Analyses
How Chapter 70 actually works
Eight steps, in the order the questions arrive. Worked through with FY26’s own numbers.
lunenburgbudgetproject.org — written by the Lunenburg Budget Project, an independent tool for residents. Not affiliated with the Town of Lunenburg, the School Committee or the school district. The data this page is computed from: /data/ch70-formula.json
If you read nothing else
What one more or one fewer foundation pupil moves Lunenburg’s state aid by
Losing pupils does not cut the aid. It changes only the flat increase, which is set on Beacon Hill.
Chapter 70 is not recalculated from your students each year. It is last year’s aid plus an increase, and in FY2026 the only increase available was the Legislature’s flat floor — $150.00 a pupil. So one pupil more or fewer moves the aid by that, and by nothing else. DESE’s own rule is a floor test rather than a recalculation: “If foundation aid is greater than prior year Chapter 70 aid, the district receives a foundation aid increase.” Only greater. Lunenburg already receives more than the formula says it needs, so that term paid $0 in FY2026 and the whole increase was the flat rate. A pupil changes the foundation budget, which is an input to a term producing nothing — and it changes the town’s required contribution not at all, because that is worked out from property values and income. Measured one pupil at a time, holding everything else at its FY2026 value.
why Lunenburg is on the floor in the first place → · what a departing pupil costs, tuition included →
What it rests on DESE’s Chapter 70 Trends workbook, sheets dataAid and dataContribution, and DESE’s own definition of the foundation aid increase at the workbook’s User Guide. The FY2026 aid components as DESE ran them, with the town’s required contribution held fixed because DESE’s target local contribution equals the combined effort yield in every published year.
What it does not show What a large loss of pupils would do. This is a marginal rate and it does not extrapolate: below the point where the foundation budget falls under the required contribution the formula’s own subtraction turns negative, and no document here models that. Nor is aid the whole cost of a departing pupil — a school choice transfer also takes a tuition payment with it.
Chapter 70 aid for each foundation pupil in FY2026, against $150.00 of increase
The figure everybody quotes is an increase, not the aid. They differ by a factor of 38.
Three numbers get used interchangeably in this town and two of them are the same figure for different reasons. Chapter 70 pays $5,757.59 for each of the 1,603 pupils the formula counts. This year’s increase is $150.00 a pupil. And one more pupil moves the aid by $150.00. The last two coincide in FY2026, and only because minimum aid is the sole component operating — the formula’s own aid term paid nothing, so the flat per-pupil increase is the only part of the build-up a pupil can move. They are not the same quantity and in a year when the formula pays they will not be the same number. The first is a different kind of figure again: it is the aid divided by the pupils, and quoting it beside the other two is how a town comes to believe that a pupil is worth $5,757.59 of state money.
what a pupil costs, against every district →
What it rests on DESE’s `dataAid` sheet: Chapter 70 aid and foundation enrollment for Lunenburg Public Schools in FY2026, and the minimum aid increment in the same row.
What it does not show What the state pays for any particular child. The foundation budget is built from rates that differ by grade and by category, and an average across all of them is not the amount attached to any pupil.
Provisions in DESE’s own definitions that can reduce a district’s Chapter 70 aid
One is a legislated across-the-board cut. The other applies only to districts that run no schools.
DESE’s glossary names 2 things that reduce Chapter 70 aid, and neither of them is enrolment for a district that runs its own schools. The first decreases aid by a fixed percentage, legislated and applied to everybody — the workbook’s reduction column is populated for Lunenburg in FY2009 (-$485,942), FY2010 (-$92,416) and FY2011 (-$279,101), the recession years, and in no year since. The second reduces aid to the level of the foundation budget for NON-OPERATING districts, which run no schools of their own and tuition their pupils elsewhere. Lunenburg runs schools. There is no provision that cuts an operating district’s aid because it has fewer children: what falling enrolment reaches is the increase, not the base.
the aid components, term by term, for twenty years →
What it rests on DESE’s own definitions in the workbook’s User Guide, quoted at their cells, and the reduction column of the `dataAid` sheet for Lunenburg across FY2007 to FY2026.
