah Hardy, and Assistant Superintendent for Student Services Dr. Jennifer Stys walked through what they described as Reading’s story and the investments that have shaped it.
Hardy pointed to academic achievements across all levels, from elementary schools through the high school, citing National Merit Scholars and middle school math teams as examples; she credited staff and high expectations for students. Stys highlighted well-rounded student engagement, noting an all-state champion wrestler, a student who broke a 52-year-old track record, and a drama club that reached the state finals for the first time in 15 years.
The administrators tied the district’s momentum to sustained investment over the past five years, particularly in social emotional learning and inclusion. Stys described inclusion specialists who supported 114 students in classrooms and pointed to the Unified Sports program, the multi-town Children’s Cabinet, and a partnership with the Reading Food Pantry. Turner said students’ needs have shifted since the pandemic, with resilience and social interaction now demanding more support than they did a decade or more ago, and he called assistant principals a critical component of that work.
Hardy said the middle school model, manageable class sizes, and high-quality curriculum remain priorities, while the high school has built out Innovation Career Pathways, advanced coursework, extracurriculars, and student support that make the school an attractive choice for returning students. Stys outlined special education focus areas, including realigned district-wide programming, enhanced reading evaluation and instruction, and a new 18-to-22 LIF program designed to help students within the special education program develop skills for the community after graduation. She said the district plans to accept tuition for six students from other districts alongside six returning students, part of a broader effort to keep programming in district and reduce costlier out-of-district placements.
Hardy said the investments have pushed the district toward the 90th percentile in statewide academic achievement in math and English language arts, with continued momentum in literacy and strong accountability ratings. Stys added that student attendance has improved and chronic absenteeism has fallen, and she noted that Reading achieves those outcomes while spending less per pupil than comparable communities.
Reduction scenarios if the override fails
Director of Finance and Operations of the Reading Public Schools Phil Littlehale presented three tranches for potential reductions, scaled to the size of any budget gap left after an override and free cash. He based the staffing figures on average costs of about $100,000 per educator, $32,000 per paraprofessional, $61,000 per custodian, and $66,000 per administrative assistant, and reminded the committee that the town would absorb unemployment expenses tied to any layoffs.
The reduction tranches Littlehale outlined were:
A $1M to $2M reduction, including up to 5 educators, up to 7 paraprofessionals, and up to 3 non-union positions
A $2M to $3M reduction, including up to 10 educators, up to 13 paraprofessionals, and up to 5 non-union positions
A $3M to $4M reduction, including up to 15 educators, up to 20 paraprofessionals, and up to 7 non-union positions
Alongside staffing, Littlehale listed non-staffing measures that would come into play, such as higher facility fees, reinstating full-day kindergarten tuition, reducing the laptop purchasing program, pausing pre-payment of out-of-district tuition, drawing down the special education reserve fund, and using a portion of current-year circuit breaker funds.
Administrators warned that the cuts would be felt in the classrooms. Hardy said there is no fluff in the school budget and the educator reductions would fall largely at the middle and high school levels, increasing class sizes and threatening Advanced Placement courses and pathways. She described paraprofessionals as the glue that holds the schools together and warned that losing them could push more students toward special education services. Stys said cutting non-union administrative positions would leave students waiting longer for support and shift staff time toward compliance rather than proactive outreach to families.
School Committee member Tom Wise repeatedly flagged the downstream costs of the reductions, warning that sending more students out of district would raise expenses and that relying on one-time funds to cover recurring costs would create ripple effects in future years. Committee Chair Shawn Brandt drew a parallel to the district’s school choice success, saying Reading has thrived because it is a desirable place to learn and that cuts would erode both the experience and student outcomes. Turner noted that supply and resources freezes, not personnel cuts, would come first.
Full-day kindergarten debate
The sharpest exchange of the night centered on full-day kindergarten. Select Board member Chris Haley questioned why the district was not looking to reinstate full-day kindergarten tuition before cutting teachers, suggesting the town could keep more staff by bringing back a fee while offering reduced tuition for lower-income families. He said he has two children in the schools, but argued the district should not handcuff itself by taking the option off the table.
Brandt pushed back firmly, saying half-day kindergarten no longer meets students’ needs and that families had been opting out because of cost, leaving some children less prepared for first grade. He said 14 communities in Massachusetts now charge for full-day kindergarten, down from 29 when Reading began transitioning to free tuition, and described the shift to free full-day kindergarten as work the district undertook because cost was the greatest barrier to excellence in its system. Brandt said he would find a return to tuition personally devastating while acknowledging it remained on the table.
Committee member Erin Gaffen echoed that concern, framing the decision as a question of what kind of community Reading wants to be. She said reinstating a fee would be a disservice to children who attend half-day for financial reasons and cautioned that any fee structure creates murky questions about who can afford to pay. Turner and Stys added that a legal obligation to educate students, including those with individualized education plans, limits how far the district can go in reducing staff.
The exchange underscored a limit on the Select Board’s authority. While the Select Board can approve a school budget that is advanced to Town Meeting for a vote, it has no control over how the School Department spends that money. Under state law, the specifics of how the school budget is allocated fall solely within the purview of the School Committee.
Override size and ballot options
Much of the Committee’s discussion turned on how large an override to seek and how many options to place before voters. Brandt explained that the Finance Committee recommended a $9.8M override, which he said would fully address the structural deficit without using free cash to augment the budget. A smaller $6.5M override, by contrast, would require the district to continue drawing on free cash and would carry the district roughly three to four years, while the $9.8M figure would last closer to five to six years, with funds expected to become available again around FY32.
Wise argued for putting three options on the ballot, adding a $5M figure that he acknowledged came from no specific data but would still require significant cuts. He said a large November turnout tied to the midterm elections made public education about the override essential and pressed the Finance Committee to treat free cash as an anchor for capital spending. Committee member Geoffrey Coram countered that offering an option that leads to deep cuts and quick return on the ballot may not be the right move, cautioning against giving voters a choice that is not a good one.
Gaffen said voters deserve an informed choice and that neither the $6.5M nor the $9.8M figure represents adding anything frivolous, describing both as ways to maintain existing services with different timelines and levels of free cash use. Committee member Lara Durgavich said the committee should take a position and advocate for a ballot measure that, at a minimum, lets the schools keep the gains of recent years. Coram added that voters elected the committee to run the school department and trusted it to handle the resulting decisions.
The vote and what comes next
After revising the draft letter to reference a possible $5M option, for three total figures on the ballot with the $7M and $9.8M amounts recommended by the Finance Committee, and to add a note on the possible reinstatement of full-day kindergarten tuition, the committee voted 5-0 to send the letter to the Select Board.
Turner outlined a community engagement plan built around preparing for multiple reduction scenarios, developing a frequently asked questions document and a one-page summary, and holding community meetings. A community forum is scheduled for August 6 ahead of the November vote.
With the Select Board set to vote on an override figure at its meeting Tuesday, July 28, residents who want to weigh in on both the amount and the ballot options can write to SelectBoard@ReadingMA.gov ahead of the meeting.
Watch the July 23, 2026 School Committee Meeting on the RCTV Youtube page.
