Analyses

What the state requires us to spend

The one school spending figure Massachusetts enforces, and where Lunenburg sits against every other district — FY1994 to FY2024 measured, and FY2026 budgeted.

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/spending-vs-required.json

238 of 362

where Lunenburg ranked in FY2024, the most recent MEASURED year — highest multiple of its own required minimum first

90 of 354

its best position on record, in FY1997

14 of 31

measured years at or above the state median. “Always a low spender” is not what this series says

0 of 31

years below the minimum the state requires. The town has never been out of compliance on the one measure that is enforced

$2,534,627

the FY2024 gap between what Lunenburg spent and what the median district’s ratio would have come to on the same requirement. Arithmetic on a published median — not a proposal anybody made

What this page establishes

Finding 1

Lunenburg has met the enforced floor in every one of the 31 measured years.

Chapter 70 sets a required net school spending figure per district and a town below it is out of compliance. Lunenburg’s narrowest year was FY1996 — $7,818,112 against a requirement of $7,793,201, $24,911 clear. Everything else on this site is a budget somebody chose; this is the floor underneath, and it has held.

Finding 2

It sat at or above the state median in 14 of 31 years — and landed exactly on it in FY2018.

In FY2018 Lunenburg spent 1.2978 times its requirement against a state median of 1.2978 — the same figure to four decimal places, and $690 apart on a requirement of $16,554,528. The story the town tells about itself is that it has always been a low spender. Against the measure the state enforces, it has not been.

Finding 3

The fall is RECENT, and that makes it a different problem from a permanent condition.

From rank 181 of 361 in FY2018 to 238 of 362 in FY2024. That is the weakest position since FY2005, when it was 289 of 363. A condition that has held for thirty years and a change that began six years ago have different causes and different remedies. This page establishes which of the two it is. It does not establish why.

Finding 4

The ratio went UP while the position went down. That is why the rank is the measure and the ratio is not.

In FY1997, Lunenburg’s best year, it spent 1.1252 times its requirement. In FY2024 it spent 1.1598 times — a HIGHER multiple, at rank 238 instead of 90. The state median moved from 1.0590 to 1.2821 underneath it. A ratio that rises can still be a district falling behind, because the requirement is recomputed every year from enrolment and municipal wealth and every other district is moving too.

Finding 5

Below the median is not the bottom tenth, and on this measure Lunenburg is not near the bottom.

In FY2024 the town spent 1.1598 times its requirement against a state first quartile of 1.0952 and a third quartile of 1.5721 — inside the middle half of the state, below its middle. Across the whole series it has been below the first quartile in 2 years: FY1996, FY2005. That is a different finding from what other districts spend, and the two are not in conflict — see below.

Finding 6

What the gap to the median is worth in FY2024: $2,534,627. It is arithmetic, not a proposal.

$20,730,114 of required spending at the state’s median ratio of 1.2821 is $26,578,079. Lunenburg spent $24,043,452. The difference is a subtraction on a published median: nobody has proposed it, no programme is costed against it, and nothing here says what it would buy.

Does any of this measure the reductions?

No, and that is the first thing to know before quoting any figure here. The most recent MEASURED year is FY2024. The budget reductions the town argued about run from FY2025 onward, and both years DESE publishes for that period are BUDGETED rather than spent. So nothing on this page shows what the cuts did to Lunenburg’s position, in either direction — and the year it will show in is a year DESE has not published yet.

Two stages, and they are never one series

nss_stage is ACTUAL for FY1994–FY2024 and BUDGETED for FY2025–FY2026. These are two stages of one quantity and are never differenced, never averaged, and never drawn as one line. Everything above is the ACTUAL years only. The budgeted years are drawn on every chart in a dashed line with hollow markers so the difference survives a reader who does not read this box, and they are listed on their own below.

Where Lunenburg ranked, year by year

Every district in the Commonwealth, ranked by how large a multiple of its own required minimum it spent. Highest first, so a line climbing toward the top of the chart is a district moving up the field.

