The most read of 2022

 What a year!

Photo UP at the Durkin Administration Building this summer

In the classic manner, we do this from ten to one, remembering that the actual number one remains the face of the blog. Many of you simply wander by from time to time to see what's new. I appreciate that!

10. "We pauperize education": A letter to my delegation (from January): "Schools should be the last thing to close!" we were told over and over, yet no one did anything to create the circumstances that would make that possible. Here's my letter to the delegation (one of several I sent) regarding that.

9. Vernon Hill School (a post from 2015): This one feels a bit like cheating, because I know what drove the traffic for this. Someone on one of the Worcester community Facebook pages asked a question about Vernon Hill (which is the former Providence Street Junior High), and the photos I have in this post responded to some of the question, so I posted a link.
This does remind me, though, that I need to be more faithful about posting photos of buildings when I have them, as they're appreciated!

8. A post on Sonia Chang-Díaz (from December): The loss of Sonia in the Senate (even as her successor is great!) is something I know I will keenly feel, as will many. This is the post which doesn't do her justice, but is my best attempt. 

7. Who are those guys? A bit about the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (a post from 2017, which probably needs updating): With the change of Governor, there have been many under the impression that we'd a) get a new Commissioner (no);  and/or b) get an entirely new Board of Ed (no). I shared this link at least once to try to straighten some of that out. I should probably update it with new names, though. Maybe once we see what else happens after Thursday...

6. A legal opinion regarding health authorities in the Worcester Public Schools (from February): One of the ongoing questions of the pandemic has been who has the authority to do what (and also who does not). In particular around schools, what the authority of the school committee versus the board of health led to a few clashes. Worcester didn't have a clash so much as a sequencing question, but I posted the legal opinion of the city solicitor to clarify.

5. SCOTUS did what? (from June): It's been an alarming year in Supreme Court decisions, and education has not escaped unscathed. This is post is on the Carson v. Makin decision, requiring Maine to fund tuition to religious schools as well as secular ones. This is due to the very particular conditions of Maine education, but it has opened the doors to vouchers effectively being required to be used similarly in states where there are vouchers. 

4. What happens next in the WPS superintendent search? (from April) Posted the night the finalists were announced (at 9:32 pm), this post was designed to ensure everyone knew exactly what was happening next.

3. Remarks on Dr. Rachel Monárrez, next superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools (from April) Posted the night we voted on the next superintendent, this post is my remarks reflecting to my colleagues on my visit to San Bernardino City Unified School District. It was also a recommendation of action (which is what we did!).

2. Finalists for the Superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools (from April): Because I knew that people weren't going to be able to listen fast enough! This simply replicates the text that was shared with the School Committee the evening it was announced. 

1. Let's talk about this charter school application for Worcester (from November): My personal subtitle for this one is "what I did over my Thanksgiving break" but it was worth it, as it caught the attention needed, and that snowballed into the work that got the community mobilized. Fingers crossed we made our case strongly enough.

What's up for this year? I have fallen away from posting about what happens at Worcester School Committee meetings, which is probably something I need to get back to. Local coverage continues to fall off, and that means that the narrative of what is and isn't happening there from those who don't attend or watch meetings is often off course. There is only so much I can do, but I should do more of what I can.

Also: Ongoing work of new superintendent! New Governor and new Secretary! And a fall election under Worcester's new system.

Happy new year, and thanks as always for reading! 

A post on Sonia Chang-Díaz

 ...in this world of ours none of us can afford to be lookers-on, the critics standing on the sidelines.
Senator Robert F. Kennedy, of his brother President John F. Kennedy, in his foreword to Profiles in Courage

 The danger of writing laudatory pieces of people who are ending one portion of their professional lives but still have many more years of good work ahead of them is that it ends of sounding like an eulogy. So let me start this by saying that I am unswervingly confident that Sonia Chang-Díaz will be making good trouble in new ways, and I am looking forward to seeing what those are.

However, she does close her time in the State Senate this month--her closing remarks from the Senate are here, about 44 minutes in, and if you're around education in Massachusetts, do watch--and I feel as if this blog wouldn't be doing its job if I didn't pause to talk a bit about that. If you search her name here, after all, there are literally pages of results, which start with her being appointed Senate chair of Education. She has shaped education policy in Massachusetts for the past decade (at least), and she's reshaped education funding for decades to come.

...and that WILL be in her eulogy!

And I know that this blog post won't come close to doing her justice.

People run for public office--indeed, get involved in government at all--for many reasons; to know that people's lives can be improved (or not) by public policy is one. One thing I have ongoingly appreciated in working with the Senator's office over the years is they (and in Senate offices, it is 'they') get that the details of a bill MATTER.

If that meant that they needed to know charter reimbursement, the foundation budget, or any other aspect of a thing backwards, forwards, and upside down, they'd do so, because without a doubt they got knowing that level of detail, then knowing what needed to be changed, was what actually changes people's lives. 

And of course, it has. 

In holding public hearings across the state, and then in hammering out the details of what became the Foundation Budget Review Commission's report, something I always appreciated (beyond the fact that the summer of "how many items are going to be in the final report," she was expecting a child; never let anyone tell you that you can't do things pregnant!) was how often in chairing, she'd stop to respond to testimony or to a comment, to make it clear that she heard the person. Because, again, it's always been about people for Sonia. 

And that, of course, is why she chose as she did (quoted by WBZ):

I don't regret giving the speech that I gave at the Boston MLK breakfast in 2017, saying that our communities were tired of hearing excuses year after year about why they should wait longer for real criminal justice reform. I don't regret kicking off the campaign for the Student Opportunity Act in 2019 by making it clear that my first loyalty was to students and not to Senate leadership. 

I know what these things cost: political safety, a committee chairmanship, my position in leadership, probably many thousands of dollars in pension benefits. 

But I also know what they helped win. I know there are kids in our state whose schools have been able to hire social workers that they never had the budget for before. I know that there are kids who have access to diversion programs instead of incarceration. And I know that I would make those trades again, every time.

