|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Special Meeting Minutes
May 25, 2004
Minutes from meeting called by MARS on May 25, 2004
Present: Senator Steve Brewer; Regina Curtis, district aid to Rep. Steve Kulik;
David Tobin and Tom Scott from MASS; Glenn Koocher, MASC; Jim Hager, MAVA; John
Robertson, MMA; Maureen Marshall, Richard Scortino and Dee Dee Niswonger, MARS
NO REGION LEFT BEHIND
MARS is invited, indeed, urged, to provide the Senate Working Committee with
information pertinent to regional issues. We have the court case, an improving
economy, and an invitation to the table to deal with a new formula and a new
vision for Massachusetts’ educational future: a conjunction of elements
some are calling THE PERFECT STORM.
The outcome of the meeting, for which the minutes are below, was to plan two
more meetings, both on June 15. For the eastern districts we will meet from 9 –
11 at Assabet; for the more westerly districts we will meet at the Quabbin
Administrative Office in Barre* from 1 – 3.
MARS is inviting all regional superintendents (or your designee) to attend to
inform us about what you feel you need, in regards to the newly anticipated
formula, to effectively serve your school children well.
What are your problems that can be solved in the Chapter 70 formula? (Additional
money is not enough of an answer. We need to be able to develop a clear unified
request to send to the Senate Working committee and later to other groups as
they develop.)
Foundation budget: Adequacy? Are there items in the budget which are too small?
Or missing items? Or unnecessary items? Aspects of the foundation budget that
don’t work? Should it be different for your regional district? How?
Should there be an incentive to make new, or to maintain current, regional
districts?
Are there specific regional needs justifying increased chapter 70 aid for
regions (probably non-educational expenses: maintenance, building costs,
insurances, health and retirement costs, etc. but maybe something else.)
The Board of Education does not have any vision of a regional model; the
Department therefore has no individual assigned to regional needs. Would such a
vision, and such a position be of help to you in your region?
What is your vision of why the Commonwealth has regional school districts? What
makes regions worthwhile in this state? What is your vision for what regions can
accomplish?
What OTHER issues?
These meetings will be informal in that there will be no speaker, but rather the
attendees will provide the material. You are invited to come with your
specifics. MARS Board members and staff will record your material and look for
those issues which are common among us, and make a concise report for the Senate
Working group and others as needed. If we do not hear from you we will not be
involved in the deliberations going forward at this time. When the 1993 Law was
developed those in power rejected the requests of regions. Now we are being
requested to participate. Without your help we will lose out. Please help us all
by attending one of these meetings and providing your insights into the problems
faced by regions in the education of the Commonwealth’s children.
MINUTES
The Senate Chapter 70 Working Group has both legal and education staff on
the committee. The Working Group wants to make to make some equilibrium among
all the variables. Will look at census figures, part time property holders (to
try to prevent the kind of problems which befell the Cape in 1993), and other
materials to do this. And will also seek source of dollars to do what’s needed.
A wealth-based formula is likely.
It is very likely that the law will include early childhood education. This
cannot be expected to eliminate the need for special education in a child’s
later years, particularly for the very severely disabled child.
The formula will very likely depend on a foundation budget concept. DoE is
expecting to work on the foundation formula.
Politically we will have to retain hold-harmless, but it is expected that the
Senate Working Group will not be discussing that level. They are more interested
in what is needed to do the job expected.
Hancock Case: Court will hear oral arguments until September and then
take 120 days for review. Some of the discussions will question whether the
state Constitution has been obeyed, or broken, and who will fix the defined
problems. A priority (strongly supported by Speaker Finneran) is early childhood
education, expected to cost 400 to 500 million. While this increased expenditure
is likely as part of the final outcome, Governor Romney is expected, in three
weeks, to offer a 250 million tax cut. The current fiscal picture would then be
a further 750 million out of balance. The economy is recovering—FY04 is expected
to end ahead of estimates— but these costs will be problematic. There is no
current reason to believe the needed majority in the House has a will to raise
taxes. Even if the court rules for more spending, we have seen that in New
Hampshire’s legislature there has been no solution proffered for the required
broad based tax to support education in the five years since their court ruled.
The SJC is very likely to be guided by Justice Botsford’s careful work.
Regional issues discussed were several.
One is the need for incentive aid to encourage consolidation of small
communities into regions. It was recognized that diverse wealth among
communities can make this difficult. But in a state which once promoted
regionalization to reduce the number of school districts, the number has instead
grown so that today, with 351 cities and towns, there are 437 different school
districts.
Incentive aid as an ongoing formulaic reality has in the past (before
1993) been an incentive for towns to remain in regions. Today there is
increasing talk about regions dissolving, thereby producing even more school
districts.
There was talk about an additional 15% added into the formula or to the
foundation budget for full regions, with a smaller % for partials. There was
not agreement on the need for this, as towns have the same expenses as regions,
although those expenses don’t necessarily show up as clearly in municipal
budgets. There was no discussion about the several streams of revenue coming
into towns versus the two coming into regions. It was stated that not all
regions have greater costs than municipal districts and don’t all need incentive
aid. We need to carefully define what additional costs are being talked about.
Rather than a flat sum like 15% it might be better to have a sliding scale (a
needs based scale)
The target share concept was discussed. It dies not provide an incentive
for remaining in a region.
Student demographics are an issue, with shrinking enrollments expected.
There is currently a “bubble” passing through high school, which will be through
in 2010. The importance of recognizing increased per student costs due to low
population density was noted.
Several questions were asked. Are regions asking for too much? Should we
create two separate foundation budgets, one regional and one municipal? Do we
need to make additions to the foundation budget, such as data managers? With the
DoE ever shrinking in staff under the direction of a Board of Education which
wants de-centralized management, we must have individual access to data which
once was analyzed centrally.
There was discussion of the lack of vision for regions in the Board of
Education, and there was discussion of the adequacy of the foundation budget
as it is now constituted. Are there particular adequacy issues for regions? What
part does population density play? It was suggested that whether you have enough
money can be more important than equity.
The lack of vision for regions on the Board of Education means that there
is no one appointed to deal with regional needs in the Department of Education.
Senator Brewer stressed the importance of the Working Group hearing from
superintendents, from select people, from all involved in providing education
and in the finances of education. We are urged to keep our messages SMALL,
CONCISE, FOCUSED. All material received will go to Catherine Hornsby for
attention.
The goal of the groups attending this meeting is to collect information from
members and to distil it into “the Ten Commandments” (other than money and
clarity) of regional needs for the formula. (Note, this meeting was dealing with
regional issues; non-regional needs are also being collected by the appropriate
organizations.)
*Directions to the Administrative Office for Quabbin are on our website.
For More Information Contact:
Massachusetts Association of Regional Schools
P.O. Box 334, Williamsburg, MA 01096-0334
Tel: 413-268-3607
E-mail:
niswonger@comcast.net
|
Massachusetts Association of
Regional Schools