"Missing the point is a very fine art"

Missing the point is a very fine art; and has been carried to something like perfection by politicians and Pressmen to-day. For the point is generally a very sharp point; and is, moreover, sharp at both ends. That is to say that both parties would probably impale themselves in an uncomfortable manner if they did not manage to avoid it altogether.

G.K. Chesterton "The Art of Missing the Point"

It used to be a regular feature (?) of the blog for me to argue thoroughly and at length against whatever material the Boston Globe was circulating in their education coverage. While of course the post I finally got up about early literacy was in large part on that, for the most part, I'm doing less of that. However, I did find occasion to respond at length on Twitter to the Globe's piece last week on the challenge of inflation in the FY25 state budget, and I thought it warranted fleshing out here. 

As was noted nearly immediately on the Governor's release, specifically in Worcester's preliminary budget presentation, in my mid-February Q&A on FY25, in MASC and MASS testimony before the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, and in myriad places across the state since (and on this blog since November): inflation is the story of the year when it comes to school funding in Massachusetts.

Remember, our state school aid--which we call Chapter 70 as shorthand--is based first on a per pupil foundation budget. It goes up each year by an inflation rate; that is where the increased cost of educating a child in Massachusetts is captured. This year, that inflation rate is 1.35%, which is nowhere near the actual increases in costs. 

Thus I do, genuinely, very much appreciate how much the press is capturing that this is the story. And Colin Jones of Mass Budget and Policy Center is absolutely right when he says this: 

The failure of the new formula to accurately capture inflation could be collectively costing districts hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, according to Colin Jones, deputy policy director at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, a nonpartisan research institute.

The Globe, however, took the following angle on the story of foundation budget inflation this year: 

highlighted text reads "Voters in Belmont, Harvard, and Westford"

The issue here isn't only that this demonstrates how poorly the Globe understands school finance in Massachusetts. It's a manifestation of who the paper sees their readers as: the foundation budget inflation rate matters because it is hitting majority white, wealthy suburban metro Boston. For Boston (and much of Massachusetts), that's a problem in the paper of record.

And the foundation budget inflation rate isn't why Belmont OR Harvard OR Westford are voting on overrides, NOR, in today's example from WBUR (WBUR?!?!), Brookline is facing the struggle it is. In every one of these cases, these are districts that are receiving the capped 17.5% of their foundation budget as aid--again, because of their significant local capacity to fund education--AND are funded through local resources well over the foundation budget, such that state increases are significantly less of a factor in the calculation.
This is a local spending story. 

I am not picking on these districts or towns in saying this: these are communities that have significant local resources. They have, year over year, decided to allocate well over what they are minimally required to spend on schools to their local students. Those decisions are now meaning that those towns are having to decide what to do with the funding that they have decided is necessary for their local districts. 

That is why they are facing the decisions that they are. 

To run through some numbers (the sources are cited in a footnote): 

Belmont: Belmont's foundation budget for FY25 (this upcoming year) is $59.5M, For the last year we have reported, FY23 (last school year), Belmont's foundation budget was $53.2M. Belmont Public Schools spent $77.5M from their general fund that year, so close to an additional 1/3 of their foundation budget again. 
This year, Belmont is receiving $11.6M in foundation aid, but as they received $11.7M last year, they're also receiving $154,328 in hold harmless aid (so they don't lose aid; this is aid over the foundation budget) plus $135,630 of a minimum aid increase.
Belmont is requesting at $8.4M override.

Harvard: Harvard's foundation budget for FY25 is $10.9M. In FY23, Harvard spent $18.9M general fund dollars; their foundation budget that year was $9.9M, thus they spent nearly double the foundation budget. Harvard is receiving foundation aid this year--$2.2M--with an increase of $84,126. 
If the Legislature adds an additional $30 per pupil in aid, Harvard would get $26,430 more.

Westford: Westford is a bit different than the two towns above for two reasons. The first is that Westford's combined effort yield, which is the state's measurement of what the town could afford to put towards public education, is less than the foundation budget. The requirement that it fund 82.5% of the foundation budget then, is not (like the above) cutting down to ensure the district receives aid, but instead is closer to acknowledging that, if this is our standard, Westford warrants the state support. 
The second reason is that Westford is a district that is millions of dollars into hold harmless funding. There have been so many cycles of Westford's foundation aid being less than the year before, and Westford getting the same amount plus a bit more that now Westford is $6.8M in hold harmless aid, funding the town is getting above foundation budget. Chapter 70 aid for Westford totals $17.9M. In FY25, Westford is required to spend 122.55% of foundation, a total of $61.7M.
In FY23, Westford's foundation budget was $52.5M. In FY23, Westford spent $76.9M from general fund dollars.
Westford is requesting a $6.6M override. 

Brookline: In FY23, Brookline's required net school spending was $83.4M, of which $15.6 was Chapter 70 aid. Reported actual general fund spending in FY23 was $169.5M.
That's more than twice as much as required.
Brookline's foundation budget for FY25 is $91.9M. Brookline's in the small number of communities in which their foundation aid is increasing, but it isn't increasing $30 per pupil, so there's a nudge on top of their foundation aid: the foundation aid increase is $57,917 plus $149,053 of a minimum per pupil increase. Thus Brookline's Chapter 70 aid is increasing by a total of $206,970 for a total of $16.2M.

Here's the deal: a change in the inflation rate that boosts the foundation budget and increases state aid is not going to make a difference to any of the above districts or the decisions that they are needing to make locally. State aid is not the crux of the issue in any of these communities. Nor is the per pupil increases often proposed that make things worse for districts that are legitimately working their way out of hold harmless aid going to make a difference for any of the above.

Here's the thing, and this is the part that I find maddening, and the Globe article made worse:

The law says "fair and adequate minimum."

And some of our districts--and yes, I live in one--get that. And they only get that.

We agreed in 2019 that that minimum was neither fair nor adequate, but was badly undercalculated, and we owed our kids in districts where we agreed that locally they couldn't do more MORE, BUT it was going to take some time to phase it in.

(And oh, they'd have to wait until after the first year)

Next year is four years in on that phase in.  

And again, for most of these districts, the only funded at foundation districts, they aren't getting much more than foundation. (A few are getting less.)

The Constitutional mandate is not "but the state will fund some districts at x% over foundation."

But:

 a) that's entirely what happens with hold harmless aid. (Oh yes it sure is!)

And

b) that's essentially the argument the Globe is making here.

If a community has said, "Hey, you know, that foundation budget isn't what we want for our kids," well, first of all, heck me, either.
They have used local capacity to fund more. That is what they have now set as their standard for what local education looks like: well over the required minimum spending.

THAT is what the overrides outlined above are designed to do, and that is what the difficulty for Brookline and others are: "we decided that we wanted more and better for our kids, and in order to fund that, we need X."

The question for Massachusetts continues to be: do we want that for only some of our kids?____________________

Data is taken from DESE: the Preliminary FY25 Chapter 70 and Net School Spending information; the final FY23 Chapter 70 and Net School Spending information; and the recently updated compliance per pupil spending report, which now runs through FY23.