Here is the ranking of districts based on how much they budgeted over the Required Net School Spending for FY26. This was taken from DESE’s FY25 Net School Spending compliance data.
Continue reading “Net School Spending Ranking”More Thoughts On Net School Spending
I want to circle back to my last blog post regarding School Committee Member Batory’s comments on Net School Spending for the Pittsfield Public Schools.
While her original post (which now has been taken down) made false claims about Pittsfield’s Net School Spending requirement, her argument was that the City should be contributing more to educational spending and one way that should be done is through the use of free cash.
I’m not an expert in finances on the city side of things, but from my understanding free cash is the money the city has left over from its budget at the end of the fiscal year, or other incoming funds that were not put towards a line item. The Massachusetts Division of Local Services has some good resources on free cash which you can find here, and it says this about using free cash.
As a nonrecurring revenue source, free cash should be restricted to paying one-time expenditures, funding capital projects, or replenishing other reserves. We do not recommend that free cash be budgeted for ongoing operational purposes.
This is the fundamental problem with using free cash, or really any nonrecurring revenue sources for educational spending. Most educational spending is recurring spending, mainly salaries for teachers and staff. Unless reductions in force are made, salaries will grow year after year by a mostly predictable amount. Free cash, meanwhile, does not grow by a predictable amount year after year. Some years we may have more free cash, and other years we may only have a little bit.
Let’s say the city wants to give $4,000,000 from free cash to the Schools to help eliminate any cuts to staff this year. There is no guarantee that the city will still have $4,000,000 to give to the schools next year from free cash, and so the district will have to make the same cuts next year, maybe even more cuts because salaries would have gone up more, especially since that negotiations are still ongoing with all 3 bargaining units. This would cause more instability in the school budget and create more issues down the road for the district.
Now, could the city give the schools some free cash funds to help pay for some non-recurring expenses such as repairs to buildings, new textbooks, or new supplies. Probably, depending on the financial picture of the city. Though I think the City tries to be careful with not using up too much free cash in case an emergency comes up and the city needs to move funds out of free cash to pay for it.
However, I think we are looking at the wrong side of the education funding formula here.
If we take a deeper dive into spending over require Net School Spending for all districts in Massachusetts, we see a bit of a pattern emerge. Municipalities that are wealthier can fund their schools more compared to municipalities that are not as wealthy.
Here are the 20 districts who budgeted the most above the Required Net School Spending in FY26. As you can see, there are towns and cities such as Lenox, Richmond, and Cambridge that tend to be more wealthier and can afford to put more money into their schools.
| Ranking Over NSS | District Name | FY26 Required NSS | FY26 Budgeted NSS | Amt Over or Under Req’d | Budgeted as % of Req’d |
| 1 | Provincetown | 1,696,815 | 8,843,829 | 7,147,014 | 521.2% |
