Welcome!

Margaret Raymond Driscoll is in her 12th year as a Melrose School Committee member, and she is passionate about excellent teaching and learning for all public school students. She considers it a privilege to collaborate with others who share that passion. You can also follow her on Twitter at @MargaretDrisc. Just to be clear - opinions expressed here do not represent those of the Melrose Public Schools, the Melrose School Committee, or the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials - they are hers alone.

Friday, February 8, 2019

School Committee Retreat of February 2nd


Last Saturday, February 2nd, the Melrose School Committee engaged in an excellent discussion of school financing with Tracy Novick, Field Director for the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. Notes below, and edits and errors all mine!

History of education in Massachusetts
Beginning in the 1600’s with the interest in encouraging men to enter the ministry, colony leaders instituted educational and tax laws at the higher and lower levels, incorporating the philosophy that what was good for the individual was also good for the community. During the Revolutionary War, there were additional structures put in place supporting education addressing the underlying question: “how do we continue to have a democratic government in the future?” The concept reflected “spreading the opportunities,” in that it doesn’t matter how much money a citizen has or where in the state the individual lives, education is a must. Funding remained primarily driven by property taxes. In the 1980’s, there was recognition that the local capacity to fund education was insufficient, and a lawsuit and subsequent legislation resulted in the Education Reform Act of 1993, which drove the school funding formula, MCAS (for accountability of dollars spent), etc. Many other states have used the Massachusetts model to implement similar types of funding formulas since then.

Foundation Budget
When considering how to divide educational monies for communities based on the Ed. Reform Act, leaders focused on ensuring “a fair and adequate minimum.” They asked: “what do you need?” and a list was developed from those responses (which remains in the calculation today). They then asked:  “what kinds of students do we have?” Their premise was to be inclusive of all needs while being fiscally responsible, which is why, for example, the special education calculation is based on a straight percentage of 3.75% rather than an exact amount based on a district’s number of students in that category. This funding approach is why the Foundation Budget formula is being challenged at this time: it isn’t based on the realities of educational need.

Municipal Wealth Formula
This formula works to answer the question: “who will pay for a district’s education?” with the presumption that it is a shared responsibility of local communities and the state. Leaders then asked: “what kind of contribution can a city or town make to its budget?” The resulting answer became the Effort Goal, which calculates the wealth available to the community that can be contributed by citizens (based on both property value and income). It presumes that no community should be responsible for more than 82.5% of their foundation budget. The State expects districts to pay for what they can afford.

Cherry Sheets

Originally printed on cherry colored paper (but no more), the data in these charts reflects how much money (less assessments) the state will provide cities and towns for the coming year in a variety of categories, including education aid that’s based on the Foundation Budget calculation. (The Department of Revenue’s Division of Local Services provides significant local information.)

State Reimbursements (most impactful)
Charter School: tuition is deducted off the top of what the state provides from the Cherry Sheet calculation because those students are counted in Ch. 70 aid. There is some reimbursement but not close to the cost over time. The argument has been that “the money follows the child” since the district is not actually educating him/her, but the calculation amount per pupil is different (i.e. what Melrose is funding per pupil in total is significantly less than what it’s assessed per pupil for Charter students (and local Charter students require fewer overall special education and/or English Language services.)

Circuit Breaker: designed to lessen the financial hardship of providing necessary but very expensive special education services, it is a quarterly reimbursement (i.e. tuitions have already been paid out). The calculation is based on a percentage of the difference (plus a multiplier) between average per pupil cost across the state and what it actually costs to educate a qualifying special education student in the district. The reimbursement percentage is set by the legislature in the budget process and changes from year to year. It is usually one of the first decreases if there are mid-year state budget cuts, which is why districts generally budget conservatively on this line item.

Grants
METCO: Amounts are tied to students and are primarily for transportation and tuition.

Title I, IIA, III (federal): have very specific uses and supplement vs. supplant (e.g. extra – not what you’re supposed to be doing anyway). Title I is tied to student counts, so the choice by the state to use the economically disadvantaged vs. low income definition of need negatively impacts Melrose’s incoming funds.

USDA (federal): nutrition funding. Local districts have revolving funds for nutrition and can only use those monies for expenses in the same category.

(The key point about grants: they have conditions so they’re not going to solve budget problems.)

Local Authority
Every community decides what their needs are and how to address them, but must fund them to a state required amount per district called Net School Spending (NSS). In FY17, Melrose spent 4% over Net School Spending, a vastly lower amount than neighboring/like communities. Since school districts are people based, budget dollars overwhelmingly fall in the categories of teachers and benefits (ref: DESE RADAR Report). Health insurance is a significant expense and is required to be funded, but, like special education costs, state contributions have not kept pace requiring districts to channel more dollars to that line item resulting in less money for teachers, instructional materials, and other direct educational costs.

Current situation
The Governor’s budget was released in late January and would provide only minimal relief to Melrose. The House budget is released in March, with the Senate budget following in May. The Conference Committee (consisting of members of both the House and Senate) then meets and agrees on a final budget that the Governor can sign. The law requires a state budget by July 1st for the coming year.