What it does not show That these are the only provisions in statute. The User Guide is DESE’s glossary for its own workbook, not Chapter 70 itself, and a component absent from the glossary would be absent from this page too. Nor does any of it say what a future Legislature will do.
Foundation pupils at which the formula’s own subtraction would turn negative
39.6% below today. The per-pupil finding was measured at the margin and stops well above it.
Everything on this page about one more or one fewer pupil was measured AT THE MARGIN. It is not a rate that can be multiplied out: below about 968 foundation pupils the town’s foundation budget falls under its required contribution and step 3 of the formula turns negative. The required contribution is a wealth calculation and does not move with pupils; the foundation budget does. In FY2026 the required contribution is 60.4% of the foundation budget, so the two would meet at roughly 60.4% of today’s 1,603 pupils. Nothing in this archive models what the formula does from there, and it has not happened in any of the 20 years DESE publishes here — the highest the required share has been is 72.3%, in FY2007. What this page establishes is the behaviour of the formula near where Lunenburg actually sits.
the limits, as the registry records them →
What it rests on The FY2026 foundation budget and required local contribution from DESE’s `dataAid` sheet, with the foundation budget scaled by pupils at its own average and the required contribution held fixed — which is DESE’s own structure, not an assumption: the target local contribution equals the combined effort yield in every published year and carries no pupil term.
What it does not show What the formula would actually pay at that enrollment. This is the point at which one subtraction in the sequence changes sign, not a projection: a district that far off its foundation budget would meet hold-harmless provisions, a different minimum aid rate and possibly legislation, none of which is in this workbook.
Those are the answers this report could reach from the documents behind it. If the one you came for is not among them, ask us — no name or email needed.
This page, and the other one
Lunenburg’s position. Where the town sits in this formula, the twenty-year series of aid components, the peer districts on the same per-pupil rate and the wealth calculation behind the required contribution are on /why-we-only-get-minimum-aid. This page is the mechanism, with FY2026 used to show it working. Why we only get minimum aid is where the town sits in this formula. This page is the formula.
How it works, in eight steps
The one that unlocks the rest is number four: But aid is last year’s aid plus an increase — never a fresh calculation Every confusing thing about what Lunenburg receives follows from that.
None of these eight steps is a decision anybody in Lunenburg makes. The per-pupil rates are the state’s, the floor is a line in the Legislature’s budget, and the town’s required share is worked out from property values and income. Nor is Chapter 70 a payment to the school district: it arrives as town revenue, and the town appropriates the school budget separately — state aid is where that route is set out.
The state prices your students
Massachusetts sets a rate for each pupil, by grade and by category — a vocational pupil is priced higher than a primary one. Multiply through and you get the FOUNDATION BUDGET: the state’s own estimate of what educating this town’s children ought to cost.
Where people go wrong
It is a calculation, not money anybody sends. Nobody ever receives the foundation budget.
The state decides what the town can afford
From the town’s property values and its residents’ income — not from how many children it has — the state sets the REQUIRED LOCAL CONTRIBUTION: the minimum the town itself must put in.
Where people go wrong
Enrolment is not in this step at all. Lose pupils and this number does not move.
The gap between them is what aid is FOR
Foundation budget minus required contribution is what the state calls foundation aid — the amount a district needs to reach the budget the state says it should have.
Where people go wrong
This is the step everybody assumes is the whole formula. It is not.
But aid is last year’s aid plus an increase — never a fresh calculation
DESE’s own rule: “If foundation aid is greater than prior year Chapter 70 aid, the district receives a foundation aid increase.” Only GREATER. If the formula’s figure is below what the town already receives, it adds nothing and the town keeps what it had.
Where people go wrong
This is the whole thing. The formula is a floor test, not a recalculation.
Lunenburg is above that line, so the formula pays nothing
The town already receives more than the formula says it needs. So the elaborate machinery of steps 1 to 3 runs every year and produces zero.
Where people go wrong
It has produced zero since before FY2022.
