|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
Minutes, MARS, Oct. 19, 2004
Present: Stephen Hemmen, Tim Carroll, Cliff Fountain, Al Tutela, Gene Carlo,
Rich Scortino, Steve Nembirkow, Dee Dee Niswonger
Hancock case: Money flat, increased accountability, further testing on
all seven curricular frameworks sums up the direction the case seems to be
going. A final decision is expected in March.
State House: The departure of House Speaker Finneran has changed things
considerably making an opportunity now for very different conversations. That
said, House One will reflect the Governor’s priorities, which, although that may
mean more money into education the distribution guidelines are very unclear. The
DoE, as a state department, will reflect the governor’s priorities. We must work
with our legislators to effect change.
Senate 2463: Even with hold harmless, which is in place in S2463, unless
the foundation grows to meet real needs, the overall sum received by a district
will fall back as the only stipulated growth is $50 per student. As used in
S2463 the target share concept is not good for regions. Of the 84 regions, only
8 will gain aid under this plan. For instance a district now receiving a
percentage over the target share will gradually experience that percent
decreasing until at the end of seven years, the district is at its specified
target. In the mean time, local contributions will have to increase
substantially to meet needed costs. This shift is definitely part of the
administration’s plan to ensure that local funds are used since in many
communities there are substantial funds in abeyance. Some say as much as four
billion dollars are available locally, statewide. However, it is unclear from
local accounting procedures just how encumbered those funds are or even how much
of them really exist.
There is not anything to prevent the kind of disastrous cuts currently
experienced—if 3.1 billion is not appropriated for education all districts will
receive some portion of whatever is appropriated—i.e. “subject to appropriation”
is alive and well.
If the foundation budget was adequate: The law says no community or
regional school district can go below foundation. If the foundation budget is
built on real costs, on current costs as currently reported by districts, then
we will not have suppressed net school spending but a number closer to reality
because we have used real costs. The reporting is done by districts but the real
numbers are not used in calculating what each foundation budget should be. If we
are using real costs we will have to get both state aid and local contribution
up. Furthermore we must be able to demonstrate when a school district is growing
faster than its towns.
For regions net school spending does not include many things which are very
expensive and which have grown inordinately such as retiree health insurance
(127% increase recently). We put these things in our budget but the state
doesn’t see them. A regional foundation budget should include all real costs
which are then divided by the gross number kids and that’s foundation cost. The
costs that are required of regions should be the foundation budget for regions.
When the state reduces its aid amounts, regions are forced to work harder and
harder to get the gap filled.
We need to claim our share of the municipal revenue growth factor. If the MRGF
has gone up more than growth received in regions we need to correct that. We
need to correct any audit loopholes which allow municipalities to claim a larger
share of education costs than are fair. There is one on schedule 19 which
provides for an executive office of a town to underwrite services rendered to
schools for a cleaner safer, etc school which is too vague. Need to tighten
things up.
Regional schools fight for their budgets through the presentation of
assessments. Municipalities present a budget to someone else who figures out how
to pay for it.
Set up 10 “Caucus round circles” statewide. Currently there are no easily
identifiable legislative leaders who are the “champions for education.” That
said, it is strongly believed that most legislators are very interested in
helping education today. We need to help them understand what to do. We need to
educate the legislature, and a way to do it is group by group, all over the
state. We need to start getting our legislature to be “regional crusaders”.
Invite the local legislators to these caucuses and tell them regions were cut
20% with no making up of that cut, while ‘05’s 75 million is called “new money”.
How can it be called new money when it doesn’t make up the lost money? Tell them
we are not receiving our Fair Share of resources, that municipal growth is
greater than the growth for regions. Tell them about our bus contracts. If
communities are strapped by rising gas prices, what about regions? Tell them
about health insurance growing in one district from $400,000 in 1996 to
$1,400,000 in 2004. Tell them about communities on the Cape where 12 out of 12
in one district are in the top 15 for property value, but eight or nine are
BELOW state median income. Tell them the foundation budget is not adequate. What
else do they need to know?
Invite all regions to next MARS meeting on Nov 9 and ask that they RSVP to allow
for planning of room use.
Decision on Director’s salary delayed due to lack of quorum.
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