Final Report of the Foundation Budget Review Commission

I've posted the full report here.
If you're looking for a summary, take this from the conclusion of the report:

the good work begun by the education reform act of 1993, and the educational progress made since, will be at risk so long as our school systems are fiscally strained by the ongoing failure to substantively reconsider the adequacy of the foundation budget.

When we last left the FRBC, they were hammering out what would and would not make the final report, parsing out what was a "recommendation" and what would be "recognized," still talking through levels of tying up new money, and putting forward some proposals around new data collection.
And that's about where we ended up.

After reviewing Commission members, the charge, and the Mass General Law, the report reminds us first of the preliminary report, which covered only health insurance and special education. These are, of course, the biggest budget busters out there, as was clear from repeated testimony. Briefly, these recommendations:

• adjust health insurance to be in line with average GIC rates
• add retired health insurance to the foundation budget
• calculate health insurance inflation separately
• change the assumed in-district sped cost (from an assumed 15% of students to an assumed 16% of students
• increase the out-of-district special ed cost rate to capture full cost before the circuit breaker is triggered.

As I believe I said already, the short reaction on this is...it's better, but it doesn't go far enough, particularly on special ed.

But on to the new material!

Given the changes and additions to what we know of English Language Learners, the recommendations are:

• to make ELL an increment (which gets added to the base rate per pupil)
• include it for vocational students (it isn't now)
• make it the same rate at all levels, choosing the middle school level (currently $2361); this is to make up for the previous assumption that older kids required fewer services (or less funding), which has been found not to be the case.

Does that cover it all? Possibly.

The low income category has the most urgency right now, as we are no longer counting free and reduced lunch students, due to the large number of districts using Community Eligibility, thus we have no way of calculating low income students, per chapter 70 of Mass General Law. The Legislature has to do something before FY17. This recommendation is does not spell out numbers or calculations, but cites the large number of programs (including Worcester's)--extended learning time, wraparound services, instructional improvement, class size reduction, early ed--that have been found to be successful with low income students, and laying out some parameters on costs. Watch this one.
Note further that this includes posting a plan of what the district will do with additional dollars, BUT includes district flexibility to best meet student needs.
(whew)

Part B is a whole section on data collection; in sum, there's a frustration that more and better information wasn't available to the Commission to inform their deliberations, and there's a charge to track, in particular, low income and ELL funding to be sure it reaches kids. Editorial? This is basically the charge that districts are somehow skimming these funds to...what? Heat buildings? Hire more teachers? Anyway...it recommends establishment of a committee to improve data reporting.

This is also where we get a recognition (not a recommendation) for early childhood. The data on the huge positive effects of early childhood education is overwhelming and clear, which the Commission recognized. No, no numbers attached.

Part C is "other" and it's where we come BACK to special education (hurray!), recognizing "the growing use of inclusion as the preferred pedagogical model in the Commonwealth" which is more expensive than earlier calcuations. This ALSO recognizes that having this appropriately recognized would mean money going to OTHER programs, as the funds currently diverted from them to special education could flow back.
This is also where inflation (also, hurray!) is recognized:

• an adjustment for the missed quarter in 2010=$55 million statewide
• an adjustment for the statutory cap=$158 million statewide

The report notes that those numbers are not included in other calculations, so some would balance out (some). 

If you're going to fully read any section, I would highly recommend Part D, which is the conclusion and, essentially, the charge to the Legislature. It reads, in part:

As the Commission’s work draws to a close,the legislature’s work begins. We submit this report to the legislature with full recognition of the continued fiscal challenges of the Commonwealth, and the many competing priorities, and worthwhile goals, that the legislature must balance in crafting the annual state budget. We recognize that recommendations of this scope and size will need to be phased in to be affordable. However, we also note again what was stated at the beginning of this document: that the good work begun by the education reform act of 1993, and the educational progress made since, will be at risk so long as our school systems are fiscally strained by the ongoing failure to substantively reconsider the adequacy of the foundation budget. We therefore urge that the legislature act on these recommendations with a profound sense of the risks and opportunities at stake for our shared prosperity as a state and, as our constitution acknowledges, the critical nature of education to the health of our democracy. We advise a keen sense of the urgency when it comes to addressing the identified funding gaps, and the moral imperative of reducing the remaining achievement gaps.

(emphasis added)

Echoing the "keen sense of urgency," Legislature, it's over to you. Don't let us down, as "the preservation of (our) rights and liberties" depends on it.