June Board of Ed: student data trend analysis

 Thomas Kane from Harvard University
he's an economist
"in the education policy debate, I have observed that there is one common storyline...that the folks on the reform side...will marshal statistics that things are terrible...that the status quo is unsustainable...those on the other side...are often arguing similar points...and will point to prior...policy for why"
"over time it's corrosive"

provide some history
nationally, achievement as measured by NAEP rose from 1990-2013
"have made quite a bit of progress"
I am not going to try to reproduce numbers here
notes decline in 2019-22, which started pre-pandemic
in Massachusetts increase was larger, but recent losses are larger
"a year's worth of growth is about 10.4 points"
(this always feel very made up to me)
quotes Mann on education being "the balance wheel of the social machinery"
"but the balance wheel has been under strain"
Increased economic stratification 
main countervailing force has been policy: school accountability and school finance
"merged each of the schools back to neighborhood" in NAEP results
He is presuming that the schools draw from their neighborhood in this analysis--not all do
and then looked at neighborhood income
Larger increases for lower income families, by this analysis
reading improved for low and middle income families
in MA, high poverty districts improved the most
looked at states that saw big increases in the NAEP, then looked at income over time of those born in those states; states with large NAEP growth were also places were those born those had larger income growth
["What do changes in state test scores imply for later life outcomes" Dec. 2022 NBER working paper]
"I just can't help myself; I'm an economist." on next set of data
what has the increase in achievement been worth?
for one cohort of 8th graders in 2013, he calculates at $6.4B
"Education reform did not fail."

Current challenges: respond to pandemic losses; resume progress in MA education
"would encourage us to be bold" in current challenges

"pandemic losses increased inequality in MA"
IMPORTANT POINT: THIS WAS NOT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY DESE IN THEIR OWN PRESENTATIONS. If you recall, during the goal setting conversation, the Department was quite clear that it was not the traditionally lowest performing districts in which those losses were concentrated
Would recommend policy changes that focus on these traditionally underperforming districts

"what are some of the processes that we could create that would help accelerate improvement?"
process by which improvement could be scaled up: MA state innovation fund

Characterize this as a pep talk
"can make progress, have made progress...we currently have some major challenges"
consider what is possible in the coming years

Craven: some people voted against 1993 education
"people argue that nothing but money matters"
you said policy matters; what do you mean by that?
Kane: "there is research...looked at what happened to NAEP scores" in schools like MA pre-NCLB accountability
which is also when we put money in, so this is not holding money aside
They found large positive effects, especially in math
"more narrowing in schools that did school finance reform in the states that didn't"
"I don't think the data enables us to show which was more important, but that both were important"
Moriarty: steps one through three; I think steps 4 and 5 are extremely problematic
(this is on his slide of "resuming improvement")
Kane: I don't think any state does 4 and 5 well (that's "share" and "scale)
thinks the best way to convince people that their peer districts had compelling outcomes
"as a persuasion scaling exercise"
Hills: when you see declining gaps reverse themselves, would be curious what items you want to highlight
Kane: very few things we understand in education research, but the turnaround in math "was related to school closures"
high poverty, high minority districts "stayed closed longer"
Newton students had more resources outside of school
both Kane and Hills live in Newton
Hills: ten years ago to five years ago, how did trends reverse themselves?
Kane: resource, incentives, but also persuasion; "my hypothesis--I can't prove it!--is we'd start to see improvement again"
Plankey: was there a tapering off in other states over this time, too? "Does ed reform just sort of expire?"
Kane: "pattern of rising and then flattening is pretty universal"
Plankey: are there any states that implemented a change and reversed?
Kane: "I hope that Massachusetts would be the first."
Have to acknowledge large losses in places like Lynn
"we'll learn a lot when MCAS results come back this summer"
hopes that Massachusetts has turned it around, but don't expect it
Tutwiler: what do you mean by spread?
Kane: districts voluntarily adopting effective practices, ideally
"but state also has levels" that it can pull 
"imagine if the state held like an annual meeting" on what is going to be tested this year and what will be tested this next year
"some of the things that get tried won't work...I wouldn't be surprised if even most of them don't work"
"by identifying that 20% that worked and spreading them"
Tutwiler: appreciate naming the differences between different communities
lived in Andover, worked in Lynn and saw those differences
there are elements that exclude the control factor "there could be wisdom in those control factors..in things for us to think about"
schools that had long-term subs, or positions that they never filled, or chronic absenteeism rates that are much higher
Kane: have research on what works in chronic absenteeism, for example
start systematically sharing what works
Stewart: strikes me that when Commissioner was new was a conference sharing what works
districts to share their successes
can target a few initiatives, but don't think the state needs to share the work and be excited about it
Kane: the role the state could play is set up the things to try, and then let the folks who did it be the ones to try and then share
"and for the state to invest substantially in it...even setting aside 1% of that" for experimentation
Mohammed: thinking about experience in health care: preventable medical errors
"it wasn't until hospitals really started to work on this using many of the processes you're describing"
might be things to learn from different industries, storytelling, measurement of outcomes was key to changing trajectory of things

Plankey: catalogue of learning supports
will catalogue be updated yearly as things change? (Riley nods)

Not *that* low income

The state has now posted state and district enrollment numbers (the October 1 count) for the current school year, and if you pay the close attention Cleo does, you're going to notice something on terminology: 

So the DESE is back to using 'low income' instead of 'economically disadvantaged'? 🤔

— An Education (@AnEducationBlog) November 19, 2021

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW: the former definition of low income is NOT something we're going back to; for what this includes, see the help section which has this:  

Low-income (prior to 2015): Indicates the percent of enrollment who meet ANY ONE of the following definitions of Low-income:

