|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
April 12, 2005
MARS Meeting, minutes from April 12, 2005
Present: Legislator: Rep. Steve Kulik. Guests: Joe Kurland, Mindy Kempner, Garry
Murphy. Board: Rich Scortino, Steve Nembirkow, Cliff Fountain, Gene Carlo,
Maureen Marshall, Michael Fitzpatrick. Staff: Dee Dee Niswonger
Gene Carlo presented the MASS proposal for improved funding for school
districts, statewide. 2006 is seen as a transition year. The request is to make
up 50% of the cuts suffered from 2002 through 2005 along with an additional
3.74% to deal with inflation. The proposal is the first in at least two decades
that has no losers; all districts will gain revenue. It is simple and easy to
understand.
The work was done by a subcommittee of twenty, including several current or past
regional school superintendents, over a fourteen week period, collectively
dissecting every single community in the commonwealth, looking at 06 and beyond.
House One was carefully studied with the conclusion that House One did not
present a truthful picture of the needs of schools, and the same conclusion was
reached about the DoE budget. A goal of the MASS proposal is to accurately
present the true picture for Mass. schools. One of many conclusions is that
districts do not have more money today than in 2003, although one hears a
contrary opinion.
While working with the fiscal picture the problems of Charter schools was
unavoidable. A separate task force has put together the findings of their study
on Charters. By understanding that there are two separate playing fields, one
for Charters, one for all others, the conclusion was reached that this is unfair
and that accountability cannot be weighed in favor of (in this case) Charters.
Rather, accountability must be the same for all, the rules the same for all. In
other words, if Charters can be successful in some way because they don’t
have certain restrictions, all other schools cannot be penalized because
they must achieve the same ends with those restrictions.
MASS has put together two booklets, one yellow, one blue. The blue is the
Charter study; the yellow is the School Finance and Accountability study. Each
legislator has received a copy of each of these. After the currently on-going
reprinting, each legislative education aide will also receive a set. The
material in these booklets is also on the MASS website. The April 12 meeting
continued with a discussion of the yellow booklet.
Section III starts with a chart indicating the statewide fiscal picture of
districts. Of the 374 in the state, 241, or 64%, lost aid during the 2002-2005
time span. Only 133(36%) gained aid. Of the losers, 151(40%) lost 20% of their
Chapter 70 while 90(24%) lost between 1 and 19% of their Chapter 70. When House
One came out it included 77 million in “new” money to keep districts at
foundation. The question asked was, what about those who have lost so much? How
can they survive in 07 with no increases? Furthermore, it was seen that 90% of
that so called new money would go to ten percent of the districts. The
uninitiated, reading House One, would think that all districts would be helped
and that the current amount of aid was somehow enough, never realizing that
there was no recognition being given to the severe loses of the last three
years.
Once seeing the disproportionate dispersal of funds to so few, a new fear
developed. In last month’s Minutes it was mentioned that save/harmless funds
could be in jeopardy. House One identified 264 million as save/harmless dollars.
Was it possible, the task force considered, for the Governor to think that those
dollars could be skimmed off to further enhance the increases for the districts
which are already gaining funds? The task force has met with the DoE and with
legislators explaining this potential problem and the serious impact which would
befall districts denied their save/harmless funds. All were reminded of the
history of that money, EEOG, regional incentive aid, base aid, and other old
funding programs which have gone into building up individual aid resources for
districts. Although inflation has seriously eroded the value, districts are
deeply dependent on this aid. During this study it also became clear that the
state has lowered regions’ share of the pot to give more to others. The first
hit regions took was in 1993, over 14 years ago. The communities we serve lose.
The state has tried to develop a means to measure wealth. No truly accurate
picture has developed, neither through the wage adjustment factor figures nor
equalized property valuations. The tremendous swings in assessments, which are
particularly extreme in vocational districts, have resulted from this “fiddling”
with the system, “fiddling” to try to accurately measure wealth. It has gone on
so long that people have forgotten what the original simple set up was: a simple
direct proportion between students and dollars. Then the wage adjustment factor
has been used to reduce the amount the state needs to aid individual districts.
The yellow book proposal begins to deal with some of these loses by restoring
cuts and recognizing inflation.
The actual cost of regional transportation is 58 million, estimated because six
districts have still not gotten their end of the year reports in. The yellow
book is asking for 18 million, which will not bring us up to quite 100%. Added
to the current 38 million, it will get us to 56 million. There are legitimate
concerns that more and more charters are becoming regions, and cutting into the
pot. At this time there are three, which cost a little more than $300,000. That
issue has to be part of the whole Charter discussion.
SPED transportation is the shocker. It costs more to transport the 10,000 SPED
students in the state than ALL THE OTHER 950,000 STUDENTS IN THE STATE COMBINED.
