- EdSurge has the thing I keep pointing out on early ed: everyone wants to talk about universal pre-K--which is great!--but we don't even have universal free public kindergarten across the country.
...including in Massachusetts, where education is not required until age 6. - The 74 did a good look at Google's new AI "partnership" for teachers, 'though I would also urge you to read Benjamin Riley's full rant (I think that's fair, and I don't mean it disparagingly at all!) . Google, of course, has said that they're looking to create a "network of future users" by getting into schools. If you get the teachers, you get the students.
- Speaking of technology looking out only for themselves, the school shooting last month in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia has Canadian leadership demanding answers from OpenAI, where the shooter had a history of descriptions of violence, which, among other things, the company did not bring to the attention of the police when interviewed following the shooting. While the company is how "vowing safety changes," Canada says they don't go far enough.
It is a wildly unregulated industry. - And speaking of school violence, we in the U.S. are going to know less now, because the Trump administration "gutted the Department of Education office responsible for collecting and analyzing most school-related data," including data on kids bringing guns to school.
Showing posts with label preschool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preschool. Show all posts
Monday, March 2, 2026
Things to read this week
Wednesday, March 6, 2024
Highlights from the Joint Committee on Ways and Means
For those who might not want six and a half hours worth of liveblogging. Note the video of the hearing is here. Crossposted from MASC
Sunday, April 10, 2022
What happened at Worcester School Committee last week
I've been fighting the flu since Wednesday (obligatory #NoItIsNotCOVID), so I've been pretty much out of commission; I am trying to keep to reporting out, particularly as our local news continues to be more weakened.
You can find the agenda for Thursday (the 7th) here. We came late out of executive session (and if you look at the items that were posted for executive session, you can see we had a number).
We did go back to the mask policy, which had been held from the prior meeting pending more information regarding wastewater testing; this was in relation to my motion to add language that we require a reconsideration of the policy in consultation with medical professionals if the Upper Blackstone Wastewater Treatment testing numbers rise about 300K for two testing periods in a row. We had Nick Durham of Biobot join us to discuss the testing. On Member Mailman's motion, that amendment was referred to Governance.
Note that the levels have been above 300K for two testing periods in a row at this point; the most recent testing was this:
Effective* virus concentration
(copies per liter of sewage)
936,582
(copies per liter of sewage)
936,582
The report of the Superintendent was on portrait of a graduate, which Superintendent Binienda said is now required by NESDEC (?). The logo/image for it is here:
We had two subcommittee reports: the first was from this March 15 TLSS meeting. As this meeting took up the district's continued use of--and the administration's continued defense of the use of--Fountas and Pinnell, Member McCullough specifically noted that the next report back should include the perspective of teachers. I noted that there are major issues with our continued insistence on using this program. I think it's important to note that this puts the Committee in an awkward position: we, legally, approve curriculum after vetting and recommendation from administration, who are to be the day-to-day experts. If the administrators are continuing with something that it is clear does not work, can the Committee effectively withdraw that approval?
We also had a report out of the Ad-Hoc Search meeting at which the questions for the semi-finalist superintendent interviews were drafted and approved. I requested that we as a Committee commit to have the superintendent interviews translated; you can now plan on that.
Also, note that the finalists will be announced on April 19 at a special meeting of the Worcester School Committee; they'll be in district for visits and interviews the week of April 25.
The student representative's report included a s/o to the Burncoat Drama Club (congratulations!). They also brought to our attention an email from the Deputy Superintendent, calling for student representative elections before April vacation, without additional information regarding those responsibilities as put together by the our Student Advisory Council themselves. A number of us regarded this with concern. We have now pushed those off.
We reflected on the page and a half response (pages 104-105) on student disregulation, a report I requested in November, which didn't actually hit most of what has been asked for. This was recommitted to the administration for a full report of the superintendent at our next regular meeting.
We then had an update on COVID. We've had several requests that we share number of cases broken down by school, which Superintendent Binienda said the health community has advised against. We are seeing an increase in cases this week, as expected, with 33 student and 24 staff cases this week, an increase of 9 and 6, respectively. The full history of WPS reporting is now here.
We received a lengthy response to an item requesting an update on the after school/additional learning time programs being run through the ESSER funding (it starts on page 110). Much of that is a building by building standard form.
My two concerns in asking the question was first, how are we responding to student need--this gave an overview of that--and second, how are we managing the resources allocated to us. The second question is the one I drilled on in questions, as the FY22 budget set aside $8M for summer and after school programming for this fiscal year. Remember, the district is required to spend 20% of ESSER III spending on "learning loss," which for Worcester is close to $17M. I know we didn't spend anything close to that $8M this past summer--I don't think we even spent $2M--and so I was looking for some information there. The final two pages of the report gave the following:
.png)
.png)
So that's $1.18M.
I won't recount the full back and forth here--and there was one--but I tried to get an answer on if this figure was arrived at by asking each school what they needed, costing that out, and then allocating. I did not actually get an answer, which I am suspecting means the answer is 'no'. If that is the case, it means that the administration has severely underbudgeted the learning recovery program of the district in our first year back in buildings full time since the pandemic.
And yes, the administration has done that, as the School Committee allocated significantly more funding than was moved forward.
I, Sarah Kyriazis, and Bob Walton gave a brief update on the work of the municipal broadband committee. The city has been in contact with both Google and SciFi, looking at two different models for municipally offered broadband service. Dr. Kyriazis updated on the FCC's Affordable Connectivity program (you can learn more 6 pm Tuesday), for which all WPS families qualify; there's district outreach going on for that, as well. Mr. Walton spoke of the district applying for a third round of federal funding for the home connectivity.
We received an update on middle school sports, which you can find on page 175 of the agenda.
We passed BURNCOAT HIGH as our number one rebuild/renovate project to go to the City Council and to the MSBA.
We had a number of requests for information, including, coming in from both Members Mailman and Johnson, the still-outstanding MOU between WPS and WPD, which we were supposed to have for the end of January. No one, it appears, has seen it as yet. The superintendent noted that we thus remain under the prior MOU, which I don't understand how that is possible, as that outlined WPD being in the buildings and now they are not.
I also asked that we get an update on principal succession planning, as we have several principals leaving (which we haven't received notice of, incidentally).
I asked that we make sure students have appropriate provision for observing Ramadan.
I proposed that we revise for the current year our cap on 7 days of excused absences in light of the pandemic; this went to Governance.
I also asked that we send building enrollment to F&O.
And the Mayor filed an item on the Office of the Inspector General audit on the Temporary Emergency Impact Aid, so expect to see that in F&O as well.
And that was the meeting!
While I have you here, note that there are two subcommittee meetings this week
- Finance and Operations meets tomorrow (Monday) at 6 pm for the monthly transportation report, though we're getting a tour of the new WPS transportation facility at 5; expect photos!
- Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports meets Tuesday at 6; summer reading, ethnic studies, tutoring, mental health, and libraries are on the agenda.
Friday, June 4, 2021
What did you propose at last night's Worcester School Committee meeting?
As we opened budget deliberations last night, I shared the following with my colleagues on the Committee:
June 3, 2021
FY22 WPS budget transfers and additions of Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief funds
Thursday, January 28, 2021
About FY22 from Governor Baker
First, some links:
- the Governor's House 1 budget is here (there are a bunch of links off of that page)
- the preliminary information on Chapter 70 and net school spending requirement is described (and spreadsheets can be downloaded) here
- the cherry sheets for regional districts and municipalities is also now updated with the FY22 numbers from this proposed budget.
- I've made a habit of starting a spreadsheet each budget season that goes K-12 account by account (I used to do this in the blog, but then you couldn't compare one version of the budget to the next). That is online as an Excel spreadsheet here. I also tweeted out the account by account lines yesterday starting here.
Usually, I'd just compare against the actually passed prior year, but that was so off this year that I also included the Governor's proposal from last year.
And as a general standing invitation: if there's anything here you don't understand, please ask.
On Saturday, I outlined some of my thinking entering into this budget year. Where are we in terms of that, to start?
As he noted last week, Governor Baker did fund a year of the Student Opportunity Act implementation. As I noted last week, though, this isn't A year; this is the second year. We're $250-300M short from that year. That isn't only about not having had that funding this past year; that's about never having that funding. Implementation is cumulative. If we'd had had SOA implementation last year, that additional funding would be built into the base for this year. It is not, and it won't be next year, or the year after. Whatever good would have been done with those funds--teachers in front of kids, repaired buildings, better services for students and families--is gone.