| 2 | Truro | 2,240,515 | 7,328,234 | 5,087,719 | 327.1% |
| 3 | Upisland | 5,407,027 | 17,515,002 | 12,107,975 | 323.9% |
| 4 | Pelham | 994,542 | 2,944,843 | 1,950,301 | 296.1% |
| 5 | Rowe | 738,129 | 2,156,313 | 1,418,184 | 292.1% |
| 6 | Richmond | 2,029,918 | 5,491,621 | 3,461,703 | 270.5% |
| 7 | Lenox | 6,840,967 | 18,175,047 | 11,334,080 | 265.7% |
| 8 | Edgartown | 6,443,899 | 15,970,838 | 9,526,939 | 247.8% |
| 9 | Rockport | 8,017,687 | 19,604,925 | 11,587,238 | 244.5% |
| 10 | Cambridge | 129,510,667 | 299,094,537 | 169,583,870 | 230.9% |
| 11 | New Salem Wendell | 1,726,325 | 3,754,387 | 2,028,062 | 217.5% |
| 12 | Pioneer Valley | 9,260,407 | 20,135,553 | 10,875,146 | 217.4% |
| 13 | Erving | 2,653,776 | 5,766,563 | 3,112,787 | 217.3% |
| 14 | Concord | 24,705,221 | 52,595,437 | 27,890,216 | 212.9% |
| 15 | Wellesley | 55,002,556 | 116,199,671 | 61,197,115 | 211.3% |
| 16 | Oak Bluffs | 7,008,100 | 14,627,041 | 7,618,941 | 208.7% |
| 17 | Mattapoisett | 5,011,904 | 10,256,911 | 5,245,007 | 204.7% |
| 18 | Tisbury | 6,777,327 | 13,833,985 | 7,056,658 | 204.1% |
| 19 | Whately | 1,318,482 | 2,676,030 | 1,357,548 | 203.0% |
| 20 | Topsfield | 7,207,299 | 14,575,928 | 7,368,629 | 202.2% |
Here the 20 districts who budgeted the least over Required Net School Spending in FY26 (if they meet it at all). As you can see, there are towns and cities such as Springfield, Fitchburg, Worcester, and Holyoke that are less wealthier and cannot afford to put much more in that what is required for their schools.
| Ranking Over NSS | District Name | FY26 Required NSS | FY26 Budgeted NSS | Amt Over or Under Req’d | Budgeted as % of Req’d |
| 296 | Greater Lawrence | 51,977,920 | 50,255,643 | (1,722,278) | 96.7% |
| 295 | Northbridge | 32,816,827 | 31,729,457 | (1,087,369) | 96.7% |
| 294 | Malden | 132,114,202 | 128,253,528 | (3,860,674) | 97.1% |
| 293 | Holbrook | 23,413,602 | 22,943,763 | (469,839) | 98.0% |
| 292 | Greater Lowell | 55,719,987 | 55,468,222 | (251,765) | 99.5% |
| 291 | Tri County | 22,245,823 | 22,171,098 | (74,725) | 99.7% |
| 290 | New Bedford | 295,054,095 | 294,825,036 | (229,059) | 99.9% |
| 289 | Greater Fall River | 35,109,152 | 35,109,152 | 0 | 100.0% |
| 288 | Leominster | 111,313,888 | 111,318,708 | 4,820 | 100.0% |
| 287 | Springfield | 600,170,350 | 600,237,749 | 67,399 | 100.0% |
| 286 | Lynn | 384,629,299 | 384,684,153 | 54,854 | 100.0% |
| 285 | Southeastern | 38,826,302 | 38,842,804 | 16,502 | 100.0% |
| 284 | Northeast Metropolitan | 34,438,284 | 34,526,132 | 87,848 | 100.3% |
| 283 | Essex North Shore | 31,042,516 | 31,133,830 | 91,314 | 100.3% |
| 282 | Holyoke | 124,458,254 | 124,931,826 | 473,573 | 100.4% |
| 281 | Everett | 172,711,735 | 173,457,122 | 745,387 | 100.4% |
| 280 | Worcester | 549,403,109 | 552,004,676 | 2,601,567 | 100.5% |
| 279 | Gardner | 45,038,410 | 45,258,504 | 220,094 | 100.5% |
| 278 | Southbridge | 44,392,356 | 44,621,778 | 229,422 | 100.5% |
| 277 | Fitchburg | 110,732,185 | 111,423,878 | 691,693 | 100.6% |
Pittsfield ranks 216 on spending over Required Net School Spending, which is on the lower side compared to other districts.
One of the goals of the Student Opportunity Act was to give more funding to school districts who needed more funding to their schools but couldn’t afford it out of their tax base, ensuring all districts are equitably funded. But if wealthier districts can put more money into their schools and be able to provide more services, then that inequity still exists.
