Hey, the Governor's FY27 budget is out!

 MORE ON THIS COMING BUT, some links for you:

• The Governor's proposed FY27 budget is here. If you're here, you're probably looking for local aid distribution.
  
  
• Local aid is best covered in the cherry sheets. You can find the preliminary municipal cherry sheets here; the regional cherry sheets here. 
  
  
• The preliminary chapter 70 and net school spending requirements information is posted over here. If you want to dig in, download the complete formula spreadsheet. I notice they also helpfully included preliminary charter school tuition and enrollment projections this year here, as well.

And cheers, by the way, to the Division of Local Resources at the Department of Revenue and the school finance folks at DESE for having it all up at 1 PM today! No hitting refresh this afternoon! Thank you!

I will have more on this, but a few big numbers: the foundation budget is set on a 2.76% rate with insurance (benefits) increasing 8.29%. Thus for context, ask yourself if your local school budget is and/or can go up by only 2.76 percent (setting aside insurance increases). If the answer is 'no' (and I bet it is), you know if we're covering the costs of educating kids here.

Thus while I am certain attention will once again focus on the (legally mandated) $75/pupil minimum increase, I will again BEG people to PLEASE look at the inflation rate. 

More on this as I have a chance to pull things apart more. 

Not that anyone asked me but: on state education priorities

In their past two meetings, the Board of Ed has established priorities; in November, for the FY27 budget request, and in December, for the Commissioner, which he proposed as being the foundation of a strategic plan. 

I'd first note--and I do realize that the Board here is constrained by state deadlines on budget--that the above is really backwards; you always want to establish your priorities before you do your budgeting. You set your values before you spend your money. 

With that in mind, then, let's consider first the priorities, with a connection to what one would then need for budgetary priorities. 

Let's first note that he started with this slide: 

...which I just find super disheartening as framing. Someday, someone is going to note? remember? that public education is guaranteed by the state "for the preservation of their rights and liberties" and that it is for the good not only of individual children, but for all of us. THAT is what we should be leading with, anytime we are asking how we are doing.

Let's talk about these Senate budget amendments

They were due Friday, but I only got through them yesterday. Debate doesn't begin until Monday, though, so you still have time to contact your Senator's office to enlist their endorsement. As the Senate sorts their amendments by topic, you can find all the education-related ones here.

As per usual, if you're looking for earmarks, you're on your own: these are ones that impact more than one district and in K-12. Opining, as per usual, is entirely mine. 
Also there are several "let's have a foundation budget review!" amendments, which I am going to give their own blog post. 

On inflation:
Amendment 743 just straightforwardly adds the $217M (Thank you, Senator Moore!) which is the amount the jointly endorsed MASC/MASS/MTA/AFT-MA solution would cost.

Amendment 758 puts in $100M for "inflation relief," though it specifies that it would not go into base aid in future years, which rather misses the point.

The rest of these don't fix anything for this year:
Amendment 735 would establish an escrow bank, where any year where inflation was over 4.5%, the difference would be "banked" to be distributed in years when it was less.
Amendment 644 uses the calculation requested, but starts it in 2026. 
Amendment 798 uses the calculation requested, and, while it doesn't specify 2026, since it conflicts with the language the budget outlines, per Section 3, it wouldn't go into effect this year. 

Other Chapter 70 and core aid related things:
Showing his usual zest for amendment, Senator Tarr has submitted Amendments 615 for $125, 618 for $120, and 619 for $110 per pupil minimum aid. And this is your ongoing reminder that every increase makes it more likely that fewer districts will escape hold harmless during the implementation of SOA remaining, and that this funding has no relation to student or municipal need.

Amendment 666 is chapter 70 "extraordinary relief" of $18.5M, targeted only at places where the required local contribution is more than 30% of local revenue

Amendment 799 is $5M in relief "municipalities who rank in the lowest 10% of municipalities in both of the following categories: (i) total per-pupil dollar expenditure; and (ii) actual net school spending." This means it won't be the highest need districts, as those have required per pupil expenditures that are higher.

School choice:
Amendment 720 would raise the per pupil amount of a school choice student from $5000 to $7500.

Rural aid:
Amendment 631 would raise it from $15M to $17.5M

METCO:
Amendment 635 would raise it from $29.4M to $33M and would also allow funds to be carried to the following December

Charter school facilities:
Amendment 709 would raise the charter school facilities per pupil amount (which comes from a sending district's Chapter 70 aid) to $1288 from $1188

Regional transportation:
Amendments 623 would raise it to $106.5; 661 and 734 and 748 to $121.1M

Special education and circuit breaker:
Amendment 705 would phase in circuit breaker being 100% reimbursement of the "extraordinary" costs, with 75% for FY25 moving to 80% in FY26, 90% in FY27, 95% in FY28, and 100% in FY29, but would immediately put 100% into place for any children whose parents or guardians do not reside in Massachusetts or who are placed outside their hometown.

