as goes Brockton...

At the School Committee meeting at the beginning of August, the Brockton School Committee was told that they should anticipate cuts for next year's--FY28--budget: 

School district leaders in Brockton anticipate cuts in the coming years as they stare down two budget time bombs: the end of the Student Opportunity Act and rapidly escalating pension costs.

"The way I see it, this does mean cuts moving into next year, and we are going to start talking about the budget early," Superintendent Priya Tahiliani said about the impact of pension payments during an Aug. 4 school committee meeting.

On top of pension costs that are increasing by over $1 million every year through 2032, Tahiliani has warned committee members about the end of the Student Opportunity Act following the 2026-27 school year. The act has poured millions in state aid into districts like Brockton that serve more high-needs students than average.

While the increases in pension obligations is specific, the end of the implementation of the Student Opportunity Act--and thus the end of those increases in state aid, which were, for districts getting the big bumps on this, covering the actual cost increases, because the inflation in the formula does not--is not only a Brockton thing. It is a Worcester, Springfield, Holyoke, New Bedford, Fall River, Lowell, Lawrence--are you sensing a theme here?--thing.

This is not being talked about enough. It is not making enough noise locally in those cities, let alone at the state level. 

I happened to be behind a log truck on 202 last week,
and while I have not seen that movie, I have seen the clips.
Think of this post as a warning of much more certain danger.

Bailing twine and bubble gum: school funding in the House Ways and Means proposal

 The House Committee on Ways & Means released their FY27 budget last Wednesday, and they're currently taking amendments before the House debate on the budget starts next week. 

I've been considering what to say about it since then (sorry if you've been waiting for me to post on it), and the refrain I kept coming back to is what state law says is the intent of the Legislature when it comes to school funding: 

The full section reads: 

It is the intention of the general court, subject to appropriation, to assure fair and adequate minimum per student funding for public schools in the commonwealth by defining a foundation budget and a standard of local funding effort applicable to every city and town in the commonwealth.

Two things on Massachusetts school budgets

•  The United for Our Future coalition, which includes (among others) MASC, MASS, and the MTA, sent a letter calling for increased education state education funding to cover an array of issues. The Eagle-Tribune covers that here.
  
  The letter reads in part: 
  

  The “perfect storm” of factors behind the fiscal crisis remains in place. Rising special education and transportation costs, funding lost to charter schools, the constraints of Proposition 2 ½, and technical issues with the formula that determines how our schools are funded all continue to strain local budgets, as they have for years. In addition to those challenges, many districts also face looming threats of federal funding cuts along with unanticipated declines in enrollment spurred by federal attacks on our immigrant students and families. These enrollment declines are heartbreaking for our students and school communities and directly impact funding in a school finance system such as ours that is based on per-student allotments.
   When our districts are under-resourced, our attention is forced away from developing creative and innovative ways to enhance student learning and more effectively support their social and emotional wellbeing. Instead, we are left to fight to minimize devastating cuts to programs and staff so that we can try to maintain the basic, daily services on which our students depend. We cannot accept this situation as an unavoidable reality. As champions of public education, we know what work must be done to build public schools that prepare all students for success in the classroom and beyond, but local communities cannot do it alone.

Ensuring next year's state budget is ready for federal impacts

 As I noted back in October, there were changes made to how the federal government is managing SNAP and Medicaid that will have impacts on school funding and on the state budget. I said then, and I continue to fear now, that I don't see indications that Massachusetts is making this part of our preparation for FY27 and beyond. 

What is freaking me out about funding right now

 I'm at the ASBO conference this week in Fort Worth--ASBO is the Association of School Business Officials--and one of the "must attends" for me is always the federal policy update jointly done by ASBO and AASA (that would be the superintendents). This stems from that presentation yesterday.¹

Setting aside for a moment:

1. that we do not currently have an operating federal government
2. because we do not have a federal budget or continuing resolution
3. and that some of the proposals for the federal budget have been alarming

I want to talk here about something that is actually going to happen because it is actually law and appears to not be in what is being planned for, at least from what I have seen in Massachusetts.

Consider this the early warning siren on FY27

 

A big thank you to Sam Drysdale of State House News Service for giving us a good look at the danger the potential federal funding cuts count have to how we calculate--and then what we get--in state education aid under Chapter 70. 

To figure that out, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) uses “direct certification,” matching students to benefit programs such as MassHealth (the state’s Medicaid program), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC). If a child shows up in one of those databases, the state counts them as low-income, meaning their household income is below 185% of the federal poverty line, the standard set under the Student Opportunity Act.

This system saves schools from the expensive and time-consuming work of verifying every family’s income. But it also creates a risk: if families lose eligibility for benefits because of federal policy changes, their children can disappear from the state’s low-income count — even if their actual household income hasn’t budged.

