Where Massachusetts stands on education funding

This came out a week ago; sorry for the late posting!
The Mass Budget and Policy Center has published an analysis of where Massachusetts is on education funding, using the FY09 funding numbers (the more recent available). A few things of note:

• Massachusetts continues to rank high in terms of both nominal per-pupil spending, ranking 7th in the nation, and cost-adjusted spending, ranking 10th 

HOWEVER:

• education spending in Massachusetts as a share of the state’s economy essentially mirrored the national average in FY 2009 

in other words, in terms of what we have, we spend an average amount on education

For all that this sounds like a report only for the ed funding geeks (I know who you are!), it's very accessibly written and raises some interesting points. Well worth reading the whole thing (about four pages).
 

"Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures"

"what you're reporting in your end of year report to the Commonwealth": verification

statistical comparison with other districts
90% of children are staying in district (not counting private)
79.7% of expenses are managed through School Committee
amount of dollars that come from federal dollars into general fund

state average/Worcester/Boston
classroom and specialist teachers $4955/5766/6120
administrative cost per pupil: $446/465/654
in-district transportation: $454/354/1169
out-of-district (tuition and transportation): $20,826/16,714/11,036
per pupil expenses: $13,053/12,906;16,666

Foley asks who is included in administration

City independent auditors for FY09 and FY10

presentation by Sullivan, Rogers & Company for FY09 and FY10
FY09: electricity encumberances
student activity funds now being reviewed on an annual basis
major federal programs: nutrition, Title 1, sped, Title III, and ARRA
state changing dates applicable to things
federal money requested too far in advance
FY10: encumberance issue taken care of
student activity clean-up continued (being dealt with now)
indirect costs: city went to HUD and changed indirect cost rate from 1% to 3%
grants were written with 1%; 3% taken by city
Davis-Bacon act: construction projects of over a certain amount need certified payroll (for prevailing wage rate)
wages and salaries charged to a grant, procedures and documentation must be followed
Foley: to look at it, understand it from a management perspective
nothing here to concern me
keep finding in context

management findings even on WPS were provided by city treasurer...some were not written by WPS, particularly that having to do with grant funding

Foley on the budget

says that "this only confirms that Ms. Hargrove is the smartest person in the room here tonight" (referring to her not running for re-election)
Jokes that he liked the earlier meetings "as at least then we had heat"

Stimulus dollars: that's why we did not have cuts last January (of $19 million)

Foley asks Allen:
For Fy10, how much are we spending on charters? $21 million goes to charters; $4 million of that comes from the state. $2.5 million for any new charter school in the city
charters would cripple the further

City contribution declined by $3.1 million (recalculation of spending, and recalculation of foundation)

Foley suggests that looking at the transportation contract (up for renewal next year)

Business subcommittee report

We've got a few reports here, the first was the Business subcommittee coming out of the hearing in early April.
Mr. Foley is now reporting on the grant rate increase; we've done the numbers here before 1% to 3% means we're up to $1.2 million that's going to the city on our grants (including the federal stimulus). And now the quote from Commissioner Chester: "at digression of the School Committee"
We're also looking at a comparison with other districts of like size, and a long-term plan that includes Medicaid.

We're also running through the financial numbers later on in the agenda, as those are the quarterly review done by the Business subcommittee.

Snow day...UPDATED

Two things this means for Worcester this spring:

1. Two more weeks of days extended by 45 minutes (March 9-12,16-19, and now 23-26, and 30-4/2) provided the School Committee votes to approve it. That was the solution proposed when they approved the previous extended days; this may come up at Thursday's meeting. UPDATE: Turns out there's no new vote needed: the long days carry on until April!
   
2. The city's snow removal budget just went one more storm in the hole, up to $3.7 million. You can count on seeing that number again. Remember, snow removal is the one area in which Massachusetts cities and towns are allowed to carry a deficit from one year to the next; otherwise they have to balance the budget within the year.
   

Updated Budget presentation (DATE CORRECTED)

The City Manager will be giving his updated projections on FY09 and FY10 budgets at the March 10 City Council meeting (7 pm in the Esther Harlowe Chamber of City Hall).

(Recall that he wants to deal with both at once; it doesn't look like the State is going to have numbers that the City can count on in time for the City to do it all at once, so now the Manager is planning on two rounds.)

Updating the numbers (DATE CORRECTED)

The City Manager's March 3 budget update to the City Council doesn't give any numbers you haven't seen here before (I think), but I'll pull out the salient paragraphs on education here with added emphasis and comments (because I realize that most of you are not going to read all five pages!). As always, the Arial font is quoted; the serifs are mine:

Our preliminary analysis of the proposed FY2010 State Budget reveals a net reduction of the State's Local Aid and other revenue support to the City (all non-Worcester Public Schools) of $17.4 million. This total is comprised of a Local Aid reduction of $14.8 million as well as significant reductions in the State's line-items for Quinn Bill reimbursements, community policing and veteran's and elderly exemption payments that would have obvious detrimental effects on our revenues...

