Governor Baker wrote an editorial in the Boston Globe in one of those pieces that sends one wondering about how much of such pieces is a performance more than an argument. I sorted through it last night in a Twitter thread that starts here (and if you enjoy gifs, you'll want to click over there), but to briefly outline what's going on with this piece:
He's writing of the same bill proposed in January--the expectation is that something will come out of the Education Committee sometime soon--so everything from this post in January stands.
The bits that are new (from him) are the local financial picture. I really need to put it into a blog post, but the analysis that some districts would receive less state funding under the Promise Act (the much larger bill) than under the Governor's bill puzzled some back in July, which is when I posted this Twitter thread on it. The upshot is this:
Because some districts have capped out in required local funding already, more isn't required, but some hit new levels under Promise that they wouldn't under the Governor's bill (check the thread for more). So, yes, there are districts--not many, but some--that would receive less state aid under Promise than under the Governor's bill.That brings us to the trick: if you increase the WHOLE STATEWIDE FOUNDATION BUDGET, both parts of that split get bigger, right?— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) July 17, 2019
The split can stay 59/41, but the actual dollars go up.
In fact, this is what happens every year.
Important note: STILL MORE STATE AID THAN NOW
Now, to me, this gets into what we're doing here, in any case. We have school districts--largely, but not entirely, urban, and overwhelmingly serving most of our students of color and students who are second language learners--that have been massively underfunded. If our intent is to redress that, than we should do that.
That would mean passing the Promise Act.
Baker's next point, that some districts might actually have to increase their local education funding is, of course, intended to be shocking, but it's really an interesting insight into how the Governor and his staff view state education funding: they don't think it's a partnership, as laid out in McDuffy: they think it's a giveaway.
The increase, of course, is due to this:
...and is just as what happens every year.The thing we never mention in #MAEdu funding is the split. It isn’t written down anywhere, as far as I know, but the underlying assumption at the beginning of the calculation of the municipal wealth formula is this: pic.twitter.com/QHkOMvQRVo— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) July 17, 2019
What the Governor DOESN'T say and is much more important is that because most districts are WELL OVER their required local funding of schools, in many cases, an increase of local funding won't be required. In essence, you're already doing that.
It appears intentionally deceptive to leave that bit out, doesn't it?
As for the Governor's next topic:
Yup, going to be using that gif all the timeWhich brings us to everyone’s favorite topic: ACCOUNTABILITY! pic.twitter.com/k93QXdPeQJ— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) September 18, 2019
The Governor and those who keep pushing this "increased accountability measures" stuff...aren't making any proposals that are in fact increased accountability. The Governor's bill just expands that power of the Commissioner to take over school districts, including--please don't forget this--to TAKE AWAY PART OF THEIR BUDGET if he likes.
That isn't increased accountability. That doesn't actually hold anyone accountable for their actual actions.
Nor does expanding charter charter schools or "zones" or whatever other sorts of "maybe we could just have less public accountability" options. That would be the reverse of accountability, folks.
In any case: this is brief but he isn't necessarily doing anything new here. It's just framed in what is, I think, intentionally fearmongering (around the funding) and to give another push to giving more power to the Commissioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment