RichardHowe.com – Voices from Lowell & Beyond

Lowell Stories: The Faith Home

This is the third of our Lowell Stories series, which we hope to make a regular feature on this website. If you have a story to share, get in touch and we’ll help preserve it in print. We’ll even write it for you if that would help. 

Richard Howe

Lowell Stories: The Faith Home:  Orphanage Funded by the “Faith” of Georgianna “Ma” Foss

by Melissa Franks

Sharyn Hardy, a Lowell native, guided me to this story about the gem of a woman who was Mrs. Georgianna “Ma” Foss, founder of the Faith Home, who sought to mother the motherless of Lowell’s own “huddled masses” for nearly 40 years.  

Sharyn, along with her parents, Raymond and Shirley (Trull) Hardy, are members of  the Faith Home’s Board of Directors, as were her grandparents on both Hardy and Trull sides.  Since it began operating as a charitable trust in the mid-1960s, donations from the Faith Home to varied organizations continue to support Greater Lowell area children.

—–

From the late 19^th to the early 20^th century, at least seven orphanages were founded in Lowell, ranging from the first, small Theodore Edson Orphange (~1875) run out of Parish Hall in St. Anne’s Church, to the large and enduring Franco-American Orphanage (~1908), which operated into the 1960’s before becoming a school.

In forming these orphanages, both churches and charity-minded individuals rallied to support the rising and critical need to care for the city’s many destitute children.  But from its start, the Faith Home stood as unique—this due to its founder, Mrs. Georgianna Foss, and her belief that “Faith” alone would provide the needed funding.

“Ma Foss”: more mother than matron for the Faith Home’s first 40 years

In 1883, Rev. O. E. Mallory of the Tabernacle Baptist Church identified Georgianna as the perfect caretaker for a “motherless daughter.”  Shortly thereafter, Georgianna opened the Faith Home “for the purpose of receiving and caring for orphans, neglected and destitute children.”  And for the next 40 years she served as its matron, known to all as “Ma Foss.”

Orphaned at the age of 4 and widowed without children at 35, Georgianna’s experiences compelled her calling, but her faith defined it.  With just $100 and some household goods, Georgianna established and abided by four guiding convictions:

1. She would not ask anyone for a penny, but would “ring the door-bell of heaven” and depend on God alone.
2. She would incur no debt.
3. She would provide no information related to the home’s or wards’ needs:  “Because it was the Lord’s work, she would trust in Him to provide all needed supplies.”
4. She would not receive a child until she prayed and “became convinced that the Lord would have her look after this child for Him.”

In other words, Georgianna based her work on the belief that “faith” would provide.   It did.  Her diaries are replete with stories of seemingly miraculous just-in-time answers to unannounced needs, from food to clothing to financial gifts.  As recounted in a 1938 history of the Faith Home:

“When the flour barrel was empty… a barrel would roll up to the back door…. When grace had been said at the supper table, and only a dish of rhubarb made up the evening meal, a ring at the front door, and a knock at the back door, would announce the arrival of bread at one door, and butter at the other, both coming in the nick of time.”

The Faith Home’s first long-term address was 249 Westford Street, at the corner of Westford and School.   There “Ma Foss” typically cared for between 18 and 22 children.

Under her roof, children found not an institution, but a nurturing home, receiving food, clothing and lodging, girded by regular education and religion.  Public school attendance was compulsory, as was Sunday School at Tabernacle Baptist (which changed its name to Calvary Baptist when it moved to 60 Hastings Street, its current location).  While some of her charges came for short stints only, over her 40-year tenure she raised more than 100 children for periods of two to 14 years, per her obituary.

After her death in 1922, the Faith Home continued to thrive through the 1950s, even as it adhered to Ma Foss’s strictures  A Lowell Sun article published in December 1954 to mark the Faith Home’s 71^st year says:  “The unique thing about the home is that it exists entirely on faith—the public has never in the 70 year history of the institution been asked to contribute a dime to its support.” 

