(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

Re: Please Amend the FY27 Budget to Fund the School Committee-Approved School Budget

Dear Mayor Wilson, Council President Davis and Members of the City Council, Members of the School Committee, Superintendent Carmona, and SPS CFO Robert Berretta:

I submit this letter in my individual capacity as a Somerville parent, resident, and disability advocate.

I am writing to ask that the FY27 budget be amended to fund the full School Committee-approved school budget of $123,101,384.

Mayor Wilson, you have described the proposed school budget as “fully funded.” But that framing is misleading. At most, the budget fully funds the lower request submitted by Somerville Public Schools leadership. It does not fully fund the needs documented in the district’s own Special Education & Intervention Service Delivery Review, and it does not fund the additional special education inclusion and reading/math intervention positions the School Committee voted to support.

Calling the lower budget “fully funded” suggests the district asked for and received what students need. The evidence says otherwise.

Earlier this year, Somerville Public Schools brought in empowerED School Solutions to conduct a Special Education & Intervention Service Delivery Review for grades K–8. The report was prepared in March 2026 by Dr. Jenna Mancini Rufo and Megan Klementisz, based on site visits conducted in December 2025. It states that empowerED was asked to “gather data, observe, assess, and provide
recommendations” regarding special education and intervention service delivery. The review examined data, achievement outcomes, placement patterns, classroom observations, district documents, and input from educators, administrators, and families. It included 98 classroom snapshot observations across seven community schools. [1]

The timing matters. The report was presented to the School Committee on May 18, 2026. Two days later, the Finance and Facilities Subcommittee of the Whole voted to recommend adding $645,000 to the district’s proposed budget for six positions: two special education inclusion classes, three reading interventionists, and one math interventionist. [2] That addition was a targeted response to needs that had just been publicly presented.

Mayor Wilson, your own budget remarks emphasized equity and values. You said the budget was designed to “deliver results,” “strengthen core services,” and “uphold the values of our community through direct action.” You also said the budget delivers on “strong core services and helping our most vulnerable.” [3] When asked to define equity, you said “all means all,” and that equity means people are not “left behind,” “overlooked,” or “not being taken into account.” [4]

I agree with those words — which is exactly why I am asking you to amend the budget.

Students with disabilities, students who need reading and math intervention, multilingual learners, and students who are already struggling are among Somerville’s most vulnerable residents. They cannot vote.  Many cannot testify, organize campaigns, or explain in adult language what it means to be physically present in school but not meaningfully accessing instruction.

If “all means all,” then those students cannot be the ones left behind when the budget gets hard.

The problem is that the equity language does not match the budget decision. You stated that the school budget “fully funds the request put forward by the Somerville Public Schools leadership,” characterized the School Committee’s added positions as “six new interventionist positions that the district did not ask for,” and said the City “simply cannot sustain unrequested additions.” [5]

But “unrequested” does not mean “unneeded.” It means district leadership failed to request enough — or was operating within a budget target that was never designed to fully measure student need in the first place.

Mayor Wilson, the relevant question is not whether SPS leadership submitted a budget that fit within the fiscal guidance they were given. The relevant question is whether anyone asked for, built, and submitted a budget designed to fully meet the needs documented in the district’s own review. Your own remarks described the budget as funding “the request put forward by the Somerville Public Schools leadership,” and stated that the proposal covered “the needs they identified for a level service budget” plus selected
new staffing and resources. You then dismissed the School Committee’s additions as “unrequested additions.” [5]

That framing is misleading. A “level service” or “level service plus” budget is not the same as a needs-based budget. It starts from what the City is prepared to fund, not from what students require to meaningfully access education. If the budget process begins with the Mayor’s fiscal constraints and asks the district to fit within them, then the fact that additional positions were “unrequested” by district leadership says very little about whether those positions were needed by students.

The School Committee’s role is precisely to exercise independent judgment about what the schools need. When the School Committee added $645,000 for special education inclusion and reading/math intervention, it was not ignoring district needs. It was responding to them.

The Mayor’s FY27 budget presentation also framed the budget around “Investing in Schools, Core Services, and Our Values,” “Upholding Our Values Through Action,” and “Grounding All of Our Work in Equity & Belonging.” [6] But equity cannot just be a slide in a budget presentation. Equity has to include children who are least able to advocate for themselves.

