Last week, confronted with a budget allocation that doesn’t provide level-services funding to NPS,  the School Committee faced a choice: Cut jobs in behavioral services, DEI and sustainability or put off implementing the district’s new Math Pathways program.

On Monday, the School Committee made a choice: Move ahead with math.

After Mayor Marc Laredo’s notably large increase to NPS over FY2026 was eaten up by health insurance inflation, among other rising costs, Nolin had to look for cuts, since her level-services budget amount was $2.7 more than his $314.5 million allocation.

She kept her cuts out of the classrooms as much as she could, but that meant other areas had to be cut.

Nolin  presented the School Committee with three options:

• Approve a $314.5 million budget with no new math program but also with fewer staff cuts.
• Approve a $314.5 million budget advancement with the new math programming but with more staff cuts.
• Reject both options and work on a new budget proposal.

The committee voted for “Plan B,” the one that funds the math advancements but cuts half of the district’s only DEI department position, the district’s sustainability position and behavioral support service staff.

Before Monday’s vote, Ward 6 School Committee member Jonathan Greene  called out the city and the committee for “making Dr. Nolan’s job harder than it should be by reducing the flexibility that she needs to manage an organization of this scale.”

”Thank you, and I am sorry,” he said to Nolin before motioning for the committee to pass Nolin’s budget with the second option, which funds middle school math MTSS and the district’s new Math Pathways program, and to submit that budget to the City Council for approval.

“I also don’t think there is any shame in choosing to prioritize investments in math over pace of progress on things like electric school buses,” Greene said. “This is not because sustainability isn’t objectively important, but because it is not more important than math. And the payoff on the investment in math is relatively more clear than many of the others.”

Ward 8 School Committee member Victor Lee said he would rather go with the third option, to reject the other options and talk about using money from the NPS Stabilization Fund despite the mayor insisting his administration won’t use one-time funds for ongoing costs.

Lee said he would otherwise support the option that funds the math programs but wants to start a bigger conversation about a potential Proposition 2 ½ override in the future, as well as School Choice participation.

“I want to be clear that if we do this, we should be starting the conversation around what it takes to do things like an override or other kinds of initiatives, because it’s going to take, in my opinion, at least a year if not longer to do this,” Lee said. “And I think we can both demonstrate to the public that we’re being fiscally responsible and start the communication at the same time.”

Laredo said he can’t use money from the Stabilization Fund without disrupting the financial framework of the next few years.

“We can’t go to the Education Stabilization Fund and just start taking money out of it, because our whole plan for funding going forward depends on what’s in there right now,” Laredo said. “And if we deplete that, we’re going to have less money going forward, and we’re going to create a worse situation down the road.”

Ward 4 School Committee Member Tamika Olszewski offered an amendment stating that extra money that becomes available be set aside for position add-backs to be determined by the committee as those funds are made available. But Chair Alicia Piedalue said that choosing which positions to fill is up to the superintendent.

Laredo said he couldn’t support Olszewski’s motion.

“Not only do we not have the operational authority to do it, but you’re making assumptions and I think, frankly, giving false hope to folks that somehow a position in the next few months is going to be reinstated,” Laredo said. “That’s just not happening.”

Olszewski’s amendment was rejected 8-1. And Greene’s original motion—the budget proposal—passed unanimously.