Boston City Council approves $1.7 billion schools budget that cuts hundreds of jobs

Local news

The council chose to postpone a vote on Mayor Wu’s controversial operating budget proposal, saying they needed more time to work through the amendments.

The Boston City Council voted Wednesday to pass a $1.73 billion budget for Boston Public Schools that would eliminate more than 400 student-facing jobs, despite strong opposition from teachers and some council members.

The BPS budget, which represents a 2.7 percent spending increase, was unanimously approved by the Boston School Committee in March. Some of BPS’s lowest-paid employees are set to be affected by the job cuts, including paraprofessionals and other support staff within the school.

Officials say rising health care costs and falling school enrollment rates are two major factors driving the need for the cuts. BPS enrollment has dropped by 9,620 students over the past nine school years, which officials attribute largely to a decline in international immigration. Officials expect to lose about 3,000 students between fiscal years 2025 and 2027.

Many council members who voted to pass the budget described their votes as difficult, but necessary.

“I know we all support our teachers and staff at BPS, and our students, and realize how painful some of these cuts are. I think it’s important for us to make sure the district is able to provide services to our students and their families for the current and next school year in a fiscally responsible way,” Chancellor Ben Weber said.

Teachers have been protesting the proposed cuts for months. The Boston Teachers Union sent a letter She presented to the council earlier this week urging members to reject the budget, saying it set a “dangerous precedent”. The union called on officials to pursue government aid, tap into reserve funds, or transfer funds from other departments in order to prevent job cuts.

“In difficult financial times, it is our most vulnerable students who will bear the weight of our struggles, and we need to stand with them,” BTU wrote.

Councilor Minyard Culpepper was one of the council members who lobbied the body to reject the budget. Culpepper, a longtime pastor, delivered impassioned remarks that briefly included a call and answer with audience members gathered in the council chamber.

“I can’t believe we’re even thinking about approving this budget,” he said. “These are the most vulnerable of us all, and someone has to stand up and fight for the most vulnerable. If this council doesn’t stand up and fight for the most vulnerable, who will?”

Councilor Gabriela Coleta Zapata stressed the need for the council to show fiscal responsibility and said any rejection of the BPS budget would not solve the larger problems that necessitated the cuts.

“Rejection does not change the real circumstances in which we have lost thousands of students,” she said. “It does not solve the long-term budget problems, the structural systemic issues, that we feel.”

Councilors Ed Flynn, Julia Mejia, Erin Murphy and Brian Worrell eventually joined Culpepper in opposing the budget, but it passed on an 8-5 vote.

The Council postpones voting on the amendment

The council is also expected to vote on Mayor Michelle Wu’s $4.9 billion operating budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year. Instead, members chose to postpone the vote until next Wednesday’s meeting.

The process of amending the operating budget led to weeks of infighting among council members, who were divided over whether to outright reject Wu’s proposal.

Amid rising costs and slowing tax revenues, the mayor’s budget represents just a 2 percent increase in spending over the current budget, the smallest year-over-year increase since fiscal year 2010. It would reduce funding for some city departments and eliminate funding for a number of grant programs, including programs that support youth jobs and food access for those in need. Community groups and activists have repeatedly registered their anger protest These cuts are in recent weeks.

The Council has until June 10 to accept, reject or amend the budget. He has the power to change individual items but cannot increase the overall spending amount proposed by the mayor. If the council amends the budget, Wu has a week to either accept or object to the amendments. The budget will then be sent back to the House, where a two-thirds majority vote will be needed to override Wu’s veto.

Some council members have argued in favor of outright rejection of the budget in the hope that doing so would force Wu to increase spending. The mayor told the council she would not increase the bottom line and could resubmit her budget without any changes if the council rejected it.

As chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Weber has been leading work sessions to consider a range of potential amendments. Some of his colleagues expressed deep frustration after Weber circulated a new amendment package on Wednesday, saying they needed more time to evaluate the proposals.

“I’m not just going to rubber stamp something that’s put in front of me,” Flynn said.

After a break that lasted for about an hour, the Council voted to postpone the vote on the budget.

The council all agreed by one vote on Wednesday, unanimously approving Wu’s request to use $70 million in reserve funds to fill shortfalls in the current city and BPS budgets.