As Senator Lewis notes, the state can change this, but they'd have to actively DO that to avoid this for FY27. 

Let your legislators know now! 

Things to read this week

•  on federal education funding, Elleka Yost from ASBO International wrote this piece, which beats my "nobody knows" answer
  
  
• this state Supreme Court decision from Wisconsin is my favorite school finance story of the week. You might remember Governor Tony Evers vetoed the "20-" in a school funding bill in 2023 to change the end date to 2425. The court says that was within his veto power.
  
  
• this piece on Beverly Hills (yes, 90201) shutting out students after the wildfires in California rather hit home, I have to say
  
  
• My latest edition of "70 on 70" (for this round "60 on 70") at last Friday's MASC Learning Lunch was recorded and is online, for those looking to better understand the Massachusetts school funding system. We got into hold harmless and minimum aid funding of the past few years in this one towards the end. 

The Speaker says 'no' on education formula review this year

 From State House News Service from last week (which no one appears to have picked up, so this is behind a paywall; I assure you this is the whole education funding section): 

No Chapter 70 Reform In The House This Year

Though Mariano promised that the House Ways and Means budget proposal will continue funding free school meals for all public school students and commit to fully funding the Student Opportunity Act, he told reporters that reform of the school funding formula is off the table.

Superintendents, school committee members and public school students have made their case at budget hearings for the state to overhaul the Chapter 70 funding formula for public schools, saying that small- to mid-sized districts are facing a financial crisis resulting in teacher layoffs, program cuts and even school closures.

Asked after the chamber event if the House would consider changes to the formula this year — something that Senate President Karen Spilka has signaled an interest in — Mariano said no.

"No. Too much uncertainty," he said, shaking his head.

He did say the House plans to continue funding Commonwealth Cares for Children early education and child care grants, a $475 million program that began with federal dollars during COVID-19 and the state has since taken on.

Overall, Mariano said the House would spend "more than a billion dollars" on the EEC sector. Gov. Maura Healey recommended $1.8 billion in state support for early childhood education in her fiscal year 2026 budget, a 20% increase from fiscal 2025.

Mariano said the House plans to take up legislation aimed to bolster access to early college programming for Bay State students, and voiced his support for three-year college degrees. The Board of Higher Education is considering regulations to allow students to achieve their bachelor's degree with less than the typically-mandated 120-credits.

"I was pleased to see that the Board of Higher Education moved to consider adopting this innovative approach. A reduced bachelor's degree would be especially beneficial to non-traditional students, and it will allow graduates to enter the workforce sooner and with less debt. This is the kind of fresh idea we need in education right now," he said during his speech to business leaders.

 "Too much uncertainty" includes "whatever we do is going to cost more," of course.

What isn’t being mentioned in state school funding advocacy: a 🦨 at the garden party post

 It is time once again for another of my “skunk at the garden party” posts; partly in response to last week's Ways and Means hearing on education and local aid, I want to flag something which is not, generally, being mentioned.

With thanks to my husband for his photos of actual Worcester skunks

To consider: a budget that meets the moment

In light of the Joint Ways and Means hearing on Monday (on education and local aid)

spring flowers on the Boston Greenway this week

One of the, rightful in my view, complaints about responses to the Trump administration has been that others aren't meeting the moment: whether it's Senator Schumer and others caving on the continuing resolution or Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison caving on their legal work or please add whatever you like to this list which is already depressing.

I have been mulling since Governor Healey filed her budget this January. While I posted about the budget from a regular perspective then, the light in which I think we really should be considering FY26 is in light of the national scene. We did have some of this, of course, back at the consensus revenue hearing back in December--

I'd sum it up as "We feel pretty good about where revenue is heading next year EXCEPT for the giant unknown of the federal government, which YIKES."

--and there continue to be murmurings at the state level again about revenue, but I haven't seen a lot of discussion of what all of this should mean for expenditures. 

Noting again that we do not have the capacity to make up federal funding for the state budget if we lose it all, what are some of the things about which the budget should concern itself? 

It would seem to me, as a state that intends to uphold the civil rights of all, and to fight off efforts to make our lives actively worse, that making sure people can live here rises up. 

That's housing, not just building more but being sure we use what we have. 

It is making sure that people have the education and skills they need to get and keep jobs here; I think here, among other things, of the ongoingly level funded adult education line (though I know that this year, there is funding elsewhere). 

It's actively offering support--mental health support? legal support?--for so many bearing the brunt of the federal mess, like immigrants, trans people and their families, veterans, and I feel as if this list could go on.

It's certainly appropriately funding the AG's office, so those there can continue to wrestle with the federal administration on their disastrous attempts to break things. 

That's not a full list--it isn't intended to be one--but I do think we have to frame the budget in this manner. I'd love for us to think of it this way.

The Globe said the quiet part out loud

 It's WAY down in this piece on teachers' salaries, but hey, they noted the fundamental inequity of funding schools locally!

