of all of the things Worcester could be spending this money on

...cameras and plastic buckets of what ALICE thinks is important...?

The federal government, too, has opened its coffers for school security spending, according to school officials like Worcester school safety director Robert Pezzella, who said his district specifically benefited from a bigger carve-out for that area in the U.S.′ annual Title IV assistance last year. After getting $60,000 for building security upgrades in the district’s allocation last year, he said the school department could see up to $200,000 this coming year for potential safety needs. 

“We seem to be in good times now,” he said, after previously seeing a “very dry spell” for school security funding at the state and federal levels. 

Worcester has used that extra money, along with its own annual $100,000 school safety budget line item and various government grants, to pay for extensive surveillance system improvements at the secondary level, according to Mr. Pezzella. This past year, the district installed dozens of new cameras and associated software at Worcester East Middle School, Forest Grove Middle School, Claremont Academy and Doherty Memorial High School. Mr. Pezzella hopes to make similar upgrades at Burncoat High School and South High Community School this coming year. 

“It’s much more expensive now than it used to be” to put in that new equipment because of the technology’s move to internet-based software, he said, adding the cost to revamp Worcester East Middle’s surveillance system, which involved putting in between 15 to 25 cameras around the building, was around $25,000 alone, for example. 

The district spent around $40,000, meanwhile, to buy around 1,400 Go Buckets for the coming school year – about one for each home classroom in the district, according to Mr. Pezzella. While the cost of the supplies is built into the per-bucket cost, he added, school officials got to pick out the specific items they wanted included in them, like hornet spray – an alternative to mace, which is not allowed on school grounds, that can be used to potentially incapacitate a violent intruder up to 12 feet away.

 The lack of deliberation that's taking place on this spending in Worcester is an abrogation of process.

Note also, that the positions the article notes in passing? One year, grant funded. When the grant funding vanishes...?

Justice delayed is justice denied

MassBudget released their long-awaited update to "Cutting Class," the report that gave numbers to our original sense that the foundation budget wasn't adequately supporting public education in Massachusetts. The report is entitled "Building an Education System That Works for Everyone: Funding Reforms to Help All Our Children Thrive" (and if I have a complaint about it, it's that the title is way too long; I've already mentally dubbed it "Cutting Class 2: Here's Hoping We Don't Need a 3.")

Some days, it's hard not to be disheartened by working on this. Yesterday, when I clicked open the report and saw the updated cost gap graph--the original of which I've seen, used, talked about often enough that I have it clear in my mind--was one of those times:

Here's the 2011 version:

In seven years, we've increased the gaps by half a billion dollars.

I think you can boil the message of the report down to this quote from the first page:

While there has been a growing consensus about the shortcomings of the existing school funding system, progress on fixing it has been elusive. While our economy is now years into a recovery, with economic conditions as good as they have been in decades, we have not seen significant new investments in our schools that would help them provide all children in the Commonwealth with real opportunity to succeed.

 Here's what the gap in meeting adequate spending looks like for the lowest wealth districts:

Statewide, thus, the lowest wealth districts, which have some of the neediest kids and some of the highest concentrations of them, have only a bit over two thirds of the teachers that they're supposed to have in the classroom. MassBudget reports that of the 322 districts in the state, "146 spend less on regular education teachers than the formula calls for and 254 districts spend less on materials and technology."

And we're supposed to be shifting to greater uses of technology.

At the same time, we know districts that can have been making up the difference with local funds: 

In 2016-2017, districts spent $2.46B (23.3 percent) more than their requirement across the state, with the median district spending 29 percent more. This pattern provides clear evidence that district decision-makers find the current funding amounts in the foundation budget inadequate to meet the needs of their schools.

In other words, local municipalities are deciding on their own to raise and spend local revenue on schools, over and above the state's calculation, because the state's calculation isn't enough.

In direct contrast to the House's contention that more research is needed for implementation, MassBudget went ahead and modeled implementation; after all, check the notes: they have done reams of research on what works for low income students. They offer phased in implementation over five years, with a option for "everyone gets some," which, again, is not constitutionally required.
While I have not yet had time to play with the spreadsheet on how this works district by district, I plan to and you should.
And I hope the conference committee is.

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.

And on the House education funding bill?

The #FBRC already studied low-income & ELL rates, & their recs were included in @MA_Senate's #MAEdu funding bill. House explanation for leaving poor kids behind doesn't stand up to #facts. It's time for policy-makers to do our jobs & take action. #mapoli pic.twitter.com/j4mHNKR3Yy

— Sonia Chang-Díaz (@SoniaChangDiaz) July 16, 2018

Lively Worcester School Committee agenda for July

Not a dull agenda for July!