I feel the state needs to reexamine the Chapter 70 funding formal again, instead of making smaller fixes like increasing minimum per-pupil aid each year which doesn’t address any of these inequities. I feel the state should look at ensuring that inflation and cost increases that districts face are represented in the foundation budget, instead of using an inflation factor that doesn’t match reality. The state should also look at finding ways to ensure that districts that can’t get more funding from their local governments can get more state aid so they are not outspent by districts that do have the means to spend more towards education.
That is the discussion we need to start having.
Using AI to Tell You Information about Pittsfield School Finance is a Really Bad Idea
And honestly, using AI to do things for you as a School Committee member is pretty bad and frustrating.
Earlier today (or yesterday depending on when you are reading this) School Committee Member Batory made this post on Facebook:
Right now, Pittsfield is funding its schools at about 1% above the state minimum requirement.
Let that sink in.
Meanwhile, surrounding districts are making very different choices:
• Lenox invests over 60% above the minimum
• Williamstown invests over 30% above the minimum
• Central Berkshire (Dalton area) invests 10–20% above the minimum
And here in Pittsfield?
We are essentially funding our schools at the floor.
At the same time, the city recently placed millions into free cash instead of directing more resources into classrooms.
This is not about what we can afford.
This is about what we are choosing to prioritize.
Net School Spending is supposed to be the starting point — not the finish line.
If we want stronger schools, better outcomes, and to keep families in this district, we cannot continue doing the bare minimum and expecting maximum results.
Democracy only works when people participate.
Show up. Speak out. Be heard.
(This post reflects my personal views, not those of the full School Committee.)
So, this post is pretty inaccurate. In FY26 Pittsfield required Net School Spending requirement was $104,024,895, the budgeted NSS was $119,378,120, which is around 14.75% over what is required. It’s definitely not 1%. The percentages are also not correct for Lenox, Central Berkshire, and Mount Greylock (Williamstown IS NOT it’s own district). Here is some data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Net School Spending Report with the correct percentages and numbers for FY26.
Based on how this post was written and a lot of her past posts are written, I’m 100% certain this was a post created by ChatGPT. Here’s why:
- Her post uses a some emojis and em dashes, which are unusual for a Facebook post and is a sign the post was AI generated.
- The data table lists Williamstown as a district, which it isn’t as it is a part of Mount Greylock.
- For Pittsfield and Central Berkshire the table has a “~” before the range, meaning its an estimate, which doesn’t make sense as the calculation between percentage over net school spending would not be an estimate but the actual number. Williamstown and Lenox do not have the “~” before them.
- The ranges for the percentages are not equal, but also there shouldn’t be need for a range when reporting the percentage over net school spending, unless you are looking over a certain period of time which is also not reported in the table.
- The source link she provided in the comments has “?utm_source=chatgpt.com” appended to the end, meaning it was a link ChatGPT gave out. It also points to some old data on net school spending, with the page reporting 2022 data.
I get the argument that the city needs to spend more on schools, and there is a lot of debate and discussion that needs to be had regarding school funding for Pittsfield, which I won’t touch on here. However, any debate needs to have ACCURATE human verified information. This is not helpful and is actually harmful for our school community.
Local elected officials are the most trusted elected officials in the country, people believe their local officials more than Congress. With the increase of social media usage by local officials and the decrease in local news, local elected officials have taken on the role of providing information about local matters to their constituents. With this role comes the responsibility to provide accurate and verified information to the best of their ability.
This post by School Committee Member Batory goes against this. Artificial intelligence models are known to output wrong information and hallucinate. That’s why it’s best practice to use AI responsibly and ethically by verifying the output and making sure the information is correct. I personally don’t use AI much, but when I do I make sure the information it provides is correct. In my view Batory failed to responsibly verify this information. Whether intentional or unintentional such irresponsibility only fuels more distrust in our government institutions, especially when such inaccurate information is stated with such confidence. It also wastes people’s energy debating important issues such as school funding when the foundational facts of such debate are incorrect. If you go to the post and check out the comments and shares, there is already a lot of debate about her post, but nobody is refuting the misinformation that she helped to spread.
