two* Massachusetts school budget charts you might find interesting

 I took some time this past week to update some slides from work, and there are two that I thought might be of general interest.

As you may or may not know, the state school funding system is based on an underlying split of 51% of the foundation budget coming from the local communities and 49% coming from the state. Now, that's foundation budget level state aid and  required local spending, so both of those aren't what actually happens. It continues to be the local part that's really different, though. Here's what FY25 (which the state recently released actual spending data on) was: 

Green is chapter 70; blue is local spending

Now, please keep in mind that this is reported net school spending--it doesn't include grants, and it also doesn't include things like transportation (which regional districts have heavily reimbursed). It is however most of what is spend on schools in Massachusetts, and chapter 70 is 38.5% of the above total.

Now some of that above state aid is, as I've been noting, hold harmless aid. Hold harmless aid is, of course, aid that ensures a district doesn't get less aid than the year before. Because the state also ensures districts get an increase in aid each year, this can accumulate, such that the amount of state aid a district is receiving is increasingly far removed from the needs of the district and the ability to contribute of the municipality.

As I was putting together my annual comparison of two districts with very similar foundation budgets that have very different levels of need and very different abilities to contribute this year: 

Dartmouth, which has much less need in its district, and much strongly ability to contribute than Southbridge, as seen above...

...is, due to minimum per pupil increases adding up over time, now required by the state to spend more than Southbridge through state-supplied funding. In other words, the state gets both Dartmouth and Southbridge schools to foundation, and then adds funding to Dartmouth's state aid, lest Dartmouth's aid be less than before. 

As always, I post this not to pick on Dartmouth, or indeed anyone; we could easily do this with a large number of districts across the state. I am, however, going to continue to note that this isn't equity

*yes, there are three charts, but it's the first and the third I thought you'd find of interest

point five, Worcester

 When I posted about the Worcester School Committee taking up the FY27 budget projections for the first time, we didn't yet have the FY25 net school spending compliance report. The summary file of that is now available, and now we can see what impact the $3.8M the City Council transferred from free cash, as highlighted in yellow in Ms. Consalvo's presentation here: 

Note that part of the reason that the city had as much ground to make up as it did is that in FY25, the city underfunded the schools by $1.9M (99.6% of required). That gets carried over into the next year.

That puts Worcester at a projected point five percent over required net school spending for the current fiscal year (FY26). 

Statewide average (projected) for FY26 is 26.3% over required

we have a federal budget

 And when it comes to education funding, well, I'll let Mark Lieberman of EdWeek take this: 

You can read Mark's coverage (which I recommend) here. The highlight: 

Ultimately, Congress comprehensively rejected the Trump administration’s proposals to slash billions of dollars from federal education investments. Schools nationwide can expect roughly similar year-over-year funding levels this fall for key programs like Title I for students from low-income households, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for special education services, Title II for professional development, and Title III for English learners.

The final legislation doesn’t require the Trump administration to halt efforts to shift Education Department programs to other agencies, and it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the administration from taking further steps to diminish the Cabinet-level agency.

It does, however, include requirements for the department to consult more closely with Congress on the status of its efforts to shift responsibilities to other agencies. It also includes nearly $400 million for Education Department staff compensation, only slightly less than for the previous fiscal year despite recent staff reductions that have nearly cut the agency’s ranks in half.

The legislation also supplies funding for several smaller agencies the Trump administration had already moved unilaterally to defund, including AmeriCorps and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Remember, we're now talking about next school year's funding: 

Most education funding is forward-funded, which means allocations for the current fiscal year will hit schools in the upcoming school year. Typically, formula funds for schools start flowing to states in July. Grant program competitions can happen throughout the year.

Do remember that both how much goes to each state and how much then goes to each district has to be recalculated each year based on the factors in the formula for each grant, so how much your district gets may not be the same as last year. But we aren't seeing the deep cuts that Trump campaigned on and continued to promise once elected.

They aren't popular. 

A few notes on federal grants

I've been in a couple of sessions recently on federal grants (most recently DESE did one this morning), so providing a few highlights:

• Always remember that federal education grants are almost all what's called 'forward funded' meaning that we have the current fiscal year's funding already. 
• Thus discussions of the FY26 federal budget--which is what the shutdown happened around--are funding that are/will largely impact our NEXT fiscal year at the state and district level, FY27, and thus NEXT school year.
• There are BIG differences among White House/House/Senate's bills, with the Senate being the one that essentially level funds and has the least changes. As the Senate can only act on a bipartisan basis, there's some thinking that the Senate's option is the one that will win out.
• The Senate bill also included language that required that funding to states go out as soon as it was available--none of this wanting to recheck stuff that hung up grants this fall!--but it's anybody's guess as to if that stays in.
• The continuing resolution to fund the government expires January 30, 2026, so expect us to get countdown clocks again soon.
  