First, note that there is a Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports meeting on Thursday immediately preceding the full School Committee meeting at 3:30 pm at City Hall; it appears as though this is only to approve the four new courses listed, 'though they persist in just listing every item that has been referred there on the agenda, which is not okay.

The full Committee meets at 4 pm (it's summer) at City Hall, but note the "now they're here, now they're not" schedule:

• 4:00 p.m. - Regular Session 
• 5:00 p.m. - Executive Session 
• 6:00 p.m. – Regular Session and Proposed Strategic Plan

Take notes

As I've been following the discussion around the House bill, I had this haunting sense that this discussion--do we move forward with just sped and health insurance? do we need to do all kids?--seemed familiar.
So I checked my notes.
As I think I've said before, I started this blog lo these many years ago as a record for those who couldn't make it to Worcester meetings around school finance, as recognition that the Telegram & Gazette was never going to cover everything. And then I started going to state meetings. And here we are.
Thus, to my knowledge, no one else has notes out there that follow the discussion that was happening three years ago May about what the Foundation Budget Review Commission was going to do. The FY15 budget (passed in June 2014) had given the Commission a June 20, 2015 deadline. They had begun meeting in the fall of 2014, had held hearings over the winter, but as of May, had come to consensus only on health insurance and special education.
In order to get an extension, they had to get legislation passed by both parts of the Legislature.

My notes from that May 5, 2015 meeting are here; if you scroll down to "Chang-Diaz and Peisch offering proposals to discuss about moving forward," you'll see what I mean: Representative Peisch wanted to push ahead and get the proposals they had for those two items out there for the deadline. She argues that there is a clear interest in those two proposals, that it sends a clear message to the Legislature to come back on deadline with those two items. (I'll note that Peisch was consistent in this, as she said the same in speaking to MASBO that same month.) She doesn't talk a lot about anything else needing to be in the report.
Senator Chang-Diaz notes the concern that leaving off other recommendations lessens the urgency for them, and others argue that the report doesn't fulfill the charge of the Commission in only doing special education and health insurance, particularly given what they had heard at public hearings.
Interestingly, Commissioner Chester argues for the need for greater deliberation, 'though he says he isn't sure they'll come to consensus.
Eventually, on a motion from former Secretary Paul Reville, the Commission votes unanimously to issue an interim report in June that not only reports out special ed and health insurance, but lists the issues to be resolved, to request an extension from the Legislature, and to issue a final report by November 2015.
Which is what happened.
This was enough of a heated disputed, however, that it came up at the following meeting on June 9, 2015, when then MASC President Pat Francomano asked that the minutes be clarified to include specifically that the report would include a list of items still to be dealt with, which was not included to his satisfaction. At that meeting, there was an extensive discussion on potentially tying any new funds to specific requirements, which disturbed me enough that I wrote about it the next day. I noted elsewhere this week that this argument has also come back:

Hey, all: read down and note that MBAE is pushing for “reforms” along with the money actually owed district.

I keep telling you: watch this. There are those who want to tie strings all over this. #FBRC #MAEdu https://t.co/XTEayEpUl5

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) July 12, 2018

Thus while the positions of who is arguing to move ahead and who is arguing to stop have changed, the "why" has not. The urgency of the needs BEYOND those of special education and health insurance haven't, it seems, gotten any more traction than they had three years ago, when they wouldn't have made the report had it been left to Rep. Peisch. There is, of course, irony that somehow we're going to magically have the comprehensive report some think we haven't gotten in four years of work in six months, but I suppose it's easier when that work has already been done.
Additionally, much of the conversation of this past week has been the same parties making the same unsuccessful arguments that they made three years ago. Those arguing just to move on special education and health insurance, leaving out ELL and low income, and on tying districts that are owed hundreds of millions of dollars already under the current system somehow needing to prove worthliness are old, tired, wrong, and privileged.
It's a shame the House bought it.

House on the foundation budget

I've been tweeting coverage of the House taking up bill H4730, implementing some parts of the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
Rep. Peisch in her address said, among much else, that there was no specific recommendation of the Foundation Budget Review Commission on English language learners. This is not the case; if you read page 10 of the report, there is a specific dollar amount included. If she was concerned about a full statewide calculation, that is easy math. We don't need more study for that.

Both Rep. Sanchez and Cabral spoke in other languages (Sanchez in Spanish, Cabral in Portuguese) while addressing English language learning.

Most notably, Rep. Vega, who had proposed a bill that would fully implement the recommendations, withdrew his amendment, so no rep had to take a position on it.

UPDATE: At 4:20, the House adopted a technical amendment with no debate and began a roll call on the bill. The technical amendment requires the report they're requiring on ELL and low income students to come back with specific actions in time for inclusion in the FY20 budget.

UPDATE: Bill passes 147-0

The bill thus goes to conference committee, where House and Senate members will attempt to come to an agreement over the bill's particulars.