A collection of things to read and review

•  The back-and-forth in last month's House hearing on undocumented students' right to a public education revealed their using stats on English learners, which is not the same group at all
  
  
• The Wall Street Journal takes up the topic facing many Massachusetts towns this spring with a look at South Hadley's tax override (that's a gift link).
  
  
• I thought Jacobin's angle on the LA teachers strike (that didn't happen) being connected directly to the resistance to AI was interesting. This would of course be very much in line with the actual Luddites.
  
  
• I recommend subscribing to Benjamin Riley, but if you don't, please have handy his Illustrated Guide Resisting to "AI Is Inevitable in Education"
  Also, he was kind enough of share his family's really disturbing experience with his late father's resisting treatment because of what he received from AI; here's a gift link to The New York Times piece. 
  
  
• Speaking of AI, analysis finds that Google's AI overview is providing misinformation "on a scale unprecedented in human civilization"

daffodils, even

Board of Ed for February: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream is here. The meeting is fully remote.

tree in my backyard
why they are fully remote

Today will be (I believe) the sole appearance of  Amy Kershaw, as Acting Secretary of Education, as Steve Zrike will have started before their March meeting. 

Joint Committee on Ways and Means hearing on FY25: local and education aid

 

Greenfield Community College atrium

I was just asked why I sit where I do, and the answer is "next to the outlet when there is one!"

Some things to read

A few things I recommend reading: 

• Calling out the FY21 budget which does nothing for districts under the Student Opportunity Act, Brian Allen, Colin Jones, Diane Kelley, and Glenn Koocher (you'll recognize some names there) write of the impact and note that solutions exist in today's Commonwealth Magazine:
  

  This year Revere could lose $10 million and Worcester could lose $16 million in state aid if the SOA is not funded. So far, these districts are surviving because they can save money by not transporting kids to school and reducing other costs associated with in-person learning. But should Revere, Worcester, and many other cities move to in-person or hybrid learning, costs will skyrocket. 
  We are a wealthy state and have the capacity to help every school weather this crisis and provide their students with the same level of education as students in the wealthiest districts. All of our organizations believe that the state can raise the tax revenue we need for education (and other key areas such as public health, housing, transit, and child care). Research from MassBudget argues that the best way to do so is by asking profitable corporations and wealthy individuals, who continue to take home an outsized share of income earned in our state, to pay more in taxes. 

  ...to which I will only add: Hear, hear.

• The Hechinger Report had a good piece last week that described not only rundown facilities, but the vast gulfs between districts in the school buildings they have, which related to the decisions they made about whether to bring students back into those buildings (and if families agreed):
  

  States have no reason to be surprised by the sharp divide in children’s access to their schools. More than 40 percent of school districts need to update or replace their ventilation systems in at least half of their schools, according to a report by the Government Accounting Office. Moreover, low-poverty districts spent about $1 billion more on school construction than high-poverty districts in 2016, which comes to 41 percent more per student.

• And just out today, a study from Imperial College, London, looks at the impact the English lockdown (started November 5 and just being raised now) had on rates of coronavirus across the country. Rates were doubling every nine days before the lockdown; during it, they halved approximately every 37 days. Overall, rates fell by 30%. When one looks at subpopulations, as covered in the release from the College itself, most groups trended downward, with a single notable exception: 
  

  While previously all age groups were experiencing a rise in infections, now most are seeing a fall, with the exception of children between the ages of 5 and 17 where positive tests are increasing. This trend could be linked to schools remaining open during the current lockdown, in contrast with the first national lockdown, the researchers suggest. In those aged 13-17, the prevalence is now over 2% or 1 in 50 testing positive.

  Most things closed. Schools did not. Rates fell overall, but not for school-aged children, where they rose while they attended schools.  

FY20 Joint Hearing on revenue in the press

I'd recommend starting with Katie Lannan's coverage for State House News Service, found here.

Despite a strong economy, last year’s $1 billion budget surplus, and revenue collections that are outperforming expectations so far this year, the potential for an economic slowdown and future recession loomed as the budget-writing process for next fiscal year kicked off on Wednesday.

You can also check Mike Deehan's coverage at WGBH.
It is projected at this point that the state's tax rate will come down next year.
The question of the state's bond rating--which impacts building schools--is covered in this bit about the Treasurer.
And for those asking, didn't we have a new source of revenue, here's that coverage.

FY20 Joint Ways and Means Hearing on Revenue

About to come to you live from the Joint Ways and Means hearing on revenue, starting the process of agreeing as to how much money the state will have to budget for FY20.

