Digging a step deeper, I find that the 43% of municipalities receiving an increase in the baseline spreadsheet account for 55% of the foundation budget. So, another guess at baseline that covers every school district, rather than 43% of school districts is a $230 million increase.
From another view, I see that the 143 districts that receive some increase account for $237 million of the 382 million increase in foundation from last year to this. From this view, 62% of inflation plus enrollment changes (that is, the total change of foundation budget) is covered in the baseline estimate of a $127 million increase. Plugging in to allocate the same treatment for the 183 zeros as the 143 “baseline” winners, we get $204 million, or about a $5 Million increase over the governor’s proposal, as a “baseline adjusted only for inflation and enrollment increases and applied more uniformly to include all school districts” figure.
OK, now that we’ve solved that problem, I’d like to appropriate apply that $5 million beyond the governor’s proposal to resolve the regional school fiscal roulette problem across the state, where some towns are mandated by the state to pay up to 55% above what the state calculates as a reasonable share of the burden to their regional schools. I count 147 instances of towns with regional school assessments that remain at least 10% above target local share in this, the second year of target local share reform.
As it turns out, it is possible to reduce excess contributions down to 110% of target for many of these towns at a cost to the state of only $1.7 million, if the reduction is only made up to the threshold where it triggers additional local aid for the towns. That is to say, this effort reduction does not result in any new chapter 70 aid to any town. The $1.7 million of new aid all goes in the direction of target local share reform, to keep all regional schools spending at least at the foundation level.
A caveat about this reform: it only applies until the threshold where additional local aid is triggered. This means a few towns’ required contributions would remain above 110%. Thirty-eight, to be precise. Bringing those 38 all the way down to 110% would cost a lot more, though – I calculate another $49 million more. But for 26 of those 38, some additional reduction of excess effort accrues this year. If they are regional school members, their assessments fall some this year. Just as important, their required spending level is brought down to the threshold where Mass Budget and Policy Center attributes additional aid to “baseline adjusted for inflation and enrollment”. That is, next year, the state couldn’t use formulaic tricks like prorating “down payment” aid to prevent them from getting closer to their target local share of aid. So though this reform leaves some towns a bit behind where they could be if the state had $50 million to spare, even these towns are put on a more level playing field at the beginning of next year’s budget cycle.
Overall, at a cost of $1.7 Million above the governor’s proposal, it is possible to wring out $263 million from the total $496 million of “excess effort” – that is, an overall reduction of 53% of excess effort.
The governor’s proposal is to reduce excess effort by 30% of effort at a cost of $41 million.
The legislature’s optimistic goal is to reduce excess effort by 40% as well as applying full downpayment aid using last year’s formula, at a total cost $55 million above the governor’s proposal.
If I had the $15 million bucks to appropriate, I would also properly apply downpayment aid, but I’ve only got $3.3 million left.
The purpose of the downpayment aid formula last year was to assure a uniform allocation of the resources available for target local share reform, to the 199 towns that are patiently awaiting a restoration of fairness and balance in chapter 70 aid allocations across the state. A reform with the goal of increasing fairness shouldn’t make the towns furthest from their target required minimum contribution wait till next year to see any of their target local share of aid, while some other towns see a dollar for dollar increase of aid for each dollar of effort reduction. The downpayment aid formula has to be applied at the same rate as the effort reduction number plugged in to the spreadsheet, and using the same formula as last year, to fairly allocate funds available for target share reform.
So, three cheers for the senators and legislators willing to vote to keep last year’s downpayment formula. It’s the only fair vote, and if there is a choice between setting a higher “effort reduction” factor feeding the formulas or applying the available funds uniformly, please make the fair choice. The optimized cap formula described here allows you to dial back in additional total effort reduction of up to twice the governor’s 30% proposal, at little additional cost, if you want to exceed expectations for total effort reduction this year.
Total cost of this package: $216 million, or $39 million less than the legislature’s 40% plan, but it buys you 53% total effort reduction, and the same 30% effort reduction factor as applied by the governor, in addition to taking a huge step towards restoring equity in regional school assessments, and restores proper downpayment aid. And it does not reduce aid below the governor’s proposal for any town or regional district.
You can reach me at massparent at hotmail with questions, comments, or to review the modified spreadsheet model with this reform proposal
I have read your post a couple of times now. I still have no idea what you are trying to say.
When the devil is in the details, it isn’t easy to give a a short and pithy summary.
