Right now we have an unusual opportunity to make progress toward more equitable funding for public schools in Northampton. First, because our new superintendent, Annie Azarloza, will likely provide much needed new leadership, advocacy and engagement for our district.
And second, because last November we elected a progressive school committee majority that believes that our city must change the way it funds schools. Not only was that clear when they campaigned, but also from the majority’s two critical votes this spring: Approving the “strong budget” for schools, and recommending that the City Council adopt the legal “opt-in” measure, which would allow that body to vote to increase the school budget.
This unprecedented level of agreement by a majority of the group means that they, unlike most elected bodies, can use its power as an alliance to make change happen. But the question is: will they?
To be sure, it is hard to form an effective work team. And it doesn’t happen instantly. Most of you have probably attended a “team building” workshop at work where you’ve learned the four stages of becoming a team: “Forming,” “Storming,” “Norming, and “Performing.”
Unfortunately, since their term started in January 2026, the school committee has been tossed by storm after storm, with “norming” not even visible on the distant horizon. The pressure system driving these tempests is filled with a passion for political pugilism, power struggles and opposition. And none of it is helping kids or schools in Northampton.
In fact, school committee meetings have frequently been eaten up with internal administrative dustups over meeting schedules, the choice of facilitator for a group retreat, or — the very worst — the tortuous, heated duels over inconsequential Roberts Rules minutiae. There seems to be no hill so inconsequential that some members won’t die on it — at great length.
The inflated drama, fabricated rivalry and apparent zeal for schism on every point bring to mind a municipal version of the reality show “Survivor,” albeit with bad lighting and terrible costuming. But even on “Survivor,” participants must form regular alliances with opponents to meet challenges.
And like reality show contestants, politicians often maintain some relationships with colleagues so they can find occasional common ground. Bridges aren’t quickly burned. But in contrast, on the school committee, a group composed primarily of people in agreement about the major issue facing them, there is a tendency by some to pry the group apart by amplifying minor differences in style or strategy rather than build on their abundant agreement. Some in the group actually seem intent on a kind of reverse political alchemy: converting allies into opponents.
Of course, there is an audience who are likely cheering this season of School Committee Survivor. They are the people who want to maintain the current austerity budgets for schools. They know that a school committee so busy with hill-dying and bridge-burning won’t be able to build a vigorous, united and strategic campaign to bring about school funding improvements.
This is not a request for the phony ”collaboration” or “civility” used as code for “obedience.” And no one wants “manufactured consent.” But the “manufactured contempt” directed primarily at the actions and the presumed motives of most newly elected members may soon kill any hope for effective collective action. And how many meetings will it take to extinguish the ambitions of any potential candidate for school committee who happen to be watching the meetings?
Instead, I’m writing to ask our school committee members to decide what they want to achieve, and commit to cobbling together the trust, respect, and relationships building necessary to reach their goals.
Let’s also acknowledge that there are no saviors on the school committee; no single “winner” of this “Survivor” season. There are only a bunch of imperfect human beings trying to figure it out. Members bring individual talents, professional experience, perspectives and intelligence: our schools need them all.
We need school committee members who can engage, encourage and inspire their colleagues — and the public — to stand with them to reach a big goal: more equitable funding of public schools. Shame, belittlement, and derision are not going to get us there. We need more of the persuasive and less of the punitive. We need the critique, but we also need the willingness to try new things which many committee members bring.
School committee, we want you to stop fighting each other. We want you to fight together for the students of Northampton. They are the ones that need to survive.
Cathy McNally lives in Northampton.