What is left is a flat amount the Legislature picks
MINIMUM AID: “Guarantees a minimum per pupil increase in aid over the prior year… Not available in every year.” It is the same rate for every district on the floor — $150 a pupil in FY2026, $30 in FY2022, nothing at all in FY2023.
Where people go wrong
This is an INCREASE per pupil, not the aid per pupil. The aid itself is about $5,757 a pupil.
So losing a student costs the town almost no aid
One fewer pupil drops the foundation budget by about $13,770 — but that only changes a number in step 3, which was producing nothing anyway. The required contribution does not move, because it comes from wealth. The only part that responds is the flat per-pupil increase. About $150.
Where people go wrong
The real cost of a departing choice student is the roughly $5,000 tuition the town pays the receiving district. Aid is the small half.
And nothing in the formula takes aid away for losing students
Two rules can reduce Chapter 70 aid. One is a legislated across-the-board percentage cut — that is what happened in FY2010 and FY2011, during the recession, to everybody. The other applies only to NON-OPERATING districts, which run no schools of their own. Lunenburg runs schools.
Where people go wrong
So: fewer students does not mean less aid. It means no increase. Those are different, and the difference is most of this page.
Three numbers, and two of them are $150.00
The second and the third are the same figure in FY26 and they are not the same quantity. They coincide because minimum aid is the only component operating: the formula’s own aid term paid $0, so the flat per-pupil increase is the only part of the build-up a pupil can move. In a year when the formula pays, they part company.
The first is a third kind of figure again — $9,229,410 of aid over 1,603 foundation pupils. Quoting it beside the other two is how a town comes to believe that each child arrives carrying $5,757.59 of state money, and each child does not.
If you are building a budget
Forecasting Chapter 70 while the floor binds means forecasting one number: the per-pupil increase the Legislature votes. It was $150.00 for FY26. An enrollment projection does not help — it moves a term that is producing $0 — and the rate is not settled when the town builds its own budget. The figure quoted at that point is an early-stage one, and the same year at two stages shows how far apart the two have been.
What can reduce Chapter 70 aid
Two provisions in DESE’s own definitions decrease a district’s aid. Neither of them is enrolment, for a district that runs its own schools.
Chapter 70 Aid Reduction
User Guide!B41
“Decreases aid by a fixed percentage. In the years when this was done, aid was added back to ensure that districts had resources equal to their foundation budgets. In some years, aid was supplanted with federal funds.”
Non-Op Reduction in Aid
User Guide!B42
“Non-operating districts do not operate local schools, but sometimes receive aid because they tuition small numbers of pupils to other districts. In a few cases where the number of pupils has decreased, their current year’s aid actually exceeds their foundation budget for those pupils. This provision reduces aid to the level of the district’s foundation budget.”
The first has run here. DESE’s reduction column is populated for Lunenburg in FY09 (-$485,942), FY10 (-$92,416) and FY11 (-$279,101) — the recession years, applied across the state — and in no year since. The second reduces aid to the level of the foundation budget for NON-OPERATING districts, which run no schools of their own and tuition their pupils elsewhere. Lunenburg runs schools.
DESE’s own words for each term
Every term the steps use, quoted from the workbook’s User Guide sheet at the cell it appears in. Rule 13 of this project: quote the source, never your rendering of it — a rendered table is for reading and never for quoting, so the coordinate is printed beside each one.
