November Board of Ed: Commissioner search and budget and virtual schools funding

 holding Felix Virtual School item for future meeting
updating as we go

Commissioner search: gathering stakeholder input 
3 sessions last week 
which I guess...that's going to be it
over 100 responses to survey only that??
draft Commissioner profile for Board; Board to review and give feedback this week apparently outside the public meeting, which...is not a recommendation I would make
this has not been shared
December 2: preliminary screening meeting
West, Tutwiler, Craven, Fisher on screening committee (the rest of it has not been announced, save Craven just said that it includes the lieutenant governor)

FY26 budget proposal: vote today
Mohamed whom it is hard to hear
support maximum Ch 70, circuit breaker, charter reimbursement
increase in funding steps in SOA; will be fifth year of implementation
highlighted a few areas for discussion with full Board
advocate to full $30M for literacy initiative
educator diversity pipeline
had been infusion of federal dollars "for learning loss" (that is not what it was for) 
support bolstering of high dosage tutoring
Aid for rural districts
high quality learning materials inevitably
CTE
gifted and talented: meeting needs of all students
financial literacy programs for students
and we apparently are not going to hear about inflation

Virtual school funding 
per the memo: 

For the current fiscal year (FY25), GCVS and TECCA receive $9,727 per pupil for tuition. In joint correspondence, GCVS and TECCA state that the current per pupil tuition rate is insufficient to meet the needs of their students effectively and is insufficient to cover the escalating costs of running a public virtual school in Massachusetts. Both schools seek per pupil tuition rates of $13,022  for FY26

Note that this funding comes out of the sending districts chapter 70 funding. $13K puts the per pupil rate at above every per pupil rate in the foundation budget save that of the vocational students.  
and it is WILD that the virtual schools have basically just sent in a "this isn't enough" and because it just comes out of district state aid, the Department is sending it forward!

Rates a student's public school of residence pays the virtual schools
"I just want to make sure we're talking about public dollars for public education"
erm...I don't know what that is about
$5000 "is insufficient" to run virtual schools; they started at $6700
the tuition rate is based on the average per pupil foundation rate which is $16,051
of note: 

The recommended final tuition rate of $13,144 is derived from the FY25 state average per pupil foundation budget for grades K-12 ($16,051), after subtracting vocational costs, operations and maintenance costs, and in- and out-of-district special education costs. The proposed tuition rate of $13,114 reflects the directives of the statutory language: it is no higher than the state average per pupil foundation budget for students of the same classification and grade level. Neither TECCA nor GCVS provide a physical location that serves a majority of students; nor does either school provide equipment or space dedicated to vocational education. The additional cost of CMVS special education services is calculated in accordance with the school finance regulations, 603 CMR 10.07(3), and is reimbursed in addition to the per pupil tuition amount unless such services are provided in kind by the sending district. 

They appear to have some slides here, but they're not something that most of us in the room can see
 This is a little complicated: 

The first method to fully implement the rate increase is straightforward. If the Board approves the rate increase during the December 2024 meeting, the Board’s vote would  amend GCVS’s and TECCA’s certificates to include a per-pupil tuition rate of $13,114, with the $75 administrative fee retained by the Department, effective FY26.

The second method to gradually increase the rate over a period of three years requires additional steps. Each CMVS’s current certificate expires on July 1, 2026. The per pupil tuition rate is a material term of a CMVS certificate, cannot carry across certificate terms, and must be reassessed as part of a renewal determination. Given the fact that one year remains in the current certificate terms for GCVS and TECCA (2022-2026), a Board vote on December 17, 2024, to amend the certificates of GCVS and TECCA would specify $11,456 in per pupil tuition plus inflation, effective for FY26, with $75 retained by the Department for program administration. If in March 2026 the Board votes to approve the renewal of the certificates for GCVS and TECCA, I would recommend the Board continue the graduated increase of the GCVS and TECCA tuition rates to be $12,286 in FY27 and $13,114 in FY28, with $75 per pupil retained by the Department each year. 

Hills: why a gradual increase rather than a full increase?
Johnston: hear from stakeholder impact: it would be $10M difference
maybe this should be highlighted in the presentation???
districts through school committees can cap those going to virtual schools
if tuition increases substantially, would more districts cap the numbers of students going to virtual schools
per the memo footnote: 

 A school committee may cap enrollment if the number of students residing in the district who are enrolled in virtual schools exceeds one percent of the district’s total enrollment. G.L. c. 71, § 94(t). As of October 1, 2023, 58 districts in Massachusetts reached this limit; 27 districts voted to restrict enrollment of resident students in CMVSs

Hills: "in the absence of seeing some evidence on the unintended consequence" have no reason to delay
TEN MILLION DOLLARS isn't evidence??

Moriarty: is the statewide average a useful benchmark?
no
reading correctly that they're at the same rate?
30% since 2017, really does sound like if we don't move quickly it's an existential threat
how close to the foundation budget we're at is a benchmark of how these students are being treated
we are sitting in a district that is funded at barely above it
O'Donnell: virtual schools not seeing increases due to SOA
would catch them up to FY25 rates
O'Donnell: there are annual inflation adjustments
Stewart: how could virtual schools catch up to SOA rates
O'Donnell: virtual schools would need to request
Stewart: something about access and equity here
this is missing that the foundation budget increases due to SOA are largely due to the demographics of the students, which is nowhere acknowledged in the tuition payments to the virtual schools (unlike charter schools)

West: changes remind me of legislative requirement that charter school tuition changes are reimbursed
"but it doesn't seem to me that it is something we should do on our own"
what? This is dumb. The Board has the authority to phase it in; they don't need legislative purview to do it

Hills asks if he needs more from the Board; Johnston says no
Coming back in December for a Board vote
it is remarkable how much the needs of actual districts are simply rejected and not heard by this body

next post