Lunenburg’s rank — actual spendingthe same rank on BUDGETED spending, a different stagethe middle of the field that year

DESE’s net school spending comparison — 31 measured years, FY1994–FY2024, and 2 budgeted

Year	Required minimum	Net school spending	Ratio	State median	Rank, highest first	Against the median ratio
FY1994	$6,689,502	$6,951,622	1.0392	1.0152	103 of 368	−$160,440
FY1995	$7,381,674	$7,468,739	1.0118	1.0206	238 of 349	+$64,997
FY1996	$7,793,201	$7,818,112	1.0032	1.0438	306 of 354	+$316,431
FY1997	$7,932,077	$8,925,219	1.1252	1.0590	90 of 354	−$525,149
FY1998	$8,463,386	$9,540,942	1.1273	1.0718	110 of 357	−$469,885
FY1999	$8,847,214	$9,946,571	1.1243	1.0708	118 of 359	−$472,974
FY2000	$9,352,211	$10,324,128	1.1039	1.0658	125 of 357	−$356,542
FY2001	$9,893,972	$11,025,671	1.1144	1.0775	127 of 358	−$364,916
FY2002	$10,795,850	$11,950,457	1.1069	1.0941	159 of 356	−$138,718
FY2003	$11,142,331	$12,682,682	1.1382	1.0939	131 of 355	−$494,086
FY2004	$11,521,283	$12,577,557	1.0917	1.1178	221 of 353	+$300,933
FY2005	$11,805,116	$12,477,955	1.0570	1.1403	289 of 363	+$983,419
FY2006	$12,310,433	$13,976,437	1.1353	1.1546	210 of 361	+$237,189
FY2007	$12,793,325	$14,561,883	1.1382	1.1604	207 of 364	+$283,491
FY2008	$13,199,279	$14,903,224	1.1291	1.1675	212 of 360	+$506,934
FY2009	$13,705,599	$15,155,736	1.1465	1.1872	211 of 362	+$1,115,551
FY2010	$13,550,875	$15,471,660	1.1417	1.1436	188 of 368	+$25,121
FY2011	$13,334,963	$15,548,411	1.1660	1.1660	165 of 327	+$156
FY2012	$13,504,496	$16,265,437	1.2044	1.1810	165 of 365	−$316,627
FY2013	$14,408,823	$16,958,752	1.1770	1.1677	171 of 360	−$133,569
FY2014	$14,787,979	$17,672,191	1.1950	1.1785	167 of 357	−$244,558
FY2015	$14,980,028	$18,452,511	1.2318	1.2173	173 of 356	−$217,323
FY2016	$15,341,250	$19,004,427	1.2388	1.2512	186 of 364	+$190,545
FY2017	$15,538,425	$19,861,673	1.2782	1.2801	184 of 364	+$29,065
FY2018	$16,554,528	$21,483,776	1.2978	1.2978	181 of 361	+$690
FY2019	$17,216,743	$22,038,813	1.2801	1.3164	195 of 361	+$625,308
FY2020	$17,948,505	$22,275,868	1.2411	1.3034	211 of 361	+$1,118,213
FY2021	$18,301,715	$22,735,918	1.2423	1.2971	201 of 358	+$1,003,236
FY2022	$18,731,996	$23,919,189	1.2769	1.2948	191 of 361	+$334,999
FY2023	$20,056,630	$24,273,713	1.2103	1.2747	219 of 361	+$1,292,473
FY2024	$20,730,114	$24,043,452	1.1598	1.2821	238 of 362	+$2,534,627
FY2025 (budgeted)	$21,584,939	$25,420,400	1.1777	1.2961	217 of 339	+$2,555,840
FY2026 (budgeted)	$22,564,041	$27,085,833	1.2004	1.3119	217 of 340	+$2,515,932

The last column is the year’s required minimum at the state’s MEDIAN ratio, less what Lunenburg spent: a positive figure is less than a median district would have spent on the same requirement, a negative one is more. It is a subtraction on a published median and not a costed programme. The rows marked budgeted are a different stage of the same quantity and are never differenced against the rest. The number of districts changes from year to year, which is why a rank is only readable beside its denominator.

What this does not show

A rank is not an effort measure and this one moves for reasons that are not Lunenburg. Districts enter and leave the comparison — the denominator on this table ranges across the series — and the median moves when other towns pass overrides, receive different aid, or have their own requirements recomputed. A year in which Lunenburg did nothing differently can still change its rank.

And a rank says nothing about what any of the spending bought. Two districts at the same multiple of their own requirements may have entirely different class sizes, programmes and caseloads, because the requirement itself is built from each district’s own enrolment and its town’s wealth.