As he noted last week, Governor Baker did fund a year of the Student Opportunity Act implementation. As I noted last week, though, this isn't A year; this is the second year. We're $250-300M short from that year. That isn't only about not having had that funding this past year; that's about never having that funding. Implementation is cumulative. If we'd had had SOA implementation last year, that additional funding would be built into the base for this year. It is not, and it won't be next year, or the year after. Whatever good would have been done with those funds--teachers in front of kids, repaired buildings, better services for students and families--is gone.
The proposed budget, unlike last year, funds the low income implementation at 1/7th, which is not what had been proposed last year, which shorted it. The low income count switches, as had initially been done last year, from all direct certification (as we have been doing) to that OR the percentage of low income students in the FY16 budget (when we last did this through collecting free/reduced lunch forms everywhere), which was intended as a stopgap while a shift on low income counting was taking place. That picks up 30,118 students across the state, but keep in mind, those additions are going to be VERY uneven (just to give an example, 1447 of those students picked up are in Worcester). The 1/7th implementation thus is important, as not everyone has an increased count.
The budget overall, though, is based on the October 2020 student enrollment count, as usual, despite the statewide drop in enrollment due to the pandemic, as was covered at the November Board of Ed meeting. There have been calls--which I assume will only increase--to hold enrollment harmless this year, as this is a pandemic-induced drop, rather than one that's happening over time. This is particularly important--and this is a thing that I'm going to keep saying--when you look at where much of the drop in enrollment is:
The budget overall, though, is based on the October 2020 student enrollment count, as usual, despite the statewide drop in enrollment due to the pandemic, as was covered at the November Board of Ed meeting. There have been calls--which I assume will only increase--to hold enrollment harmless this year, as this is a pandemic-induced drop, rather than one that's happening over time. This is particularly important--and this is a thing that I'm going to keep saying--when you look at where much of the drop in enrollment is:
Of the 37,396 students that have been 'lost,' 17,202 are in preschool and kindergarten. Those are not grades which are required in Massachusetts. It is a fair guess that if this coming year is anything approaching more normal, many of those students are going to come back.
Where are we going to put them? Who is going to teach them? And how are we going to pay for it, if these are students that aren't included in our budgets?
And I'm really asking this, because over 700 of them are in Worcester.
Where are we going to put them? Who is going to teach them? And how are we going to pay for it, if these are students that aren't included in our budgets?
And I'm really asking this, because over 700 of them are in Worcester.
What this means, by the way, is that the overall increase in the foundation budget is over $100M less than last year at this time. The proposed increase--WITHOUT the full low income implementation of 1/7th--at this time last year was $290M; the increase this year over actual last year (which, remember, was no implementation at all) is $176M.
The other variable besides enrollment is inflation, which for health insurance--under SOA, remember, health insurance inflation is tied to the Group Insurance Commission plan average over three years--is 2.78% and for all else is 1.41%. Those are exactly what they are supposed to be by statute.
They also don't in any way reflect the actual increases in costs in lines. I mean, really: is your insurance plan going up by only 2.78% this coming year? Are the costs of gas and electricity and internet going up by only 1.41%?
They won't for schools, either.
Across the other accounts--charter, circuit breaker--there likewise are indications of some implementation of SOA. The circuit breaker increases only by $10M, though, so it's a bit concerning, as MassBudget last year estimated that it would take an additional $25M to implement the inclusion of transportation, as required by the SOA. Likewise, charter reimbursement was estimated to need to rise by nearly $30M to have full implementation; it's up by $16M.
Beyond SOA and these core accounts, it's frankly a pretty depressing picture from a governor who rarely is in front of a microphone without professing his great concern for kids and the driving need based on that for them to be in school buildings. This is his chance to literally put money where his mouth is. Where is it? It's not in building repairs. It's not in mental health services in or out of schools. It's not in extended day or summer programs. It's not in additional staffing supports for schools. It's not in any of the areas that anyone has suggested need additional support this year. It's just...not there.
Moreover, the Governor even manages to remove some of the support in this line being given to schools by the federal government. As I noted earlier this week, the second round of pandemic support to schools, passed as part of the big federal package at the end of December, is going to start to be available for applications soon. Districts can find the amount dedicated to them online here.
...except it turns out they can't. Governor Baker is proposing in his budget that towns and cities be allowed to count up to 75% of the federal grant to schools towards the increase in their required local school spending; the language is on the Chapter 70 page under "required local contribution."
In other words, the additional aid for handling COVID that the federal government specifically set aside for schools could instead be claimed by the city or town as school operating expenses.
I have a couple of problems with this. First, it isn't clear to me that this is the intent of the funding; this effectively takes emergency pandemic school aid and substitutes it for municipal operational funding. It also seems to me--no, I'm not a lawyer--to be creating a terrible legal precedent. This funding is like Title I or IDEA: it is a grant that is specific to schools. Those grants aren't touched by towns or cities; there's a set-aside within them for whatever "writing the checks" sorts of services the town may do, but they certainly don't have allocation authority. This is allowing the municipal side to allocate school funding, and to do it in both municipal and regional districts.
I don't think it's right, I question its legality, and its going to be an absolute mess at local levels.
In other words, the additional aid for handling COVID that the federal government specifically set aside for schools could instead be claimed by the city or town as school operating expenses.
I have a couple of problems with this. First, it isn't clear to me that this is the intent of the funding; this effectively takes emergency pandemic school aid and substitutes it for municipal operational funding. It also seems to me--no, I'm not a lawyer--to be creating a terrible legal precedent. This funding is like Title I or IDEA: it is a grant that is specific to schools. Those grants aren't touched by towns or cities; there's a set-aside within them for whatever "writing the checks" sorts of services the town may do, but they certainly don't have allocation authority. This is allowing the municipal side to allocate school funding, and to do it in both municipal and regional districts.
I don't think it's right, I question its legality, and its going to be an absolute mess at local levels.
It's not up to local school districts to make up for the stubborn refusal of Senator McConnell--who I would note is of Governor Baker's own party--to pass local aid assistance. That's on him.
And putting a budget that supports our students is on Governor Baker. While this makes a better than last year's effort at SOA, it isn't last year. It's ten months into a pandemic and it's two years into the Student Opportunity Act. Neither of those show up in his budget.
And putting a budget that supports our students is on Governor Baker. While this makes a better than last year's effort at SOA, it isn't last year. It's ten months into a pandemic and it's two years into the Student Opportunity Act. Neither of those show up in his budget.
Thursday, February 6, 2020
Worcester School Committee hears the first presentation on H2, the Governor's budget, for FY21
Allen: Worcester a leader in the foundation budget gaps identification
90 teachers a year needed through FY27 in order to close the 720 teacher gap (non-special education)
that would be $6.8M a year
in FY20, we hired 84 so close...
$15.7M increase in FY21
$10M of inflation had been built into the online assumptions (totalling $75.9M over the seven years)
really only $98M, then would be SOA (if what you've seen online was $173M)
enrollment decline (of almost 400 students)
modest inflation growth (2%)
overall foundation budget growth of $19.2M
$7.7M increase in inflation
enrollment change: LOSS of $4.2M
thus the base foundation change is $3.4M
it's the SOA funding bringing in $15.7M
enrollment is back down to 2017 levels (the 400 students went in and out last year)
thus it's hard to predict from one year to the next what enrollment is
low income count responsible for $10M
low income rate change $2.4M
benefits $2.1M
EL $581,301
Guidance $304,679
sped $246,940
no longer having carry forward state funding hurricane assistance $1.6M
no ELT $1M the Governor cut this in his budget
innovative pathways grant $275K
HEARS grant $100K
down by $2.9M in total, then
federal grants are not yet known and could also be reductions
thus $16M available
level service budget 3.8% or $14.1M increase
plus new positions added $1.3M
remaining available fund for budget priorities $1.9M
But the Commissioner thinks we can spend $8.9M on new priorities
low income count could DROP again next year, if DESE plans on collecting forms (on top of eligiblity)
could lose $33M next year
school allocation meetings going on right now
House budget April 15
Senate budget?
WPS budget expected May 15
SC does budget June 4 and 18
Allen to Q from Mayor: can get within $2.5M of what Department requires
Q: what would have been the budget cut if we hadn't had SOA?
$10-11M
"a fairly significant reduction in the budget" There would have been layoffs "significant layoffs"
Foley: it's rather sobering to see the dollars that are there
seven year phase in
hopefully over next six years will see some significant dollars
plans should be over those years
preschool down? are we doing anything on that?