Over the years, “unsolicited” gifts were invested into an endowment, and other committed matrons and members took the home’s helm.   In 1938, the Faith Home moved to 1039 Middlesex Street, a house bequeathed by Doctor George L. Van Dursen, the Faith Home’s friend and physician for years.   In 1964, the property was sold and the funds put into a charitable trust which—to this day—continues to provide for children in the Greater Lowell Area.

1089 Middlesex Street when it housed the Faith Home

PICTURE w/caption:  1089 Middlesex Street when it housed the Faith Home

Lowell orphanages, in addition to the above mentioned, also included St. Peter’s Orphanage (~1877, originally on Appleton, it moved to 530 Stevens Street in 1913, eventually becoming Keith Hall, then Lowell Catholic); Ayer Home for Young Women and Children (~1892, Pawtucket Street, at Fletcher Street intersection); the Children’s Home (~1903, 60 Kirk Street); and St. Mary’s Orphanage (~1900, Crosby Street).

Halloween in the Highlands

This story originally appeared on this site on October 18, 2022. 

Halloween in the Highlands

By Louise Peloquin

October was an exciting month in the 60’s. Jack o’lanterns, corn stalks and old sheet ghosts set the scene. Prepping was taken very seriously in the run-up to the big day. For us cousins living in a two-family house, getting into the Halloween vibe began with watching old movies like “Frankenstein”, “Wolfman” and “The Mummy”. “The Brain that Wouldn’t Die”, was our favorite – a 1962 film about a doctor who kept human body parts alive in his lab and maintained his fiancé’s head talking for days, floating in a Pyrex dish full of icky liquid. Very scary.

The most important preparation was, of course, creating our costumes. Maman would help but we were responsible for the concept.

My brother Laval usually stuck to the pirate outfit but took great pains to update it every year. One time, an impressive scarlet scar appeared under his black-smudged eyes, enhancing the freebooter look thanks to a bit of rummaging through Maman’s makeup pouch. Jack Sparrow has nothing on him. Laval fancied a radical change one year. Wearing his blue windbreaker and one of Maman’s nylon stockings over his head, he became The Boston Strangler. No sanction ensued for ripping a perfectly good nylon stocking or for ruining makeup items. Maman enjoyed our Halloween preparations as much as we did and I suspect she would have loved to join in the metamorphosing.

My costumes were inspired by TV images of “The Wild Wild West.” Brown fringe sewn on an old shirt and skirt, a multicolored headband adorned with back-yard-bird feathers, a braided pig tail coiffure and “voilà!”, I turned into a Pennacook. The beaded necklace and braided leather belt Pépère brought me from Clark’s Trading Post added to my authenticity.

The cowgirl outfit kept the same brown-fringed shirt and braided belt. Same hairdo sans headband. My big sister’s power of persuasion got Laval to lend me his prized holster, plastic gun, and cowboy hat. More often than not, I let the hat hang down my back. Although it was a perfect fit for his coconut head, it enshrouded my peanut head. In those days we kids labeled our heads – peanut, coconut, watermelon, whatever shape matched. Maybe that came from to the Pyrex-dish-talking-head movie. Who knows?

One year, Aunt Rita joined in to embellish our outfits. She did an exceptionally superb job with Pierre, our older cousin. After opting for the white sheet ghost getup for years, Pierre was ready to graduate to another level. Since his height had surged over the summer, Aunt Rita thought he would make an imposing Moses. She recycled the white sheet, fashioned it into a robe, used rolls of cotton to create white locks and a long beard. Finally, Elmer-glued cotton ball eyebrows completed the patriarchal look. A conveniently curved, backyard tree branch served as staff and two “tablets”, cut out of a cardboard box and painted grey, presented the Ten Commandments.  The impressive costume inspired Moses-Pierre to adopt a protector-of-the-young ‘uns role. Four of us nine cousins exited our house with flashlights and big brown shopping bags: Pierre, his brother Jacques, my brother Laval and me. The other kids were either too young or too old to venture out into the spine-tingling Halloween murk.

Looking south on Harvard St towards Princeton Blvd. Mores Funeral Home in the center distance. Photo from Google Maps

The chosen zone was Harvard Street, its Stevens Street parallel and the Middlesex Street and Princeton Boulevard perpendiculars – our very own golden rectangle.