The Mayor’s presentation described this as “the largest dollar investment increase in Somerville Public Schools in the history of this district,” including five new special education teachers, a minimum of four and a half new instructional coaches and math interventionists, $600,000 for substitute teachers, and expanded funding for the school equity formula. [7] Those investments are real and worth acknowledging.But they do not answer the central question: whether the budget funds the additional capacity needed to respond to the district’s own special education and intervention review.

The district serves approximately 4,900 students. The report states that 19.7% of students receive special education services, 23.5% are English learners, 43.7% are low income, and 58% are high needs. In approximate terms, that means about 965 students receiving special education services, 1,150 English learners, 2,140 low-income students, and 2,840 high-needs students. As of March 11, 2026, the district reported 917 K–12 students receiving special education services within district programs. [8]

Somerville already has inclusion on paper. The report found that 77.5% of students with disabilities are educated in full inclusion settings, meaning they spend 80% or more of their day in a general education setting, exceeding the Massachusetts state target, while 12.8% are placed in substantially separate classrooms. [9] But placement data only tells us where students sit, not whether they are meaningfully supported, included, or making progress.

The report says that despite strong inclusion rates, students with disabilities experience “persistent and substantial academic gaps.” On 2025 MCAS, the percentage of students with disabilities meeting or exceeding expectations remained in the “single digits to low teens” across most grades in math and ELA, with gaps between students with disabilities and all students ranging from approximately 16 to 32 percentage points. [9]

That is why “fully funded” is so misleading. Somerville can have high inclusion numbers and still fail to provide meaningful access.

The district’s May 18 presentation made the same point, acknowledging that access to grade-level content, scaffolding, differentiation, and curriculum adaptation were not consistently evident across settings, and that achievement gaps remain despite strong inclusive structures. [17]

Councilor Wheeler, I appreciated your comments about your children previously attending a school with inclusionary classrooms, where roughly one-third of students had IEPs and there were two teachers in every classroom. That is exactly the kind of supported inclusion families want for Somerville students. You also asked whether the proposed budget would allow the inclusionary classroom pilot to move forward or whether it would require additional staffing; district leadership responded that the School Committee’s recommendation was to add staffing for continuation of the pilot process, and later stated that whether Somerville can have an inclusion model is “a matter of finances.” [10]

In principle, all Somerville schools should be “inclusion schools,” and most students with disabilities are already educated in full inclusion settings. The problem is not the placement model; it is that the model is not consistently supported well enough to meet student needs. The report states that “the structures for inclusion are present, but the instructional strategies necessary to ensure meaningful access—such as scaffolding, differentiation, and curriculum adaptation—are not consistently implemented.” [9]

Meaningful inclusion requires staffing, co-teaching capacity, intervention, specialized instruction, planning time, and supports that allow students to actually access instruction. The School Committee’s added $645,000 was an attempt to move Somerville closer to supported inclusion.

The focus group findings make this even clearer. General education and multilingual staff reported concern “that, despite ongoing efforts to provide appropriate supports, some students may be present in classrooms primarily to meet service minute requirements rather than fully engaging in meaningful inclusive experiences within the general education setting. In these instances, students may participate at a surface level without consistent access to the curriculum or opportunities for deeper interaction.” The report goes on to express concerns from educators that some students may be “slipping through the cracks when parents are not vocal.” [11]

Special education staff similarly reported that “compliance with service delivery minutes may take precedence over other considerations.” The report describes students with varied skill levels being “grouped based on scheduling needs, or where multiple service providers worked with a single student to fulfill service minutes, which sometimes affected instructional consistency.” [12]

Parents reported that services may be delayed, students may have to show significant difficulty before additional supports are initiated, outside evaluations are “not always fully considered,” and service or placement decisions may feel “predetermined.” [13]

Those are not minor concerns. They are warnings from educators and families inside the system.

The report also makes clear that this is not only a special education issue. It is also about MTSS, or Multi-Tiered System of Supports — the general education system for identifying students who need academic, behavioral, or social-emotional support and providing escalating levels of intervention before students fall further behind. The report describes the district’s DCAP, District Curriculum Accommodation Plan, as positioning MTSS as the “primary vehicle for strengthening general education, preventing unnecessary special education referrals, and ensuring timely, data-driven interventions.” [14]

That is why the School Committee’s added reading and math interventionists matter district-wide: they support students without IEPs, students at risk, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities. This is not “just special education” — it is the system that helps students before needs become crises.