Amendment 639 would study the delivery of special education services

Vocational:
Amendment 611 would move the CTE line from $2.5M to $3.5M; 711 to $4.5M

Amendment 663 would move transportation reimbursement for out of district vocational from $1M to $2M

Amendment 751 would require a vocational admissions lottery

Amendment 752 would create vocational annexes to comprehensive high schools in cities

Amendment 755 would create a commission on such annexes

Advanced Placement:
Amendment 622 would increase the AP math and science line from $2M to $3.3M

Amendment 654 would require state colleges and universities to take an AP score of 3, 4, or 5 for credit

Early college:
Amendment 708 would take the early college line from $3M to $3.5M

Amendment 731 would create a five year strategic plan on early college in the state

Sex ed
Amendment 756 would require biannual collection of sex education in districts in the Commonwealth

Early literacy:
Amendments 687 and 780 would raise the "Literacy Launch" amount from $10M to the $30M that would match the Governor and House

Amendment 787 is the terrible literacy bill that would mandate curriculum be taken from a state list

SEL:
Amendment 640 would increase the SEL line from $6M to $8M

School to career:
Amendment 714 would increase the school to career line from $7.3M to $8.5M

After and out of school:
Amendment 665 would increase the budgeted $8.6M to $10.6M

Diversity in education:
Amendment 689 would student the impact of layoffs of this year and last on teachers of color

MSBA:
Amendment 760 adds "collaboratives" to the study of the MSBA that the Senate included in the outside section (starts on page 67)

Trusts:
Amendment 621 would increase the civics trust from $1.5M to $2.5M

Amendment 750 would increase the genocide trust from $2.25M to $3M

Senate FY19 budget amendments

The Senate sorts their budget amendments by topic, so this is lots easier! Rather than go line by line, I'm going to arrange these by topic, because some of the hot topics have several amendments (and in many cases, several amendments by Senator Tarr); as always, these are only K-12 and only statewide amendments (not checking earmarks here):

Foundation budget:
...FBRC has been submitted as amendment 236 from Senator Tarr and 238 is to require it every five years
and 249 hands out $30M of any consolidated net surplus to FBRC implementation, Massachusetts Community Preservation Trust Fund, and the Massachusetts Life Sciences Investment Fund .

Per pupil minimum increase:
The House passed a $30/pupil minimum increase; the Senate Ways and Means budget proposes the same (do I need to remind you that these increases aren't progressive?).

• 157 from Senator Tarr proposes $40/pupil
• 158 from Senator Tarr proposes $50/pupil
• 159 from Senator Tarr proposes $100/pupil

Charter schools:

• 205 from Senator Jehlen would require that the fiscal impacts of charters on sending districts be considered in the granting of charters
• 262 (same) would prevent the creation of charters without that
• 311 from Senator O'Connor for $125M for charter school reimbursement (I believe that is full funding)

Special education:

• 201 from Senator Tarr would use ACTUAL NUMBERS (average of the prior five years) for the foundation budget calculation
• 223 from Senator Keenan would tie Ch.766 program tuition lines to the cost of inflation
• 250 from Senator Tarr is a special education net services study
• 297 from Senator Brownsberger adds $250K of extraordinary relief to the circuit breaker 

Regional transportation:
The Senate Ways and Means budget funds regional transportation reimbursement at $62.5M, when the House settled at $63.5M. Thus it's not suprising that there are several amendments:

• 161 from Senator Tarr for $86M
• 162 from Senator Tarr for $77.4M
• 163 from Senator Tarr for $73M
• 242 from Senator Gobi is for $71M
• 237 from Senator Tarr is a regional schools and transportation study 
• 294 from Senator Friedman would make recovery high schools regional schools for the purposes of transportation reimbursement 
• 315 from Senator Tarr would create a study of both regional transit and regional transportation

The battle of line 7061-9400 
It is Senator Tarr moving to amend back to DESE's preferred $32M and including history for the MCAS line. You knew someone would. 
On the other hand, Senator O'Connor-Ives amends it to $13M in amendment 265

Rural schools:
Amendment 317 from Senator Hinds creates and amendment 318 funds rural school aid; adds $3M to the bottom line

The rest:

• 160 from Senator Creighton would raise Mass Mentoring to $750K
• 165 from Senator Tarr puts dyslexia into the MGL
• 167 from Senator Creem requires the change in meal change policies that USDA already required be passed and published by back to school
• 168 from Senator Montigny funds Best Buddies at $500K
• 169 from Senator DiDomenico adds $600K for Safe and Supportive Schools
• 176 from Senator Eldridge would bump adult ed $3.5M to $34.5M
• 177 from Senator Eldridge would create a two generation education commission (parents and children both in school)
• 178 from Senator Eldridge would add a social worker loan repayment program
• 179 from Senator Crighton bumps the ASOST-Q Grant to $5.5M and puts in a pilot for community service sharing 
• 182 from Senator deMacedo outlining which group homes need particular licensing (and I don't know enough about this to tell you more than that)
• 183 from Senator Crighton for $1M for summer learning programs for low income students
• 185 from Senator Rush bumps Reading Recovery $500K
• 186 from Senator Eldridge establishes a water bottle refilling grant program for schools (I like this one!)
• 190 from Senator Tarr wants MSBA to create "rules, regulations and guidelines for the inclusion of installation plans of an indoor active shooter gunshot detection and alerting system" for schools building with MSBA 
• 202 from Senator Tarr adds $5M for the now-required substance abuse screening 
• 213 from Senator Jehlen bumps the innovation school line from $100K to $200K; 243 from Senator Tarr does the same BUT ties the funds up with STEM, extended learning, and such
• 214 from Senator Jehlen bumps the MCIEA innovative asssessment line from $200K to $400K
• 216 from Senator Collins bumps the school to career line from $4M to $4.5M
• 224 from Senator Boncore just straight adds a Reach Out and Read line for $1M, requiring a match
• 239 from Senator Tarr  adds $100K for empowerment zone grants
• 244 from Senator Tarr bumps the literacy lines about $150K
• 246 from Senator Tarr creates an unfunded mandate task force
• 247 from Senator Lewis adds $50,000 for a gifted and talented needs assessment at the state level
• 260 from Senator Rush would require 20 minutes of recess
• 276 from Senator Boncore (clearly at the direction of Stand for Children) would add $700K to the reading lines but make them competitive programs 
• 295 from Senator Lesser would study the wait list of vocational schools (with a view to fulfilling them)
• 296 from Senator Brownsberger adds $1M to METCO (bringing it to the House $22.1M) 
• 302 from Senator Fattman adds a pothole account for midyear ELL students (in the law; no money added)
• 303 from Senator Fattman would create a carbon monoxide detector fund for schools (no money)
• 308 from Senator Tarr would phase in a required breakfast after the bell program for schools that are majority low income 
• 316 from Senator Rodrigues bumps the AP line $300K to $2.8M
• 
  

