On Governor Baker's FY21 budget proposal

I am sorry it has taken this long for me to get this into a blog post. I did tweet this out when the budget went up online on Wednesday.
The Governor's budget--House 2 in this second year of the Legislative term--is online here. You may also find useful the FY21 Chapter 70 school finance page from DESE (much more descriptive that previous years) and the cherry sheets (the net state aid calculations) for municipal and regional.
As last year, I have started an Excel spreadsheet with the accounts, the FY20 projected, and the FY21 proposed, along with any notes. Please feel free to use and share it, and let me know if there are ways it could be more useful.

It is the first year of the implementation of the Student Opportunity Act, so the first question is, was it implemented?
I think my answer on that is "mostly, but," as I said to Commonwealth Magazine when they called me this week.

• The estimation was the 1/7th of implementation of the Student Opportunity Act would take an additional $300M in Chapter 70 aid statewide; that was hit. 
• The new law guarantees $30/pupil minimum increases with hold harmless; that was done. 
• House 2 does increase health insurance by the GIC three year average increase of 2.34%, rather than the inflation rate for the rest of the foundation budget, which is 1.99% (which is not great at all). 
• The special education rate does take the 1/7th step towards the goal rate, plus 1/7th of the new enrollment counts
• Likewise English learners category takes 1/7th step towards the goal. 
• Low income...does not. Remember that this year, the state was directed to use the FY16 free/reduced count as a percentage to apply to this year (unless the direct certification count was higher). That added 46K kids to the count statewide, which increased the amount of dollars devoted to this category. As a result, the Governor's budget implements only 4/100ths of the goal rate. The state was directed to implement the changes in "an equitable and consistent manner" and I would argue: this isn't it.
  To give some idea of what this looks like, here are the rate charts for FY20 and FY21: 

• 

  This is FY20, the current year. Note the length of the bottom lines, particularly the very bottom one, relative to the three through six, which are the grade level foundation rates.

  
  

  

  This is FY21, the budgeted year. Note again the length of the bottom lines, the low income increments, relative to three through six. We are to be getting the bottom one equal to that in seven years. Unless not.

The danger in both state and local budgets has always been that the "new money" was going to leave those doing the allocations with the impression that they didn't need to fund other accounts (or to the same level), because schools should just pick up those activities with the new aid. This is certainly the Governor's framing of the budget. Not only are a number of accounts zeroed out--civics education, financial literacy, computer science--but several are severely cut:

•  extended learning time (7061-9412) is cut by $10M (it's a $13.9M account cut to $3.9M).
• likewise, the after and out of school grant is cut from $8.5M to $2.5M. 

Given the resources being made available in a single year of a seven year phase in, this is abrupt and not borne out by the resources put forward.

For those looking at other accounts, some of which also had SOA requirements: 

• regional transportation (which we last saw getting a boost in the supplemental budget) is budgeted at $75.8M, which is where it came out of conference committee last year. That was about an 83% reimbursement level; no doubt costs of grown, and I have yet to hear projections for this year.
• McKinney-Vento homeless transportation reimbursement is $11M, which is level funded from last year's conference committee budget. The supplemental did add another $2M to that, but unless that is re-appropriated to the schools, that goes to the general fund in municipal districts. $9M was 37%, implying that $11M was about 45%, but I would think that costs have also gone up. 
• MassBudget projected that the circuit breaker account would have to increase by $22.5M in order to incorporate transportation, as required by the Student Opportunity Act; the account goes up by $23M. However, this means there is not space in the account for the usual growth of costs. It isn't clear that this is appropriately funded.
• Similarly, charter reimbursement was projected by MassBudget to need to rise $29.4M in order to be at least 75% as required by the new law; the line increases by $19.4M in the Governor's budget. I am told that it is expected that once actual enrollments at charters are known this will be closer to what is needed. 
• educational data services (7061-9200) is going from $579,786 to $1,078,231, and I have no idea why, and I cannot find any explanation of it. I can't find any explanation of anything; are they not posting any narrative this year?
• recovery high schools were sent to study in the Student Opportunity Act, as their costs aren't being covered: last year, they were funded at $3.1M, while the Gov's budget has them at $2.6M.
• rural schools have been added the past several years, generally on a budget amendment from Senator Adam Hinds. Thus it is a bit of a victory for it to be in the Governor's budget this year, even if it is at $1.5M, rather than the $3M that is projected for FY20.
• (upon consideration, adding this): it does not appear the Governor is requesting additional appropriation for the Department, despite the SOA reporting requirements. Someone has to do the target calculations and review and respond to the reports; it appears that it's going to be the same stretched staff already there. 

It's always important to remember--and particularly important this year--that the Governor's budget is where the conversation starts. Get some idea of where your district is (if you haven't gotten your hands on circuit breaker projections, ask!), and go talk to your reps and senators. 

Senate amendments on the funding bill

...which was reported out of Senate Ways and Means as S.2350, An Act Relative to Educational Opportunity for Students (AREOS?); the amendment are online here.
Note that a significant number of these, including the first ten, are from Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, a prolific writer of amendments.

I'll include the numbers, but I'll cluster these by topic, as there are overlaps:

Regional Transportation reimbursement:

• 1 reimburses regional transportation at "not less than 85%"
• 2 creates a commission to study 100% reimbursement for regional school transportation
• 11 sets regional transportation reimbursement to 85% but takes out "subject to appropriation"
• 36 removes the "subject to appropriation"
• 43 would add any municipality over 95 square miles to transportation reimbursement; they must be using a different list than I, because I have Barnstable as the largest and it's less than 60...if you check the sponsor, you'll be shocked to find this would, it appears, apply only to the town of Plymounth, which still encompasses much of the original Plimouth Plantation. 

Minimum per pupil increases:

• 3 increases mimimum per pupil aid to $35/pupil
• 4...to $40/pupil
• 5...to $50/pupil
• 6...to $100/pupil

Reviews of the foundation budget:

• 7 amends to review every five years (the bill proposes 10)
• 8 does the same but with different language
• 14 bumps labor representation to two
• 35 also sets the foundation budget review commission to every 5 years
• 36 requires a foundation budget adequacy study

Circuit breaker:

• 9 boosts circuit breaker reimbursement to 80%
• 10 sets the approved reimbursement threshhold to $34,345 from $45,793. 

Reports:

• 15 requires school level reporting on mental health supports
• 17 makes more specific the reporting out on use of funds and specifically bars the Commissioner from decreasing them
• 24 requires than any new reporting be considered in light of other reporting the state already requires
• 31 requires sort of "workforce preparedness" reports
• 34 ties the district's improvement plans much more closely to declarations of underperformance 
• 38 makes it clear that the district (not the state) is to determine what changes are necessary
• 39 would add "college completion" to the report the Secretary would give each year
• 52 adds student growth to what is being considered in the plan of how funds are used
• 65 requires that the report from districts including reducing disparities (rather than student achievement) 

Phase in:

• 16 provides for the annual consensus revenue agreement on implementation that was in the Promise Act and earlier bills
• 25 requires phase-in be equitable but also allows for a phase-in extention to 2030
• 53 requires proportional phase in of the recommendations
• 59 requires an annual report on phase-in as well as an annual hearing 

Special education:

• 28 bumps the low income assumption to 5% across the board

Recess:

• 12 mandates 100 minutes of recess a week for K-5 and forbids making it shorter

Charter schools:

• 19 requires that the financial impact of charter schools be considered when considering their applications
• 29 creates a charter school policy commission 
• 51 deducts charter reimbursement from net school spending calculations (huh?)
• 60 creates a working group on charter school funding and reimbursement 
• 61 would take any charter reimbursement not funded out of the charter school's allocation 
• 62 includes minimum aid in the provision of Ch. 70 (so a district can be funded over foundation due to state requirements) and locks the out-of-district transportation reimbursement in as part of the full provision of the act (I don't think I entirely understand that one)

Athletics:

• 13 requires that each district with an athletic program have a licensed athletic trainer

Other commissions:

• 18 specifically DROPS "expanding use of technology to deliver instruction and enable operating efficiences" and switches " encouraging ways to reduce costs and improve educational outcomes" to "encouraging ways to improve fiscal health and educational outcomes" and "reorganizing" to "optimizing" from the recommendations to come from the rural schools study
• 20 creates an Unfunded Mandates Task Force
• 22 would have the report on Rural Schools only report out on low-income districts unless warranted by the study
• 23 would add an appointee of the minority leader of the House to the 21st century advisory committee
• 27 requires that the commission reporting out on municipal wealth specifically consider the impact of Prop 2 1/2
• 33 would require a study of the circuit breaker and out-of-district special education provision
• 63 creates a commission on debt-free higher ed
• 64 adds some members and some new reporting requirements to the Rural Schools Commission
• 66 would create a special education commission to study provision of services 

MSBA:

• 21 prioritizes "school safety" funding in MSBA considerations
• 44 would further bump the MSBA funding cap to $800M

Parent engagement

• 26 requires that such parental engagement required by the bill specifically considers specific subgroups in doing so and report out on it

Homelessness

• 30 requires reimbursement of homeless student transportation, less federal reimbursements by November 20

Municipal calculation:

• 31 is intended as a sort of smoothing of municipal wealth calculations, requiring that in towns of less than 6000 people, the bottom and top 5% of residents be dropped from both the income and property values 

Recovery high school:

• 40 would allow for creation of a reserve fund locally for recovery high schools
• 41 would add reimbursement for recovery high school transportation
• 42 would study the costs of sending students to a recovery high school 

Early college high school:

• 46 would recognize early college programs for the same level of funding as vocational programs
• 47 would add early college to the spreadsheet at an increment above high school but below vocational (that was the Governor's plan)

Random other things:

• 45 requires a "school-based threat assessment team" at each secondary school that would create a threat assessment policy
• 48 creates an innovative health partnership
• 50 would add Easton to the Cambridge labor market adjuster 
• 54 allows 71B (out of district special education) schools to apply for the grants in the bill
• 55 mandates that each high school student must meet with a guidance counselor at least one each year
• 56 would create a certification for autism services
• 57 would bring back a full-day K grant specifically to get it everywhere in the state
• 58 creates a certification bonus for districts running programs leading to vocational certification
• 67 would set "(a)strong institutional leadership, (b) active student engagement in their education; and (c) differentiated instruction" as what is considered in awarding 21st century grants
• 68 would require financial literacy instruction
• 69 would creating a "Learning Innovation for Tomorrow" (LIFT) fund for funding innovation in education in districts 

The Senate takes this up for debate Thursday! 

Conference committee budget passes both chambers: a few notes

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

This is good news on low income:

It's not as great news on English learners: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

We have a state budget (almost)

Gin beat me to the Latin:

"Habemus rationem pecuniae," as a former Senate president who missed a state budget deadline by 104 days per NYT, might say https://t.co/9WxCvtv6ko

— Gintautas Dumcius (@gintautasd) July 18, 2018

You can download the whole 331 pages of H4800 here.
In terms of education, as just about always this budget cycle, "not bad" is the theme. The big news is that the Ch. 70 number is not only the Senate number, it also adopts the Senate language, which not only further added to health insurance implementation, it made English learners an increment above the base!
YES, that's some additional FBRC implementation motion!
If you're in Worcester, note that the conference committee taking the Senate number means there will be a revised budget with additional positions: good news!
It remains a $30/per pupil minimum increase, and 100% gap closing (which was in the Senate version as well). The Ch. 70 line also includes the House-included assistance for districts that were particularly hit by the low income change; that money is to be out to districts by September 1.

What else is going on?

• The always messy line for DESE (because everyone sticks earmarks in it) is down a bit, but it looks as though that is a matter of what earmarks are in it.
• METCO comes through at $22.1M, same as the Senate.
• The early literacy line is up $50K, a bit over $2M in total, with a few earmarks.
• It looks as though conference committee took a whole bunch of the educational earmarks and stuck them into one line item (7061-1192), so if you're checking for something, you might start there. The line totals $1.6M. The one thing of more general interest is that it includes $50K for the Berkshire County Task Force. 
• School-to-career connecting activities comes in at $5M, with some earmarks.
• The line for ELL programs is up $1M from the Senate to $2.5M.
• Institutional schools is the same as the Senate, at $7.4M.
• Adult ed comes in at $33.3M. 
• Regional transportation got the Senate W&M amount of $68.8M.
• The Senate effort to reimburse transportation for non-resident vocational students came through at $250K.
• McKinney-Vento reimbursement for homeless students took the higher House number of $9M.
• The AP line is higher than the Senate at $2.8M (Senate had $2.5M). 
• The lunch line stays at $5.3M and keeps its $10K earmark for Weymouth.
• The breakfast line is $4.9M, including earmarks.
• As above, Ch. 70 largely takes the specifics of the Senate, including the ELL language, though it also includes the $12.5M pothole for low income, which came from the House. The minimum per pupil increase is $30; 100% gap closing. 

Important point on the language in Section 3 for Chapter 70: DESE "shall submit to the house and senate committees on ways and means not later than September 1, 2018 its further recommendations for additional adjustments to the chapter 70 foundation budget calculation for fiscal years 2020 and beyond." This means the Legislature is REQUIRING A REPORT on improving reporting on the calculation of low income students BY SEPTEMBER 1. As this was among the major arguments the House was making in favor of their education funding bill, it appears the budget has now dealt with that.