•  The CR passed reverses the reductions in force RIFs initiated just after the shutdown began and prohibits the Administration from initiating any new RIFs through January 30, 2026, when the CR expires.
• One piece of good news: Because the CR funds full year appropriations for, among others, USDA, the continuing resolution that passed fully funds school nutrition through September 30, 2026, so that isn't iffy around government shutdowns.

What is freaking me out about funding right now

 I'm at the ASBO conference this week in Fort Worth--ASBO is the Association of School Business Officials--and one of the "must attends" for me is always the federal policy update jointly done by ASBO and AASA (that would be the superintendents). This stems from that presentation yesterday.¹

Setting aside for a moment:

1. that we do not currently have an operating federal government
2. because we do not have a federal budget or continuing resolution
3. and that some of the proposals for the federal budget have been alarming

I want to talk here about something that is actually going to happen because it is actually law and appears to not be in what is being planned for, at least from what I have seen in Massachusetts.

On the state FY26 budget

This is of course and as always coming from me who posts on here as me  

First off, cheers to the Boston Globe (yes, you did read that right!*) for this piece which interviews a lot of the right people, who point to many of the important things on this state budget and education! Huzzah! 

The Department of Revenue did issue FINAL (because the budget is signed) cherry sheets for FY26 at the end of last week, and DESE has similarly issued FINAL chapter 70 and net school spending information. Remember, the only way that any of this is changing at this point is if the Legislature decides to overrule vetoes. If you hear anything on that one, let me know.

Let's turn then to the budget we just got. 

Massachusetts isn't fully funding charter school tuition reimbursement

 For reasons that are unclear to me, this doesn't seem to be getting any attention, but Massachusetts isn't fully funding charter school tuition reimbursement. 

As of the May 6 projections, charter school tuition reimbursement statewide should have been (per DESE's numbers) $215,792,970. The conference committee instead agreed to $199M. It wasn't fully funded.

And that was before the Governor vetoed another $19.9M over the weekend: 

The Governor isn't wrong that the account fluctuates over the year; charter enrollment does, so the amount needed does. 
What this misses is that midyear money isn't the same as July money. It also misses--again, something the state seems rather stuck on--that midyear funding doesn't, save in cases where the funding is allocated "without further appropriation" to the school district itself, get to municipal school districts. It goes into the municipal general fund. 

The Legislature could override the veto, though State House News reports:

House Speaker Ronald Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka both provided thankful quotes for Healey's budget action press release, each of them referencing a shared commitment to "responsible" budget management.

Fully funding charter school reimbursement is part of the Student Opportunity Act. It thus is not the case that the commitment of the SOA is being met.  

Happy fiscal new year! Trump has impounded billions in federal grants for this year

Happy fiscal new year! FY26 officially begins today for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for Mass school districts, and for our towns and cities!

This also means we have lots of people starting new positions today: new superintendent contracts generally begin July 1, and our new Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Pedro Martinez is starting today, as well. 

But it wouldn't be the Trump administration if we weren't also starting the new year with bad news, and so it is today: that concern I noted last week over federal grants for the fiscal year we start today has come to pass, and it is even worse than forecast. 

Conference committee for FY26 is out

 A lot of the education money had been agreed upon already, but two education policy matters of note:

• the House-proposed "freeze and send to study" on vocational admission regulation changes is not in the conference committee budget, thus those regulations will stand as approved
  
  
• the amendment the Senate passed for a chapter 70 study is in the conference committee budget 

I've updated my spreadsheet with the numbers from the conference committee. There are a number of studies in the education sections: sex ed, transportation, teacher workforce, in addition to the above. Do note that the full SOA increase is being covered by Fair Share, which...I would argue is not what I, anyway, thought I was voting for. 

Note that, while the conference committee has finished its work, it's highly unlikely that we'll have a state budget today, as Governor Healey has ten days to make vetoes if she wishes.

Possible flag on four federal grants for this coming school year

The interaction between state and federal budgets is a bit tricky: we're hearing, now, about a federal budget which, when it comes to things like federal grants to school districts, would fund the school year after this coming one, starting in August or September of 2026 (which will be local and state fiscal year '27). The federal grants for this coming school year, the one that starts in August or September of 2025, already were passed by Congress, and, for the most part, the amounts to be allocated have already been shared with states (for what locally and at the state level is fiscal year '26).
Thus we've felt a bit safer for this coming year, as we've largely already had the numbers of what has been allocated (even as, remember, grant funding is reimbursements, so we never really have the money). 