But the report found that Somerville’s MTSS framework is “well developed in documentation” but “implemented unevenly in practice,” with interventions “not consistently matched to student need” — a point the district’s own May 18 presentation echoed. [15]

The report also states that current reading and math interventions are “not consistently used across schools and grades, and implementation is based upon those who have been trained in the systems.” The report also stated that “administrators expressed concern that, in certain cases, students who qualify for special education services may receive reading support that is less intensive and delivered by staff with less specialized training than the interventions they previously received during the pre-referral phase from a reading specialist.“ [16]

The report’s recommendations are concrete. It recommends a “coordinated, multi-year professional learning plan” focused on “strengthening inclusive instructional practices”; refining MTSS to “prioritize strong Tier 1 instruction” and improve the “consistency and effectiveness of targeted and intensive interventions”; developing “clear descriptions of programs and interventions”; strengthening “communication and transparency”; and analyzing resource room and related service staffing and expectations. [18], [19], [20]

These are not cosmetic recommendations; they are about implementation capacity.The report’s summary states that Somerville’s “greatest opportunity lies in strengthening instructional practices, MTSS framework, and opportunities for students with low incidence disabilities so that structures translate into cohesive systems resulting in stronger outcomes for students with disabilities.” [18] In other words, Somerville already has structures, but those structures are not yet translating into a coherent system that reliably produces stronger outcomes.

Superintendent Carmona told the Council that a budget is “more than just numbers” and that it “reveals our intentions and our commitments to the values we uphold.” He also said SPS’s “why” is creating conditions where every student is “seen, heard, acknowledged, challenged and celebrated,” and that every investment should answer the question: “Does this strengthen the conditions for learning and improve outcomes for students?” [21]

That is the right question. But the answer cannot be “yes” if the district’s own review documents inconsistent access, uneven MTSS implementation, persistent achievement gaps, and the need for stronger intervention systems — and district leadership fails to request the resources needed to respond.

The SPS CFO, Dr. Berretta, described the proposed budget as “a balance of fiscal prudence and also strategic investments” needed to make SPS “the premier district” families deserve. But he also explained that the proposal was “focused on continuity” and aimed to provide a “level service budget” so the district could serve the same number of students with the same proportion of resources as this year. [22]

That is precisely the concern. A “level-service” budget preserves the status quo, and a “level-service plus” budget only adds what fits within the administration’s chosen fiscal frame. When an independent review identifies critical gaps—such as the need for stronger MTSS, consistent interventions, and equitable access to grade-level curriculum—”continuity” is insufficient. Somerville Public Schools is not yet the “premier district” families deserve, especially for students with disabilities, multilingual learners, low-income students, and those from marginalized backgrounds. To characterize this budget as a step toward that goal is dismissive of the families navigating these systemic inadequacies. True equity requires more than rhetorical commitments like “all means all”; it demands an honest admission that our current trajectory is falling short, and the courage to fund the fundamental changes required to fix it.

City Councilors also raised concerns that align with this issue. Councilor Mbah asked why expanding communication was being prioritized over “direct service delivery positions.” The Mayor responded that engagement was “a key equity piece” intended to reach people who do not have the privilege to monitor email newsletters or social media. [23] That same equity principle applies here. Direct service capacity is equity work.

The budget materials show the difference clearly. The Mayor’s proposed school budget is $122,456,384. The School Committee-approved amount is $123,101,384. The difference is $645,000. [2], [24]

That $645,000 is approximately 0.53% of the Mayor’s proposed school budget. It is the difference between a 7.58% school budget increase and an 8.15% School Committee-approved increase. [2] It is also about 0.17% of the Mayor’s $376,778,493 FY27 General Fund Operating Budget request. [25]

In a budget of this size, the question is not whether Somerville can afford to acknowledge documented needs of students with disabilities and struggling learners. The question is whether the City is willing to prioritize them.

The administration described closing a $5.4 million budget gap through a reserve strategy, revenue review, operating budget reviews, workforce restructuring, and reductions. [26] The School Committee’s $645,000 addition is about 12% of that budget gap. That is real money, but it should not be dismissed as excessive when it is tied to documented student access, intervention, and civil rights needs.

The proposed budget includes $600,000 in additional substitute teacher funding, which the Mayor described as important because “consistency matters” and “our kids deserve a teacher in the room every single day.” [7] The School Committee’s entire additional request for special education inclusion and reading/math intervention was $645,000 — only $45,000 more than the additional substitute investment the Mayor highlighted.

Students also deserve the consistent specialized instruction, intervention, and inclusion support that make being in the room meaningful.