The student is eligible for free or reduced price lunch; or

The student receives Transitional Aid to Families benefits; or

The student is eligible for food stamps

source: SIMS

data as of: October 1

Economically Disadvantaged (2015 to 2021): Calculated based on a student's participation in one or more of the following state-administered programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Transitional Assistance for Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC); the Department of Children and Families' (DCF) foster care program; and MassHealth (Medicaid).

source: See Understanding the Economically Disadvantaged Indicator

Low-income (2022 to present): Calculated based on a student's participation in one or more of the following state-administered programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Transitional Assistance for Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC); the Department of Children and Families' (DCF) foster care program; expanded MassHealth (Medicaid) up to 185% of the federal poverty level, as well as students identified by districts as homeless and students the district confirmed had met the low-income criteria through the supplemental process and collected the required supporting documentation (SIMS DOE056)

source: See Redefining Low-income Under the Student Opportunity Act (SY 2021-22)

This last one is the one I want to be sure folks are clear on; what the state is now using effectively is economically disadvantaged PLUS.

Opportunity delayed is...

MassBudget nails it in their analysis of the Governor's budget in a report entitled "Opportunity Delayed" (The common phrase is "opportunity delayed is opportunity denied) regarding the lesser implementation of the low income rate:

...not all of the SOA reforms are consistently or equitably phased in by the Governor’s proposal despite this goal being outlined in the law. One critical area that is not on track — increased support for students from low-income families through Low-Income Rates. In his FY 2021 budget proposal, the Governor only delivers on 4 percent of the progress towards the SOA target. This leaves 96 percent of the change left to be accomplished over the next six years.
According to a preliminary analysis of the funding proposal, slowing the low-income rate progress down to 4 percent from 14 percent, results in a reduction in aid of $73.6 million.4 This reduces the capacity of districts educating children who are economically disadvantaged, to enhance services, expand opportunities, and promote achievement. The Commonwealth would need to increase Chapter 70 aid by $377.1 million (24 percent more than Governor Baker proposed) to phase-in low-income rate increases at an equal pace as the other components (see chart below).
The Governor’s proposal to increase low-income rates 4 percent towards the target in the first year, while leaving an average of 16 percent each year to follow, does not meet the objective of consistent implementation. This is particularly true when the other areas are moving an even 14 percent towards the goals of the SOA.

The Boston Globe covers this report today. The Mass Taxpayers' quote is interesting as they, as I mentioned earlier, agreed with the MassBudget analysis when they presented for the Connecticut Valley superintendents.
And school committees? A good thing to pay attention to and weigh in on.
PS: Worcester? It's on next week's agenda.

So what's the deal with the low income measurement?

Why is there discussion/controversy/activism about the low income implementation in school funding in the House 2 budget?

As I mentioned when I ran through the Governor's proposed budget back in January, most of the sections of the Foundation Budget Review Commission's recommendations and the Student Opportunity Law that had to do with funding were implemented at 1/7th of the goal, under the general understanding that this will be phased in over seven years.
Not low income.
What did happen with low income was this: the law provided for a one year "best option" count on students: for each district, the state looked at the direct certification count--the one we've been using, through the matching of students via the databases--and also ran the FY16 percentage of students that were low income then (the last year that everyone was being credited on free/reduced lunch, 'though some districts had already switched), and each district got the higher of those two counts.
Note that if you download the FY16 spreadsheet, you can double-check your number by calculating your percentage of low income students that year. I assume that there were business offices that did this ahead of time. And each of the FY21 preliminary foundation budget sheets has, in the bottom right corner, a comparison of the FY16 percentage applied to this year's enrollment and this year's direct certification:

Here's Worcester's. See the blue box? 

That "best of," as has been widely noted, added about 46,000 students statewide to the count of low income. Those students, of course, were not all in one district, and, as with any such count, there were districts that benefited more than others. Worcester picked by 2000 more students for this year; as Mike noted, Northbridge actually lost kids even with the FY16 count being used (it would have gone lower if it were only direct cert) and so on.
However, as a result of the the increased count of students, the state of course had to increase the amount of funding going to that line. In order to keep to the overall $300M or so planned--the overall 1/7th--the rate change was only implemented by 4/100ths, not the 1/7th of the other sections.

This was part of the Mass Taxpayers' Foundation presentation yesterday
to the Connecticut Valley Superintendents' Roundtable.
We were told it is a slide that DESE doesn't like.

This isn't a thing that I or anyone else cooked up; you can find it right on DESE's page on FY21 under "Foundation Budget Rates."
As noted in the above slide that you probably can't read, this means the rates for low income will then have to pick up the difference over the next six years in order to meet the seven year generally understood goal.
It also, as a side note, means that some of the money gets postponed having inflation applied by a year.
The slide also notes, however, that the final section of the law says that the changes are to be implemented in "an equitable and consistent manner."
Thus the question is: is this equitable? is this consistent? does it line up with the intent of the law? is in line with what was fought so hard for?

A number of us are arguing that it doesn't.

Two additional notes after the jump:

Another August

The first week of August hangs at the very top of summer, the top of the live-long year, like the highest seat of a Ferris wheel when it pauses in its turning. The weeks that come before are only a climb from balmy spring, and those that follow a drop to the chill of autumn, but the first week of August is motionless, and hot. It is curiously silent, too, with blank white dawns and glaring noons, and sunsets smeared with too much color.

Tuck Everlasting, Natalie Babbitt

Here we are at the opening of another August, a month that will close with kids back in school, and no school funding bill. As I noted last August, this "ongoing failure" was even foreseen and warned about in the Foundation Budget Review Commission report itself.
We should be clear: having or not having a bill makes no difference for the upcoming school year. The funding for that was in the FY20 budget, which, with the Governor's signature this week, is now set. And, to be fair, there was progress on school funding in the actual budget.
But it's a single year budget. It didn't change the underlying formula. 
The lack of urgency is troubling. Governor Baker, in the article linked above, swiped at those of us noting this with this:

“I think sometimes people don’t give the Legislature enough credit for how difficult it is to change that formula,” Baker said. “There’s a tremendous amount of will in the building to do that, but this is a very hard exercise.”

