How about “0.5% for the Kids” so we can preserve our local communties. If we increase the income tax 0.5% and hardwire the extra $1Billion for distribution on a per child per district basis so that all benefit, we can make it possible to fund our schools AND make it possible for our local communities to provide property tax relief. Those least able to afford overrides would benefit, and communities would then have the ability to manage their budgets and set their priorities locally.
I posted this as a reply to the Governor’s Chief of Staff. Folks replying encouraged me to post this as its own post. This problem deserves more than the band aids proposed by the Governor; and if ignored puts. The following is the position paper we presented to Project Readiness. We asked for a meeting with them and they said no. It was not and is not an open process.
(If you agree with this, go to the Chapter 70 Coalition page on the My Issues Section of www.devalpatrick.com and vote in favor of the issues.)
Please review the paper and make your voice heard.
Education Funding White Paper
Across the Commonwealth, our local communities are facing the perennial struggle to fund their local schools while retaining diversity and affordable property taxes. Despite increases in state funding over the past 2 years, many communities find themselves spending less on education today on a per child basis, than they did 5 or even 15 years ago. This is hard to fathom, and is a reflection of 3 factors: an increase in students without a corresponding increase in the property tax base; inadequate and in many cases inequitable distribution of state funding to cover increasing state mandated special education costs; and inflation driven largely by health insurance and energy costs. Repetitive overrides are increasingly common and cannot be a permanent solution. In many communities, property taxes are now well above 10% and even approach 25% of income for seniors and those least able to afford them. If we want to retain public schools as the core of our education system, we cannot continue to reduce spending per child. If action is not taken soon, many of our excellent schools will decline at a time when we also need to keep education strong in order to drive the state economic engine and to improve and enhance our underperforming districts. If we let that happen, parents who can afford it will remove their children from their public schools and support for funding at the local and state level will further erode. This is the elephant in the room that remains undetected by the Governor, his Project Readiness Team, and many in the legislature. Is this the future we desire?
In 1993, Massachusetts, under order from the Supreme Judicial Court, adopted education reform and enacted Chapter 70 of the Mass General Laws. Chapter 70 fixed a serious problem. At that time, the property tax provided an even larger share of funding for schools. As a result, many less wealthy communities could not fund an adequate education. Chapter 70 created a state funded program to distribute aid to under-funded districts based on their needs and their ability to pay. A floor was established for all communities at a relatively low level to provide some funding for state mandates, which were quite limited at that time. Today, many communities spend 10 times more on special education than in 1993, representing in many communities almost a third of their education budget, without a corresponding increase in Chapter 70 aid.
The Department of Education reports that in 1993, low income districts funded their schools at $5250 per child, while high income districts funded their schools at $5640 per child. FY09 funding proposes state aid for low income districts at levels of over $10,000 per child and total spending per child of over $11,000. In towns like Chelmsford, Harvard and Littleton, the proposed state aid ranges from $1400-1900 per child and these towns make up the difference with property taxes of up to $6800 for a total spend per child of $8200-8400. Reflecting upon these numbers, two things are apparent. The higher income communities spend less per child than underperforming districts, as they probably should, given the challenges in under-funded districts. However, higher income communities, with less commercial district revenue and inequitable Chapter 70 aid, have increasingly limited taxation room due to substantial increases in their local tax burden; particularly for seniors, farmers and those with lesser incomes who have tax bills that may exceed 10% to 25% or more of their incomes.
Because the Chapter 70 formula was created from a snapshot of assumptions in 1993, it is outdated and allocates state aid among similar communities differently. For example, Acton/Boxboro, a community geographically close and similar socio-economically to Harvard, is slotted to receive $2330 per child — almost $1000 per child more than Harvard. This difference represents $1.2MM in state aid to Harvard – more than an amount equivalent to Harvard’s school and Town deficit for the coming year to maintain level services. As a result of this inadequate funding, Harvard is forced to increase property taxes and cut services. Many would look at Harvard and conclude that the community can afford to increase taxes due to its average incomes and property values. That is why it is a good example. Census data indicates that about one fifth of the seniors in Harvard, and 11.5% of the Town as a whole, have household incomes of $35,000 or less. This means with an average family tax bill rising to $8500 or more, they will likely be paying 25% of their fixed income in property taxes. The family farmers, some of the few that are left in Massachusetts face the same dilemma. Through a delicate balancing act, the Town continues to ratchet down school services to each child. In 1993, it spent $5930 per child in the schools on regular education. In 2008, it spent less — $5793 per child. After inflation, this represents a decline of 40% in spending since 1993 despite the substantial tax increases. Still, as seniors and farmers leave, they are replaced by families with children which increase school costs without a corresponding increase in the tax base – making matters even worse.
