Don't go spending that $100M yet

 The chair of House Ways and Means weighed in yesterday: 

House Ways and Means Chair Aaron Michlewitz has “some serious concerns” about the governor’s election-year proposal to spend $100 million on public schools before they’ve even collected the revenue to support it. 

“The ink hasn’t dried yet on the actual fiscal year 2027 budget, so I think we’d like to see that be implemented first,” the House budget chief said. “There’s a lot of concerns related to raising that Chapter 70 number further, may further complicate things for future budgets.”

It has been rightly noted that Healey's proposal doesn't actually raise Chapter 70 aid--while it's general aid for K-12 schools, it is not being distributed via MGL Ch. 70, sec. 1--and it explicitly does not raise the chapter 70-designated aid received by schools this year, which sets the floor for next year.

I will observe again, though, that concerns about "future budgets" are very much appropriate given that this is the final year of the Student Opportunity Act implementation.  

keeping an eye on that $100M

 Regarding the $100M of Fair Share Governor Healey filled a supplemental budget to spend, a smidge of insight yesterday from Colin Young at State House News Service (here being interviewed by NEPM): 

Relatedly, yesterday, both the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education¹ and the Department of Revenue sent out this letter from Healey addressed to "municipal leaders," praising what the letter terms "a total of $200 million" coming to them in Fair Share, of which the $100M which she has requested is half; in other words, there isn't $200M yet. And there is a LOT of credit being taken for how much the executive branch is "partnering" with local communities. 

Does this strike anyone else as an untoward use of departmental communication to municipalities and school districts? While there is not an overt "call your legislator" included in the letter, it's strongly implied. 

We look forward to continuing to work with the Legislature to secure this important investment for schools and to building on our partnership with cities and towns as we continue working together to strengthen communities across the state. 

This, about $100M in non-formula funding requested in the summer of an election year, is all feeling pretty icky. 
And again, this is not funding being distributed in a way that meets the highest needs, nor is it funding we have, nor is it a thoughtful consideration of the needs of districts in the current context.

¹which, despite it continually escaping at least this and the last governor, does not work for them. The Governor appoints the Board, which has, save one member, non-conterminous terms with her, and THEY oversee the Commissioner who runs the Department. She cannot fire them. She does not oversee them. I wish we saw more evidence than anyone knew that legally, this is how this is outlined to work.

Skunk at the garden party time

They're kind of cute, though, aren't they.

Though it is, of course, not the done thing to express anything but enthusiasm for additional funding…It is time again for one of my periodic skunk at the garden party posts.

and we have official FY27 numbers

 And with the Governor's signature, we have a budget. As a result, DESE has released final Chapter 70 and Net School Spending numbers (including, yes, a new complete spreadsheet: download away!). 

Also, because Governor Healey did not make any changes to the budget, the conference committee numbers on the cherry sheets--for municipal and for regional schools--are now final. 

Happy fiscal new year (ten days in)! 

There is a foundation budget review commission in the conference committee budget

 Yes, I am still playing catch-up from being away!

the headline I saw from vacation

The conference committee budget agreed to by both chambers does have a foundation budget review commission in it. As the guide to the outside sections notes, it is compromise language, which here means that they didn't just take the Senate's language, as, as you might remember, the House didn't have such language in the budget. 

I'm going to include the text from the budget in full below; it's in two sections (64 and 111), covering the committee's charge as well as the deadline for the report of the next commission. I say next report, as the language appears to be (again, as this was also in the Student Opportunity Act) to be establishing this as a commission that is to meet periodically. The language establishes it "every ten years" but that's "[u]pon action of the general court."

There are two things that are interesting to me: 

Second verse, same as the verse

Because the old chestnut--claims that the Worcester Public Schools spends wildly too much money on administration, and more than their peer communities--appears to making an appearance again this year, I will again note that such comparisons are done by the state annually, when districts report their district spending.

On the FY27 Worcester Public Schools budget

This is--mostly--my testimony from tonight's budget hearing. They were sticking to two minutes per person, so I did some condensing on the fly. Full video of the hearing is now posted here; you can watch my testimony at this point.