Our children’s needs are not extras. IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, makes available  a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities and ensures special education and related services; Section 504 also requires districts to provide a free appropriate public education to qualified students with disabilities. [27] When students are present in classrooms but not meaningfully accessing instruction, that is not a fully funded system. It is a system failing to meet a moral and legal obligation and raising serious civil rights concerns for our children.

The procedural posture makes the Mayor’s responsibility even clearer. The June 4 City Council minutes show the Mayor’s FY27 General Fund Operating Budget request, item 26-0950, was referred for recommendation; the Superintendent’s School Department budget communication, item 26-0974, was placed on file; and the School Committee Chair’s communication conveying the School Department budget approved by the School Committee Finance and Facilities Subcommittee on May 20, 2026, item 26-0975, was also placed on file. [25]

The City Council previously approved item 25-0905, adopting Chapter 329 of the Acts of 1987, “An Act Increasing Local Control Over The Annual School Budget.” [28] Chapter 329 requires local acceptance and, in a city that is not Plan D or Plan E, approval by the Mayor before it takes effect. [29] My understanding is that the prior Mayor did not approve it before it became available for this budget cycle; in practical terms, it expired on her desk.

At the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, councilors discussed that because Somerville has not adopted Chapter 329 in a way that is currently effective, the City Council may not be able to simply increase the school appropriation to the School Committee-approved amount. Councilor J.T. Scott stated that “there is no way for the city council to accept the recommendation of the school committee” through a simple increase, and that the only way to force a change may be to reject the entire budget or make a large enough reduction to cause resubmission. [30]

That means this is not simply a City Council decision. The Mayor has the power to resolve this. It also means Somerville needs to fix this process going forward. A School Committee-adopted budget should actually mean something. It should not be reduced to a communication placed on file while the Mayor submits a lower number and the City Council is left without a clear path to adopt the School Committee’s recommendation.

Mayor Wilson, I am asking you directly: please amend or recommend the FY27 budget to include the full School Committee-approved school budget of $123,101,384.

You said equity means “all means all.” You said people should not be left behind or overlooked. You said the budget delivers for “our most vulnerable.” Please apply those commitments to students with disabilities and students who need reading and math intervention.

Students’ needs do not stop being urgent because meeting them is inconvenient or fiscally difficult. Equity does not mean “all” only when it is affordable, easy, or aligned with the budget request district leadership chose to submit. It is not enough to say Somerville is doing better than, or similarly to, neighboring districts that are also struggling, and it is not enough to point to slow improvement while students continue to go without meaningful access now. Equity means all students have the support they need to belong, participate, learn, and thrive.

Please also stop describing the lower amount as “fully funded.” It may fully fund SPS leadership’s request, but it does not fully fund the needs of our students documented in the Special Education & Intervention Service Delivery Review.

Superintendent Carmona and Dr. Beretta: please stop describing this budget as “fully funded” without acknowledging the unmet needs documented in the report. Your job is to identify what students and staff need, explain what remains unfunded, and support the budget adopted by the School Committee. School Committee members: please insist that district leadership support and implement the budget adopted by the body elected by our residents and responsible for overseeing the schools.

City Councilors: please do not accept the “fully funded” framing without asking whether this budget fully funds student need or merely funds the lower request submitted by district leadership in response to the Mayor’s request. Please continue making clear publicly that the Mayor can and should fix this by submitting or recommending the amended school budget.

I also urge the City Council to immediately re-adopt, or take whatever procedural action is required to adopt, Chapter 329, and I urge Mayor Wilson to approve it promptly. It may be too late for this budget season, but it is not too late to protect future budget cycles. Mayor Wilson supported Chapter 329 before, and he should support it now as Mayor. Our School Committee-adopted budget should actually mean something.

The School Committee was trying to respond to documented needs in the district’s own report — not asking for extras.

When the Mayor and district leadership put a positive spin on the school budget and district performance without plainly acknowledging the unmet needs documented in the district’s own review, they are not just defending a budget. They are dismissing the lived realities of some of Somerville’s most vulnerable students.

In effect, they are telling families that “all means all” does not fully include the children who rely on adults to notice their needs, advocate for them, fund supports, and protect their access to education.

Equity cannot mean celebrating values in a budget presentation while refusing to fund a 0.53% school-budget correction for students who cannot vote, cannot lobby, and often cannot advocate for themselves.

A budget that leaves students without meaningful access is not fully funded.

