From Boston’s Grand Lodge
of Masons in Boston, today’s annual Day on the Hill was an opportunity for
school committee members, student guests, and others to hear from legislators
about budget/policy plans that affect public school children in the Commonwealth. Notes from legislators and MASC legislative priorities as follows:
Rep. Jay Kaufman, Chair
of Joint Committee on Revenue
·
A fundamental
lie is that we don’t have the money. We just don’t have the will to raise the
money.
·
Data shows the
poorest pay about 10% of income for taxes and wealthiest pay under 5%.
·
The Fair Share
Amendment on the 2018 state ballot provides that the tax rate on the 2nd
million dollars of an individual’s income would be 4% ($40K).
·
Would raise
$2B/year to be used only for education and transportation.
Rep. Alice Peisch,
Co-Chair of Joint Committee on Education
·
The newly
released House budget contains a Ch. 70 increase that’s a little higher than
the Governor’s ($105M over last year); starts to implement the healthcare
benefit recommended by the Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC); $500K
increase in METCO over FY17; $20M reserves for early ed staff (and anticipate
doing more in early ed).
·
Has worked on
re-files of bills that were reported out favorably last year. Her priorities
are those that (1) give districts more flexibility and autonomy before they get
to Level 4 status and build on opportunity to create [empowerment] zones; (2)
improves teacher prep and creates career ladders; (3) new emphasis (not new
concept) expanding early access to college in a more systemic way.
·
Please resist
the rollback of state sales tax (to 5%).
·
Educate
yourselves on ballot questions and advocate for those bills that support the
tax revenues that fund our schools and state. (Legislators really listen to
informed constituents.)
Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz,
Co-Chair of Joint Committee on Education
·
Need to “keep
being tremendous” re: advocacy around Ch. 70 funding. (Everything comes back to
“it’s the Foundation Budget stupid.” Will take long, sustained, high level of
activism.)
·
Gov. Baker’s
Executive Order to recommend streamlining of regulations is being addressed by
DESE in the area of education.
·
Advocates need
to move strongly on all recommendations of FBRC because coalition is important
(if not, “student groups will be splintered”).
·
1993 ed
funding was successful because there were benchmarks. If we don’t start
implementing, it will be time for FBRC review again (every 5 years). They
recognize that you can’t “flip a switch” but could do it over 5 or 7 years.
·
FBRC gave a
“hot list” of things that are known to improve student outcomes and that
improve achievement gaps. Must do more than one intervention at one time (e.g.
looking at data at school level vs. just district level to provide more tools to
help make useful decisions).
·
Federal
education direction unknown but whatever it turns out to be, it’s unlikely to
impact FBRC.
·
What is
standing in the way of students in poverty? It’s FBRC. 1993 started process to
get everyone to a “quality floor;” that floor has eroded and districts who can
afford it are spending it but for communities who don’t have local means, they
are falling at or below Foundation Budget.
Sen. Pat Jehlen, Vice
Chair of Joint Committee on Education
·
People really
value their local public schools and local democratic control.
·
House increase
of FBRC is really not much and it would take 100 years (with no inflation) at
this rate to get us to adequacy.
·
What about our
legal obligations for circuit breaker, regional transportation, and charter
reimbursements? We aren’t keeping our promise. Even Foundation Budget doesn’t
recognize state requirements around technology.
·
MA is 42nd
in equity across the country (lowest vs. highest spending schools). Taxing
high, spending low, low achievement scores (accountability measures) are districts
with most challenges (poverty).
·
Heard on FBRC
listening tour: how can you judge a district with 27 Kindergartners in a class
with no aide, 1/3 special needs and 1/2 in poverty, and hold them accountable?
(Test scores mostly measure income.)
·
Accountability
works two ways – if the state doesn’t provide money to districts that need it,
they can’t hold them accountable for student outcomes.
MASC’s 2017 legislative
priorities include:
·
support for
early education programs (increasing program access; improving affordability;
funding to support transition to full day K; and guaranteeing high quality
programs/staff);
·
strengthening
the children’s services safety net (encouraging cooperation between agencies
serving families; funding and expanding promising social services programs and
adding a Ch. 70 calculation for migrant, transient, mobile students);
·
funding the
revision of Ch. 70 (increasing funding; ensuring realistic/accurate inflation
factor; and ensuring a $100 per pupil increase for all districts to ameliorate
under-funding);
·
full funding
for Circuit Breaker;
·
charter school
funding reform (require local approval; fully fund reimbursement account; and
continue the enrollment cap);
·
restore
funding for regional transportation;
·
full funding
for METCO;
·
mandate and
regulatory relief (freeze any new regs; prohibit DESE from issuing regs that don’t
directly apply to public ed students, teachers, administrators; require that
any proposed regs undergo impact study);
·
charter school
operational reform (enroll cross sections of student population; require
charters to meet sub-groups representative of sending communities; require
pre-approval for new charters; require that charter trustees include approval
and representation by sending communities; require charters demonstrate and
share any innovative practices);
·
support rural
school districts (encourage sharing of resources; ensure no authority will be
authorized to consolidate, dissolve, or restructure without legislative
approval);
·
retain
Medicaid-covered services;
·
cover
medically insured services in schools.
Marching orders: talk to
legislators. Have students talk about their vision. Change happens slowly!
Legislators have many issues to review and they need expertise of local
leaders.