I have three points for you this evening:

1. This budget is balanced on our most needy students. The program closures proposed--and they are proposed, only--for your consideration serve the students we bear the most responsibility to serve and serve well. The budget document itself notes it, as the executive summary lists these program closures, and only these, as how the budget has been balanced.

Board of Ed for May: budget update

 memo here, though there is also a presentation

Hills: not the Board purview for how the resources are allocated (except in some ways it is, which is why the submit a budget request)

Bell: Senate Ways and Means has released its version of the FY27 budget; in formal session now deliberating
continues many of same themes of earlier drafts
committed to working with everyone on issues facing rural districts of which they are aware

happy to entertain questions

Martinez asks steps in the budget process, as it is his first time through
Bell: have seen some headlines on Legislature being committed to earlier process
once through Senate, conference committee formed, deliberates, releases budget that is then passed by both chambers
Smidy asks about how advocating works from Board members
Hills directs to Secretary and Commissioner
Zrike: "we think we do that together in tandem"
would love to talk to Board members about that
met with collaborative members in Northampton: hearing concerns from across the state
"coming on later in the budget process"
"data and information to bring back to the budget process"
"learning this process now"
"very productive conversations with the Legislature"

Board goes into executive session for  Doe et al. v. Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Mass. Superior Court, C.A. No. 2481-CV-00994. State House News has this as to why: 

 The case, filed in Middlesex Superior Court in 2024, is a class action suit alleging that the department fails to fulfill its statutory duty to provide special education services to incarcerated students with disabilities. Mass. Lawyers Weekly reported last month that the class action survived a motion to dismiss it in Superior Court, with a judge ruling DESE has a non-delegable duty to provide special education in jails

They will not return to open session 

Board of Ed for May: Opening comments

 The Board today is meeting at Hudson High School, the school of student member Isabella Chamberlain. The agenda is here; the livestream will go up here. 

chalking outside of Hudson High School today

There is a good chance this will start late. 

Watching the upcoming Worcester budget: early announcement

 If my calendar does not deceive me, the Worcester Public Schools will release their proposed FY27 budget on Friday, but we're getting an early warning via press release of something of what's in it. The Patch does their best with it here.

The Academic Center for Transition (ACT), which serves 59 elementary students in grades K-6 with individualized education plans (IEPs), will close in June. Students will be referred to the Central Massachusetts Collaborative’s Hartwell Learning Center, located in the same building at 14 New Bond St. District officials said the Collaborative has agreed to accept all ACT students and keep them in their current classroom spaces.

The Worcester Alternative School, a therapeutic program for 36 high school students with IEPs, will also close at the end of the school year. Those students will be referred to the Central Massachusetts Academy, also operated by the Collaborative at the New Bond Street location. Some students may also be placed in other district programs.

The New Citizens Center Secondary Program, which serves 37 English learner students ages 12 to 17 with limited or interrupted formal education, will not close but will move out of its standalone building at 1407A Main St. Students and staff will transition into Worcester middle and high schools.

We then get some paragraphs about increased opportunities and etc, but it's also clear that this is a budgetary decision.

Once we've waded through the spin*, to make clear what's happening here: that's the district closing two in-district special education programs, and moving those students out of district to the Collaborative. I do not know if that will actually better serve the students; that is not something I could know. I do think it for sure should raise least restrictive environment flags, as well as always the question of who we're saving our money on.

The students at New Citizens--properly, Caradonio New Citizens Center, as it was named after the former superintendent in tribute to his experience with and attention to students for whom English was a second or later language--being moved into their home (one assumes?) middle and high schools raises both the question as to how the program isn't then closing, and also if the building is remaining open and used as a school. Historically, the way in which Worcester treated with particular care their students with interrupted formal education was one of the prides of the district.

We'll be able, one assumes, to see the money saved--which I would also assume is being reallocated--in the budget this weekend. 

This goat's "what's happening here?" is my question as well.

