Rep. Alice Peisch,
Co-Chair of the state Joint Committee on Education, is also co-chairing the Foundation
Budget Review Commission (FBRC). She spoke to the Mass. Association of School
Business Officials (MASBO) last Thursday about the Commission’s work and
anticipated outcomes and timelines. (Note: Municipalities and school districts
are watching closely as the Foundation Budget builds a key funding source for
schools – Chapter 70 money. It’s helpful for parents to know some basics in
order to help advocate for fair and equitable funding. School Committee Chair
Kristin Thorp wrote a good analysis on how the Foundation Budget and Chapter 70
work (here: http://1i8brn1xoauz1pwsvo1ktb7vb1q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Chapter-70-Explanation-4.7.15.pdf
and you can read the Committee’s March feedback to the FBRC here: http://1i8brn1xoauz1pwsvo1ktb7vb1q.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/030915-FBRC-letter.pdf.)
Rep. Peisch opened her
remarks by noting that the limited number of people in school districts who
understand the Foundation Budget has been eye-opening. She said that the
Commission’s focus has been on two areas: the cost of benefits (especially
healthcare), and special education (SPED). The Commission voted to recommend
(and their advisory board needs to confirm) that the healthcare percentage be raised
to the average GIC amount for municipal members. It will likely also be
recommended that it should have its own inflation number (which varies region
to region) on an annual basis. That was a relatively easy recommendation based
on reports over the years.
There are a couple recommendations
regarding in-district SPED: 1. raise the in-district tuition percentage from 3.75
to 4 for most districts (and from 4.75% to 5% for vocational schools); 2. raise
assumed out of district (OOD) tuition by about $8000. Rep. Peisch noted that
very few OOD placements are within the designated level – most are much more.
The intent is that raising the dollar amount and adding the in-district amount
will get districts to where circuit breaker kicks in.
The legislation that
created the FBRC required that the report be filed by June. There are many
other components that could be considered, so the Commission concluded that
they should look for a modest extension of time. Many Commission members were concerned
that if it goes on too long they will lose focus and implementation could be
delayed. (In the past, reports come out and get attention but nothing happens –
she wants to focus on what’s doable.) (Note:
this is her opinion; others on the Commission want to keep the process going a
little longer.)
At the last FBRC meeting
Karla Brooks Baehr (former Deputy Commissioner of Education) presented an
analysis of the range of spending in districts (high spending / high
performance, high spending / low performance and the rest of that quadrant).
What are low spending/high performance districts doing and how can that be replicated?
At the next meeting on 6/5 they will discuss the use and reallocation of funds
to improve outcomes. They will also consider what additional areas other Commission
members would like to look at. Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz is planning to file an amendment
to the budget to extend the life of the Commission, and the items they might
consider if that amendment is approved is to be seen, although they are likely
to think about (and possibly make a recommendation about) decentralized funding
and decision-making (i.e. requiring that all schools are provided a budget
equal to what the foundation budget would be for each school). How money is
spent is currently left up to the districts; this approach would target money
to schools. There could also be potential adjustments to low income and/or ELL
components (although it will be hard to reach consensus).
Questions:
Was there discussion
around the % of OOD SPED students?
The decision was not to change the % because a recent study shows that the
current % is pretty close to reality (slightly +/- 1%).
What about Section 260
– retiree health insurance? The
cost of retiree health insurance is significant and is part of the
recommendation on healthcare.
Is the Commission
considering looking at potentially changing the 10/1 enrollment reporting date?
She can’t speak for the Commission
since there’s been no group discussion about it. There are plusses and minuses
to moving it out – some people want to know early on what the budget can be to
plan their Ch. 70 money; moving it further out would make that more difficult. They
are considering making it clear that funds appropriated to the pothole account
should be available for increases in population from 10/1 through the beginning
of the next school year.
How did estimates of
circuit breaker impact discussions of FBRC? The Commission is charged with making a recommendation. The issue is
probably identified but how the legislation language is crafted could be in the
FBRC report or circuit breaker legislation. (MASBO Exec. Director Dave Verdolino
who is also a member of the Commission would like the circuit breaker formula
held harmless.) Other suggestions regarding circuit breaker that the Education
Committee is looking at now include providing incentives for use of
collaboratives, in-district programs, etc. which saves money (assuming they are
of good quality).
Some of the SPED pieces
seem low; what was the thinking around that? The OOD 1% turns out not to be low – it’s fairly accurate. If you take
into account what is calculated for that student anyway, this increase would
cover the difference between that and when circuit breaker kicks in. On in-district
SPED, Superintendents recommended 4%. In the order of magnitude, if the state
is limited to just these two items, using FY14 numbers, the increase would be a
budget increase of $9.7B to $10.5B and the state’s portion would go up $500M
($800 total). A lot of communities are getting funded at about their target
now, so they won’t get anything. The Commission
has not been specific about how legislation will be written. From a political
standpoint, there may be pressure to hold all districts harmless (i.e. all
districts benefit).
Dave Verdolino commented that
there’s a lot of money up for consideration ($500M). The recommendations will
go to a joint group and then to the full legislature. Rep. Peisch indicated
that when it goes to the legislature, it’s extremely important to reach out to
legislators since they are responsible to constituents. (If this report gets
filed because there is no advocacy, nothing will happen in this area for a long
time.) Looking at the timeframe, once recommendations are made, they would go
to a joint committee to “sort out obstacles” and a bill would be filed at the
beginning of the next session; that’s when advocacy should start. She
cautioned: don’t get caught up in looking for the perfect solution. Support
something that is a significant improvement for most districts. Her best guess is that implementation would be phased in over a number of
years.
(Note: the Melrose School Committee has tentatively
placed the FBRC report as an item on our July 28th agenda.)
