I'd like to be able to give you some sort of meaningful summary of last night's Board of Ed meeting on the DESE strategic plan (liveblog here), but it wasn't that sort of meeting.
 |
| Polaris? This is as close as we're getting around here... |
Let's walk through some main points:
While some of the Commission is set by the legislation, some are appointed. Governor Healey today announced her picks:
Governor Maura Healey has appointed Kristen Smidy and Amy O’Leary to the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
Smidy is the former superintendent of the Gateway Regional School District and currently serves on the Board of Ed; O'Leary is the Executive Director of Strategies for Children. Both are from western Mass, which the Governor notes in her press release.
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.
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.
 |
| They're kind of cute, though, aren't they. |
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:
...I am not going to say "so you don't have to," because I think if you have an interest in education, you probably should at least skim the report, which is online here.
As always, this is me writing as me on behalf of me only.
 |
| This image deserves more space than it gets in the report, as it isn't bad thinking and it's a solid try at an outline. How is it, though, that they managed parallel structure for all but ONE of the items? The upper left one is crying out for a noun! |
...and now rather than talking about what people think it might say, it can be read. You can find the whole thing here. (I haven't read it yet.)
The report says it is to the Governor and "Legislative Colleagues," but the first formal discussion will take place at a special evening meeting of the Board of Ed on Monday evening at 5 PM. The agenda isn't up yet, but the livestreams come over this YouTube channel.
State House News (link via WGBH) reports that two things of note for those who have been following this:
This isn't going to happen right away: "The report proposes the implementation of the first MassCore cohort entering 9th grade in 2027-2028, and the implementation of the other requirements the next school year with incoming freshmen."
The report recommends one state-designed exam in English language arts, one in mathematics and one in science, while also encouraging further exploration of a history and social science assessment. The tests would be designed, administered and scored by the state and taken when students complete specific courses.
Unlike the December recommendations, however, the final report explicitly states that "Performance on the EOC assessments will meaningfully count toward students' academic record and path to graduation."
Exactly how much those exams would matter remains on open question.
The report says, "Following additional planning and engagement of stakeholders, the Council co-chairs will determine the specific role that EOCs will play in students' academic record and graduation."
That language leaves unanswered whether graduation could ultimately depend on passing the exams, and seems to contemplate a significant role for test performance.
As a number of us have been consistently noting: the state is the entity required to ensure there is a public education system that fulfills its constitutional obligation to each student.
...as it was mentioned today on NEPM in this exchange between Carrie Healey (NEPM) and Colin Young (SHNS):
Pressure is mounting on Governor Maura Healey to opt Massachusetts into a new federal scholarship tax credit program. Donors can make contributions of up to $1,700 to an approved scholarship group in a participating state that would be distributed as aid.
This is an issue that has quickly turned into a nationwide political football. While Democratic governors in states like Wisconsin and Kentucky have vetoed participation over concerns that the private voucher system lacks public accountability, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Mike Minogue has upped the ante for Healey by promising a maximum campaign donation if she signs on now (and pledges to enact it himself on day one if he's elected.) So, what is known about how this program would impact Massachusetts education funding?
There's not a lot specifically known.
Now, the teachers unions have come out in full force against this. They argue that this is the same as what's known as the voucher system, where they see it as a siphoning of public money towards private education, where by giving people tax credits for these donations that largely benefit private organizations and private schooling, that it's taking money away from public education.
Now, people being able to take a $1,700 tax credit could help in the name of affordability, at a time when Massachusetts has a really high cost of living and our governor is up for reelection, pledging to tackle that high cost of living. So, she has a real tough spot to be in right now.
What are we hearing from the Healy administration regarding her timeline for a decision?
They're playing the 'wait and see game' big time. They have said they have not decided that the state will not opt in, but they want to see more detailed rules from the US Treasury and the IRS before they actually decide to opt in.
And has the other Republican gubernatorial candidate, Brian Shortsleeve, weighed in on this issue?
He has. He's in support as well. He has said that if he's elected, he would opt Massachusetts in on day one as well.