*the degree with which every piece of information from WPS in recent months has a lot of words to try to impress us with how this is a great, amazing decision, rather than just telling us what is happening has me at the end of my patience, even more so when I reflect that we are paying for that

April 2026 Board of Ed: House Ways and Means budget update

 Look, there is a document on this! There is also a PowerPoint, which NEVER happens
This is also being taken out of order on the agenda

Martinez notes the literacy grant wasn't in the House Ways & Means budget, nor were the literacy institutes, nor reimagining high school grant (pay for AP exams) and support early college and MyCap

Keeping an eye on federal grants

 DESE sent this update out late last week:

DESE has received some additional projected figures from the federal government that have allowed us to refine the Title I projections we shared last month; we’re also able to anticipate statewide totals from other major ESSA programs (Title II-A, Title III-A, and Title IV-A), as well as from Perkins. Again, these numbers are still preliminary. DESE receives final awards from the federal government on July 1st. 

Title I – Updated figures from the federal government show that MA will experience about a 7% reduction overall, not a 10% reduction overall as we projected last month. DESE has revised the FY27 Title I Warning Chart accordingly. These district-level projections are likely more accurate than last month’s projections, but it bears repeating that they are subject to change. Districts will receive final numbers in July. 

Title II-A – Similar to Title I, preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely experience about a 7% overall reduction from last year. We do not have district-level projections for Title II-A, which could vary greatly, so we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Title III-A – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely be level-funded for Title III-A. DESE will provide district-level projections for Title III-A in several weeks when we issue the Title III-A Intent to Participate application in GEM$. Until then, we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Title IV – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely see about a 6% increase in Title IV-A. We do not have district-level projections for Title IV-A, which could vary greatly, so we encourage districts to budget conservatively. 

Perkins – Preliminary figures from the federal government show that MA overall will likely be level-funded for Perkins. 

Remember: on the federal budget, this is just the opening round

 You might be concerned or confused by headlines that came through over the weekend like this: 

Did we just DO a federal budget?
We did, but that one was overdue (thus the shutdown) and was the current federal fiscal year budget, 'though it funds next school year.

Now we're starting NEXT fiscal year, FY27, which for the federal government starts in October, which will funding school year 2027-28.

With me?

Now to the alarming headlines: you might remember that we also had alarming news from the initial proposal from the Trump administration for the current fiscal year, too. The House proposal was also alarming, and then the Senate put their feet down and we got a largely level funded federal budget.

So pay attention, but don't panic. 

Talking at cross purposes on state aid

Among the recent articles covering school budgets in the past week, three caught my eye for how they nicely encapsulate how much talking at cross-purposes there are in Massachusetts education funding discussions right now.

On Title I for next year

 

Slide from Friday presentation from MASC
slides here; recording here

This week, DESE updated superintendents (slides 10-18) and then those who manage grants that Title I for the upcoming year is expected to be less for the state and for districts in Massachusetts.

As I noted back at the beginning of February, the federal budget that was passed by Congress and signed into law pretty much level funded the federal entitlement grants. As both the White House and the House of Representatives had proposed budgets that cut grants in various ways and in some cases quite severely, that level funding was a victory.

However (and again as I noted), allocations to states and then in turn to districts are recalculated each year based on the demographics that determine funding. So, while the national number is the same, the way it is divided up changes each year. 

This year--this coming fiscal year for school districts--the state has learned that the Massachusetts share of the federal poverty total has dropped by 10%. That will in turn decrease the Massachusetts share of Title I funding, and, because the Massachusetts share is made up off Massachusetts districts, the district by district allocations will also be less.

The state has recommended that districts plan for a Title I allocation that is 85% of this year's allocation. They have also shared this spreadsheet, which both gives in the final column that 85% and also alerts districts that may be on the cusp of losing particular eligibilities within Title I (thus making their losses more severe).

Two things on Massachusetts school budgets

•  The United for Our Future coalition, which includes (among others) MASC, MASS, and the MTA, sent a letter calling for increased education state education funding to cover an array of issues. The Eagle-Tribune covers that here.
  
