By Corinne Hogseth
The point of Part 1 of this discussion was to raise awareness of a pending override that will dwarf even the debt exclusion override of $66M passed in December 2019 to pay for the new schools. Many remember opening those tax bills and seeing the big jump, which was estimated at ~$500 on the average single family tax bill.
What started out as a $7M hole in the school budget grew to $9.4M over the course of about six weeks. Since then, Superintendent Peter Light has identified $2M in cuts, to bring the District’s request down to “only” $7.5M. This is their “A budget”. The “B budget” contains only a 3% increase in Acton’s assessment, which assumes no override.
The Acton Leadership Group (ALG), composed of members of the Select Board, the School Committee and the Finance Committee, has settled on an override of $6.6 million. The ALG members will bring this back to their respective boards for a vote. If passed, the override would increase the property tax on the average single-family home by $1,333, or nearly 10%, of which $871 would be due to the override. Unlike debt exclusion overrides, which are eventually retired, the impact of this operating override would be permanent and grow larger every year.
The School Committee, School Administration and their allies are now pushing a narrative that suggests that the schools will collapse without this override. It has taken years of bad decisions to get to this point, but there are choices that could be made immediately to significantly reduce – if not entirely eliminate – the need for an override that many in our community simply cannot afford.
Claim #1 – Failure to pass the override will lead to “draconian” cuts at the schools.
Reality – Both the A and B budgets will result in cuts to personnel, but there are plenty of other areas to cut to minimize the impact.
- All Day Kindergarten The School Committee has a self-determined goal of making all-day kindergarten free. In 2020, ADK tuition was $4,500. It has since decreased to $1,800 per child. The actual cost is about $7,000, but the A budget only increases this fee to parents by $125. The B budget increases it by $500. In reality, tuition could increase by $5,000 and still be partially subsidized. The district estimates 325 kindergartners next year; assuming only half of them choose to attend ADK if tuition is raised to $6,800, an additional $700K could be raised in ADK tuition.
- Transportation When the start times for the junior and senior high schools were moved to a later time, the administration and School Committee also decided to collapse the elementary start times to a single tier. This led to an increase in the number of buses and routes, at a cost of over $300K in 2019. Reinstating the two-tiered start times for elementary schools could conservatively save $500K, given increases in bus driver salaries and diesel fuel in the last five years. This would likely require that elementary school start times be moved earlier to accommodate the later start times for the older kids, which all research suggests is a significant benefit for that age cohort.
- Health Insurance The Acton Health Insurance Trust (HIT) had several large claims in the second half of FY2023, resulting in full depletion of those reserves and then some. Insurance premiums are increasing by 22.8%. When that happens in the private sector, it gets passed on to the employee. However, in Acton-Boxborough, the employer – at residents’ expense – decided to absorb the employees’ share of that increase for the first six months of 2024, at a cost of over $400K.
A consultant was recently tasked with identifying alternatives to the HIT. The analysis estimates that moving Town and school employees to the state GIC (the same plan used by state employees) could yield up to $5.9M in savings. Let’s be conservative and assume the total savings would be only $5 million. About $600K of this savings would go to Boxborough, but the remaining $4.4M would go to Acton. The earliest they could do this would be January 1, 2025, so only half of the savings ($2.2M) could be realized in FY2025. But after that, Acton could save $4.4M per year, in perpetuity. Fortunately, several School Committee members have indicated that they must seriously consider this as an alternative to the Acton HIT. However, the unions must ultimately agree to this change.
- Classroom Technology Ten years ago, the Douglas School experimented with a class of 4th graders by assigning a Chromebook to each student for the year. Without seeking any input from students or families, the pilot was declared a success and Chromebooks were rolled out to all 4th and 5th graders the following year. This continued until all students in 3rd through 6th grade had Chromebooks. Many of those students – some now high school graduates – can barely write their own signatures.
Classroom technology has had a profound impact on how our children are educated. Some of those impacts may be positive, but some are definitely negative. The district has never made any attempt to measure the impact of classroom technology on our kids. What is clear, however, is that there is no net benefit to 5-year-olds working on iPads or 5th graders reading and doing homework on Chromebooks. Limiting classroom technology for children in this age group would be a welcome relief to many parents while also reducing expenditures on hardware, licenses and technical support. This year alone, there is $143K in the budget for 435 new Chromebooks.
- Administrative Bloat – While student enrollment has declined by about 15% over the last 15 years, the number of administrative positions has increased.
- There is an assistant principal at each elementary school. These positions have all been added as K-6 enrollment was declining. As of 2021, these annual salaries have exceeded $100,000 per assistant principal, not including benefits. One of the justifications for creating these positions was an unfunded state mandate pertaining to educator evaluations. While those mandates have been scaled back significantly, the administrative bloat remains. Those six positions likely cost us closer to $660,000 annually now, not including benefits.
- Since 2021, twelve new “coaching” positions in ELA, STEAM and Math have been added at the elementary level. Many good teachers have remarked that these “gurus” only get in the way. Moreover, these salaried, benefited “coaches” replaced dozens of part-time classroom assistants, who nearly all teachers and parents felt were vital in the classroom.
