|
Home
Up
News
Contact Information
Member Directory
Next Meeting
Search
Links
| |
MARS Board Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2006
Present: David Papagni, Susan Pieciak, Stephen Hemman, Mindy Kempner, Marcia
Lukon, Rosemary Joseph, Clifford Fountain, Gene Carlo, Donna Harlan, Joseph
Scanlon, Dee Dee Niswonger
MARS membership has increased from 47 in 2002 to 69 in 2006 during which time
our treasurer, Emily Audette has been aggressive with the billing, there has
been a large turnover in superintendents, and the information provided by MARS
has improved with the use of e-mail, and in content.
The executive director has been granted by the Board a leave with pay during
April and May of 2007, and during a few weeks in September and October, an
action greatly appreciated by the executive director.
The next MARS meeting will be at Ralph C. Mahar Regional High School (directions
will be included in the next agenda) . The meeting will begin with breakfast at
8 to be followed by the meeting itself from 9 – 11:15. some legislators may be
present at the breakfast.
MARS meetings from February, March, April, May and June will be the second
Wednesday of each month , Feb. 14, March 14, April 11. May 9 and June 13. The
day change is to accommodate the Worcester County Round Table meetings.
Dec. 19 is the Board of Education meeting at which the Board will hear responses
to the proposed regulations—go to the DoE web site for the newest language
proposed by the DoE. The new language is different from that circulated earlier
and based more clearly on Section 16 B. The restrictions on the use of E & D
accounts have been dropped, and the alternative assessment request language has
been dropped. Any misbehavior in districts about E & D needs to be dealt with
directly with the district involved, not through regulations affecting all
districts.
Chapter 70’s method of assessment is the statutory method defined in the
definitions. Use of the regional agreement method requires a vote of the school
committee, followed by an unanimous vote of the member towns annually.
MARS appreciates the tremendous work that has gone into improving these
regulations and the receptiveness of the DoE to regional voices.
The adequacy of the foundation budget is a major concern this year. The
aggregate wealth measurement tool developed last year is the first piece of two
pieces that are essential for the adequate funding of education; the second
piece is the adequacy of the Foundation budget. MASS is continuing to refine
it’s 50 50 5 plan. Some have interpreted the 50 50 plan to mean that the state
would fund 50% of every district’s foundation budget. Unfortunately what the 50
50 5 means is that the state would fund 50% of the state wide foundation budget
with a wide span of percentages district by district. The 5 is five years, and
last year was the first of the 5 years, so now we are talking about 4 years to
reach a 1.3 billion increase from the state to meet the 50% goal of an adequate
foundation budget. With the lottery sums decreasing the amount of aid returning
to towns will decrease, because lottery aid is returned to the towns. Medicare,
Medicaid, and health insurance are very high costs for the state. While school
districts have been forced to do deep analysis of their budgets there is an
opinion that the state has not done such thorough analysis and that it needs to.
The appointment of Leslie Kirwan to A and F is very encouraging. Her budget
strength is analysis. Some think the so-called statewide student enrollment
decline results from a new counting technique, not from actually reducing
numbers. District by district there are definitely some losses of enrollment but
overall there is reason to think the counting methods may be more accurate, not
that there are fewer children.
The state needs to change how they think in 2 ways: 1) focus on priorities when
analyzing the 28 billion state budget, and 2) re-focus—the economy is doing fine
even if the lottery is not, and there is no truth to saying the state has no
money. It is true, however, that the state is facing very high costs.
E and D Certification
E and D certification by the DoR may not include all the categories of capitol,
operating, accounts receivable that nets against your E and D. Check your
certification and be sure nothing has been overlooked. If you are certified as
over 5%, the overage goes back to the towns. If a miscalculation says you are
under, your filed schedule 19 will tell you, at the end, where the obligation
is. All communities have to be at or above net school spending. If they are not
E & D will have to make up the shortfall.
Transportation
Be cautiously optimistic on your amounts for transportation. Look at where you
were last year and expect a little more. A district may not get the per cent of
return that the state has for all districts—that is, the state says 55 m is
about 90% of total reimbursement, but each district may not get 90%. Each
district’s % is based on that district’s particular reporting of expenditures.
Respectfully submitted by Dee Dee Niswonger
Executive Director, MARS
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