DESE update on February MASBO

Rob O'Donnell
Powerpoint is here
walk through House 2
$303.5M increase in Ch. 70
changes in Health insurance, guidance, special education out of district, EL, low income students
all others getting increased by inflation
the law doesn't specific the rate of implementation
"needs to be an equitable manner"
low income headcount expansion "up to 185%" of poverty is in the law



1/7th the gap, considering a seven year phase in
low income 4/100ths
"to increase foundation in an equitable and consistent manner"
groups gets increased from ten to twelve
there are fixed cut offs
every year inflation gets built in to an inflated goal rate
SOA defines low income as 185% of the federal poverty level
don't have those numbers between 133% and 185%; so used estimation of either direct cert of FY16 low income percent
"I know this is a big issue: any questions"
Q: will you revert back?
intent is to bring up to 185% for next year; not set yet
what is forming is the match will continue, will return to districts those matched
and then will ask districts to collect forms over and above
and those are the ones who won't return forms GRRR
Q: data collection is hard enough in the fall: "That's a LOT!"
"My prediction is that it won't go particularly well"
Q: have you thought about going back to October 1 data
"we'd do something similar: right now doing a four period match..." for late forms that were collected
will caution: used to determine FY21; may count more kids in FY21 than will be counted in FY22
"could have some volatility in those accounts"
yeah, no kidding
1/7th for assumed in-district rates 4.82 and 3.82
benefits and fixed charges inflated at 2.34%
hold harmless (25 districts) for the districts that would have lost aid due to implementation of act
(this is the if the overall budget goes up, local contributions go up)
"some chance that we'll continue to expand the number of students we'll certify" directly
local contribution requirements 100% effort reduction; combined effort yield of 175% of foundation have required local contributions of 82.5%
report on municipal contribution, due December 2020; just beginning over next month or so
"we're not the plan people" on the "accountability" section of this
$1.5M is the dividing line between long and short form on reporting (between FY20 and FY21)
2.4% is the inflation being counted which is the 15 year average inflation; that amount is counted toward keeping the district running; the REST is considered an SOA increase
those increases include charter school numbers; shouldn't that be considered?
Q should districts plan for any tweaks on plans due to budgets due to the fact that the percentages of vocational and in-district sped for health insurance are reversed for the calculation: yes, I know...this was a Brian Allen question
"I would hope not"
that's not reassuring

circuit breaker phase in of transportation
DESE will need to approve a cost allocation plant to determine the cost and rider for districts that provide a service
meetings being held with collaboratives
"this is a transition year...it is what it is; the first year is going to be bumpy...but we don't play gotcha"

Q: since tax rates are set, is there a way to get the charter school reimbursement back for FY19?
if the tax rate is set, there is no function for the funding to go to the district
The final answer here was no, essentially, after a 'why would you want to?'
Can I just note again how not okay this is? The Legislature allocated the funds to districts for charter reimbursement; it is funding that is OWED districts, and SOME districts are not getting them (the municipals); moreover, some are running close enough to the line where legally, they should be obligated to have the funds.