Updating as we go
Rep. Sanchez gavels in, noting it's the last time he'll do this
"this exciting session...that we have by statute to decide what revenues are going to be"
there is representation from the Senate (Sen. Joan Lovely) and the Governor's office (the Secretary of Administration and Finance Michael Heffernan)
represents the kickoff of the 2020 budget
despite the $1B surplus of the previous year, "we always have to remain thoughtful as we plan for the future"
"have been able to act in a unified bipartisan choices to make hard choices"
notes that rainy day fund is above $2B, that tax revenues are above forecasts
"everywhere I look, the cranes keep going up...and not only here in Boston, but throughout the Commonwealth"

Sen. Lovely "a vital first step in the budget process"
"critical that we forecast accurately"
"must be good stewards"
"our collections grew well beyond benchmarks"
revenue this year grew $423M beyond expectations
"we must be prepared for anything...our economy has remained consistently strong"

Secretary Heffernan
"keen appreciation for the process"
looking forward to testimony today
"look forward to our continued collaboration" with Legislature
and parting words for Sanchez
"but we are just five months into the fiscal year and we must always be mindful that circumstances can change"

Christopher Harding, Commissioner of Department of Revenue
Chief Economist
General Counsel
Have distributed copies of briefing book which will also be available on their website
"exceptionally strong revenue growth in FY18"
greatest single year growth since FY11, had been exceeded only 3 times in preceding 30 years
why? preceded by two years of disappointing revenue growth
(and note that they're still getting FY18 tax filings)
S&P index rose; "jump in estimated payments...partly due to strong stock market performance" and jump in capital gains
federal tax code: impact on state revenue
"corporate tax revenue tend to be volatile"
SALT  payments from personal side encouraged (federal side)
strong Massachusetts economy throughout
"less indicative of trends than episodic factors"
financial markets much more uncertain this year than previously
"given these conditions, the more volatile sources of income cannot be depended upon"
nearly full employment, so further growth in employment may slow
slower growth nationally would at some point slow growth in Massachusetts
among longest periods of economic growth in history (will reach that in July)
"not projecting a recession to begin during fiscal year twenty" but coming
potential upside on benchmarks for next year
"should be treated with caution"
"believe some of the fiscal surplus was borrowed" from next year
"we believe that our prior FY19 benchmark remains appropriate"
based on FY19...
2% to 2.9% over FY19 forecast
range up to 3.5%; midpoint would be 3.2%
assumptions of note: tax rate down to 5%
on marijuana sales: "use with caution for budgeting purposes"
fading impact of federal tax changes, international markets, concerns about international trade
state employment rate "is impressively low" and projecting growth of less than one percent to just over
possibility of growing gains in tax revenue exists, but when those will come in "is impossible to predict"
"unclear whether state revenues will continue to be strong through the year end"

and questions
Sanchez: past two years have been completely different (from one another)
"what we can learn from that projecting from the future?"
A: significant taxes came in at the end of the year
"in some cases to prepay based on uncertainty"
"strong economy indicators, strong job growth" as we exited '18
Sanchez: assuming we hit tax rollback figures, what will be impact?
A; first rollback to 5.01% by $84M in FY19 and $175M in FY20
"and you can read that on page seven, Mr. Chairman"
(to question) sales tax exceeded expectations

Lovely: gaming tax revenue?
A: we have not looked at that, falls under the Treasurer
"have not received any proposes for changes"
to question: exceeded estate tax benchmarks "significantly"
"most volatility is estate side"
very strong revenue from marijuana sales, will continue to track that

Chang-Diaz: actual numbers versus baseline numbers
"actual is raw dollar increase"
"baseline adjusts for an administrative or legislative changes throughout the year" to do a comparison that is more accurate
Chang-Diaz: so it gives us more of an idea of what is happening in the economy rather than policy changes
Chang-Diaz: expected increase in income tax rates: why not yielding an increase in revenue?
A: "there's a model and complexity"
"not a one for one...needs to be adjusted for volatility"

Rep. Walsh: rise in GDP but expectation that employment will rise more than that
A: GDP looks at all sectors, labor side looks at just jobs

Q on online revenue
A: online registration from day one
approximately 370 registered; additional after decision
"in tens of millions right now...a nice steady growth right now"
tracking very closely who has and has not registered
"have sent them friendly reminders" of those who have not registered
do have enforceement measures

Rep. Cutler: rainy day fund
A: hard to predict when things will turn and how long they'll turn and thus how much the fund needs to be