As a resident of Pittsfield, I’m frustrated by the disregard for basic fact checking and the ethical responsibilities she has as a School Committee member. As a former School Committee member who put a lot of time into understanding the role and the functioning of school systems and admit when I don’t fully understand something, I’m flabbergasted by the complete disregard for taking the time to fully understand the role rather than just typing prompts into ChatGPT and taking what is says as gospel. Being a School Committee member takes time and commitment that cannot and should not be outsourced to AI. This is Trump level behavior, and Pittsfield and our students deserve better than this.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen inaccurate and unverified AI information from Batory, and I’m certain this won’t be the last. There is a lot more I could say on this subject, but I think this is enough for one blog post.
Thoughts on the Pittsfield FY27 School Budget – Chapter 70 Initial Impressions
This blog post is based off a Facebook post I made on my personal account back in January when the Governor’s budget came out, with some additional details based on feedback and new information I’ve received. Hoping to do more blog posts on the school budget because I have a lot of thoughts and a lot of information to share, once I finish weeding through all of the numbers and data.
As has been reported wildly, the Pittsfield Public Schools is only getting an increase of $404,700 in Chapter 70 state aid. This is much lower compared to past fiscal years where increases were at least a few million dollars.
Taking a deeper look at the numbers for Pittsfield under the proposed Governor’s budget, it seems like the small increase of only $404,700 is due to the following factors:
1. The inflation rate is 2.76%, with an insurance inflation rate of 8.29%. This does not reflect the actual inflation we are seeing in schools.
1. A decrease in foundation enrollment of 180 students compared to last fiscal year. The foundation enrollment number measures the number of school age children living in Pittsfield, not the number of students enrolled in the district. So this number declined because the number of children living in Pittsfield has gone down, not because of changes to enrollment due to school choice. This is an issue we are seeing both in Berkshire County and statewide. Thank you to former School Committee Chair Dr. Cameron for pointing that out to me.
2. Chapter 70 groups districts based on the percentage of low income students enrolled in the district, with districts having a higher percentage of low income student receiving more Chapter 70 funding. Pittsfield has been in group 11 for the past few years, between 70% and 79.99% low income students. However we slipped down into group 10 with 68.95% low income students. Some may recall that the district back in 2024 was initially put in group 10 under the Governor’s proposed budget, but after Assistant Superintendent Behnke noticed that the state’s count of low income students was undercounting the number of low income students in Pittsfield, future budget proposals brought us back into group 11.
3. The required municipal contribution, the amount the state believes Pittsfield can pay for its school system out of local dollars (property taxes) increased by $1,928,139. The City gives PPS more local funding than what is required by the state, but this increase means we get less Chapter 70 funding. Additionally, this means that the City does not have to increase its local contribution to the PPS line item, which is what they are doing this year (planning to do a whole blog post on that soon).
What is interesting is that because of these 3 factors, the regular Chapter 70 formula when calculated would actually give us less state aid than last year. Because that is not allowed by Chapter 70, we enter something called “hold harmless”, where we get the same amount of aid as we did last year + $75 increase per pupil in the district. As our enrollment is 5,396 students, if you times that by $75 you get $404,700.
The sort of good thing I guess about being in hold harmless with the minimum per pupil increase is that the legislature tends to increase the $75 number. Last fiscal year they increased it to $150 per pupil. Under that number the district would receive a $809,400 increase in Chapter 70. So it would be reasonable to assume the Legislature might try to do that again, even though it doesn’t address the root issue of increasing the inflation rate to account for actual inflation.
Take this information with a grain of salt, a lot of things are simplified here as Chapter 70 is complicated (as I keep learning as I try diving more into the numbers). I’m not a Chapter 70 expert by any means and this is just my impressions of the figures for Pittsfield.