Many of those of us concerned know better than most what "a very hard exercise" it is, but we also note the amount of time and lack of urgency that has been present for much of the last four years.

Those four years, as Senator Chang-Díaz noted, are half of an elementary school career. I'll add that they are the whole of a high school career, and for the class of 2019, that's just what they were.
I'm not being cute to say: kids don't get that time back. It's already too late. You've already lost it, and we will never get it back.
It's thus helpful for the Springfield Republican (online as MassLive) to be editorializing about the urgency, but the stridency they criticize Senator Chang-Díaz for (and let me know when the last time is that someone used that word of a male politican) is something that instead ought to be widely shared.

I do think this point from the editorial is one we should consider:

“I think everyone is working very hard to come to a place where everyone feels comfortable,” DeLeo said.
Therein lies the problem: everyone will not feel comfortable, no matter what result is finally reached. No sensible person questions the complexity and difficult of addressing (and paying for) the varied needs of 21st Century public education.
Compromise will be required. When that happens, people on all sides must accept they didn’t get everything they thought they should, but could live with the outcome.

Yes, but who lives with the outcome? The impact of a shift in the funding formula and who pays for it impacts some districts--and thus some students--more than others. Who is being asked to give up or live with what? The kids most underfunded--those in the Gateway Cities, and particularly those students who are poor, who are students of color, who are learning English--are those least often at the table when decisions are made. They've been accepting, like it or not, an underfunded school system for years at this point. The impact of this funding bill hits those kids and their futures more than anyone else.
I don't think we should be shrugging and saying that they're going to have to live it it, strident though that may make me.

This brings us to Max Larkin's piece for WBUR yesterday about one thing that may be holding up the bills: the low income count. MassBudget, of course, has been on top of the low income count for some time. A number of cities, particularly those with high numbers of immigrants, have been concerned about the impact in particular this administration has on families' willingness to sign up for services and thus make the count.
And we should be worried about that. The national administration has had a chilling effect on lots of things, and it is part of our job at the local level to mitigate and fight what we can.
And I said yesterday:

I know nothing of how the decision of who is and isn't speaking on the record is made, but it's disappointing that DESE didn't have the people who do this talk. There's a decent conversation to be had. https://t.co/qqvFVU5iX7 #MAEdu

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) August 1, 2019

Here's why I say this: there have been ongoing discussions dating back before we switched from low income to economically disadvantaged. There have been meetings and task forces and (see above) reports on how to improve the count. There has been a TON of work done on this. I don't want yesterday's article to leave the impression that anyone--and I include here DESE--has shrugged and said whatever.
I do think that "yes, but you got more money per student" is a pretty lame response, because we all know there should be more money per student, already. We also need to know how many kids we have.
Many of the proposals in MassBudget's report have been incorporated already; I'd also argue that if kids are eligible for state services, we should be figuring out how to get them on those state services, even aside from our district counts, as kids need health insurance and food outside of school! That remains an ongoing and looming issue with the national administration.
I think, though--and I hope that those who are actually making decisions on this are asking for solid data on this--that this is not really the big hold-up. Or it shouldn't be.

If I had some sort of inspiring summing up here, I'd offer it to you. Other than noting that those who are most voiceless and most at risk are those most harmed by postponing, I've got nothing. Waylay your reps and senators when they're around over the August break, please.

May Board of Ed at the Malden Public Library: FY20 budget

backup is here
Bell: "The Senate is now in full session debating the budget"
no news beyond what the committee released two weeks ago on the 7th of May
overall appropriation of $284M "a lot of adds and deletes that go into that 284"

Senate Ways and Means FY20 budget

First, note that I have updated this spreadsheet on which I am tracking the K-12 budget accounts in FY20. If you'd like the Twitter thread of account by account, it is here.

A few notes:

• To be just entirely honest: I'm wearily disappointed. If you follow me on Twitter, you might have caught my disbelief that the Senate uses the Governor's--not the House's--preK through 12 foundation dollar amounts, thus leaving out a health care increase; that the Senate overall cut (pretty drastically) the English learner funding and reworked it to favor lower grades; that the push towards low income wasn't bigger, as it's still less than 50% of high school per pupil. I checked lines several times because I was sure I had to be reading something incorrectly. The general understanding of the field has been that the Senate can be counted on to get real needs and big picture. Instead, this foundation budget calculation in particular argues that someone needs to explain to the Senate (again?) the huge gap in health insurance, how learning a language works, and the vast gulf of needs that poverty causes. And I am so tired of this case having to be made, yet again. 
• The economically disadvantaged, progressive towards greater concentrations of poverty, is legitimately a good thing. I am less than impressed by the "largest ever" phrasing, however. This is something for which the meaningful measure is against real need now, not past funding levels.
• There is a rural line of $1.5M.
• This budget has come pre-loaded with earmarks right in the DESE line (the location isn't unusual). While I am sure that those districts can use that funding, the use of power to ensure that state funds are specifically targeted to a district, rather than use of that power to ensure all such need is met is not how equity happens. Remember: if you want an earmark for it, it is probably more than your district that needs it.
• The charter mitigation line, while it is down a bit, makes the switch on percentages (to 100/60/40, increases the facilties line, but it does not make the switch in which districts are funded, as it does not include the language tying funding to enrollment increases greater than the prior five years. Assuming no one tries to amend the Senate language, the battle on this then goes to conference committee. 