Next up Treasurer Deb Goldberg
Goldberg wishes both Sanchez and Kulik well
Sanchez "Madame Treasurer, I'm not in a casket!"
Goldberg notes that she met Sanchez when he first ran and knocked on her door
"most of you have consistenly heard me speak of the need to replenish the rainy day fund"
here to thank you for doing so
note tax change: impact on tax exempt organizations
do not have a significant number of bonds maturing in near time
income rates had begun to increase
"navigated the markets effectively this year"
"have seen wide investor interest...and robust demand from traditional retail investors"
realistic about the challenges faced
"manage our unfunded pension obligations...on track to be funded by 2040"
"we will not turn our backs on [retirees]"
unclaimed property reversions; on track to meet total reversion estimate of $131M
"consistently returning more and more money to its rightful owners"
Lottery aid: fourth straight year topped $5B mark; $997M in net profit
Gaming landscape has shifted: lottery has adapted
increased investment in retail partners
"most efficient lottery in the United States"
pitch for online lottery
"understand that there will not be progress without partnership"
notes concerns about corner stores but not how one would deal with them
and offers to help with sports betting

And questions:
Sanchez: how to better communicate our fiscal strength and responsibility to rating agencies?
Goldberg: did a road show in NY to rating agencies when she was first elected
will recommend another one
"many states offload debt onto their counties and other state agencies we have; we do not do that, and we don't seem to get credit for that"
"they were very focused on the rainy day fund"
recommend going back down to New York and seeing them again
Sanchez: feel funding of unfunded pension liability is realistic?
Goldberg: will make recommendations again in January in response to new projections
"in good shape to whatever may come in the next couple of years"
past few years "we had major overperformance"
Sanchez: how do you come up with those projections? should we make an adjustments?
Goldberg: we use actuarial estimations, "it's a complicated data-driven process"
look at funding schedule every year

Kulik: online lottery; mentioned 11 states with online lottery presence
are there any that are a peer state (NH, Kulik says, in size and revenue, not comparable)
Goldberg: we are losing potential customers to NH
Michigan; as their sales have grown,their retailors sales have grown
which means they're creating gamblers?
Goldberg: can set up stops on their mobile phones for themselves so they only can spend so much
"patterns that you can begin to see"

Sen. deMacedo: what would you like to see happen on rainy day fund?
Goldberg: rainy day fund is important but not all they look at
was recommending a minimum of $4B
"I would recommend that we keep putting money in the rainy day fund"
"when we don't adhere to fiscal policy, it costs the state opportunity and money"
"I can't begin to tell you how many communities need new schools, and that isn't because smartboards would be nice. They need new buildings."
if we don't have good bonding, we can't borrow for it
"I think of the pipes underground" water quality is a health issue

Chang-Diaz: where the sales of lottery are happening?
Goldberg: due to commissions, we know where the sales happen, but not where the people are
"there's always the conversation of communities where it appears people would have a lot more money"

Lovely: on gaming revenue: any idea on projections?
Goldberg: we would not know anything about gaming revenues, and that is not within our department
Gaming Commission would know that; "that's not our office...do you want to move it there?'
(DoR had said Lovely should ask Treasurer)
lottery in casinos; hearing some concerns about siting
"not looking at one on one of the casino versus the lottery...we're being assaulted by multiple resources"
"if you don't innovate, you don't grow and you potentially die"
and that's it for the Treasurer

Federal Reserve Bank economist Dr. Zhao (?)
New England Public Policy center
overview of labor markets: continue to post solid job gains through October of 2018
8.8% increase over previous year (non-farm labor) for Massachusetts
by sector: construction sector posted largest year over year rate of growth (5.1% increase in the state)
outpaced nation in professional and business services, information, and other job services
measurement of unemployment (usage rate? maybe?) which takes in those underemployed as well
7.1% as a state (7.8% nationally)
labor force rate has grown continuously since 2016
only state in the region with labor force participation over that prior to the recession
last time it was this high was 2003
seniors 65 and older are part of what is driving it
tighter labor market, thus a stronger wage increase than the U.S.: 3% over prior October
2.4% increase across the U.S.
housing market: increase 6.8% nationally, 5.3% increased in Massachusetts
passed pre-recession levels
are slowing somewhat; attributed to rising interest rate
fuel and utilities increased by 4.6% over year before
top exporters reported year over year drop in Massachusetts
outlook: 2.1% over the next six months
job growth strong on average; unemployment low; house sales slowing
"economy to grow at a positive but slower rate in the near term"

Question:
Rep. Fiola: what are we exporting to China?
A: recent change? depreciation of U.S. dollars