• The promised $15M for districts that have students evacuated due to Hurricane Maria is included.
• Circuit breaker hits an unprecedented $319M; it really looks as though they're trying for full funding! There is a $200K earmark for Best Buddies, as well as $250K for extraordinary relief (for districts seeing extreme increases).
• District accountability audits are funded at $891K.
• The federal impact aid makes it in with an increase; now $1.4M.
• Charter reimbursement takes the House W&M $90M (the Senate had $100M).
• Innovation schools come through at $200K.
• Education data analysis is (weirdly down $1514?) $522K.
• CORRECTION: on the battle over the MCAS: $32M came through (what DESE asked for, the Governor put in, the House amended to, and the Senate didn't have): there is a specific set aside of $1M for the history/civics/social studies assessment.
• MCIEA gets the Senate (as amended) amount of $400K for development of alternative assessment and accountability.
• The Accuplacer/JFYNetworks (which at some point someone is going to figure out what they're about) line is $700K.
• Targeted intervention is up to $7.5M, though $150K of that is for youth workers in Everett and Chelsea.
• Expanded learning time is $13.9M (same).
• The line that allows DESE to actually spend the fees it collects from certification on certification rather than having it go back into the general fund made it in.
• Recovery high schools at $3.1M (same as Senate).
• After school programs at $4.2M with a lot of earmarks.
• Safe and supportive schools are up $100K to $700K.
• WPI's Mass Academy is in $1.5M
• YouthBuild comes in at the $2.4M of the Senate.
• Mass Mentoring the same $750K as the Senate.
• Conference committee did include the $56,920 in regional bonus aid. 
• Prevention of child sexual abuse is funded at the same $400K from the Senate.
• The push for rural school aid yielded real dollars this year, with $1.5M included for "school districts serving fewer than 11 students per square mile" plus a required report on future needs on such aid. 
• And the summer learning competitive grant program comes in at $500K.

The budget has to be passed by both the House and Senate, then it goes to the Governor, who may veto what he likes. We're running up against the end of the session on the Legislature's ability to override those vetoes.

UPDATE: to note that both chambers had passed the budget by the end of the day.

House budget amendments: we've got them!

I've tweeted out the House budget amendments with statewide education impacts, but I know that sometimes having them in a blog post is useful. Note that all of them are posted here, 'though they pop out, so I can't individually link to them.