It is also why she ran for Governor. Because policy matters, because people matter.
That is a brave thing to do. And we don't have enough people like that in politics. 

We are losing one, at least from the state Senate, this month, and I am sadder than I can tell you to see that. 

But the picture above, I think, tells the story: it may have been the Governor who signed his name, but the win was Sonia's, and the victory was all of ours, most of all our children's. 

I didn't recognize the final quote with which Senator Eldridge lauded her yesterday, so I looked it up; it's from Cesar Chavez, as he closed a hunger strike in 1972 in support of farmworkers. I agree it's a fitting close:

It is possible to become discouraged about the injustice in we see everywhere. But God did not promise us that the world would be humane and just. He gives us the gift of life and allows us to choose the way we will use our limited time on this earth.

It is an awesome opportunity.

I'll miss you in the Senate, Sonia, but I'll be looking forward to what you do next. 

For the preservation of their rights and liberties

Governor Baker signing the Student Opportunity Act

I was there.
He really signed it.

We no longer have a 26 year old education funding formula in Massachusetts. We have one that has been updated, and updated progressively.
It actually gives more money to kids who have more needs.

Do read Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz's epic Twitter thread of thanks from yesterday:

So perfect that today's bill signing kicks off #Thanksgiving week, because my heart is brimming over with gratitude for folks who helped this generational reform come to pass. People I'm thankful for... #mapoli #StudentOpportunityAct pic.twitter.com/DZr7dFvVaS

— Sonia Chang-Díaz (@SoniaChangDiaz) November 26, 2019

While this was not the theme of those speaking, yesterday, to me, spoke to there being some things on which we cannot compromise. We have unjust systems, including an unjust educational system. We cannot, we must not, concede on that. Nationally, too often we hear calls for civility and compromise which come at the cost of some people's humanity. Locally, too often we hear calls for equity and justice characterized as personal attacks. We cannot indulge in that or concede to that.
It was the absolute unflinching refusal to allow a half measure that got us yesterday.
MASBO's sponsorship of MassBudget's Cutting Class back in 2011 illustrated the problem was widespread, but the injustice was particular where we have a lot of kids who are poor. The collaboration across district lines--the understanding that while it is a struggle for many, it is very much worse some places--is what built a coalition that succeeded.
We recognized an injustice and we worked to right it.
Our state constitution describes an educational system that prepares "the different orders of the people"in "the various parts of the country" with "wisdom, knowledge, as well as virtue" to continue and further our democratic (small d) governance.
Education is necessary to preserve our rights and liberties.
Yesterday, we made another step in that preservation.

So what's in the bill? (round...?)

Yesterday, the conference committee came back with a version of the Student Opportunity Act that is currently speeding its way through both chambers of the State House; by 2, it had passed the Senate, and it was expected to make it through the House by the end of the day UPDATE: by 3:30, it had.
You can find coverage from State House News (via the T&G), WBUR,  The Boston Globe, MassLive, and Commonwealth Magazine, plus a nice tribute to the work of Senator Sonia Chang-Diáz from Adrian Walker.
Images throughout are from my "70 on 70" presentation from the MASC-MASS Conference.

As for what happens next, here's the sequence:

S. 2412 of course does all that was agreed upon by both chambers.
It implements all five recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission: special education, health insurance, English learners:

 And low income:

Please note my recanting of "duo-decile"

And the data commission.

It holds districts harmless and includes a $30/pupil minimum increase.

It includes a "minimum aid adjustment" to ensure that no district will lose aid as a result of the statewide expansion of funding.

It also includes the inclusion of out-of-district transportation into the circuit breaker (phased in over time: 25% in FY21; 50% in FY22; 75% in FY23; 100% in FY24)) with a freezing of the amount at which the circuit breaker kicks in, subject to inflation only.

It includes the phasing in of full funding for charter school reimbursement over three years.

It includes the boost of the Mass School Building Authority to $800M.

It includes the following reports:

• Report (and determination) of how to calculate low income student enrollment
• Report on municipal contributions (from DESE and the Department of Revenue)
• Report on rural schools (from a Legislative commission)
• Report on funding issues related to recovery high schools
• Annual report from the Secretary on student preparedness and high school post-graduate success

So what's new? 

• The Secretary has to report on college COMPLETION along with the rest of what else he is reporting on; the House version of the bill did not include that.
• A study of Proposition 2 1/2 is included in the study of municipal finance by the Departments of Revenue and Elementary and Secondary Education with this additional note: "provided, however, that the division and the department shall solicit public comment.” That's new.
• There's a study on the cost of recovery high schools.
• There's a review of expenses and reimbursements on the actual cost of building school buildings (in summary) involving the Mass School Building Authority.
• In what may well be the most important point of this of all, the amendment the Senate passed (proposed, not incidentally, by Senator Chang-Diáz) directing the Comptroller, should there be a budgetary surplus, to transfer sufficient funds to ensure implementation of the charter school reimbursement was on schedule before certifying the amount of the surplus, is included. In other words, there's no "extra" money until this bill is paid each year. (Note: I wasn't specific about it being charter reimbursement in the post originally; h/t for the catch.)
• And: 
  
  In short? They finessed it (and those who simply looked for the word "amend" and never went any further are misleading you about what happened).
  Sec 1S beginning with part of b:

  Each district’s plan shall be developed by the superintendent in consultation with the school committee and shall consider input and recommendations from parents and other relevant community stakeholders, including but not limited to, special education and English learner parent advisory councils, school improvement councils and educators in the school district.