The ratio, against the whole state

The same years as a multiple of the required minimum, with the state’s middle half drawn behind. The band is the reason the ratio must not be read on its own: Lunenburg’s line rises across the series and so does everybody else’s.

Lunenburg, actual spending over its own requirementLunenburg, BUDGETED — a different stagethe median district, same measurethe middle half of every district in the state

Lunenburgthe median districtthe 25th to the 75th percentile of every district

Lunenburg against the state distribution, 31 measured years

Year	Lunenburg	First quartile	Median	Third quartile	Inside the middle half
FY1994	1.0392	1.0000	1.0152	1.0434	yes
FY1995	1.0118	1.0077	1.0206	1.0487	yes
FY1996	1.0032	1.0132	1.0438	1.1055	no
FY1997	1.1252	1.0203	1.0590	1.1264	yes
FY1998	1.1273	1.0246	1.0718	1.1505	yes
FY1999	1.1243	1.0153	1.0708	1.1600	yes
FY2000	1.1039	1.0129	1.0658	1.1415	yes
FY2001	1.1144	1.0277	1.0775	1.1527	yes
FY2002	1.1069	1.0392	1.0941	1.1859	yes
FY2003	1.1382	1.0361	1.0939	1.2034	yes
FY2004	1.0917	1.0590	1.1178	1.2286	yes
FY2005	1.0570	1.0706	1.1403	1.2349	no
FY2006	1.1353	1.0815	1.1546	1.2788	yes
FY2007	1.1382	1.0691	1.1604	1.2809	yes
FY2008	1.1291	1.0603	1.1675	1.2988	yes
FY2009	1.1465	1.0787	1.1872	1.3293	yes
FY2010	1.1417	1.0336	1.1436	1.3116	yes
FY2011	1.1660	1.0662	1.1660	1.3335	yes
FY2012	1.2044	1.0598	1.1810	1.3567	yes
FY2013	1.1770	1.0554	1.1677	1.3534	yes
FY2014	1.1950	1.0517	1.1785	1.3620	yes
FY2015	1.2318	1.0627	1.2173	1.4006	yes
FY2016	1.2388	1.0683	1.2512	1.4286	yes
FY2017	1.2782	1.0767	1.2801	1.4765	yes
FY2018	1.2978	1.1044	1.2978	1.5356	yes
FY2019	1.2801	1.1292	1.3164	1.5516	yes
FY2020	1.2411	1.1063	1.3034	1.5392	yes
FY2021	1.2423	1.1199	1.2971	1.5648	yes
FY2022	1.2769	1.1149	1.2948	1.5944	yes
FY2023	1.2103	1.1060	1.2747	1.5653	yes
FY2024	1.1598	1.0952	1.2821	1.5721	yes

Thirty-one measured years is far longer than anything else on this site, and length is worth something here for a specific reason: boards in this town are reluctant to look forward two years. A series this long is the only place a reader can see that the current position is a departure from Lunenburg’s own record rather than a continuation of it. The quartiles are the state’s own distribution in the same year, published beside the median.

What was required, and what was spent

The ratio charts answer “how far above”. This one answers the question they hide: how much of the movement is the town, and how much is the requirement.

net school spending, as reportedthe minimum Chapter 70 required that year

Between FY2018 and FY2024, net school spending rose 11.9% and the required minimum rose 25.2%. $21,483,776 to $24,043,452 against $16,554,528 to $20,730,114. Both figures are the same stage, the same table and the same district, so they may be read against each other. The position fell because the requirement outran the spending, and not because the spending fell — it did not.

What this does not show

That the requirement outran the spending is a measurement. Why it did is not. The required minimum is Chapter 70 aid plus the town’s required local contribution, and the contribution is recomputed each year from the town’s property wealth and income rather than from anything the schools do. Both halves are on why we only get minimum aid.

And net school spending is not the school budget. It excludes debt service, capital, transportation and food service — stated in the town’s own record, quoted below. No line in the town’s appropriation or the district’s budget book equals the figure on this page, and nothing in this archive maps one onto the other. That is a registered gap.