Mark Lieberman, who writes on school finance for EdWeek, today flags four grants for which that is not the case as of yet: 

The growing anxiety over disrupted federal education funding centers on four programs worth a combined $5 billion: Title I-C for migrant education, Title II for professional development, Title III for English learners, and Title IV-B for before- and after-school programs.

The White House budget proposal published last month calls for eliminating all four programs beginning in the 2026-27 school year. But education officials nationwide worry that the administration could proceed with those cuts for the 2025-26 school year, before Congress has weighed in.

For all four programs, states haven’t received routine funding allocation estimates from the federal government that typically arrive between March and May—nor any confirmation from federal officials that the funds are still forthcoming.

Mark relates the national breakdown on how much is involved: 

• Migrant education: $376M (Title I-C)
• Professional development for teachers: $2.2B (Title II)
• Services for English learners: $890M (Title III)
• Before/afterschool programs: $1.3B (Title IV-B)

This delay has concerned the superintendents such that AASA came out with a statement today, which reads in part: 

The delayed FY25 disbursements for Title I, Part C; Title II, Part A; Title III; and Title IV-B totals $4.786 billion—resources essential for the upcoming school year, which begins in just a few weeks in many communities. Without these vital investments, schools will be faced with significant budget shortfalls, leading to reductions in service—and, in some cases, staff layoffs.

We call on the USED and OMB to release the funding as appropriated by Congress without further delay. The law is clear, the appropriations are in place, and the stakes are too high to allow political brinksmanship to interfere with the critically important operations of our nation’s public schools. We strongly urge USED and OMB to honor their legal obligations under authorizing statutes and execute the funding decisions made by Congress.

Mark also relates this concerning exchange from a Senate hearing yesterday:

 During a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., asked Russell Vought, the director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, whether the administration intends to hold back K-12 education funding due to states next week and instead propose a “rescissions package,” asking Congress for permission to cancel the previously appropriated funds.

Vought did not rule out that possibility. He replied, in effect, that the administration hasn’t decided.

“We are considering multi-year funding. It’s underway with a programmatic review. But again, it is multi-year funding, and no decision has been made with regard to whether they will be a part of any particular rescissions package,” Vought said.

 As you may have read, Vought rejects the constitutional framework of three co-equal branches of the federal government which check and balance each other. 

I wish I had some sort of conclusion here. We don't know. Given how these have gone so far, if the funding didn't come through, presumably states would file suit, and so far, those have largely gone in favor of the states suing. 
But that doesn't meet payroll or pay for programs in the meantime. 

Senate passes a DESE funding commission

So this is in interesting one! 

The Senate budget passed at the end of last week includes amendment 665 proposed by Senator Lewis which funds (at $200K) a DESE study to report back by June 2026, which is, fascinatingly, largely contribution side in what it proposes to study. I'll include the full language below, but the list is:

• target local contribution*
• local contribution as it impacts other local services
• the 59/41 split (that's the local/state split)
• wealth and income as the measurements of ability to contribution
• the 82.5% cap on the required contribution towards foundation
• minimum aid
• proposition 2 1/2 (that's sec. 21C of chapter 59)
• other ways of measuring ability to contribute

Plus also: 

• changes to local required contribution caps possibly by establishing tiers
• change to statewide target local contribution
• declining enrollment as impacting target contributions
• rural and regional district challenges
• what it would look like if changes were phased in over years

The Department under this would be required to hold no fewer than four hearings across the state and to post a draft of the report before finalizing it.

What's particularly genius about this is it doesn't have one of those exhaustive lists of every group and their brother appointing someone, which quickly creates a cast of thousands and frequently means the names, rather than the geeks** who get it, are at the table. 

It would also be reporting back, of course, just as the final fiscal year of SOA phase in is starting, giving the state then the budget season to be ready to start the next phase of funding reform (right?).

It of course is not in the House budget, so this goes to conference committee.