• Rep. Ferguson filed amendment 29 bumping regional transportation to $73,100,000. That's the 85% reimbursement some had been seeking as a compromise.  
• Rep. Ferguson also filed amendment 31 which is a regional schools foundation budget commission.
• Rep. Madaro filed amendment 57, which would require priority enrollment in charter schools for those closer to the school.
• Rep. Malia is earmarking $200K for Alliance for Inclusion and Prevention trauma-based school training in amendment 97.
• Rep. Diehl in amendment 164 is amending H.4400 to say "The Special Education Advisory Council shall be tasked with drafting regulations on the training and licensing of Special Education Advisors." I'm not sure what that does.
• Rep. Boldyga amending the motor vehicle law around driving by a stopped, lights-flashing, school bus to remove a license on a second offense for 180 days or a year for a subsequent offense.
• As I noted last week, we have an FBRC amendment! Get 246 some co-sponsors! 
• Amendment 187 sets aside $500,000 within the circuit breakers for districts where out of district sped "exceed 25 per cent of the total district costs"and $1M and 25% for a school within the district (looking earmark-y).
• Amendment 192 from Rep. Kane is $2.9M for out of district vocational transportation.
• Amendment 212 (from Rep, Kane, though it has a bunch of co-sponsors) would allow districts to charge for out of district vocational transportation (no fee required for low income).
• Amendment 321 from Rep. Balser adds $50K for a needs assessment for gifted and talented students.
• Amendment 403 from Rep. Cassidy of Brockton bumps the economically disadvantaged deciles by what looks like 7%, which is a LOT of money.
• Amendment 410 from Rep. Scibak bumps adult ed another close to $2M.
• Amendment 488 from Reps. Pignatelli & Barrett (think Berkshires) going for a swipe of $5M of the $12.5M proposed for the low income hit some districts took. They're essentially outlining a requirement that would send it to the Berkshires.
• Rep. Jones (along with some of the Republican caucus) want to look at a private school deduction. (amendment 513)
• There are two things going on at once in 568: Rep. Gerry is trying to ensure extraordinary relief for Tyngsborough BUT ALSO boost the circuit breaker to $400,000,000...which is literally $100M. And that is a lot.
• Amendment 599, with a boatload of cosponsors, is for the ASOST-Q Grant, which is summers and after school, priority going to Gateway cities. It adds $3M to 7061-9611, which is the after school line.
• FULL CIRCUIT BREAKER FUNDING (looks like?) at $318,723,819 in amendment 693, which also has a boatload of co-sponsors led by Rep. Benson.
• Rep. Barrows and others looking for $50K for the Green Schools initative (that's 765).
• Rep. Hill wants to boost regional transportation reimbursement to $86M BUT ALSO wants money not used in the Marijuana Regulation fund in regulating marijuana used for regional transportation reimbursement! (?!?!) (amendment 785).
• In 796, Rep. Walsh (Peabody) and others are looking for a Model Emergency Response School Commisssion to create models as above.
• Rep. D'Emilia and others in amendment 823 bumping regional transportation to $86M, which is more like 100% of reimbursement.
• Rep. González of Springfield looking to bump Reading Recovery to $500K (from $100K) in amendment 834.
• Amendment 840 from (brand new) Rep. Hawkins puts $400K in funding to MCIEA's alternative evaluation of districts (Hawkins was a math teacher in Attleboro before being elected).
• Rep. Walsh (Framingham) and others seeking to boost the circuit breaker to 100% reimbursement (amendment 875).
• Rep. Schmid and MANY others looking to add $120K for Farm to School spending in 891.
• In 898, Rep. Elizabeth Malia would make recovery high schools regional schools for the purposes of transportation (aka, making them eligible for reimbursement) "subject to appropriation" of course.
• Reps Cronin and Cassidy are straight pulling $250K out of DESE and sending it to Brockton in amendment 916 (they don't add to the bottom line!).
• In 930, Rep. Stanley and MANY others seeking to bump McKinney-Vento transportation reimbursement from $9M to $22M, more like fully reimbursement.
• In 947, Rep. Balser wants the Safe and Supportive Schools funding expended "in consultation with the safe and supportive schools commission."
• Rep. Koczera and MANY others in 950 seeking to boost adult basic education up $2M (from $32M).
• Rep. Ultrino with MANY others seeking FULL CHARTER SCHOOL REIMBURSEMENT in amendment 952 (that's $170M, up from $90M in HW&M, up from the Gov's level-funded $80.5M).
• Rep. Hill with a straight regional transportation bump to $86M (that's 974).
• Three Boston reps in 977 also seeking to bump charter reimbursement to $170M (sometimes you can tell from these who talks to whom; this is the same as amendment 952).
• Rep. Mahoney (1062), looking to bump Mass Academy's level-funded $1.4M to $1.6M.
• Rep. Mahoney is sponsoring with others amendment 1070 to add $900K for pilot vo-tech programs; that's "lag funding" (to start programs before funding kicks in).
• Rep. Frost wants to create a $25M matching grant program for school resource officers through DESE (that's amendment 1113).
• In what doesn't LOOK like an #MAEdu amendment but is Worcester-related: amendment 1115 would make the CONTRACTOR responsible for fines acrued if elevators are not properly licensed.
• Amendment 1154 is a minimum per pupil increase of $50/pupil (from $30 in the House, $20 in the Gov's).
• Amendment 1169 boosts the increments of the poverty decile from $40 to $50 (topping out at $4,069.57). This is the discussion that was part of the Brockton/Worcester conversation around changes in the poverty rates being hard on districts that depend on them (and it's coming in from Rep. O'Day of Worcester).
• Rep. Campbell and others want to add $10,500 for the Massachusetts School Mental Health Consortium (that's 1219).
• Rep. Peisch is seeking to add $3M for early college pathways in amendment 1236.
• Rep. Peisch is also seeking in 1237 to revive the 2012 financial literacy committee.
• Related to education is 1238 from Rep. McKenna and others seeking a PILOT formula commission for state-owned lands. (McKenna represents Douglas, so Douglas State Forest is part of his district).
• Rep. Peisch appears in amendment 1241; she's sticking all of the recovery high school money together in the same line item.
• Amendment 1243, also from Peisch, appears to allow DESE to pay teachers and administrators for their work with the Department?
• In the ongoing battle over account 7061-9400, Rep. Peisch Rep. Peisch in 1255 seeks to amend the MCAS line back UP to the Gov's $32M (which is what DESE requested) AND puts back what looks like the Gov's language. This isn't the first time she's acted in a way that looks like looking out for the Department's interests.
• Amendment 1258 seeks to "convene a task force to study and develop recommendations on the training and certification of language interpreters" in schools.
• Rep. Muradian (Grafton) seeking $4M for out-of-district regional vocational transportation reimbursement (that's 1278).
• Rep. Hunt (in amendment 1315) is looking for a study and then a grant fund from @Mass_SBA on "school security infrastructure."
• Amendment 1343 is the half hour recess mandate (elsewhere filed as a bill).
• Rep. Holmes in 1391 looking to bump up the METCO line by $1,750,000 and earmark it for METCO Inc. of Dorchester.