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! 

“Education is what you get when you read the fine print."

"Experience is what you get when you don't."

--Pete Seeger

As we start to talk publicly about the proposed Worcester Public Schools strategic plan, let me tell you a few things that are in my mind:

• A recent analysis found that Worcester had the 20th largest increase in the country since 2010 in growing concentrations of poverty. We already knew that somewhere close to three-quarters of Worcester Public Schools' students live in poverty.
• In 2016, the Worcester Public Schools became a majority First Language other than English district, meaning that most kids come to the district first speaking something else. That number has been growing, year by year.
• The Worcester Public Schools has been a majority children of color district since 2003. The disparities around every aspect of education--from early childhood, to schooling achievement gaps, to gifted education, to access to advanced courses, to SAT scores, to not only college admission and attendance but completion--are stark. 
• The state is substantially changing its accountability system as part of the state's ESSA plan, eliminating levels, changing how schools are evaluated, and reworking the system. 
• The city of Worcester broke 1% over net school spending for the first time since 2009 last year, spending 1.7% over. The statewide average? 29.7%
• Due to the outdated foundation budget formula, the state undercalculates Worcester's foundation budget by tens of millions of dollars a year. 
• Per last year's Comprehensive District Review conducted by the state, the district has: "wide variation in the quality of instruction across the district" (p. 1) ;"K-12 curriculum documents...[that] are incomplete and not fully aligned" (p.3); "implementation of the district's educator evaluation system has been inconsistent and uneven" (p.3); "...not completed its initiative to develop and implement a more cohesive multi-tiered system of supports"; (p. 3) "many school buildings...old, outdated, and overcrowded...Planning and resources have been inadequate to keep up with needed renovations, repairs, and upgrades to the schools." (p. 3). There's more...at some point, its own post. 

This is where any strategic plan for Worcester starts, as that's the reality in which we live.

Since I've already posted at length on the issues around public process, access, and representation around this process, I won't repeat that here. The narrative of the report certainly rises to Shakespearean levels of protest, shall we say, when declaring how community-centered, -driven, -focused, etc. it is. 

Also, if you're a "lingo bingo" person, you're not going to make it more than five pages in: written in accessible vocabulary, it isn't!

Overall, the proposed plan is broken into five parts: innovation, academics, school climate, finance, and technology and operations. Rather than go page by page, though, I'm going to hit the highlights.

What you might miss if you're not reading closely is the comparison data being used as "comparison district" data. The data in Appendix A makes Worcester look not too great: 

You can click to make this bigger, or look at it in the report at the end

We'd naturally assume that the center column there is some sort of compilation--the average, the mean--of the urban districts listed, right? But in a paragraph on page 9, the report says those "reflect the top performing comparison district in each category." In other words, no such district exists, nor does that reflect actual performance by any combination of districts. I put some charts together on that, which I'll post farther down. Let's suffice for now to say that the stats presented that way are misleading.

It's great that the opening letter notes the finding of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, as that's the central issue when it comes to funding--and thus at heart, when it comes to anything--in the Worcester Public Schools right now. That's why it's incredibly puzzling that the recommendation made is for an eight percent increase to meet "the state average"...by which they mean the state per pupil average NOW.

I'm completely flummoxed as to why anyone in Worcester would be measuring spending by per pupil; we have so many presentations that talk about the progressive funding system the state operates under. Surely the strategic planning committee heard this, as well? We should not be measuring our spending compared to anyone on a per pupil basis unless they reflect us demographically; we should NEVER compare ourselves with the state!

What's interesting, as we're a bit less high need than some of the districts to which the plan compares us, is that you can even see it in the spending: 

Alphabetical order followed by the state, so Worcester is conveniently always the second column from the right.

Those districts are all spending right around foundation; their foundation budgets are reflective of the student need. Not true of that state average on the end, however: that's lower need districts spending well over foundation, like this: 

Quite a gap, isn't it? And growing every year.
In FY19, it's projected to be 1.1% right now. That will fall as the actual charter assessments come in.