- We also now have a Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) at a salary of $146,367 (in FY25). Unless there is any concrete proof that DEI personnel and curriculum have had a net positive benefit on our students and our community, this controversial position should be eliminated. Same goes for the Town’s DEI officer.
The District’s A budget includes a reduction of only two administrative FTEs and 23.5 teachers. The B budget cuts only 2.4 FTEs from administration and 88 teachers. This is deliberate fearmongering. The override proponents want you to believe that there’s no way to avoid the loss of 88 teaching positions, yet as seen above, several more sensible options still exist, every one of which could be implemented in time for fiscal year 2025, yielding savings of ~$4.5M in the first year. How many teachers’ jobs could be saved? Savings would increase even more when the full impact of getting employees in the GIC is baked into FY2026.
Claim #2 – Without an override, class sizes will explode.
Reality – The table below shows that the B budget would result in the loss of 17 elementary school teachers and class sizes at an average of 22 students in kindergarten, 26 in sixth grade.
I pulled out a few of my old Douglas Directories, and you’ll never guess what I found. In the 2009-2010 school year (right around the time enrollment peaked in the district) my daughter’s kindergarten class had 22 kids in it; the 6th grade classes that year had 26. In fact, the year my oldest was in 6th grade, the Douglas School had the highest 6th grade scores in the entire state for the math section of the MCAS. Indeed, a growing body of research indicates there is no clear correlation between class size and academic outcomes. This is especially true for class sizes in the B budget, which would increase the average class size by two to three students across all levels.
No one wants to see teachers leave involuntarily. The sad truth is that some teaching positions will be lost in any case. But there are other truths. First, there are about 500 fewer K-6 students than there were at peak enrollment nearly 15 years ago. That number exceeds the current enrollment at Conant. Second – had the district been thoughtful about filling positions that opened due to retirement and other voluntary separations over this past decade, there would be no need to terminate teachers today. This speaks to the financial mismanagement of the current leadership now seeking an additional $6.6M of our tax dollars.
Claim #3 – We need this override now; we’ll look for more savings later.
Reality – The time for the School Committee and administration to look for significant savings was two years ago – before they were $9.4M in the hole.
The Superintendent’s budget presentation listed several potential structural changes, shown in the table below:
Inasmuch as these are options for significant savings, they must be considered and, where possible, implemented before the Town permanently increases our tax base by $6.6 million.
Several of the items on this table don’t require years of study. For example, reduction in administrative positions and transportation could be implemented by next fall.
Ending open enrollment and closing Conant would require community input, but everyone needs to understand the costs of perpetuating an outdated program and maintaining and eventually replacing an aging school building. The Massachusetts School Building Authority, which provided significant funding for the new schools, recently declined AB’s request for financial support for improvements to Conant, which means the building will continue to deteriorate unless local taxpayers foot the bill for the growing list of necessary repairs.
Claim #4 – It’s time for an override.
Reality – We haven’t had an override in 19 years. That’s true, but that is absolutely not proof that we need one today. Avoiding an override is the result of responsible budgeting by the Town, which has for many years made up for the unconstrained growth in the School District’s budget. I recall a statement made by a past School Committee member who said, that with regard to budgeting, her job was to put together the plan that would best serve students (according to her vision for the schools) and it was the Town’s job to find the money. With that attitude, it is easy to understand how school budgets have grown faster than the rate of inflation while enrollment has declined. The School Committee has heard concerns for years regarding the use of reserves and one-time sources of funding for ongoing operations and the need for structural changes that reflect declining enrollment. They consistently ignored these concerns and plowed forward with their own agenda, even when it was wildly out of step with community sentiment. If anything, it’s time to “right-size” the district to fit the number and needs of our students today.
Does the Town itself need an override? Many do not believe they would be seeking one if it weren’t for the schools. There is a political calculus to the decision to seek an override for Town operations, and it is that a school-only override would likely fail. At the January 8th meeting of the Select Board, one member (not the chair) instructed Town Manager John Mangiaratti to prepare a B budget with $1M in cuts, suggesting that the Town would need cuts without an override. First, this should have required a vote of the Board, not the request of a single selectman. Second, the Town has been feeling the pain for many years by having to make sacrifices for the schools. The request was arbitrary, unnecessary and intended to manipulate voters into believing that even the Town would need cuts without an override. The B budget was presented at the February 5 meeting of the Select Board. Amazingly, it outlined numerous cuts to public safety and transportation while leaving DEI and Sustainability completely unscathed. Does this really seem like it’s in the best interests of the Town’s residents?
If it is really time for an override, the Town and the School District have an obligation to demonstrate the following:
- They have a plan for how to spend the money — Government never runs out of ways to spend taxpayer money, so they check this box.
- They have been good stewards of our money – while the Town has been somewhat mindful of the funds at its disposal, the School District has historically shown utter disregard for taxpayers and community members, particularly those who do not buy into their expensive agenda and dare to say so.