<
p>
How’s this. The aid available available to complete the state’s reform intended to improve fairness in allocation of state assistance for schools should be split uniformly among the 190 or so towns calculated short of their correct aid level, rather than favoring some of the 190 over others.
<
p>
And, for regional school required spending, no town should be forced by the state to pay more than 110% of what the state calculates as the correct tax rate for their town.
<
p>
The state’s current approach to fixing this problem isn’t addressing these two core values.
So basically, the formula is so complicated that any attempt to make sense of it quickly becomes incomprehensible 🙂
<
p>
I agree that the formula needs tweaking although I don’t know enough to know how to do it. There’s a pledge going around the hosue to boost Chap 70 over Patrick’s # right now, which would be awesome. My rep has signed – has yours? 🙂
says he intended to stick with their original plan, which was $55 million over the Governor’s budget, and which probably used the downpayment aid calculation that assures the additional funds available for fairness reform are spread uniformly among the 190 towns and regional schools that have been shortchanged in the past.
<
p>
He hasn’t been willing to discuss details, though, except that he wants regional transportation costs restored to the level that was promised by the state to entice towns to join regional schools, but then slashed when income tax rates were cut a few years ago.
This seems to be a pet issue of yours, and you seem to have a pretty good handle on it. However, I think you need to explain it more clearly so that people can understand your rationale.
<
p>
My understanding of Chapter 70 is limited. Here’s what I think I know — perhaps you can expand my horizons.
<
p>
<
p>
Is there any way you can give a very brief overview of the foundation budget formula, plus the determination of a city or town’s ability to pay? Only then will I be able to know if I believe that “The aid … should be split uniformly among the 190 or so towns calculated short of their correct aid level, rather than favoring some of the 190 over others.”. Why? Because the process already seems pretty out-of-whack to me.
<
p>
For example, Springfield is required to spend $9,648 per student for FY07. Springfield has among the most challenging school situations in the state, with 78% of the students low-income, 21% limited English ability, 82% non-white.
<
p>
The state has calculated that Springfield needs $232m in state aid to get to this figure. Well, I know that we need something, since our Proposition 2.5 levy ceiling is $186 million — meaning that, even including overrides, we are prohibited from raising more than this in property taxes. So we’re at least $46 million short.
<
p>
But the state has also calculated that wealthy towns surrounding Springfield are required to spend around $7,500-8,000 per student. Yes, those towns have to contribute more locally. These towns have virtually no demographic challenges, under 4% low-income students, under 3% limited English ability, 99% white students.
<
p>
If you were a private company and were offered $7,500 per student to educate kids from Suburban Springfield, or $9,648 to educate Springfield students, and you were expected to achieve identical results, which would you pick? I know which one I’d pick.
<
p>
Since a business would likely pick the suburban schools, then I think it’s safe to say that foundation budgets are out-of-whack here — either they are too high in suburban districts, or are too low in urban districts.
<
p>
So because of that, I have a hard time believing that using the low percentage of local support in urban districts is the right measuring stick to simply “prove” that other districts aren’t being compensated enough. I’m sure there are anomalies due to the incremental adjustment method to funding, but I personally think the whole system needs a review instead of looking at individual examples in passing.