As for the eight percent increase over the next five years, take a look at the last five:

This is general fund spending as reported to the state, FY13-FY17.

That change of $38M? It's a 10.6% increase.

That wasn't something we worked for; it happened due to demographic change and the inflation fact in the funding formula.

An eight percent increase not only won't give us the money we need to do anything further in the plan; it won't even keep up with current costs. 

There is a mention in the later section around advocacy around the foundation budget ("establish a committee and campaign to advocate for an increase in the foundation budget"), but this district should be talking lawsuits, not committee creation. And if we want to be doing anything at all more expensive, it's going to take more than eight percent.

I had to read this callout three times before I figured out what was happening with it: 

sidebar, page 20

So that's 51% of the WPS schools are Level 3 or below; 10 the schools in...what I am assuming is Revere...are Level 2 or 1; 69% of schools statewide are Level 2 or 1. 

Or rather, they were last school year. And that's where the accountability piece gets weird.

One of the specific goals in the plan is "100% of top performing schools maintain their performance level." That's listed as nine schools, Level 1 schools.

But there aren't nine Level 1 schools in Worcester now. There aren't any Level anything-other-than-4-or-5 schools below high school anywhere in the state right now. And there aren't going to be, since the Board's vote on this. 

Thus the first goal in this section--to echo that state percentage on learning targets and have 69% at target in five years--misses that we're starting from square one on targets in the overall system; we don't honestly know, given the new list of things for which we're accountable, where it is we are to start. We received new MCAS results this year, but the rest of the pieces of the accountability system don't kick in until (assuming Board approval) this fall.

This is a goal based on lack of information--and again, did no one present on this?--that thus we have no way of evaluating.

Not only is the accountability system going to change pretty radically; the testing system is, too (by the way; the footnote on page 11 is wrong, as the high school switches to next generation MCAS next year). And there is a lot in here on MCAS. 

I appreciate the attempt to make this in some way about student growth (that's SGP for student growth percentile); so let's look at how Worcester's doing this year on the new MCAS: 

as always, if you click, it will get bigger; Worcester is still second from the right.

And the goal is for the district to be "above average," or over fifty percent growth...

And for the performance, on this new test that the kids just took this past year for the first time, where we're still switching kids over to computers, to go up every year by at least five percentage points in ELA and by at least six percentage points a year in math: 

this is in Appendix B

It's not clear to me that this is statistically possible, probable, or worth what it would have to be sacrificed to get there, nor that the state would consider such results admissable (as they look askance on too much progress in a single year). It's not clear to me that this is based on anything real.

By the way, here's where we and others were in 2017, MCAS, meeting or exceeding expectations: 

Lower that some, higher than others. It's usually more meaningful if the comparisons are broken out by student demographic.

While demographics get mentioned in the welcoming schools section (and will implictly be included in state improvement targets), there aren't any academic, MCAS or otherwise, goals that are specifically set around the achievement and opportunity gaps faced by students of color, of different abilities, or with the first language other than English. Gaps aren't mentioned in the goals beyond a list within "social emotional development" and a passing mention as one reason for the push for an "innovation hub," which, it appears, is the push for an empowerment zone. 

That's an enormous thing not to feature in a plan for Worcester.

What I see instead, in the "city enrichment academy" is the latest iteration of the exam school, which has been rolling forward with what this administration is marketing as gifted programs, for high MCAS scoring kids.

Let's call this what it is, Worcester: this is the "how we keep white middle class parents in the city and their kids in the city schools" plan. Some of us have been straight enough to call that out before. There's plenty of research out there around the racial disparities in gifted programs. For Worcester, a majority student of color district, to keep simply adding these sorts of programs without ever acknowledge the systemic bias in the programming is wrong. It's really disappointing to see this focus.

While there's a push on computer learning, and more on career ed, and more on expanded opportunities in secondary, there's also a lack on the built-in advantages a district where most kids first speak a language other than English has. We had a major piece of legislation pass last year on language learners, which, among other things, celebrated this area of learning with both a seal of biliteracy and the expansion of opportunities for dual language learning. Worcester already has groundwork and a small program on this, but other than a mention of bilingual parent advisory council as required by the law, this isn't mentioned. 

There is a call out of the important disparities in student discipline at the bottom of page 17. This rates a subgoal ("monitor and take action to improve differences in outcomes among student groups") and there is a breakout (the only one I can find) demographically in Appendix B.

This is a start, but frankly, it's not the push this administration needs on something this important (also someone needs to check those stats, as they look off).

I could say more (lots more!), but the "community briefing" is tomorrow night, so perhaps there will be more. This is at 6 at what used to be Morgan Construction, across the street from the police station (or so I'm told). I stand corrected: per the Research Bureau's tweet this morning, it's at the old Crown Plaza (apparently that has a "Lincoln Square" address).

See you tonight at MCPHS' Ballroom at 10 Lincoln Square - the former Crowne Plaza Hotel! https://t.co/50IHM5i7NX

— The Research Bureau (@WRRBureau) May 7, 2018

It's not clear that there will be a chance for anyone of the public to say anything, but it is important to note:

1. this is a draft
2. the district hasn't taken action on it

...yet. 

FY19 House Ways and Means budget

Here we go!
Let's first give an acknowledgement of the Legislature making it easy to find and follow the budget deliberation; just scroll down their front page.