May Board of Ed: budget

 Bill Bell: quick update on federal and state financial resources
Senate today is debating its version of the FY26 budget proposal
$8.6B K-12 funding; bulk is the same as House 1 and House budgets
year 2 of further supports for Literacy Launch $20M
$25M for high dosage tutoring
affirms commitment to student nutrition; some differences in appropriation levels
"but that will get itself worked out"
"that's all based on claims; do our best to work that out"
social-emotional supports for students

Federal side: federal budget for this coming fiscal year (which is FY25 for fed)
have received major entitlement awards
still awaiting for adult education and Titles II, III, and IV
think it is about OMB working out final details; expect to see in next month or so
watching next federal fiscal year budget FY26, which would impact next fiscal year for state (FY27)

And ADJOURNED
Next meeting June 24 back in Everett

and because this year's WPS budget book has a snail...

 

WPS FY26 proposed budget is posted

It can be found here.
Please enjoy the snail* on the cover, the work of Worcester Arts Magnet student Miguel Andrade.

and despite the cover: it's always only a proposed budget
until the School Committee takes action on it

I'll see if I can post a bit more once I get to it, but to follow up on my posts earlier this week, if you turn to page 376 (381 in the online edition), you will find, indeed:

...the city is projected to be $1,793,310 short of its minimum required contribution to schools next year. 

The standard calculation done for every city and town in Massachusetts can be found on page 373 (online 378).

______________________________________

*Yes, this does mean BUDGET FISH has been replaced by BUDGET SNAIL and I think I may need to start making references to the speed with which the city of Worcester is getting to required spending. 

It isn't, of course, the snail's fault. He seems a cheerful sort, clearly making the best of things.

On the Senate's Ways and Means budget

In the Senate Ways and Means budget released Tuesday, most of the education lines are parallel to the House budget, with these exceptions: 

The circuit breaker is still down from the Governor, so the open question here is what they're doing with the supplemental, which does have supplemental circuit breaker funding in it.
Related to this line, incidentally, is that there is word out there that the Legislature doesn't plan to take action on the supplemental budget until taking action on the FY26 budget, despite some of the funding in the supplemental budget for circuit breaker being for FY25. That's WAY too late. If the intent is for it to be for FY25, it needs to get to districts this fiscal year, which it will not if they wait until conference committee.

The Senate puts rural schools back to $16M.


The charter school reimbursement is down $14M from the House Ways and Means budget, with no clear reason as to why*. I've taken a look at some of the bigger districts on the updated preliminary cherry sheets and district by district loss in charter school reimbursement compared to the House Ways and Means budget:

•  $2M Worcester
• $3.5M Springfield
• $1.75M Lowell
• $500K New Bedford
• $1.5M Lawrence
• $1M Fall River
• $1.5M Brockton
• $389K Barnstable
• $478K Chelsea
• $657K Everett
  
  

UPDATE: Having taken a look at the updated DESE numbers, the Senate just doesn't fully fund charter reimbursement. The account should be $215,792,970; it's $183,828,858. It's funded at 85.2% of what it should be.

I hear a lot of people talk about "deals" and "commitment" this time of year. This is not either.

___________________
*Boston's charter reimbursement is up by about $4M, but tuition is also up by $10M, which I assume is the approvals from the Board of Ed meeting earlier this spring coming through.

It isn't that Worcester doesn't have the money

 It was noted to me yesterday that one of the first thing one should do when a city says it simply can't make net school spending is look at their free cash report to the Mass Department of Revenue. As you might know, "free cash" is what is leftover for a municipality at the end of the fiscal year. While for our family budgets not spending all we have is good, free cash instead means that the community didn't budget effectively the funds it received (the city budgets allocations for what would be "savings" for a person). 

Because charts are handy, here's Worcester's for fiscal years 2018-2023 (which is as recently as DOR reports; FY24 would be last year): 

Because the Council, as I said last night, can't actually add money to the city budget unless they send the whole budget back to the City Manager (highly unlikely!), the only way that Worcester can "make up" for the not meeting required spending for schools is through moving free cash in the fall, as happened this year.

Should Worcester met required spending this current year (due to that transfer), note nonetheless: 

• a) as any district asked will tell you, a dollar in November or December isn't a dollar in July--you aren't, for example, likely going to hire a teacher in December!--and 
  
  
• b) this is just not good budgeting. The city has enough money to meet the legal obligation for schools. It just isn't doing so.

This isn’t free cash  it’s not paying your bills  

And let's note, by the way, that this isn't new, so this isn't a majority of the council question*. It just isn't brought up at all by anyone. 

_____
*Yes, this is aimed at those who might want to make it an election issue. If you've had a vote, you're on the hook.

City of Worcester tells us ahead of time

In City Manager Batista's letter opening the FY26 city budget document, there's sentence I haven't seen in a city budget document before:

Despite the increases, the proposed FY26 education budget, built based on long-standing City and WPS practice of determining education contributions, may not achieve net school spending depending on the final State budget and final WPS expenditures.