dese-ch70-key-factors.xlsx, sheet User Guide
| Cell | Term | What DESE says it is |
|---|---|---|
| User Guide!B17 | Required Local Contribution (RLC) | The minimum equitable level of local funding needed to support a district's foundation budget, based upon the relative wealth of the community. |
| User Guide!B24 | Combined Effort Yield (CEY) | The sum of local effort from property and local effort from income. |
| User Guide!B26 | Target Local Share | An equitable portion of a city or town's foundation budget that should be supported through local funds. Individual communities’ target local shares are based on local property values and income, and foundation budget. It is calculated as CEY divided by foundation budget multiplied by 100%, and is capped at 82.5%. |
| User Guide!B34 | Foundation Aid Increase | The amount of additional aid a district needs to have resources equal to its foundation budget. Foundation budget less required contribution equals foundation aid. If foundation aid is greater than prior year Chapter 70 aid, the district receives a foundation aid increase. |
| User Guide!B38 | Minimum Aid | Guarantees a minimum per pupil increase in aid over the prior year (typically $30 per pupil), if all other available aid components do not equal that amount. Not available in every year. |
| User Guide!B41 | Chapter 70 Aid Reduction | Decreases aid by a fixed percentage. In the years when this was done, aid was added back to ensure that districts had resources equal to their foundation budgets. In some years, aid was supplanted with federal funds. |
| User Guide!B42 | Non-Op Reduction in Aid | Non-operating districts do not operate local schools, but sometimes receive aid because they tuition small numbers of pupils to other districts. In a few cases where the number of pupils has decreased, their current year’s aid actually exceeds their foundation budget for those pupils. This provision reduces aid to the level of the district’s foundation budget. |
| User Guide!B45 | Required Net School Spending | Local Contribution + State Aid = a district’s Net School Spending (NSS) requirement. This is the minimum amount that a district must spend to comply with state law. |
Where this stops being true
Fewer students does not mean less aid — it means no increase. That was established AT THE MARGIN: one pupil, with everything else held at its FY26 value. It is not a rate that can be multiplied out, and the point where it stops is calculable.
The foundation budget moves with pupils. The required contribution does not, because it is worked out from property values and income. So the gap between them — step three, which is what aid is for — closes as pupils fall, and below about 968 pupils it goes the other way. Nothing in this archive models what the formula does from there. A district that far below its foundation budget would meet hold-harmless provisions, a different minimum aid rate and possibly legislation, none of which is in this workbook.
What that calculation assumes
- The town’s required contribution does not move. It is the combined effort yield path, and DESE’s target local contribution equals the combined effort yield in all 20 years published.
- The extra pupil costs the AVERAGE foundation amount. DESE builds the foundation budget from per-pupil rates that differ by grade and by category and does not publish them here, so the marginal cost is unknown and the average is standing in for it.
- The statutory cap on the target local share does not bind. Lunenburg’s target share is 68.7% of its foundation budget in FY2026 against a cap of 82.5%.
- Everything else in the formula is held at its FY2026 value, including the minimum aid rate, which the Legislature sets each year and which has ranged from $30 to $150 a pupil in the years published.
What the town has said about it
Statements made in public, not measurements. Each is re-read out of the extracted minutes on every build and a miss stops it.
“The House budget passed including 150 per pupil minimum aid increase.”
School Committee · minutes · 2025-05-07 · our copy · the town’s
The rate, stated as passed. DESE’s workbook then runs it: Lunenburg’s whole FY2026 increase is $150.00 a pupil, to the cent.
“After the Commonwealth determines how much each district is required to spend, municipalities are obligated to fund 59 percent of that foundation budget, while the Commonwealth provides 41 percent.”
Finance Committee · minutes · 2021-10-28 · our copy · the town’s
A description of the formula given to the Finance Committee by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. Recomputed for Lunenburg below -- it is close for the year it was said and it is not a constant, which is the whole subject of this page.
“Review Letter of Support for the Establishment of a Chapter 70 Commission to Review the Foundation Budget and Local Contribution Formulas”
Select Board · agenda · 2025-05-20 · our copy · the town’s
The two halves of this page, named as the two things the town asked the Legislature to reopen -- the foundation budget and the local contribution formula. It is evidence of intent and of what the town believes the problem is. It is not evidence of an outcome.
What was searched, and how much of the archive could be
sources/meetings/text — every board the town publishes
| Term | Documents that mention it |
|---|---|
| Chapter 70 | 93 |
| minimum aid | 5 |
| foundation budget | 7 |
| combined effort yield | 1 |
| required local contribution | 0 |
| Student Opportunity Act | 17 |
8,899 of 12,015 held documents can be searched at all (74.1%). 3,116 carry no text a search can match — 3,096 of them image scans awaiting OCR. So an empty result is a statement about what can be read, never about what anybody said.