Next is Mass Taxpayers Foundation
2.4% increase is what they are projecting
"does not include marijuana sales" or one time revenue
nor does it assume a tax rate drop
decline in capital gains is what they're projecting based on
slower employment growth projected
demographic headwinds leading to a slower growth in jobs
aging and decling workforce due to one of the lowest birthrates in the country
declining population between 16 and 64
negative impacts of opioid epidemic
initial signs of strain: pending home sales dropping, sagging auto sales, business investment (stock buyback rather than new investment), oil prices down,
tensions with China, concerns over Brexit, concern over economic downtown
increase in tax revenue of 3.6% is what they are projecting for FY20
don't recommend any revision to current fiscal year projection
"we are on borrowed time" regarding a fiscal downturn
"we certainly would like to see a higher balance in the stabilization fund"
"certainly is less than rating agencies would recommend" due to volitality of revenue sources, which would recommend 10% of state annual budget
states' ability to withstand a moderate or severe recession recently rated

to questions:
Sanchez: business confidence is down from a year ago
MTF: consistent with a lot of what we're saying
exercise is to look 18 months out; "so much easier to add a supplemental budget over the course of the year than have to take money away
Sanchez: insight "revising elements of the Grand Bargain"?
MTF: would require additional money; small businesses operate on smaller margins, and that bears watching
Rep. Malia: opioid epidemic?
MTF: economy is losing out on wages of folks who would otherwise be in the economy
companies because of absenteeism or presenteeism "has a considerable cost"


William Burke, Beacon Hill Institute
increase of 2.4% increase in tax revenue projected for FY20
current labor market in the United States is strong
250,000 jobs increased in October nationally
slowing growth over the next two years
"expected growth to slowdown in 2020" due to trade policy, other factors
"the Massachusetts outlook remains strong"
"expect growth to moderate from the current robust pace"

next testimony (I don't know who this is)
includes reductions in personal income tax rate
3.4% growth of revenue expected
"economic growth is expected to slow"
federal tax policy change: question of excess revenue in FY18 comes at expense of fiscal year '19
used estimates of FY18 without change
refunds were $446M less; payments on returns were $554M less
"seems to indicate that people indeed did move" filing from FY19 to FY18
fsical year income for businesses: consistent with corporations timing their fiscal liablity to get the lower tax rate
"there is a downside for the fiscal '19 estimate" (they were paying ahead)


Michael Goodman's testimony (UMass Dartmouth)
leads the Public Policy Center
testimony reflecting on context of time
capital gains realized in FY19; reporting well above benchmarks
"while this is very encouraging, there are a number of reasons why I think we are not going to be able to sustain this pace of growth"
aging and slow-growing population concern in keeping up with workforce; have been meeting ways in various ways
defer retirement, underused employees
domestic migration (usually unusual for us) "it may be this time is different"
crossborder commuting (NH, RI)
federal immigration laws and enforcement practices are particularly unhelpful
"our most important competitive advantages are the talents and innovative capacity of our people--our human capital"
"limited additional capacity to support growth at the current pace"
"sizable and troubling gap between the performance of the Greater Boston region and the rest of the state remains"
and even as Boston booms there is "increasing congestion on our roadways, a growing reliance on our already struggling public transit systems, and...a serious housing affordability problem"
regarding trade: "it turns out trade wars are not easy to win"
notes that new schools, which he agrees with the Treasurer we need, will need steel rebar, which now will cost 40-50% more than it would have without the trade war
thus increase cost for the Commonwealth
"growing consensus that there is a reversal of economic fortune in the offing"
running a nearly $1T annual budget deficit at the national level; lacking capacity for action if needed, let alone infrastructure investment
rainy day fund below FY07 levels
"a number of good reasons to be optimisitc about the Commonwealth's near-term economic and fiscal prospects"

Sanchez: labor force participation?
Goodman: they have stayed on and not retired
Sanchez: ethnic and racial groups: who is participating?
Goodman: that is being tracked; some recognition among employers that they need to work in the people they have
transportation and education needs
Lovely: older population staying in: want to work or have to?
Goodman: yes
Lovely: student debt; do we know what that looks like?
Goodman: does place a burden on the next generation
do millenials like roommates and not like cars or are they unable to afford them?
more the latter
"it is a significant burden and it is changing behavior"
Rep. Fiola: workforce training; really keep our eye on that
Goodman: long been a significant social problem; now an economic imperative, because we "literally cannot afford to leave anyone behind"

AND THAT IS A WRAP: ON TO FY20!