The gap to the median, in dollars

Our arithmetic, and not a proposal anybody made

Each bar is the year’s required minimum multiplied by the state’s median ratio, less what Lunenburg actually spent. It is a subtraction on a published median. No costed programme sits behind any of these figures, nobody has proposed any of them, and nothing here says what the money would have bought or where it would have come from.

above the line: less than a median district would have spent

What a median ratio would have come to, 31 measured years

Year	Required minimum	At the state median ratio	Spent	Difference
FY1994	$6,689,502	$6,791,182	$6,951,622	−$160,440
FY1995	$7,381,674	$7,533,736	$7,468,739	+$64,997
FY1996	$7,793,201	$8,134,543	$7,818,112	+$316,431
FY1997	$7,932,077	$8,400,070	$8,925,219	−$525,149
FY1998	$8,463,386	$9,071,057	$9,540,942	−$469,885
FY1999	$8,847,214	$9,473,597	$9,946,571	−$472,974
FY2000	$9,352,211	$9,967,586	$10,324,128	−$356,542
FY2001	$9,893,972	$10,660,755	$11,025,671	−$364,916
FY2002	$10,795,850	$11,811,739	$11,950,457	−$138,718
FY2003	$11,142,331	$12,188,596	$12,682,682	−$494,086
FY2004	$11,521,283	$12,878,490	$12,577,557	+$300,933
FY2005	$11,805,116	$13,461,374	$12,477,955	+$983,419
FY2006	$12,310,433	$14,213,626	$13,976,437	+$237,189
FY2007	$12,793,325	$14,845,374	$14,561,883	+$283,491
FY2008	$13,199,279	$15,410,158	$14,903,224	+$506,934
FY2009	$13,705,599	$16,271,287	$15,155,736	+$1,115,551
FY2010	$13,550,875	$15,496,781	$15,471,660	+$25,121
FY2011	$13,334,963	$15,548,567	$15,548,411	+$156
FY2012	$13,504,496	$15,948,810	$16,265,437	−$316,627
FY2013	$14,408,823	$16,825,182	$16,958,752	−$133,569
FY2014	$14,787,979	$17,427,633	$17,672,191	−$244,558
FY2015	$14,980,028	$18,235,188	$18,452,511	−$217,323
FY2016	$15,341,250	$19,194,972	$19,004,427	+$190,545
FY2017	$15,538,425	$19,890,738	$19,861,673	+$29,065
FY2018	$16,554,528	$21,484,466	$21,483,776	+$690
FY2019	$17,216,743	$22,664,120	$22,038,813	+$625,308
FY2020	$17,948,505	$23,394,081	$22,275,868	+$1,118,213
FY2021	$18,301,715	$23,739,155	$22,735,918	+$1,003,236
FY2022	$18,731,996	$24,254,188	$23,919,189	+$334,999
FY2023	$20,056,630	$25,566,186	$24,273,713	+$1,292,473
FY2024	$20,730,114	$26,578,079	$24,043,452	+$2,534,627

A negative difference is a year in which Lunenburg spent MORE than a median district would have on the same requirement. There are 12 of them.

The two budgeted years, on their own

These are the most recent years DESE publishes and they are a different stage of the quantity: what the district budgeted, not what it later reported spending. They are here rather than merged, and the difference between them and the measured series is not a measurement of anything.

BUDGETED net school spending — a different stage, never differenced against the measured years

Year	Required minimum	Net school spending	Ratio	State median	Rank, highest first	Against the median ratio
FY2025	$21,584,939	$25,420,400	1.1777	1.2961	217 of 339	+$2,555,840
FY2026	$22,564,041	$27,085,833	1.2004	1.3119	217 of 340	+$2,515,932

nss_stage is ACTUAL for FY1994–FY2024 and BUDGETED for FY2025–FY2026. These are two stages of one quantity and are never differenced, never averaged, and never drawn as one line. The most recent MEASURED position Lunenburg has against the state is therefore FY2024, and any statement about where the town sits now rests on a budget somebody voted rather than on money anybody spent. The same figure appears on why we only get minimum aid and on what other districts spend: it is the same number at the same stage, and this page is the one that holds the long measured series behind it.

Two other measurements, neither derived from this one

Three pages on this site now measure how much Lunenburg spends on its schools against other districts. They use different sources, different denominators and different years, and none of them is computed from another. Read them as independent readings that happen to point the same way, and never as one figure confirming another’s exact amount.