What this cannot say
What a large fall in enrollment would do to the aid. The finding on this page is a marginal one — one pupil, everything else held at its FY2026 value — and a marginal rate multiplied out is not a projection.
What the state pays for any particular child. The foundation budget is built from rates that differ by grade and by category, and the workbook publishes Lunenburg’s categories without the rates, so the average of $13,770 a pupil is not the amount attached to anybody.
That the Legislature sets the same floor next year. Minimum aid is voted each year, it was not available at all in some years, and DESE’s own definition says so: “Not available in every year.”
Whether these are the only provisions in statute that reduce aid. The two on this page are the two DESE’s glossary for its own workbook names.
The same limits, as rows in the register
Each of these is a row in money-gaps.csv, which is what the records request to the Town reads and what what we cannot answer renders. A limit stated only in the prose of one page is invisible to everybody who did not read that page.
money in
What Chapter 70 aid would actually do if enrollment fell
MUCH NARROWER THAN IT WAS. DESE’s Chapter 70 trends workbook breaks the aid calculation into its named components, and for Lunenburg they show that this year’s aid is last year’s aid plus named increments — an identity that holds to the dollar in every one of the last seven years. In FY2026 the whole of the increase is the minimum aid increment, $240,450, which is exactly $150.00 for each of the 1,603 foundation pupils, and the foundation aid increment is zero. Over thirty-four years foundation enrollment fell in 17 and aid fell in 3 — FY1997, FY2010 and FY2011. DESE’s component columns show a reduction applied in FY2010 and FY2011; they start at FY2007, so nothing in this archive says why aid fell in FY1997. So the marginal aid attached to one foundation pupil is currently about $150 and not the $14,440 foundation budget per pupil. What is NOT established: that the Legislature sets the same minimum aid rate next year — it has ranged from $30 to $150 a pupil in the years published — nor what happens if a large enough enrollment fall moves the district off the minimum aid track, which no document here models.
Closes: DESE’s preliminary Chapter 70 aid calculation for Lunenburg for the year in question, which states the foundation aid, minimum aid and hold-harmless components before the year is set.
money in
What the foundation budget pays per pupil for each kind of child
DESE builds the foundation budget from per-pupil rates that differ by grade and by category, and it publishes the CATEGORIES for Lunenburg — FY2026 foundation enrollment of 1,603, of whom 54 are English learners (3.4%), 452 are low income (28.8%, low-income group 5) and none is vocational, at a wage adjustment factor of 1.000 — without publishing the rate attached to any of them in the same file. So which children leave a district changes the foundation effect and not only how many, and this archive can state that it matters and cannot size it.
Closes: DESE’s FY26 foundation budget rate schedule, the table of per-pupil rates by grade and category and the low-income increment by decile group.
people
How many children Chapter 70 is actually paid for
The aid is calculated on a `Foundation enrollment` of 1,599 in DESE’s FY27 Chapter 70 summary. DESE publishes three other counts for the same district — Student Headcount, In-District FTE Pupils and Total FTE Pupils — and in the latest year published they are 1,563, 1,568.9 and 1,665.9. Four numbers, one agency, none of them equal, measured on different dates and counting different things. So every per-pupil figure on this project, including aid per pupil, is a division by a count whose definition has to be stated with it, and no published document reconciles the foundation count to the children in the buildings.
Closes: DESE’s FY27 foundation enrollment worksheet for Lunenburg, which states the October 1 count by grade and category the formula was run on.
The document behind this
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Our copy is dese-ch70-key-factors.xlsx (4.6 MB), fetched from https://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/. Its sha256 is 9fdc7d0a6131c82a400509f336f2ac88539e05b2dde1b019232757e668bc2e6f. Every figure worked through on this page is DESE’s published Chapter 70 calculation for each fiscal year. Not a Governor’s budget proposal and not a receipt.
The payload this page draws is published whole at /data/ch70-formula.json. The twenty-year series behind it — the aid components term by term, the peer districts on the same per-pupil rate, and the wealth calculation behind the required contribution — is on why we only get minimum aid, and state aid as a whole, of which Chapter 70 is the largest part, is on state aid.