Allen: preschool kids age in: fluctuations in enrollment thus
159 in Head Start: state's minimum wage is disqualifying families from Head Start
Petty: we should have a conversation with Congressman McGovern
need to keep advocating low income rate phase in
state is using 2.4% for inflation; ours is 3.8%
"that really makes no sense from an operational point of view"
why dollars cut?
McCullough: was our loss of students due to Puerto Rico responsible
Allen had already identified a slight decrease in enrollment
are our cost needs covered in Commissioner's list?
Binienda says yes, now facilities is in there
Biancheria: concern around collecting forms; staff time for low income count
Binienda: no reason for students to bring form back
Biancheria: importance of adding facilities to the list
Monfredo: discussions are about the next six years not this year
importance of small class sizes
so many needs that we do have, it is going to be difficult to pick and choose
do we have room for adding preschool classes? motion to ask
Clancey: could the increase in the minimum wage depress our count?
Allen: it could
Clancey: if a student is low income and special education, can funds be used for the other?
Petty: important to look long range over multiple years
90 teachers a year needed through FY27 in order to close the 720 teacher gap (non-special education)
that would be $6.8M a year
in FY20, we hired 84 so close...
- benefits and fixed charges
- guidance and psychological services
- special education
- English learners
- low income students
$15.7M increase in FY21
$10M of inflation had been built into the online assumptions (totalling $75.9M over the seven years)
really only $98M, then would be SOA (if what you've seen online was $173M)
enrollment decline (of almost 400 students)
modest inflation growth (2%)
overall foundation budget growth of $19.2M
$7.7M increase in inflation
enrollment change: LOSS of $4.2M
thus the base foundation change is $3.4M
it's the SOA funding bringing in $15.7M
enrollment is back down to 2017 levels (the 400 students went in and out last year)
thus it's hard to predict from one year to the next what enrollment is
low income count responsible for $10M
low income rate change $2.4M
benefits $2.1M
EL $581,301
Guidance $304,679
sped $246,940
no longer having carry forward state funding hurricane assistance $1.6M
no ELT $1M the Governor cut this in his budget
innovative pathways grant $275K
HEARS grant $100K
down by $2.9M in total, then
federal grants are not yet known and could also be reductions
thus $16M available
level service budget 3.8% or $14.1M increase
plus new positions added $1.3M
remaining available fund for budget priorities $1.9M
But the Commissioner thinks we can spend $8.9M on new priorities
low income count could DROP again next year, if DESE plans on collecting forms (on top of eligiblity)
could lose $33M next year
school allocation meetings going on right now
House budget April 15
Senate budget?
WPS budget expected May 15
SC does budget June 4 and 18
Allen to Q from Mayor: can get within $2.5M of what Department requires
Q: what would have been the budget cut if we hadn't had SOA?
$10-11M
"a fairly significant reduction in the budget" There would have been layoffs "significant layoffs"
Foley: it's rather sobering to see the dollars that are there
seven year phase in
hopefully over next six years will see some significant dollars
plans should be over those years
preschool down? are we doing anything on that?
Allen: preschool kids age in: fluctuations in enrollment thus
159 in Head Start: state's minimum wage is disqualifying families from Head Start
Petty: we should have a conversation with Congressman McGovern
need to keep advocating low income rate phase in
state is using 2.4% for inflation; ours is 3.8%
"that really makes no sense from an operational point of view"
why dollars cut?
McCullough: was our loss of students due to Puerto Rico responsible
Allen had already identified a slight decrease in enrollment
are our cost needs covered in Commissioner's list?
Binienda says yes, now facilities is in there
Biancheria: concern around collecting forms; staff time for low income count
Binienda: no reason for students to bring form back
Biancheria: importance of adding facilities to the list
Monfredo: discussions are about the next six years not this year
importance of small class sizes
so many needs that we do have, it is going to be difficult to pick and choose
do we have room for adding preschool classes? motion to ask
Clancey: could the increase in the minimum wage depress our count?
Allen: it could
Clancey: if a student is low income and special education, can funds be used for the other?
Petty: important to look long range over multiple years
On reporting on the Student Opportunity Act funding
Section 1S of the Student Opportunity Act says the following:
State targets.
Nonetheless, the Department released the guidance around reporting on Student Opportunity Act funding earlier this week. Districts receiving more than $1.5M over FY20 will need to fill out the long form; those receiving less than $1.5M will need to fill out a short form. Everyone's forms are due April 1 (that last in the law).
So all of this input and all of the subsequent budgetary planning is supposed to be subject to the targets we're supposed to be aiming for: it is literally written into law. But that section--the target section--is the section the Department has decided that we're holding off on until later, once we have this year's data.
You might think, therefore, that we'd then hold off on the plans until we have the targets we're going to reach for, but no:
We're going to--and I am not making this up--write up plans on how we're going to reach the targets WITHOUT HAVING THE TARGETS.
And the plans are due April 1.
Thus keeping always in mind that this is the underlying premise of this exercise, let's talk about what the expectations beyond that are.
Both the short and the long form are designed around four commitments, which fall somewhat in line with the intent of the law:
The cover letter from the Commissioner says DESE "will focus primarily on the extent to which districts are implementing evidence-based programs that will close these gaps in their communities."
Now, you might remember during the work of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, MassBudget did a series of reports on what kinds of things helped close the opportunity gaps, particularly for kids who are poor: early childhood education, wraparound services, extended day, and smaller class sizes were four of the areas looked at. This and other research then made its way into the Commission's report.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though much of that made its way into the hands of those putting together the reporting requirements for DESE, as the only one of those things that gets mentioned is preschool. In particular, the Commissioner says that he is interested in, and intends to put the granting power of the Department behind:
(a)The commissioner shall establish statewide targets for addressing persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups in the aggregate and within subcategories, including, but not limited to, subject matter and relevant grade levels. The targets shall include annual benchmarks on the progress expected to be achieved in the aggregate and by subcategory.The sequence thus is supposed to be:
(b) Each district shall establish targets for addressing persistent disparities in achievement among student subgroups consistent with the targets established by the department. Each district shall develop an evidence-based 3-year plan to meet its targets. Each district’s plan shall be developed by the superintendent in consultation with the school committee and shall consider input and recommendations from parents and other relevant community stakeholders, including but not limited to, special education and English learner parent advisory councils, school improvement councils and educators in the school district.
- the Commisssioner establishes statewide targets for addressing academic disparities
- those targets should include annual benchmarks
- districts then are to establish their own targets in line with the state's targets
- districts are to write a plan on how they're going to get to the targets
State targets.
Nonetheless, the Department released the guidance around reporting on Student Opportunity Act funding earlier this week. Districts receiving more than $1.5M over FY20 will need to fill out the long form; those receiving less than $1.5M will need to fill out a short form. Everyone's forms are due April 1 (that last in the law).
So all of this input and all of the subsequent budgetary planning is supposed to be subject to the targets we're supposed to be aiming for: it is literally written into law. But that section--the target section--is the section the Department has decided that we're holding off on until later, once we have this year's data.
You might think, therefore, that we'd then hold off on the plans until we have the targets we're going to reach for, but no:
We're going to--and I am not making this up--write up plans on how we're going to reach the targets WITHOUT HAVING THE TARGETS.
And the plans are due April 1.
Thus keeping always in mind that this is the underlying premise of this exercise, let's talk about what the expectations beyond that are.
Both the short and the long form are designed around four commitments, which fall somewhat in line with the intent of the law:
1. Intentionally focus on student subgroups who are not achieving at the same high levels as their peers;The plan descriptions also focus on "doing a few things well" and "focus on implementation."
2. Adopt, deepen or continue specific evidence-based programs to close opportunity and achievement gaps for student subgroups and allocate resources to support these programs;
3. Monitor success in reducing disparities in achievement among student subgroups over three years with a small number of metrics and targets; and
4. Engage families, particularly those families representing student subgroups most in need of support, about how best to meet their students’ needs.
The cover letter from the Commissioner says DESE "will focus primarily on the extent to which districts are implementing evidence-based programs that will close these gaps in their communities."
Now, you might remember during the work of the Foundation Budget Review Commission, MassBudget did a series of reports on what kinds of things helped close the opportunity gaps, particularly for kids who are poor: early childhood education, wraparound services, extended day, and smaller class sizes were four of the areas looked at. This and other research then made its way into the Commission's report.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though much of that made its way into the hands of those putting together the reporting requirements for DESE, as the only one of those things that gets mentioned is preschool. In particular, the Commissioner says that he is interested in, and intends to put the granting power of the Department behind:
- expanded early childhood and evidenced-based early literacy, together as a single item. Others will no doubt note that this isn't really as much of a thing; you can be a good reader and read late; you can have great early childhood education that isn't literacy-focused.
- early college programs, which is definitely all the rage right now, definitely still something we're working out how to do, and isn't necessarily hitting the students who might benefit the most
- diversifying the educator and administrator workforce, which is certainly important, but is something that most are still working out how to do.
While those are definitely the focus of the Commissioner, to make those three things the driving force in how Massachusetts spends new funding, quite apart from the items that are within the law itself is abrupt and moves us away from the ongoing conversations we have had around equity and meeting actual needs over the past several years.
In other words, these are the Commissioner's priorities: does that make them the priorities of K-12 education in Massachusetts, which is much much larger than that?
The Commissioner closes his opening letter by calling the law:
Quite seriously, though, we can lead and BE AN EXAMPLE to others who we could hope COULD ALSO DO WELL FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
Education isn't a zero sum game; our state doing better doesn't mean others have to do worse.
The law, you might recall, actually has ten options for evidence-based programs (still in section 1S):(A) expanded learning time in the form of a longer school day or school year;
(B) increased opportunity for common planning time for teachers;
(C) social services to support students’ social-emotional and physical health;
(D) hiring school personnel that best support improved student performance;
(E) increased or improved professional development;
(F) purchase of curriculum materials and equipment that are aligned with the statewide curriculum frameworks;
(G) expanding early education and pre-kindergarten programming within the district in consultation or in partnership with community-based organizations;
(H) diversifying the educator and administrator workforce;
(I) developing additional pathways to strengthen college and career readiness; and
(J) any other program determined to be evidence-based by the commissioner
...plus there's a "you can argue with the Commissioner" allowance.
Those, of course, are more largely reflective both of the research of MassBudget and of the larger discussions that surrounded the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
The Department has now converted that list into seventeen items, divided into four parts:
Enhanced Core Instruction
1. Expanded access to full-day, high-quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds, including potential collaboration with other local providers (SOA categories D, F, and G)
2. Research-based early literacy programs in pre-kindergarten and early elementary grades (E, F, and G)
3. Early College programs focused primarily on students under-represented in higher education (I)
4. Supporting educators to implement high-quality, aligned curriculum (E and F)
5. Expanded access to career-technical education, including “After Dark” district-vocational partnerships and innovation pathways reflecting local labor market priorities (I)
Targeted Student Supports
6. Increased personnel and services to support holistic student needs (C and D)
7. Inclusion/co-teaching for students with disabilities and English learners (D and E)
8. Acceleration Academies and/or summer learning to support skill development and accelerate advanced learners (A and E)
9. Dropout prevention and recovery programs (I)
Talent Development
10. Diversifying the educator/administrator workforce through recruitment and retention (D and H)
11. Leadership pipeline development programs for schools (D and E)
12. Increased staffing to expand student access to arts, athletics, and enrichment, and strategic scheduling to enable common planning time for teachers (B and D)
13. Strategies to recruit and retain educators/administrators in hard-to-staff schools and positions (D)
Conditions for Student Success
14. Community partnerships for in-school enrichment and wraparound services (C)
15. Parent-teacher home visiting programs (E)
16. Labor-management partnerships to improve student performance (E)
17. Facilities improvements to create healthy and safe school environments (J)
The Commissioner's priorities (in red above) are ones he says he "encourages" and "will likely offer multiplier funds" in, again, despite those not being shared priorities across the process.
Plans must make the four commitments above, focusing on subgroups, choosing three metrics for measurement and monitoring. If DESE metrics are chosen, the Department will update the plan for districts in the fall when they set targets; otherwise, districts will need to update their plans with targets in the fall.
But the plans are due April 1
Districts not only need to describe how families were engaged in this process; they also need to describe their "ongoing plan for engaging families." This despite clear and repeated directions from the Department that this plan is not to be a large scale new plan; how many districts already have family engagement plans?
Do note (bottom of page 7 of the long form description) that a school committee vote is required.
The Department has decided what it believes to be "new Chapter 70 revenue" and has provided a spreadsheet to the districts receiving the largest amounts of how much they are expected to expend in as "new" funding. This is based on an assumed 2.44% inflation rate (this is the 15 year average foundation budget inflation rate, lowest and highest eliminated) applied to the funding; all the rest counts as "new" aid.
As I noted online earlier today, this ignores the actual functioning of the foundation budget. Yes, the budget is subject to both a 1.99% inflation rate for most and a 2.43% inflation rate for health care. It is at ground, though, a student-based, enrollment-driven formula. Changes in student count and demographics drive changes in the formula. Some of the changes--some of the Gateway cities increases--are enrollment changes, not formula changes. To ignore that is to ignore the fundamentals, and it does a real disservice to the districts that are working through changes in both. It leaves them unable to use the funds intended to serve those students for those students.
There were several places where I was torn on the right reaction; this was one(p.8):
I would note the same for the districts that are receiving incremental minimum per pupil changes, 'though it appears to me that it is largely conceded that explaining you'll be doing some of what you're already doing will suffice.
The Department then provides a sample plan, and...wow. First, please tell me that no district serving majority students of color uses "majority minority" in describing itself. This created district not only has MCAS scores; it has recently done a student survey and it has had the funding to be tracking the college persistence of graduates.
...this doesn't sound like a district that is receiving a boost in state funding.
Not surprisingly, this district has decided that two of the Commissioner's priorities are swell, so they're doing preK and early college, plus adopting acceleration academies (which is what the Commissioner ran in Lawrence, so while DESE may not be funding them, you're good there, too).
And then we get into the math. This made-up district, we're told, has "a minimum" of $2.8M of "new funding" in FY21, to which the district is adding $100,000. This puts it a bit over Holyoke, which, just to give you an idea of how this works, is having HALF of its increase in state funding attributed as new funding. Again, this is without regard to how the district is in fact getting to that funding level.
This district is going to create eight new preschool classrooms, implying (as there is no facility cost) that they have eight classrooms standing open in their district (is this true in any of our cities?). They are hiring enough staff for a 1:10 student ratio. There is a great deal of eliding of teacher and staff time towards training (the principals are paid for PD; don't the teachers need it?), not only in the early childhood section, but throughout the entire report (not all of which is budgeted). The early college section will have "intense academic coaching" which requires staff and time; faculty will "work with their college counterparts to align curriculum" which is staff time; buses will take students to the colleges, which is a transportation cost. We're told that "[r]obust, individualized academic and guidance supports will then be developed and provided" BY WHOM? WHEN?
...I could go on, but the whole of the plan is like that. There is tons of eliding of staff time and resources without accounting for the ACTUAL COST OF THINGS.
This is not a good use of our time.
This is not a good accounting of resources.
This is not a good process.
We deserve better than this.
In other words, these are the Commissioner's priorities: does that make them the priorities of K-12 education in Massachusetts, which is much much larger than that?
The Commissioner closes his opening letter by calling the law:
a historic opportunity for Massachusetts to propel our state to become a national leader, not just in overall achievement, but for all children in the Commonwealth....because if we aren't beating New Jersey, where are we?
Quite seriously, though, we can lead and BE AN EXAMPLE to others who we could hope COULD ALSO DO WELL FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
Education isn't a zero sum game; our state doing better doesn't mean others have to do worse.
The law, you might recall, actually has ten options for evidence-based programs (still in section 1S):(A) expanded learning time in the form of a longer school day or school year;
(B) increased opportunity for common planning time for teachers;
(C) social services to support students’ social-emotional and physical health;
(D) hiring school personnel that best support improved student performance;
(E) increased or improved professional development;
(F) purchase of curriculum materials and equipment that are aligned with the statewide curriculum frameworks;
(G) expanding early education and pre-kindergarten programming within the district in consultation or in partnership with community-based organizations;
(H) diversifying the educator and administrator workforce;
(I) developing additional pathways to strengthen college and career readiness; and
(J) any other program determined to be evidence-based by the commissioner
...plus there's a "you can argue with the Commissioner" allowance.
Those, of course, are more largely reflective both of the research of MassBudget and of the larger discussions that surrounded the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
The Department has now converted that list into seventeen items, divided into four parts:
Enhanced Core Instruction
1. Expanded access to full-day, high-quality pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds, including potential collaboration with other local providers (SOA categories D, F, and G)
2. Research-based early literacy programs in pre-kindergarten and early elementary grades (E, F, and G)
3. Early College programs focused primarily on students under-represented in higher education (I)
4. Supporting educators to implement high-quality, aligned curriculum (E and F)
5. Expanded access to career-technical education, including “After Dark” district-vocational partnerships and innovation pathways reflecting local labor market priorities (I)
Targeted Student Supports
6. Increased personnel and services to support holistic student needs (C and D)
7. Inclusion/co-teaching for students with disabilities and English learners (D and E)
8. Acceleration Academies and/or summer learning to support skill development and accelerate advanced learners (A and E)
9. Dropout prevention and recovery programs (I)
Talent Development
10. Diversifying the educator/administrator workforce through recruitment and retention (D and H)
11. Leadership pipeline development programs for schools (D and E)
12. Increased staffing to expand student access to arts, athletics, and enrichment, and strategic scheduling to enable common planning time for teachers (B and D)
13. Strategies to recruit and retain educators/administrators in hard-to-staff schools and positions (D)
Conditions for Student Success
14. Community partnerships for in-school enrichment and wraparound services (C)
15. Parent-teacher home visiting programs (E)
16. Labor-management partnerships to improve student performance (E)
17. Facilities improvements to create healthy and safe school environments (J)
The Commissioner's priorities (in red above) are ones he says he "encourages" and "will likely offer multiplier funds" in, again, despite those not being shared priorities across the process.
Plans must make the four commitments above, focusing on subgroups, choosing three metrics for measurement and monitoring. If DESE metrics are chosen, the Department will update the plan for districts in the fall when they set targets; otherwise, districts will need to update their plans with targets in the fall.
But the plans are due April 1
Districts not only need to describe how families were engaged in this process; they also need to describe their "ongoing plan for engaging families." This despite clear and repeated directions from the Department that this plan is not to be a large scale new plan; how many districts already have family engagement plans?
Do note (bottom of page 7 of the long form description) that a school committee vote is required.
The Department has decided what it believes to be "new Chapter 70 revenue" and has provided a spreadsheet to the districts receiving the largest amounts of how much they are expected to expend in as "new" funding. This is based on an assumed 2.44% inflation rate (this is the 15 year average foundation budget inflation rate, lowest and highest eliminated) applied to the funding; all the rest counts as "new" aid.
As I noted online earlier today, this ignores the actual functioning of the foundation budget. Yes, the budget is subject to both a 1.99% inflation rate for most and a 2.43% inflation rate for health care. It is at ground, though, a student-based, enrollment-driven formula. Changes in student count and demographics drive changes in the formula. Some of the changes--some of the Gateway cities increases--are enrollment changes, not formula changes. To ignore that is to ignore the fundamentals, and it does a real disservice to the districts that are working through changes in both. It leaves them unable to use the funds intended to serve those students for those students.
There were several places where I was torn on the right reaction; this was one(p.8):
We also encourage districts, to the extent possible, to allocate other new or existing resources to evidence-based programs, sufficient to significantly improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps over time.Did...you miss the entire prior discussion? What "other new or existing resources"? The ENTIRE reason we are doing this is these districts DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER RESOURCES and they haven't had enough from the state for years!
I would note the same for the districts that are receiving incremental minimum per pupil changes, 'though it appears to me that it is largely conceded that explaining you'll be doing some of what you're already doing will suffice.
The Department then provides a sample plan, and...wow. First, please tell me that no district serving majority students of color uses "majority minority" in describing itself. This created district not only has MCAS scores; it has recently done a student survey and it has had the funding to be tracking the college persistence of graduates.
...this doesn't sound like a district that is receiving a boost in state funding.
Not surprisingly, this district has decided that two of the Commissioner's priorities are swell, so they're doing preK and early college, plus adopting acceleration academies (which is what the Commissioner ran in Lawrence, so while DESE may not be funding them, you're good there, too).
And then we get into the math. This made-up district, we're told, has "a minimum" of $2.8M of "new funding" in FY21, to which the district is adding $100,000. This puts it a bit over Holyoke, which, just to give you an idea of how this works, is having HALF of its increase in state funding attributed as new funding. Again, this is without regard to how the district is in fact getting to that funding level.
This district is going to create eight new preschool classrooms, implying (as there is no facility cost) that they have eight classrooms standing open in their district (is this true in any of our cities?). They are hiring enough staff for a 1:10 student ratio. There is a great deal of eliding of teacher and staff time towards training (the principals are paid for PD; don't the teachers need it?), not only in the early childhood section, but throughout the entire report (not all of which is budgeted). The early college section will have "intense academic coaching" which requires staff and time; faculty will "work with their college counterparts to align curriculum" which is staff time; buses will take students to the colleges, which is a transportation cost. We're told that "[r]obust, individualized academic and guidance supports will then be developed and provided" BY WHOM? WHEN?
...I could go on, but the whole of the plan is like that. There is tons of eliding of staff time and resources without accounting for the ACTUAL COST OF THINGS.
This is not a good use of our time.
This is not a good accounting of resources.
This is not a good process.
We deserve better than this.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Joint Committee on Ways and Means on FY20 education funding
We're at Bristol Community College (across the street from Fall River's new Durfee High project) for the Joint Committee on Ways and Means hearing on education accounts. This Committee is jointly chaired by Senator Michael Rodriguez of Westport and Representative Aaron Michelwitz of Boston. Note that generally the administration makes their pitch first, thus we'll hear early on from Lt. Governor Polito, Secretary Peyser, and the three Commissioners (early ed, K-12, and higher ed).
Posting once we start
Vice Chair Denise Garlick introduces Rep. Carole Fiola (of Fall River) and Sen. Jason Lewis (of Winchester, Assistant Vice-Chair), who will be co-chairing today.
President of Bristol Community College welcoming the joint committee...two members from Fall River School Committee and one from New Bedford School Committee here today
Posting once we start
Vice Chair Denise Garlick introduces Rep. Carole Fiola (of Fall River) and Sen. Jason Lewis (of Winchester, Assistant Vice-Chair), who will be co-chairing today.
President of Bristol Community College welcoming the joint committee...two members from Fall River School Committee and one from New Bedford School Committee here today
Sunday, February 10, 2019
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):
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.
Pretty crazy jump in preschool there.
Also note the needs that increased, as well:
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:
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!--
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%.
Also note the needs that increased, as well:
 |
| (the orange bars are when it was low income. No one "lost" poor kids.) |
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:
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:
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.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
New Legislative session, new bill (this one gets wonky)
Usual disclaimer here (which lives over to the left on a full screen): this is my work, my words, my views; don't ascribe them anywhere else.
Let's start this off by noting what was in the Foundation Budget Reform Commission report (MASC summary here):
So what's the change?
Boston, in a word.
Let's back up and remember what determines the amount of state aid any district gets: every district has a foundation budget, calculating the adequate (per current law) amount is for that district to educate the students in the district (as of the prior year). The state then calculates how much of that foundation budget the local city or town(s) can afford to provide. The state fills in the rest.
Cities and towns vary widely in how much they can afford: there are districts like Holyoke and Lawrence that can barely afford single digits amount of their foundation budget. There are also districts that can fund their whole district budget will money to spare.
That includes Boston.
I've said this--lots!--before, but I'll say it again: Boston has a high-need school system in a WEALTHY city. In the current fiscal year, for example, Boston has a foundation budget of $861M; the state calculates that it can afford $100M more than that.
But every district in Massachusetts gets money, regardless of need. Every district gets--and this, too, includes Boston--gets 17.5% at least.
It's important to note that this is NOT part of the foundation budget. There is no equity issue around the wealthy districts being guaranteed state funding, regardless of need. That's a straightforward political calculation.
So what's the issue?
Charter schools in Massachusetts are funded at the level their local district is funded at. Charter school students are included in the district foundation budget; the funding of each student "follows" the student (with 100% of the tuition being reimbursed to the sending district in the first year) PLUS funding for facilities AND however much the sending district funds over foundation.
Now the charter schools don't send the district a bill; the funding for the charter schools, at whatever level, are deducted from the Chapter 70 aid of the sending district; it is netted out of the funding that is sent to the district.
The amount of that required funding is capped (that's the charter cap) at 9% or 18% (for what had been the lowest performing districts) of the foundation budget of the district, 'though if a district spends more on the local district schools, that is added on over and above that cap.
