Framingham & Marlborough Take the Prize for Blocking Increased State Aid from Reaching Disadvantaged Students

This is the second in a series of articles on major problems with city financial management, which has already caused significant damage in the school system, and threatens further damage, with substantial staff cuts. The city’s financial planning weakness has a substantial history, and affects all areas of government, including infrastructure, environment and residential development. The city is at a fork in the road, and decisions made in the FY27 budget cycle will have a major impact on the city’s future.

This article shows how Framingham has the second worst performance in the state in managing funding aimed at supporting disadvantaged students, and calls for a new approach which focuses totally on improving student achievement.

In the first article of this series, it was explained how Framingham blocked 80% of $100 million in boosted state education Chapter 70 aid from reaching disadvantaged students:

Framingham Administration’s Extreme Misuse of State Chapter 70 Education Aid Caused Schools Budget Crisis (Feb 6, 2026)

The breakdown of how the $100 million was spent was given in that article:

1. $18 million filled in the gap left by the cuts to local education funding and corresponds to the $18 million which ended up in the city general fund, boosting the city’s financial position ahead of a bond rating review.
2. $25 million went to about 116 new staff, hired to meet the intent of the Student Opportunity Act.
3. The remaining $61 million paid for compensation increases for existing staff and inflation increases in expenses. None of this was aimed at boosting student achievement.

That was a huge disservice to disadvantaged students, but what was not apparent at that point in the discussion was how extreme that was when put in a statewide context.

That context can now be provided through an analysis of how the Framingham experience compares with that in every other school district in the state.

The data which supports this analysis can be found on the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education website here.

The bottom line is that of the 440 school districts across the state, 390 increased local education funding from FY22 to FY24, as boosted Student Opportunity Act state Chapter 70 funding rolled in.

Just 50 districts chose to cut local education funding, and of those Framingham made the biggest cuts, after Marlborough. The top 6 offenders were:

Marlborough — cut $10.5M (-19.2%) while Chapter 70 aid rose $14.7M

Framingham — cut $9.1M (-7.3%) while Chapter 70 aid rose $28.0M

Brockton — cut $4.6M (-8.8%) while Chapter 70 aid rose $28.7M

Saugus — cut $4.5M (-11.6%) while Chapter 70 aid rose $5.6M

Agawam — cut $3.3M (-7.0%) while Chapter 70 aid rose $5.1M

New Bedford — cut $3.0M (-7.6%) while Ch70 aid rose $50.4M

where M = million

The full spreadsheet of the analysis results may be found here.

The results can also be shown in a scatter plot format which has the Chapter 70 increase on the X-axis and the local contribution increase/decrease on the Y-axis. Districts which increased local funding are shown in the quadrant above the X-axis. Districts which cut local funding are in the lower quadrant, with Marlborough and Framingham implementing the largest cuts

If you click here, you’ll get to an interactive web version.

It is obvious from this graphic that Framingham is an extreme outlier, and that its financial approach hugely damaged the educational prospects of low income students, students with disabilities, and students who are not fluent in English.

Nowhere else in the entire state, apart from Marlborough, are students treated so poorly.

And It May Get Even Worse

This is because the Mayor, having deprived Framingham students of most of their Student Opportunity Act (SOA) support, now wants the school system to eradicate that last 20% of SOA support by cutting almost all of that staff support hired with SOA money.

117 support staff were added in the last 4 years with SOA money, and the Mayor’s initial plan would have resulted in almost all of those positions being cut.

Now a battle is being fought over how many of those 117 will be saved.

Unless the School Committee fights for the students they are sworn to protect, the nullification of SOA investment in the schools will be complete, and the quality of the schools will plummet further, as student performance deteriorates, and all of the remaining experienced teachers leave.

In 10 years of School Committee service in 2 cities, and experience of 3 different school districts in Massachusetts over a period of 30 years, I have never seen a more egregious lack of support for education by local government, nor what amounts to complete ignorance of the core value of education, not only for our students, but for the future of the city.

Plus, a Major Mistake in Last Year’s Budget Needs to be Fixed in this Budget

Hidden in all of this ruckus is the fact that, in the elementary level of the school system, Framingham has proven that it can really boost student achievement.

In its January 21, 2026, meeting, the School Committee and the Framingham Public Schools (FPS) administration drew attention to the outstanding performance of King Elementary School

• King Elementary was formally recognized as a 2025 School of Recognition by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) — an honor given for strong academic outcomes and growth.
• The Framingham School Committee scheduled recognition of Principal James Bergeron, Vice Principal Patrick Gilman, and the King staff at their January 21, 2026, meeting, in acknowledgment of this achievement.

This is great.

One of the key reasons for King’s great performance is its focus on STEM as a means to encourage students to use their literacy and mathematical skills as a foundation for problem solving in real world contexts.

What is totally not great is that in the FY26 FPS budget last year STEM support was cut at the elementary level – exactly the opposite of what should have been done.

That was forced by the Mayor’s insistence on a round of cuts in the FY26 FPS budget.

Final Note

The only conclusion which can be made from all of the above is that the Mayor’s financial approach to the school system is a giant threat to every student and every teacher in the city, and to the very viability of the school system.

• IT IS TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY TO RISE UP AND INSIST ON AN EDUCATIONAL AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY WHICH PROMOTES INVESTMENT IN OUR SCHOOLS AND DRAMATICALLY SHIFTS AWAY FROM THE DISASTROUS COURSE WE ARE ON NOW.
• THE FY27 FPS BUDGET MUST BE FOCUSED ON REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, NOT THE FURTHER DISMANTLING OF OUR SCHOOLS.

That means:

• TRULY EXPANDING PRE-K IN A SUBSTANTIAL MANNER
• BOOSTING CLASSROOM SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES, AND STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT FLUENT IN ENGLISH
• BOOSTING STEM SUPPORT ACROSS ALL 9 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS