On the chapter 70 study committee: First, what they aren't going to talk about

The budget conference committee, you might remember, agreed that the chapter 70 study commission from the Senate FY26 budget¹ would be in their agreed upon final budget.

 ...and so here we are, with an announcement last week that the required hearings for this study are starting on the 23rd. This seems rather last minute as an announcement, even as one understands that they need to get going in order to have the report back, as required, by June 20 of next year. 

Note that is this is very specifically a study "to improve the adequacy and equitability of the formula to determine a municipality's target local contribution and required local contribution." Thus much in the way the Foundation Budget Review Commission was only about the foundation budget--the "how much does it cost to educate a child" question--this is very much only about local contribution. 

Because this started to get long, I'm going to break this into two parts: first what they won't talk about, then what they will or should, given the scope of the committee.
You can find part two here.

Two important and related school finance decisions in N.H. yesterday

 In New Hampshire, which, according to the U.S. Census Bureau is the state that contributes the smallest percentage of local education revenue to local public schools by the most recent data, there were two related school finance decisions handed down yesterday. 

In one ruling, Ruoff found that the current $4,100 base adequacy rate – the minimum amount of money the state sends to public schools for each student – is not enough to meet the state’s constitutional requirement to provide an adequate education.

The state instead should send no less than $7,356 to each student in order to meet its adequacy requirements, Ruoff ruled.

In a second ruling, Ruoff found that the statewide education property tax (SWEPT) is unconstitutional. That tax is collected by towns – not the state – at a set rate in order to provide funding for each town’s school district. But Ruoff held that the state’s 2011 decision to allow wealthier towns to retain any excess SWEPT they collect is unconstitutional and that the money should be distributed to poorer towns. Ruoff’s order Monday enjoined the state from allowing towns to retain that excess SWEPT in the upcoming tax season this winter and spring.

Per the Boston Globe:  

Ruoff said he intentionally released the two orders together because he wanted the parties to be able to consider how a higher state contribution will impact the taxation scheme used to raise some of that money.

SWEPT is raised locally and kept locally. In most places, those funds don’t cover the full cost of education, so there’s also an additional local tax. But if a town raises more than they need through SWEPT, they get to keep the excess. That happens in about 17 percent of communities, according to Reaching Higher, a nonprofit education think tank based in Concord.

Ruoff said communities that raise more than they need can no longer keep the excess, starting with the next budget cycle. Those funds instead have to go to the state and “must be used for the exclusive purpose of satisfying the State’s adequacy aid obligations,” he said.

 

Joint Hearing on Ways and Means FY18: in sum

There were two main themes that emerged in testimony at the education hearing before the Joint Committee on Ways and Means Wednesday, March 29 at UMass-Amherst: the impacts of issues outside the classroom on the classroom, and the need for funding reform in both K-12 and higher education.

Imagine if John Adams came to testify in a Massachusetts school finance case

Remember the similar language around education in many of the state constitutions across the country? I knew that they had been added over time, but, until I started poking around tonight to catch up on the CCJEF V Rell case in Connecticut, it hadn't hit me just how recently some of them were added:

Sitting in the front row of the crowded courtroom was Judge Simon Bernstein, the 95-year-old author of the education clause that now lies at the heart of the CCJEF appeal.  A delegate at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention, Judge Bernstein had successfully introduced the education clause and championed its ratification.  Now, some 43 years later, he had filed an amicus brief on behalf of CCJEF and traveled to Hartford to lend his support to the Yale Law students and to make certain that his message was heard by the media and legislators:  The intent of the education clause, he noted, was to ensure schoolchildren a good education, not merely an adequate one.

Well, he would know!
That's from CCJEF's summary of the case. 
You can read Wendy Lecker for the latest updates from the case, including this stunning assertion from the Commissioner of Education for the state: “(l)eadership without money works very well.”

A good read from NPR on school funding

It's well worth reading NPR's second chapter in their school funding consideration. Note their key takeways are: yes, of course money matters IF--

• it goes to kids who need it most
• it dependably increases
• it goes to the classroom
• and the impact made isn't only measured by test scores.

On several of these, Massachusetts, as reflected in the article, did quite well.

We aren't doing nearly as well any more. 

The Seattle Times looks at Massachusetts education funding

And there's a Worcester connection.
The Seattle Times has the first of a two-part education funding series up (as of yesterday) comparing the Massachusetts funding system to that of Washington state and finding the latter wanting. Overall, it's a good piece: it captures that the "Massachusetts miracle" in education was driven by an enormous new commitment of resources that accounted both for student need and for community ability to contribute (and points out that Washington needs to do the same).