So if you are Boston, and you get 17.5% of your foundation budget in state aid and you have 18% of your foundation budget going to charter schools PLUS whatever percentage over you're spending on your district schools--in Boston, this was19.6% in FY17--yes, your state aid is dwindling, it appears.
Note, however, why this is: it is the nearly unique position of Boston to be wealthy enough to be getting the minimum amount of state funding AND have an 18% charter cap.
The bill proposed today would guarantee that, needed or not, Boston and all such districts would get their minimum state aid of their district foundation budget AFTER charter school funding is netted out.
This is not a foundation budget issue. This is not, I'd argue, even an equity issue. This is a charter funding issue. If Boston wants to reopen that can of worms, they can do that.
What about the other districts that have charter students and tuition? Let's look at Lawrence as an example, since Mayor Walsh pulled them in this morning: in FY17, Lawrence lost 10% of their foundation budget of $185M to the charter schools that receive Lawrence students. If you deduct that $18.5M from the $178M that Lawrence received in Ch. 70 aid, Lawrence received about $160M in Ch.70 aid. Assuming the district foundation budget is about $167M (that's the same 10% off the foundation; it isn't that, as it isn't exactly, but it isn't a terrible model), this bill would say that Lawrence is guaranteed $145M--their target of 87.16%--in aid. Lawrence, though, net charter tuition, already is receiving $159M in aid, though (well over their target, yes). There's no advantage to Lawrence or any other district that receives aid in excess of their target in this, unless those targets shift, which would require Lawrence to fund more of their budget.
There are districts, possibly even like Worcester, that would see a bump from this. It is not, in those high charter but high poverty districts, anything at all like the main issue at hand.
This issue shouldn't be tied to the equity issue for the districts that cannot afford to fund their district schools. And frankly, it makes me angry to see Boston arguing in any way that this is an equity issue.
Let's start this off by noting what was in the Foundation Budget Reform Commission report (MASC summary here):
- update the actual costs of health insurance
- update the special education assumption (not to actual costs)
- update the ELL provision
- update the low income provision
In also requires the creation of a data commission, and notes (but doesn't recommend) the need for preschool and the missing pieces on inflation.
Last session's Senate bill included the four sections on updating funding (the four bullets) and the data commission.
The bill being filed today--SD.101--also does that, but it has quite a bit else going on.
So what's the change?
Boston, in a word.
Let's back up and remember what determines the amount of state aid any district gets: every district has a foundation budget, calculating the adequate (per current law) amount is for that district to educate the students in the district (as of the prior year). The state then calculates how much of that foundation budget the local city or town(s) can afford to provide. The state fills in the rest.
Cities and towns vary widely in how much they can afford: there are districts like Holyoke and Lawrence that can barely afford single digits amount of their foundation budget. There are also districts that can fund their whole district budget will money to spare.
That includes Boston.
I've said this--lots!--before, but I'll say it again: Boston has a high-need school system in a WEALTHY city. In the current fiscal year, for example, Boston has a foundation budget of $861M; the state calculates that it can afford $100M more than that.
But every district in Massachusetts gets money, regardless of need. Every district gets--and this, too, includes Boston--gets 17.5% at least.
It's important to note that this is NOT part of the foundation budget. There is no equity issue around the wealthy districts being guaranteed state funding, regardless of need. That's a straightforward political calculation.
So what's the issue?
Charter schools in Massachusetts are funded at the level their local district is funded at. Charter school students are included in the district foundation budget; the funding of each student "follows" the student (with 100% of the tuition being reimbursed to the sending district in the first year) PLUS funding for facilities AND however much the sending district funds over foundation.
Now the charter schools don't send the district a bill; the funding for the charter schools, at whatever level, are deducted from the Chapter 70 aid of the sending district; it is netted out of the funding that is sent to the district.
The amount of that required funding is capped (that's the charter cap) at 9% or 18% (for what had been the lowest performing districts) of the foundation budget of the district, 'though if a district spends more on the local district schools, that is added on over and above that cap.
So if you are Boston, and you get 17.5% of your foundation budget in state aid and you have 18% of your foundation budget going to charter schools PLUS whatever percentage over you're spending on your district schools--in Boston, this was19.6% in FY17--yes, your state aid is dwindling, it appears.
Note, however, why this is: it is the nearly unique position of Boston to be wealthy enough to be getting the minimum amount of state funding AND have an 18% charter cap.
The bill proposed today would guarantee that, needed or not, Boston and all such districts would get their minimum state aid of their district foundation budget AFTER charter school funding is netted out.
This is not a foundation budget issue. This is not, I'd argue, even an equity issue. This is a charter funding issue. If Boston wants to reopen that can of worms, they can do that.
What about the other districts that have charter students and tuition? Let's look at Lawrence as an example, since Mayor Walsh pulled them in this morning: in FY17, Lawrence lost 10% of their foundation budget of $185M to the charter schools that receive Lawrence students. If you deduct that $18.5M from the $178M that Lawrence received in Ch. 70 aid, Lawrence received about $160M in Ch.70 aid. Assuming the district foundation budget is about $167M (that's the same 10% off the foundation; it isn't that, as it isn't exactly, but it isn't a terrible model), this bill would say that Lawrence is guaranteed $145M--their target of 87.16%--in aid. Lawrence, though, net charter tuition, already is receiving $159M in aid, though (well over their target, yes). There's no advantage to Lawrence or any other district that receives aid in excess of their target in this, unless those targets shift, which would require Lawrence to fund more of their budget.
There are districts, possibly even like Worcester, that would see a bump from this. It is not, in those high charter but high poverty districts, anything at all like the main issue at hand.
This issue shouldn't be tied to the equity issue for the districts that cannot afford to fund their district schools. And frankly, it makes me angry to see Boston arguing in any way that this is an equity issue.
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
September Board of Ed: Foundation budget review commission
backup is here
Wulfson: thought it would be useful to give you a quick refresher course on what the foundation budget is
upcoming
Massachusetts one of first states to adopt such a budgetary plan
"one of the key measures of if we are meeting our constitutional obligation" to provide an education for all students
rises to the top of the list as it is a constitutional obligation
FY19: total foundation budget a little under $11B; a little over $11K per student
funded through a combination of state aid and required local contribution
excludes several significant items: transportation, construction, extraordinary sped costs, pensions
those run about $2.5B on top of foundation budget
pretty much untouched from its initial adoption in 1993
2015 commission established to review assumptions in foundation budget
"despite a lot of effort by staff in legislature and the conference committee...with a lot of support from our school finance office here...a major rewrite is quite an endeavor"
important to note "despite news coverage to the contrary, none of those discussions had anything to do with the current fiscal year"
fiscal year '20 budget isn't over: "it's just starting"
many districts choosing to spend over foundation
others held harmless well above the current foundation budget
an increase in the foundation budget for a particular district does not translate into a dollar-for-dollar increase in state aid and "in some, it may not translate to any increase in state aid"
Wulfson notes that "what tools and levels are we thinking about that will translate increased spending to increased student achievement" was discussed at the end of the Commission ('though he fails to note that those who wanted such things tied LOST)
Craven: important for Board to look at four issues and look at how their weighted
"the only one here that could be translated into achievement gap closure" is poverty
that...isn't true at all
"as a veteran of minimum aid"
Peyser: the districts that benefit are the ones that are spending right at that level" of foundation
"even if you're increasing a factor that effects all districts equally" in terms of state aid it leans most to districts that most lack local capacity
Wulfson: fiscal distress is two catagories: Gateways, where enrollment is growing; and rural districts where districts are tiny and shrinking
Craven: would preferred something that's more targeted
"I don't know how it helps achieve our goals over time" with the other issues
because...it isn't about that?
