I agree with Geoff Epstein, the keyboard warrior and fledgling mayoral candidate, on a single point: financial support for public education is critical to a community's health. However, a budget is only as impactful as the precision with which it is deployed. Epstein disagrees; he believes we should throw all our money and then some at the problem without considering the results. He has advocated raising taxes as high as possible and suggests people who cannot afford it should take out home equity loans.
His rambling blog posts constantly try to argue that the Framingham mayor and city council have not been fiscally supportive of the schools. He discounts all seven budgets we have adopted as a city provide the school department with the amount requested.
Epstein loves twisting facts like pretzels to make his points. One of his favorites is to talk about what he calls the “local contribution.” To get to that number, he takes the state aid to education revenue we receive and subtracts that from the total school budget and gets to his number. He never acknowledged that the education aid figure is part of the local contribution. So, if state aid goes up, making a larger portion of the budget, he says the local contribution goes down, indicating a lack of support in his mind. He ignores the schools are funded by their own budget, plus over $40M from other aspects of the city budget.
He should examine “net school spending” to see how well Framingham supports the school department. This state-generated figure shows the total municipal spending on education, including the items not directly in the school budget, such as health insurance and retirement. The state requires every municipality to spend a minimum amount in net school spending. In FY 2024, Framingham was REQUIRED to spend $159M. We spent $201M. Yet Epstein says we do not adequately support education.
I looked at other municipalities and their net school spending to test his theories. I looked at annual increases in some area towns, the communities along Route 9 between Worcester and Boston, and some similar cities to Framingham. I tried to get a good mixed bag. The results do not show what Epstein espouses at all. It poses the question why do we spend so much and get so little?
The average annual increase in Net School Spending in the selected communities over the last five years:
Community | 5 yr Avg Increase |
Natick | 6.14% |
Framingham | 5.76% |
Quincy | 5.43% |
Shrewsbury | 5.14% |
Westborough | 5.11% |
Holliston | 4.44% |
Brookline | 4.29% |
Newton | 4.25% |
Wayland | 4.21% |
Braintree | 4.21% |
Weymouth | 3.97% |
Wellesley | 3.83% |
Sudbury | 3.66% |
Marlborough | 2.92% |
Despite Epstein’s criticisms, we are second among 14 diverse communities in spending increases over the last five years.
Epstein does not want to face the problems; he wants to throw money at them. The data shows that we spend the money—plenty of money—we need to get results. Compared to other communities and the state as a whole, our achievement results have dropped substantially over the last decade.
Public sector resources are not unlimited. We must use our resources well to provide the excellent services our children and residents deserve while remaining affordable and accessible. To do this, we must operate efficiently and intelligently.
He delineates all the problems in our education system, and his solution is predictable: more money and higher taxes. He does not question why the Superintendent received a six-year contract extension after overseeing this downturn. Instead, he wants to offer more money despite already providing more than most of our neighbors, which does not seem to work.
If he emerges from behind the keyboard and runs for mayor, as he threatens, hold on to your wallets and let him know that his solutions are too expensive and lack substance. Untwist the facts, and the picture is much different than he wants us to believe.