Some Thoughts About the Pittsfield School Committee Election
Last month the City Council voted, again, to ask the School Committee to release redacted versions of the PHS Investigation Reports. The next day, the new School Committee voted 6-1 to also release a redacted version of the reports.
I’m not going to get into my thoughts about this, partially because that itself deserves its own blog post that I’m not sure I’m ready to write just yet. However, I want to push back on an argument Councilor Warren made in supporting this vote that “there is no confusion in the
publics vote in the November election, they want transparency” (page 11 of the City Council packet that contained the minutes of this meeting), inferring that the voters wanted the report released and voted accordingly in the election.
I do not buy this argument as I believe the voters were not given much of a choice this past election. Most of the candidates either supported releasing the report (Batory, Muil, Buerger, Smith, and Barry) or didn’t say much about their support or opposition (Klein and McNeice). There were only two candidates who supported the past School Committee’s decision to not release the full PHS, Elias (who ultimately voted against the motion to release the report) and Yon (while she supported the motion she seemed to support the Committee’s handling of PHS during the election). If voters wanted to elect School Committee members that were happy with how the School Committee handled the PHS incidents, then they were out of luck.
This argument also falls apart when you take a deeper look at the election results, which is what I did for a talk I gave to the MCLA Political Science Club.
As you can see, McNeice was the highest vote getter, and was the highest vote getter in every precinct. I would argue that this support came from being very well known in the community for being a long time Taconic teacher. In 2nd and 3rd place overall were Elias and Yon. Already this refutes the claim that the voters were clear about their views on the PHS report because if that were the case then Elias and Yon wouldn’t have been high up, if elected at all.
But to get a better understanding of this support, you need to look deeper. Looking at the second place winner in each precinct, Elias was the 2nd place winner in every precinct except for 2B, where he was in 7th place, and 7B where he was in 3rd place. In both of those precincts Batory was the 2nd place winner. If there was true, widespread support of releasing the full PHS report and dislike of the School Committee’s handling of the PHS incidents, then Elias would have not been the 2nd place winner in these many precincts.
Taking a look at the 3rd place winners in each precinct, Yon was the 3rd place winner in 6 precincts, 1B, 2B, 3A, 4A, 4B, and 6A, and tied with Barry in 5A. Batory was the 3rd place winner in 3 precincts, 1A, 6B, and 7A, and tied with Muil in 5B. Muil was the 3rd place winner in 2 precincts, 2A and 3B, and ties with Batory in 5B. Elias was the 3rd place winner in 7B. I feel these results show a more mixed picture of what voters wanted in a School Committee in this election.
Additionally, if you take a look at Sara Hathaway’s numbers in her unsuccessful at-large councilor bid, she got 2761 votes, more votes than every school committee candidate except for McNeice and Elias. If voters were this dissatisfied with the former School Committee’s handling of the PHS reports, Hathaway would have not had such a large vote count even for an at-large councilor seat.
Ultimately, I think these election results really show two common themes in local politics: voters tend to prefer incumbents and familiar faces. No incumbent lost their seat this last election, and in the 2023 Pittsfield election only one incumbent lost their seat. For the amount of criticism both the city government and the school department get on places such as Facebook and the Berkshire Eagle, voters who show up to vote tend to be happy with the current state of local government in Pittsfield. I don’t feel these results really show support for any certain agenda or mandate to do something, voters just like stability and familiar faces in government.
Letter: BRTA route changes would adversely affect riders like me
To the editor: During my first year at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts while serving on the Pittsfield School Committee, I routinely took the bus to get back and forth between North Adams and Pittsfield, as I did not have a car.
Riding on the bus helped me better appreciate the public bus system here in Berkshire County. While I now have a car and can drive between both places, I still know many people who rely on the bus to get around the county. This is why I am concerned by the Berkshire Regional Transit Authority’s proposal to reduce bus service on its most important routes. (“BRTA considers reducing frequency of bus routes as driver shortage persists,” Eagle, Feb. 1.)