Sincerely,
Sam Steiner
Somerville, MA 02144
samantharsteiner@gmail.com

Sources
[1] empowerED School Solutions, Special Education & Intervention Service Delivery Review, pp. 1, 6–7.
[2] SPS FY27 Budget Presentation to City Council, June 4, 2026, Budget Summary table (slide 29) and
“Personnel Budget Overview, as voted by School Committee Finance and Facilities Subcommittee” (slide
23), showing the $645,000 addition, two special education inclusion classes, four interventionists (three
reading, one math), and the difference between the School Committee-approved total of $123,101,384
and the Mayor’s proposed total of $122,456,384.
[3] June 4 City Council transcript, Mayor Wilson budget remarks on “deliver results,” “uphold the values,”
and “helping our most vulnerable.”
[4] June 4 City Council transcript, Councilor Strezo question and Mayor Wilson response defining equity
as “all means all” and discussing people being “left behind” or “overlooked.”
[5] June 4 City Council transcript, Mayor Wilson remarks on “fully funds,” “unrequested additions,” and
“simply cannot sustain.”
[6] Mayor Wilson FY27 Budget Submission Presentation, June 4, 2026, agenda and values/equity slides.
[7] Mayor Wilson FY27 Budget Submission Presentation and June 4 transcript, school investment slides
and remarks, including substitute funding, special education teachers, interventionists, and equity
formula. The $8,632,547 school increase and the 7.58% Mayor-proposed and 8.15% School
Committee-approved increases appear in the SPS FY27 Budget Presentation to City Council, June 4,
2026, Budget Summary table (slide 29). The $8,632,547 school increase, the total FY27 citywide budget
increase of $14,041,865, and the resulting ~61.5% school share are confirmed by the City of Somerville
FY27 Budget Presentation, June 4, 2026, “Public Schools was the City’s biggest investment in FY27”
(slide 20).
[8] empowerED Review, demographics and special education eligibility sections, pp. 7–9.
[9] empowerED Review, executive summary and least restrictive environment / achievement findings, pp.
2–5, 20, 30.
[10] June 4 City Council transcript, Councilor Wheeler’s question about inclusionary classrooms, IEPs,
two teachers, and the district response about the pilot and finances.
[11] empowerED Review, general education and multilingual staff focus group findings, pp. 59–60.
[12] empowerED Review, special education staff focus group and service delivery concerns, pp. 62–63.
[13] empowerED Review, parent focus group findings, pp. 66–68.
[14] empowerED Review, MTSS discussion (describing the district’s DCAP), p. 35.
[15] empowerED Review, executive summary and MTSS findings, pp. 2, 34–35; SPS May 18
presentation, p. 8.
[16] empowerED Review, reading/math intervention and administrator concern findings, pp. 35–36,
65–66.
[17] SPS Special Education School Committee Presentation, May 18, 2026, instructional practice and
access findings, pp. 6–7.
[18] empowerED Review, recommendations and summary, pp. 4–5.
[19] empowerED Review, recommendations and suggested timeline, pp. 90–98.
[20] SPS Special Education School Committee Presentation, May 18, 2026, “Our Work Going Forward” /
professional learning and access slides.
[21] June 4 City Council transcript, Superintendent Carmona remarks on the budget as “more than just
numbers,” the district “why,” and strengthening conditions for learning and improving outcomes.
[22] June 4 City Council transcript, SPS CFO Dr. Bobby Beretta remarks on fiscal prudence, strategic
investments, continuity, and level service.
[23] June 4 City Council transcript, Councilor Mbah question about communications versus direct service
delivery positions and Mayor Wilson’s response about engagement as an equity piece.
[24] Somerville Public Schools Finance and Facilities budget process page.
[25] Somerville City Council Minutes, June 4, 2026, items 26-0950, 26-0974, and 26-0975, including the
$376,778,493 General Fund Operating Budget request.
[26] June 4 City Council transcript and City of Somerville FY27 Budget Presentation, June 4, 2026,
“Closing a $5.4 million budget gap” (slide 9), $5.4 million budget gap and gap-closing tools.
[27] U.S. Department of Education FAPE resources: IDEA (ed.gov, IDEA) and Section 504 FAPE (ed.gov,
OCR Section 504 FAQ).
Page 8
[28] Somerville City Council item #25-0905, adopting Chapter 329 of the Acts of 1987.
[29] Chapter 329 of the Acts of 1987, local acceptance requirement.
[30] Budget and Finance Committee transcript, Chapter 329 / Council authority discussion.