- They have both done everything possible to avoid the override – They get an F- on this one. First make the necessary structural changes and find other savings. Then, and only then, humbly request additional funding to support necessary operations and replenish the reserve funds they ran into the ground.
Final Thoughts
At the January 18th School Committee meeting, a member claimed “This budget crisis kinda [sprang] out of nowhere.” It was such an egregious statement, it could be Claim #5. Their shortfall is no surprise to observers who predicted it publicly at the 2022 Town Meeting, nor should it be to the ALG, whose own workbook (page 20) projected it. This statement shows how little understanding the School Committee has of school budgets, history and even basic math. Only two of the eleven members have served for longer than three years, yet it seems the other nine haven’t done their due diligence. Despite all the pushback, two members continue to advocate for the full $9.4M increase in the school budget – tone deaf, arrogant statements that chisel away at what little credibility the School Committee has left.
Note that even if the current override proposal passes, there will be more. A capital override will be needed for a new public works building; we can expect that to be $35-40M, possibly as early as next year. And as mentioned above, the original A budget for the schools was over $9.4M. The Superintendent got the A budget to $7.5M by proposing certain cuts, mostly to teachers. Some found it curious how little resistance the School Committee members put up to the $6.6M figure at ALG, after months of insisting that “the schools are on fire” and they could live with nothing less than a $9.4M budget increase for the schools. No one will guarantee that this is a one-and-done override for the schools – because they can’t possibly predict what will happen next year. Just like they couldn’t possibly have seen this $6.6M override looming on the horizon, even though it was pointed out to them.
Acton is more than just its schools, but those running the schools seem to believe we’ll support them no matter what. It’s time for the Select Board and School Committee to make the tough decisions they were elected to make while keeping all stakeholders in mind.
If some one can point me in the right direction, I can have several anti-override signs printed to display at well-traveled intersections.
https://locations.theupsstore.com/ma/acton/100-powdermill-rd/banners-posters-&-signs
Brad, see Yard Sign Printing
https://www.practicalimage.com/
Regarding Corinne’s comment on administrative bloat- AB high school is now ranked #19 on Niche. The glaring blemish on its score card is C for Administration- the lowest of the top 20 schools. Maybe less is more?
Hi All,
Hello from the wilds of New Hampshire!
It’s very tough for people “on the outside” to understand what is happening with town and school budgets. If you don’t spend 20 hours per week in meetings, you just don’t have the necessary background, unless you really dig in. This is the advantage of forming a group of people to examine and propose other solutions to the budget shortfall. The work and research can be done by a team and it becomes manageable. Without this level of expertise, it will be hard to convince the average citizen at a Town Meeting that they aren’t taking a huge risk by accepting an alternative.
Yes, town leaders mislead the public. They do this because they have an agenda, which is to pass the override. So they look the other way when others exaggerate things like staff layoffs because the “greater good” is thus achieved.
I would like to recount a story that is somewhat fuzzy in my mind now, but had a big impact on me. When Clint Seward, Charlie Kadlec, and I worked to have a “no increase” budget brought to a Special Town Meeting, the then-Superintendent (Bill Ryan) told the 1,300 people present that even with the proposed budget, there would be dozens of layoffs. So to vote for a “zero increase” budget was portrayed as completely draconian and risky.
After our motion was defeated, I attended a School Committee meeting just two weeks later where the Superintendent presented the budget for the following year. There were no layoffs mentioned. Not one. The “dozens” of necessary layoffs had magically disappeared. I stood up and asked during the meeting what had happened to all the layoffs the public was told about, and the answer by a School Committee member was “that was not necessarily this year, it could also be next year” or some such nonsense.
The lesson I learned was that there are many, many options for saving money if necessary and the administration, School Committee, and Finance Committee are not going to be the ones telling the public about them, because that means budgets get cut somewhere and that is not their goal. Their goal is to raise revenue, period.
One other small point. What drives budget increases is salaries and benefits. The School Committee members are in line with the union and they basically work together to give the most benefits that the taxpayers will fund. These three-year contracts cannot be changed once approved. Unless you find other structural changes (like closing an elementary school), the only way to change this trajectory is to tighten up these negotiations. And the only way to do that is to have different voices on the School Committee who are more concerned about the burden on taxpayers than the members currently are.
The info provided by the administration comparing 3 year COLA increases for AB vs comparables contradicts your final assertion. The most recent 3 year AB COLA was 7.25%. Needham was 7.55%. Weymouth was 8%. Andover was 10.5%. Cambridge, Wayland, Nashoba and Shrewsbury were 9%. Newton was 9.45%.
https://cdnsm5-ss14.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_216027/File/SchoolCommitteeAB/2-10-24%20FY2025%20Budget%20Saturday%20Slides%20for%20website.pdf
COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) is just one metric related to compensation. To cherry-pick this one increase and compare it to other towns is completely irrelevant. Salaries and benefits contain many factors which are all carefully reviewed by the union and eventually agreed to by the elected representatives. Many forms of compensation are opaque. Perhaps the current issues with the Health Insurance Trust and the subsidies for employees are a good example. Salary increases also carry hidden benefits to public employees: it greatly increases their final-year earnings on which their pension is calculated. Employees have learned to accept modest annual raises and bulk up compensation in their final years to maximize their future benefits, which include generous health insurance subsidies.