And that is what we have! Co-sponsorship can happen right up until Monday the 23, when deliberation starts! CALL YOUR REPS! 

March Board of Ed: recovery high schools

Recovery high schools
Chester: five high schools across the state; to help students who have substance abuse addictions
clear that districts would like better guidance around the topic of recovery high schools
brought today for a final vote
obligations of sending districts with regard to special ed services
and clarify process of recovery high school and district of residence on how best to meet student needs

Two sets of comments: department clarified and simplified in a number of places in response to them
also felt some best dealt with through policy
Sagan: "surprisingly small...I can't imagine there isn't some need"
A: family involved initiative
adolescents reluctant to admit they need to attend
 Sagan: assume there's a big difference between admit the problem and admission
"is there anything we know that we might want to do to help more young people?"
most programs are residential and expensive (in other states)

Reg changes pass

The Board of Education meets Tuesday, February 28

The Board of Ed, on a Presidents' Day shift from their usual third week schedule, meets next week. The agenda is posted here (not a lot of backups as yet).

Monday night's meeting is the votes on charter schools. They're voting on three new schools:

• Hampden Charter School of Science West, proposed for Westfield which got some interesting coverage in the Herald this week due to ties to the Gulen movement
• Map Academy Charter School, Plymouth 
• Old Sturbridge Academy Charter Public School, Sturbridge

...amendments to charters at:

• Alma del Mar Charter School, New Bedford 
• Community Charter School of Cambridge, Cambridge 
• Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School, Hadley 
• UP Academy Charter School of Dorchester (Horace Mann), Boston

There are also updates on New Heights Charter in Brockton and a proposed renewal of the online TEC Academy. 

I'll add back in the details once those are posted. 

It's interesting to note, BTW, that public comment is not on Monday; it's on Tuesday morning. Thus the Board will not have to hear public comment on these proposed additions or expansions before their vote. UPDATE: The Board now will hear public comment prior to voting. 

Recall that the Governor's budget level funds charter reimbursement for FY18; this year it was about 54% of what it should be.

On Tuesday morning, after the round of comments from the Chair, the Secretary, the Commissioner, and the public, there is a discussion of the graduation and dropout rates for 2015-16.
There will be a vote on the new MCAS descriptors; this would be student test results, not district and school results.
There will be a discussion and a vote to send to public comment the Department's proposed freeze of accountability levels under the new test. There's also a "Technical Amendment to Regulations on Accountability and Assistance for Districts and Schools"...I don't know what that is yet.
There is a discussion and a vote for public comment on proposed changes to educator licensure and license renewal. There is also the proposed amendment to move the student impact rating out of a separate section of evaluation.
There is a vote on regulations on recovery high schools (which have completed their public comment period).
There is an update on the Governor's budget for FY18 and an update on Chapter 70.
I'll add more above once more is posted.

I have a meeting Monday night, but I'll be there Tuesday! 

DESE wants YOUR opinion!

No, that wasn't sarcastic at all!

There are a significant number of things out for public comment right now, and, thinking some of you would like nothing better than to use your time over the holiday break than to express your views, I'm collecting them all here in one list:

• Public comment on the ELA and math standards is due by February 17. A summary of proposed changes to the ELA standards are posted here. A summary of the proposed changes to the mathematics standards are posted here. The full changes are available for download of math and of ELA.

• Public input on the proposed new MCAS achievement levels and descriptors is due January 27. You can do that via this survey. 

• Public comment on the proposed changes to educator evaluation are due January 27. They are available for download here. Comments should be emailed to edevalcomments@doe.mass.edu. 

• Public comment on proposed changes to recovery high school regulations are due January 17. Those can be downloaded here. Comments should be emailed to achievement@doe.mass.edu.

• The standards for history and social studies are just beginning to be reconsidered. You can give input on this by taking this survey. 

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

Worcester meetings this week

There are two Worcester school meetings this week of interest:

The Worcester School Committee Finance and Operations subcommittee meets Monday at 5:30 (that's at the administration building, 4th floor); the agenda is here.
This is the first quarter meeting, so it closes out FY16, updates FY17 in full, and with accounts of particular concern...which are concerning. It's only the end of the first quarter, so there are no recommended transfers as yet, but currently FY17 for WPS stands at over $700,000 projected in the red. The reasons are telling:

• The loss of the state kindergarten grant when the Legislature cut it for this year: $694,132
• Special education tuition beyond anticipated: $442,912
• supplemental programs, in largest part additional need for translation due to updated Department of Justice requirements (hey, did we know anything about that?): $264,529
• transportation, due to the city not increasing capital spending, and thus WPS having to cut back on needed new buses (and rent instead): $130,468

That, of course, adds up to more than $700,000; if you look at the report, you'll see projected balances, as well. But this isn't a good place to end the first quarter on. And the first snow falls tomorrow.

