regarding Worcester and funding reform

I'm not testifying today--just typing!--but I've found that my original testimony before the Foundation Budget Review Commission from over four years ago has held up well.

There are times at which it is no longer “effective” or “efficient” spending.
Sometimes a cut is just a cut.
The education and programs we were able to provide in 2000 were much closer to that which we should be offering our children in class sizes, in course offerings, in after-school programs, in support services, in supplies, in technology...across the board.

Of course, now the gaps are larger.

This is noted quite well in yesterday's WGBH article:

The early aughts were a boom time in Worcester Public Schools. The district offered afterschool programs, free pre-kindergarten and career pathway training in high school. These are all programs the district thought worked for boosting opportunities and achievement for low-income students.
But in 2004, as the cost of teachers’ health benefits and special education started to balloon faster than revenue, the district started making drastic cuts.

They were a boom time, of course, because the foundation budget was fully implemented and health insurance costs hadn't yet started to balloon.

I appreciated Rebecca Cusick's point on this in her op-ed earlier this week:

While accountability has increased and undergone a series of reforms since 1993, the funding formula has not. It’s time for some reciprocal accountability. Students and schools are compared to each other with the assumption that they are equal, while clearly, they are not. Education funding reform is the single best strategy for improving education for all kids.