If this proposal was in place when I still took the bus, it would have been a major inconvenience for me. When I had School Committee meetings in Pittsfield, I would try to take either the 3:30 p.m. or the 4:30 p.m. bus that left from Walmart in North Adams, with a preference for the earlier departure to have a buffer in case of a missed transfer or a last-minute cancellation. Under the new proposal, only the 3:30 p.m. bus would be available. If I had something going on that would require me to take the 4:30 p.m. bus, which often happened as I had a class that ended at 3:15 p.m. on Wednesdays, then I would have to look for other ride options to get to Pittsfield in time for my meeting.
Additionally, a fear of mine and other students on campus was failing to flag down the bus from MCLA to Walmart and having to wait an hour for the next bus. If this happened to me under the new proposal, I would not be able to get down to Pittsfield for another two hours, causing me to be late to my meeting.
This proposal will require many people to change their schedules and spend a longer time trying to get around the county. Effective public transportation should run frequently to ensure that it can fit into people’s schedules, not when there is the most ridership. I hope the BRTA and the BRTA Advisory Board does not approve of this plan and instead look at alternative ways of addressing the diver shortage that does not reduce runs on its most important routes connecting the county.
William Garrity, Pittsfield
New Blog Posts Now Link to My Newsletter
While I was on the Pittsfield School Committee I ran a weekly newsletter to keep interested members of the public updated on School Committee matters. When I left the School Committee I wanted to keep the newsletter alive but in a different format. Given I have this blog, I’ve been working to connect it to my newsletter.
I have finally finished working on connecting these two together. A newsletter will go out at 8pm with all of the new blog posts I make that day, if any. I think this will be a great way to keep the newsletter alive in a way that is easy for me to manage.
If you are interested in signing up to the newsletter, you can do so here: http://eepurl.com/iJYLWQ
Stay tuned for upcoming blog posts on Pittsfield School Committee and City matters, as well as a few other topics that I am interested in, transportation and technology!
Letter: Pittsfield School Committee needs a chair with public school experience
This letter to the editor was in the January 2nd, 2026 paper of the Berkshire Eagle.
To the editor: As the Pittsfield School Committee is experiencing almost complete turnover, and with the current chair not returning, the new committee will be electing a new School Committee chair.
Having served on the School Committee this past term and having worked closely with our current chair Dr. Cameron, I understand the importance of having a chair who understands how public schools function inside and out.
Given the challenges that the Pittsfield Public Schools currently face and will continue to face over the next several years, I believe it is extremely important that the committee elects a chair with a background in public school education to lead the district through these tough times. The School Committee needs a chair who understands the potential of what our schools could be like. A chair who understands the goals and aspirations of public education. A chair who understands that our school system is more than dollar signs, budget line items, and the bottom-line budget number but all the hard-working staff, faculty and administrators, and most importantly our students that make our school system run. A chair who can lead with compassion and put the needs of our students and teachers front and center, rather than making decisions to score local political points. Only a chair who has experience in education would be able to do just this. I believe there are a few new members who I feel can meet this challenge of being chair in these times.
I know some will be concerned with the idea of having someone without prior experience on the School Committee to serve as chair, but that should not be a hindrance. The Massachusetts Association of School Committees has many trainings and support systems for new and aspiring chairs, and there are many people in Berkshire County and beyond who know well the role of the chair and would be able to guide a new member through serving as one.
I hope these members step up the plate and offer to run for chair. Having a School Committee chair with a background in education would be in the best interest of our students and the wider Pittsfield Public Schools community. This would ensure that the committee’s work remains focused on making the best decisions for our students and staff rather than serving local political interests.
William Garrity, Pittsfield
Letter to the Editor: Why Pittsfield Needs Pragmatic, Thoughtful Leaders
To the editor: The challenges Pittsfield faces must be dealt with care and an understanding of the nuances, rather than soundbites.