A few things worth mentioning:

• Using Worcester Tech as a "metaphor for understanding the state's overall change" is misleading. While Tech (and every other vocational) gets substantially more funding per pupil, it (and most other vocationals) also have substantial private support. The timeline of Worcester Tech's changes also don't exactly match up with the foundation budget being implemented. Further, I think this is the first time I've read largely positive coverage of Worcester Tech that does mention its 50% admission rate and rightly connects this to student performance. (Likewise Tech's "similar peers") The little bit that could be mentioned here is that new building led to different kids applying, which led to a different student body, none of which had anything to do with the state reconsidering the funding of education. Usual disclaimer: no, I'm not slamming Tech. If we're going to make these complaints about charters, though, we'd darn well better own up to them when we do it ourselves.
• I appreciate that they resisted looking (and h/t to Barbara Madeloni of the MTA for calling them on it) only at testing data. 
• I really appreciate that in a piece that focuses on getting Washington to step one, they include that Massachusetts needs to get to step two (looking again): "The original Massachusetts equation has not been revisited in decades, nor kept pace with rising costs, squeezing low-income schools again and dulling the shine of those original ideals." We're now being called out on this in Seattle; could we do something about it now?

Again, worth a read. 

"Throwing money at the problem" -- the solution we've never tried

I've seen the article on the new research from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth being shared online. It (again) turns out the solution that we've never fully implemented, often disparaged as "throwing money at the problem," does work:

By comparing outcomes in the states that implemented these school finance reforms and those that did not, LaFortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach find that the reforms had a considerable impact on the achievement gap between high- and low-income school districts. They found that increasing funding per pupil by about $1,000 raises test scores by 0.16 standard deviations—roughly twice the impact as investing the same amount in reduced class sizes (according to data from Project STAR, a highly acclaimed study of Tennessee schools in the 1980s).

I'd recommend, if you're interested in school funding and issues of equity and adequacy, giving the paper itself a read as well (don't let the equations scare you off). Not only do an increase in resources matter, they matter over time: in other words, going to a more appropriately funded school from kindergarten means a student does better than a student who only had access to those resources in high school.

Presentation on the Foundation Budget Commission (MASC)

Foundation Budget Review Commission workshop Posting as we go
want to prepare ourselves, get prepared to give feedback to the committee
most want to know what are the issues for you on the current foundation budget; how it is not working

Opening questions:

what do we need for resources to begin planning?

should we caucus with like-thinking groups?

what do we NOT want to have happen? What are dealbreakers?

Who are the difficult people in this process? How might we identify and deal with them?

What should MASC do to gather membership feedback?

"One other thing? There are acronyms everywhere. If you don't know them, ask!"

Q: someone pointed out that the Foundation Budget salary figures are off as they're based on teachers needing a bachelor's degree, yet now they need a master's degree (or will shortly)
Take the difference in the calculation in your budget, multiply by your teachers, and there's that gap

Q: Since chapter 70 has held steady for us (in a district that gets 50% from state), but foundation budget goes up, town needs to hit an override about every five years to keep up.
Also, if there is not an override, stuck with what is had.
Difficult concept to explain to someone how the town assessment goes up by a higher percentage than the budget goes up by.

Q: We have group homes. Kids who come in midyear aren't reflected in October 1 counts. Funding doesn't reflect actual population.

And I threw in this on inflation, health insurance, and special education. Go find your numbers!
The MassBudget report "Cutting Class" is online here. 

Q: About municipal wealth calcuation; has it been changed? The answer is yes. 
Response from Senator Jehlen that commission will only talk about foundation budget calculation, not about community allocation (aka, this is out of their purview and in the purview of the Legislature)

Jehlen: difference of opinion on what the scope of the commission is; the chair thinks it's about getting kids to pass the MCAS. A broad base of education needs to be pushed if  that is to be brought forward
Comment that "we're not going to go into the details of this" to which the Senator asked how they were going to get anything done

Commission will be having listening tours, hearings, in various parts of the state
Dates as published are here

Look at what your net chapter 70 figures are once you've paid your charter assessments; some are negative (Cape Cod and the islands: definitely you!)

