Left to right: Dominik Lay, Danielle McFadden, Dave Conway, Erik Gitschier, Eileen DelRossi and Fred Bahou (Photo courtesy Jen Myers)

by Qinglong Diep

LOWELL – Lowell School Committee members voted 5-1 Wednesday night to extend the contracts for three Assistant Superintendents for one year. The extension comes with a 3% pay increase, which drew opposition from school committee members and United Teachers of Lowell members worried about layoffs as the district faces a significant budget shortfall.

The vote was the School Committee’s second attempt at approving new deals for the Administrators. The first effort, which entailed a three year contract,failed at the March 4 meeting with the board deadlocked at three votes in favor and three against.

Mayor Erik Gitschier, along with members Fred Bahou and Danielle McFadden were in favor at the time. Dave Conway, Eileen DelRossi and Dominik Lay voted against.

Committee member Connie Martin was absent at both the March 4 and March 18 meetings.

Bahou amended his motion last night to call for just a one-year extension. That effort also elicited hesitation from the same three committee members who voted against the pay increases two weeks ago and a number of teachers and union representatives.

Pina Magio, Director of the Lowell Teacher Academy and Executive Vice President of United Teachers of Lowell, said the motion had not just divided opinions, it had fractured the district itself. Standing before a packed chamber of educators, she said the issue was never about whether the assistant superintendents deserved a raise.

“This motion has created furor in the system because it has pitted people at the top with people who — and I hate to say the bottom — but they really should be at the top, because they’re the ones who work every single day,” Maggio said. “It’s not about the raise. You need to walk in our shoes. And you’re not doing that.”

Diane McLean, a teacher for the school district for 31 years, questioned how the committee could justify administrative raises while gutting school-level support.

“How can you justify cutting $8.2 million from our schools while cutting only $800,000 from the central office?” McLean said. “It’s more than unfair — it’s appalling.”

Other speakers argued the real funding crisis that Lowell Public School District is facing lies with the city’s management of Chapter 70 money.

UTL President Paul Georges claimed the City Manager withheld $15 million in Chapter 70 funds last year which should have gone directly to the school district. He also warned that another expected $17.5 million this year may face a similar fate.

“In virtually every other system in the state, that money that goes through the city is carried to the school department to be used by the school department,” Georges said. “Nobody should be cut now. Nobody.”

City Councilor and former Lowell High teacher Sean McDonough, who spoke as a private resident, added onto Georges’ remarks by noting the city’s cash contribution to the school district dropped from $15.7 million in 2022, 29% of its required share, to roughly $12 million in 2026, which amounted to just 17% of the required $68.9 million. He also pointed out that individual city-side administrators have received raises between $20,000 to $50,000 over the last three years.

“This should be a wake-up call to everybody in this room that we need to stand united in a call for adequate funding for public education in the City of Lowell,” McDonough said.

Superintendent of Schools Liam Skinner defended central office budget amounts, telling the school committee members that Lowell spends just 4% of its budget on central office, which is below the national average. Other school districts spend 6.7% of their budget on central administration, he revealed.

Skinner also said every reduction in the past two budget cycles came from central office, not schools, even when the district faced a $24 million shortfall after federal ESSER funds expired.

“Let’s agree to minimize central office staff and services and maximize services to schools and classrooms,” Skinner said. “That’s genuine. That’s not a talking point or a bluff.”

School Committee member Conway said the committee was being asked to make consequential decisions without the financial information to make them responsibly.

“We don’t have all the facts and figures in front of us,” Conway said. “In our own home, we’re not going to go spend money if we don’t have it.”

Mayor Gitschier, who serves as School Committee Chairman, argued the 3% raise was consistent with contracts already given to other district employees and that rejecting it would have little practical effect on the budget gap.

“It was throwing a pebble into the ocean on a conversation,” Gitschier said. “These people work as hard as the classroom teacher.”

The Mayor also pointed out that all the teachers in the room were receiving 3% pay increases in the coming year, part of an 11% increase over a three-year period. He noted there was budget uncertainty at the time those contract terms were offered and accepted as well, but they were approved anyway and there didn’t seem to be the same level of concern about the future that was on display last night.

School Committee member Bahou pointed to an 8% rise in graduation rates and an 8.5% drop in chronic absenteeism over two years as evidence the leadership team has earned the renewal.

When the vote was finally taken, DelRossi and Lay switched to yes, joining Bahou, Gitschier and McFadden in securing the vote in favor.

The committee is expected to take up a full budget proposal, including potential staff reductions, at a future meeting.

With the three Assistant Superintendent contracts extended for an additional year through June 30, 2027, it would mean that the School Committee members would negotiate all five Assistant Superintendents and the Superintendent of Schools contracts in executive session in the near future.