  That's a lot of people that must be consulted!
  The report has to include how the funds will be used, and then gives a list of “evidence-based programs, supports and interventions” which is the part of this that I find most irksome, because it doesn't include things like "having enough teachers" or "having a school in good repair"  and which closes:

  provided, however, that if a district elects not to implement the evidence-based programs described in clauses (A) to (I), inclusive, the district plan shall specify the reasons for electing not to implement said programs including a description of why said programs would not effectively address persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups

  To me, that last reads as a bit argumentative, but there is a "do something else" allowance here.
  The plan is to be submitted every three years, and then this is the provision for the Commissioner:

  Upon receipt of a district plan, the commissioner shall review the plan to ensure that it sets forth clear and achievable goals and measurable standards for student improvement that comply with the requirements of this section; provided, however, that the district shall amend any plan deemed not to conform with the requirements of this section

  Note how careful they were to make the district the subject rather than the object of that sentence. 
  So, can the Commissioner make the district amend the plan? It would appear so, though the law doesn't explicitly say so. It would, I would say, implicitly say so.
  
  But they also substantially bumped up the requirement around who is consulted. One wonders if they'll ask for evidence. If they do, it will be the first time, as far as I know, that the state has actually checked to see if school site councils are being actively used.
  The Department can combine this reporting requirement with other reporting requirements, which I am certain came from them and is probably being greeted with relief by every superintendent in the state.

The bill now heads for the Governor's desk. He, as above, has only three choices:

• he can sign it
• he can veto it
• he can amend it

If he signs it, we're done: it's a law.

If he vetoes it, the two chambers can simply pass it again (both have now, as of 3:30 pm, passed it unanimously), and we're done: it's a law.

If he amends it, the chambers will have to decide what to do with his amendments. 

Good work, all! Keep your eyes on the Governor! 

Liveblog of Senate deliberation of S 2350 "The Student Opportunity Act"

The Senate opens its session at 11 am.
The bill is here.
The amendments are here.
The session can be viewed online here.

I was here early enough that my polite request for permission to take a photo was granted. Newly redone!

posting as we go

It's FBRC week (again) in the Senate

And just in time, we have a barn burner of an op-ed from Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz:

None of the big accomplishments in our Commonwealth’s history were easy at first. All of them required resilient advocacy and courageous commitment from people across our state. But we proved they were possible. That’s what we do in Massachusetts.
Fulfilling the promise of public education as the great equalizer is our next big goal. Bay Staters believe in it. It’s a goal our constitution anchors us to. Now, that collective effort in advocating, crafting policy, and working together has given us a chance to deliver on it.

Another August

The first week of August hangs at the very top of summer, the top of the live-long year, like the highest seat of a Ferris wheel when it pauses in its turning. The weeks that come before are only a climb from balmy spring, and those that follow a drop to the chill of autumn, but the first week of August is motionless, and hot. It is curiously silent, too, with blank white dawns and glaring noons, and sunsets smeared with too much color.

Tuck Everlasting, Natalie Babbitt

Here we are at the opening of another August, a month that will close with kids back in school, and no school funding bill. As I noted last August, this "ongoing failure" was even foreseen and warned about in the Foundation Budget Review Commission report itself.
We should be clear: having or not having a bill makes no difference for the upcoming school year. The funding for that was in the FY20 budget, which, with the Governor's signature this week, is now set. And, to be fair, there was progress on school funding in the actual budget.
But it's a single year budget. It didn't change the underlying formula. 
The lack of urgency is troubling. Governor Baker, in the article linked above, swiped at those of us noting this with this:

“I think sometimes people don’t give the Legislature enough credit for how difficult it is to change that formula,” Baker said. “There’s a tremendous amount of will in the building to do that, but this is a very hard exercise.”

Many of those of us concerned know better than most what "a very hard exercise" it is, but we also note the amount of time and lack of urgency that has been present for much of the last four years.

Those four years, as Senator Chang-Díaz noted, are half of an elementary school career. I'll add that they are the whole of a high school career, and for the class of 2019, that's just what they were.
I'm not being cute to say: kids don't get that time back. It's already too late. You've already lost it, and we will never get it back.
It's thus helpful for the Springfield Republican (online as MassLive) to be editorializing about the urgency, but the stridency they criticize Senator Chang-Díaz for (and let me know when the last time is that someone used that word of a male politican) is something that instead ought to be widely shared.

I do think this point from the editorial is one we should consider:

“I think everyone is working very hard to come to a place where everyone feels comfortable,” DeLeo said.
Therein lies the problem: everyone will not feel comfortable, no matter what result is finally reached. No sensible person questions the complexity and difficult of addressing (and paying for) the varied needs of 21st Century public education.
Compromise will be required. When that happens, people on all sides must accept they didn’t get everything they thought they should, but could live with the outcome.

Yes, but who lives with the outcome? The impact of a shift in the funding formula and who pays for it impacts some districts--and thus some students--more than others. Who is being asked to give up or live with what? The kids most underfunded--those in the Gateway Cities, and particularly those students who are poor, who are students of color, who are learning English--are those least often at the table when decisions are made. They've been accepting, like it or not, an underfunded school system for years at this point. The impact of this funding bill hits those kids and their futures more than anyone else.
I don't think we should be shrugging and saying that they're going to have to live it it, strident though that may make me.

This brings us to Max Larkin's piece for WBUR yesterday about one thing that may be holding up the bills: the low income count. MassBudget, of course, has been on top of the low income count for some time. A number of cities, particularly those with high numbers of immigrants, have been concerned about the impact in particular this administration has on families' willingness to sign up for services and thus make the count.
And we should be worried about that. The national administration has had a chilling effect on lots of things, and it is part of our job at the local level to mitigate and fight what we can.
And I said yesterday:

I know nothing of how the decision of who is and isn't speaking on the record is made, but it's disappointing that DESE didn't have the people who do this talk. There's a decent conversation to be had. https://t.co/qqvFVU5iX7 #MAEdu

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) August 1, 2019

Here's why I say this: there have been ongoing discussions dating back before we switched from low income to economically disadvantaged. There have been meetings and task forces and (see above) reports on how to improve the count. There has been a TON of work done on this. I don't want yesterday's article to leave the impression that anyone--and I include here DESE--has shrugged and said whatever.
I do think that "yes, but you got more money per student" is a pretty lame response, because we all know there should be more money per student, already. We also need to know how many kids we have.
Many of the proposals in MassBudget's report have been incorporated already; I'd also argue that if kids are eligible for state services, we should be figuring out how to get them on those state services, even aside from our district counts, as kids need health insurance and food outside of school! That remains an ongoing and looming issue with the national administration.
I think, though--and I hope that those who are actually making decisions on this are asking for solid data on this--that this is not really the big hold-up. Or it shouldn't be.

