Conference committee budget passes both chambers: a few notes

The conference committee released the FY20 budget Sunday evening (you can download it here) and both House and Senate passed it yesterday. I've updated the K-12 spreadsheet where I've been tracking the budget here.
As you can tell from the spreadsheet, many of the accounts were passed at the Senate levels, including the Chapter 70 rates:

This is good news on low income:

It's not as great news on English learners: 

...where the House was more progressive than the Senate. The Foundation Budget Review Commission called for a flat rate for this; we've had a rate (on top of the base) for a few years now, and I have to confess that I'm increasingly persuaded that we ought, like the House had it, be funding in a progressive towards the older end model, due to the steeper climb (and shorter time available) for students learning English later. 

Nonetheless, the passage is intended as a step towards the Commission, and that's a good thing.

It's interesting to note how many of the accounts in fact fund at levels even higher than the Senate did, due, one assumes, to higher than projected state revenue, but also effective local advocacy on a number of these lines. For example:

7009-6600, Early College is $2,500,000 in the conference committee budget, which splits the difference between the Governor's originally proposed $3M and the House's (amended) $2M.

7010-0012, METCO is up to $24.2M, a level about $2M above last year, 'though that includes $45K for late bussing to Lexington and Arlington.

7035-0002, adult education is up to $41M, with about $450K of that in earmarks; it was budgeted at $33.3M last year, and, as we heard at the Board of Ed in December, is significantly underbudgeted and so not meeting the needs.

7035-0006, regional transportation reimbursement makes it to $75.8M. The last official estimate I saw on this put the Governor's $68.8M at a 76% reimbursement, which by my back of the envelope puts this at about 83.8%.

7035-0009, McKinney-Vento reimbursement, which DESE estimated $9M was 37%, goes up to $11M.

7061-0011, circuit breaker, gets boosted to $345M. I'm leery of any projections on this one, as MASBO has been getting updates from DESE about how reimbursement requests are piling in, but it was at $319M last year, which should give you an idea of how much special education costs are skyrocking.

7061-0016, low income pothole, was all over the place during deliberations: the Governor didn't have it, the House had it at $16.5M with some pretty clear allocations, the Senate didn't fund it (but had the higher low income allocations in Ch. 70). They came through with $10.5M in the conference committee for districts that saw a hit on the shift from low income to economically disadvantaged being the count.

7061-9010, charter reimbursement (the Governor wants to call it "mitigation" now), was not only about the money but about the language. House 70, the school funding bill proposed by Governor Baker, would change allocation back to 100/60/40 for the first three years of an increase to a local charter school, but also would make that reimbursement only to districts seeing enrollment changes above the prior five years. The House put this language into their budget; the Senate made the 100/60/40 change, but didn't change the allocation method. The conference committee makes none of these changes only the 100/60/40 change, but also did boost the final amount to $115M, with the $15M halved between districts spending more than 9% of foundation on charters that get less than 41% (as that's the balance between state and districts statewide) of their foundation budget in state funding, and those seeing high enrollment. In both cases? Read Boston.

7061-9400, MCAS, came through at the originally proposed $32.2M, and the only news here is that there was no news on this line this year.

7061-9401, MCIEA, piloting alternative assessment, was not funded in any of the originally proposed budgets, but funded at $550,000 by Senate budget amendment.

7061-9607, recovery high schools, had been budgeted by the Governor at $2.5M "to meet projected need," which didn't feel accurate. The House went to $2.6M, the Senate back down to $2.5M, and the conference committee puts it at $3.1M.

7061-9611, after school programs came out of conference committee stuffed with earmarks,bringing the total to $8.2M and making this article in the Salem News misleading.

7061-9013, rural school aid, funded at $1.5M last year, was not funded by the Governor or House, was funded at the same $1.5M in the Senate, but ended up at $2.5M in conference committee. Count this one up to Senator Adam Hinds, who has been waging a single Senator push on this (to sympathy from his colleagues, clearly).


We aren't done yet! The budget is now with the Governor, and in Massachusetts, the Governor has a line item veto, which the Legislature likewise can overrule. Updates as I have them! And as always, ask rather than wonder!

Senate FY20 budget amendments

Check out Roger Hatch's analysis on the Senate budget for MASS.

Heaven bless them, the Senate sorts by topic!
As always, these are only the K-12 amendments with statewide impacts; if you're looking for an earmark, you're on your own.

• Amendment 145 is $7.5M for infrastructure grants for safety and security
• Amendment 146 is for a Foundation Budget Review Commission to reoccur every five years.
• Amendment 147 would add $40 per pupil minimum aid
• Amendment 148 would add $50 per pupil minimum aid
• Amendment 149 would add $100 per pupil minimum aid
• Amendment 150 is 85% regional transportation reimbursement.
• Amendment 151 would designate $300K for Best Buddies.
• Amendment 152 is 90% regional transportation reimbursement.
• Amendment 153 would create a regional schools foundation budget commission: 

to review the way that regional school districts are funded and to recommend a framework that better accounts for differences between the towns that make up these districts and how the funding is distributed

