|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Present: Morning: William Conners, David Tobin, Gene Carlo, Marcia Lukon,
Joan Weybury, Maureen Marshall, Mindy Kempner, Dee Dee Niswonger.
Afternoon: Paul Carlson, Clifford Fountain, Maureen Marshall, Nina Coler, Connie
Graves, Cindy Landers, Richard Scortino, Paul Gagliarducci, Sue Gill, Dee Dee
Niswonger.
With an introduction which reminded us that the 1993 formula did not serve
regions, and that since then the Board of Education has changed so that its
interests and policies now promote privatization, vouchers, a downsized DoE, and
no support or vision for regionalization, the discussion ranged widely over ways
to promote a vision for regionalization once again. The smaller-is –better
approach overlooks the efficiencies of regions, and the increase in the number
of schools through both charters and more and more single town school buildings,
ignores the past emphasis on fewer districts and fewer school buildings.
Statement of vision for regions
A vision for regions should include the points below.
(1) Economy of scale for administration
(2) Transportation reimbursement
(3) SBAB
(4) Incentive aid to expand and/or maintain regions
(5) Equity of access for all students
Another statement is: an incentive to become or remain a region as simple as
chapter 70 plus incentive aid plus incentive on SBAB and 100% reimbursement on
transportation.
(1) Very small towns can’t provide equitable educational opportunity for all
children; very small towns as well as larger towns benefit by sharing
administrative costs;
(2) The reimbursement for transportation is the only remaining benefit for
regions except for money in the base aid ($150,000,000) which still is
distributed to regions.
(3) In the case of expansion or forming new regions, expense and land issues of
building can be improved when one building is needed and not a building per
town.
SBAB could have an additional percentage for fully regionalized districts, and a
lesser percentage for partially regionalized districts.
The lack of vision on the state Board of Ed means, among other losses, that
there is no state roll in the SBAB program when a regional district breaks up.
The state has substantially supported buildings and should be involved in any
changes to the ownership and use of those buildings.
(4) Financial incentives for regions are not about equity but rather are a bonus
to cities and towns that are members of regions to reward them for giving up
some autonomy. Incentive aid reduces the assessments to member cities and towns.
(5) Regional districts help reduce inequities of access for rural students to
programs by, through larger numbers of students, being able to offer a wider
program than individual small towns. But there has to be some incentive for
towns to give up their autonomy.
We are seeing now that although a few talk about joining regions more talk about
breaking away from them. Regional breakups, like any divorce, can be messy.
Transportation
The 100% rate of transportation reimbursement is seen by some as bad public
policy but realistically, seen by schools, as a policy that is not abused
because of the one year lag. Poorer regions in particular cannot afford to be
careless with their year-to-year expenditure in transportation. The bidding
process requires taking the best price.
Without 100% reimbursement the cost of individual students to transport varies.
If a district charges per mile children spend differing amounts to get to
school. Triton Regional is going to charge in this way. Such actions work
against the basic concept of regions which is that they provided equal
opportunity for the children of each member town.
Efficiencies of scale and conflicts with charters
Charter schools are contracting out with accounting firms for budget
management. These contracts can take as much as 12% of the funds a charter has
for it’s support. In some cases charters are also receiving outside curriculum
management. There is no larger accountability in these cases. Regions do all
this in house as do all other public schools, with elected school committees and
with required accountability and reporting and regions are educating the
children from 2 to many towns with much efficiency.
State policies of benefit to regions and all other districts
It is understood that policies which benefit all school districts statewide are
to be encouraged. Funding SPED transportation including day placement (sometimes
involving a child in four hours of travel a day, at the cost of $200. a day),
state wards, and SPED provides an equalized benefit since these costs are shared
by all districts.
The Hancock settlement will include five more curriculum areas to be developed
more comprehensively.
SPED and technology were two areas severely under-funded in the ’93 formula and
foundation budget. The SPED under-funding was intentional, focused on reducing
the number of students in SPED programs. The attempt was not successful.
Foundation budget is too low for all districts.
Defining wealth
Some states have successfully defined rural poverty but Mass. has not. This
is an essential piece of the formula which must be carefully considered and
included in any new calculations to be used for the distribution of funds. Both
Kansas and Nebraska were mentioned as states which may have successfully
produced a definition. The current Mass. system of one-size fits all does not
work; instead different algorithms for the different categories should be used.
Suggestions for wealth calculation included the use of median, not average,
income. Land ownership cannot be the only determinate as in the western part of
the state land is often inherited but not money, and land does not have the kind
of value that it has in eastern Mass. Also, land values do go up and income
often does not, in the same area.
City schools are having a very bad time and some of our cities are broke, such
as Springfield and Worcester. State money has been flowing into the cities and
will continue to do so, but we must reassess town by town. In rural areas we
must ask that distance be included—population density. We must insist that there
be other determinates of wealth than real estate. At this time it looks like
real estate will be the major determinate of wealth.
The Quabbin area is an example of a place that does not have real estate to
support it as much of the land is part of the Quabbin Reservoir watershed and
cannot be developed. In this case the state needs to make its payment in lieu of
taxes (which it rarely does and at a very reduced rate.)
Determine ability for each community to have revenue and new revenue.
Ask the state Auditor’s office to audit the state by relative wealth.
The target share formula was mentioned as containing the necessary information.
Since 1990 the communities in the state have changed, in terms of wealth,
substantially. Chelsea was given as an example of a community which is no longer
solidly poor. Knowing what the value of real property (not homeowners) is is one
of our greatest problems.
The value of aid is to make up the real wealth differences, particularly in
cases where there is little or no new revenue.
The no-new-taxes refrain is a terrific problem.
Issues involved in re distributing wealth
Redistribution of wealth does not maintain save/harmless which continues to be a
priority for school districts. Incentive aid in the base aid must not be lost to
regions, which it would be if the whole aid base gets redistributed without
attention to regions.
Non-regions did not, before 1993, include in their budgets all the costs
associated with education, particularly not the non-educational costs such as
insurances, retirees’ health insurance and so forth. But with the increased
accounting required by Schedule 19 cities and towns must report all the costs
associated with running the schools, so now those costs are better known and
defined. However, regions still have a more limited stream of revenue (two
streams) to meet those costs than do cities and towns. An increase in chapter 70
to recognize those costs should be a larger percentage for full regions than for
partial regions.
Fair is not necessarily equal. Sparse population results in higher per student
costs when calculating a district’s needs.
The state standards must be reflected in the formula. The auditing done by Joe
Rappa looks for things not now in the formula.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Dee Dee Niswonger
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