Clicking through the "Ways and Means budget" will get you to the House budget page. Note that Section 1A is basically a one page overview; Section 1B is revenue (where the money is coming from). The line item "what's being spent" is in Section 2; the municipal and district allocations are in Section 3, as is the language describing the allocations. The outside sections essentially are the "here are some other things we think ought to be changed while we're doing this." Most of what I'm going to describe came from Section 2, where the K-12 allocations begin at the 7010 account lines.

I appreciate this chart in the Executive Summary; clearly the House wishes to make the point that they are improving upon the Governor's proposed budget: 

Going line by line; note that all comparisons are to the Governor's budget:

• DESE's line is up, but it's earmarks for the JFK Library ($500K) and $100K for recovery schools.
• METCO is bumped up $1.5M. Interestingly, the House is also looking for a "detailed line item budget" as well as a report (on efficacy?), which is not language in the Governor's budget.
• The House did blow back open the combined grant items, which means both Bay State Reading and Reading Recovery are in here as line items.
• School to career connection activities is the same as in the Governor's budget at $3.9M.
• There's an ELL line back, which had been merged in the Governor's budget. It's set at $2.5M.
• Adult basic education is up $4M from the Governor's budget, bringing it to $32.5M.
• Funding for education in the prisons and correctional institutions is the same at $7.4M.
• Regional transportation reimbursement is up a million dollars from the Governor's budget, which brings it to $63M. From the Mass Auditor's estimates, that still leaves the account about $24M short. 
• McKinney-Vento transportation reimbursment is up $1M to $9M (which I'm sure isn't fully funded, but is more of a recognition of responsibility than we've had before!).
• AP Math and Science got a $300,000 increase over the Governor's budget to $2.8M.
• The lunch line is the same as in the Governor's budget; the breakfast item is up a bit, but it's an earmark.
• ---I want to come back to Ch. 70!---
• To the $15M the Governor set aside for the districts taking in students from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (and remember, that's round 2; there was an FY18 allocation already passed), the House--and this is a big deal!--is adding $12.5M specifically for districts that have been hit by the change in the economically disadvantaged numbers this year. You might remember hearing that they lowered the rate this year when the number of students increased. This is a filler for those districts. 
• Circuit breaker is up $300M from $291M in the Governor's budget; as it took an additional $12.5M to get us to (we think) where it usually is from a $291M starting point this year, that's still probably underfunded, but it's closer to current reality.
• School and district accountability office, same as the Governor's budget.
• I can't find an allocation for the military mitigation (which the Governor's budget had at $1.3M); let me know if I'm mistaken.
• The charter school reimbursement, which the Governor level-funded at $80.5M, the House is boosting to $90M. 
• I hope to do more with this (because if you're into this stuff, it's kind of funny to see the battle happening in a budget line) but there's an ideological battle going on in the assessment line. The House has again cut it--the Governor had it at $32M; the House has it at $27M--and they've substantially changed the language. They've dropped the reference to the history assessment being added, which doesn't necessarily change anything, as that's referenced elsewhere in state law. They've also reworked the language to stress porfolio assessment. It doesn't overthrow the MCAS, but there are definitely some comments being made here.
• Once again, the House includes this line for Accuplacer with a specific notation of JFYNetworks. This has got to be a larger story.
• The targeted intervention is up $500K AND (more importantly) drops any mention of innovation zones. There's also a lot more language specifying the funds can be used for PD and supplies, provided they're tied to a plan. they want a report "describing and analyzing all intervention and targeted assistance efforts funded by this item." 
• Extended Learning Time grant, the same at $13.9M. 
• Recovery high schools, likewise the same at $2.4M.
• The House budget adds $1,867,453 for "teacher preparation and certification from fees related to such services" which sounds like a story that I don't know.
• After school grants up about $400K ($1.9M to $2.3M)
• Safe and supportive schools is up "$200,000 shall be expended in order to leverage preexisting investments" which sounds targeted; it was $400K, now $600K.
• Mass Academy has their $1.4M line (same as Governor's and same as usual).
• YouthBuild, same as in the Gov's budget, at $1.7M.
• Mass Mentoring, up from $475K to $750K.
• The House drops the regional bonus aid allocation (which is $56,920 in the Governor's budget).
• And same funding for sexual abuse prevention of $150,000.

Okay, let's talk about Chapter 70! It's up nearly $21M from the Governor's budget, which sounds good, but we need to know WHERE it goes, right?

And my cheers to all of you who knew to ask that! 

Here's where we scroll down to Section 3. If you REALLY scroll down, you'll get the list of towns and regions, with their municipal and chapter 70 aid. You can do a quick comparison of your own district and see if you're getting more. 

There's two main (and one smaller) reason why it's changed.
The smaller reason is that if your district contribution is "over effort," the House is reducing that 92% instead of 85%. It means those districts' required contribution comes down which (if you remember how chapter 70 aid works) means their aid goes up. 