• Amendment 154 would authorize the use of Water Pollution Abatement funds for lead abatement in public schools.
• Amendment 155 would create "Finish Line grants" for any year after the first of public university or college. 
• Amendment 156 would create an unfunded mandate task force. 
• Amendment 157 would bump the allocation specifically for Gateway Cities in the English learner grant line to $1M (from $250K).
• Amendment 158 would allocate (a new) $200,000 for the Partnership to Advance Collaboration and Efficiency among the state universities and community colleges.
• Amendment 159 would add $300,000 for Bottom Line, which works with juniors and seniors to get them into and through college.
• Amendment 161 would bump the early college allocation from $1.6M to $4M. 
• Amendment 167 would add $500K through the JFK Library for civics (as was done in the House budget).
• Amendment 169 would boost the cap on Mass School Building Authority spending to $750M (something for which MSBA has been asking). 
• Amendment 177 would add the Safe and Supportive Schools grant for $700K.
• Amendment 178 would create a LIFT fund to "to finance the development and implementation of the recommendations of the foundation budget review" which...I don't know what that means.
• Amendment 179 would add (back) in military mitigation.
• Amendment 180 bumps regional transporation reimbursement to to $92M. 
• Amendment 184 would boost the Mass Mentoring line to $1M.
• Amendment 193 is (again?) an unfunded mandate task force.
• Amendment 194 would have DESE do a special education services delivery study.
• Amendment 195 would add replacing lead pipes to the definition of a capital funding project. 
• Amendment 202 would add $1.5M to the civics projects trust fund.
• Amendment 205 would bring METCO up to the $23.6M that the House settled on.
• Amendment 206 would create a $250K financial literacy grant program.
• Amendment 217 would add $600K to the Reading Recovery line.
• Amendment 219 would bump the after and out of school line by about $500K.
• Amendment 225 would increase the recovery high school line to $3.1M (as it was last year).
• Amendment 227 would increase the Bay State Reading Institute line by about $400K.
• Amendment 228 would create a $20.3M Lead in Drinking Water trust fund
• Amendment 239 would bump the non-resident vocation transportation line (currently $250K) and bump it to $3.4M (which I would guess is full funding).
• Amendment 245 would increase the amount of the sales tax going to the Mass School Building Authority from 1% to 2%.
• Amendment 246 would allocate $100K for National History Day.
• Amendment 247 would allocate $100K for a STEM service learning grant.
• Amendments 248 and 250 together would add back in the early college line in the foundation budget that the Governor had in his budget (the House did not, nor does the Senate).
• Amendment 249 would fund MCIEA, the alternative assessment consortium, at $550K (it was funded at $400K in FY19).
• Amendment 258 would reconsolidate the grants as the Governor did, and includes the use of this funding for innovation zones.
• Amendment 259 would expand the definition of "rural" for the use of the rural school line of $1.5M, increasing it to 35 students per square mile from 21. This does not include an increase in the funding of the line.
• Amendment 266 is the $700K for the Accuplacer.
• Amendment 267 adds a line for $1M for Reach Out and Read.
• Amendment 268 adds back in the earmark of $250K for Project Bread's Chefs in Schools project.
• Amendment 277 would increase the rural aid line from $1.5M to $3M.
• Amendment 278 would add $100K for the Berkshire County Education Task Force.
• Amendment 280 changes "proposed new text" (Where?) from 2015 to 2014 around the Mass School Building Authority.
• Amendment 281 increases the allocation for charter reimbursement to $113M (the House number), implements the 100/60/40 reimbursement change, creates that Ch. 70 "floor" that is in the Governor's funding bill and the House budget, increases the facilities allocation, but it does NOT appear to change which districts get funding; it covers all increases, not just the highest enrollment in five years. (For those of you who had been seeking a way to handle the House having language and the Senate not, perhaps this would work?)
• Amendment 282 would increase the amount in the carter reimbursement line to $125M.
• Amendment 284 would create a $10M pothole account for districts that would see a net loss of all aid between FY19 and FY20.
• Amendment 294 adds language (not funding) in the adult education line (allocates towards English learning).
• Amendment 301 would amend the law to require that the fiscal impact on the sending district be considered in the creation of any new charter school and further bar the creation of any new charter schools in any year in which reimbursement is not fully funded.
• Amendment 303 appears to fully fund all of the current transporation reimbursements through the creation of a minimum corporate tax (sorry, municipals, you're not in this one)
• Amendment 306 boosts school to career connecting activities to $5.4M; the Governor proposed at $5M; the House has it at $4.5M and Senate Ways and Means proposed $4.5M.
• Amendment 308 would allow any district currently in receivership to have up to 80% reimbursment of buildings through MSBA (coming in from Holyoke).
• Amendment 319 funds the charter reimbursement at 100/60/40 without new allocation, increases the facilities allocation, but does not otherwise change the language (also clearly an attempt to ensure there is language to counter the House)
• Amendment 320 would provide at $10.5M pothole for those impacted by the low income count shift.
• Amendment 321 would require Breakfast after the Bell in any school with an eligbility count of 60% of students or more.
• Amendment 322 boosts the charter reimbursement line to $188M, increases the facility amount, but KEEPS the 100/25s for reimbursement years. It's also doing something to the tax code...let me find that part out. 

That's what I have! Call your Senators!