It used to be that teachers et al would sacrifice their annual compensation for future benefits, but no longer. Now they get both. Teachers who work for 30 years are easily getting several million dollars in total compensation over their lifetime (during work and in retirement.)
Another common trick used by the parties to hide salary increases is to aggregate the increases as an overall percentage. This means that retirees who make say $110k annually are replaced with new hires making say $50k, and that $60k difference can sop up raises given to employees so that the stated increases are not what actual employees are getting on an individual basis. So with that in mind, I would not trust any numbers published by the administration unless they are checked and verified.
Allen, very much appreciate your expansion on these other factors that impact collective bargaining results!
Slide 35, in particular.
I would like to invite everyone to look at that table and think about how much sense it makes to use towns like Cambridge and Newton as comparables for Acton. Both are close to the city, densely populated, and have <1% property tax rate. Cambridge in particular only depends on residential property tax for 34% of its revenue, whereas Acton depends on 90%. Wayland has a median household income of $200,000+. I'm not sure why Weymouth is picked to be on that table. Why don't we pick towns with high ranking school districts that are more like Acton wrt town wealth and commercial tax base- Where is Belmont, Winchester, Westford, Westborough, Hopkinton and Littleton?
In general these presentations really gloss over the financial realities of AB's residents- they already pay relatively high property taxes and don't make a ton of money. The school board is really making a lot of assumptions about how much they can afford. There is no doubt that the times are harder on teachers, but they are harder for everyone as well.
Great questions! You’d have to ask the administration for this particular metric, but the state generally determines comparables based on student population and demographics, and district (which have significant additional overhead that non-district schools don’t) vs non-district schools. For collective bargaining stats though, I assume salaries and benefits stats are the metrics rather than town/city wealth, commercial vs residential tax base, tax rate, etc. but honestly, I don’t know. Looking up a few others, including a couple you mentioned, Newton appears to be 7%, Westford at 9.6%, and Westborough at 8.5%. Allen mentions above the many other metrics that are also critical to examine.
https://www.westfordk12.us/sites/g/files/vyhlif5181/f/uploads/wea-wsc-mou-08252024-rev-01232024_0.pdf
https://www.newton.k12.ma.us/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=11979&dataid=19459&FileName=NPS%20Agreement%20-%20Contract%20Elements%20and%20Comparison%20Slides%20-%202.7.24.pdf
https://cdnsm5-ss6.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_35277/File/HR%20Folder/Contracts/TEACHERS%20CONTRACT%202020-2023%20FINAL%20(with%20Signatures)%202.5.20%20(corrected%205.19.20).pdf
Well said, AB Grad. I had not even noticed that slant in the slide, nor knew the statistics you provided. Thanks for educating me, and the community.
My point is not specific to COLA. Like most people here, I think our teachers deserve COLA, but it’s kind of moot point when we end up having to layoff teachers later. My point is specific to how the board make budget decisions without taking into account the burden on the taxpayers (as Allen noted). In the comparison tables I see towns like Cambridge, Newton, Weston, and Wellesley listed to justify staffing expenditures. Unless you open up half of Acton for commercialization or triple property taxes, you will never have that kind of revenue to support the number of students that AB has.
Overriding property taxes is not a sustainable solution because at some point it will negatively impact rent and home value. AB’s tax rate is already the highest in the area so your credit limit from taxpayers is poor. We also don’t want to underpay our teachers or underserve our students. So I think the root cause of the deficit is that AB’s tax base is simply not big enough to support the number of students that the board wants to support in the future. Even if override passes now, financial reality will come back to bite and more painful staff cut lie ahead if budget decisions do not reflect the taxpayers’ financial reality.
Bob, not to take a public position on this issue, merely to keep the arguments factual, I believe your statement quoted below can be misleading and likely not intentionally so.
The average tax bill and average income per person (not per household, I note) are potentially misleading and skewed due to the non-Gaussian distribution of tax bills and income. Better numbers to use would be median tax bill (corrected for multifamily and commercial/industrial tax bills) and median household income.
“As you state, taxes per average home will increase $1,333 to $15,325 or 9.5% – now that’s inflation. The state publishes various statistics by Massachusetts community. One report reflects the average 2024 tax bill as a percent of residents average income per person. Their calculation, 17.3%, places Acton as one of the loftiest communities within Massachusetts – in other words, an expensive town to live in.”
Can someone comment on whether there is a plan to form an anti-override committee and whether a counter point-of-view website can be established? Thank you.
You’re elected by acclamation, Brad.
Corinne, great analysis. This is a substantial amount of work – much appreciated.