The first bigger reason, is this: if you take a look at the language at the top of that long list of communities, you can find a part where it says, "the 'minimum aid increment' shall be equal to $30 multiplied by the district's foundation enrollment minus the foundation aid increment." There's your minimum per pupil increase. The Governor's budget had it set at $20/ pupil; the House is setting it at $30/pupil, so that's an increase for many communities.
HOWEVER, if you'll look at my post from about this time last year, it might refresh your memory that per pupil increases are not progressive ways of funding education. They have no regard to who needs it most (or at all). They are just giving everyone a cookie.
That isn't all that's going on with Chapter 70 aid, though. There is also a bunch of numbers stuck in that paragraph:

So what's that?
That's the health insurance piece of the foundation budget, by enrollment category. I think most of us aren't used to seeing just that piece by itself, but you can find it. If you downloaded the Governor's budget chapter 70 spreadsheet (and remember, we won't get a new one until the budget is finalized!), there's a "rates" sheet over to the left:

Those lines are the equivalent of those in the paragraph above, but the numbers are different! The House budget boosts the health insurance line by another 2.5% over the Governor's budget. 

Note that this doesn't do the same thing as the $30/pupil increase. This is a boost to the foundation budget itself, the amount each district is required to spend on schools. As such, it just boosts spending. For some (wealthier) districts, this will boost their required local spending; it's of course likely they were going to spend well over that already. For the needier districts, the increase in the foundation budget will translate to an increase in state aid.

And that is, legitimately, a piece of the Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations.

I checked to make sure there wasn't FBRC language hiding in the Outside sections; alas, there is not.
I'm going to pin my hopes on amendments, which are already rolling in.

Amendments are due by Friday, April 13; debate starts Monday, April 23. 

State aid if you aren't at foundation

If you haven't already, please do go use one of your Globe articles to read today's article on state education aid in the non-foundation aid communities.

The varying increases in state aid come as the state has been stepping up its demands on local schools, which in turn requires them to spend more money.
For instance, districts have been buying textbooks, software, and other materials as they bring programs into line with new state standards for teaching English and math. Many districts also have been buying computers and upgrading their operating networks because the state is moving its standardized testing system from paper booklets to cyberspace.
All the while, school systems say they are dealing with a growing population of students experiencing anxiety, depression, and trauma — requiring a new set of services and instructional approaches — and a spate of national school shootings is prompting the need for more police officers in their schools.

Good coverage of the rock-and-hard-place choices that many districts are in.

I want to give some attention to some other pieces of the article away from the main point here.

First, I saw some questions on this:

...approximately 60 percent of school systems would receive an increase of less than 1 percent in general education aid, the review found. Two school systems under state receivership, Holyoke and Southbridge, would see aid increase by a mere 0.2 percent.

...followed by this later in the article:

Other communities, though, would make out well under the governor’s proposal, including several well-to-do ones in terms of income or property wealth.

Wellesley would increase 4.3 percent; Burlington, 5 percent; Wayland, 7 percent; and Winchester, 12.6 percent.
Those exceeding 4 percent increases also include some urban systems, such as Fitchburg, Lynn, and Fall River.

So, how come?

To start with the eye-catching ones: both Holyoke and Southbridge have lost students: Holyoke lost 274 students out of a student body that was about 6500, and Southbridge lost 73 students out of a student body of 2380. As a side note, they also both then gained students after the October count (aka, these numbers are back up again) when families evacuated from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; these are among the districts that thus should be getting the additional aid both this year (too late to do anything) and next year. But it doesn't touch their foundation budgets. The inflation rate gets effectively cancelled out by the drop in enrollment.

Fitchburg, Lynn, and Fall River? All growing student bodies: Fitchburg is up 37 students (student body of 5700), boosting the foundation budget by just under $3M, of which $2.1M is state aid. Lynn is up 298 students (student body of over 16,000); Lynn's foundation budget is up $13M of which just over $10M is state aid. Fall River is up 134 students (student body of 11,600), bumping the foundation budget up by $7.7M of which $6M is state aid.
Note that all three of those districts are at or just under foundation budget spending communities. In other words, like Brockton, there is no contribution about foundation going to their schools.


Winchester is up 166 students out of a student body of about 4500. That adds about $3M to Winchester's foundation budget, just over $1M of which is coming to them as state aid, due to the capping of how much the town is required to cover of the increase. Winchester is a wealthy district; 80% of their budget is locally funded, and their municipal wealth calculation is well over their foundation budget. They were projected to spend 33% over the foundation budget last year.
Burlington, while not as eye-catching, is in a similar situation. Burlington's increase of 19 students (of a student body of 3500) bumps the foundation budget by $1.5M, of which about $320K is coming as state aid. Burlington was projected to spend 89% (no, that isn't a mistype) over foundation this year.
Wayland is up 44 students, which is huge in a student body of 2600. That bumps their foundation budget by $1.2M, of which $320K is coming from state aid. Wayland's preliminary calculation is over the cap districts are required to spend, so the state actually scales their required spending down. It won't, one suspects, matter, as Wayland was projected to spend 74% over their required spending this year.

Wellesley...is different, and it illustrates the crux of the issue with minimum aid increases. Wellesley lost a student (yes, one) last year. Due to the inflation rate and demographic shifts (more kids in high school, a few more ELL and economically disadvantaged students), Wellesley's foundation budget went up $1.5M over last year. Like Wayland, however, Wellesley's municipal contribution comes in over the required spending cap, so $374K of the increase is carried by the state. This year, Wellesley is projected to spend nearly 70% over the foundation budget.