Commissioner Riley takes questions

...who jokes that for the next three hours "we're going to review the rules and regulations of the department"

first question: Baker has pledged no new taxes; how are you going to pay for it?
Riley: last year, the state found a billion dollars in revenue they hadn't expected
"the economy is booming; if it keeps up, we'll have funding to apportion for education"
"the Governor is not a guy, as a Republican, who is in favor of new taxes, but I live in Boston, and I see the cranes going up all the time"
"if this continues, I have to advocate to advocate for funding to go towards education"

Q: what role does global education play in your thoughts?
Riley: when you look at the LOOK Act, the seal of biliteracy
"I think you're starting to see the realities of a more global perspective"
"I think MCAS has done a decent job...I welcomed the advent of that testing, but it only takes us so far"
" there are other skills...harder to assess"
on seal: trying to ensure that we have kids who are truly bilingual
Q: any openness to other "seals"?
Riley: like the Boy Scouts? Let me think on that for awhile
moving from class to class in 45 minutes "and it can be soul numbing"
"we're losing a generation of boys"

Q: "I know we're in a fist fight over Chapter 70..." what about early childhood?
not seeing this Governor raising taxes
"not always about the money, sometimes about how you use the money

Q: love what I hear about MCAS not bringing us all the way; anything new on collaboratives and vo-techs?
Riley: "playing nicely together in the sandbox"
"more kids get into the school"
working with the vocational school on kids that maybe were at risk "and we figured out the money"
versus this continued civil war

Q: assessment on civics education?
Riley: what could an alternative assessment look like that isn't necessarily a bubble test?
committee put together on that
"we've asked people to think outside the box on what an alternative assessment could look like"
testing taking too much time: have to figure how to take less
"adaptive testing"
"now there are item bank issues and other things we need to work on"
Note from group: unevenness in funding on technology
Riley (defers to Mary Bourque of Chelsea on where the funding came from...not the state)
Bourque notes ACCESS tests as well, and that students who are ELL take longer on MCAS tests

Q: teachers of color; MTEL doesn't show any indication of how good a teacher will be
Riley: I know some state people who would disagree with that
Q: pipeline of potential future teachers?
Riley: 40% of our students are children of color, only 7% of teachers are
(26% of adults are)
Lawrence did it by training paras; went after kids who had graduated from Lawrence High
morgage assistance for those working
"we have to have incentive programs for them"
"have to change the perception of teaching in this country"
MTEL: persistence rate issue
those of color who don't pass the test the first time are less likely to take the test again
"we're going to go look at that right now"
"working to recruit this spring"

Q: accountability on attendance
Riley: doing a survey on this accountability system
was in process when he came in
"one of the things I hear about is students with real medical issues"
"We're going to be looking at that"

Q: LOOK bill; unfunded mandate
Riley: more options
"just because you have the freedom, doesn't mean districts will necessarily take that freedom" and not all programs are good for kids

"Unfortunately, neither of them works"

MLB catcher and hitting coach Charley Lau on the two theories on hitting the knuckleball. 

...nor do the theories on minor league stadiums bringing in tax revenue.

For example:

A large body of academic research has found that despite optimistic projections of the economic impact of stadium subsidies, subsequent analysis indicates that they have little to no effect on the local economy and the economic well-being of nearby residents. 

"A Case Study on Stadium Benefits"

And:

...any economic benefit a city sees in shelling out for a minor league stadium is largely imagined. Examining 283 minor league cities from 1985 to 2006, she noted that even Triple-A towns that saw modest increases in per-capita income didn’t see enough of a bump to cover stadium expenses. Also, while those towns sometimes see small increases in rent as a result, the combination of all the added residual income still isn’t enough to warrant the public outlay.

"How Minor League Baseball Struck Out with Taxpayers"

And:

 Cities keep trying, but the economic stimulus provided by pro sports teams—the parking lots full of out-of-state license plates, the overflowing restaurants—is more anecdotal than real. 

"The Braves Play the Taxpayers Better Than They Play Baseball"

And:

Professional sports can have some impact on the economy. Looking at all the sports variables, including presence of franchises, arrival and departure of clubs in a metropolitan area, and stadium and arena construction, the study finds that the presence of a franchise is a statistically significant factor in explaining personal income per capita, wage and salary disbursements, and wages per job. But this impact tends to be negative. Individual coefficients, such as stadium or arena construction, sometimes have no impact, but frequently indicate harmful effects of sports on per capita income, wage and salary disbursements, and wages per job.  

