|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2006
Present: Bruce Kaiser, Lou Rodrigues, Gene Carlo, Peter
Dewar, Steve Hemman, Barbara Ripa, Lynn Ryan, Michael Fitzpatrick, Dee Dee
Niswonger
Incentive Aid, once an aid stream received by all regions, is no longer
received, and is probably not politically palatable. Geographically pin pointed
aid may be possible, and it maybe possible to manipulate the wealth measurements
of EQV and income to reflect, fairly accurately, real wealth situations.
Incentive aid for the expansion of regions should be available. The whole issue
of Incentive aid would be moot, with a adequate Foundation budget.
Regional transportation is an issue which the legislature has real understanding
and sympathy for and we need to work as hard as ever to achieve growth in that
line item. Please contact your legislators and inform them thoroughly about your
needs. While there is very likely to be growth in Chapter 70, in at least one
school district, 35% of that new growth, as anticipated, will go for health
insurance increases, and 17% for transportation. That takes more than half of
all new money just to keep up in two areas. If we do not keep pushing for full
funding of our transportation we can only fall behind.
The formula now being studied in Boston was initially put together by the DoE
and is being called the Aggregate Wealth Formula. The DoE has worked with the
legislature and with A & F to refine the ideas. If and this is THE issue about
the formula, IF there is a updating of the Foundation Budget, bringing it in
line with actual expenditures, the aggregate wealth formula should bring
increases to districts. But, if not, the aggregate wealth formula destroys
regions. 5 out of 7 communities’ minimum contribution levels will drop in the
current plan. Aid is supposed to fill the gap, but without the update there will
not be correct figures as guidelines to update TO.
Our job is to work for that updating of the Foundation Budget. Just keep talking
to your legislators and let them see what you really spend as opposed to what
the Foundation budget says is spent. The differences are phenomenal. Part of the
proposal is to phase in growth over seven years. We can not afford to wait seven
years.
As of Last Thursday (Jan 19) fifty districts have not submitted their
end-of-year reports. What this does is removed one seventh of the actual costs
of education from the statistics used to calculate actual costs. It is a really
serious situation for all districts, and potentially penalizes all. One major
problem is the insufficient software available in many districts.
Currently students all start, statistically speaking, at the same dollar value.
Then various categories come into play that change values. Low income, SPED,
vocational, etc all change the dollar values. The aggregate wealth idea does not
use these different values. It also wants to remove save/harmless, or to use
save harmless by number of students rather than per district. Currently
save/harmless can come to communities even after programs have been dropped that
had been supported by dollars still received in save/harmless.
HOUSE ONE out today, Wednesday Jan 25. We should see 220 m increase in Chapter
70, with strings attached to some of the growth. We may also see a provision for
a $100 laptop for every child. Unfortunately these are probably not very useful
for many schools as they are too simple to run the kind of software needed. Most
new schools have good computer capacity. The laptop idea is a questionable move.
It would be better if the laptops could be distributed as needed, not as a
blanket program. There are approximately 500,000 children in 7 – 12 grades,
times $100.
The good news is that there is more money available to work for! Since, when it
comes to state moneys, there is competition between towns and education, this
year it appears there may be enough for both groups to receive increases, and
the Lottery money may go back to the towns, as was originally stipulated. Tax
cuts will interfere with this and reduce the state’s ability to send dollars
back to the towns, and continue the spiral of increased property taxes to offset
decreasing state dollars.
What we need to do:
Have more regional superintendents involved in policy making through MASS. and
on the MARS Board.
Push hard for correcting the woefully inadequate Foundation Budget.
Push hard for increases to regional transportation.
With more money on the table this is a benchmark year. We need every regional
district from superintendent to the school committee to the public, to push for
increases.
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