Joint Committee on Education hears the funding bills:

This is bound to be a long one! I'll be updating this all day as we go.
The hearing begins at 10 am, but the auditorum is filling fast: the MTA is here with red "Fund our Future" shirts, I've seen a few superintendents come in, Mass Parents United is here with black tee shirts, and staffers from the Senators and Reps are in and out. My view is from the top back: 

February Board of Ed: FY20

notes on budget
Riley says Governor's budget "meets the recommendation of the foundation budget review commission"
it does not; no voke increase in sped
Bell introduces
O'Donnell: notes there is the budget and a funding bill
Ch.70 is a 4.1% increase over prior year ($200.3M increase)
Governor's bill codifies how running local contribution requirements and cleans up sections of chapter that are no longer in effect
"it's a pretty big moment"
sped: goal of 3x statewide foundation budget per pupil
benefits: goal based on GIC updated annually
economically disadvantaged: 1-5 constant and increasing only by inflation; 6-10 more progressive, wider gap
high needs concentration: decile 9 or 10 plus 20% or more EL students
"would be about $100M more over the phase in period"
then more differentiation
did try to distribute costs across more categories functionally
"trying to get at some staffing assumptions that we thought made sense" particuarly in guidance and staff support
economically disadvantaged matching with same state services for qualification
Peyser comments that it is relative share not total number (so I think he's saying it doesn't matter as much?)
early college: new rate $1050 higher than high school rate
EL : differentiated by grade span, higher funding for later grades; also all who meet or exceed exit requirements are no longer counted in the foundation budget
"we do that really to try to improve equity" as districts are counting students differently
statewide, reduces by about 6100 students
new goal for gudiance and psych starting in FY21
assumed in-district special ed to 4% for all
vocational schools don't have higher need special ed students, so do not include change to voke to 5%
$1B in current dollars; increase of $3.3B by 2026
aggregate wealth model in effect; 100% gap reduction; combined effort yield greater than 175% of foundation require local contributions set at not less than 82.5%

charter reimbursement: enrollment growth over a five year period, not just one year
"do you have more students going to charters now than you did five years ago"
Wulfson: trying to target the aid to where it was intended to be "you had a new school opening, or you had a school growing"
West refers to this as "correcting the treatment of enrollment"
Peyser: current method takes inflation into account
one reason that this has not been fully funded with respect to inflation
McKenna: it has not been fully funded
Wulfson: "the past couple of years, we haven't even funded the first year, never mind the others"
six years "just was very difficult for districts to plan for"
Peyser said it was hard to plan for the drop from 100% to 25% (I think most districts assumed they weren't getting the 25% so...?)
Boston, couple of Martha's Vineyard districts getting "supplemental aid": $6M high charter tutition costs and low Ch. 70
charter tutition in excess of 9% of NSS
this argues a broken understanding of why the state funds some districts more than others
facilities tuition up to $938/pupil tied to inflation

circuit breaker: $323M in House 1; $4.5M increase, but is tied to Dept. of Developmental Services
70% reimbursement
regional transporation level funded, would be 76%
homless student reimbursement 37%
non-resident vocational transportation 6%

new trust funds for low performing schools ($50M) and school safety ($30M)

increasing retained revenue for educator licensure
"would fully appropriate the revenue for a year"
adult basic eduation increased by $4.27M (outside earmarks) includes more workforce development  and adult basic education
assessment and curriculum maintains FY19 (higher, post supplemental budget) rate

McKenna notes that there had been funding accompanying civics implementation
fund is approved by there is no allocation
don't talk enough about the achievement gap: summer learning, 4 year olds, English learners, kids not getting what they should be doing
"I get concerned, like this morning we spent most of our time talking about charter schools...this achievement gap, and how are we focusing our money on that"
don't hear talking about access for four year olds, I don't hear about summer learning

Stewart asks about joint meeting with Higher Ed?
Sagan: tried, were unable to coordinate a date

Bell resources for English learners rolling forward from last year's level

FY20 in Worcester

Due to the length public testimony on Thursday night (livetweeted here, mostly), the Worcester School Committee did not receive the report on the FY20 budget. However, we do have what was to be the presentation, and the T&G followed up to give us a front page cover story yesterday, anyway:

Note that "than last year" is really the key part of the story (and didn't make the headline).
This bumps the actual presentation of the WPS budget preview off to the 28th, which alas, I will not be able to make and also pushes this very close to when the House is going to release its budget, and well into the city's planning season, as well. So a few thoughts from me (just from me, as always):

--If you are from outside of Worcester, please note: 

Worcester's foundation enrollment is 27,800 students; the foundation budget is $374M. 

Don't let the fact that the numbers have a lot of digits throw you!--

First, remember that the only things that traditionally shifts the foundation budget--and thus the Worcester Public Schools budget, which is little more than that--are enrollment and inflation. And, in short, both are working in our favor this year.

My personal rule of thumb is costs tend to go up by 3%, excluding health insurance. That isn't perfect, by any means, but it does mean it's a bit better to be looking at an inflation rate over 3%.

Pretty crazy jump in preschool there.
Also note the needs that increased, as well:

(the orange bars are when it was low income. No one "lost" poor kids.)

The overall Worcester trend line, putting us, as we are usually reminded, over the enrollment Worcester was at when we had more elementary schools makes me wonder: are we talking about where we're putting these kids? Or are we going to continue to pretend that this isn't a facilities issue with municipal-side implications?

And then, this post on the changes in the foundation budget proposed by Governor Baker? This is all working in here, as well.

And Mr. Allen breaks down where the new FBRC-related funding is coming from as well:

(Thus, incidentally, this tweet, because to do this and the following, you have to be able to take apart the pieces of the foundation budget and put them back together again with district numbers and new assumptions. I think I'm in a good position to say that not many in the state can do that.)

Also, before we get too excited:

Something I don't know enough about is how the Governor's proposal on charter reimbursement (not the 100/60/40, but the enrollment over five years) hits Worcester. We don't really have a significant growth in charter seats, so I wouldn't think it would work in our favor.