The first stop was always Morse’s Funeral Home (1). The staff put on quite a spread in the garage – jack o’lanterns, spooky lights, hot cider, barrels for apple dunking. We left the premises soaked but hepped up for the rest of the itinerary.

Morse-Bayliss Funeral Home, formerly Morse Funeral Home on Princeton Boulevard

After Morse’s, we went down the odd-numbered side of Harvard Street and came back up the other side with a couple of strategic detours on Troy and Nicollet Streets. Our neighbors treated generously and always recognized us in our costumes. Even Moses-Pierre was found out, much to his astonishment. Comments like, “Oh Pierre, what a great disguise you’ve got there! You make a very nice Moses since you’ve shot up in height.” These compliments thrilled him. But one observation made our elder reach satori: “Pierre, you’ve grown so much, this will be your last trick-or-treating. You’re not a kid anymore.”

After our rounds in the golden rectangle, while crossing the Temple Beth El (2) parking lot facing our 99 Harvard Street house, Pierre, determined to make the best of his last Halloween, came up with a scheme to increase our booty. “How ‘bout if we change our costumes and then go trick-or-treating again? No one’ll notice. Whadaya say?”

Coaxing was not necessary. We quickly mixed, but not matched, our accessories and set out again. No one got to be Moses but the sheet robe turned Laval into a ghost, Pierre sported the cowboy hat and I concealed my pig tails in the pirate kerchief. Jacques donned the remaining accessories. We didn’t look very put together but our ruse worked. Elation, spiced with a pinch of guilt, enveloped us. The sight of the twofold Halloween haul quickly stifled any lingering remorse.

The trick-or-treating was over and we were back home after a deliciously spooky evening scaring one another with screeches, boos and Vincent Price laughs. Safe inside, we proceeded to organize our treasure. And what a sweet trove it was – Three Musketeers, Baby Ruth, Payday, Charleston Chew, Snickers, Mounds, Almond Joy and Hershey’s bars; little boxes of Goobers and Sun-Maid Raisins; bags of M & M’s, jelly beans, Hershey’s Kisses, Raisinets, red and black licorice; Rolos, Life Savers and NECCO wafers; fireballs, Canada mints and hard candy; homemade treats like caramel popcorn balls, cookies and fruit bars. After the inventory, we bid our cousins good night and gushed with gratitude to Moses-Pierre, a.k.a. bad-guy cowboy. Pierre and Jacques went home upstairs while we dashed into our ground floor kitchen to itemize the contents of our loot and negotiate swapping. “I’ll give you two giant fireballs for a Charleston Chew” or “I don’t like black licorice; what’ll you give me for what I got here?.” The possibilities were endless.

I obsessively gathered my favorite candy – anything chocolate – into a separate bag “for later.” Setting the best aside would make the pleasure last, right?

What an ordeal it was for my brother and I to limit our candy consumption on Halloween night. The temptation to gorge ourselves was irresistible. Papa always joined us at the negotiation table to preach moderation and especially, to inspect our takings. Then he would shoo us off to bed before the cataloguing and trading was over. Sugary stashes were off bedroom limits so bags and bowls of treats took over the kitchen counter.

We went to bed with the sweetest of dreams while Papa visited our treasure as we slept, taking his share. He was the real pirate. But he never admitted his crimes. Nor did we, until now.

****

1) 122 Princeton Boulevard

2) 105 Princeton Boulevard, now the Community Christian Academy.

Love – and tenancy – in the golden years by Marjorie Arons-Barron

The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

Imagine this happening to you. You’re a widow “of a certain age.” After years of being single again, you meet a compatible widower and find love. You date for a long time and seem perfect for each other. You move into his place, and you live together for 11 years.

All goes well until, late one night, your significant other, announces he has found someone else, and he orders you out.  It’s the middle of the night. You must leave. Never mind that it’s your furniture that fills the spacious apartment.  It’s his name on the lease, and, according to the law as it stands right now, even after all those years, he can do this – cast you out, carrying what you can stuff into a single suitcase.