The conversation we effectively aren't having, thus, is the one mentioned by Secretary Peyser:

Peyser also noted that Beacon Hill adjusted the formula a decade ago and that benefited some school systems in more affluent communities. The change, being implemented gradually, aims for the state to fund at least 17.5 percent of the costs of a school system’s “foundation budget,” the minimum amount a system is required to spend under the state’s formula. Previously, many affluent school systems were receiving very little state aid. 

“The state is committed to providing a minimum share of resources to all communities,” Peyser said Friday.

We keep being told there is no money to fund updating the out-of-date foundation budget. The state, however, continues to find ways to fund a required minimum amount for every district, regardless of need. That is a choice that the Governor and the Legislature is making: to fund 17.5% of the wealthy districts, and tell the poorer districts that covering their need is not possible.

Why you maybe should still be worried about Chapter 70

You've no doubt heard the quotes: "Chapter 70 is the third rail;" "Chapter 70 is sacrosanct;" "The Legislature would never touch Chapter 70."
And if you've spent any time around this blog, you know that the state has a constitutional obligation around the funding of public education, thus protecting K-12 school funding.
That's protection only goes so far, however, and when now-Acting Commissioner Wulfson warns us not once, not twice, but three times that we should keep a wary eye on Chapter 70 funding, I believe him.

So this holiday week as we're still awaiting an FY18 budget (with the fiscal year having ended at midnight on Friday), here's how we could still see cuts in Chapter 70 school aid.

On the spreadsheet issued by DESE, I'm looking at the tab marked "summary" which is here:

(See the note up on top that says "Preliminary"? DESE issues this twice each year: once for the Governor's budget, and once for the final, signed-sealed-and-delivered state budget. We don't have the latter, so these numbers are still from the former.)

We could use lots of communities for this example, but for this round, let's look at Leominster, which has been in the news in central Mass lately. Leominster has a student enrollment of just over 6100 students in PreK through 12. They have a foundation budget of $69.4M for FY18. Leominster generally hovers just over required spending (and much of this year's debate has been over the mayor's assertion that he would fund the schools at, not over, net school spending for FY18). 

The summary page for Leominster looks like this: 

(as always, if you click on images, they'll get larger.)

A quick glance in the upper right hand corner of that sheet may give you a hint where this is going: like many districts in Massachusetts, Leominster Public Schools' enrollment is declining (down 99 students from the previous year). As the foundation budget is a student-driven formula, that means the foundation budget is also declining (down $81K from the previous year).

What does that mean for state aid? Take a look at the left column of the sheet:

From the calculation of the municipal wealth formula, Leominster is charged in FY18 with carrying $27.8M of its foundation budget, leaving $41.6M for the state to pick up. 

However:

For FY17, Leominster received $43.8M in Ch. 70 aid.

You can imagine the outcry if Leominster--and many other districts--heard that they were going to get over $2M LESS in state aid than they did the year before. 

Thus two principles--neither of them constitutionally mandated--kick in: hold harmless and minimum aid.

"Hold harmless" straightforwardly is that your aid is "held harmless" or not hurt by the change in the calculation. In practice, that means that the district does not see an aid cut, even if one is warranted by the calculation.

"Minimum aid" comes to us courtesy of the elected branches: 

Remember, we're still working here on the Governor's budget; the Legislative houses both set this at $30/pupil.

Minimum aid means that for every student in your system, you will get an increase of at least that dollar amount. The Governor's budget (which this spreadsheet is based from) set this at $20/pupil; the Legislative branches both set it at $30/pupil.

If you're a district with increasing enrollment and a correspondingly increasing foundation budget, you're seeing more than that per pupil increase already (as the per pupil increases in foundation are significantly more than that) in your constitutionally-mandated state aid.

However, neither hold harmless or minimum aid are constitutionally mandated. 

Last year, about $450M of the full Chapter 70 budget was hold harmless and minimum aid. This year, the Governor's $20 per pupil increase alone is $11M.

Am I saying that the conference committee is definitely going to hit this section of the budget? No. I don't have any sources on that.

But they can. And if Jeff Wulfson is worried, I'm worried.

And today in totally meaningless math

Ah, I see that WalletHub is back at it again with another round of "we took this number and this number and did some math and pretended that means something!" No, seriously:

 WalletHub divided each city’s aggregated standardized test scores in reading and math for grades 4 and 8 by its total amount of education spending per capita.

Riiiight...that's real research there, folks. They're using a test score calculation with no relation to anything: they're comparing test scores across state lines, which means different tests, and they aren't norming the scores against...anything? Per capita education spending has a real relationship to the number of kids in your school v. your total population (this is why Boston would do "well": they don't have as many of their kids in public schools versus their total population). And the kids that are actually in your schools impacts both your spending and your test scores.
They do say that they adjust for special ed, low income, etc, but don't specify how, so I guess we just should trust them?

Unfortunately, it appears that GoLocal has decided that this is a swell news story and has decided to run with it (that's a Do Not Link url, for reasons that will become clear), and a colleague of mine has decided to repeat the same arguments regarding WPS spending that have been voted down for several years running because they have no merit.
Well. Election papers are available March 3.