In an Acton Exchange article of January 2024, Mr. Jarboe explained the position of Acton leadership –they want the tax override. He goes on to say if the override doesn’t pass, valuation of our homes might decrease. Mr. Jarboe has made this argument several times. I would like to see any proof of that statement, not remarks of his real estate buddies. The “ask” for fiscal 2025 originally exceeded $11M. Your Finance Committee (FinCom) suggested the amount was simply too high. It would not pass an override vote by residents who pay the bill. FinCom believes a $4M override, equating to $1,000 additional tax for an average valued home, has a greater chance of passage. A middle number of $6.6M was suggested by the Acton Leadership Group (ALG), comprised of members of Acton town and school leadership and FinCom. They suggest the override would be a one-and-done effort. I am not so sure. Not represented are Boxborough town leadership who are not pleased with the $6.6M override. The number is not yet settled – stay tuned.
What will happen if the $6.6M override passes? Acton will collect approximately $122M of property and other local taxes in fiscal 2025, an increase of $10M over this year. As you state, taxes per average home will increase $1,333 to $15,325 or 9.5% – now that’s inflation. The state publishes various statistics by Massachusetts community. One report reflects the average 2024 tax bill as a percent of residents average income per person. Their calculation, 17.3%, places Acton as one of the loftiest communities within Massachusetts – in other words, an expensive town to live in.
Mr. Jarboe, a resident for many years, knows Acton government well. He is an effective emissary for the leadership position. He ties money spent to educational rating and educational ratings to home values. If his analysis of the first point was correct, Boston would be well above Acton in student achievement. The answer is clearly not money spent. On the second point, I am sure he knows many things impact home values, some which Acton residents can shape. Much, such as economic conditions and monetary policy, is out of the hands of residents. I would guess, Mr. Jarboe, given his connections, might be somewhat partial. He quotes comments of Mr. Balulescu, President of the Teachers Union, who most certainly is biased, and those of Tori Campbell a member of the regional school committee.
My annual social security payment increased $996 this year – well below the$1,333 average household tax increase being asked for in their A budget draft. Hopefully, Acton and A/B will make further cost reductions – there are some to be made. I have not decided at this point regarding the override. I’ll, await the final number. Many people, over the next few months, will be rallying residents to support the override. I am simply pointing out a little of the other side.
I would respond to Mr. Jarboe on the Exchange, but they are not ready to accept opposing pieces as of this date. Mr. Jarboe’s article was masked as information. It was an opinion piece by someone supportive of Acton leadership and their tax desires – someone who was appointed to FinCom soon after offering the article. I wonder if he will be a long-term member.
I hope Acton residents will ignore the many requests and the fearmongering that will circulate during the coming months. I hope you will await the final numbers and that you will cast your vote On April 30. Keep in mind that any override amount, once passed, will forever be part of the tax calculation and your tax bill. It’s your money, so please tell your friends and neighbors what is going on and cast your vote.
Its time to form an anti-override committee. We need to advocate for better fiscal responsibility. There are more options than are being presented.
I disagree with those who poo-poo Corrine’s thoughtful and thorough effort to consider structural changes rather than the sorry old approach outlined in the proposed budgets to eliminate teachers. It’s no wonder that the AB staff is running scared and their union leader is repeating his usual mantra to “support the teachers” by voting for the override. It’s not every day that a school system falls into this type of financial hole, and to suggest that it was all of sudden, unexpected, and entirely unpreventable speaks volumes to our leadership’s lack of accountability.
The fact that our superintendent isn’t formally contemplating options like those presented in this article feels deceptive and disingenuous to me. I share the concern that priorities are misplaced and that the now 11-member School Committee has lost touch with what matters most in our students’ education while assuming taxpayers will fund its ideological agenda without regards to cost. This is not to suggest that I am opposed to a strong administration staff or all aspects of social emotional learning, but an increasing number of townspeople (active parents, current and former teachers and administrators, as well as empty nesters) believe the pendulum has swung too far.
When a company is this deep in the red, it focuses on its core assets and seeks economies in areas that are nice to have. Here, our leadership crew is doing the opposite, and we’re being asked to bail them out by throwing more good money after bad. Kudos to Corrine for demanding that they be more accountable with our money first.
So many options to save money. Working spouses should at a minimum have their own employer health care, and maybe incentive to have the whole family. Sadly, reduction in staff proportionate with decreased enrollment.
In the meeting packet for tomorrow’s meeting is a memo from the Superintendent with recommendations to address the future of health insurance for the district. To your point about the roughly $400K (of taxpayer dollars) the district decided to spend in order to cover the employee share of the unexpected, unprecedented, very large mid-year premium increase, there is this note – “The HIT experienced significant losses during FY24. As a result of this loss, the District contributed $1.5M in cash payments to the HIT during FY24. The HIT also implemented a January 1st, mid-year rate increase on premiums
of 22.8%. This led to the District having to pay an additional $1.2M in premiums in FY24. Finally, in exchange for
the employee unions agreeing to negotiate changes to health insurance, the school committee agreed to cover
the employee share of the premium increase totaling approximately $408,000.” The district already needed to spend an unbudgeted $2.7 million. The decision to spend an additional $400K, about 13% of the total spent and a good faith gesture to the unions that needed to be brought to the negotiating table on good terms, was thoughtful and well-considered. A public school district is not bound by the same protocols and practices of the private sector, nor should it be.