To put this in some perspective, here is that third-to-last slide from the equivalent presentation last year:

To which my comment was "ouch."
Thus, let me say, I'm not complaining.
At the same time, remember that the entire premise on which the Worcester--and all--budgets are founded is undercalculated by probably at least $2B. And note where most of the bump comes from: a good inflation year! That means not having a tough year is essentially a toss of the dice.
This is no way to run a budget.

So here are my thoughts as a Worcesterite (who sends three kids on buses every morning) about FY20:

• First, I refuse to let the city off the hook. Only the municipal side can fund a lawsuit, yes, so let's see about that in this budget. But let's also see the city put some real funding towards the schools. I am deeply concerned that the city has done essentially nothing with the $70M backlog in essential repairs in schools. We have a facilities audit that essentially was ignored cityside. We know that every year of an undercalculated foundation budget continues to undermine (almost literally) the facilities, as operations and maintenance runs at 60% or so. INCREASE THE CAPITAL BUDGET. The amount the city contributes towards the schools in capital each year is shameful.
• On the state side, we need to take a look at charter reimbursement. The Baker budget is doing something philosophical as well as budgetary in this shift in funding. The reimbursement is actually intended to smooth the year to year shifts, not the long term gaps. This is a change in the philosophy of reimbursement. The Legislature should fully fund reimbursement. Honestly, I think the state should just line item charters, but no one is asking me that. 
• Also on the state side, the health insurance jump (of 7%ish) is a start, as is the shift on English learners. We still aren't recognizing real costs, however, and progress still is overdue. Also, no one appears to be talking about the 6% drop statewide in the number English learners due to the change in who qualifies. Let's talk about if that is a change that should be made (my inclination is to say no, as even those who test out still need some supports in many cases; this is not my area of expertise by a long shot, however).
• And low income? The recommendation is 50% to 100% of the foundation budget per student. Let's get real on numbers here. We hear nearly daily about the toll poverty takes on families and on children in particular; let's put some resources towards that need. 

I'll follow up this posts with some emails to city councilors and legislators. If you're in Worcester, I'd urge you to do likewise. 

The PROMISE Act: SD. 101

So what else (besides this) is in the bill "An Act providing rightful opportunities and meaningful investment for successful and equitable education" (h/t to those writing the acronyms!) proposed yesterday?

I first want to point out that bills often start with definitions, and a lot of what I pointed out yesterday (both here and elsewhere) was through carefully parsing out what is said in those opening definitions. The concepts of a "district student aid floor," a "district student foundation budget," and a "district student aid increment" are not ones that currently exist; they would be created by this bill if it is passed as proposed.

The definitions also lay out a lot about the implementation:

• health insurance is to be tied to the average rate of growth of all GIC plans over the prior three years
• special education is included (as in FBRC) at 4% in district (5% for vocationals) 
• out of district special education is three times the statewide foundation budget per pupil
• low income--which, explained below, can be created via in-district form--is 185% of the federal poverty rate
• the low income deciles go from 50% of per pupil to 100% of per pupil (I did a model of this for a class project; it's pretty impressive)
• English language learner is an increment ($2537.49 proposed for FY20), with the portion that is employee benefits adjusted in line with GIC

Also, this is not a long bill! I know I wasn't the only one yesterday who expected something much longer. In some ways, this is because it is built on much that already exists.

The very first thing this does, which I think is really important but doesn't seem to get any attention (it was in S.2525, too) is set up implementation. This isn't set on a five year or seven year or what have you roll out. It sets up an annual meeting, to be held by January 15, at which there will be a joint decision by both branches of the Legislature and the Governor's office on how the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations will be implemented for the coming budget year. While this may sound strange, this is how revenue on which the next budget year will be decided works; there's an annual Joint Ways and Means hearing to which the Secretary of Administration and Finance also comes, and they hear from experts on what the next year's projections look like, and then they decide what the budget will be spending. This is also how the 1993 ed reform law's piece on funding was implemented; they decided each year how it would work. This is, I think, a conservative (note the small "c") way of rolling it out, which I would think would appeal to those most concerned about costs.
It does require that all pieces--and it is including the "district student aid increment" in this, which was of course not a commission recommendation--be phased in at the same pace. In other words, you don't get to peel off the poor kids and the English language learners and do the pieces where everyone gets a benefit.
However (speaking of everyone getting a benefit) it provides that "in any year prior" to the completion of implementation (which the bill requires a bill be passed to mark), minimum per pupil increases will be $50 times how implemented the bill is, as a percentage.

You'll remember we switched to economically disadvantaged in including poverty in the foundation budget when so many districts went to direct certification; this bill would bring back the term "low income" and provide for a form for districts to "certify family income level for the purpose of calculating low-income enrollment." Districts would have the option annually to choose direct certification or form collection as how their low income level was determined. This is a pretty big deal; there was a substantial change, as many remember, with the number of kids included in the category when this changed. Going back to a local process would include more kids in poverty, including that group, much spoken of, that may be concerned about a state or federal program under the current administration. (Note that this also kinda throws all models off, as going back to a local process means the poverty levels would be different.)

The bill sets up a foundation budget review commission to review and make changes every five years after holding at least four hearings "across the regions of the commonwealth"; the review is to "include, but not be limited to, the components of the foundation budget established under section 3 and subsequent changes made to the foundation budget by law." It also includes what the original commission was also charged with: effective resource use and allocation. Those who sit on the commission (which looks parallel to last time) are, it is noted, not in violation of the conflict of interest law if they work for a school district.

Oh, and the "commissioner of elementary and secondary education shall furnish reasonable staff and other support for the work of the commission." That's what happens when the Senator who writes the bill co-chaired the last commission!