Here's the thing: I've actually held off on posting anything about GoLocal's education coverage, because I'd just as soon not call attention to it, as it is so often just so very wrong. It was a sore temptation when this article about pilot schools came out which was wrong in every particular: that isn't the history of pilot schools in Massachusetts, that isn't the Worcester history on deisolation, deisolation has very little to do with our transportation spending, and pilot schools are innovation schools before we had innovation schools. But, these are arcane details, possibly, so I let it pass. That is, though, when I decided that I'd stop returning phone calls from GoLocal (a tough choice for me, because I return phone calls from everyone), as they're not only wrong, but they refuse to be corrected. Being unwilling to learn is where I draw the line.

So, should you need to clear your head with some meaningful math, here's some coverage of some actual research on school spending and student learning:

More spending on public schools can significantly improve the lives of disadvantaged children, asserts a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The amount a state spends on each low-income student can make or break his or her chances of finishing school and earning good wages later on. In short, its authors wrote, "investments in school spending are worthwhile."

That's coming from the National Bureau on Economic Research. The paper is here.
And in general? Please consider the source of your information.

Updated administrative costs per pupil

An updated version of WPS administrative costs per pupil (using FY13, our most recently completed fiscal year):

And remember: these costs include city costs that are charged against net school spending. 

Newark spending in context

I know I just linked over there yesterday, but School Finance 101 has another post worth reading, particularly for those who were shocked (shocked!) at Newark spending $22,000 per pupil.
(and as a side note: I think we ought to be teaching in math class that bit about how to play with a chart to make it look a particular way.)

Toomey remarks

note that people are streaming in from outside
"know that this is a very difficult process..fluid process"
per pupil cost? $10,000
asks if is't that the same as it was when she was on SC? Yes, not going up with inflation
student population? Just under 24,000
tutors: what do you have planned for the places they're cut?
"experts are saying 15 or less, clearly we aren't going to get there"
Boone: keeping 27 tutors, using more sparingly
attrition rate: projected retirements?
significantly down from previous years
Toomey: still might be positions saved from people who have not told you that they plan to retire?
could be
asks for a copy of actual positions cut

Educational supplies

A budget of $4 million dollars for the entirety of the 23,000 students in the WPS system

Ms. Hargrove says she "has to compliment [Brian Allen]" as "this budget is quite remarkable"
Mr. Foley reminds us all of the health insurance savings from last year that we are spending on textbooks.

Instructional supplies

We're up from FY06's low of $40!

But we're at $63 for the third year in a row.

Picture heading to Staples with your child. You're going to enough crayons, paper, pencils, pens, to last for the year. How long does it take to get to $63?
And how much are you going to have left to get new books? How about the high school students who need chemicals for lab?

Mr. O'Connell: question on ratios

Mr. O'Connell
is that the lowest ratio we've had in some years?
is the aggregate ratio down?
Mr. Caradonio answers: foundation budget is 22 to 1; we've been around it, this is below it
Acknowledge hard work of citizens for smaller classes
projection figures when we start planning for FY10 (looking ahead); should we look at that issue early?
how we meet needs of elementary students and secondary students?
Mr. Caradonio: Enrollment projections are about as good as census numbers; impact of foreclosures on enrollment numbers?
99.2% accurate, he'd say, and then people move
planning all year long
State is based on a per-pupil basis; enrollment increasing at lower levels, but not born in Worcester: moving in.
Not national birth registry
Motion: admin review with business projections for enrollment for FY10; take figures into account in FY10 budget planning
motion passes
Committee report accepted

T&G opinion piece

Who-cester was going to comment on the lead opinion piece in today's paper, but it looks like Wormtown Taxi has beat me to pretty much everything I was going to say.

(If Jeff keeps this up, he's going to drive us straight out of business!)

The only thing I'd add is that the WPS are adding as many as 1000 students next year (the fall 2008 entering kindergarten is significantly larger than the spring 2008 graduating senior class). If you do the math there...well, that "per student" number gets even smaller.

a tip of the hat

To Jeff Barnard, for some nice analysis, with rough numbers this morning

Post city council meeting

I'd assume it'd be pretty easy to chase down whether there is, in fact, a disparity in the number of students heading into the public high schools from public middle schools among the four city quadrants. Worcester has always had a population of students that leave the public schools at middle school to go to private (often Catholic) high school. Is that in fact increasing? And is there any disparity between Burncoat, North, South, and Doherty?

The perception that there is a funding disparity may in fact be a result of the Darwinian system the city has set up for the schools with lack of adequate funding. When cuts are made in things schools need, be that people to staff the library, paper for writing, or a copy machine, in the schools where the parents' income and time allow them to do so, parents (and parents' groups) have stepped in to fill the gaps where they can. And so we have ink cartridges brought from home, a copy machine leased by the parent-teacher organization, a library staffed by parents. The problem is that not all schools have parents that can do this. Most city schools don't. And so those schools go without, and have to meet the daily needs of their students with only the funds the city provides.

We are setting up a two-tiered system in which the schools with parents with a lower income level and less time bear the brunt of the funding cuts in a way that the schools with parents with higher income and more time don't. And that's, of course, completely contrary to the great leveller of obstacles that publicly funded education is supposed to be.

Technology budget

You'll find a link to a helpful chart over to the right, but this one is too insane to put there without comment.

Since fiscal year 2003, the instructional technology budget (that would be technology they're using with students, not the computers in the offices) has been $0.2 million.

That's $200,000.

That's for a district with 47 schools and over 25,000 students.

That's $8 a student!

Remember: we're preparing our students for the 21st century!
How?