The only solution is to end Massachusetts’ excessive reliance on the property tax and increase reliance on the state income tax. Massachusetts is now 47th in the Country in the amount it funds public schools as a percentage of income – less than California. California started down this path 5-10 years before Massachusetts with Proposition 13. If you speak with your friends in California, even with higher state funding, it now has a 2 class education system in which very large numbers of students have left public education for private school. Twenty-five years ago California’s public schools were among the best in the country.
The Governor is proposing to study the problem and recently launched his Project Readiness initiative. Unfortunately, this well intentioned program is not designed to bear fruit for many years to come. The solution is to bring our state funding in line at least with the national average for state spending. The best means to raise the revenue is through the income tax so as not to punish the less advantaged, the seniors and the farmers. The Governor’s proposals for gambling, closing corporate loopholes and allowing for local sales taxes provide no assurance of additional funding for many communities in Massachusetts and some of these proposals may never come to fruition.
We need to adopt “0.5% for the Kids.” That is, a 0.5% increase in the income tax that is legally required to be distributed to all c
hildren in all school districts on a per child basis. This would raise $1B in revenue from those most able to afford it and would assure that the next generation has the skills and education to maintain a strong state economy. It could leave intact the positive parts of the existing Chapter 70 formula to assure state subsidization of less economically fortunate districts, while addressing the need to fund special education and perhaps many of the key programs that Project Readiness envisions. It would also retain local control and leave local districts with the authority they need over programs and spending to assure maximum value for their schools. Finally, we need to adjust the Chapter 70 formula to eliminate its arbitrary and inequitable features.
This action takes courage and will certainly have substantial opposition. But, it is the only option that can, in fact, relieve the regressive property tax burden. This feature – relieving the burden on seniors and the most vulnerable members of our communities – if properly communicated, provides the political capital for it to succeed. Mandatory distribution of the funds per capital, per child is also key, so that all students in all districts benefit from the proposal and have a stake in their public schools.
Our leaders must acknowledge the elephant in the room – the decline of our public schools. Give them the courage to get engaged. Meet with the Governor, your legislators and share your views so that financially viable, first class public schools remain the centerpiece of our education system.
Bruce Leicher
will not decrease under the proposal. Bruce, while I agree with most of your post I do see push back from the Legislature on any increase in the income tax. While I agree this would be fairer way to fund education than the property tax it is not going to happen.
<
p>Local government needs to get its house in order. Too many cities and towns are unwilling to come to grips with public employee unions. They negotiate 3% increase on top of step and scale increases so many employees may get up to a 9% increase. With Prop. 2 1/2 this cannot be justified. Expenses will outstrip revenue. Pension and health insurance are two other issues that must be tamed by the locals before major increases in local aid can be justified.
<
p>BTW didn’t the Town of Harvard receive large amounts of cash from the Federal Govt. in the nineties to educate kids from Ft. Devens?
Aren’t paid enough as is. If you want to attract more and better teachers to the profession, the answer isn’t ‘reining the unions in,’ that’s for sure.
<
p>Taxes need to be increased, and I’d say the .5% isn’t going to cut it – not with all the other glaring and unavoidable holes facing this state in its future. If we’re proactive, instead of reactive, maybe we can fix all our roads and bridges for a fraction of the cost, make them better to attract new jobs and prevent many of the serious accidents that cause people to lose their lives every year.
Ryan, I guess you never have tried to balance a municipal budget. Property taxpayers have had enough and the Legislature as presently constructed won’t be raising the income tax anytime soon.
<
p>Check out Eric Moskowits’s Page 1 article in the Globe today. If they can’t pass an overide in Newton there are not many communities where they can. Middle class taxpayers are stuck with increasing gasoline, heating, and the ripple effect of rising food costs. They will vote no on tax increases.
<
p>70 to 80% of municipal costs are involving salaries, pensions, and health insurance. Does not leave much for anything else.
