Thread by @TracyNovick

Since the conference committee will not, it appears, release an agreed-upon version of the #StudentOpportunityAct this week, here’s an #FBRC thread from yesterday’s #70on70 presentation, #MAEdu
(This isn’t all the slides, just the SOA ones):

I do think that it is crucial to note that the main source of disagreement LAST session—which was both most of the money and most of the equity—was simply agreed to this session (and if you are not writing about that, you in my opinion are missing the story):

I can’t emphasize enough that all the goal numbers are PRE-INFLATIONARY, so these are not going to be the actual FY27 dollar amounts.

Note on the special ed that of course the assumed percentage on in-district is also rising. Plus, you’ll hit the circuit breaker faster when it includes out-of-district transportation and is frozen at this year’s rate increased only by inflation.

Very important note (and that was in the FY15 calculation, though I don’t believe anyone was accounting for related transportation)

Here’s English learners, again, FY27 is PRE-INFLATION

Low income which isn’t economically disadvantaged AND the counts will change AND the divisions are not the same (so this isn’t a one-to-one chart at all); note those bars at the end. That’s where the real difference in this bill comes!

There’s more!

And more!

And more!

And reports, some of which have bearing on the above numbers going forward:

And that all sounds great, right?
And here I cited my state rep @RepJohnMahoney who cited by own tweet from reading and waiting for something to jump out on like page 24.

There kind of isn’t one, but here are the sticky parts:

If overall funding goes up, and the agreement is foundation is funded on the (up til now unwritten) 59/41 split, if the state funding goes up, so does REQUIRED local spending.

DON’T PANIC:

I already did this here, but the chart colors are different; note the MAJOR difference between REQUIRED local spending and ACTUAL local spending (FY18):

Or to put that side by side:

I cannot stress enough: your LOCAL DISTRICT is best able to estimate your own numbers, NOT THE STATE.
Pull ACTUAL budgeted local spending for FY20 against REQUIRED; in the vast majority of places, you’re way ahead.

Two things that came up in discussion at the session:

1. It is the AT FOUNDATION Gateways that are going to have the big “you need to spend more local money” lifts.
(#Worcester, we need to get on this.)

2. The worry I would have for other districts is the nickeled-and-dimed small districts that are 5 or 7 or 9 over foundation where the town is going to say “we already give you X,” and will essentially flatline them at the new foundation.
Start talking locally, folks.

So the big hang up is ACCOUNTABILTY, we keep being told:

It isn’t, actually, accountability; it’s reporting on spending. Here’s what what agreed to in the two versions of the bill:

Here’s what was not:

I hate to say this, but I am fairly sure that many of those opining on this haven’t actually put the language side by side.
Here it is:

Thus my questions are: doesn’t “ensure” mean “ensure” and does amending need to be a specified power in order for it to be given?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don’t know, really.
But that doesn’t read to me like that big a difference.

What’s next?
(My understanding is the Senate would have to override a veto first; open to corrections here). The bill did of course pass both chambers unanimously.

AND THIS IS NOT A MONEY BILL
Our work does not end here!

And don’t forget: we are here because we ignored this so long that kids from Fall River and Orange and Chelsea and elsewhere FILED SUIT against their own state because their education isn’t adequately funded.

That should shame us.
#FBRC #MAEdu

And #MASCMASS19, you may find the above thread useful.

@threadreaderapp unroll