This isn’t a made-up case or a soap on daytime TV. This happened to a good friend of mine. Let’s call her Barbara.  And she isn’t an isolated case. What happened to her at the hands of her Significant Other has happened to many other seniors, especially women.

Fortunately, she could find safe lodging with her adult daughter’s family in a Boston suburb. Would you have such a place of refuge?  Even with that option for Barbara, the rude eviction was upending. Barbara was terrified and devastated, both emotionally and physically. This strong and resilient woman was reduced to tears on our den couch. How could he do that? After so many years, did she have no rights? The answer, sadly, is precious few.

As it turns out, long-term cohabitors are not entitled by law to due process. If they want protections, they must create their own legally-binding agreements.  Unless these agreements are written and filed in court, they never go into effect.

Massachusetts has recognized such written cohabitation agreements since 1998. Still, they are rarely executed, leaving seniors or other cohabitants with no due process to protect them from summary eviction. So my dear friend Barbara resolutely set about finding a solution, too late for herself but, she hopes, in time to help others similarly vulnerable.

She received robust support from Veronica Wiseman of Sharon TV and from family law attorneys. State Representative Ted Phillips of Sharon took up the cause and helped develop legislative language giving tenant rights to all cohabitants whether or not they are on the deed or lease. And with that language, they have the right for due process, not simply immediate eviction. Leaders of the Mass. Landlords Association are also on board.

Bill Number H1933 was heard Tuesday before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. It would prevent the party on the lease or deed from evicting a cohabitor without going though a court process. The legislature should pass the bill before the end of this session.

While Barbara’s focus is on seniors, she hopes judges in all cases would take into consideration how long parties have been living together, what activities they’ve shared to further a life together, and their level of economic interdependence.

Barbara is a fighter, and she fully intends to take the issue to senior housing, community centers, and local news outlets and let others know she is building a movement. The outrageous way that X treated her has made her a force to be reckoned with.

It’s a modest but crucial proposal – defining cohabitors as tenants and entitled to due process protections – and it should be a no-brainer. But, as with many other legislative matters, it needs broad outside support. Which is why I urge my Massachusetts readers to contact their own legislators, and tell them to support this change.

Lowell Politics: October 26, 2025

On Thursday night, October 23, 2025, I attended Lowell Public School Superintendent Liam Skinner’s State of the Schools address at the just-renovated Lowell High Little Theatre. The evening began with a reception in the school lobby that featured musical, dance, and poetry performances by students. Then LHS student ambassadors led the 100-plus attendees to the Theatre.

After being introduced by Mayor Dan Rourke, the life-long educator Skinner did not so much give a speech as conduct a master class. The early part of his talk reached back into history for important context. He explained that 250 years ago as the form of government our new nation should adopt was being debated, many feared making it a democracy because in a democracy, important decisions would be left to uneducated voters. Skinner then quoted Thomas Jefferson who said the solution to that problem was to educate the people. Consequently, public education was one of the core principles upon which our nation was founded.

Skinner next acknowledged that 250 years ago, public education for all really wasn’t for all. If you were Black, you were excluded. If you were a woman, you were excluded. If you were an immigrant (in many cases), you were excluded.

Lowell, however, was at the forefront of making public education more inclusive. When Lowell High School was founded in 1831 it admitted female as well as male students, making it the first coeducational public high school in the United States. A few years later, Lowell High admitted Black students, making it the first integrated high school in the United States.

Does an educated populace still matter in a democracy? Superintendent Skinner said emphatically that it does, citing studies that show that educated citizens are more likely to vote, volunteer, and get involved in civic decision making than the less educated. He said that strong schools build strong families, create more stable neighborhoods, and cause crime rates to decrease. Strong schools have economic benefits. They attract businesses, create upward mobility, and decrease the need for social services. Spending money on public schools yields an excellent return on investment.