This election, I am supporting Dan Elias and Heather McNeice for Pittsfield School Committee, and Sara Hathaway for city councilor at large.
Having served with Elias during my time on the School Committee, he has shown his ability to understand all sides of an issue and understand the nuances that come with serving on the committee. Having served on the committee for 30 years, he brings great experience of what has worked and not worked for the district as well as much knowledge of the collective bargaining process. While some may say that we need a completely new school committee, having a committee with six new members and a mayor who has only served for two years will cause disruptions and potentially repeat mistakes that the committee has made in years past. Elias will ensure that there is a relatively smooth transition between this committee and the next.
I also believe McNeice would be a great addition to the School Committee. Having had her as a teacher at Taconic, I can say with confidence that she is very passionate for Pittsfield Public Schools. She understands the complexity of the jobs and issues that face the School Committee, such as the issue of cellphones in class and the middle school restructuring project. I believe her strong passion and organizational skills will be a great benefit to this new School Committee, and potentially even as an officer of the committee.
On the City Council, I believe Sara Hathaway would be a great addition. Having served as Pittsfield mayor back in the 2000s and on the School Committee for the past four years, she understands the bigger picture of how both the city and school department function. She wants to build a better relationship between the City Council and the schools, rather than the tense relationship that is present currently. She is solution-oriented, focusing on how we can address the many issues the city faces, understanding the nuances of the issues rather than trying to sound good and play to the camera. She will bring a much-needed collaborative voice to the council.
William Garrity, Pittsfield
Partisanship and School Committee: Our Work is Partisan
iBerkshires.com released its candidate profile for all of the candidates running for Pittsfield School Committee, go check it out here.
One of the questions they asked was “What political party are you affiliated with?” The candidates responded as follows:
Batory: “Independent, but I don’t believe political affiliation should play a role in public education. School Committee members are elected to serve all students, families, and staff — regardless of political party. My focus is on transparency, accountability, and making decisions that benefit our children, not partisan interests.”
Muil: “Democrat”
Elias: “Registered independent.”
Yon: “N/A”
Klein: “Unenrolled.”
Beurger: “None.”
McNeice: “I am registered as Independent, but most often lean toward the Democratic party”
Smith: “This is a nonpartisan position.”
Barry: No response to iBerkshires.
While the School Committee, and all elected offices in the City of Pittsfield, are in fact non-partisan, that does not mean our work is non-partisan.
The job of the School Committee is to serve our students, to support them and protect them. While we may disagree on how this School Committee has done that, I think we can all agree that this is the purpose of the Committee. Unfortunately, in this day and age, protecting students and even people now falls into partisan categories.
When you have a federal government who is attacking public education, defunding offices in the Department of Education meant to protect special education students and other minority groups, when you have a federal government that is going after LGBTQ+ students, primarily our trans and non-binary students, when you have a federal government who is forcefully going after immigrant families, making them live in fear of being removed from this country, our work to protect students becomes partisan.
When you have conservative groups, such as Moms for Liberty, who support conservative school board candidates to run for office who run on banning LGBTQ+ books, rights for LGBTQ+ students, and teaching of subjects around diversity, equity, and inclusion, our work and our advocacy becomes partisan.
The School Committee got involved in partisan politics when we voted unanimously to adopt my resolution affirming our support for our LGBTQ+ students and declare “that the Pittsfield School Committee declares the Pittsfield Public Schools to be a safe space for all students, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, and a safe space for students to explore their gender identity and/or sexual orientation”, because one party has decided that stripping rights away from these students is their stance and what they will continue to push. We took a stand because we believe we have a duty to support and protect our students.
It’s not enough for us education leaders to bury our heads in the sand and say “we are staying out of partisan politics” when our student’s rights and their wellbeing are on the line. I hope that all candidates start to understand this, and voters understand it when they go to the polls next week. I also hope the new School Committee will understand this, and continue to support our students even if that means getting involved in partisan politics.