<
p>Please:
<
p>A) Tell me where I said that property taxes were the answer.
<
p>And
<
p>B) leave the defeatist attitude behind. As you can see, we have some solutions out there and need to work to make sure our legislative leaders GET IT, but a defeatist attitude isn’t going to get us there. Nor is one that involves taking it out on the teachers.
<
p>And, finally
<
p>C) Please address my initial point: teachers aren’t paid enough as is and have only been continually sacrificing to put budgets in order, with very few exceptions. You can’t attack the symptoms hoping for a cure to the disease. If we municipalities actually got together – instead of fighting amongst each other for more Chapter 70 funds and fighting against their teachers and police officers and employees who keep the munis running afloat… maybe we’d freaking have real solutions by now.
<
p>I’m just getting sick and tired of all this bickering and targeting of the people who want to help so badly that their very jobs depend on it. IT’S NOT GETTING US ANYWHERE!
<
p>If you don’t think the state is giving you enough aid, do something about it. I’m done hearing the whining and the complaining that your elected leaders won’t actually change the income tax rate. If your state legislators won’t do it, run against them or find someone who will!
<
p>2. I am not defeatist, just a realist. Serve on a BOS or a school comm., you will be amazed at how little you can accomplish. We needed additional teachers for FY09. We showed BOS and FINCOM why. Response… sorry no money. Push for an overide? Can’t get BOS to support it. Would not pass anyways. Defeatist? no realist.
<
p>3. Some teachers are underpaid. Suggest pay for performance and the union will shoot it down.
<
p>4. Regionalization may be a partial answer. It is not just about raising taxes. Reforms need to take place. Expand school choice. Offer vouchers to parents to facilitate choice. Allow more charter schools. Reform police details. Stop double dipping on pensions. Phase government employees into the Medicare system.
<
p>5. I have lobbied my elected reps. I do believe we need to stop our reliance on the property tax to fund local government. That will help stop the local bickering.
Let’s say you are a private sector employee, age 57, earning $70,000 a year. In 2012, you will retire at age 62 and your annual social security payment will be $15,624.
<
p>You can run the numbers here.
<
p>Let’s say you are a teacher, age 57, earning $70,000 a year. In 2012, you will retire at age 62 and your annual Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System payment will be $56,000.
<
p>You can run the numbers here.
<
p>Private sector employees currently pay 6.2% of their income to social security. Private sector self-employed people pay 12.4%.
<
p>Massachusetts teachers now pay 11%.
<
p>For a difference of a few hundred dollars annually, teachers make far more money in retirement.
<
p>I just charted the lifetime earnings for a 25-year old who entered the workforce in 1998 using the above calculators. Assumptions:
<
p>Private sector: starting salary $40K, 5% annual raises, 6.2% SS tax
Teacher: starting salary $30K, 5% annual raises, 11% MTRS
<
p>Both retire at age 62.
<
p>Total earnings at retirement:
<
p>Private sector: $4,041,262
Teacher: $2,875,845
<
p>5 years after retirement:
<
p>Private sector:$4,278,963
Teacher: $3,860,610
<
p>10 years after retirement:
<
p>Private sector:$4,554,523
Teacher: $5,002,223
<
p>E-mail me if you want a copy of the spreadsheet. You can play around with assumptions such as starting salary and annual rates of increase.
<
p>I work in high tech, and excluding promotions — which translate into more work, more responsibility and more hours — annual raises have been between 1-3% since 2001. For the rate of increase of teacher salaries, I looked at my district’s last two rounds of teacher contracts dating back to 2003. The salaries were set to be the median of market basket and neighboring communities.
<
p>
Good job Dweir! Teachers in the system for 10 years make a good wage. If they put the time in they can retire as early as 55. Try that in the dreaded private sector.
<
p>These type of benefits are what is forcing the types of cutbacks in cities and towns that we are hearing about. I’ll credit the Gov. with bringing police details to the forefront. This won’t save tons of money, but it is a start. Some paid details will still require police and everyone should realize that.
<
p>You do get what you pay for. Unions should be open to the idea of merit pay for high performers, but my experience with unions has been same pay for everyone and work like heck to protect the non performers.
<
p>As for Prop 2 1/2 it has contributed to civil disconnect amongst local voters. No need to show up at Town Meeting to debate the merits of the school budget. We will just vote against any overide on election day. That will be the extent of our municipal participation.
