Cost of Compromise: Understanding the FY26 School Budget Reductions

The City of Beverly has proposed a $7.1 million increase in school funding for FY26; $6.44 million of which comes from new city revenues. This marks the second consecutive year of significant investment in our schools, totaling $12.7 million in new funding over two years. These investments are appreciated and necessary. But while the funding has increased, so too have the costs. This includes contractual obligations, health insurance, and rising special education expenses. As a result, the FY26 budget still includes deep cuts in staff, programs, and services that directly impact students.

It is important to acknowledge that the city also faces increasing fixed costs. Pension contributions are up over 4%, and healthcare costs (which support both city and school employees) are expected to rise by a minimum of 10%. These growing obligations limit the discretionary funds available for critical investments like public education.

That said, I have spent the past nine months highlighting the persistent gaps in resources, services, and opportunities within Beverly Public Schools; gaps caused by chronic underinvestment. While the state funding formula certainly needs reform, Beverly's local contribution to education consistently falls short compared to other communities across Massachusetts.

The recent collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the School Committee and the Beverly Teachers Association represents meaningful progress. It moves us closer to compensating educators fairly and competitively. But funding this long-overdue contract has come at a cost. The FY26 budget includes cuts to staff and programs that will deepen the strain on an already overburdened system. And, this is before factoring in potential federal funding cuts.

What is Being Cut in FY26?

The proposed FY26 budget includes 29.62 full-time equivalent (FTE) position reductions. While district leaders say these are designed to “minimize student impact,” the truth is most of these are direct student-facing roles. While administrative reductions are minimal, those too ripple through the system, affecting strategic planning, teacher support, behavioral response, and instructional oversight. Beverly’s staffing levels already trail state averages. Further reductions make it increasingly difficult to realistically sustain the quality of education our students deserve.

Staffing Reductions by School / Department

Ayers

• −0.5 FTE BPS Connects Coordinator (counseling)
• −1.0 FTE Learning Center Teacher
• −1.0 FTE Paraprofessional

Centerville

• −1.0 FTE BPS Connects Coordinator (counseling)
• −1.0 FTE Instructional Coach
• −1.0 FTE Paraprofessional

Cove

• −3.0 FTE Paraprofessionals

Hannah

• +2.0 FTE Classroom Teachers (K & 4)
• −0.5 FTE BPS Connects Coordinator (counseling)
• −1.0 FTE Learning Center Teacher

North Beverly

• −1.0 FTE Classroom Teacher
• −2.0 FTE Paraprofessionals
• −1.0 FTE Instructional Coach

Middle School

• −1.0 FTE Elective Teacher (German; meaning the program being eliminated)
• −1.0 FTE English Language Learner (ELL) Teacher
• −0.5 FTE BPS Connects Coordinator (counseling)
• −1.0 FTE Learning Center Teacher
• −1.0 FTE Paraprofessional
• −1.0 FTE Assistant Principal
• −0.71 FTE Campus Monitor

High School

• −1.0 FTE Wellness Teacher
• −2.0 FTE Core Content Teachers
• −1.0 FTE Elective Teacher (TBD)
• −1.0 FTE Special Education Teacher
• −1.0 FTE BPS Connects Coordinator (counseling)
• −0.71 FTE Campus Monitor

McKeown Preschool

• −5.0 FTE Paraprofessionals
• +1.0 FTE Therapeutic Support

District-Wide

• −0.5 FTE Float Nurse
• −0.6 FTE Director of Instructional Technology
• −3.6 FTE in Special Education: Team Chair, OT Assistant, Behavior Assistant, Psychologist
• +1.0 FTE AIM Program Coach

Central Administration

• −1.0 FTE Director of Human Resources

Net Reduction: 29.62 FTE, though only 21.4 FTE are general fund reductions. Others are offset-funded or grant-tied roles.

Non-Staffing Cuts

The budget also includes reductions beyond personnel:

Instructional Supplies & Materials:

• There is a significant reduction in instructional materials and equipment. For example:
  • Elementary Mathematics: reduced from prior higher allocations.
• General instructional supplies and materials show reductions across line items like testing supplies and equipment.

