CLAREMONT, N.H. – The Claremont School Board met on Dec. 17, at the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center, at 6:30 p.m. A presentation of the proposed budget options for fiscal year 2026-2027 was previewed by senior comptroller and interim business manager Matt Angell, and interim Superintendent Kerry Kennedy.
School board member and Finance Committee Chair Candace Crawford reminded attendees that the night’s meeting was informational, and no action would be taken that evening. “As we have come to understand, last year’s budget had many flaws, including missing and incorrect data,” Crawford stated. “Mr. Angell has had to get information corrected in the system before he can put the new budget together. This process has been long and cumbersome.”
Crawford said the budget projections “had to address declining enrollments in our schools.” She relayed that there will be no reduction in existing teaching staff, but “a redeployment of staff in an effort to improve student achievement.” Crawford also noted that the budget reflects “pay increases for bargaining groups with multiyear approved contracts, including teachers and paraprofessionals. For nonunion employees, a 3% increase is budgeted.”
An increase of 11.8% in health care costs resulted in an estimated $600,000 in additional expenses related to health coverage, as required by contractual obligations, said Crawford.
Crawford mentioned potential expenses not included in the proposed budget. For instance, there is no money to cover any upgrades or repairs that may be needed at any of the school buildings, and there is no money allocated for the search for a new superintendent.
The full packet is available to view on the school board website, www.sau6.org.
Some of the problems identified by the presentation were low achievement scores at all grade levels, declining enrollment numbers, insufficient student support services, and the significant financial deficit crisis Claremont schools are facing.
Short-term goals include increasing student achievement levels, maximizing resources across the district, balancing classroom size, and reducing special education costs.
Kennedy made note of the fact that the new, four-school model was not a replica of the current school configuration, but represented a different approach. The other model proposes a three-school approach. In each of the models, the Sugar River Valley Regional Technical Center remains as an extension of Stevens High School, and funding for the machine tool class that had been cut during the current fiscal year will be restored. No plan to continue with the current configuration of the district for fiscal year 2026-2027 was presented.
The overview of Model A, the four-school breakdown, utilizes either Maple Avenue or Disnard for prekindergarten through second grade, or third grade through fifth grade. Claremont Middle School would serve sixth through eighth grade, and ninth through 12th grade would attend Stevens High School.
Angell recommended Model A, and explained, “One of the ideas for doing a four-school model is eventually we would be transitioning to a two-school model, years down the road,” stated Angell. “The reason behind that is because your student population just can’t support it.”
In Model B, the three-school plan, Maple Avenue or Disnard would accommodate prekindergarten through second grade, the same as in the first proposal. Claremont Middle School would be renamed to Claremont Upper Elementary School, and would enroll third through sixth graders. Students in grades seven through 12 would attend Stevens High School.
The current fiscal year’s operating budget is $43,179,564, and the combined state and local tax rate is $17.45 per $1,000 of assessed property value. Model A proposes a budget amount of $44,861,008, and a tax rate of $18.82 per $1,000, an increase of 3.89%. Model B is slightly less expensive, at a proposed budget of $43,968,104, and the tax rate would be $18.09 per $1,000, a 1.83% increase.
Concerned citizens peppered the school board with questions and comments about some of the ideas presented. Some were worried about the proposal to utilize Bluff School as a location for a “special education collaborative,” in an effort to lower the cost of special education programs across the school district.
The mother of a student with Down syndrome, Erica Abbey, remarked, “If you are even considering segregating special education…as a whole, this district is so lucky it doesn’t have more lawsuits.” Abbey told the board how her daughter had been excluded over the years within the Claremont School District. “That you have a plan that excludes them even more is disgusting.”
Others, including resident Molly DeLuca, a parent of two Claremont students, expressed a feeling of déjà vu. “Once again,” DeLuca commented, “I feel like we’re rushing to make this happen before fully understanding the impact of the restructuring.” Many other attendees nodded in agreement. “I was part of the restructuring effort five years ago, and this doesn’t look much different, except that we might have a little bit more data.”
DeLuca also told the board she had “serious concerns about moving seventh and eighth graders into the high school.”
“I don’t know how you can think that [moving younger students in with high school students] is realistically a good idea with the current setup. Have you talked to your teachers and your staff?” DeLuca asked. “What is their feedback?”
Overall, the public comments supported more communication between the board, and teachers and staff; opposed another move so soon after the closing of Bluff School and relocation of its students; and demanded a long-term, sustainable, transparent plan.
Mimi Ryans, an employee at the high school, addressed the board, commenting, “I appreciate that you guys have jobs and lives, and I get that, but I really hope you [are all] going to school activities in the buildings and talking to families, talking to staff, not just principals.”
Angell requested citizens email him at mangell@sau6.org with questions, and he will compile all questions into one document, and provide answers to the public at the Jan. 7, 2026, school board meeting.