What other districts spend

DESE’s per-pupil finance file, FY2025: Lunenburg 310th of 318 districts on total spending for each pupil, and an in-district gap to the median peer district of $3,299,397 in FY2025. Different measure. Dollars over a pupil count, against every district’s dollars over their pupil counts — no requirement in it anywhere. Its gap figure and this page’s are the same order of magnitude and are arrived at from different files by different arithmetic. They must not be averaged, added, or presented as one estimate.

Why we only get minimum aid

The other half of the requirement on this page: Chapter 70’s formula, term by term, and how the required local contribution is built from the town’s wealth rather than from its children. It reports the FY2026 ratio of 1.2004, which is the BUDGETED figure in the table above — the same number at the same stage, not a disagreement. This page is where the long measured series lives.

What the town has said about it

Every quote is re-read out of the meeting archive on each build and the build stops if one is no longer in the document it is attributed to. The pattern across them is itself the finding, and it is a negative one. This measure reaches Lunenburg’s Finance Committee almost entirely inside ANOTHER district’s budget presentation. A member asked where the state sits on exactly this ratio and no figure for Lunenburg Public Schools was put beside it.

“Evan Watters reiterates that the state is spending an average of 126% and asks how that works. Tammy Crockett states each school gets a different net school spending number. It changes from district to district and is a balancing act of what each town can afford. If you go below 95% you won’t get the chapter 70 increases.”

Finance Committee · minutes · 2024-03-20 · our copy · the town’s

THE QUESTION THIS PAGE ANSWERS, ASKED IN PUBLIC AND LEFT OPEN. A Finance Committee member asks where the state sits on exactly this ratio; the answer given is that it differs by district. It was asked during MONTY TECH’s budget presentation, by its business manager, and no figure for Lunenburg Public Schools was put beside it. The 126% is a statewide AVERAGE as stated; every state figure on this page is a MEDIAN, which is a different statistic and is not compared to it here.

“This is the minimum spending every school district must spend not including debt services, capital transportation, meals.”

Finance Committee · minutes · 2024-03-20 · our copy · the town’s

WHAT NET SCHOOL SPENDING IS, said to the Finance Committee in the town’s own record. The exclusions are the reason no line in the town’s budget or the district’s book equals the figure on this page — which is registered as a gap rather than reconciled here. The dollar amount in the same passage is MONTY TECH’s requirement, not Lunenburg’s.

“Tammy Crockett conﬁrms that the above net school spending and capital are not mandated.”

Finance Committee · minutes · 2025-03-06 · our copy · the town’s

THE WHOLE SUBJECT OF THIS PAGE IN ONE SENTENCE, said about another district: the amount ABOVE the required minimum is the part nobody has to spend. Every district’s position in the ranking is made of that part.

“According to Massachusetts State reports Lunenburg per pupil expenditure is listed 361 out of 401 districts in Massachusetts. This means that we're in the top 20% for school performance while being in the bottom 10% for spending”

School Committee · minutes · 2024-01-24 · our copy · the town’s

THE STORY THE TOWN TELLS ABOUT ITSELF, in public comment during the FY2025 cuts. It is about PER PUPIL spending, which is a different measure from this one and is on /what-other-districts-spend. Against the measure the state enforces, the position is nothing like the bottom tenth — which is the correction this page exists to make, in the town’s favour and not against it. Neither figure in the quote is checkable here: this archive holds no statewide MCAS distribution, and the 401 denominator is not the one DESE publishes for district finance.

One thing that could be done differently next year

The question was asked at the Finance Committee and the answer never arrived, because the presentation in front of the room was another district’s. The figure is published: it is two columns of the same DESE workbook the town already receives every year, and it takes a rank and a median beside Lunenburg’s own ratio to answer. Putting those three numbers in the annual Chapter 70 briefing would settle in one line a question that has been open in the minutes since 2024-03-20. Nothing about that requires a records request or a new document.

What was searched, and how much of the archive could be

The meeting archive, by term

Term	Documents that match
net school spending	3
required minimum	4
foundation budget	7
per pupil expenditure	2
underfunded	10
levy limit	16
override	194

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 a term with few matches is a statement about the readable archive and never about what anybody said. Note what the counts show anyway: the word residents use for this subject is override, and underfunded in this town almost always means the capital plan rather than the schools.