If I had some sort of inspiring summing up here, I'd offer it to you. Other than noting that those who are most voiceless and most at risk are those most harmed by postponing, I've got nothing. Waylay your reps and senators when they're around over the August break, please.

"The art of the trade/ How the sausage gets made"*

Cheers to Yawu Miller for covering the discussion at Boston Foundation last week where a group of Latino organizations had invited Rep. Andy Vargas, Senator Jason Lewis, and Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz to speak about the proposed changes to education funding in Massachusetts. Notably, this got into tying up the money, which you might recall was discussed and defeated at the Foundation Budget Review Commission:

Vanessa Calderón-Rosado, a member of the Greater Boston Latino Network, asked Chang-Diaz what accountability measures she would support. Diaz pushed back, reiterating the importance of sufficient funding.
“We know money isn’t everything,” Chang-Diaz said. “But if you give a district $50 to do a $100 job, they can have the best teachers in the world and they’re still going to struggle.”
Shana Varón, who heads the Boston Collegiate Charter School and sits on the board of the Massachusetts Association of Public Charter Schools, said she would like to see more accountability measures and said she is concerned that many in Massachusetts are advocating against the state’s standardized testing regime.
Sen. Jason Lewis of Winchester noted that accountability measures are already in place, implemented as part of the 1993 Education Reform Act.
“We put very strong accountability measures in place in 1993,” said Lewis, who is Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Education. “We backed that up with tests. What we haven’t done is deliver the funds for schools to do their work.” Chang-Diaz noted that the accountability measures put in place in 1993 were enhanced in 2010.
“We have a system for more rapid intervention when we don’t see progress on the achievement gap or school performance,” she said. “The state can step in and take over a district.”
Other than the governor’s call for withholding funds and enhanced interventions, Chang-Diaz said, she hasn’t heard calls for specific additional accountability measures.
“Show me your version of what accountability is,” she said in her response to Calderón-Rosado. “Maybe we’ll agree.”
But with the clock running down on the state budget deliberations, Chang-Diaz said, legislators would have to agree on such measures on an accelerated timeline.
“I don’t want us to go another school year while we dither and talk about accountability,” she said. “Bring your proposal forward.”

I, too, am weary of vague calls for "accountability" which never appear to amount to anything more than more calls for privatization or otherwise channeling funding away from schools that actually serve all kids.
Chang-Díaz of course is entirely correct: the state got another round of accountability on the Fed's dime when the state passed the Act Relative to the Achievement Gap in order to qualify for Race to the Top funds in 2011. That law has not been revoked, even as the federal funding which was the reason for it is long gone.
Moreover, the original foundation budget was to be reviewed and updated periodically, which it was not. The state thus owes the districts this funding from the 1993 law, over and above the 2011 changes.
-------
*shamelessly borrowed from Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Room Where It Happens"

And speaking of the Foundation Budget

Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz presents on the PROMISE Act at the Progressive Mass issues summit
(and yes, those are Worcester numbers behind her)

“I think it would be a real shame if kids had to take the state to court to get us to comply with our Constitutional mandate.” Senator Sonia Chang-Díaz at Progressive Mass today  

Joint Committee on Education hears the funding bills:

This is bound to be a long one! I'll be updating this all day as we go.
The hearing begins at 10 am, but the auditorum is filling fast: the MTA is here with red "Fund our Future" shirts, I've seen a few superintendents come in, Mass Parents United is here with black tee shirts, and staffers from the Senators and Reps are in and out. My view is from the top back: 

Worcester Public Schools FY20 at CPPAC

I tweeted a few things out:

Thread by @TracyNovick: "Periodic tweeting as warranted from the @worcesterpublic @WorcCPPAC meeting on FY20 at @WorcesterArt @worcesterpublic @WorcCPPAC @WorcesterA […]" #PROMISE #FBRC #toGoogle

Leading where?

I think of the February and April vacation weeks as two of the most unequal weeks of the school calendar. While some families head off to warm beaches or ski slopes, and some school districts sponsor trips to see and experience international locations, many families struggle to ensure their kids will be fed these weeks with no free and reduced lunch. There are few weeks (all of summer is certainly another) where the gaps among all those receiving a "free and adequate" education in Massachusetts is visually so vast.

I'm thinking of this as I read this piece on Commonwealth Magazine on why we've seen a change in leadership in the Senate side of the Joint Committee on Education:

“Education reform was the reason I ran for the Legislature in the early 2000s,” she said as she walked to her office from a midday event at the State House. “As chairman of Ways and Means, we implemented the ed reform, the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations, three times in the last two sessions. Clearly it’s a top priority and it remains one.”
Asked whether she thought her appointment last week of Sen. Jason Lewis of Winchester as the Senate chair of the Education Committee (replacing Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz of Jamaica Plain) was a key step in moving the legislation forward, Spilka said: “I believe so.”

Since what separated the House and Senate bills in the last session was that the House bill didn't include funding for English learners and poor kids, one has to wonder, at least where I sit in Worcester, what this means for the negotiating position of the Senate.

And also, this.

Codcast on the foundation budget

I was part of the Codcast on Friday, speaking about the Foundation Budget Review Commission, SD.101, and how it may or may not be done.

The PROMISE Act: SD. 101

So what else (besides this) is in the bill "An Act providing rightful opportunities and meaningful investment for successful and equitable education" (h/t to those writing the acronyms!) proposed yesterday?

I first want to point out that bills often start with definitions, and a lot of what I pointed out yesterday (both here and elsewhere) was through carefully parsing out what is said in those opening definitions. The concepts of a "district student aid floor," a "district student foundation budget," and a "district student aid increment" are not ones that currently exist; they would be created by this bill if it is passed as proposed.