Next, Skinner shared some important demographic information about the Lowell Public Schools. He started with the racial/ethnic makeup of the students:

Total – 14,689
Hispanic – 6,269
Asian – 3,717
White – 2,665
Black – 1,405
Mixed – 582
Amer Indian – 34
Pacific Islander – 17

Regarding the economic and educational circumstances of those 14,689 students:

69% are from low-income families
10% are homeless
20% have disabilities
30% are English Language Learners

Superintendent Skinner then observed that if you ranked the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts by income level in one column, then ranked the same 351 communities by academic performance in a second column, the position of the cities and towns would mostly match.

But when it comes to educational achievement, “student poverty is not a determinant of ability to learn,” Skinner forcefully said. He cited research that’s been repeatedly validated that proves the single most important factor in the educational achievement of a child is having a great teacher. And that – helping to create great teachers in Lowell – is at the center of Superintendent Skinner’s strategy for improving the Lowell Public Schools.

Skinner next cited evidence that this approach is paying off: The state’s 2025 assessment of the Lowell Public Schools gave an overall classification of “not requiring assistance or intervention” and that LPS was showing “substantial progress” toward its targets. The same assessment found just four schools in the “requiring assistance” category whereas that number was eight before Covid and eleven in 2024. Progress towards obtaining English Language Proficiency was “met for non-high school and exceeded by high school students.” The LPS dropout reduction rate exceeded its target overall. And the Lowell Public Schools showed “high growth in both English and Mathematics for non-high school students.”

Notwithstanding these good grades, Skinner emphasized that the Lowell Public Schools still face great challenges.  Among other things, more early childhood seats are needed. So is air conditioning in all classrooms and more after-school programs with transportation.

Skinner commended City Manager Tom Golden and the city council for their strong commitment to the new Lowell High School and for their diligence in improving the physical plant of all the other schools. But he did make a plea for more local funding. He conceded that while the city has met its “net school spending” requirements (the minimum amount of support for the schools from local government that is mandated by the state), Skinner explained that a larger and larger percentage of that funding comes as “in kind” services rather than an explicit outlay of cash to the school system. Being deprived of that cash allocation prevents the school system from implementing its strategies. He recommended that at least one-third of net school spending should be granted as cash which I believe he said would equal $23 million whereas in this current fiscal year, the city provided just $12 million in cash to the public schools.

Superintendent Skinner closed his remarks by urging everyone to become a vocal advocate for the Lowell Public Schools. He also invited everyone to check out the LPS strategic plan and to consider donating to the Lowell Schools Fund, an initiative of Project LEARN that seeks donations from alumni, foundations and corporate sponsors to help fill the gaps in public funding.

****

In last week’s newsletter, I mentioned a Lowell Sun report that the Markley Group had withdrawn its application to amend the fuel storage license issued by the city for Markley’s South Lowell datacenter. This past Tuesday, City Solicitor Corey Williams provided councilors with a brief memo confirming the Markley withdrawal, adding that since there was no longer anything pending before the city council, there would no longer be a public hearing as was scheduled for that evening (October 21, 2025).

Councilors quizzed Williams on some related issues, perhaps most importantly, whether there was a waiting period that had to pass before an applicant could resubmit a once-withdrawn application. Williams said No, explaining that unlike this situation, if an application to the Planning Board is rejected or withdrawn, a state statute specifically says that the same application may not be resubmitted for at least two years. However, when it comes to license applications such as the Markley proposal, state law carries no comparable delay on refiling.

Councilors asked if the council could create a time limit on the refiling of a withdrawn petition. Williams said he would have to research that topic to answer the question but as he continued speaking, he left the impression that such a rule might be invalidated by a court. Under the normal rules of statutory interpretation, a court would likely conclude that the legislature’s failure to include a limit on resubmitting a withdrawn license application was an intentional omission by the legislature and not an oversight, especially in light of the inclusion of such a limitation in the statutes governing planning board matters.

In any case, I believe Williams will get back to the council in the future with a more detailed explanation.