Committee Discussion
The average state percentage that local districts contribute over NSS is 127% compared with 4% for Melrose. If the state provides additional money to get closer to financial contribution targets, then they require localities to spend more too. The state expects each community to define what education should look like there, and contribute its fair share of what that would require.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

MASC Summer Institute: DESE Next-Generation Accountability System

This past Friday, July 20th, the Mass. Association of School Committees (MASC) kicked off it's second annual Summer Institute. One of the Friday presentations was titled "Massachusetts' Next-Generation Accountability System" an excellent 2-hour clinic by Rob Curtin, Associate Commissioner of Data and Accountability at the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). (Apologies for the alphabet soup of acronyms.) There is much for more information on the DESE website if you're interested in learning more. 

Why should parents be interested? Because the Melrose Public Schools will be measured based on the aggregate student data of all district schools, and schools will be measured based on aggregate student data in those schools. When you see the newspapers reporting on districts, or read more refined data on different websites, you should know how these numbers were calculated. The results should be one factor on which resources are allocated in the district and taxpayers should feel confident that their money is being used wisely to improve education for our students. You'll also want to be cognizant of the fact that the schools are responsible for education all students in every group and subgroup, and it's our privilege as a community to ensure that we meet students where they are and do everything we can to bring them to the next level equitably. As always, the Melrose School Committee will hear a report from administrators on the results in late fall.


Why did MA need a new accountability system?
·      US Dept. of Education’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
o   DESE was thinking about a new accountability system even before ESSA. DESE hadn’t designed the system to have Level II be bad (left room for interpretation); needed to change the words around accountability.
o   A lot of federal $ at stake (Title I allocations: out this past Monday).
o   Requirements: “annual meaningful differentiation between schools;” “ambitious state-designed LT goals;” continued annual testing; 95% participation; identify lowest performing 5% of schools, and HS with grad rates <67%; identify schools with low performing subgroups.
·      State requirements/reasoning
o   Achievement Gap Act
o   Public info sharing
o   State resource and federal grant allocations

Timeline: did a listening tour, modeling, listening, revising (4/16-4/17); submitted plan to US Dept. of Ed., approved by BOE in June 2017. Final plan: not exactly representative of everyone. (This Sept. 19th BOE meeting: 1st results from new accountability system.)

Metrics
Non-High Schools
·      Achievement: MCAS average scaled score for English, Math; CPI for Science
·      Student growth: mean SGP for ELA and Math
·      English Language Proficiency: progress made (note: 4% of students in MA were ELL in 2002 and 9% now)
o   Half of ELL students are in 5 MA districts
o   Using ACCESS as the testing measure
o   Takes about 6 years to get kids to ELL proficiency
·      Chronic absenteeism (measured as 10% of days = 18ish). There is a “fairly serious attendance problem” across the Commonwealth and kids who are in school more do better. A school day measured as a day that a student is receiving services. Wide range across districts. In one district, 33% of students miss more than 10 days.
High Schools
·      Similar to non-high schools, but adds elements of graduation, dropout, % of 11th and 12th grade students completing at least one advanced course (AP, IB, post-secondary).

Problem with measuring the closing of the achievement gap:
·      Must have two reference points and there are schools that have all high needs students and others that have no high needs students.
·      Problem: when the high performing group declines, the gap is still closing (but not in the desired manner). Want lowest performing students to get better. (Raising the floor.) Better if you say lower performers vs. higher performers.
·      Urban schools do really well when students stay but so much transience skews the data. Will now look at lowest performers who stay (e.g. 3rd to 4th grade) and they’ll have an improvement trajectory.

Ask: how are our students doing on each of the metrics listed above.

Supt. will have two numbers: percentile and percentage (by school). (If percentage is at 75% or higher, in general, school is meeting improvement targets.) These numbers are weighted equally.
·      Categorizing schools: those needing intervention (15%) and those that don’t (85%). Determined at the discretion of the Commissioner. If percentile is between 1-10% and not already in needing intervention, identified in need of focused/targeted support. Still requires a minimum of 20 students.
·      No more “if you have a Level 2 school then you are a Level 2 district.” Won’t give districts a rating like this.

What should SC members focus on? It depends:
·      Mostly: “how are schools improving?” Subgroups concerns. Specific concerns: chronic absenteeism, ELL, etc.
·      Small number of districts: are you among lowest performers?, equity concerns, dropout/graduation rate concerns.

District and school report cards:
·      DESE will redesign report card in late fall 2018.
·      Measures of performance/opportunity beyond assessment & accountability results:
o   Discipline, availability of art education (this was BIG), educator data, grade 9 course-passing, per-pupil expenditures
·      MCAS scores won’t be the first metric reported.
·      Why isn’t discipline in accountability system? Couldn’t allow a situation where a school thought about disciplining or not disciplining based on accountability but it will be on report card. Last cuts: arts education and Grade 9 course passing. (Students who fail one class in 9th gr. are 25% more likely to drop out.)
·      Comment: there is huge differential in quality of art programs. DESE: they don’t yet have criteria to measure.
·      Educator data is important to student outcomes too (inexperience, out of field, staff attendance) but it’s not in the criteria at this time.

Key factors in student success: is child progressing in all facets of education (math, science, having fun, etc.)? Unfortunately, there is no “fun” metric.