<
p>By the time they’ve been in the system for ten years, inflation isn’t making their step increases look all that good.
<
p>Meanwhile, I have two cousins with a degree in Psychology – one from Northeastern, the other from Plymouth State. Both of them were average students – not bad, not fantastic – and neither of them have advanced degrees. Cousin A has been working in human relations at a corporation in Boston for around 5-6 years, is 28 years old, and is now earning between 75-80k. Cousin B started at Verizon Wireless selling cell phones and in 3-4 years worked herself all the way up to management and is now making 60-65k and has benefits on par with any teacher (retirement package, health care, the whole 9 yards).
<
p>There is no avenue for that kind of progress in the public sector. I’m not even saying that there should be. But I think it does go to show you exactly why the best and the brightest generally don’t become teachers, and why we’re having a tough time recruiting the kinds of people who are capable of proficiently teaching our kids their math and science. And you think now is the time to further attack the teaching profession? Do you really just not care about the educations our kids are receiving, or what?
… in an ed program in college and after looking at the numbers and hiring prospects, switched programs. Since that time I’ve been told by multiple qualified people that I should be teaching. Truth is, it isn’t enough money. Wasn’t then, isn’t now. But for a decent wage I’d probably be teaching.
Better Benefits vs. Better Salaries.
<
p>Furthermore, everything’s relative. Many police officers, who have educations that often pale in comparison with teachers (who are required to get a Master’s Degree) earn upwards of 90k as patrolmen… and get benefits that are every bit as good, and probably better, than teachers.
<
p>If teaching were so freaking lucrative, why are we having trouble attracting the best and the brightest – or heck, enough – to the field? The reason? They’re, by and large, under compensated for the work that they do. Furthermore, there’s no real ladder to climb as a teacher – the most teachers tend to earn now is around 60-70k, with very, very few exceptions and only after putting in 15-20 years with their current school. Taken over the course of their career, that’s not a large increase in salary over the rate of inflation. A great many people in the private sector can continually move up and earn into the 3 figures, often with less education.
Ryan, I know some teachers that DO deserve 90K a year, but under the present labor/management system you can’t pay them what they deserve. We can’t change that on the local level. We need help for that on the State level.
you, and every other person in this state, should be focusing on that. We allow ourselves to get so bogged down in the little things – the bandaids that often tear each other apart in the process – that we, as a people, have trouble fighting the larger, more difficult – and far more important – fights.
So teachers are better paid because…they put more money into retirement. I pay 11% of my salary into pension on top of health care, dental, state and federal income tax, and medicare. Who here pays 11% in Social Security? I’ve worked in the private sector (sorry MCRD), and I never paid nearly that much. As shown in your figures, I’m better paid at 72 because I’m paid worse at 32 — provided I’m still alive and the system is still solvent.
<
p>My pension is better because I’m forced to save the money now in an account managed more shrewdly than Social Security is. Not because I have it easy.
<
p>PS: My job is so easy that it’s 9pm on Sunday and I’m on the computer writing up my own text and activities on medieval India because the “experts” in my district forced upon us a medieval history curriculum series that doesn’t mention India.
Your namesake would not indulge in the kind of finger-pointing embedded in that cliche.
<
p>Local revenues are capped at less than the rate of inflation, and cities and towns face additional uncontrollable costs imposed by the state and federal governments. It is neither helpful nor realistic nor honest to frame the problem in terms of some failure of fiscal nerve on the part of local government.
<
p>I agree that Bruce’s proposal is unlikely given the dominant mind set on Beacon Hill, but I would say more’s the pity, not “get your house in order.”
<
p>The current fiscal crisis is a product of choices made on Beacon Hill, not Main Street.
The Town of Harvard did not receive any cash from the Federal Government to educate kids from Fort Devens in the 90s. Perhaps, they did get funding in prior decades.
<
p>Currently we have a contract to educate about 15 students at a negotiated prices (not sure of the exact amount) that covers the cost of their education. The contract is with Mass Development and expires in a few years.
I have to confess, I am a supporter of the 80/20 rule. Its worth spending 80% of your limited time on 80% of the problem.
<
p>Assume that teachers should get lower raises (I will take no position on it), we will still have a structural deficit in our town and have to pass overrides to maintain level services.