30 million more is asked for in the circuit breaker as well as legislative
relief that defines the kinds of needs which require SPED transportation. The
requirement to transport all SPED children regardless of severity makes no
sense. A new discussion about medical costs versus educational costs is also in
the works.
Underlying all this discussion is the recognition that the Foundation budget is
not adequate. As an example, if your household budget was developed in 1993 and
has not been changed since, it is seen as likely that in 2005 it would be an
outdated and in- adequate document. In the same way the 1993 Foundation budget
cannot serve districts today, in 2005. Only by reducing the number of wage
adjustment districts down from 25 to 21 has the state been able to “fiddle’ the
foundation budgets into a state acceptable number, artificially reduced to serve
the dollar distribution goals.
The MASS proposal costs 330 million. It was noted that the Governor is asking
for a tax cut which will cost 450 million. Discussion brought out the irony that
by cutting the state income tax, property taxes will be forced up to meet
required costs which steadily increase even as state revenues are forced
downwards by tax cuts.
Attendees brought up several points.
The discussion of the foundation budget needs to incorporate the state average
spending district by district at 116% of the foundation budget. Districts can’t
do the job at 100% of foundation. They are having to spend more (16% more) to
meet what is expected of them.
Cutting regional transportation aid has the same affect as cutting Chapter 70
because regions have to provide transportation and the costs which aren’t
reimbursed come out of the classroom.
The MASS proposal sweetens the pot very nicely for cities without cutting aid
for others.
The House budget is expected out April 13. It will not have the MASS numbers in
it and it is feared it will actually have inaccurate numbers. The plan is to
work out the needed solutions in conference since timing prevented good briefing
of House Ways and Means.
It is feared that the Senate will propose it’s bill of last summer, S 2263,
which is seen as poor policy and which includes the target share idea, which is
very poor for regions, having as it does, many losers. Almost all regions are
losers in that bill.
It was remarked that priorities of obligation aren’t being thought about in the
legislature and Governor’s office. Too great a proliferation of obligations is
being funded at the expense of education and other vital programs (health
insurance, Medicaid, etc.). Furthermore, Boston ignores the area outside route
128.
Rep. Kulik thanked the meeting for it’s information and stated that the House
knows it will need to put more money into education. He informed us that the
MASS proposal agrees with one of three being considered by the MMA. He stated
that regional transportation will be his priority along with Chapter 70 and that
he will place an amendment to add 18 million to regional transportation. After a
discussion of the burden of audits and the fact that there is no body to oversee
them, Rep. Kulik indicated that this message needs to be strongly presented.
MARS wishes to thank Representative Kulik for attending this meeting and
listening to our needs with such attention. He has been of great help over the
years to regions. With parts of 11 regions in his district, he has been an
informed and supportive legislator who has worked hard in the House to achieve
essential needs for his communities and regional districts..
The meeting moved on the deal with our on going interest in some statistical
needs. Rich Scortino has offered to give his time to work on analysis which at
this time will deal with the inadequacy of the foundation budget compared to the
wage adjustment factors. This is a great boon for MARS and we thank him for his
shared expertise and time.
Joe Kurland from the Mohawk Trail Regional school committee brought to us a
resolution that he has prepared for his school committee and nine towns. It can
be found under News on the web site, at
www.massassociationregionalschools.org. A
discussion ensued about the yearlong budget process that culminates in town
meeting. The need to work with all finance committees and select boards never
really ends as the purpose is to build up trust by sharing information between
these town entities and the school. Dispelling the fear frequently felt by town
officials that the regional school is pulling a fast one somewhere is the job
that needs to constantly be done. Once trust is established, the work of passing
budgets is much less difficult. Districts need to work with their communities to
establish multi-year goals that the communities respect and to use the budget
deliberations to show how the district is working toward those goals or how cuts
will work against the goals. At the same time the district needs to recognize
and respect the goals of communities so that the use of dollars is seen as a
collaborative enterprise.
It was recognized that the decreasing size of enrollments experienced
particularly in the western part of the state is causing very difficult
decisions, and that downsizing is a very emotional experience. Once again,
getting the towns involved in strategizing means to accomplish this can help to
reduce friction.
As your editor I wish to exercise the privilege of thanking Gene Carlo and Dave
Tobin and the eighteen others who have worked so hard to develop the yellow
book. This proposal is a milestone, based on previous years of work with the
legislature that has earned for MASS a respect vital to success. It is my
sincere hope that all in the educational community can work together to support
this plan. There is almost amusing relief in the House that a plan, with only
winners, has been brought forward. With all of our voices united in support we
can bring about solid fiscal improvement for all. Without the dedication of
these 20 people however, it would not be possible. Thank you, one and all.
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