The manager has mentioned in previous memos that the City is also experiencing declining city revenues and there's ongoing concern about grant funding.

It is important to note that there is a similar FY2009 City budget effect when the State's education formula is recalculated due to the mid-year cuts in Local Aid to the City of $5 million. The result would be $500,000 net less for the WPS through June 30, 2009. Much like the Governor's recommendations, it is clear this City Council will want to mitigate any mid-year disruptions to our classrooms and therefore will stand firm in maintaining our "pre 9-C" levels of funding to the WPS through June 30, 2009. I concur, without question, and I will proceed accordingly with all projections and recommended actions to balance the FY2009 Budget...

In straight language, this is "yes, we could cut our funding for education this year, as our responsibilities under the foundation funding formula go down when state aid go down, BUT we aren't going to do that, even though it means we have to cut an additional $500,000 from the rest of this year's budget to do so." And if you haven't written a note to thank the Manager and the Council for this one, you should! We are all better not facing mid-year teacher layoffs. What a nightmare.

I await the projections from the Worcester Public Schools for FY2010. The Governor's FY2010 Budget Recommendation holds the State's Chapter 70 Local Aid for Education "harmless," in essence level funding WPS at the State's FY2009 funding levels. I believe it was universally received as a generous proposal to level fund the State's Chapter 70 Education Aid in these trying fiscal times. However, it is safe to say that the State's level funding of almost 75% of the WPS annual budget (Chapter 70 Local Aid for Education) in the face of increasing fixed costs for salaries and employee health care, as well as required additional pension deposits, adjustments due to City-side State Aid cuts (ts effect on City contributions to WPS due to the State's formula, etc.) will likely have a negative impact on WPS's FY2010 outlook. However, it is also important to note that President Barack Obama, Capitol Hill leadership, and the Governor have referenced additional operating funding for public education as part of the Federal Stimulus Legislation....I will seek to secure more detailed information for the City Council regarding WPS's FY2010 projections in week ahead.

Beyond the referencing to federal funding, there are three important points here:

1. Level-funding education (heck, level-funding just about anything) doesn't mean that it comes out even. Contracts have automatic increases. Health insurance costs rise. Fuel costs go up. Even a ream of paper is going to run you more this year than last. Just because we get the same amount from Boston doesn't mean we are free and clear.
2. Just like in FY09, when state aid goes down, the City's responsibilities under the foundation funding formula go down. The Manager has put it in a parenthetical here, but this is one to watch. The City doesn't have to give the schools as much money this year, because the State isn't giving the City as much money.
3. The Manager opens and closes with it intentionally, I am sure: he wants numbers from the school administration. They're trying to wait for April...he's going to be bugging them for it NOW.
   

Business Subcommittee

Revisions on the website
Recommend all schools have their own sites that are well-maintained
The webmaster is now looking at the website and "looking at content management systems"
Rollout is expected this summer
Plan to include parent information section, including grades (hope to reduce cost)

South High pool: WEDF grant to repair?
next few years are devoted to Foley Stadium and there's only so much money

Supplemental agenda covers business subcommittee recommendation; they check halfway through the year to see what changes if any they need to make.

• saving money on utilities: solar panels on South, lower oil cost
• lower transporation
• lower out-of-district costs
• higher workers' comp (expected, as this is usually underfunded)
• higher personal services (legal services, medical services for students)
• higher school plant maintenance (things put off too long)

What happens this year?

As we've been working out below, the change in state aid means that the city's responsibilities under the foundation formula change. It seems, however, that the City Manager, at least, is NOT going to recommend cutting school funding partway through the year. From his memo* to the City Council last night:

Much like the Governor's recommendations, it is clear this City Council will want to mitigate any mid-year disruptions to our classrooms and therefore will stand firm in maintaining our "pre 9-C" levels of funding to the WPS through June 30, 2009. I concur, without question, and I will proceed accordingly with all projections and recommended actions to balance the FY2009 budget.

This might be a good time to let the Manager and the City Councilors know that you absolutely concur that mid-year budget cuts to the schools would be disastrous!

*I believe this link is correct, but I can't get it to load. Let me know if it isn't right and you'd like it.

Here's the first of the numbers

Thanks, Colleen! You are incredibly valuable!

Last year's (which, remember, means FY09) required local contribution:

$83,762,339


This coming year's (FY10) required local contribution:

$83,628,319

Unfortunately, inflation, heating costs, health insurance, etc., are not going backwards.

This just in...

If you were watching the City Council meeting or read Worcester Magazine's blog, you got some of this, but here are some points from what the City Manager told the Council this evening regarding the state budget and the city budget(s) moving forward:

• among the items in the emergency relief bill is a proposed change in the foundation formula. As this is being touted as "relief," you can bet that this will require local communities to spend less on education. Watch this one!
• State aid under chapter 70 (education funding) would not be reduced for FY09 and would be held steady for FY10
• the governor is proposing a budget tomorrow, which the Manager's office will be looking at and will be reporting back to the Council on by the end of the week (should we get anything on this, we'll post it here)
• the Manager is proposing that the city operate under an 18 month budget, running from January 1 of 2009 through June 30 of 2010.  I (and other budget-watchers) have no idea how this would work; it boggles the mind.