And do notice how many of those have to do with the state needing to update the foundation budget.

There's a report on the MSBA-funded work done in WPS since 2012. A question of interest: the reimbursement comes back to the city; has the city been using the funds to pay off the MSBA-related borrowing? Or has it gone into the general fund?

Finally, there's a response to Mr. O'Connell's query regarding the signing of warrants. The full letter from City Solicitor David Moore is here. To say that this has rather startling policy implications, if fulfilled, would be an understatement, as Mr. Moore goes well beyond the municipal charter--which is in line with Lowell and Cambridge's charters, where committees sign warrants--into querying the position the school committee holds in state law (and drawing conclusions I will say that I have seen nowhere else).  He also never speaks of ch. 71, section 34, which is where the authority is derived. I also find the tone of polite horror at school committees having to sign off on every expenditure a little entertaining, as it's done in nearly every district in the state (yes, including cities).

The full Committee meets Thursday at 7 at City Hall; the agenda is here. The report of the superintendent will be on expanding preschool; there is as yet no posted backup.
There are reports of subcommittees, appointments, retirements, congratulations.
Mr. O'Connell requests a salary schedule.
Noting the update on school improvement plans that passed this past year, he also is asking for a process of consultation on school improvement plans.
Administration is requesting the School Committee accept $1700 in donations to Goddard Scholars.
Miss Biancheria would like to know how principals are evaluated.
She also is requesting that buildings be inspected with regard to: water systems, foundations, leaking roofs, heating systems, and wrapped pipes...sounds rather like the facilities plan noted in the subcommittee report.
Miss Colorio would like all teachers and other licensed personnel renewed through "the new data base tool from DESE" by which I assume she means this, which is just a database, not a new way to renew.
She also would like a robocall to go out on the recovery high school and on Worcester Opiate Educational Forum.
There are two prior year invoices, including one for $74,967.76 for special education transportation services.

There is an executive session: the teachers and the IAs are still in negotiations (hm...nobody else?), they're going to talk about PCBs some more, and there's a lawsuit: Lyons v. the Worcester Public Schools. That's at 6 pm, prior to the meeting.

November Board of Ed in sum

Good news all: the Board of Ed had a livestream this time!
The bad news is they're doing it through a website that requires a log-in, and on a site that doesn't keep the video.
sigh...
This isn't new technology; there are good ways to do this. Let's try harder, please!

The Board of Ed opened with comments from the Chair and the Commissioner. There then was a significant public comment period, largely of parents and community members from the Mattahunt School in Boston, which the Boston School Committee voted earlier this month to close next year in response due to the Commissioner's letter of "concern," presaging a declaration of Level 5/state takeover status. I think it only fair to note that the Mattapan community is largely a community of color, and there were multiple notes of the closings of rounds of schools in communities of color in Boston (as has been true across the country). The district plans to reopen the school as an early childhood center. The testimony was eloquent in the concern over the loss of a neighborhood resource and a space of learning and "home" for children, many of whom have faced significant trauma in their lives already.

The Board voted to send the revised ELA and math standards out for public comment. As yet, how to do that is not posted; I will share once it is.
Likewise, after an extensive discussion, the Board voted to send the revised educator evaluation regulations out of public comment. Note that this would also change the evaluation of administrators, also moving a student impact section into one of the existing standards (standard I for administrators). There is some significant disagreement among the Board members about the evaluation system as it stands, the role of student testing within it, and the relative importance of this. Most are deferring to Roland Fryer regarding the research on this.

The Board then discussed the two schools "of concern," beginning with Commerce High School in Springfield. The Springfield Empowerment Zone voted to add Commerce in October. As MassLive notes in the above linked article,"Schools in the zone are independently governed," and thus are not under the governing of the School Committee. This satisfied the Commissioner, who thus did not recommend that Commerce be declared level 5.

The discussion of the Mattahunt largely centered around the amount of control the Board had at this point, with several comments (including two from the Commissioner) that they didn't want to "second guess the school committee." Two things that were news: the Boston Public Schools administration had internally discussed closing the Mattahunt last summer (it had seemed that this had only been motivated by this latest state action); the proposals put forward by the community to the Boston Public Schools administration were not shared with the Commissioner (to gauge reaction) prior to the vote of the Boston School Committee. The initial discussion concluded with no action taken by the Board; a later comment by member Doherty that he was not satisfied with this led to the Commissioner's agreeing to Chair Sagan's proposal that he would speak with Superintendent Chang of Boston, informing him that the Board had heard impassioned testimony, were pained that the School Committee felt they had no other options than to close the school, and "remain open to what the district has to offer."

