Analysis: Town and Schools

Teacher contracts: what the settlement decides

Salaries are 50% of the school budget, bargained three years at a time, and the teachers’ agreement runs out on June 30, 2027 — in the middle of the budget this site is about. Each half a point on the next settlement is worth $66,741 to next year’s gap. Holding the line to the levy cap while the scale still moves is not a pay freeze; it is 2.2 fewer positions a year.

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/model.json

What this report counts

A projection from the district’s salary lines and the union agreement as published: what the gap does at each settlement rate, and what a rate means in people at the catalogue’s own cost per position. Dollars of appropriation and positions, not pay slips; the model does not know who is on which step.

$66,741

on next year’s gap for each half a percentage point on the settlement

22%

of the gap comes from salaries growing 4% against a 2.5% cap — from a line 50% of the budget

2.2 FTE

a year the district would lose holding the line to the cap while the contract pays 4%

June 30, 2027

when the teachers’ agreement expires; notice to reopen is due November 1, 2026

If you read nothing else

01$66,741

The contract is the biggest lever the town has not yet pulled: each half a point off the next settlement is $66,741 off the FY28 gap, every year after too.

The projection assumes 4.0%, which costs $533,929 next year on its own. At 2.5% the FY28 gap is $730,050; at 5.0% it is $1,063,755. The last agreement moved the scale 10.33% over three years (2.5%, 4.0%, 3.5%), with steps of about 3.3% on top for anyone not at the maximum.

022.2 FTE

Held to the cap by attrition instead of at the table, the line sheds 2.2 positions a year — 14% of the staff in ten.

A line can only grow slower than the pay on it by carrying fewer people. At the catalogue’s $89,096 a position and roughly 150 positions, the difference between 4% and 2.5% is 2.2 a year, for ever. The other way to the same line is a settlement at the cap with the staff intact — which is the table, not the budget.

03$619k

A settlement at the cap shrinks the gap and does not close it: raises of 2.5% instead of 3.4% would have made next year’s gap $619k rather than $930k, and FY32’s $3.39M rather than $3.76M.

A smaller settlement is a level shift, not a slope change: it lowers every year at once and slows nothing down. Health insurance still rises 9%, the levy is still capped at 2.5%, so the effect is dramatic next year and modest by FY32. The counterfactual is on 94% of the salary line — the $12.51M the teachers’ agreement covers — and a teacher at the middle of the scale (Master’s, step 5, $72,441) would be paid 2.4% less today.

What this does not show

What teachers should be paid, or what the district can hire at. The model prices a rate; it does not know the market for a chemistry teacher in Worcester County. Nor does it model steps and lanes, which move the line whatever the scale does. Salaries at 4% alone consume 1.98% of the revenue rate — the whole of it — so every other line at the cap still leaves the blend at 3.24%: this line cannot be left out of any answer, and it cannot be the whole of one.

Read the settlement, rate by rateThe full version2 min

The gap at each settlement

Everything else held where the projection has it; only the salary rate moves.

settlement	FY28 gap	FY32 gap
0.0% (a freeze)	$396,344	$865,114
2.5% (the levy cap)	$730,050	$2,619,179
3.0%	$796,791	$2,991,139
3.5%	$863,532	$3,370,391
4.0% (assumed)	$930,273	$3,757,043
5.0%	$1,063,755	$4,552,980

The same line, in people

Holding the salary line to a rate below the contract’s means fewer people on it. At 4% pay and a 2.5% line: 2.2 positions a year; 14% of the staff gone in ten years, 25% in twenty. Held to the cap for ten years the line takes $13.39M out of the decade’s gaps — the same figure whether it is done at the table or by attrition, which is the whole choice.

If the last three raises had been smaller

raises had been	payroll lower by	FY28 gap	FY32 gap
as agreed (2.5%, 4.0%, 3.5%)	—	$930,273	$3,757,043
3.0% a year	$120,044 (1.0%)	$805,427	$3,610,992
2.5% a year	$299,678 (2.4%)	$618,608	$3,392,440
2.0% a year	$477,567 (3.8%)	$433,603	$3,176,010
1.0% a year	$828,148 (6.6%)	$68,999	$2,749,475
0.0% a year	$1,171,855 (9.4%)	-$288,456	$2,331,302

Read the last column against the first: the counterfactual that halves next year’s gap leaves FY32’s most of what it was. That is what “a level shift, not a slope change” means, and it is why the loud position on each side is wrong — the raises are not why there is a gap, and a smaller settlement would not have ended it.

Who pays

The people on the scale, in pay; or the people not on it next year, in a job. There is no third party. A settlement at the cap with the staff intact costs every teacher the difference between 2.5% and what the market pays; a settlement at the market with the line held costs 2.2 colleagues a year. The scale runs from $50,790 to $102,459.

What it does not do

It does not touch health insurance, which is bargained separately and grows 9%; the two lines together are 64% of the budget and the only two that change the rate. And it decides nothing before June 30, 2027: the FY28 budget will be built on a settlement that does not yet exist.

What would settle it: the successor agreement itself, or the district’s bargaining parameters if the School Committee adopts any in public session; and DESE’s staffing file for FY28, which would turn the position arithmetic here into a count.

School staffing — did it go up, and over which years →The measurement this page draws on.Every option, side by side →Priced the same way, to five years and ten.The crisis page →Why it is a rate problem, in five numbers.

Every other report

The budget feed — every board, everything about money →What the town is deciding now →The blog — one finding at a time, in two minutes →This week in town — meetings coming up, minutes and recordings just posted →The boards — each one, in one place →Meeting minutes — written from the recordings →Lunenburg by the numbers — who lives here →Lunenburg’s homes and the tax bill →Homes and students — the town builds, the schools do not grow →The boards, compared →Youth sports and the fields →The School Committee’s finances — every fund and line it owns →Parks & Recreation — the department, its fund, its sales, its grounds →Health insurance →Free cash — can it fill the gap? →School user and athletic fees →Extracurriculars — sports, music and clubs →Classroom positions and class size →Overrides →Commercial development and new growth →Special education — four reports →How many students one special education group may have →The circuit breaker — what the state reimburses for the costliest placements →What other districts spend, for each pupil →What the state requires us to spend — and where that puts us →Chapter 70 — the formula, and why it pays the floor →How Chapter 70 actually works, in eight steps →School staffing — did it go up, and over which years →Who works in each school →The paraprofessionals →What courses actually ran, subject by subject →AP exams — who sits them, in what, and how they score →The cut register — what was announced, and what shows →Funding that stopped →When a grant ends — who picks up the bill →Who is in the schools — enrolment, FY1994 to today →Which grades students leave in →Who leaves Lunenburg schools, and where they go →Monty Tech — the assessment, and what sets it →If students leave — what school choice would cost →What a family actually pays →What sports cost, and who pays →Health insurance — the cost outside the school budget →Budget against reported spending →

Every analysis this project has written, in one index, is at reports.