Deciding that it’s okay to spend an unbudgeted $400k just because we had to spend an unbudgeted $2.7M is not a thought process typically associated with fiscal stewardship.
“A public school district is not bound by the same protocols and practices of the private sector, nor should it be.” – I hope this means increased transparency and being community driven, and not spending money without having to answer for accountability or affordability.
AB Grad, you’ve put some words into my mouth here. I did not suggest that spend $400K more because we were already spending $2.7 million. I wrote that it was “a good faith gesture to the unions that needed to be brought to the negotiating table on good terms.” And, yes, absolutely advocating for transparency and being community driven. The administration has been responsive to the community, providing the programs and educational quality requested by those using the schools. Community demands resulted in many of the structural changes whose roll-back is now being discussed – school choice, single elementary start times, 2 tier buses, etc. The data indicate good fiscal management given that we spend less than the state average on almost all metrics.
Hi Alissa- I don’t meant to put words in anyone’s mouth. I’m just debating the points as they are presented. The way it was written sounded like that “only 13% extra” was one of the justification for the spend. The spend could be worthwhile if we a replacement to HIT out of it. Otherwise we would only be covering up the true cost of the plan from the employees, which would reduce their motivation to consider an alternative. As I understand it, HIT’s financial problems stem from the underpayment of premiums in relationship to actual risk, so it’s not something we want to perpetuate.
I do not doubt that Acton is better than state average in almost all metrics. But given that Acton also has higher than average tax rate, perhaps we could hold ourselves to higher standard than state average? As I noted elsewhere, we have to be careful in how we compute metrics for comparing Acton with other towns. Westford, Belmont, Winchester, and Hopkinton have similar commercial tax base, student population ratio and school rankings, and yet they spend less per pupil. The reality is that when you have a relatively large student body, it’s very difficult to increase spending per pupil unless the town has a large commercial tax base or is exceedingly wealthy.
Most of the objections to the override posted here are based on affordability and tax burden. Yet I see almost no mentions of either in the town presentations. There is no mention household income or current tax rates (and how it compares to neighboring towns) and they are not factored into comparison tables. So perhaps this area of being community driven is something that could be improved.
Pete- You don’t have to wonder what will happen if the override does not pass. Just scroll to public comment at 1:28:32 of the Boxborough Finance Committee meeting where a Boxborough resident with children in the schools commented, “I am concerned about the dismissiveness (of some Boxborough Finance Committee members) about the impact these changes will have in the district right now” and a teacher who commented: “What is missing (from the Boxborough Finance Committee’s discussion) is what is actually happening in our schools right now. I have been here 12 years but the amount that has changed in our population is massive. The needs are massive.”
If you want a detailed breakdown of what that means then listen to, watch or read the budget presentations to the School Committee.
Boxborough has a history of making budgeting decisions that cut their own students off from access to educational programs. The responsible (and cost-saving) idea is to balance 2 things (1) fiscal constraints and (2) student needs. The “A” budget does that.
Corinne’s vision of student need bears no resemblance to educational reality today. She has not vetted her “items” in terms of student/teacher impact. I hope that student impact is not also irrelevant to you.
Corinne – Thank you for your research and effort to put this together – appreciated!
It is certainly disappointing that despite requests (see recent BxB Select Board Meeting as one example) the School Committee is unwilling to explore/model a C-Budget that falls somewhere between the A-Budget with minimal cuts and the B-Budget which is at the 2.5% funding baseline.
Seems like the current “Fear Factor” plan is that residents will be asked to vote for the Full Override or else “the wheels fall off” the school system.
When we have faced similar budget challenges and the need for cuts in businesses I have worked in and managed, as a Leadership Team we were able to develop and propose more that one option for review, discussion and consideration. This approach allowed tradeoffs to be explored, evaluated and made.
It is unfortunate that the School Committee is apparently unwilling to explore a C-Budget and has decided to pursue the A-Budget only approach despite the financial impact on town residents.
Leaves me wondering what happens if the current proposed override does NOT pass. Will such a No vote motivate the SC and Town leadership to put on their thinking caps and come back with a more affordable, palatable option?
The analysis provided by Gallagher for GIC savings was not based on actual rates. There is a note in the slide, and emphasized during the meeting, that this estimate was 100% for illustrative purposes only. It is likely to be less, perhaps beyond your conservative estimate. Beyond the fact that there would be savings in only half of FY25 (with a move to GIC which has yet to be decided), the town and district are still on the hook for run-out claims from the self-insurance up to 2 years.
