The handful of us that peek ahead have been checking with some dread the implicit price deflator for state and local services, the U.S. Department of Commerce measurement whose rate of change determines the inflation rate for the foundation budget.
As Mr. Allen has provided a nice ('though not happy!) chart for the WPS subcommittee this week, let's use what he shares, as it is the crucial part of what we need to speak about for FY26 statewide:
As goes Worcester, so goes the state in terms of the difference that this provides, again, between the expected increases in actual costs and the increases in the foundation budget.
Those who are asking how this is still an issue with the Student Opportunity Act, by the way, are (intentionally?) ignoring the actual math. We're not getting the benefit of SOA if we continue to pretend this is a real inflationary increase. We're just using SOA increases, in the districts receiving them, the cover the annual increases of costs to school districts. This is not what was envisioned by the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
The final paragraph makes the point from Worcester's perspective that was the central advocacy position of MASS, MASC, MTA, and AFT-MA last budget: the two years of capped inflation are skipped aid that isn't going to districts. As MassBudget calculated last year, most districts in Massachusetts would benefit from this skipped inflation being recognized, and in actual aid increases, not in per pupil minimums that too often become the talking point in budget season.
Advocacy starts now.
No comments:
Post a Comment