Support for Additional Funding for Lexington Public Schools
We are writing in support of the proposed additional funding for Lexington Public Schools through the McKenna proposal put forward to Town Meeting on March 3, 2026, as it helps mitigate the most immediate and drastic staff/program cuts. Our schools are the heart of our town and the single greatest investment we make in our collective future. The Lexington Public School system is a consistent driver of why Lexington remains one of the most desirable towns in the Commonwealth. We are nationally recognized not just for high-quality education, but more importantly, for the prepared young adults who graduate from LPS due to the dedication and standards that we, as educators and administrators, commit to on behalf of the children of Lexington.
We fully understand and respect the need to be fiscally responsible in what are unpredictable economic times, but we believe the additional funding for the upcoming school year will provide for a more orderly and better planned transition to the fiscal realities that we will continue to face, many of which are beyond our control. This amendment is not enough to fully solve our budget crisis, or settle the open contracts, but it is a solid step forward and will make a significant impact to affected educators and their families.
Constructive Dialogue
While we may differ on the specifics of the budget, the way we disagree matters just as much as the outcome. Lately, there has been a rise in divisive tactics, specifically the circulation of petitions that often lack context or might misrepresent the facts. While we respect the right to petition, the question needs to be asked if these efforts are helping us reach a solution or simply deepening the divide.
We as union leaders retain confidence in our ability to work with the superintendent and School Committee to work towards a fiscally responsible outcome but more importantly a solution that will continue to support our educators and the students that we serve in Lexington Public Schools.
Robin Strizhak, President, Lexington Education Association (LEA)
Eamonn Sheehan, President, Association of Lexington Administrators( ALA)
Are the LEA and ALA aware of the https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yKC-UkCy4GG38giEwq23pqf2wvVcgYtm/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JiIMtzKMew1jutuhqLFgNM8SOdZpm_d8/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116971253884586510151&rtpof=true&sd=true analyses which demonstrate that the LPS could save $3 million EACH year if we assigned new kids entering the system to a classroom with empty seats even if further away from the kid’s home? That would simply require a new assignment policy for elementary schools. We would never separate siblings, nor move a kid already in a given elementary school to another school until she/he has finished 5th grade.
If so, why are the LEA and ALA not pushing for the necessary change in our assignment policy?
This new, more financially efficient new policy would generate more money than the McKenna amendment, and most importantly would do so on a recurring basis.
I do not understand why our School Committee and Schools Superintendent willfully waste $3 million of taxpayers’ money EACH year, and have done so for over 20 years, without our Town Manager and Select Board — who must produce a balanced budget, of which the LPS represent about 80% (once the schools’ portion of our Line 2000 “shared expenses” is included) — or the Appropriation Committee (supposed to watch our finances) noticing.
Thank you for exploring creative solutions to help LPS to balance its >$150M budget. I agree that the school committee and the superintendent’s office should review community proposals and that the Finance Director should publish more numbers to support the discussion.
Regarding busing to non-neighborhood schools, Belmont has been doing it since the opening of large apartment complexes. I was considering a particular Belmont school for my kids a few years back, but learned from the Belmont superintendent that new students must register by February or March to guarantee placement in neighborhood schools.
Speaking of numbers, I think the superintendent’s office demonstrated operational flexibility by successfully placing more than 86% of the 182 unit-A teachers pink-slipped while the school budget is still pending at the town meeting. I heard the placement percentile is approaching 100%, and I look forward to an update from the superintendent’s office.
Therefore, I am confident that the school committee and the superintendent’s office can deliver a budget plan with minimal impact on student-facing positions and the quality of education, WITHOUT free cash. It might require LPS to re-examine admin positions created by the COVID-era federal funding (raised by Olga Guttag) and cut wasteful spending.
Do we really need to spend $2,499 on 6 tablecloths for the school committee meeting rooms? Can we reduce the dollar amount by 30-50% without compromising school committee operations? Can we save 10-30% on new furniture for one office and its waiting area in central administration?
It’s time for the school committee and the superintendent to prioritize the LPS budget to best support students and teachers. To me as a parent, we don’t need to spend an additional $1.25M free cash on top of >$150M to accomplish that.