To the point about the January 8 directive to the Town Manager to reduce the level services budget by $1 million, a vote was taken – “Mr. Martin moved, seconded by Ms. Nicol that the Board direct the Town Manager to reduce the level service budget after having heard feedback from the budget workshop and contingent on the outcome of the ALG and approved 4-0-1 (Charter).” From the meeting minutes – https://www.acton-ma.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/20269. The reason it needed to be contingent on the ALG discussion was because the ALG meeting scheduled for the morning of the same day was cancelled due to the school closure.
Very well researched, Corinne, thank you for your hard work.
Corinne- If you believe that the AB School District has not been a good fiscal steward then how do you explain average per pupil costs below the state average (AB: $18,058: state: $19,554) & low budget increases the past 7 years: FY18: 3.63%, FY19: 3.06%, FY20: 2.55%, FY21: 2.67% (operating), FY22: 2.90%, FY23: 3.19% and FY24: 3.23%. School budgets are always about prioritizing and trade-offs, given the constraints of prop 2.5%, and our schools have a historical record of doing that dance successfully in order to bring budgets in the 3% range to Town Meeting. It is not a secret that the last 3 budget cycles have been difficult with many cuts made to adjust to enrollment drops and to reach goals for % increases without overrides.
As for the specifics on where to cut, some of your suggestions around enrollment merit further consideration in my view; however, I find most of your ideas on where they could make additional cuts educationally unsound and reflective of an antiquated educational system that no longer exists. And on this basis you are willing to push out a statement to this community that budget cuts of the magnitude specified in the “B” budget would not be draconian? That’s beyond irresponsible both to the families who have children in school right now (not 15 years ago) and is mis-informing to the larger community.
If cuts (plan B) could considered draconian for families with pupils, then arguably tax increase (plan A) could be considered draconian for families without pupils. Ultimately you can only squeeze so much juice from a lemon, and the size of that lemon is the average property value. If we want a lemon to lemon comparison of Acton vs other towns in per-pupil spending, we have to consider 3 factors- number of pupils, number of residents, and average home value.
Analyzing the latest data published by Mass DOE in 2022, AB had roughly 5200 pupils compared to roughly 29000 total residents. That ratio is 1 pupil per 5.5 residents, so we can roughly think of this AB having 5.5 residents support every pupil.
So obviously we cannot compare with population centers like Cambridge (17 residents per pupil) and Waltham (11 residents per pupil).
Lexington, Belmont, and Winchester have comparable population ratios, around 5 residents per pupil. Winchester and Belmont actually spends less than Acton per pupil, at 17k and 16.5k respectively. Lexington spends more at $21k. But notable, all three towns have average home values that is at least 80% than Acton’s, so they’re much bigger lemons.
Lemons that are similar to Acton would be Westford and Sharon, with similar home values and pupil ratios. Sharon ($18.2k) spends about the same as Acton and Westford ($16.4k) spends much lower.
Of the towns listed above, Acton has the second highest (slightly below Sharon) property tax rate and much higher than neighboring towns. Personally, I think that if Acton continues to brings its property tax rate to be more in line with neighboring towns, its average home value will continue to increase and the lemon will grow bigger. If we keep squeezing the lemon when there’s no juice left, then families without pupils will migrate in exchange for families with pupil. Imagine if hypothetically every family in AB has 2 pupils in the system. Then they need to pay at least $36k in average property taxes just to support current expenditures.
In short, if we want a sustainable solution to the current deficit, we have to also be considerate of the families without pupils.
So well stated.
Very good analysis. Main reason Acton has higher tax rate than neighboring towns is the “make Acton more affordable “ slogan and decades long over construction. The more construction of new housing, the more deficits of new tax income vs new expenses. Construction promoters always market “more tax income” while they intentionally hide “more expenses” part.
For a town that derives almost all of its revenue from residential taxes, The “make Acton more affordable” statement seems to be a paradox if it increases the financial burden of the school system (and the town). That extra cost is just shifted to the other residents, which technically makes Acton slightly less affordable for them.
Hi Diane — The school budgets look like they’ve had relatively small increases, but when one considers that enrollment is down about 17% from its peak 15 years ago, maybe they’re not so small. Looking back over those 15 years, the total school budget (including Boxborough pre-regionalization) has increased by 66%, while cumulative inflation over that same period is only 42%. So budget increases have outpaced inflation over a period of significant declining enrollment.
There would seem to a pretty weak correlation between per-pupil spending and outcomes. AB has been below the state average for as long as I’ve lived in Acton, all the while producing some of the best outcomes and highest test scores in the state. On the other hand, Boston Public Schools spends ~50% more per student than AB. Would you want their outcomes?
I believe most of the items I outlined above would have minimal impact on students — moving employees to the GIC would yield enormous savings with zero reduction in staff. Same for charging families for ADK. Make some sensible reductions to staff — some that should have occurred as enrollment declined anyway — and we’d close this gap entirely.
The schools irresponsibly ran down E&D reserves and the HIT ran down its balance, leaving the town unable to cover significant unanticipated overages. If the town/schools were asking for a small override to get us over this hump while they make structural changes and start to replenish reserve funds, they’d have a better chance of selling it. Instead, we have committee members who still believe even this $6.6M override is too low.