Why there is no town-side line on any of these charts

Because Massachusetts does not set one. Required net school spending is a floor under the schools and this archive holds no equivalent state-enforced minimum for any other municipal department — not the fire department, not the library, not public works — and none of the town’s own budget documents names one. So the comparison a reader may want, of how far each side of the town budget sits above its own mandated floor, cannot be drawn here: only one side has a floor.

What this does not show

That is a fact about the statute, not a claim that the schools are treated better or worse. A department with no minimum is not thereby under-funded and is not thereby protected; it is simply not measured this way. A reader reaching for “the schools are held to a standard nobody else is” or “the schools get a guarantee nobody else gets” will find both readings fit this page equally well, and it chooses neither.

What this cannot say

WHETHER THIS IS A CHOICE OR A CEILING. The levy limit, two failed overrides, the district’s request and Town Meeting’s vote all resolve into this one number, and nothing here separates them.

WHAT THE MONEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT. The gap to the median is arithmetic on a published median. It is not a costed programme and nobody has proposed it.

THAT THE RATIO MEASURES EFFORT. It moves when the REQUIREMENT moves, and the requirement is recomputed each year from enrolment and municipal wealth. That is why the rank against other districts is carried beside it.

WHAT WOULD SETTLE THE MEASUREMENT ITSELF. Nothing further is needed to measure this — DESE publishes it annually. What is not published is WHY a district lands where it does, which is a question about town meetings rather than about data.

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 out

What Lunenburg’s net school spending actually was in the two most recent years

DESE publishes net school spending against the Chapter 70 requirement for thirty-three fiscal years, and the last two of them are BUDGETED rather than actual — the column carries a stage flag saying so. So the most recent MEASURED position Lunenburg has against the state is FY2024, and every statement about where the town sits NOW rests on a budget somebody voted rather than on money anybody spent. The two may not be differenced and are never drawn as one line, which is why /what-the-state-requires-us-to-spend carries them as separate series.

Closes: DESE’s Chapter 70 district profile workbook for the year in which FY2025 moves into the actual column, published annually at educationtocareer.data.mass.gov; the district’s own End of Year Financial Report to DESE for FY2025 is the filing that produces it.

money out

How the district’s own accounts add up to the net school spending DESE reports

Net school spending excludes debt service, capital, transportation and food service — stated in the town’s own record, to the Finance Committee on 20 March 2024: “This is the minimum spending every school district must spend not including debt services, capital transportation, meals.” Because of those exclusions no figure in the town’s appropriation, the district’s budget book or the MUNIS ledger equals the net school spending DESE reports, and nothing in this archive maps the district’s line items onto DESE’s definition. So a reader cannot get from a budget line they can see to the one number the state enforces.

Closes: the district’s End of Year Financial Report as filed with DESE, whose schedules derive net school spending from the district’s own accounts line by line; requestable from the Superintendent’s office or from DESE.

money out

Whether spending less per pupil is a choice or a constraint

Lunenburg’s total per-pupil spending has been below the statewide first quartile in every one of the seventeen years DESE publishes, and its net school spending is a smaller multiple of the required minimum than the median district’s. Nothing in any of these documents distinguishes a town that decided to spend less from a town that could not raise more: the levy limit, two failed overrides, the district’s proposed budget and Town Meeting’s vote all resolve into the same single number, and the number is the outcome of all of them at once. This matters because the two readings imply opposite remedies.

Closes: nothing published settles it; the nearest evidence is the district’s own level-service request against the appropriation voted, year by year, which the archive holds for FY2024 onward only.

The document behind this

cross-checkedevery year’s required minimum against Chapter 70 aid plus the town’s required contribution

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Our copy is dese-ch70-district-profile.xlsx (3.8 MB), fetched from https://educationtocareer.data.mass.gov/d/qt58-634r. Its sha256 is a0dc63bc9d515b28614c0ac5a0de70402a3e8a22dab1a4333e516808ad62df61. Required net school spending is the floor Chapter 70 sets. A district below it is out of compliance. This is the one spending measure the state enforces rather than observes.

The payload this page draws is published whole at /data/spending-vs-required.json, and the rows behind it — dese_ch70_formula and dese_ch70_statewide — can be queried directly from the database.