 I am not sure how much credit to give for acknowledging it up front rather than letting us wait a few days to find out from the schools' budget.

As a reminder, net school spending is REQUIRED (in fact, I generally call it "required net school spending") by Massachusetts General Law chapter 70. It isn't optional; it isn't a nice thing to do; it is done by nearly every single city and town in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts every single dang year without a blink.

If your "long-standing...practice of determining education contributions" is (I'm going to be blunt here) breaking state law, your practice should be re-determined.

Insert levels of exhaustion here. 

UPDATE: which I said tonight at Council, about 12 minutes in.

Trump's budget proposal: weigh in but don't panic

The Trump administration released a proposed FY26 budget on Friday, giving us headlines about a multibillion dollar cut from K-12 education. FY26 for the federal government starts in October; this is funding for the 2026-27 school year, largely.

As K-12 Dive outlines:

Among the cuts:

All $70 million for Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, often used to diversify the teacher workforce.

All $7 million for Equity Assistance Centers, established as part of desegregation efforts.

All $890 million for English Language Acquisition.

A $49 million, or 35%, reduction for the Office for Civil Rights. 

At the same time, Trump’s budget would boost funding for charter schools by $60 million. 

Chalkbeat also has:

 It calls for holding funding steady for Title I, an $18 billion program that supports schools serving students from low-income households, and for the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, or IDEA, which provides $14 billion to offset a portion of special education costs. These are prominent and popular programs that Education Secretary Linda McMahon has promised would not be cut.

 For perspective, I always recommend reading AASA on federal finance: 

 In recent years, presidential budgets have been released and then largely disregarded as the House and Senate introduced their own respective budget proposals with little reference or deference to the president’s. We will wait to see the extent to which the current Republican House and Senate budget proposals—and appropriations processes—are aligned with the president’s proposal. 

Should you contact your federal legislators? Yes, certainly. Be sure they know how you use federal funds. As AASA notes, though, the president's proposal more starts the process than anything, so don't panic yet. 
And keep reminding yourself: this is for the school year AFTER next. 

 

Worth reading this week

•  MassBudget has shared their analysis of the FY26 House budget. 
  
  
• I want to say more about this, but we all really really have to be paying attention to Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, which was argued before the Supreme Court this week. This could well put into question if states are going to want to have charter schools at all anymore. 
  
  
• Regarding the ongoing delusion that generative artificial intelligence is the wave of the future that we must in education ensure we're adopting, gosh, go read "Reality Check" by Edward Zitron.
  
  
• I highly recommending this piece in Boston Magazine on Sharon High sophomore Rohan Shukla who was injured at last year's Thankgiving Day game. 
  
  
• The connection here for the blog is tenuous, but I want to be sure you're familiar with the Choir of Magdalen College, Oxford University tradition on May 1. Here's a video recording of this year's: 
  
  

Board of Ed for April: the BUDGET

update here; plus a spreadsheet

Bell; actively engaged in state budget process for FY26
House currently debating House budget
no significant amendments so far in debate
changes from Governor's budget; second step of three or four step process
about $425M over this year's spending; obviously big driver is state education
sixth year of Student Opportunity Act change
minimum per pupil aid is proposed at $150/student; costs about $76M in $7+B proposal
circuit breaker would be fully funded by House, instructional and transportation
significant investment in transportation: about 95% regional transportation
fund non-resident regional transportation as well
support universal free meals; paying close attention to free meals
potential changes in federal changes to child nutrition changes; federal reimbursement rates would impact across the change
"but that's a statement you could make across the state" on changes of the state budget
slightly different appropriation level on Literacy Launch
adult learners: House not quite as strong

Federal budget: working with federal FY25: approved for spending through September through continuing resolution
waiting, based on that, on grant awards for upcoming year
"not expecting any significant reduction" just awaiting award letters
if any reductions would be in finalizing FY26, which would begin in October, which would impact FY27 at state and local level
had shut off access to ESSER: still had about $160M in about 20 school districts plus two non-public schools
state has joined multi-state litigation on that
state has made commitment to those districts, state has been making those claims; state just cannot then draw down reimbursement from federal government 

Moriarty: was supposed $150M for Literacy Launch
"word has just got to get to Legislature that we're in a literacy crisis and we cannot solve it on the cheap"
Tutwiler notes full support for high dosage tutoring

holding May 19 evening for a special meeting
May 20 meeting in Methuen (1 Ranger Road in Methuen)