Massachusetts Department of Education
Office of School Finance
FY08 Chapter 70 Foundation Budget, Preliminary
281
SPRINGFIELD
————————————– Base Foundation Components ———————————————————–
— Incremental Costs Above The Base ——
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
Pre-
—— Kindergarten ——
Jr High/
High
ELL
ELL
ELL
Voca-
Special Ed
Special Ed
—- Low Income —-
School
Half-Day
Full-Day
Elementary
Middle
School
PK
K Half
KF – 12
tional
In District
Out of Dist
Elem
Other
TOTAL*
Foundation Enrollment
633
2
1,901
9,265
6,253
6,451
46
0
3,386
1,102
1,074
273
14,294
6,735
28,699
1
Administration
99,324
314
596,572
2,907,542
1,962,316
2,024,453
7,218
0
1,062,595
345,830
2,326,209
591,299
0
0
11,923,671
2
Instructional Leadership
179,392
567
1,077,487
5,251,402
3,544,200
3,656,427
13,036
0
1,919,185
624,614
0
0
0
0
16,266,310
3
Classroom and Specialist Teachers
822,571
2,599
4,940,623
24,079,086
14,300,986
21,696,777
88,874
0
13,083,843
6,300,872
7,675,953
0
33,065,453
11,728,800
137,786,438
4
Other Teaching Services
210,966
667
1,267,150
6,175,771
3,000,377
2,576,981
12,259
0
1,804,704
440,216
7,166,920
9,036
0
0
22,665,047
5
Professional Development
32,543
103
195,480
952,905
697,147
697,353
3,202
0
471,399
196,960
370,283
0
735,569
346,583
4,699,527
6
Instructional Equipment & Tech
119,055
376
715,080
3,485,122
2,352,128
3,882,599
8,652
0
1,273,678
1,160,682
323,199
0
0
0
13,320,570
7
Guidance and Psychological
59,850
189
359,479
1,752,012
1,574,130
2,035,678
5,790
0
852,392
347,747
0
0
0
0
6,987,266
8
Pupil Services
23,807
75
143,031
1,045,555
1,152,615
2,742,062
2,596
0
382,110
468,416
0
0
0
0
5,960,268
9
Operations and Maintenance
228,418
722
1,371,933
6,686,458
4,892,472
4,893,922
22,472
0
3,308,224
1,564,609
2,598,511
0
5,161,849
2,432,143
33,161,732
10
Employee Benefits/Fixed Charges
205,890
651
1,236,620
6,027,253
3,867,668
3,833,571
18,822
0
2,770,967
1,063,562
2,943,780
0
3,392,681
1,598,552
26,960,017
11
Special Ed Tuition
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,614,106
0
0
5,614,106
12
Total
1,981,815
6,262
11,903,454
58,363,107
37,344,042
48,039,823
182,921
0
26,929,095
12,513,508
23,404,855
6,214,441
42,355,552
16,106,079
285,344,953
13
Wage Adjustment Factor
100.0%
Foundation Budget Per Pupil
9,943
*
Total foundation enrollment does not include columns 11 through 14, because those columns represent increments above the base. The pupils are already counted in columns 1 to 10.
Total foundation enrollment assigns pupils in pre-kindergarten and half-time kindergarten an enrollment count of .5.
Special education in-district headcount is an assumed percentage, representing 3.75 percent of K to 12 non-vocational enrollment and 4.75 percent of vocational enrollment.
Special education out-of-district headcount is also an assumed percentage, representing 1 percent of non-vocational K-12 enrollment.
Low income headcounts are the number of pupils in columns 1 through 10 who are eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Each component of the foundation budget represents the enrollment on line 1 multiplied by the appropriate state-wide foundation allotment.
The wage adjustment factor is applied to underlying rates in all functions except instructional equipment, benefits and special education tuition.
Return to Index
I copied the Springfield foundation budget page. I don’t really know the foundation side of the spreadsheet very well, just the revenue side.
<
p>
On the revenue side, this used to be incrementally adjusted every year based on prop 2.5 limits from baseline – with some modifications that changed from time to time. Last year, they started what is planned as a five year reform that seeks to bring these numbers closer to a target based on local aggregate wealth – measured as property tax based equivalent value, plus DOR reported income. This is aggregate income, meaning the target is essentially a flat tax estimating what a town should be able to pay, if it is in line with all the other municipalities in the state. But the current spread of actual required payments is all over the chart.
<
p>
The state fills in from what you are actually required to pay up to the foundation budget level, as the primary way that aid is increased. Once you have aid, it is more or less like water rights out west – you get the same amount next year, or more. You can also get additional aid in other ways, which change each legislative session. Target local share aid is one of these, but it works indirectly – meaning you don’t get what it says you should get until your required contribution falls so much that you need a subsidy to come back up to foundation.
<
p>
For Springfield, the target is for the state to cover 82% of the school budget, but the state actually covers 89%. It is fairly common for towns to get more than their target share of aid; across the state, 176 municipalities and regional schools get more than target, while 199 get less than target.
<
p>
Note that the intention, if all towns were at target share, is that everyone would have the same flat tax burden applied – but aid is then distributed based on school burden, IE, in a manner that is both progressive and which equalizes burdens across the state. If two towns have the same “wealth” , but one has more children in public schools, the one with more kids gets more support. Same for SPED and low income; the higher burden, or at least part of it, doesn’t force a town to pay more than its calculated ability to pay.
<
p>
My beef is on the side of aid and in particular spending requirements, hence I’ve learned that side of the sheet. I’ve looked only briefly at the foundation side –