****

On Tuesday, the council received a memo from Will Rosenberry, the Director of Elections and Census, in response to a council motion requesting Rosenberry “take steps to help increase voter turnout in the general election.” The memo reviews a multipart strategy by the Election Office to help with turnout including:

• Regular press releases and social media posts
• An improved website
• New options for people to receive text and email alerts from the Election Office
• Frequent appearances on local media
• Tabling at local events such as the Puerto Rican Festival and Volunteer Fair
• Placing flashing sign boards and A-frame signs at busy intersections
• Continued collaboration with local nonprofits

Besides the memo, Rosenberry also answered council questions at the meeting. He said that despite the low turnout in the preliminary elections, he has seen some encouraging signs of greater interest in the November election. He identified the number of mail-in ballots – 300 – that had already been received back to the Election Office as greater than the entire number of mail-in ballots cast in recent elections.

Rosenberry also answered questions about the ability of “inactive voters” to participate in this election. He explained that if someone fails to answer the city census, they are automatically marked as inactive on the voter rolls. If a person in that status shows up to vote, they can still cast a vote but for their ballot to count without limitation, they must produce evidence of residency in the form of a utility bill or something comparable. If they cannot do that, their ballot would still be accepted “provisionally” which, if I understand this correctly, means that their ballot would be counted but would somehow be segregated so that in the event of a recount, that ballot and other like it could be challenged as part of the recount process.

If you have voted by mail, the Secretary of State Bill Galvin maintains a handy webpage called “track my ballot” that allows you to determine if the election office has received your ballot back through the mail. After you enter your name and address, the webpage shows you the date the ballot was mailed, the date it was received back at the election office, and its status. The four status categories and their meanings are:

• Accepted – submitted to be counted
• Pending – application received, ballot not yet mailed
• Rejected – ballot rejected
• Not Returned – ballot not yet received by local election official

While this website is maintained by the Secretary of State’s office, questions about it should be submitted to the Lowell Election Office at (978) 674-4046.

Finally, in-person early voting commenced yesterday. All early voting is done at the Lowell Senior Center at 276 Broadway. Here are the dates and times when early voting is available:

Monday, October 27, 2025, from 9am to 3pm
Tuesday, October 28, 2025, from 9am to 8pm
Wednesday, October 29, 2025, from 9am to 3pm
Thursday, October 30, 2025, from 9am to 3pm
Friday, October 31, 2025, 9am to 3pm

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4, 2025, with all polling places being open for in-person voting from 7am until 8pm.

****

This week’s installment of there’s always a Lowell connection comes from Major League Baseball. In his “Sunday Baseball Notes” column last week, the Boston Globe’s Alex Speier wrote about the magnitude of the transition of Mookie Betts from a centerfielder to one of the best shortstops in baseball. Speier points out that at age 33, Betts is “the first player in major league history to start at least 140 games at short in his age-32 season after making fewer than 100 career appearances at the position prior.” (see “Mookie Betts’s stellar play at shortstop another part of his game that escaped the Red Sox.”)

For several years, I’ve been telling anyone who will listen that (1) we saw Mookie Betts play for the Lowell Spinners at Lelacheur Park in Lowell; and (2) he was terrible at the time. My basis for saying that was that he made a lot of errors, at least that’s how I remembered it. And my purpose in saying it was not to criticize Betts – I’ve always been a big fan of his – but to highlight the unpredictability of judging a baseball player’s abilities at the start of his career.

But until Sunday, no one else ever mentioned the sketchy defense of Betts while in Lowell. I was beginning to doubt the accuracy of my memory. Fortunately, Speier backed me up. Here’s what he wrote:

After the Sox took Betts in the fifth round of the 2011 draft, he started his time in the minors at short. It didn’t go well. He made three errors in his one-game pro debut, then another six in 13 games at short for the Lowell Spinners in 2012.

Seven of those nine errors were throwing. He misfired three times on July 6, 2012, including on back-to-back ninth-inning plays in a walkoff loss. . .

When the Sox needed to create Betts a path to the big leagues in 2014, they moved him to the outfield, where he rapidly emerged as one of the best defensive players in baseball — and, for that matter, one of the best overall players in the game.

This year, Betts and his Los Angeles Dodgers are back in the World Series, playing the Toronto Blue Jays in a best of seven series that began Friday night.

****

Paul Marion is out with a new book, City Hikes, which I reviewed this week on richardhowe.com. Please read the review and consider buying the book which recounts nearly two dozen walks around Lowell.