If they're waiting on more detailed rules, we'll be waiting until the end of September.
It is very worrisome and disappointing that a Democratic governor in this state which prides itself on our public educations system would even need to think about this one, though.
The House Committee on Ways & Means released their FY27 budget last Wednesday, and they're currently taking amendments before the House debate on the budget starts next week.
I've been considering what to say about it since then (sorry if you've been waiting for me to post on it), and the refrain I kept coming back to is what state law says is the intent of the Legislature when it comes to school funding:
It is the intention of the general court, subject to appropriation, to assure fair and adequate minimum per student funding for public schools in the commonwealth by defining a foundation budget and a standard of local funding effort applicable to every city and town in the commonwealth.
Because OB3, Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" has a provision for vouchers by state in the language, you knew that others would join the Boston Globe's editorial board in pushing for them in Massachusetts. Thanks to Yawu Miller's coverage of a recent panel at the JFK Presidential Library*, we now know not only that this is happening, but who the players are and what their talking points are going to be:
“Covid relief money is gone, inflation is bad, buses are expensive, special education is expensive,” former Massachusetts Education Commissioner Jeff Riley told an audience of about 200 that filled an auditorium at the museum last Wednesday. “We have an opportunity for this new pot of money to help us with things like expanded learning time, high dosage tutoring, special education services. This seems like a time when people should get together.”
Yes, taking time away from his fulltime job of trying to get schools on the AI bandwagon, our former Commissioner is all in our vouchers, but we're going to frame it as public school assistance. Also involved:
The National Parents Union is spearheading the local coalition which aims to pressure Gov. Maura Healey to adopt the tax credit program. So far, the group counts 124 organizations in support, including The Pioneer Institute, The Boston Foundation, the Lynch Foundation, 45 individual Catholic Schools, 18 Montessori Schools, 13 Jewish day schools, the umbrella organizations supporting those types of schools and dozens of YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs.
NPU will surprise no one, nor will the private schools, but the outside of school organizations no doubt have this sold to them as after school dollars that could be coming their way.
Miller does---as always--an excellent job of framing the issues with the push, very much including that they don't actually work. But he also notes that Governor Healey, whose decision this is, so far has been silent on this issue. That is very concerning. There will be an effort to frame this as a "ed reform" issue, and she has some close to her that are in on that.
Oh, and incidentally: the list of things that Riley includes largely are not things on which the vouchers could be used:
Despite promises that the scholarships could cover special education services, among other school-related expenses, Fliter said that wouldn’t be true for public schools. The way qualified education expenses are defined by the federal government only includes things for which schools bill parents.
“Unfortunately, when you dig into the text of the statute and what the regulations are from the IRS and from others, it becomes very clear that a qualified education expense, as it’s referenced in the Internal Revenue Code and by the Coverdell Education Savings Account, does not include anything like special education expenses,” Fliter said.
Read Miller's coverage, and then keep an eye out on this one.
*who maybe don't exercise a say over this, but one does question the venue choice
 |
| please enjoy these pansies from my walk to work in Boston |
Over the weekend, Governor Healey, speaking of the proposed ballot question which would roll the income tax back to 4% from 5%, said that the question, which she opposes, could mean "65%" of all education funding would go away.
Reading that, I scratched my head as to how 65% of specifically "all education funding" would be cut, and apparently, I wasn't alone, as today, State House News Service has the following:
 |
| Bluesky post from Governor Healey's account says "Government should embrace new technology --safely and securely--to make life easier for our families and businesses" |
Analyze the beneficial and harmful effects of computing innovations (e.g., social networking, delivery of news and other public media, intercultural communication).
It would behoove the Governor and her administration to do so before continuing to thrust this unwanted change upon us.
In the second case, high school and middle school students in Massachusetts have been organizing walkouts to protest against ICE. This analysis, research, organization, and action is directly reflective of the state's required civics project in both middle and high school, for which you can find the reference guide below.