Technology & Software:

• Software purchases and licenses were reviewed for savings, despite a projected increase in overall tech cost due to inflation. Still, the budget notes some line items in computer equipment and internet services were trimmed or reassessed.

Professional Development:

• While the overall line for PD increased (likely due to contract obligations), efficiencies were found by realigning training methods or reducing substitute coverage for training sessions.

Building Operations & Maintenance:

• Some areas such as custodial overtime, building maintenance services, and grounds maintenance were trimmed relative to previous years.
• Specific reductions include line items for window repairs, electrical repairs, and other building maintenance functions.

Program Realignments & Supply Cuts:

• The budget document broadly states that efficiencies include program realignments and savings in software and supplies – all of which go beyond staff cuts

A total of 29.62 FTE positions are being eliminated in FY26. This follows the 21.6 FTE reductions in FY25, despite enrollment remaining essentially flat across both years. In just two budget cycles, Beverly Public Schools will have reduced more than 50 staff positions. It is difficult to understand how this is sustainable. This is particularly concerning when some of those cuts include counselors, at a time when student mental health concerns are at an all-time high. These reductions raise serious questions about our capacity to meet the academic, emotional, and behavioral needs of our students.

“Level Services” in Name Only

A truly level-services budget (one that maintains current services, programs, and required staffing) would have required a $9.77 million budget increase. The actual increase funded by the city is $6.44 million, forcing the district to make $2.67 million in cuts.

The budget narrative cites “enrollment” to justify reductions. But projected enrollment actually increases from 4,503 in FY25 to 4,567 in FY26. Additional reductions are noted as ‘strategic priorities’ or ‘critical needs’. Typically, strategic priorities and critical needs means an increase in investment, not cuts.

The reduction of 29.62 positions in that context is hard to justify as maintaining the current level of services.

Where the $6.44 Million is Going – three (3) budget drivers:

1. Wages & Benefits: Roughly $4.4 to $4.5 million, including new contract obligations and rising health insurance premiums. Notably, these costs are partially offset by the staffing FTE reductions.
2. Special Education Out-of-District Costs: Tuition increase: +$599,041 (+6.7%); Transportation: +$235,514 (+16.7%) = Total: +$834,555
3. Inflationary Costs (note: approximate estimates): Buildings & Grounds: +$84,155 (+4.7%); Non-Instructional Services: +$73,001 (+4.1%); Other Instruction (technology, Professional Development, etc.): +$2.47 million (+16.3%)

Combined, these three (3) contractually obligated cost drivers exceed the $6.44 million increase alone; leaving no room to grow or even sustain current programs without cuts.

Why These Cuts Matter and How They Affect Our Students

Budget cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. These ‘numbers’ represent the lived realities for the students who walk into our classrooms every school day. The proposed FY26 reductions in Beverly Public Schools strike at the heart of student-facing roles: classroom teachers, counselors, paraprofessionals, and special educators. These are the very people who provide academic instruction, emotional support, behavioral guidance, and individualized services to our students. The loss of even one of these roles has a cascading effect. The cumulative effect of these losses impacts the entire school system.

At the elementary level, the reduction of teachers and paraprofessionals means larger class sizes and fewer adults available to support differentiated instruction. With instructional coaches being eliminated, teachers lose vital professional support; especially for our new teachers, those navigating curriculum shifts, or teachers supporting students with complex needs. In the middle and high schools, students will face the disappearance of entire course offerings (such as German) and the reduction of wellness and elective programs that are often lifelines for student engagement.

Mental health professionals, such as BPS Connects Coordinators, are being cut at a time when student anxiety, depression, and behavioral incidents are on the rise. The loss of special educators and ELL teachers further jeopardizes support for our most vulnerable learners, placing more strain on general education classrooms and risking non-compliance with legal mandates.