The Board briefly discussed their recommendation to the Secretary to inform the Governor's FY18 budget. While they may have discussed the foundation budget review commission in their budget subcommittee, it is mentioned nowhere in their recommendation. Do note, however, their recommendation of a new account for "reform/targeted assistance initiatives...leveraged to improve student learning."

The Board voted to send out for public comment proposed changes in the recovery high school regulations. They approved both amendments to charter schools (adding West Boylston to Parker Essential's region and adding 400 seats to Foxborough Charter).

The Board heard an update on standards setting on MCAS 2.0.
They also had a brief presentation on school discipline data from last year.

Proposed changes to recovery high school regs

back up is here

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday, November 29

You can find the agenda here.
It looks as though there is not a Monday evening meeting.
After the comments from the Chair, Secretary, and Commissioner, and public comment, the first item is continuing the discussion (and the vote to solicit comment) on the math and ELA standards.
As was previewed last month and is covered in the Globe, the Commissioner is moving forward with his recommendation to amend educator evaluation.
They're getting reports on the Mattahunt (Boston) and on Commerce High (Springfield), both of which were on the Commissioner's "very concerned" list when the latest round of test scores came out. The Boston School Committee voted last week to close the Mattahunt and reopen it as an early childhood center. Springfield has not taken any such votes after receiving what amounts to a Level 5 warning.
There are some proposed regulations for recovery high schools; the vote is to solicit public comment.
Amendments to their charters are being requested by Foxborough Regional Charter and by Parker Essential Charter. Foxborough wants to add 400 students; Parker wants to add the town of West Boylston to their region.
There is an update on standard setting for MCAS 2.0.
There is a discussion scheduled on last week's release of discipline data. 

And yes, I plan to be there. 

CPPAC: DA's office and school safety

that eventually segued, as it so often does, into budget

You may have heard we're having a meeting this week

The Worcester School Committee meets in public session this week at 7 (or so). We have an executive session scheduled for 6. You can find our agenda here.

We will be taking up two items in Executive Session:

• Executive session pursuant to Mass. G.L. c. 30A, Section 21(a)(2) to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel and contract negotiations with nonunion personnel, Superintendent’s Employment Contract.
• Executive session pursuant to Mass. G.L. c. 30A, Section 21(a)(2) to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel and contract negotiations with nonunion personnel, Interim Superintendent Employment Contract.

We have several groups coming in to be recognized (including the wonderfully named Spiritually Fabulous Ministries).
The section of the policy manual regarding the work of the School Committee, now on its second hold, is again on the agenda.
The report of the superintendent this week is on our alternative education programs, which has had a grant-funded outside evaluation. Should you have any interest in our programs, it's definitely worth a read.
The EAW is requesting that we open negotiations for successor contracts with Bus Drivers (Aids to the Physically Handicapped), Bus Monitors, Units A &B, Instructional Assistants, Parent Liaisons, ESL Tutors, abd OT/PT Assistants.
We're being informed a few personnel items.
The North High Alumni Association raised money for a van for the school, and so we're planning to thank them for that.
Mr. Monfredo would like to recognize the South High AP Pep Rally.
There's a conference later this month on "Human Rights and Social Studies" that some may be interested in.
We're being asked to accept a donation from Shaw's to McGrath Elementary of $400.
Mr. Monfredo is recommending that schools share best practices to improve school climate and parent involvement.
Mr. Monfredo is looking to schedule meetings with the delegation.
We're being asked to accept a donation of $250 from JVE for Tatncuk Magnet.
Mr. Foley is calling to our attention the work of the Unified Theater.
Yes, I've been selected for the 2015 the All-State School Committee...
Mr. O'Connell is requesting any update on the school security audit (which we got on Friday).
We're being asked to accept an anonymous donation of $5000 and a $100 donation from Kate Toomey to Tatnuck Magnet.
We're being asked to approve prior fiscal year payments to psychologists of $77.63 and $39.68, respectively.
Miss Biancheria would like a report on the Recovery High School.
Mr. Monfredo wants to talk about Family Literacy Month.

Finally, there are three from Mayor Petty:

• Request that the Administration ask the purchasing agent to prepare documents for a Request for Proposal for a search firm for the selection of the next Superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools.
• To consider selection of Dr. Marco Rodrigues as Interim Superintendent of Schools.
• To approve the timeline for the selection of the new Superintendent of Schools.

Executive session at 6; public session scheduled for 7, at City Hall or livestreaming online.