And while they're setting up commissions, there is also the creation of the data advisory committee, as in the commission report, "to promote the improved use of school-level data to inform effective resource allocation at the local level." As I've said before, due to ESSA's requirement of school-level funding reporting, I think this may end up being a moot point. It has to report out annually.

And that, plus the "district student aid floor" about which I wrote yesterday, is it.

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday, September 18

Back to their regular schedule; their agenda is here.
After opening comments, they're starting their year by voting in a new vice-chair (the chair is a Governor appointment).
Commissioner Riley is presenting his goals for the coming year. There's some good things here (I'm summarizing)!

• implementation of the history/social studies standards and development of the new arts standards
• communication and outreach on celebrating teachers, creating a working committee on diversifying the teaching force, convening major stakeholders in the spring to discuss a path forward, visiting 100 schools
• HEY! "I will collaborate with the Governor's office, Legislature, and stakeholders to promote and advance necessary changes in the foundation budget that will ultimately lead to an accurate reflection of the needs of all students in the Commonwealth." !!!!
• targeted intervention of underperforming schools BUT look at what that looks like to him: "may include improvement of instructional practices to accelerate learning, culturally responsive teaching and learning, and increased engagement opportunities for students." 
• analyze and refine the new accountability system
• "lead the promotion of racial equity, diversity, and cultural proficiency" at DESE
• "assess the responsibilities and functions of the agency"

There is a presentation of and by Massachusetts Teacher of the Year Jamil Siddiqui.

There's an update on the arts curriculum framework, which is in the "writing and revising" phase.

There's an update on what we are still clunkily calling the "next generation MCAS" and the high school proficiency standard. Participation this past spring was over 99%. This year's sophomores will take the high school version of the new MCAS, and next summer, their scores will be scaled to a standard held to passing as now, which will hold for two years. The Commissioner is likewise recommending that a parallel path be established with the new science high school test. The class of 2023 (this year's eighth graders) will be those first held to a new standard, which will be developed starting next fall; watch for public input sessions. Note also this language in closing: 

I am committed to investigating ways that we can reduce the amount of time that is spent on testing, while maintaining the quality of the tests and the validity of the results. I am also interested in ways that we can return results more quickly, especially to teachers.

There's also (will the wonders never cease!) an administration-generated update on the foundation budget, including the bits implemented in the FY19 budget (an update I've been meaning to do myself), and a note on DESE involvement in the conference committee, which I think is worth quoting in full:

This past July, the Department staff were actively engaged by the legislative conference committee that was considering statutory changes to Chapter 70 in order to provide technical support and financial projections needed by the committee to inform their deliberations. Ultimately, the conferees were not able to resolve their differences, but it is clear that there is a high level of interest in exploring long-term, statutory changes to the foundation budget in areas that had been addressed at varied levels of detail by the FBRC.
During the course of this consultative work, the Department modeled the impact of four types of changes to the formula:
Raising rates for employee benefits and fixed charges toward goals based on FBRC calculations
Raising special education rates and increasing special education assumed enrollment percentages
Raising rates for out-of-district special education toward FBRC goal rates to close gap with Circuit Breaker, which we modeled by setting the goal at 3 times the statewide foundation per pupil
Increasing percentages for assumed in-district special education enrollment toward FBRC goals of 4 percent for non-vocational students and 5 percent for vocational students
Establishing ELL student increments consistent with the increments outlined in the FBRC report. The new ELL increments that we were asked to model for all grade levels was based on the difference between the ELL middle school rate and the non-ELL middle school rate that existed under the rate structure used through FY18.
We were also asked to model various approaches to substantially increasing the increments associated with economically disadvantaged students based on the relative concentration of low-income students being served by particular districts.
Given our experience at the end of the legislative session and our continuing conversations with the Administration, we anticipate that we will be asked to provide substantial support to both the legislature and the Administration as they work on their respective legislative proposals as part of their FY20 budget development process. Most immediately, DESE will be actively working with the Executive Office of Education to model the impact of various possible changes to foundation budgets and related school finance programs and provide input on any related statutory language that might be required, as needed.

There will also (why is this always at the end?) an overview of the FY19 budget and a look ahead to FY20.
That's Tuesday at 8:30 and yes, there will be liveblogging.

Back to school again

Worcester went back to school today, marking my thirteenth year as a Worcester public schools parent. Yes, your math is correct; that means we have a senior in the house.
What it has meant to my kids to be WPS students will be up to them to tell; what it has meant to me is a sort of high-stakes road not taken. What if, instead of attending the budget meeting that was about our soon-to-be-kindergartner's elementary school closing, we'd decided to move to some nice calm place where they don't have budget battles?
One can only wonder.

I was thinking of this again today as On Point talked about the recently released study about the impact--or rather, lack thereof--of private schooling on student outcomes. What they found was:

Results from this investigation revealed that in unadjusted models, children with a history of enrollment in private schools performed better on nearly all outcomes assessed in adolescence. However, by simply controlling for the sociodemographic characteristics that selected children and families into these schools, all of the advantages of private school education were eliminated.