The definitions also lay out a lot about the implementation:

• health insurance is to be tied to the average rate of growth of all GIC plans over the prior three years
• special education is included (as in FBRC) at 4% in district (5% for vocationals) 
• out of district special education is three times the statewide foundation budget per pupil
• low income--which, explained below, can be created via in-district form--is 185% of the federal poverty rate
• the low income deciles go from 50% of per pupil to 100% of per pupil (I did a model of this for a class project; it's pretty impressive)
• English language learner is an increment ($2537.49 proposed for FY20), with the portion that is employee benefits adjusted in line with GIC

Also, this is not a long bill! I know I wasn't the only one yesterday who expected something much longer. In some ways, this is because it is built on much that already exists.

The very first thing this does, which I think is really important but doesn't seem to get any attention (it was in S.2525, too) is set up implementation. This isn't set on a five year or seven year or what have you roll out. It sets up an annual meeting, to be held by January 15, at which there will be a joint decision by both branches of the Legislature and the Governor's office on how the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations will be implemented for the coming budget year. While this may sound strange, this is how revenue on which the next budget year will be decided works; there's an annual Joint Ways and Means hearing to which the Secretary of Administration and Finance also comes, and they hear from experts on what the next year's projections look like, and then they decide what the budget will be spending. This is also how the 1993 ed reform law's piece on funding was implemented; they decided each year how it would work. This is, I think, a conservative (note the small "c") way of rolling it out, which I would think would appeal to those most concerned about costs.
It does require that all pieces--and it is including the "district student aid increment" in this, which was of course not a commission recommendation--be phased in at the same pace. In other words, you don't get to peel off the poor kids and the English language learners and do the pieces where everyone gets a benefit.
However (speaking of everyone getting a benefit) it provides that "in any year prior" to the completion of implementation (which the bill requires a bill be passed to mark), minimum per pupil increases will be $50 times how implemented the bill is, as a percentage.

You'll remember we switched to economically disadvantaged in including poverty in the foundation budget when so many districts went to direct certification; this bill would bring back the term "low income" and provide for a form for districts to "certify family income level for the purpose of calculating low-income enrollment." Districts would have the option annually to choose direct certification or form collection as how their low income level was determined. This is a pretty big deal; there was a substantial change, as many remember, with the number of kids included in the category when this changed. Going back to a local process would include more kids in poverty, including that group, much spoken of, that may be concerned about a state or federal program under the current administration. (Note that this also kinda throws all models off, as going back to a local process means the poverty levels would be different.)

The bill sets up a foundation budget review commission to review and make changes every five years after holding at least four hearings "across the regions of the commonwealth"; the review is to "include, but not be limited to, the components of the foundation budget established under section 3 and subsequent changes made to the foundation budget by law." It also includes what the original commission was also charged with: effective resource use and allocation. Those who sit on the commission (which looks parallel to last time) are, it is noted, not in violation of the conflict of interest law if they work for a school district.

Oh, and the "commissioner of elementary and secondary education shall furnish reasonable staff and other support for the work of the commission." That's what happens when the Senator who writes the bill co-chaired the last commission!

And while they're setting up commissions, there is also the creation of the data advisory committee, as in the commission report, "to promote the improved use of school-level data to inform effective resource allocation at the local level." As I've said before, due to ESSA's requirement of school-level funding reporting, I think this may end up being a moot point. It has to report out annually.

And that, plus the "district student aid floor" about which I wrote yesterday, is it.

New Legislative session, new bill (this one gets wonky)

Usual disclaimer here (which lives over to the left on a full screen): this is my work, my words, my views; don't ascribe them anywhere else.
Let's start this off by noting what was in the Foundation Budget Reform Commission report (MASC summary here):

• update the actual costs of health insurance
• update the special education assumption (not to actual costs)
• update the ELL provision
• update the low income provision

In also requires the creation of a data commission, and notes (but doesn't recommend) the need for preschool and the missing pieces on inflation.

Last session's Senate bill included the four sections on updating funding (the four bullets) and the data commission.

The bill being filed today--SD.101--also does that, but it has quite a bit else going on. 

So what's the change?
Boston, in a word.

Let's back up and remember what determines the amount of state aid any district gets: every district has a foundation budget, calculating the adequate (per current law) amount is for that district to educate the students in the district (as of the prior year). The state then calculates how much of that foundation budget the local city or town(s) can afford to provide. The state fills in the rest.

Cities and towns vary widely in how much they can afford: there are districts like Holyoke and Lawrence that can barely afford single digits amount of their foundation budget. There are also districts that can fund their whole district budget will money to spare.

That includes Boston.
I've said this--lots!--before, but I'll say it again: Boston has a high-need school system in a WEALTHY city. In the current fiscal year, for example, Boston has a foundation budget of $861M; the state calculates that it can afford $100M more than that.
But every district in Massachusetts gets money, regardless of need. Every district gets--and this, too, includes Boston--gets 17.5% at least.

It's important to note that this is NOT part of the foundation budget. There is no equity issue around the wealthy districts being guaranteed state funding, regardless of need. That's a straightforward political calculation.


So what's the issue?
Charter schools in Massachusetts are funded at the level their local district is funded at. Charter school students are included in the district foundation budget; the funding of each student "follows" the student (with 100% of the tuition being reimbursed to the sending district in the first year) PLUS funding for facilities AND however much the sending district funds over foundation.

Now the charter schools don't send the district a bill; the funding for the charter schools, at whatever level, are deducted from the Chapter 70 aid of the sending district; it is netted out of the funding that is sent to the district.

The amount of that required funding is capped (that's the charter cap) at 9% or 18% (for what had been the lowest performing districts) of the foundation budget of the district, 'though if a district spends more on the local district schools, that is added on over and above that cap.

So if you are Boston, and you get 17.5% of your foundation budget in state aid and you have 18% of your foundation budget going to charter schools PLUS whatever percentage over you're spending on your district schools--in Boston, this was19.6% in FY17--yes, your state aid is dwindling, it appears.

