Lowell City Manager Tom Golden (left) and Superintendent of Schools Liam Skinner (right)
by Gerry Nutter
After reading or listening to many inaccurate or misleading statements regarding the Lowell School Budget, and being a former School Committee member who understands finance, I felt the need to add my 2-cents, even though no one asked.
While you hear that the Manager is “cutting” $4,000,000 from the City’s Cash Contribution, have you heard that the School Dept. is receiving an $18-million increase in Chapter 70 funding based on the Governor’s proposed budget, NOT the House Budget, which could add approximately another $2-million for Lowell schools?
Under ED Reform, the state provides a guaranteed amount of Chapter 70 funding for education, and the city is given a dollar amount that they must also contribute. Nowhere in the DESE regulations does DESE state, recommend or “suggest” how much of that should be in cash or in IN-KIND contributions.
The statement that “DESE recommends municipalities give districts a cash amount of about 22% of their net school spending amount” Is FALSE. There is NO requirement, zero-zilch, to meet Net School Spending using any cash.
In my view, this has NOTHING to do with ARPA or ESSER Funding. It is the constraint with PROP 2 2/12.
It’s not unique to Lowell. 10+ communities (Prop 2 1/2 Override Underride Votes) around the State are seeking 2 1/2, overrides and area communities like Chelmsford, Dracut and Tyngsboro have already discussed the possibilities of more cuts in the coming years because of this restraint.
Not that any of my fellow Lowell residents or School Department employees want to hear this ,but whether you like this FACT or not, the city is UNDER TAXING the residents by approximately $14-million (called excess tax levy).
Lowell is one of the few communities that can raise taxes more than 2.5% without an override or debt exclusion vote by the citizens.
Are any of the School Committee members or supporters ready to ask City Councilors to direct the Manager to INCREASE the proposed tax rate from 2.5% to 4.5%? In an election year, would one even suggest this?
By Charter, the City Council cannot add funding, only cut items.
You’ll also hear the School Department added over 300 jobs since 2022. (the state says it’s 286) What you won’t hear is that the school department added almost 500 students (496) in that time frame and had to add staff after the pandemic to deal with all the social, emotional issues, increase in IEP’s and students on the Autism spectrum.
Being a former SC member, I STRONGLY disagree with what the Manger is doing and have been a vocal critic in the way the city “charges” for many things. I have stated the Maintenance of Effort Agreement between the School Department and City needs to be redone, since it hasn’t been updated since 2007. This 15% cash contribution will in fact be, one of if not the, smallest in the City’s history of Net School spending.
When I was on the SC, I checked with Worcester, Springfield, Fall River, Somerville and Haverhill and all gave between 20%-25% of their required NET School Spending in cash. That was 8 years ago, before the pandemic and the huge inflation the country has experienced.
The suggestion that 53 positions are being eliminated is at best “FUZZY MATH.”
There are cuts, but there are also approximately 57 positions being added, either by adding staff or by moving positions paid previously by grants that are now being added to the General Fund. My count shows approximately 41 positions being eliminated, including one Assistant Superintendent Position and four District Wide positions from Central Office.
If I were on the School Committee during budget hearings, I would ask a few questions regarding the following items:
Last year’s budget included $11-million in Contractual Increases and Miscellaneous Stipends. How much of that $11-million covers the salary increases in this current budget? (p. 18)
Why such a large increase of $1,513,287 in the Food Service Labor and Benefits Account for 187 employees? (p. 26)
Why a $1,126,000 increase in textbook supplies? (p. 24) Is it only the assumed cost of a new citywide ELA Curriculum? Are we really going to get this new Curriculum up and in schools in time for the 2025/2026 school year?
What is the $198,332 for Safety Contracted Services? Are we hiring private security besides the Resource Officers and present Security Guards? Or hiring an outside firm that a school committee member has lobbied hard for?
Are we expanding course offerings or doubling the students in the After Dark program at the Greater Lowell Tech? Is that what the $137,593.00 increase for?(p. 31)
Are we eliminating the Early College promise with Middlesex Completely? What did the $400,000 Cover?
The Web Link Early College Promise Scholarship — Early College Lowell states;
“Funding and state-level support for Lowell High School’s Early College Promise program is provided by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Early College Promise Pilot Program and by generous in-kind contributions from Middlesex Community College. Lowell Public Schools and Lowell High School also sincerely thank the Smith Family Foundation for providing vital start-up funding for the program and local nonprofit partner Project LEARN for its instrumental leadership and ongoing support of our early college programming.”
The bottom line in my view, while I understand what and why the City is doing what they are doing, they are still wrong in doing it! They should fund at least 20% of their requirement in cash.
The School Committee MUST direct the Superintendent’s Office to not sign off on the City’s Free Cash certification at year’s end until the City appears before the SC in a publicly televised meeting and are presented with clear, easy to understand charges (many of which are NOT in the current MOE agreement), and the city agrees to negotiate a new Maintenance of Effort agreement which includes an amendment that requires that the City gives 20%-25% of their required net school spending be in cash.
With that being said, NO Layoffs were needed for a “level service budget,” and with the additional $18-million in Chapter 70 money, plus the proposed increase in the House Budget, there really shouldn’t be any layoffs unless it is what the Superintendent wants. The department must, by contractual obligation, issue layoff notices.
If the Senate, which has indicated they will match the House proposal, does so, none will actually have to happen.