Councilor Eddy on the tax rate

Makes some opening remarks about this being his first year doing this...running for office last year was an education...we have wonderful neighborhoods. "I would say those those that say 'no one wants to be here' that they have no idea what they are talking about"...care about the amentitites offered by the city.

"School system has seen an increase in funding"

"a city on the move, because we are a city of neighborhoods"

People are concerned about where their tax dollars go and if the city is being efficient...(so) he can't say other than the lowest tax rate possible

There are a lot of factors that determine where a business goes other than the tax rate.

"I have no problem with this vote, no problem whatsoever"

What just happened?

So:
The allocation of that money gets sent to Business subcommittee (their next meeting isn't up...I'll find out)
The City Council gets notified that discussion of the money is up on the agenda.
The administration comes up with a recommendation on K-3, 4-6, and middle school program allocations.
The subcommittee comes back with a recommendation to the full School Committee for the August 21 meeting (that's again at 4pm here at the City Council chamber).

Where is that money?

And here's 8-169:
(co-sponsored by Monfredo, O'Connell, Hargrove, Foley)

Mr. Monfredo: "we voted to place the $445000" in the teacher account...We did not discuss the middle school.
"The question remains: what will be our priority: can we ensure that our elementary classes will be small enough to be effective?"
"I ask that we consider the $200,000 for K-3...if we can even get our numbers down from 29 to 24...we know what works by what we cut...it's not a great budget, but it's better than we've had in seven years...we need to do all we can in our primary grades"

Motion: use $200,000 for K-3 in numbers over 27, then 4-6 classes over 27, then address the middle school recommendation. Further, asking that it not be referred to subcommittee.

Mullaney: "absolutely opposed voting on this now...far more study...we have kids in 4-6, 7&8, even in high school...fine to talk about children now in K-3...large number of students no longer in K-3 who need to be remediated...people making decisions...you'll see a revolt..vehemently oppose...Mr. Foley needs to weigh in...cannot balance the budget on the backs of one group of kids"
Lukes: "not just taking a vote...without causing a whole lot of trauma...troubled by having this kind of motion this late in the season...his logic is appropriate...I have a difficult time supporting it."
O'Connell: "is it possible to bring this back with a recommendation at our August meeting?"
Caradonio: "It was our understanding that this is what we were going to do...refer to Business...have a 41% mobility rate...31% of buildings foreclosed are 2 and 3 family homes...When this was brought up by the City Council you were there...to change this needs some sort of recommendation by the City Council...they (did this) to (forward the middle school)...consider some sort of communication with the City Council...I think that's only fair to do with the City Council...would give us the time that we thought we had...don't really assign a lot of the teachers until school starts."

Motion: refer to standing committee on Business and notify the City Council

Bogigian: "When the City Council appropriated this money for the school committee...I don't recall having the Council vote on how the School Committee uses funds...all I'm saying, is I support the motions...I don't think that money was given to us with the express purpose with doing the the things that are listed here."
Lukes: "The legal oversights..."basically, yes, it's our authority, but what does it do to our political negotiations? Conflicted.

Motions all passed

Midsummer School Committee meeting

The agenda for the midsummer meeting of the School Committee is up.

In addition to the usual rash of midsummer personnel appointments and some items for next year, there is one item of budgetary interest:

gb #8-169 - Mr. Monfredo/Mr. O’Connell

(June 26, 2008)

To discuss the manner in which the $445,000 in the teacher account will be utilized.

You might remember that there was some question as to whether additional money coming in should go to continue to keep down the size of elementary school classes, or to fund middle school programs. The School Committee was pretty strong in recommending the former.
But it wasn't clearly said in a vote.
It looks as though perhaps it will be made even clearer on Thursday.

The extra money and when it's free

Hmmm...here's a puzzler.

That $2.4 million has three priorities:

1. Fuel
2. Class size
3. Supplies

According to the school administration, this money will not be released until the gas prices are locked in.

That will happen sometime between now and November. It's based on the NYMEX market rate.
School, of course, starts in August.

This would seem to mean that they can't spend the money until, possibly, after school starts. That would make applications to class size tricky.

and the whole dang BUDGET!

Unanimously approved!

supplies

Voted to approve without comment

in brief

So far the School Committee has:

• voted for a 50/50 split with parochial schools on crossing guards (adding $15,000 to the budget)
• Cut $10,000 from Miscellaneous Salaries
• cut $2000 from advertising (in education operations)
• Cut $5000 from workers' comp
• cut $3000 from printing
• cut $150,000 from administration, with the administration to determine where it comes from

This was to fund the crossing guard split. The rest of the allocation (including new funds) have not been dealt with as yet.