Note, however, why this is: it is the nearly unique position of Boston to be wealthy enough to be getting the minimum amount of state funding AND have an 18% charter cap.
The bill proposed today would guarantee that, needed or not, Boston and all such districts would get their minimum state aid of their district foundation budget AFTER charter school funding is netted out.

This is not a foundation budget issue. This is not, I'd argue, even an equity issue. This is a charter funding issue. If Boston wants to reopen that can of worms, they can do that.

What about the other districts that have charter students and tuition?  Let's look at Lawrence as an example, since Mayor Walsh pulled them in this morning: in FY17, Lawrence lost 10% of their foundation budget of $185M to the charter schools that receive Lawrence students. If you deduct that $18.5M from the $178M that Lawrence received in Ch. 70 aid, Lawrence received about $160M in Ch.70 aid. Assuming the district foundation budget is about $167M (that's the same 10% off the foundation; it isn't that, as it isn't exactly, but it isn't a terrible model), this bill would say that Lawrence is guaranteed $145M--their target of 87.16%--in aid. Lawrence, though, net charter tuition, already is receiving $159M in aid, though (well over their target, yes). There's no advantage to Lawrence or any other district that receives aid in excess of their target in this, unless those targets shift, which would require Lawrence to fund more of their budget.

There are districts, possibly even like Worcester, that would see a bump from this. It is not, in those high charter but high poverty districts, anything at all like the main issue at hand.
This issue shouldn't be tied to the equity issue for the districts that cannot afford to fund their district schools. And frankly, it makes me angry to see Boston arguing in any way that this is an equity issue.

Note who says what on foundation budget reform

...and speaking of which, I don't want to miss this from MassLive which got several important players on record around foundation budget reform. Note what is, and what is NOT, said:

After the speech, Education Secretary Jim Peyser said the administration’s proposals will be phased in over time and “will represent a significant new investment in our K-12 education system, while at the same time recognizing that how much we spend is ultimately not as important as how well we spend it.”  Peyser declined to say how much money the governor would invest or where that money would come from. But, he said, “There will be a funding mechanism to ensure that it’s paid for.”

So the "not as important as how we spend it" line, again, which, when we're talking about required services like health insurance and special education versus regular classroom teachers seems like...we should do both.
Also " a funding mechanism" from a Governor who promised not to raise taxes. Hmm.

Senate President Spilka's remarks from earlier in the week are cited.

It's well known that the House leadership is more conservative than the Senate's (I've heard it said that the Democratic House leadership is more conservative than the Republicans in the Senate, but I won't vouch for that; they do certainly get more done on education funding); see this, which is the only comment I've been able to find from the House Speaker:

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, said Thursday that education reform was one of the items already on his radar screen for the new session.
DeLeo said he hopes that Baker laying out his position will help move the debate forward. “I’m hopeful that maybe that might make things a little bit better, to see where it’s at, where he’s coming from on this most important subject,” DeLeo said.

...which looks a lot like the House getting cover from the Republican Governor.

And also:

Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, D-Boston, who chaired the Senate Education Committee last session and is leading the Senate’s efforts to update the education funding formula, said, “I’m really glad that the governor has come into the table and is elevating the issue.”

But Chang-Diaz said she would have liked to see Baker give a more complete description of the scope of the problem, and she is not happy with the level at which Baker has funded education so far. However, Chang-Diaz said she is “keeping an open mind” and is hopeful Baker will adopt the Foundation Budget Review Commission’s recommendations.

At this point, we're all waiting for the Governor's budget, due January 23.
Fund Our Future said the Governor's proposal should be rejected; as far as I can see, the Governor hasn't actually made a proposal, so I don't think there's anything to reject.
Stand for Children goes farther than the Governor did himself, and thus thanks him beyond what is deserved:

“Governor Baker made fair school funding the top priority for his administration’s second term and for that he deserves the appreciation of every parent in Massachusetts who is concerned that their children are not getting the same quality education as students in our wealthier communities,” Aloisio said in a statement.

He...didn't say that. And let's wait to see what he proposes (certainly, with due skepticism) before we get out the ticker tape. 

Ongoing failure

...the good work begun by the education reform act of 1993, and the educational progress made since, will be at risk so long as our school systems are fiscally strained by the ongoing failure to substantively reconsider the adequacy of the foundation budget.
The Foundation Budget Review Commission conclusion, 2015

And so the "ongoing failure" continues.

The best coverage this morning comes from Max Larkin of WBUR (having dedicated education reporters is GOOD!), but I'd also read Shira Schoenberg at MassLive (quickest off the mark last night!) and the combined efforts of the State House News Service reporters via The Lowell Sun.

A few things to note: the statement issued by Rep. Alice Peisch on behalf of the House conferees repeats the argument that they need to be able to tie funding to particular places:

House conferees release statement on lack of deal on #fbrc education funding bill. #mapoli pic.twitter.com/dlZdODPEIq

— Katie Lannan (@katielannan) August 1, 2018

Note the careful language: the House conferees aren't dedicated to additional funding; they're dedicated:

to ensuring that additional funding in the FY20 budget to support our ELL and low-income students is based on careful analysis that will ensure funding is directed to support the schools, classrooms and students who need it most.

It appears the belief is no, we can't trust district administration and school committees to do that; they need to be directed.
If you'd like to know, incidently, what districts with high need populations do when they receive funding to support those populations, please note what Fall River voted to do with their hurricane relief funds last night.
This misses--at this point, it's difficult to see it as anything other than intentionally--that funds for English learners and funds for low income students haven't kept pace with need. We know this. There is a hole in the services being provided to those students. Or if there isn't a hole in providing for these students--remember how this works--funding has been shifted from other areas that will then need to go back to those areas. This is why I keep tweeting out charts from districts: some holes are different!
And that's why, no, the state doesn't get to decide this, because districts have done this differently.
As I pointed out earlier this month, this was an extensive discussion at the May 2015 Foundation Budget Review Commission meeting as they wrapped up their first round of conversations; after hearing from districts, the Commission DID NOT tie additional funds to anything other than reporting. The House members are refighting a battle that they lost when districts were at the table.

