Senate Ways and Means FY20 budget

First, note that I have updated this spreadsheet on which I am tracking the K-12 budget accounts in FY20. If you'd like the Twitter thread of account by account, it is here.

A few notes:

• To be just entirely honest: I'm wearily disappointed. If you follow me on Twitter, you might have caught my disbelief that the Senate uses the Governor's--not the House's--preK through 12 foundation dollar amounts, thus leaving out a health care increase; that the Senate overall cut (pretty drastically) the English learner funding and reworked it to favor lower grades; that the push towards low income wasn't bigger, as it's still less than 50% of high school per pupil. I checked lines several times because I was sure I had to be reading something incorrectly. The general understanding of the field has been that the Senate can be counted on to get real needs and big picture. Instead, this foundation budget calculation in particular argues that someone needs to explain to the Senate (again?) the huge gap in health insurance, how learning a language works, and the vast gulf of needs that poverty causes. And I am so tired of this case having to be made, yet again. 
• The economically disadvantaged, progressive towards greater concentrations of poverty, is legitimately a good thing. I am less than impressed by the "largest ever" phrasing, however. This is something for which the meaningful measure is against real need now, not past funding levels.
• There is a rural line of $1.5M.
• This budget has come pre-loaded with earmarks right in the DESE line (the location isn't unusual). While I am sure that those districts can use that funding, the use of power to ensure that state funds are specifically targeted to a district, rather than use of that power to ensure all such need is met is not how equity happens. Remember: if you want an earmark for it, it is probably more than your district that needs it.
• The charter mitigation line, while it is down a bit, makes the switch on percentages (to 100/60/40, increases the facilties line, but it does not make the switch in which districts are funded, as it does not include the language tying funding to enrollment increases greater than the prior five years. Assuming no one tries to amend the Senate language, the battle on this then goes to conference committee.