  "Stadium Boondoggles Spread to the Minor Leagues" 

And (UPDATE, as this looks specifically at the Worcester deal):

After the announcement by the city and the team Friday of their signing a letter of intent to build a stadium in the Canal District, WBJ sent copies of the financing details to 10 economists and stadium experts around the nation to gauge whether Worcester's claims over the stadium development paying for itself – without the need for current tax dollars – would come true.
Of those experts, the only one who spoke positively about the deal was the Smith College professor who was hired by the city to judge the economic viability of the offer to the PawSox. The rest doubted the stadium-pays-for-itself claims would come to fruition.
"There's just mountains now of economic evidence that the payoff that's promised and what actually happens is far different," said Joel Maxcy, an economist at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

"Sports economists: $101M WooSox Stadium Deal Unlikely to Beat the Odds"

All of the above have extensive links to further research to the same ends; I haven't cherrypicked these. 

Note in the above, by the way, that parallel to the claims being made in Worcester, the tax revenue increase coming from offshoots of the stadium does not pan out. Let's agree, therefore, that, claims aside:

Worcester officials promise no existing city tax revenue will be used to fund the ballpark project. Instead, the city will create a District Improvement Financing District around the park and ancillary development. According to a fact sheet on the new park, new taxes and other revenue from within the district will pay for financing.

In 2022, the first full fiscal year of operation, Worcester official project they will owe $2.9 million on an overall $100.8 million loan. But they’re anticipating $3.7 in revenue from the development, operating at a surplus of $741,000.

On the revenue side, state tax gains are projected at about $2 million annually from income tax, and food, beverage and hotel taxes.

...Worcester, and its taxpayers, are on the hook for this stadium. The $100M in bonds have to be paid regardless if the projected funds come in.

However, the $100M loan for this stadium is not all that the city has planned.

This is on top of the $194.6M that the City Council authorized for the new South High back at the end of March. Remember, in contrast to earlier projects in Worcester, the state through MSBA is only reimbursing 55% of the costs of the new South, due to increases in the per foot cost of building. Thus over $100M of the cost of the new South will be covered by the city.

This is in addition to a Doherty High project that has yet to find a site and has yet to receive state approval as to its plan, but will be at least as expensive as South (more, if the City has to fund land for the project). It will similarly be a lower reimbursement rate--it isn't as though costs to build have any prospects of coming down over the next several years--and thus a similar amount=--$100M--covered by the city.

The acquisition of this debt in concert with the federal administration's decisions around imports led to a discussion at Worcester City Council the first week of March.

Mr. Petty said maintaining the city’s infrastructure is equally important, but there is a limit to the amount of money the city can borrow.

“Hard choices will have to be made,” he said. “Where do we put the money? Do we put it into the school or do we put it in somewhere else? Infrastructure is important, too. The finances of this city are the most important thing we do; everything goes from there. A balanced approached will be needed when it comes to paying for these big items. Some tough decisions are going to have to be made.”  

And Worcester has a third high school not mentioned above that has yet to even be accepted into the MSBA pipeline: Burncoat, which is (as the state has acknowledged) in worse shape that Doherty and would need to be a middle/high project, given both the proximity and condition of the middle school. While Burncoat could follow the North and South building staging (building a new building on the athletic fields while the old building remains in use; taking down the old building and reconstructing the athletic fields), it is the arts magnet and a 7-12 building has different requirements.
Figure at least another $100M.

Finally--and most disturbingly to me--no one is making any plans at all regarding the $70M in "urgent" (having to do with life or safety needs) repairs the spring Facilities Master plan reported out. While the report was made at a joint subcommittee meeting with City Council, it's not clear that the report has been taken up either by the city administration or by the school administration in discussions with the city. Those are basic systems repairs at schools that, come a week from today, we'll once again be sending 27,000 kids to.

I realize that it is much more fun to smile at press conferences where everyone is clapping than to ask how we're going to meet basic functions of municipal government like providing schools in decent repair. It is the job of an informed polis, however, to ask how we continue to run our municipality for the benefit of our actual residents.
It is for the latter that we elect City Councilors.
And School Committee members, for that matter.

How the tax bill hurts school budgets

Yes, it's a disaster in many, many ways, but let's talk about how it's terrible for local school budgets.
Local school budgets are funded almost entirely through state and local taxes. The degree to which a local district is federally funded varies (usually in connection with student need), but even a district with a relatively high degree of federal funding like Worcester gets less than 8% of its district budget from federal funding.

WPS FY18 budget, page 18

Where does the rest come from?
In Massachusetts, the state's internal standard is that 51% of the foundation budget comes from local sources and 49% from state sources statewide. Districts, we know, are almost all paying more than the foundation budget towards their district budgets. That money comes largely from property taxes. Towns have few other sources of income. Even a city like Worcester, which does have other sources of revenue, recognize property taxes as the biggest source of local revenue.