Q: Look at the preamble to the special education law for a description of what education should be. Also concern that some who need services and aren't getting them due to costs concerns

Q: homeless needs to be represented. "Welcome them all, have no problem taking care of them" but need assistance to do so. "I want to impress on you a sense of urgency."

Q: change the focus on what education was looked at in terms of 1993 to what it is as defined in the Constitution and what it should be for us now

Q: prison in our town, families of the prisoners are moved to town. Children are in school. Need to have an educated republic to go to the voting booth (Jefferson) and an educated workforce (Franklin). How is this Commission going to organize itself in terms of communication? How are we going to talk amongst ourselves? Can put on MASC website 

Suggestion that MASC can come up with a template of things that you can investigate in your district to start to then present to commission

Q: North Shore working group working to try to file another case; have a huge template already laid out; cost of lawsuit is the hold up. What about setting aside rainy day funds?

Suggestion to start having forums in our towns about this issue

Recommendation to read this book

Q: it's a lot of money, but focus on one or two at at time

Q: issue of students that go to vocational schools outside of district; costs so much more money to spend these students to those schools, not reflected in the budget

Q: commission is opening it up for change? Going back year by year isn't possible; jam everything while the commission is active

Charge of foundation budget commission is here

"ought to be able to slip an entire elephant and two vans in under the tent" of that charge
Comment from Southern Berkshire of the need for broadband
Get what we can while we can, but we need to have an ongoing advocacy group after commission is done, both as a larger group and as School Committee
suggestion that Division chairs have this as a topic that is being discussed, thus able to fight for what our membership wants

"what if we had a wildly successful commission, what would it look like? What are the commonalities that we have?" Every district is pushed when we try to work with the most challenged students in our districts...children who are struggling the most are helped by any improvement

Q: scope of commission? "We may not get more money, but what we should push for is intellectual honesty" We may not get more money, but we should at least be honest about what we are and aren't doing.

When the costs of what we're doing aren't where they should be are brought up to where they should be, that's where the success lies.

Senate is through the education amendments

The Mass Senate has gotten through the education budget amendments (you can track the actions on amendments on this page) and it looks as though most of the proposed funding increases have failed. The foundation budget commission, as I posted yesterday, passed, but no increase in:

• McKinney-Vento transportation reimbursement
• charter school reimbursement
• regional transportation
• innovation schools
• alternative education
• quality kindergarten

The effort to study the Common Core "curriculum" failed, as did the effort to pause the PARCC test. 

Studying having the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship applying to fees as well as tuition passed, though! 

Legislative update from MASC

MASC Division IV (central MA) at Wachusett Regional High School
Panel for Senator Brewer, Reps Gobi, Gregoire, and Ferguson

Kansas state funding for education found unconstitutional

This happened on Friday, but I haven't gotten a chance to post on it. Of course this is just the latest case:
The state of Kansas was found to be unconstitutionally funding its schools by their Supreme Court. In a comment that will sound familiar to those from Massachusetts:

"We will continue to see more and more state litigation on this issue of what it takes to ensure that all students can meet standards and placing a legal obligation on the state legislature to adopt financing systems that provide both adequate funding and equitable funding to ensure that those standards are actually achieved," said Dianne Piche, a former U.S. Education Department attorney who leads education initiatives at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

 There are similar cases currently pending in Texas, New York, and Connecticut.
...but, no, not in Massachusetts, 50% underfunded or not.

Public comment on budget projections

Cohane: important to point out a few things that are a little disturbing
"we talk about trying to reduce the gap of net school spending, rather than eliminating it, very disturbing to me"
talk about what goes into net school spending and what doesn't
rather than what we need and what children should have
do need to lobby state on foundation budget
in the meantime can't shortchange our children
is the net school spending deficit included in the projection?
Allen: no, no effort to decrease gap in NSS included
Cohane: when we compare ourselves to other cities, see school choice number increasing, money walking out the door with those kids, student population leveling
if we want to be competitive as a home for the middle class, we have to
surrounding communities spending 7-10% over foundation "and we sit here being proud that the original proposal was $100,000 over foundation"

Steigman: in the city, we keep seeing cuts and challenges
"at what point do we say we can't wait for them, we have to do what we can"
"at some point, we have to start being accountable"
"you're going to have to work even harder"
"begging you...it's not enough...make it happen, and don't wait for the state and fed"
"I don't believe that a high school...fix the schools that we have today..."

Gruszka: "amen to the previous two comments"
"what percentage, given current figures, would city have to be at to provide level service"
2.5%
and the $27M? "you get close to what Mr. Cohane was talking about"
about 8.5%
and what about the $11.7 in cuts in positions? It would be 200 positions

Economou: chapter 70, "outdated when it hit the paper"
Allen: Legislature fully knows that the foundation budget is underfunded, "is facing sticker shock"
state chapter 70 is about $4 billion, underfunded by $2 billion; underfunded by 50%
look at multiyear changes
Foley: state level expects city to step up, go to state and show what we're doing
Toomey: fight for a long time, whole state issue
willing, as my colleagues are, to work on the city side as well

Comment from Mr. Gruszka that it is difficult for a legislator to fight for additional state funding when the city is so far below its levy limit. 

MASC 13 : Legislative update

with Senator Pat Jehlen and Representative Alice Peisch, both members of the Joint Committee on Education
(both of whom are former school committee members)

MASC 13: Chapter 70 aid (20 years in)

Dave Tobin, MASS School Finance
Luc Schuster, Deputy Director, Mass Budget and Policy
Jeff Wulfson, Deputy Commissioner of Education

Round up of interesting things to read

A slew of things that came through over the weekend of interest:

• Among the things we're discussing tomorrow is the question of if we need to add keyboarding due to PARCC; other districts are already doing it.
• We in Massachusetts keep looking for a real adequacy study; Maryland, which was 10 years behind us in reworking their formula, already is doing one.
• One hopes that at some point we're going to realize that teaching kindergartners to take multiple choice tests is a waste of time.
• An interesting look at the correlation between a rise in ADHD diagnosis and the adoption of No Child Left Behind.
• A curious one on how empathy helps children recognize sarcasm.
• And a great run through from Gary Rubinstein on the way we teach math and how we may be killing any love for it in the process.

Update on health insurance and the foundation

More inadequate than ever.
Plus:

Further, it’s worth emphasizing that in addition to ensuring that the foundation budget accurately reflects true health insurance and special education costs, there are likely larger adequacy concerns that need addressing, now that we’ve been using the same school funding formula for twenty years. Schools have changed dramatically during the intervening years—creation of MCAS, implementation of curriculum frameworks, huge technological advances, etc.—and, yet, the formula has the same basic structure it did back in the early 1990s. It may well be time to engage in a bigger picture redesign of the foundation budget, factoring in all that has changed and all that we now know about how to structure successful schools so that all kids have a strong opportunity to learn.

I should point out explicitly that it's the Mass Budget and Policy Center doing the number crunching,, again, here. Smart people doing seriously necessary work.

More on Ed Reform at 20

The Mass Budget and Policy Center has joined the birthday party (?) for the 1993 Ed Reform. Their main point?

The foundation budget should be reexamined in light of all that has changed.

If you've been following the Mass Budget's analysis of how the foundation budget has aged, much of this will not be a surprise. For example:


Note that Worcester's numbers on this are different; we've been depriving facilities,student supplies, and basically everything except teachers, special education, and health insurance.


You may not, however, have seen this one:



They further note:

The Hancock case was filed in 1999, charging that the state had not fulfilled its mandate to provide adequate education to all students as mandated in 1993's landmark McDuffy school finance case. While the court in Hancock found that the Legislature had made reasonable progress during the 1990s, it stressed in its written opinion that it anticipated that the process of education reform in Massachusetts to be ongoing and that state revenue support would continue to increase.

That hasn't happened.
And it should.

"This achievement gap is not a coincidence. Money matters."

If you have not read Professor Melissa Weiner's excellent editorial in today's T&G, give it a read:

But politicians and reformers have not insisted that every child receive the resources they need to succeed academically, regardless of where they attend school. Arguably, U.S. education reformers have been rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship that lacks sufficient resources to stay afloat. 

If you're a faithful reader here, you will have read the articles she cites, but SO NICE to see it all put together in one place!

Joint Council/School Committee meeting: Finance & Operations and Education: finance

We've got a phone call going into DESE: Jeff Wulfson, Deputy Commissioner of Education; Jay Sullivan, Executive Director, School Finance and District Support Center; Roger Hatch, School Finance Programs Administrator are "here" by phone.
posting as we go...

And for you ed funding geeks

...if you aren't just reading Bruce Baker all of the time, at least catch this post on the use of property taxes in ed funding.
If someone could please, please get the Massachusetts Legislature to read this, so they could knock off the nonsense with the $40/pupil increase as some sort of "equity," I'd appreciate it greatly.