Most notably, the overall requirement is:
Students complete the real work of engaged, informed participants in a democracy by identifying issues and advocating for change in their communities.
And:
They move beyond the walls of the classroom and exercise their voice.
The thing about education: it isn't, in the end, supposed to be theoretical. Either we mean it, or we don't.
The Secretary announced his departure on Instagram this afternoon:
State House News Service reports here. WGBH reports here.
The Secretary, as a reminder, is an appointed position, serving at the pleasure of the Governor. They head the Executive Office of Education, and they have a voting seat on the three Boards that oversee public education in Massachusetts: Early Ed and Care; Elementary and Secondary Education; and Higher Ed.
Zrike has been superintendent of Salem since 2020; Lt. Governor Driscoll was mayor in Salem when he was appointed and was a member of the School Committee. He previously was the receiver of Holyoke.
As I noted on Wednesday, Governor Healey has filed her proposed FY27 budget; as this is the second year of the legislative term, this is "House 2," as she files the bill with the House.
As per usual, I'm keeping a running "account-by-account" for K-12 over here. This year, I honestly started by downloading this page from the state website and then playing with it; you might also find that useful.
As always, dear readers, I post here for me and for you and in an entirely unofficial capacity.
I think the big story here is one Sam Drysdale at State House News Service caught and covered and then...no one picked up their coverage, as best as I can tell, so it is (sigh) only behind their paywall1.
MORE ON THIS COMING BUT, some links for you:
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:
Dearest Legislators,
It has come to my attention that you plan to override Governor Healey's July veto of nearly $20M in charter school tuition reimbursement. As this represents millions of dollars to some of the most needy districts in the state1, this is very helpful. Thank you!
Many of you are no doubt under the impression that this money goes, as is intended by state law, to the school districts themselves. This is, however, is the case only for regional school districts. For municipal school districts, because charter school tuition reimbursement isn't designated as going to schools "without additional appropriation," the money goes to the city or town general fund.
Cities and towns have long since passed their budgets. Unless someone takes additional action, these funds you intend for schools will not go to schools.
Were it possible for you to pass these funds with language so designating them, that would be most useful.
If not, perhaps you could ensure that the Department of Revenue generates updated cherry sheets, and you could ensure the cities and towns in your districts are aware of where the money should go?
With very sincere thanks,
Someone who wants to ensure the Worcester Public Schools gets their $2M
And you can find the agenda for tomorrow's regular meeting of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education here.
The big thing on the agenda is the annual release of school and district accountability data, 'though this message on the DESE School and District Profile page:
...makes me think that we're probably getting some sort of a press event around noontime today.
Let me give you my annual reminder here that Massachusetts state accountability is based on MANY THINGS beyond the MCAS, and anyone who makes MCAS the sole report they make--I'm looking here at you, Boston Globe, but I see school districts do this, too!--is not only not telling the whole story; they're misrepresenting what the state actually uses in measuring districts.
If someone has told you that the only thing we're focusing on is MCAS, that isn't DESE telling you that.
This will of course be new DESE Commissioner Martinez's first meeting, so it should be interesting to see how he interacts with the Board and with the DESE staff. Too often, in recent years, the permanent commissioner has left DESE staff out there on their own when facing the Board, which has both, in my view, been lousy leadership and not fair.
And speaking of leadership, the Board elects a Vice-Chair, and it will be interesting to see if they finally decide to start to move in the direction of the newer appointees.
It appears from the posted topics of the chair and the commissioner that we're going to get two rounds on the 'are we teaching 9/11' thing, with--yes!--the Commissioner making reference to the actual state standards (someone is doing their job!). Both the Secretary and the Commissioner are updating on the recent state graduation council release of their Vision of a Graduate. I presume that this goes now to DESE and the Board, as they're the ones who have actual power to do anything with it.
There is also a vote proposed on the "let's clean this up" regulation changes on regional schools (which, no, do not have a single thing to do with admission to regional vokes).
There are also proposed adjustments on the conditions on the certificate of the Felix Virtual School.
I plan to be there and liveblog, as per usual.