Currently, about half of funding comes from local governments, and much of the rest comes from state governments, with the federal government providing little support. That means wealthier schools tend to be better funded — and they can raise additional, voluntary pools of money.

 PDF here.

That's Massachusetts in a nutshell: we have local districts that are majority local funded, whose cuts when they come are cuts of things majority state funding districts have never had. 

“I still believe in hope*

From my notebook
From last April 

Okay, so clearly my New Year's Day post on the state senate potentially taking up school funding came from a place of skepticism.

But Senator Jo Comerford is clearly so excited and happy on her Instagram post from the same day that I feel like a heel for only that take, so let's try for the optimism that is the thing one needs to keep on trying in this field of education. Our kids, after all, deserve better.

on state education funding in the new Legislative term

 Senate President Spilka, per State House News Service*: 

As for education funding, Spilka said she's heard from a lot of senators that their districts are having issues with education funding, even as the Student Opportunity Act has ramped up investments.

"So I think every 10 years or so, it should be re-evaluated and looked at... Things are changing so rapidly in schools and in education, so it's time to take a look at at the formula," she said.

...one hopes by "formula," she means the municipal contribution side as well as the foundation budget; you might remember that the Foundation Budget Review Commissioner was just that.  

As I've said, I remain very concerned that what is being heard by legislators is less than solid on what is working on and what is not. And I am quite certain that what is not being heard is how really not great we are as a state on equity and effort. That is what should be the biggest push of any proposed reform.

_____________________

*paywalled; I'll keep an eye out for a repost

When what you've heard isn't the case: busting some common misconceptions on the Student Opportunity Act

First required xkcd:

I'd like one of the major issues in education, too, but all I can do is in my little corner of the universe.

With the consensus revenue hearing on Monday, we are about to kick off the FY26 budget season here in Massachusetts, which will be the fifth of six years of implementation of the Student Opportunity Act revision.

...and yet, still I hear some of the same misconceptions and misunderstandings circulating about the SOA. 
So, as we enter that season, here's a counter to some common things I hear.

FY26 kickoff is December 2

 The state's official start of discussing next fiscal year is the Consensus Revenue Hearing, which this year, per State House News, will be December 2. 

No further info yet (they've been having them as at least partly remote meetings), but more as I have it.

Book recommendation: Dividing the Public: School Finance and the Creation of Structural Inequality

swiped from a footnote of "Dividing the Public" is this quote
from Fletcher Swift skewering Massachusetts

 Summer is generally when I try to catch up on the rest of the year's "oh I should read that!" pile, particularly as it pertains to education. Among my reads that I want to recommend to anyone else for whom school finance equity is either a vocation or an avocation is Matthew Gardner Kelly's Dividing the Public: School Finance and the Creation of Structural Inequality.

Gardner Kelly, who now teaches at University of Washington College of Education (he'd been at Penn State), takes as his topic K-12 public education funding in California, but really it is a way of examining what we may think of as foundational to education in this country: the tie between local funding and local enrollment. California starts from a completely different direction than, say, Massachusetts on this, and at various points in its history had advocates who argued that it wasn't really a state public education system if it depended on local funding. 

I could quote at length from passages of his book, which also includes midnight property raids, racial violence, and footnotes well worth examining (the above has already been added to my standard presentation on Chapter 70!). I really appreciated, though, a book that drove me to question why it is that we think the taxation of local property ought to determine the revenue available to local schools at all, and how it is that a state can require a statewide education system--check the quote at the bottom of the page here, Massachusetts!--without state revenue paying for it.

State conference committee budget on Governor Healey's desk

I'm working through updating my running spreadsheet on the FY25 budget, but the conference committee budget released last Thursday, passed Friday, and sitting on Governor Healey's desk has a few interesting wrinkles in the education accounts. 

• In the ongoing "this is actually a terrible way to add aid to schools, but it's easy to understand" race, you might remember that the Senate had upped the House's $104 minimum per pupil increase to $110. It's usually a good bet on those that the higher number will prevail, but in this case, it did not, as the conference committee budget adopted the $104 minimum per pupil. The additional $74 per pupil that this is--remember, the Student Opportunity Act sets this at $30 per pupil--is coming from Fair Share funds. 
  And this is a really terrible and inequitable way to add school funding which is completely undercutting the entire fight over the foundation budget and passage of the Student Opportunity Act, which I will continue to scream into the void over here.
  
  
• Free lunch for all kids is in there, but the conference committee budget took the smaller (in this case Senate) number of $170M for reimbursement on this one. We should be alarmed by this, as this doesn't fully fund the account. 
  Remember, this is now a state MANDATE; if the state doesn't fully fund it, districts are on the hook for the difference. There's been far too much dependence on supplemental budgets and "finding the money somewhere" on something as grounding as feeding kids for me on this one, so consider raising this with your legislators. You can be sure that most of them are running for re-election on it. 
  This, too, is funded from Fair Share, by the way.
  