City of Worcester FY18 budget, page 5. Note, incidentally, that the second largest source of funds is the state's chapter 70 appropriation for Worcester, which passes through directly to the schools (WPS and charter).

At the state level, Massachusetts had $26 billion of revenue projected for FY18 (this fiscal year); of that, over $15 billion was from income taxes. It's the largest single source of income for the state.

Both of the above--income taxes and property taxes--are deductible from federal taxes. You might remember that when you filed your federal income taxes, you filled in (or the software self-populated) what you paid the town in property taxes and the state in income taxes, among other things. The federal government then didn't tax you on that amount. That's the SALT (state and local taxes) deduction.
The tax bill passed by both the House and Senate removes that deduction. And what would that do?
I'll quote here from the Salon article, which they're sourcing from the Government Financial Officers Association report:

...the loss of the SALT deduction would apply significant pressure on states and municipalities to reduce taxes in order to offset the increases in federal taxes paid by their constituents. Using the 8th Congressional District in Texas north of Houston as a model, the GFOA estimates that the district would see an increase in federal taxes of $306 million dollars. Offsetting that with state and local tax decreases could impact $125 million in school funding. Simply put: education funding is an enormous local and state expenditure, and it would have to be cut in order to provide any relief to tax payers who lost SALT.

In other words, the federal government just raised most of our taxes, and the only source of "relief" on that would be to cut local and state taxes. And those are the taxes that fund public schools.

So what can we do? Well, it still has to survive conference committee, so keep calling. 

Possible federal tax code changes and the impact on schools

While we can't (particularly with this administration) know what direction a revised federal tax code would take with regard to education, EdWeek gives five areas to watch as that comes up for discussion (possibly). The state and location deduction, particularly given that it's been modeled, is the one that would have the biggest financial impact.

Funding urban education at the whim of private enterprise

Lastly, the framers' decision to place the provisions concerning education in "The Frame of Government" -- rather than in the "Declaration of Rights" -- demonstrates that the framers conceived of education as fundamentally related to the very existence of government.                                                 McDuffy v. Secretary, 1993

Front page article in the T&G today on something we all knew was happening: "Urban districts lean on private support as public funds dwindle."

Let's talk for a minute about how problematic this is.

The biggest problem is what I've posted above from McDuffy v: education is a public endeavor, which is to be done for the public good, and thus is done with public funds. Allowing private enterprise to determine what is funded not only runs us right into this careerism focus which is plaguing education now, anyway; it sends us into territory in which private enterprise determines what public education is to be. While this is in keeping with much of what is happening in government now, we should fight to keep it away from public education. Public education isn't to give companies their next round of workers; it's to make sure we continue having a democracy.

The more immediate danger, of course, is that pointed to by Tom Scott:

any acceptance in Massachusetts that businesses and individuals can replace what taxes should be paying for is a "dangerous path to go down."

Contrary to what he says, though, I'd say we're already there. When the superintendent of the Worcester Public Schools estimates that she's spending 20% of her time wooing businesses, when there's a 25,000 student public system that's needing leadership; when the Governor thinks that a fundamental reform of how we fund public education in the Commonwealth isn't among the most pressing issues on his plate; and when we have private companies talking of training their employees in issues of education to assist, we're already there.

We need funding reform, and we need it yesterday.

Increase in students: increase of budget?

Biancheria: students back from Spirit of Knowledge, need for supplies for students that have enrolled
Boone: enrolled in seven different schools
all across the city (except Worcester Tech, as there's no midyear enrollment there)
nominal to moderately significant
Allen: generally instruction supply dollars are based on enrollment a year ago
changes our charter school tuition and reimbursement; happens quarterly
would happen later this month
City Council sets tax rate next Tuesday; finalizing with city what the change and increase funding to Worcester Public Schools would be since Spirit of Knowledge
in a Friday letter tomorrow, ahead of the City Council agenda coming out tomorrow
allocation recommendation on December 19 meeting "really in three areas":

• placement of Spirit of Knowledge students
• budget deficits
• resources for FY15

Jackpot?

With the ongoing community chatter regarding the siting of a possible slots parlor in Worcester, I started to wonder what one could figure out about the changes such a facility might make on the public schools. As the first thing that keeps being argued is what a great community benefit the financing would be, I thought I should look at that first.

And, sure enough, there's quite a bit to find: specifically, there's quite a bit about the impact that the Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh--owned by the same group proposing a slots parlor in Worcester--has had on their school system's finances.