Elsewhere (this is in both the Sun and WBUR), the House throws DESE under the bus:

Peisch, a Wellesley Democrat, issued a statement on behalf of the three House conferees, saying new information from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education "complicated" negotiations and "the exceptionally complex nature of recalculating various increments to the formula as we traded proposals." 

Look, I'm there for calling DESE out when they screw up or make things unnecessarily difficult. If the House received "new information" from DESE this week, I'm going to make an educated guess that they only asked for particular calculations to be done sometime in the past few weeks, as opposed to, say, anytime in the past THREE YEARS the report has been out (or the seven since Cutting Class). Your deciding you'd like some model that hasn't been previously considered to be done now is not DESE's fault. And if the House hadn't waited until the last minute to pass a bill, "the exceptionally complex nature of recalculating various increments to the formula" would also have had more time.
In any case, none of that was news to anyone paying attention.
And it's not okay to attack bureaucrats who don't deserve it, because they can only fight back by making your life quietly miserable.

We get some insight into what broke negotiations from Senator Chang-Diaz's statement:

In the end, House leadership rejected all of our offers on the #FBRC #MAEdu funding reform bill. This is unfathomable and inexcusable. It’s a dark day for our Commonwealth. #mapoli pic.twitter.com/CQ3vpCstTd

— Sonia Chang-Díaz (@SoniaChangDiaz) August 1, 2018

"House leadership rejected all our offers [and] moved the goal posts" would seem to mean that House leadership wasn't even negotiating under the bill the House passed. Not only would that not be negotiating in good faith; it wouldn't appropriately represent the interests of the House as passed in the bill. As the WBUR article puts it, the House leadership went so far as "rejecting one of its own proposals to kill the bill." 

Yikes. I'd be interested, then, in what all the House members who signed onto the full implementation budget amendment think of their leadership this morning. A quick look at the #FBRC hashtag on Twitter this morning shows a lot of constituents with strong opinions.

I don't have a witty or snappy closure this morning. This is on the House: not just on leadership, but on all those who supported leadership.

It's the "various orders of the people" who are let down by this: the poor kids, the kids learning English, and yes, kids of color. It doesn't just reflect badly on the House; it reflects badly on us all that these kids are ones we've decided can be sacrificed for political expediency.

And on the House education funding bill?

The #FBRC already studied low-income & ELL rates, & their recs were included in @MA_Senate's #MAEdu funding bill. House explanation for leaving poor kids behind doesn't stand up to #facts. It's time for policy-makers to do our jobs & take action. #mapoli pic.twitter.com/j4mHNKR3Yy

— Sonia Chang-Díaz (@SoniaChangDiaz) July 16, 2018

Take notes

As I've been following the discussion around the House bill, I had this haunting sense that this discussion--do we move forward with just sped and health insurance? do we need to do all kids?--seemed familiar.
So I checked my notes.
As I think I've said before, I started this blog lo these many years ago as a record for those who couldn't make it to Worcester meetings around school finance, as recognition that the Telegram & Gazette was never going to cover everything. And then I started going to state meetings. And here we are.
Thus, to my knowledge, no one else has notes out there that follow the discussion that was happening three years ago May about what the Foundation Budget Review Commission was going to do. The FY15 budget (passed in June 2014) had given the Commission a June 20, 2015 deadline. They had begun meeting in the fall of 2014, had held hearings over the winter, but as of May, had come to consensus only on health insurance and special education.
In order to get an extension, they had to get legislation passed by both parts of the Legislature.

My notes from that May 5, 2015 meeting are here; if you scroll down to "Chang-Diaz and Peisch offering proposals to discuss about moving forward," you'll see what I mean: Representative Peisch wanted to push ahead and get the proposals they had for those two items out there for the deadline. She argues that there is a clear interest in those two proposals, that it sends a clear message to the Legislature to come back on deadline with those two items. (I'll note that Peisch was consistent in this, as she said the same in speaking to MASBO that same month.) She doesn't talk a lot about anything else needing to be in the report.
Senator Chang-Diaz notes the concern that leaving off other recommendations lessens the urgency for them, and others argue that the report doesn't fulfill the charge of the Commission in only doing special education and health insurance, particularly given what they had heard at public hearings.
Interestingly, Commissioner Chester argues for the need for greater deliberation, 'though he says he isn't sure they'll come to consensus.
Eventually, on a motion from former Secretary Paul Reville, the Commission votes unanimously to issue an interim report in June that not only reports out special ed and health insurance, but lists the issues to be resolved, to request an extension from the Legislature, and to issue a final report by November 2015.
Which is what happened.
This was enough of a heated disputed, however, that it came up at the following meeting on June 9, 2015, when then MASC President Pat Francomano asked that the minutes be clarified to include specifically that the report would include a list of items still to be dealt with, which was not included to his satisfaction. At that meeting, there was an extensive discussion on potentially tying any new funds to specific requirements, which disturbed me enough that I wrote about it the next day. I noted elsewhere this week that this argument has also come back:

Hey, all: read down and note that MBAE is pushing for “reforms” along with the money actually owed district.

I keep telling you: watch this. There are those who want to tie strings all over this. #FBRC #MAEdu https://t.co/XTEayEpUl5

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) July 12, 2018

Thus while the positions of who is arguing to move ahead and who is arguing to stop have changed, the "why" has not. The urgency of the needs BEYOND those of special education and health insurance haven't, it seems, gotten any more traction than they had three years ago, when they wouldn't have made the report had it been left to Rep. Peisch. There is, of course, irony that somehow we're going to magically have the comprehensive report some think we haven't gotten in four years of work in six months, but I suppose it's easier when that work has already been done.
Additionally, much of the conversation of this past week has been the same parties making the same unsuccessful arguments that they made three years ago. Those arguing just to move on special education and health insurance, leaving out ELL and low income, and on tying districts that are owed hundreds of millions of dollars already under the current system somehow needing to prove worthliness are old, tired, wrong, and privileged.
It's a shame the House bought it.