Not sure what you mean by “antiquated educational system that no longer exists.” It’s my personal belief — one that can’t be quantified — that many of the changes in the last 15 years have been detrimental to our students.
Yes, I had kids in the schools 17 years ago. I also had kids in the school as recently as two years ago. I saw a lot of changes and can’t think of many I actually liked.
Corinne- Just a few more points on the catastrophe you are encouraging with this post:
Use of Reserves – FYI: There are 2 camps on spending reserves: 1) Use them only for one time expenses, and 2) the view that budgeting entities owe it to taxpayers to deliver an assessment that is as low as possible; in other words, to hold onto reserves over a threshold amount is viewed by some as not being a good fiscal steward. There are risks and merits to both camps. I have my own opinion but understand both sides.
Impact on Students— You foolishly believe (strong language intended) that your “list of items will have minimal impact on students” when the opposite is true. There is huge negative educational impact that can be lifelong on students when you charge for ADK (All Day Kindergarten) both for access and restricted time on learning at a formative developmental period. There is huge negative impact on students when you reduce administrative leaders that provide teachers with the data systems and support for instructional response targets (MTSS), feedback loops (educator evaluations) and day-to-day support for the myriad situations that arise. (This is what you like to call “bloat”.) There is more, but I’ll stop here. I encourage you to tune into the 2/13 Boxborough Finance Committee meeting’s public input at about the 90 min. mark to hear for yourself what is the impact of your “items” on students and teachers should this override not pass.
You and I have been in conversation regarding issues affecting our Town and District for about a year now. Though we rarely agree, I appreciate your forthrightness and have learned a lot hearing your perspective. The District will continue to balance student need with the fiscal constraints of anticipated and unanticipated fixed costs + inflation in the context of prop 2.5%. I hope that you come to appreciate the complexity of budgeting with student impact as trade-offs during difficult times. Please support the override.
The major problem the School Committee and the Superintendent have is a lack of trust. They are patently non-transparent when it comes to who will get laid off. This is a time-tested political fear-mongering tactic where you claim the baby will be thrown out instead of the bathwater. The budget does an awful job of explaining why the number of teachers being laid off is so wildly disproportionate to the number of administrators being laid off.
I noticed that the recent additional cuts (in response to Boxborough demanding an additional $1M in cuts – does this mean the override is now less than $6M?) included a few line items related to DEI. Why weren’t these at the top of the chopping block (in the first $2M that was in the A budget) ? That brings us to the crux of the matter. Schools are now prioritizing ideology, propaganda, activism (all consistently left-wing in orientation, without exception) rather than the basics. Why would I have the incentive to subsidize this?
Personally, I hope that more parents go the route of home-schooling or charter schools, and that the public school population continues to decline, making the closing of Conant that much more imperative. The structural changes outlined by Corinne (and the Superintendent where he listed the items that would be necessary if the override failed), are long overdue.
Educational institutions (both schools and colleges) are at their sorriest state in modern history, churning out the most uneducated, fragile, easily offended, woke, narcissistic, rude, entitled, and weak cohort. 77% of them are not strong enough to even be considered (let alone accepted) for a career in the military, by far the smallest percentage in American history. Scary.
I don’t know what “antiquated educational system” is being referred to, and what metric proves that today’s results are better than in the past. I have my own views on what should be taught in the schools, but that topic is a separate one.
I am willing to vote for a smaller override, contingent on substantive strucural changes, and a better balance of admin versus teacher layoffs.
And perhaps it is time to disengage from the CPA assessment, which was beneficial in earlier years but now simply looks for ways to spend the citizen’s money.
I agree! When Acton voted to participate in this program, the state was matching 100%. Now it’s matching less than 25%. A growing portion of total CPC spending is going toward “community housing” (over 40% in 2020). Personally, I do not consider housing to have anything to do with preservation of the town’s open spaces or character.
The average CPA allocations over time remain at the following percentages despite the large allocation to Community Housing in the past few years – Open Space 35%, Historic Resources 15%, Community Housing 23%, and Recreation 23%. The McManus Manor project, which received ~$1.2 million in CPA funding, leveraged about $24 million in state and federal? funding. Often, CPA funding is an ideal or only way for a town to provide affordable housing opportunities, and strengthen local economies by providing local housing for workers and by providing construction jobs. The alternative is to rely on private industry with a resulting 75% market rate units to 25% affordable.
I believe that the town has seen extremely beneficial projects supported or made possible by CPA funding in recent years: the restoration of Revolutionary gravestones at Woodlawn Cemetery, the restoration of the Isaac Davis monument, repointing of the Memorial Library chimney, the renovation of Jones and Gardner Field playgrounds, a CR on 57 acres of water supply land at 549 Main Street, an AR at Stonefield Farm, NARA and Heath Hen Meadow boardwalk reconstruction, an accessible design of Woodlawn Chapel that will allow it to be reopened to the public, Elm Street tennis court resurfacing, NARA/Miracle Field Sports Pavilion, and many more.