When what you've heard isn't the case: busting some common misconceptions on the Student Opportunity Act

First required xkcd:

I'd like one of the major issues in education, too, but all I can do is in my little corner of the universe.

With the consensus revenue hearing on Monday, we are about to kick off the FY26 budget season here in Massachusetts, which will be the fifth of six years of implementation of the Student Opportunity Act revision.

...and yet, still I hear some of the same misconceptions and misunderstandings circulating about the SOA. 
So, as we enter that season, here's a counter to some common things I hear.

"How do we apply for SOA money?"

...followed up by "where is our SOA money?" or other such questions.
There is a notion that SOA funding is somehow separate, different, or a grant program.
It isn't. The Student Opportunity Act REVISED programs we already have, most notably, how we calculate the foundation budget.
It also--notably!--revised the circuit breaker and got full funding for charter school tuition reimbursement.

All of those are sources of funding your district is already receiving, in the first case through Chapter 70, and in the others through circuit breaker and through charter school tuition reimbursement.

Now, I understand where this misconception comes from: when the Legislature passed SOA, there was concern in the House as to how districts would use the funding, so the House amended the bill to require reports to the state on "SOA funding." I'll note that this appeared to based on a false notion that every district was going to get an increase in state funding through Chapter 70--not the case--but what it actually did was give a general sense that there was somehow dedicated "SOA funding" that was being allocated because everyone needed to create these reports.

As the SOA revision of the foundation budget was directed first (but not only; we'll get to that!) at Gateway Cities making up for holes that demonstratively have had in their district budgets due to undercalculation of the foundation budget, there were--WERE--some districts that could make these reports, and make them meaningful. When you're hundreds of teachers short, as the Gateways have been, and you're adding those positions, that's a pretty straightforward thing to report. This is true also of student supplies, guidance, maintenance, and the other categories we saw undercalculated (even administration!).

However, for many districts, there weren't (particularly initially) increases in state funding due to SOA. Those reports thus were pretty fictional, I'd judge.

This of course became even more the case last year, when the statewide outcry over an inflation rate that was nowhere near the actual cost increases being seen by districts was met with inaction at the state level. Thus even the districts that do see gains through SOA had no choice but to use those SOA increases to simply keep their boats afloat. That would then add to the fiction classification of the SOA reports.

(I will note here only in a parenthetical: I'm not going to give "but how could the Gateways have struggled last year when they have SOA?" its own answer; if you don't know what a 1.35% inflation rate does to a school district, then you should go figure that out first before opining.)

Thus: there is no separate SOA funding. Most of the SOA changes are coming via the calculation of Chapter 70; all of the changes are in funding districts already receive.

"Only Gateway Cities are benefiting from the Student Opportunity Act."

..and this sometimes comes with an "and so..." as a follow up.

The thing is? It's simply not true.

It is absolutely the case that districts with the largest populations of low income students in municipalities that have the smallest ability to contribute to their school districts have received both the most immediate and the largest benefit from the Student Opportunity Act AS WE KNEW WOULD BE THE CASE.

We have a progressive funding system, BOTH from the student need (how much is a "fair and adequate minimum") AND the state/municipality split ("who pays") perspectives (mostly, on which more below). When we reformed that system, a major focus was providing additional supports for low income students, particularly in districts that educate a high concentration of them. When we then run that reform through the full calculation,  the increases in the foundation budget that result increase state-side funding in districts that get a majority of their funding from the state.

That looks like this: 

However, as we have gotten further into implementation, we have seen more and more districts seeing increases in state funding, again, AS WE KNEW WOULD BE THE CASE.
That has looked like this: 

And that was true UNTIL those increases ran headfirst into the low inflation rate last year. This smacked a number of districts that had started seeing real state increases back into minimum per pupil increases and held some there that would have escaped in FY25 (including, not incidentally, the Boston Public Schools).
For example, this: 

...I could give lots more examples, but I imagine one gets tired of charts...?

"Because of SOA not doing anything for the majority of districts, we need a fundamental review of the system."

I'm taking this one up, not because I disagree with the conclusion--we're overdue for a foundation review, anyway, by SOA itself, if you figure that we last reviewed the foundation budget in 2015, when the Foundation Budget Review Commission made its report!--but because the premise on which it draws is faulty.

First, we have the above, which is that many many districts either have or were very close to benefiting from the SOA if we didn't have an inflation rate that was unrepresentative of actual cost increases. As I think I've mentioned, MassBudget has run the actual numbers on this, and it's inflation that's the issue for the vast majority of districts. 

This has not gotten nearly enough attention, and I fear it has failed to sink in with many who'd most benefit.

just as a reminder

This is one of two issues with those who talk in a blanket fashion about districts who are receiving minimum per pupil increases. Those districts, and their relationships with SOA and with their hold harmless status, vary widely, first, from those who, like Gill-Montague above, are within a whisker of getting into the position of benefiting from SOA versus those who are millions of dollars in hold harmless, but second, those who are particularly dependent on state aid to those who are not.

This, of course, is not a popular conversation, as the state standard is that every district gets state funding, with the implication that every district needs it. However, there are millions of dollars in hold harmless aid that go to districts that have a combined effort yield--think of that as ability to contribute--of 50% or more over their foundation budgets.* They not only can afford to fully fund their schools; they are, at well over 50% or more of their foundation budgets.

Those districts are not the same as districts that locally have tiny ability to contribute to their schools. We do no one any favors to pretend that they are. 

It's been five years, all; let's get ourselves straight on the fundamentals.

______________________________________

*I started to do the columns I'd need to for figuring out how much and where, but the CEY are by towns and the state aid by district, and many of those are regionals. And that's more work than I am willing to do on a Sunday night.