State aid if you aren't at foundation

If you haven't already, please do go use one of your Globe articles to read today's article on state education aid in the non-foundation aid communities.

The varying increases in state aid come as the state has been stepping up its demands on local schools, which in turn requires them to spend more money.
For instance, districts have been buying textbooks, software, and other materials as they bring programs into line with new state standards for teaching English and math. Many districts also have been buying computers and upgrading their operating networks because the state is moving its standardized testing system from paper booklets to cyberspace.
All the while, school systems say they are dealing with a growing population of students experiencing anxiety, depression, and trauma — requiring a new set of services and instructional approaches — and a spate of national school shootings is prompting the need for more police officers in their schools.

Good coverage of the rock-and-hard-place choices that many districts are in.

I want to give some attention to some other pieces of the article away from the main point here.

First, I saw some questions on this:

...approximately 60 percent of school systems would receive an increase of less than 1 percent in general education aid, the review found. Two school systems under state receivership, Holyoke and Southbridge, would see aid increase by a mere 0.2 percent.

...followed by this later in the article:

Other communities, though, would make out well under the governor’s proposal, including several well-to-do ones in terms of income or property wealth.

Wellesley would increase 4.3 percent; Burlington, 5 percent; Wayland, 7 percent; and Winchester, 12.6 percent.
Those exceeding 4 percent increases also include some urban systems, such as Fitchburg, Lynn, and Fall River.

So, how come?

To start with the eye-catching ones: both Holyoke and Southbridge have lost students: Holyoke lost 274 students out of a student body that was about 6500, and Southbridge lost 73 students out of a student body of 2380. As a side note, they also both then gained students after the October count (aka, these numbers are back up again) when families evacuated from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; these are among the districts that thus should be getting the additional aid both this year (too late to do anything) and next year. But it doesn't touch their foundation budgets. The inflation rate gets effectively cancelled out by the drop in enrollment.

Fitchburg, Lynn, and Fall River? All growing student bodies: Fitchburg is up 37 students (student body of 5700), boosting the foundation budget by just under $3M, of which $2.1M is state aid. Lynn is up 298 students (student body of over 16,000); Lynn's foundation budget is up $13M of which just over $10M is state aid. Fall River is up 134 students (student body of 11,600), bumping the foundation budget up by $7.7M of which $6M is state aid.
Note that all three of those districts are at or just under foundation budget spending communities. In other words, like Brockton, there is no contribution about foundation going to their schools.


Winchester is up 166 students out of a student body of about 4500. That adds about $3M to Winchester's foundation budget, just over $1M of which is coming to them as state aid, due to the capping of how much the town is required to cover of the increase. Winchester is a wealthy district; 80% of their budget is locally funded, and their municipal wealth calculation is well over their foundation budget. They were projected to spend 33% over the foundation budget last year.
Burlington, while not as eye-catching, is in a similar situation. Burlington's increase of 19 students (of a student body of 3500) bumps the foundation budget by $1.5M, of which about $320K is coming as state aid. Burlington was projected to spend 89% (no, that isn't a mistype) over foundation this year.
Wayland is up 44 students, which is huge in a student body of 2600. That bumps their foundation budget by $1.2M, of which $320K is coming from state aid. Wayland's preliminary calculation is over the cap districts are required to spend, so the state actually scales their required spending down. It won't, one suspects, matter, as Wayland was projected to spend 74% over their required spending this year.

Wellesley...is different, and it illustrates the crux of the issue with minimum aid increases. Wellesley lost a student (yes, one) last year. Due to the inflation rate and demographic shifts (more kids in high school, a few more ELL and economically disadvantaged students), Wellesley's foundation budget went up $1.5M over last year. Like Wayland, however, Wellesley's municipal contribution comes in over the required spending cap, so $374K of the increase is carried by the state. This year, Wellesley is projected to spend nearly 70% over the foundation budget.

The conversation we effectively aren't having, thus, is the one mentioned by Secretary Peyser:

Peyser also noted that Beacon Hill adjusted the formula a decade ago and that benefited some school systems in more affluent communities. The change, being implemented gradually, aims for the state to fund at least 17.5 percent of the costs of a school system’s “foundation budget,” the minimum amount a system is required to spend under the state’s formula. Previously, many affluent school systems were receiving very little state aid. 

“The state is committed to providing a minimum share of resources to all communities,” Peyser said Friday.

We keep being told there is no money to fund updating the out-of-date foundation budget. The state, however, continues to find ways to fund a required minimum amount for every district, regardless of need. That is a choice that the Governor and the Legislature is making: to fund 17.5% of the wealthy districts, and tell the poorer districts that covering their need is not possible.