Most specifically, it lead me to this settlement in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Rivers Casino, owned by Rush Street Gaming, has appealed their property assessment every single year that they have been open.The casino opened in August of 2009; they have appealed their property taxes in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
As pointed out by a local columnist, it's difficult to feel much sympathy for a facility that has brought in $1 billion in revenue since it opened. The facility has repeatedly claimed that parts of their mitigation agreement should be counted towards their tax assessment. As schools in Pennsylvania are largely dependent on property taxes, the appeals hit the school budget directly.
While the court settled the past years, for 2013, the casino is appealing their tax assessment again.This again puts their school budget in jeopardy. It also means that the city and schools must spend more time--and money--to try to get what was touted as being a boost to local tax revenue to pay their assessment.

Now, this gets even more interesting when you apply the school finance system in Massachusetts. Should any such facility open in Worcester and make any money, it would increase what the state uses to calculate community wealth.
As Worcester would, to the state's perception, be wealthier, the state would lower our Chapter 70 aid.
The expectation would be that the city would be able to pay for more of the school budget out of the tax levy.
That only works, of course, if your taxpayers pay their taxes. If they instead take the city to court, then the city would be on the hook for the increased proportion of the school budget and would not have the funds to pay for it, as the facility wasn't paying taxes owed.
If you think we have a net school spending gap now, agree to sign a deal with Rush Street Gaming.
THEN you'll really see a gap!

Tons of conversations around schools at Council tonight: UPDATED

And I did not manage to liveblog. Too involved.
I will try to catch up later.
Long story short: Councilor O'Brien held the tax classification as well as the associated transfers under personal privilege, largely because he did not want to pass another budget that underfunded the Worcester Public Schools.
THEN there was a recess.
THEN Councilor O'Brien came back out and rescinded his hold and the Council voted the transfers and the tax classifications.
HOWEVER it appears that the "let's all have this discussion together" bit from earlier in the conversation is still going to happen next week.
So, if you have any interest in school funding, and, particularly, in the City meeting its legal obligation to fund education (per M.G.L chapter 70), then I would urge you to do two things:

1. call your city councilor, the Mayor, and the City Manager and express this commitment.
2. plan to be there next Tuesday night.

Elsewhere on the ballot on election day: a wrap-up UPDATED

So we know the news from the top of the ticket--and there's a good letter here to President Obama this morning--but there were a number of other education-related issues and positions of interest nationwide.

• Congratulations this morning to Glenda Ritz, the state superintendent-elect in Indiana! Ms. Ritz defeated Tony Bennett, who has been pro-corporate type reform and was HUGELY funded by those sources. Ritz has been quoted as saying there's too much emphasis on standardized tests. Good news!
• Bridgeport, CT defeated a ballot question calling for a mayorally-appointed school board. Score one for democracy! Michelle Rhee's group spent $100,000 on that loss.
• According to the tweets coming out of Chicago last night, the city would like to elect their school board, by an overwhelming (80%!) margin. That measure was non-binding. 
• Miami-Dade County in Florida has passed a $1.2 billion (with a "B") bond issue for schools. 
• Houston, Texas passed a $2 billion (likewise, "B") bond issue for their schools.
• California defeated Proposition 38 which would have progressively increased state income taxes to fund education. However, the state passed Proposition 30, which is Governor Jerry Brown's measure to increase taxes on the wealthiest, as well as add a temporary increase to the state sales tax, all for education funding.
• Alabama defeated the change to their constitution, that, while taking out the language on segregated schools, would have cast doubt on the guaranteed right to a public education.
• Georgia passed a measure that moves the power creating of charter schools back to the state level (from the local level). And we know how well that one works...
• I've heard reports that Washington also passed their measure 1240 on charter schools--that state hasn't allowed them--but I can't find definitive word.

Mixed, but not a bad night for education. And Mr. President? We're holding you to that promise on sequestration not happening.

The money is where?

Very sorry I couldn't make it to the Worcester Educational Collaborative's budget presentation tonight. Duty called elsewhere. If anyone has notes, I'd be interested!
Before you utterly panic about the future of funding of public education, you may wish to read Bruce Baker.

You know, there are actually legitimate researchers and organizations out there tracking the condition of state and local revenues. And while these have been some tough times, their findings are somewhat less apocolyptic than the comments of Rotherham and Petrilli above… who don’t actually look at state budget data when making these claims. Here are the findings from the most recent quarterly report from the Rockefeller Institute:

dispelling rumors

Monfredo goes on record to "dispel rumors" that WPS are not asking for more money
"implore the city fathers"
Worcester close to the bottom in funding education over the legal limit