So what's in the bill? (round...?)

Yesterday, the conference committee came back with a version of the Student Opportunity Act that is currently speeding its way through both chambers of the State House; by 2, it had passed the Senate, and it was expected to make it through the House by the end of the day UPDATE: by 3:30, it had.
You can find coverage from State House News (via the T&G), WBUR,  The Boston Globe, MassLive, and Commonwealth Magazine, plus a nice tribute to the work of Senator Sonia Chang-Diáz from Adrian Walker.
Images throughout are from my "70 on 70" presentation from the MASC-MASS Conference.

As for what happens next, here's the sequence:

S. 2412 of course does all that was agreed upon by both chambers.
It implements all five recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission: special education, health insurance, English learners:

 And low income:

Please note my recanting of "duo-decile"

And the data commission.

It holds districts harmless and includes a $30/pupil minimum increase.

It includes a "minimum aid adjustment" to ensure that no district will lose aid as a result of the statewide expansion of funding.

It also includes the inclusion of out-of-district transportation into the circuit breaker (phased in over time: 25% in FY21; 50% in FY22; 75% in FY23; 100% in FY24)) with a freezing of the amount at which the circuit breaker kicks in, subject to inflation only.

It includes the phasing in of full funding for charter school reimbursement over three years.

It includes the boost of the Mass School Building Authority to $800M.

It includes the following reports:

• Report (and determination) of how to calculate low income student enrollment
• Report on municipal contributions (from DESE and the Department of Revenue)
• Report on rural schools (from a Legislative commission)
• Report on funding issues related to recovery high schools
• Annual report from the Secretary on student preparedness and high school post-graduate success

So what's new? 

• The Secretary has to report on college COMPLETION along with the rest of what else he is reporting on; the House version of the bill did not include that.
• A study of Proposition 2 1/2 is included in the study of municipal finance by the Departments of Revenue and Elementary and Secondary Education with this additional note: "provided, however, that the division and the department shall solicit public comment.” That's new.
• There's a study on the cost of recovery high schools.
• There's a review of expenses and reimbursements on the actual cost of building school buildings (in summary) involving the Mass School Building Authority.
• In what may well be the most important point of this of all, the amendment the Senate passed (proposed, not incidentally, by Senator Chang-Diáz) directing the Comptroller, should there be a budgetary surplus, to transfer sufficient funds to ensure implementation of the charter school reimbursement was on schedule before certifying the amount of the surplus, is included. In other words, there's no "extra" money until this bill is paid each year. (Note: I wasn't specific about it being charter reimbursement in the post originally; h/t for the catch.)
• And: 
  
  In short? They finessed it (and those who simply looked for the word "amend" and never went any further are misleading you about what happened).
  Sec 1S beginning with part of b:

  Each district’s plan shall be developed by the superintendent in consultation with the school committee and shall consider input and recommendations from parents and other relevant community stakeholders, including but not limited to, special education and English learner parent advisory councils, school improvement councils and educators in the school district.

  That's a lot of people that must be consulted!
  The report has to include how the funds will be used, and then gives a list of “evidence-based programs, supports and interventions” which is the part of this that I find most irksome, because it doesn't include things like "having enough teachers" or "having a school in good repair"  and which closes:

  provided, however, that if a district elects not to implement the evidence-based programs described in clauses (A) to (I), inclusive, the district plan shall specify the reasons for electing not to implement said programs including a description of why said programs would not effectively address persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups

  To me, that last reads as a bit argumentative, but there is a "do something else" allowance here.
  The plan is to be submitted every three years, and then this is the provision for the Commissioner:

  Upon receipt of a district plan, the commissioner shall review the plan to ensure that it sets forth clear and achievable goals and measurable standards for student improvement that comply with the requirements of this section; provided, however, that the district shall amend any plan deemed not to conform with the requirements of this section

  Note how careful they were to make the district the subject rather than the object of that sentence. 
  So, can the Commissioner make the district amend the plan? It would appear so, though the law doesn't explicitly say so. It would, I would say, implicitly say so.
  
  But they also substantially bumped up the requirement around who is consulted. One wonders if they'll ask for evidence. If they do, it will be the first time, as far as I know, that the state has actually checked to see if school site councils are being actively used.
  The Department can combine this reporting requirement with other reporting requirements, which I am certain came from them and is probably being greeted with relief by every superintendent in the state.

The bill now heads for the Governor's desk. He, as above, has only three choices:

• he can sign it
• he can veto it
• he can amend it

If he signs it, we're done: it's a law.

If he vetoes it, the two chambers can simply pass it again (both have now, as of 3:30 pm, passed it unanimously), and we're done: it's a law.

If he amends it, the chambers will have to decide what to do with his amendments. 

Good work, all! Keep your eyes on the Governor!