<
p>The reason is inequitable Chapter 70 funding and inadequate chapter 70 funding from the state.
<
p>The state is forcing us to increase property taxes whether by override or not, to fund state mandates and uncontrolled costs.
<
p>The state could change the law to increase the income tax 0.5% and hardwire the extra billion dollars on a per child per district basis.
<
p>This would allow each community to decide locally how to manage its budgets. One town might want to pay teachers more, another might not. One town might provide property tax relief, another might not.
<
p>The big difference is that this proposal stops taxing those at the bottom of the income scale (mostly seniors) and instead taxes those who have more of an ability to pay.
<
p>By hardwiring the distribution, the fear of sending money to Beacon Hill for inequitable distribution is overcome.
<
p>Bruce
Charlie Pierce’s apt description of Prop 2 1/2 in today’s Globe Magazine
<
p>
<
p>Charlie, as usual is the brightest spot in the Magazine.
I’ll never get why people write a post on one subject – ie we need to raise taxes by .5% for our children – and then proceed to make completely different, unrelated points that won’t help your thesis. Attacking teachers is something I just can’t get behind; they’re attacked enough as is. Raising taxes .5% to pay towns for their educational expenses? I’d support that in a second. If people want to write effective diaries, stick to points about what you actually came there to say.
Ryan
<
p>Next step is for you to contact Leslie Kirwan. She indicated this morning at the Suburban Coalition that she and Governor would not support this proposal.
<
p>Instead, she asked us to support the Governor’s band aid tax proposals that will do little if anything to fix the education funding problem.
<
p>Bruce
Great idea. Now tell me how its going to work. What kind of moron (probably from the business community) can grade performance of some one who teaches a child? A living breathing feeling hungry growing sad happy crying laughing emotional genius challenging hurting child. How do you measure success? By a test score?
<
p>Only someone who has NEVER taught child would suggest a thing. The day that teacher performance pay is tied to a child performance is the same day you should be required to have a license to breed and raise a child.
<
p>What has this world come to?
<
p>Its one thing to expect that there be minimal standards for graduation (our best and brightest children are suffering the most because tests are taught by LCD) but its not a totally bad idea. Its one thing to treat children like numbers and cram the same crap down their throat for 12 years and kill imagination and inventiveness, its another to reward the people who run the best rat lab.
<
p>Whomever suggested this should not be allowed to procreate. Or they should work with emotionally disturbed children for ten years. Then see if teacher pay is too much.
<
p>My mother was a teacher for 30 years. I made more in my second year of work than she did after 15 years of teaching. She had a MFA, I had a BS. When I moved to my town in Massachusetts new teachers were eligible for FOOD STAMPS.
<
p>My wife would love to teach. We can not afford to make the move because the low starting pay would kill us. What kind of world do you live in? Are you that clueless and isolated from the real world? Where do you get these numbers? Not in my town. Not in my world.
<
p>
Yesterday, Leslie Kirwan, the Secretary of Administration and Finance addressed the Suburban Coalition at the Statehouse. She indicated that with the current budget deficits, little should be expected to increase local aid. When asked if she could support “0.5% for the Kids”, rather than consider the issue, she responded that folks should just support the “closing corporate loopholes” proposal and the proposal for a “meals” tax, neither of which would “move the needle” for many local communities. She conceded that the current proposals would help only some communities and said it was the “best they could do”.
<
p>Perhaps she did not understand the proposal.
<
p>Her principal argument is we need to be worried more about the rollback the income tax rate advocates. How could we increase the income tax if folks are seeking to roll it back, she asked, but did not answer.
<
p>She is missing, and perhaps the Governor is missing the point. The reason folks are screaming to roll back the income tax is they have lost trust in the way the state goverment uses and applies their income tax revenue — particularly if they are facing annual property tax overrides at home.
<
p>”0.5% for the kids” does not give more money to the State. Rather it makes the income tax mechanism available for use by local communities so that they can fund a greater share of their budgets with income tax revenue, manage their costs and actually reduce their reliance on property taxes.
<
p>This proposal has political possibilities precisely because it returns to the people the ability to fund and manage local services by mandating distribution of the increase to the local communities on a per child basis.
<
p>The state can then use CH70 to do what it intended, help assure communities with less resources, have what they need.
<
p>Bruce