These cuts also threaten the long-term stability of the system. When you eliminate assistant principals, instructional leaders, and campus monitors, you compromise the school’s ability to respond effectively to discipline, ensure student safety, and lead instructional improvement. When you reduce supply budgets and eliminate critical software, you erode the learning environment itself. The result is classrooms that are increasingly challenged to remain proactive in meeting student needs.

These cuts represent a step backward in our shared goal of educational equity and excellence. Suggesting that we are maintaining a "level-services" label does not make it true. Not when the services being "maintained" are, in fact being hollowed out from within. Our students are being asked to learn more, grow more, and achieve more. With less.

The Bigger Picture

This budget was not built from the ground up based on what students need. It was built backward, from a number handed down by the city. Bound by fixed costs like contract obligations, rising special education placements, and inflation, the district had to cut $2.67 million below a basic “level services” budget.

This is not a plan to move Beverly Public Schools forward. It is a stopgap and a compromise.

And our schools are already stretched thin. We are dealing with:

• Oversized class sizes
• Limited mental health support
• Under-resourced special education services
• Escalating behavioral challenges
• Inadequate professional development
• Insufficient academic interventions

This budget does not address these existing concerns. In fact, in some cases, it makes things worse.

We must ask the obvious but uncomfortable question: How are we expected to improve outcomes under these conditions? Every key metric (MCAS scores, assessment results, graduation rates, post-graduation outcomes, grade-level proficiency) tells the same story: we are not meeting the needs of all students. And we cannot possibly do so if we are unwilling to invest even enough to maintain current service levels.

Some have pointed to recent increases in Beverly’s school funding as evidence that we are now adequately resourced. It is true that when the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) updates its benchmarks to reflect FY25 and FY26 data (currently lagging behind at FY23) our relative standing may show modest improvement. But even with these recent increases, our funding still falls short of what is needed to sustain core services, let alone grow or strengthen them.

For those who come from the business world: ask yourself this: how do you expect a return on investment (ROI) without first making the investment? You do not get results without resources. That is basic business logic. That is common sense.

This budget offers no insight into what our schools actually need. It merely distributes a limited pool of city-allocated funds as efficiently as possible. While efficient, this budget reflects a reactive approach rather than a proactive investment in our schools. Our students deserve a vision-driven plan that meets their needs today and prepares them for tomorrow.

A Call to the School Committee

First, let me thank the Mayor and School Committee for their hard, often thankless work on behalf of our schools. Your commitment to public education and service to our community is deeply appreciated.

Our city has committed significant new resources to Beverly Public Schools in FY25 and FY26: totaling $12.7 million in increased funding. This investment is essential and appreciated. My advocacy continues not in spite of this progress, but because we must build on it to fully meet student needs.

Yes, fiscal pressures are real. Yes, the new teacher contract comes with costs. But we must ask: what are we sacrificing to balance this budget? And more importantly, how are these decisions affecting the students and educators at the center of our schools?

The School Committee has a duty not just to accept what is, but to advocate for what is needed. Even if the City Council ultimately chooses not to fund a higher request, the responsibility to make that request lies with the School Committee. Without a clear request for what is truly needed, we risk allowing underfunding to become the norm.

We must ask: does this budget reflect Beverly’s values and fiscal priorities? Because if we truly value education, we cannot merely offer a competitive teachers’ contract, we must fund the entire school system that surrounds and supports those educators; classrooms, counselors, paraprofessionals, mental health support, specialists, supplies, and programs.

The responsibility does not rest with any one person, department, or elected body. It belongs to all of us. If Beverly is to live up to its values, we must come together with clarity and commitment to build a school system that truly serves every child. Let’s work together as a community to develop a strategy and long-term solution that truly meets the needs of all our students.

The Beverly Public Schools Budget Hearing will take place this Wednesday, May 14th at 6:00 PM at Beverly Middle School. If you care about the future of our schools (or have questions, concerns, or ideas about the proposed budget) I strongly encourage you to attend and make your voice heard.

Dr. Matthew C. Ferreira