This has of course been directed as an argument against private school vouchers (which of course it is), but it's also more evidence, not that schools don't matter, but that early development in children and the resources devoted to them then and throughout childhood make the bigger difference. It's the books we read to toddlers and the music lessons we give to elementary school kids and the trips we take high schoolers on...it's resources devoted to kids as they grow.
Now, maybe we can't make up all of the difference through public resources, but right now, we aren't even trying. What support do we offer families before their kids turn four? We have the highest average cost of childcare in the country. We have among the lowest rates of children attending preschool in the country. We do have health care--and don't get me wrong, that's big--but we have this huge gap in what we do to ensure kids get what they need to be successful across the board in life.
And then once they're in school, what do we do for kids? Are we ensuring that kids ALL have access to the sorts of things that wealthy families do for their kids? Paul Reville's right about this much: it's about the rest of the time. And note that those families are not, in the main, spending that time (and money) on what we think of as "academics" (let alone test prep, save SATs once we get there); they spend it on sports and dance and instruments and museums and concerts...and the list is nearly endless.
What are we doing about that? Often, they're what have to be cut when the school budget is, if those items were in the budget at all. It's what "over foundation" or the fundraising advantages of a well-off PTO can make all the difference.
Among the difference between the have and have not districts is things like field trips (school budgets may still cover them in towns that can afford them, or the schools can safely assume most parents can) and band (it's a scheduling hassle as well as expensive for someone to buy instruments) and "extras" like dance (not core, right?). It seems clear that it is there among the extras, rather than in classroom, that the gaps really grow.
As much as this all seems pretty hopeless, though, I know we can do better. As I started writing this tonight, it was to the solo opening of the below. And the kid playing it has only had lessons that the Worcester Public Schools gave her as part of her free public education.

The Senate budget comes out Thursday

What are we looking for?
Personally, I'm curious if we get anywhere on formatting, because if the Department of Revenue can do this:

...then surely the Legislature could work something out where we could run comparisons?

The Senate is generally regarded as most generous, partly because they go last and have the most updated revenue information. It's hard to imagine that this year will be different.

The biggest question, in part because it's the biggest account school-side, is what they'll do with Chapter 70 and the foundation budget. The Senate did pass FBRC language as part of last year's budget; it failed in conference committee. It wouldn't surprise me to see that again. As far as implementation (remembering that the FBRC bill language essentially starts with the next budget, with an implementation meeting, parallel to the revenue setting meeting), will the Senate do more than the House? And will they stay with health insurance or will they move towards implementation in another piece? And what happens with economically disadvantaged? Do they stay with the cut of the deciles?

And what happens with the $12.5M pothole the House put in (with somewhat vague language) for the districts hit by the economically disadvantaged change (which one? which year?). 

This is totally my opinion (of course), but I can't see the Senate raising the minimum per pupil amount. As much as they sign the annual letter, too, they also get that it's totally unprogressive, and if they're going to fund something, they should fund some actual problem solving. But, that's just me guessing.

In regional transportation, do they match the $2M up from the Governor's budget or do more?
This close to the passage of their version of the supplemental, and with some very direct language around the FY19 budget as part of deliberation there, the two accounts to watch are circuit breaker and charter school reimbursement. On these plus transportation plus Chapter 70 itself, there is a clear sense in the Senate that they made a commitment as a state to these things, and they need to fulfill it. 

And I don't disagree.

I have some liveblogging to do Thursday, but Senate budget analysis as soon as I have a moment! 

FY19 House update at Worcester School Committee

The presentation is here, and, a week out from the budget actually going to the School Committee...essentially is what the budget is going to be. There are some changes in this budget, which look as though they are things the School Committee might have discussed in executive session, but no one ever discussed publicly; these might well be good ideas, but is anyone going to talk about them to...anyone? Just for example:

• There's an addition of 22 "elementary enrichment teachers," which is...good, I guess? I heard an offhand comment that they were "per the contractual agreement," so it appears that they were part of the settled teachers' contract. But where are they going (not everywhere; there are 33 elementary schools) and what are they doing? And is the best use of 22 elementary teachers? Quite sincerely: we don't know. 
• There's the switch from the Microsoft universe to the Google universe which, again, okay (I mean, Blogger is a Google platform; I get it!)...but is there going to be any sort of discussion about this major change of resources?

I suspect the real emotion is going be around the elimination of ALL elementary tutors, and I hope someone's got some potent arguments on that, as they've largely been credited with the kind of attention students in elementary school get to their particular math and ELA needs.

Likewise, I'd imagine the elimination of all summer 2019 programs is "fingers crossed some money comes through so they can be restored," but I can't imagine it will be popular.

Again, none of this is to say it's bad; let's hope for some good explanations.

Oh, and beyond the low income change and the ongoing foundation budget issue, here's a thing to keep your eye on: 

The hope, of course, is that next year there is supplemental as well, and then the kids get pick up with the foundation budget. That's why the funding is there. But there's a reason that there's a big red exclamation point next to this one. 

FY19 WPS budget at CPPAC

It's possible that this is more or less what these notes are on from February...posting as we go...
Allen: waiting for the House budget to come out in the middle of April; that's what we use as the official numbers that go to the School Committee
"a snapshot of what we're using for planning purposes"
slight enrollment decline, modest inflation rate, two foundation budget changes
foundation budget going up $5.9M "a little lower than the historical increase"
city contribution based on required increase: "conversations are still ongoing"

A first look at FY19 in Worcester

posting from the balcony tonight, as the Worcester School Committee takes a first look at FY19.

Ouch.

Reading the Governor's tea leaves

Governor Baker's remarks today to the Mass Municipal Association's annual meeting gave some bits of information about what his FY19 budget, to be released next Wednesday, will include. You can find excellent coverage of this from Kate Lannan of State House News Service.
The short version is this:

According to Baker's office, the newly proposed $118.6 million increase in education money -- which will bump the total to $4.865 billion -- includes $103.6 million in Chapter 70 schools aid and $15 million in additional aid for school districts that have seen an influx of students from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands after last year's hurricanes.

The first test is the one that Baker created himself: he said when he was campaigning that local aid categories would rise in proportion to increases in state revenues each year. As was noted by State House News Service yesterday:

According to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, unrestricted local aid increased between fiscal 2016 and 2018 by 3.6 percent, 4.3 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively, while Chapter 70 aid increased by 2.54 percent, 2.58 percent and 2.57 percent.  So-called consensus revenue accords that served as a basis for state budget building exercises from fiscal 2016 through fiscal 2018 were based on projected increases in state tax collections of 4.74 percent, 4.31 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively, according to the taxpayers foundation.