Senate debates "An Act Modernizing the Foundation Budget for the 21st Century"

You can find the bill (and amendments) here.
This is totally not going to start for awhile. 

2pm: Senate is now in session. I'm going to need to leave at 3:30 at the latest, so this will not be wall to wall coverage, alas.

Senator Brady (of Brockton): "we couldn't have done this without our districts, without the advocacy of our districts, we couldn't do it without our local elected officials and our citizens"
introducing local elected officials and Brockton Superintendent Kathy Smith

Senator Chang-Diaz:
who is listing cuts from district after district 
"have become year after year effort"
citation from Supt. Boone when they held hearings 
"and then there's the work that wasn't cut because we weren't able to start it"
a single counselor spread across multiple schools "despite constant demand for trauma services and recovery from the last shooting"
"face every district across our Commonwealth and it has been so for decades"
some districts considering suing the Commonwealth
districts suing "inspired the 1993 Education Reform Act"
"we act on the legacy of these reforms"
from 2002 to now, real dollar spending has fallen 7%
students "are waiting on our courage"
"a bold righteous and radically American promise" when we passed the '93 act
"all means all"
"when we say 'liberty and justice for all,' all is supposed to mean all"
made a deal with districts "expectations matched with investment"
"since then we have acted like education is a static enterprise"
"our funding formula has not grown with us"
and districts are buckling under the pressure
"it has been a quarter century since the Legislature checked in with the math that undergirds our public school system"
"we've fallen into one of the deepest achievement gaps in the country"
now reviewing FBRC findings
"were endorsed unanimously by the Commission"
"the promise of quality education...runs to the very heart of who we are as a Commonwealth"
the education section is "the only place that 'cherish' appears in the Constitution"
"ask my colleagues to think of things that they cherish in their lives
"are we cherishing public education?"

Lewis: " have worked for many, many years for this day"
and intros students from Malden High
this issue motivated him to run for public service and go into the Legislature
letter came home that his daughter's school library would be closed
asked for parents to volunteer to keep the library open
"this was a real eyeopener for me"
thanks Chang-Diaz for her leadership, thanks Jehlen
education is the hallmark of Massachusetts
"Horace Mann recognized that Massachusetts" does not have natural resources...human capital is what we tapped into
"the oldest written Constitution still in use today...it's written in there...that's how deep it goes"
in the years since 2000, the foundation budget has not kept pace
the average school in the Commonwealth is now forced to spend 120% of their foundation budget (it's 129.7%)
"what that masks is our most disadvantaged districts" can't spend over the foundation budget, while the more well-resourced districts are spending well over that
"putting tremendous financial pressure on all of our schools"
"every year, they're struggling to balance their budgets...and every year, they're told by the City Council, the finance committee, 'Nope, you'll have to cut'"
"this is exactly the opposite of what we intended in the education reform act in 1993"
"that to me is a moral failing of the Commonwealth"
first state to set up a system so that every district gets what it needs: "the same high quality education" in every district
"hope that we will once again lead the nation"

Sen. Spilka: "hard for me to sit still when we're having a debate about changing the foundation funding formula"
why she first ran
organized others to lobby and advocate
changes that were made in '06 and '07 "adequacy was the issue that eluded us in those days"
"what does it really take, what does it need to include" for each district across the state
"and it has to get updated"
"look at circumstances across the state"

Sen. Jehlen:"state budget takes another step forward...it's not enough, but it's where we ought to go"
"make that obligation transparent every year"
public hearing where all will agree on way forward
minority leader has pointed out important obligations we have made
1. Funding 2. State control/oversight 3. Charter schools
"we have increased the demands...we have raised the number of charter schools...but we have not kept the grand bargain"
"most of the aid increases...have not been targeted to the most underresourced communities"
"in 2002, we stopped meeting our obligation to fund local education adequately"
"those underresourced districts are the ones we count as most underperforming"
districts under state control are getting less than the state average increase this year "Southbridge singled out as having to reduce their staff by 30 this year"
commitment before we write our budgets
"none of the Governor's budget have met" increase in revenue
"this step is our part of keeping our part of the grand bargain"

Sen. DiDomenico: great to stand before you today on this day for children
"most important title is 'Daddy'"
Everett has to choose between library, media, things they should do
"class sizes are exploding, and they need to do more with less"
"we have to do more, and this bill does just that"

Sen. Bruce Tarr
"this day of reckoning which is long overdue"
amendment after amendment offered by minority to this end
"and then, Mr. President, we forget about one of our commitments"
"and the gap began to grow, and grow, and grow"
"something which should have been done probably in 1996 but certainly by the year 2000"
"tasked this Commission with doing a lot of work because it had been so long" since anyone had considered the foundation budget
"I would argue that this should never happen again"
"and there is still a lot of work to be done on the foundation budget"
"those need to be addressed, too" listing circuit breaker, regional transportation, charter school reimbursement
"critical that we have a process and a schedule" to address the gap that has developed
"pass the bill, send it to the House, and urge them to pass it expeditiously as well"
"I suspect that this bill receive tremendous bipartisan support, and it should"
"creates a mechanism, it creates a process, it does not create resources"
"look at the divergance between what we should be doing and we have been doing"


I had to duck out at that point, but here are a few highlights from later coverage: 
Senator Tran chose to make his maiden speech on this bill, relating his own history as an immigrant from Vietnam who went to public schools in Clinton. He said that he has lived the American dream and now can assure that others will.

A number of amendments were withdrawn, most of which will, the Senators said, be put forward as budget amendments.

The one amendment that did pass unanimously was one from Senator Bruce Tarr, the Senate Minority leader, creating a reconsideration of the foundation budget via commission every five years.

The bill passed unanimously 38-0.

UPDATE: coverage from...
MassLive
The Sun Chronicle with the spot-on observation of its bipartisan nature
RadioBoston which you have to listen to
Commonwealth Magazine which does a nice job of linking it to the "Leading the Nation" celebration also happening this week