Peyser: how do we ensure those funds are being used to have a larger impact on student outcomes?
potential of thinking about other parts of the state finance system
Sagan: budget as a process that happens "to us"
Craven: generally think that anything that puts money into the system is a good thing, I do think that the Legislature will run out of money on this at some point, "that's a balancing act, as well"
Riley: unintended consequences: if the average municipality spends 20% above foundation, in theory districts can divert money to police and fire and stay above foundation
McKenna: sometimes I wonder if we're in a bubble
"there's highly documented data on how to attact the achievement gap...but that budget doesn't target those things"
high quality early childhood, full day kindergarten, summer learning
"we're not going to change the achievement gap until we target them"
Wulfson: money put into for programs mentioned are being put in for health insurance and special education which have to be paid for
Moriarty asks if the Medicaid reimbursement still goes back to the general fund
IT DOES
Wulfson: you're correct, there's no legal requirement that it go back
Bell: spending plan for this current year (FY19)
review process for administration and finance
implementation for spending this year
working with Commissioner for FY20 ask
no withholding, no vetoes, implementing budget as Legislature passed
have money for implementation for history/civics standards and assessment
FY19 just awaiting final approval for ANF on spending plan
"from a budgeting perspective, we're onto FY20"
federal side: "despite all of the last few years...Congress has pretty much continued to fund federal education programs at a baseline program level"
Wulfson: thought it would be useful to give you a quick refresher course on what the foundation budget is
upcoming
Massachusetts one of first states to adopt such a budgetary plan
"one of the key measures of if we are meeting our constitutional obligation" to provide an education for all students
rises to the top of the list as it is a constitutional obligation
FY19: total foundation budget a little under $11B; a little over $11K per student
funded through a combination of state aid and required local contribution
excludes several significant items: transportation, construction, extraordinary sped costs, pensions
those run about $2.5B on top of foundation budget
pretty much untouched from its initial adoption in 1993
2015 commission established to review assumptions in foundation budget
"despite a lot of effort by staff in legislature and the conference committee...with a lot of support from our school finance office here...a major rewrite is quite an endeavor"
important to note "despite news coverage to the contrary, none of those discussions had anything to do with the current fiscal year"
fiscal year '20 budget isn't over: "it's just starting"
many districts choosing to spend over foundation
others held harmless well above the current foundation budget
an increase in the foundation budget for a particular district does not translate into a dollar-for-dollar increase in state aid and "in some, it may not translate to any increase in state aid"
Wulfson notes that "what tools and levels are we thinking about that will translate increased spending to increased student achievement" was discussed at the end of the Commission ('though he fails to note that those who wanted such things tied LOST)
Craven: important for Board to look at four issues and look at how their weighted
"the only one here that could be translated into achievement gap closure" is poverty
that...isn't true at all
"as a veteran of minimum aid"
Peyser: the districts that benefit are the ones that are spending right at that level" of foundation
"even if you're increasing a factor that effects all districts equally" in terms of state aid it leans most to districts that most lack local capacity
Wulfson: fiscal distress is two catagories: Gateways, where enrollment is growing; and rural districts where districts are tiny and shrinking
Craven: would preferred something that's more targeted
"I don't know how it helps achieve our goals over time" with the other issues
because...it isn't about that?
Peyser: how do we ensure those funds are being used to have a larger impact on student outcomes?
potential of thinking about other parts of the state finance system
Sagan: budget as a process that happens "to us"
Craven: generally think that anything that puts money into the system is a good thing, I do think that the Legislature will run out of money on this at some point, "that's a balancing act, as well"
Riley: unintended consequences: if the average municipality spends 20% above foundation, in theory districts can divert money to police and fire and stay above foundation
McKenna: sometimes I wonder if we're in a bubble
"there's highly documented data on how to attact the achievement gap...but that budget doesn't target those things"
high quality early childhood, full day kindergarten, summer learning
"we're not going to change the achievement gap until we target them"
Wulfson: money put into for programs mentioned are being put in for health insurance and special education which have to be paid for
Moriarty asks if the Medicaid reimbursement still goes back to the general fund
IT DOES
Wulfson: you're correct, there's no legal requirement that it go back
Bell: spending plan for this current year (FY19)
review process for administration and finance
implementation for spending this year
working with Commissioner for FY20 ask
no withholding, no vetoes, implementing budget as Legislature passed
have money for implementation for history/civics standards and assessment
FY19 just awaiting final approval for ANF on spending plan
"from a budgeting perspective, we're onto FY20"
federal side: "despite all of the last few years...Congress has pretty much continued to fund federal education programs at a baseline program level"
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Conditions of Education in Western Mass: Rennie Center
I'm at the annual Conditions of Education in Western Massachusetts, put together by the Rennie Center, in Holyoke. It appears as though today is about the Preschool Expansion Grant. The hashtag is #COE2018.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Worcester School Committee meets Thursday
and it's a light agenda...
There's an executive session to discuss collective bargaining with IAs, OT/PT assistants, and administrative secretaries, plus a grievance from an HVAC technician.
There is a report on social-emotional learning (as yet, no backup).
There are some appointments, retirements, and recognitions.
Mr. Monfredo wants to ask the state to fund full-day preschool and wants to discuss a program for four year olds. Please consider this your reminder that the Foundation Budget Review Commission "recognized" preschool; also recall that it is not, by any means, the biggest dollar concern on the foundation budget for Worcester. Eyes on the prize, people.
Miss Biancheria would like a report on adult education in the vo-tech programs.
Miss McCullough is advocating for a sharing table (I think we already have them some places.)
Mr. O'Connell wants to fly the national, state, and city flags at all schools, and he wants a list of who is on CPPAC.
The committee is being asked to accept a $52,000 grant for MassGrad Promising Practices, which will work on competency-based education at the alternative programs.
The committee is being asked to accept donations:
The committee is being asked to appoint three nurses.
The committee is also asked to authorize an "up to" five year lease of thirteen full-sized school buses. As Scott O'Connell covered in yesterday's T&G, this is about covering the after-school sports transportation, which didn't receive a single bid. If you read the backup memo (as always in finance, recommended), the proposal is to do this by reallocating funds. It also is a possible lead in to bigger changes:
There's an executive session to discuss collective bargaining with IAs, OT/PT assistants, and administrative secretaries, plus a grievance from an HVAC technician.
There is a report on social-emotional learning (as yet, no backup).
There are some appointments, retirements, and recognitions.
Mr. Monfredo wants to ask the state to fund full-day preschool and wants to discuss a program for four year olds. Please consider this your reminder that the Foundation Budget Review Commission "recognized" preschool; also recall that it is not, by any means, the biggest dollar concern on the foundation budget for Worcester. Eyes on the prize, people.
Miss Biancheria would like a report on adult education in the vo-tech programs.
Miss McCullough is advocating for a sharing table (I think we already have them some places.)
Mr. O'Connell wants to fly the national, state, and city flags at all schools, and he wants a list of who is on CPPAC.
The committee is being asked to accept a $52,000 grant for MassGrad Promising Practices, which will work on competency-based education at the alternative programs.
The committee is being asked to accept donations:
- $1,000 from Chapter 9 of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Association to Worcester Technical High School for a graphic communications scholarship for a deserving student
- $560 to Tatnuck Magnet School from Gomez Enterprises, LLC (Trade name-McDonalds)
- $ 35 from various donors to Tatnuck Magnet School
The committee is being asked to appoint three nurses.
The committee is also asked to authorize an "up to" five year lease of thirteen full-sized school buses. As Scott O'Connell covered in yesterday's T&G, this is about covering the after-school sports transportation, which didn't receive a single bid. If you read the backup memo (as always in finance, recommended), the proposal is to do this by reallocating funds. It also is a possible lead in to bigger changes:
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Board of Ed: report on Level 5 schools
You can find the backup here
Pia Durkin of New Bedford is here to talk about the Parker School
Chester says he sees her as turning around the district as well
Durkin: a gift to be able to serve as their receiver
Pia Durkin of New Bedford is here to talk about the Parker School
Chester says he sees her as turning around the district as well
Durkin: a gift to be able to serve as their receiver
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Rennie Center's Conditions of Education in the Commonwealth
...which they've titled "Putting Students at the Center of Reform"
liveblogging once it starts at 8:30
Note: the report they're releasing today is here
Chad d'Entremont, Executive Director, Rennie Center
"visualize a child learning"
shares photos of kids being active, outside, engaged
not in classroom rows...or is it?
frameworks still largely built around a one-size fits all approach
state has accomplished a tremendous amount through the '93 reform law
suggest not that we lose that, that we build upon it
need to address blind spots, find ways to move forward
asking the question and planning for what comes next
liveblogging once it starts at 8:30
Note: the report they're releasing today is here
Chad d'Entremont, Executive Director, Rennie Center
"visualize a child learning"
shares photos of kids being active, outside, engaged
not in classroom rows...or is it?
frameworks still largely built around a one-size fits all approach
state has accomplished a tremendous amount through the '93 reform law
suggest not that we lose that, that we build upon it
need to address blind spots, find ways to move forward
asking the question and planning for what comes next
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Worcester meetings this week
Up this week:
- It doesn't appear to have been advertised anywhere, but there is a posted South High Building Committee meeting for tomorrow night at 6 pm in the school library. No idea what's on the agenda or where they are in the building project, as there isn't a folder or full list of topics anywhere I can turn up.