Thus that hasn't happened in Chapter 70 at all.
He doesn't fulfill it this year, either, as a 3.5% increase, in line with revenues, would be $166M.

As it happens, I think this is not the best way of deciding how we increase aid, particularly something like Chapter 70 aid, which has a formula which is based on something other than the vagaries of revenue increase. On the other hand, it is a commitment Baker made that he has not fulfilled.

The $15M for students from Puerto Rico is good; the Governor had this to say about it:

"The number's significant enough that we felt it was important the commonwealth step up," Baker said after his speech. "This wasn't something that anybody built into their budgets at the beginning of the year, and we felt it should be incumbent on us to basically step up and fund them, the same way we would under a traditional Chapter 70 education distribution."

"The same way we would under a traditional Chapter 70 education distribution" would seem to mean that the students are counted as ELL students plus the economically disadvantaged count and get the foundation amount per pupil. We'll see on Wednesday.
Is that enough? I'm suspicious that it's where the $3M cited in this article from Worcester comes from ('though that wouldn't include an economically disadvantaged portion). The answer is that it probably isn't, because we're still running on non-reformed ELL and economically disadvantaged numbers.


The Chapter 70 amount also "includes $24.3 million toward addressing rising costs of health care for retirees," about which the Governor said the following:

Baker called it a "significant investment" and noted that it responds to a recommendation made by a commission that studied the state's school funding system.

The actual recommendation of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, however, was this:

Add a new category for “Retired Employee Health Insurance” to the foundation budget

We won't know for certain until we look at the proposed language for Chapter 70 in the Governor's budget (remember, we have to pass the actual MGL each year to designate foundation budget amounts), but I'll venture to guess that this doesn't implement the actual recommendation; my guess is that this is similar to what happened last year, when the dollar amount increased, but the language didn't change.
That doesn't actually implement the recommendation.

I also am not going to tell you that $25M isn't a lot of money, but the Springfield Public Schools all by themselves had a foundation budget gap larger than $25M for health insurance in FY16, so I don't think that's going to go very far.

I also want to flag something here: this piecemeal approach, which we're now seeing in a second budget and that I know lives in at least one bill in the Legislature, is not a good idea. Health insurance, while expensive, is an easy win. Everyone has it. Everyone knows that it goes up by a lot each year. It's pretty straightforward to explain how those high percentages aren't reflected in the budgetary increases.
Not everyone has that many students who are learning English, or who are poor, or who have special education needs. So not every district benefits if we raise those rates.
But if we keep on just doing health insurance, we aren't fulfilling our Constitutional charge as a Commonwealth under McDuffy:

provide an education for all [our] children, rich and poor, in every city and town

More when the budget is released on Wednesday 

Why your district's required net school spending may be higher than foundation this year

It's not what you think!
I got this question yesterday and I thought it possible, having poked at it today, that others might have come across it and wondered.

It is possible to have a required net school spending level ABOVE foundation this year EVEN IF your district has been spending at or above required spending levels in prior years.

To review: the foundation budget is the state's number of how much the state believe it costs (in total) at a minimum to educate students in your district in a particular year. It includes both your required local contribution and your ch. 70 aid (that makes the difference between what the state says you can afford to pay and the foundation budget).
Net school spending is how much your district must spend on education (which is specifically defined) in a year. This should generally be your foundation budget BUT if your district has spent under foundation in one year, the amount by which the district has underspent gets added to the subsequent year.

There's another reason this may happen, though.
You might remember that when the state made the change from low income to economically disadvantaged, there were some districts that lost out: not all the kids who had been registered for free or reduced lunch appear on state rolls for programs, and most districts saw a corresponding drop in the count of disadvantaged kids. For some districts, it was catastrophic.
There's been work going on around that--I even saw an update on it this week--but in the meantime, the state has passed additional funds as a stopgap for the small number of districts that were hit by this.
But those are not in the foundation budget; they're over and above that.

Let's look at Cambridge, as that's the district I heard the question on. Here's the summary for Cambridge for FY18:

Pretty straightforward: the foundation budget is $84M; Cambridge is a wealthier community, so they pay most of it--the $69.6M--and the state aid is the remaining $14M. Cambridge saw an increase in enrollment over last year, so this is a straight increase in the foundation budget.

But here's what happens in line 8, below that:

Because Cambridge was among the handful of districts that lost out substantially in the switch to economically disadvantaged, the Legislature voted to add a sum to make up for that. For Cambridge, it's just over $100K.

That isn't foundation aid, though, and it didn't change the foundation budget. But the state IS going to require that it be spent on education.

Thus, we end up with a final calculation that looks like this:

If you compare the righthand (FY18) line in blue, which is the Ch. 70 aid, to that line in first chart, you'll see that it's gone up by the additional aid from line 8. Because that is required spending on education, it gets added to the required net school spending, which now is above the foundation budget. So we end up with required spending that is 0.13% over foundation. 

And yes, this happened last year, too. Nobody asked me last year. 

And as always, if I lost you, send me a line! 

Time to start the concern on FY19, Worcester

I just wanted to flag yesterday's article (which looks like it's about last week's school committee meeting?) about the projected FY19 Worcester Public Schools budget. It's projected, in overall enrollment, to be flat. Because Worcester is an at (or just above) foundation district, the budget is nearly entirely enrollment driven: no increase in enrollment, no increase in the budget. As Mr. Allen points out, they don't yet have ELL and low income numbers nailed down, so there's still some possibility there for growth, but at least ELL jumps will also mean the need for additional staff or programs, so that won't help, either.
The only additional element not mentioned in the article is inflation. You can expect something like a 3% increase in overall costs; rarely is the inflation fact in the foundation budget anything like that.
If you haven't asked the Legislature about the Foundation Budget Review Commission lately, please do.