  The letter reads in part: 
  

  The “perfect storm” of factors behind the fiscal crisis remains in place. Rising special education and transportation costs, funding lost to charter schools, the constraints of Proposition 2 ½, and technical issues with the formula that determines how our schools are funded all continue to strain local budgets, as they have for years. In addition to those challenges, many districts also face looming threats of federal funding cuts along with unanticipated declines in enrollment spurred by federal attacks on our immigrant students and families. These enrollment declines are heartbreaking for our students and school communities and directly impact funding in a school finance system such as ours that is based on per-student allotments.
   When our districts are under-resourced, our attention is forced away from developing creative and innovative ways to enhance student learning and more effectively support their social and emotional wellbeing. Instead, we are left to fight to minimize devastating cuts to programs and staff so that we can try to maintain the basic, daily services on which our students depend. We cannot accept this situation as an unavoidable reality. As champions of public education, we know what work must be done to build public schools that prepare all students for success in the classroom and beyond, but local communities cannot do it alone.

Three takeaways from this week's Board of Ed meeting

 Three things that stuck with me from this meeting: 

1. Both the Commissioner and CFO Bell gave a "yikes*" when it comes to federal grants during the budget update. While the federal entitlement grants were level funded by Congress, they're reallocated by state and then by district each year by demographic information. The state and districts may see less money this year.
   
   
2. Depending on what language the conference committee on the literacy bills comes out with**, the Department may end up in the awkward position of enforcing something that doesn't exist. In the literacy discussion, they were careful to note that their standard for "high-quality instructional materials" isn't "evidence-based" because "very few materials on the market have evidence of efficacy." This is, of course, more evidence (hmph) that the Legislature shouldn't be involved in this, but should be leaving this to the level of authorities who are doing the actual reading on this.
   
   
3. Speaking of not doing the reading, it was alarming to hear, in response to a question posed during the interpretation and translation regulation discussion, that the only guidance or recommendation coming from the Department on the use of AI in translation was that translations be checked by a person. So we're okay with teachers and others just dumping, say, an IEP into a chatbot where it then becomes part of the universe on which everything draws?
   FERPA, people.***
   Let's please do more reading about how this stuff works before turning our core responsibilities over in such ways.

__________________________

*not actually; my interpretation 
**assuming it comes out at all? Is it possible this terrible idea will just die there?
***when it comes out for public comment--it hasn't yet--this would be a very good comment to offer

This is not really related to the above but I thought it was funny.
source

Board of Ed for February: budget!

 "real challenge" per Martinez at federal level on funding, related to enrollment decline and other things
pay attention when things like this are said

Bill Bell on the Governor's budget

SOA implemented in full as of FY27

concern of how chapter 70 is working; increasing number of districts receiving minimum aid
Department, Commissioner, Executive Office, A&F "aren't tone deaf to the issue"
commitment to see through implementation of Student Opportunity Act; what leaders want to do after that "remains to be seen"

circuit breaker growing by $100M into next budget year

haven't received word on what the education funding levels would be for federal grants in entitlement grants
baseline is funded nationally, but allocations remain to be seen

Legislators have begun their process of budget hearings: education and local aid is March 23 in Lawrence

Hills asks if they have the resources needed to implement the goals
Martinez, in essence, says it is a start

Smidy: the capacity is very limited in the field
even with allocations and grants, a lot of schools are not going to be in a position to move forward with these initiatives if they don't have the resources to move forward

Craven: need a sense about what costs are being piled onto districts
Martinez: not only the need, but also where districts are in 
"when we use the word 'advocacy' we're using it too loosely"
nah, that's still advocacy; you just want specific advocacy
"how do we become strategic about our resources..."
this is what people say when they aren't going to give you more funding to do more things
report on local contribution coming in June 

Bell: another attempt to meet the needs of local districts and communities that exist within a capped revenue environment 

And adjourned

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

Worcester School Committee starts talking about FY27

I'm not able to attend this evening--training another committee!--but I did want to note that the Worcester School Committee is receiving their first look at FY27 (next school year's budget) at tonight's meeting. You can find the presentation here. 

This has now become when we also get the first look at the cover art of the budget book, which I always appreciate: 

enjoying the spooky overtones here; are we foreshadowing FY28?