  
• Interestingly, the conference committee passed a higher number than either chamber for circuit breaker, by close to a million dollars; the passed account is $493,177,484. This suggests to me that they're using as up-to-date reimbursement projections as possible, which is good. 
  
  
• Charter reimbursement was identical all the way through, at $198M, which is $33.7M. We've been assured that this fully funded; let's keep an eye on it.
  
  
• Similarly, homeless transportation reimbursement is funded at $26.6M, which has been consistent through the process. Given how costs on this have exploded across the state, I cannot believe that this comes close to reaching need (setting aside that frequently these reimbursements don't ever get to non-regional school districts, anyway, getting stuck in municipal general funds). 
  As Salem Superintendent Zrike said before the Board of Ed in June: these are OUR kids. We need to be sure they're covered, but we also can't pretend that is magically happening somehow without funding.
  
  
• Rural school aid came through at $16M, which is down from the Senate's $17.5M but up from the House's $7.5M. While I know this isn't the hoped-for $60M, I think it's worth noting that this is now an accepted, included account, that isn't having to be stuck in over the course of the process via amendment.
  

This is obviously not everything, but it's the ones I thought to flag. I will update this post when I have the spreadsheet updated, which I hope to do later today.

UPDATE: The account by account spreadsheet is still lacking a bit in commentary, but the numbers are updated.

Also, the preliminary cherry sheets are now also updated for both municipal and for regionals.

How the state's opioid settlement distribution didn't understand school funding and how that disadvantaged cities and towns in regional districts

First, let's please give a MAJOR thank you to the teeny Harvard Press, which covers the town of Harvard, and has spent over a year working out how it is that their town received the funding it did through the opioid settlement.*

The article is here, and you are going to want to read it, even if all you care about in this scenario is school funding. Here are my bullets on why:

• Because Massachusetts has a weak county system, having the county government allocate the funds by town, as was done elsewhere, wouldn't have worked, so Massachusetts used a formula: it took spending by the town in nine categories that were potentially connected to the settlement--including education!--and then that amount was assigned a percentage of the county spending on all those categories within the county. 
  
  
• However, spending by the town to an “intergovernmental agency” was not counted, so town funding of regional school districts did not count at all.
  
  
• And majority state funded districts, like the cities are by design, were underrepresented, as only their local spending counted.
  
  

These are two flaws in this calculation that should have been immediately obvious to anyone who understands how school funding works in Massachusetts. 

Read this. Share it.

_______________________________________

*And let me just say now: if you're a bigger media outlet, and you pick up this story, you had BEST cite The Harvard Press as the source of the story. Don't be a schmuck about this.

The Board of Ed meets more than once this week

And if you thought their special Monday meeting to receive a report might be on the Racial Imbalance Advisory Council's report, which came out last week, you'd be wrong! No, Tom Kane has another report out on "education recovery"--he has a scorecard!--so they're having a special meeting. 
Gosh, it's going to be amazing when pet projects of individual Board members don't set agenda items. Also, it would be really smart if we had people OTHER THAN ECONOMISTS talking about the impact of the pandemic on kids.

Anyway, that's at 5 PM today, only online.

Tomorrow, the Board has their usual monthly meeting in Everett with a livestream at 9 AM. On the agenda (most without backups at this time): 

• an update on the Commissioner's search
• the end of year report from the State Student Advisory Council
• an update on DESE's educational vision (there's a link on newly arrived homeless students)
• an FY25 update

You're on your own for tonight, but I'll be liveblogging tomorrow. 

EDIT: I missed one: The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets jointly with the Board of Higher Education on Thursday at 3, in an entirely virtual meeting. That agenda includes a presentation on research of K-12 and higher ed, as well as discussions of early college and the FAFSA. 

What you can do on the Worcester Public Schools budget

By now, if you are the family of a Worcester Public Schools student or a staff member, you will have read the letter sent from Dr. Monárrez earlier this week regarding the FY25 budget and had a bit of a chance for it to sink in. If you haven't read it, I include the letter in full below at the end. 

You may also well have seen headlines from all over the state about school budgets facing real hardships this year.

Let's first note that it is not new information that the Worcester Public Schools are facing a budget gap. As noted in the links in the superintendent's letter (blogged about here), the district has noted the $22M budget gap since the release of the Governor's budget. We knew of the issue with the inflation budget as far back as the fall. 

There is a danger we run into this time of year, of the relative scope of the budget and budget issues being difficult to grasp. This isn't true exclusively of Worcester, but it is as true of Worcester as elsewhere. While, as noted, the gap is 4.4% of the WPS operating budget, that is a significant amount of money. 

This raises two related issues: