The views stated here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors of this newspaper. We welcome supporting or opposing views on any published item. Received June 3, 2026.
This year’s RSD17 budget increases pay at the top and cuts library books by as much as 58%, in a district with a third fewer students than a generation ago. Before you vote on June 10, here is what the district’s own numbers show.
Begin with enrollment. At its peak in 2007-08, RSD17 educated about 2,493 students. Next year it projects about 1,668. That is a decline of roughly a third, and it has been steady for years. The high school now enrolls about 466 students across all four grades, with a freshman class under 100. By any honest measure, this is a shrinking district.
Now set administration beside it. As the student body fell, the administrative ranks did not follow it down. By the state’s own EdSight staffing data, the number of administrators for every thousand students has risen from about five to more than eight over that same period. Fewer children, more administrators per child. And this year’s budget increases the superintendent’s salary line by 10%, with a comparable increase in the pupil-services administration line. Some of those increases are contractual, but the budget that carries them is a choice, and so is everything sitting next to them.
Now weigh the message against the record. Signs have gone up urging a yes vote for the children, and the campaign warns that a no vote puts middle school sports, music, and art at risk. But look at the cuts already in this budget. After the first vote failed, the district trimmed $388,000, and it found that money in a teaching position and a special-education line. Library books are down 58% at the middle school and 40% at both elementary schools. Those are the choices the district actually made, and every one landed on the classroom. If the focus is truly on the children, why does the classroom take the cuts while pay at the top goes up?
Declining enrollment should make a district easier to afford, not harder. The Board will say much of the increase is fixed costs. But every family and business here carries fixed costs and still sets priorities. “We have fixed costs” is not a plan; it is an excuse for not making one.
And the district is not short of options. It is sitting on roughly $2.35 million in a fund it named, word for word, the “Reserve Fund for Educational Expenses,” and this budget puts another $600,000 into it. Read that twice. A fund named for educational expenses is growing, while the educational expenses that reach students, the library books and the teaching position, are exactly what got cut. That cushion could offset these increases and ease the burden on taxpayers, instead of asking for more while the classroom absorbs the cuts.
This is not a vote against our schools, our teachers, or our children. It is the opposite. It is a request that the money follow the students into the classroom instead of up the organizational chart. We have done this before. Last year, two no votes sent the budget back and produced about $900,000 in savings, mostly from insurance, reserves, and overhead. The schools opened on time, with a teacher in every classroom.
A No vote on June 10 says the same thing again: right-size the administration to the district we actually have, protect the classroom, and bring it back. And before asking us for more, use the reserves. That $2.35 million is already our money. Why are they holding it? Please join me. Vote No on Wednesday, June 10.
Eric Nunes, Ph.D., Killingworth
