Reflections on My Meeting with Mayoral Candidate Brendan Sweeney

Beverly needs strong leadership in the Mayor’s office, School Committee, and City Council to shape policies and budget decisions that impact our community. As our city faces critical challenges, we must consider who is best equipped to lead us forward.

After City Councilor, Brendan Sweeney announced his candidacy for this year’s mayoral election, he reached out to me to discuss school-related issues. Over the past six months, when I voiced concerns about Beverly school funding, Brendan consistently responded to my emails to city officials. However, this was the first opportunity for a substantive conversation.

Before our meeting, Brendan sent a detailed email outlining specific questions and topics related to Beverly schools that he wanted to explore. Given his background as a fiscal conservative, I approached the discussion with skepticism, concerned that he would resist increased investment in our schools. However, his thoughtful email indicated a genuine interest in understanding the issues, which gave me some hope for a constructive dialogue.

For 90 minutes, we engaged in an in-depth discussion about public education and the challenges facing Beverly Public Schools. Brendan asked insightful questions, demonstrated a strong understanding of city government, and was candid in sharing his perspectives.

One area of disagreement was school funding. Brendan expressed skepticism about increasing investment beyond maintaining “level services,” suggesting the need to streamline capacity and resources due to the new teachers’ contract – effectively a decrease in school funding. He cited revenue constraints due to Proposition 2 ½ and a lack of state funding. While I respected his candor, I emphasized the importance of allowing the community to have a voice in determining priorities – whether that was the allocation of existing funding or an override. I also underscored the critical need for greater investment in our schools. Despite our differing views, our conversation remained productive and collegial.

Another topic we discussed was the commonly cited but flawed correlation between cost-per-pupil spending and student achievement as measured by MCAS scores. Brendan pointed out that Beverly’s scores compared favorably to Salem, Peabody, and Danvers. However, test scores alone are an incomplete measure of success; and fail to account for factors such as equity, enrichment opportunities, and social-emotional outcomes. Demographics, in particular, play a significant role in shaping test results, and Salem and Peabody have very different demographics that skew both test scores and funding levels:

• Salem has nearly double the percentage of low-income students and four times the number of English Language Learners (ELL).
• Peabody has 40% more low-income students and three times the ELL population compared to Beverly.

These disparities explain differences in state funding (Chapter 70) and why test scores alone are insufficient for meaningful comparisons. Danvers is a more relevant comparison, but a single district is not statistically significant. Moreover, Beverly’s scores, while slightly higher than Danvers’, highlight severe achievement deficiencies:

• 58% of students are not meeting expectations in English Language Arts (ELA).
• 51% are not meeting expectations in Math.
• 58% are not meeting expectations in Science.

These figures translate to thousands of Beverly students who are falling short of grade-level proficiency:

• ~2,611 Beverly students not at grade-level expectation in ELA.
• ~2,145 Beverly students not at grade-level expectation in Math.
• ~2,611 Beverly students not at grade-level expectation in Science.

This is unacceptable. If Beverly had funded its schools at the state average per-pupil expenditure rate, we would have an additional $18 million annually. Imagine the transformative impact of such resources on staffing, mental health supports, special education services, enrichment opportunities, and targeted interventions.

Unfortunately, the reductive notion that a district is getting "good value" for its money is often used to justify limited funding. This argument is based on a flawed assumption of diminishing returns. I doubt the 2,611 students not meeting basic proficiency standards care whether our return on investment (ROI) is better than Danvers. Both districts have significant room for improvement!

For years, Beverly has underfunded its schools, and the gap between needs and resources continues to grow. A responsible, incremental approach to increasing funding (spreading the tax impact over time) could have mitigated the current crisis. True equity requires additional funding to remove barriers and enable all students to succeed.

Brendan listened thoughtfully to my response on funding and test scores, as well as my broader observations on the need for increased investment. I appreciated his solution-oriented approach and his genuine effort to understand the issues and my perspective. While I did not change his stance, I believe our discussion provided him with new insights. Similarly, I gained a better understanding of Beverly’s government, the priorities of our elected officials, and the differing views on taxes and funding.

This experience stood in stark contrast to my interactions (or lack thereof) with the current Mayor’s Office. Despite sending approximately 20 emails (and a few voicemails) to Mayor Cahill, I have never received a response. His lack of engagement and disregard for constituent feedback are deeply disappointing. By comparison, my conversation with Brendan Sweeney was refreshing.

That said, I cannot support Brendan’s candidacy due to our differing views on city policy - particularly his fiscal conservatism and reluctance to prioritize increased school funding. Public education is too important to compromise. Beverly already operates on severely limited resources, ranking in the bottom percentile for spending across schools and other city departments like police, fire, and public services. Years of suppressed tax rates and underinvestment have left our city in a precarious position.

Mayor Cahill’s 12-year tenure has been marked by a failure to incrementally address these issues, and I fear Brendan Sweeney represents a continuation of this approach; a less experienced, more conservative version of the current administration. While fiscal responsibility is essential, the long-term neglect of Beverly’s schools and infrastructure requires smart leadership. A balanced approach: combining strategic planning, efficiency improvements, resource prioritization, and modest tax increases – could begin to close the funding gap over time.

I believe both Mayor Cahill and Councilor Sweeney are dedicated public servants who work tirelessly for Beverly. Their commitment to our community is evident in the countless hours they spend advocating for the city and making difficult decisions. However, their visions for Beverly fail to address our most pressing challenges.

Our city needs brave, selfless leadership – someone willing to make tough choices without fear of political repercussions. Without a significant shift in priorities, I worry about the future of our schools, our children, and our community as a whole.

So, I ask: Is there a Beverly resident with the vision, expertise, and courage to take on this challenge?

Our city needs strong leadership not only in the Mayor’s office but also on the School Committee and City Council. These roles are just as critical in shaping the policies and budget decisions that impact our schools and community. If you, or someone you know, have the qualifications and passion to lead Beverly in a new direction, now is the time to step up.

Beverly’s future depends on it.

Dr. Matthew C. Ferreira