“I still believe in hope*

From my notebook
From last April 

Okay, so clearly my New Year's Day post on the state senate potentially taking up school funding came from a place of skepticism.

But Senator Jo Comerford is clearly so excited and happy on her Instagram post from the same day that I feel like a heel for only that take, so let's try for the optimism that is the thing one needs to keep on trying in this field of education. Our kids, after all, deserve better.

So, what is it that we need in a Massachusetts school funding conversation?

1. We need accuracy and honesty about who has what.
   It is very very easy to lob statements about what percentage of a district budget is now versus used to be covered by the state, or list the lengthy cuts that will need to be made without accurately looking at what local communities are able to fund by the standard measurement of the state and what districts are getting from the state compared to one another.
   What do I mean?
   We have a standard statewide measure of a community's ability to contribute to schools. We have communities that can only afford to fund 15 or 20 percent of their foundation budgets (that minimum per pupil measurement required), while we have other districts that can fund (again, by this same standard measurement) 125%, 150% or more of the foundation budget. Not only to do all districts get state aid; all, by state law, get increases in state aid every year. 
   Further, the state funding formula is created to be primarily student driven, as each student is associated with a particular cost based on the needs of that student; how much of that is funded by the state is determined by the ability of the community to fund. We have, though, moved increasingly away from that, as the requirement that every district get more aid than the year before has dominated the underlying calculation.
   The state aid is based less and less on the needs of the students and the ability of the local community to fund, and based more and more on "everyone gets more than last year, however much that is."
   Note that what this has meant is that we have districts complaining about very different things when it comes to what is on a chopping block when budgets tighten. When state aid is what is enabling some districts to fund programs that other districts have never dreamt of because they still have elementary class sizes over 25, we're not living in the same reality.
   We need to start by being honest about that. I do not see very much of that in the conversation as yet. 
   
   
2. We need to recognize that we haven't fulfilled our responsibilities to the neediest kids in the neediest districts as yet.
   "But the Gateways got theirs!" comes the cry. Well, A) no, because we're currently in year four of a six year implementation, and B), not sure if you've noticed, but things have only gotten worse for those living in poverty in Massachusetts since the Student Opportunity Act was signed in 2019.
   So we absolutely do not get to start this conversation by counting the kids in the greatest need in the communities least able to support them out.
   We're a commonwealth; that means we're all in for everyone. 
   
   
3. We need to stop talking about Prop 2 1/2 as if it is carved in stone.
   First, Prop 2 1/2 was passed in 1980; it's younger than me.
   More to the point, the state Department of Revenue doesn't use 2 1/2 as the full story when it comes to how much a local community can afford to contribute over the prior year. They use the Municipal Revenue Growth Factor (yes, MRGF), which is the 2 1/2 assumed growth PLUS new growth in the community PLUS state (municipal side) aid PLUS other local revenue. (That's in MGL Ch. 70, sec. 2). So for those who find their local conversations about how much school funding locally can go up always getting stuck on Prop 2 1/2: note that it isn't what the state uses.
   And maybe it needs to be revised or reversed, too. But it isn't really the end of the conversation that it sometimes seems locally.
   
   
4. Special education is very expensive, growing, and a shared responsibility.
   And this is true for everyone.
   Remember, that the Foundation Budget Review Commission found that, even if the recommendations were fully implemented, we'd be undercalculating special education costs by $800M.
   And that was TEN YEARS AGO.
   Circuit breaker can only bear so much, and it's a reimbursement, so districts have to front the money. We need to have some honest conversations here about how we make sure we're appropriately supporting kids while also supporting districts across the board.
   
   
5. It's a big state out there.
   No, geographically, we are not that large. But because our school systems are so so very local, we can get very caught in our own local realities. 
   We have, for example, very rural areas in Massachusetts. There are kids who live there! They need a full quality education! They cannot spend forever on school buses!
   We have cities that have most of the kids who are poor and most of the kids who are learning English! Some day, we should talk about why it is that the needs are so so very concentrated in like fifteen districts!
   Again, we are a COMMONWEALTH. We are ALL responsible for EVERY kid. 
   We have to think beyond our borders.

...I think five is a good place to stop for now. 
Start paying attention. Legislative bills are due in the coming weeks, and if they're serious about looking at funding, this is going to show up there. If not, it'll be in the budget debate.
Either way, it's coming.  

xkcd 167: Nihilism

_______________
*“mostly because there is no alternative.” Molly Ivins