- The School Committee meets Thursday at 7 pm; you can find the agenda here. There does not appear to be a report of the superintendent. There are several retirements, resignations, and appointments. The enrollment report, already previewed in this weekend's T&G, comes back essentially as a budget preview (timely, as the Governor's budget comes out next Wednesday). It's worth noting not only did WPS break 25,000 students for the first time since 2003; while Worcester also remains the third largest district in the state, we're back within striking distance of Springfield (25,391 to Springfield's 25,633). The inflation rate squeaks in at !.1%, so at least this year, it's a positive number. Honestly, this probably needs its own post, but read the summary. Administration points out that having School Committee members add individual items to the curriculum is maybe not a good plan...and some schools sing the "Smiley Face" song already. There is response to a request on teachers on expired licenses. There will be a performance of the South High band (this is an agenda item).Mr. Monfredo notes the annual Worcester Historical Museum Valentine contest. Mr. Foley requests a budget presentation to the joint committee (on Education for City Council and on Finance and Operations for School Committee). Mr. O'Connell would like more on the 'no confidence' vote at Quinsigamond Elementary. There are also several recognitions and donations, plus grants of $10,000 for lacrosse at Doherty High and $14,000 for LIBRARIES(!) at Canterbury Street, Rice Square, and Worcester East Middle. PCBs and a grievance are on the executive session agenda for 6 pm.
- There is a Legislative Breakfast at 9 am on Friday at Worcester Tech, with a fairly extensive list of items: one would expect the Foundation Budget Review Commission, but there is also additional computers, preschool, kindergarten, MSBA, AP exams, and "a Compact to prioritize public education and coordinate efforts to firmly establish the Worcester Public Schools as the best urban school system in New England and beyond."
If I can, I'll try to make the section on Thursday on enrollment, as it appears to be the only budget preview Worcester is getting in January. unless there's one that appears as backup for Friday.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
December meeting of the Board of Education: opening comments
The full agenda is here; it will start with opening comments. Updating as we go.
Not here: Katherine Craven, Margaret McKenna
Sagan: second time that we have tried to livestream the meeting to the public
Sagan welcomes "all three of you, probably" who are watching the livestream
Not here: Katherine Craven, Margaret McKenna
Sagan: second time that we have tried to livestream the meeting to the public
Sagan welcomes "all three of you, probably" who are watching the livestream
Monday, October 17, 2016
Worcester School Committee meets Thursday October 20
You can find the agenda here.
Two things that are a carryover from the previous meeting: the PCB items, as they involve active litigation, were referred to executive session at 6 pm. The School Committee is also discussing contract negotiations with teachers and unit B (which is unionized administrators) and with IAs.
Also, the report of the superintendent on last year's standardized test scores was held over, so that is happening this week.
There was a Teaching, Learning, and Student Support meeting tonight; that agenda is here: AP scores, debate league, SkillsUSA, Playworks, and wifi.
There are a number of resignations, transfers, and appointments.
Much of the remainder of the agenda is reports requested by members: the state preschool expansion grant, discipline codes on SAGE (the online data system of the schools), content liaison information, a legislative breakfast schedule, MCAS appeals, goals assurances grant letter signing, site council meeting dates, services offered by Worcester Tech, and kindergarten classes of 25 or more that have no IA (there are none).
There is a request that donations to Heard Street School, to Belmont Street School (for the Healthy Kids and Family project from UMass), and to Burncoat High's day care be accepted.
Mr. O'Connell suggests that new schools have publicly accessible libraries and requests that Worcester Public Library events be shared with WPS students.
Mr. Monfredo wishes to congratulate Kevin Cox on his book being published, and principals on AP launches. He also would like students to learn the Smiley Face song. (yes, that is an item)
Miss Biancheria would like a report on the JROTC program, on the ALICE protocol, and on window replacements (as covered in the opening of school report, which does not appear to be online).
No live blog from me
Two things that are a carryover from the previous meeting: the PCB items, as they involve active litigation, were referred to executive session at 6 pm. The School Committee is also discussing contract negotiations with teachers and unit B (which is unionized administrators) and with IAs.
Also, the report of the superintendent on last year's standardized test scores was held over, so that is happening this week.
There was a Teaching, Learning, and Student Support meeting tonight; that agenda is here: AP scores, debate league, SkillsUSA, Playworks, and wifi.
There are a number of resignations, transfers, and appointments.
Much of the remainder of the agenda is reports requested by members: the state preschool expansion grant, discipline codes on SAGE (the online data system of the schools), content liaison information, a legislative breakfast schedule, MCAS appeals, goals assurances grant letter signing, site council meeting dates, services offered by Worcester Tech, and kindergarten classes of 25 or more that have no IA (there are none).
There is a request that donations to Heard Street School, to Belmont Street School (for the Healthy Kids and Family project from UMass), and to Burncoat High's day care be accepted.
Mr. O'Connell suggests that new schools have publicly accessible libraries and requests that Worcester Public Library events be shared with WPS students.
Mr. Monfredo wishes to congratulate Kevin Cox on his book being published, and principals on AP launches. He also would like students to learn the Smiley Face song. (yes, that is an item)
Miss Biancheria would like a report on the JROTC program, on the ALICE protocol, and on window replacements (as covered in the opening of school report, which does not appear to be online).
No live blog from me
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
No Time to Lose: National Council of State Legislatures weighs in on the post-NCLB universe
The National Council of State Legislatures after 18 months of study today released a report on what successful school systems around the world are doing. Their interest is in influencing the post-NCLB, state-focused, U.S. education universe. The full report can be downloaded here.
NPR has a good summary of the first three points in their report:
It'll be interesting and informative to see which states do anything about any of this at all.
NPR has a good summary of the first three points in their report:
1: More Help For The Youngest Learners In the U.S., poverty is a powerful drag on the youngest learners, with too many children showing up to kindergarten both hungry and lacking important cognitive and noncognitive skills. Research suggests that preschool, when done well, can have a profound impact on children's lives, but too often in the U.S. it's done badly or not at all...
2: Teachers Need To Be Better And, in this case, "better" is a big tent. The report's authors say it starts when future teachers are still students...Once these top-flight teachers enter the classroom, they also enter a very different professional reality — one that involves as much training as teaching. In some places, the report says, just "30 percent to 35 percent of a teacher's time is spent teaching students, while the rest is spent on activities such as working in teams with other teachers to develop and improve lessons, observing and critiquing classes, and working with struggling students." Too often in the U.S., teachers work in isolation, cut off from their fellow teachers. In contrast, Stephenson says, many high-performing countries have embraced a team-teaching model, where newer teachers are constantly observing veteran teachers and being observed, fine-tuning their skills in real time. Overseas, observation is about improvement — not just accountability. And then there's pay. Yes, other nations have higher standards for their teachers, but with those standards come increased respect and pay, on par with engineers and accountants. Imagine that.
3: Fix Career And Technical Education (CTE) You know, the classes formerly known as "voc-ed" — auto repair, welding, carpentry, etc. The report suggests that, in the U.S., many schools have failed to adapt their CTE offerings to fit the needs of the modern economy, preparing students for jobs of the past instead of matching them with today's employers. It's strange given the mantra heard often from U.S. policymakers and educators, that today's schools should prepare students to be "college and career ready." In reality, Takumi, the Hawaii Democrat, says many schools "have kind of pushed career to the side." As a result, too often students need college in order to be career ready. To make matters worse, in the U.S. CTE also has a perception problem. Stephenson, the Utah Republican, says "it is considered a second tier for low-performing students. ... That is our tradition in America." . It's a chicken-or-egg problem. Whether that perception created the current reality or was created by it, both need to change.The fourth item is "reforms that are connected and aligned as parts of a clearly planned and carefully designed comprehensive systems," which is not only difficult to summarize: it's also difficult to do.
It'll be interesting and informative to see which states do anything about any of this at all.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Pasi Sahlberg on "Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn?" at MASBO
Pasi Sahlberg is keynoting this morning at MASBO's annual institute. Updating as we go...
Sahlberg notes that his presentation will have some things cross posted on his Twitter feed. UPDATE: he has posted the slides from today here. The chart in particular is key to this!
speaking about some concerns he has with American education as now
Sahlberg notes that his presentation will have some things cross posted on his Twitter feed. UPDATE: he has posted the slides from today here. The chart in particular is key to this!
speaking about some concerns he has with American education as now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)