Archived Information

School Finance: Chapter 70 Program

Forum on Proposed Revisions to Chapter 70 Education Aid

Sponsored by the Board of Education: December 7, 1999

On Tuesday, December 7, 1999, the Board of Education sponsored a forum on the proposed revisions to Chapter 70 Education Aid. The forum brought together more than 20 people familiar with the formula to participate in a roundtable discussion. Also in attendance were officials representing local, state, and non-profit organizations. In all, there were more than 50 attendees. This document provides a summary of the discussion. A complete transcript is available in Microsoft Word format.

To begin the discussion, Jeff Wulfson provided an overview of the proposals included in the memo currently before the Board. Carolyn Busch, Education Policy Advisor to Governor Gary Locke of Washington State, provided comments based on her national research and her experience in Washington State regarding the current formula and proposed revisions. Michael Widmer, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, provided a Massachusetts perspective. Following the presentations, Chairman Peyser moderated a roundtable discussion of the proposed formula revisions. I have attached a list of participants and below are highlights of the forum discussion by topic area.

CHAPTER 70 GENERALLY

• The four premises behind the Department of Education's proposals were: (1) not to reinvent the wheel, but to work within the current framework and make changes to those areas that are problematic; (2) recognize the state's funding constraints; (3) simplify the current formula to promote increased support and understanding; and (4) focus on providing more school based decision-making and management.

• Because the seven-year legislative funding commitment has ended, it is an excellent opportunity to make significant changes, even to the framework of the formula.

• An analysis should be conducted to determine what is needed in terms of resources and funding for students to achieve the standards set by the Department and build the formula around that foundation. Unlike Washington's uniform pay scale, salaries vary by community and that type of analysis may not be effective here.

• A review of funding patterns for districts demonstrating improved performance should be conducted to ensure that there are no disincentives to improvement.

LOCAL CONTRIBUTION - How to reduce financial disparities between similarly situated communities? Evaluation of three options before the Board.

• The funding formula should be more student focused with the central priority to provide the resources necessary for students to achieve the standards set by the Department.

• One option would use two different methods for calculating minimum local contribution: one for wealthier districts and another method for poorer districts.

• While the League of Women Voters' proposal focuses on assisting middle class communities, low income enrollment could be weighted to provide additional resources.

• Proposals to establish a straight EQV or a combination of EQV and income tax rate could create a conflict between Proposition 2 ½ and minimum local spending requirements. A cap on local contribution rates at 130 percent over foundation may provide some assistance.

FOUNDATION BUDGET - Is it adequate? Should it be input or outcome driven?

• While the focus of funding should be to get students achieving at standard, inputs should be a related consideration.

• There is a concern that spending in above-foundation communities has been "eroding" toward foundation. Should the goal of state funding be to have all districts spending the same amount, or to have all districts spending at least the minimum?

• There is some concern for districts that are spending well in excess of foundation and the resulting impact on other municipal services.

• Overburden Aid, Minimum Aid, Equity Aid, and Choice Aid should be eliminated as permanent components of the revised formula because they perpetuate built-in inequities between similarly situated communities.

• The elimination or phase out of Overburden Aid, while called for to eliminate disparities, is difficult to achieve due to its impact on municipal revenues.

OTHER COMMENTS

• No matter what revisions are adopted, there will be "winners" and "losers."

• The formula and calculations need to be simplified for broader understanding and continuing support of the program. Simplification could include reducing the number of component types of aid within the formula and adjustment to correct original disparities that have been exacerbated over the last seven years.

• There should be a transition period, including carryover funding, to any new formula. This period should be limited to 3-5 years.

• Special Education funding and allocation needs to be more reflective of actual spending. Proposals highlighted different options including increasing the proportion allocated in the formula to reflecting more accurate enrollment to a separate line item for special education spending. Each proposal brought with it specific concerns.

• High Enrollment Growth Districts are not capturing full funding for actual students because the formula is based on prior year enrollment. Some districts drop below foundation spending as a result. Adjusting enrollment figures to reflect more current enrollment data would assist the high growth districts but could result in other fiscal problems.

ISSUES SUGGESTED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

• Pre-School Costs and Allocation
• Class Size
• Transportation Costs and Reimbursement
• Regional School Assessments for Charter Schools
• Charter School Funding as a Component of Chapter 70
• Expanded Program Costs and Allocation
• Transitional Bilingual Education and English as a Second Language Allocation and Enrollment

Discussion Participants

Commissioner David Driscoll, Department of Education
Chairman James Peyser, Board of Education
Roberta Schaefer, Vice Chair, Board of Education
Jeff Wulfson, Department of Education
Carolyn Busch, Washington State Governor's Office
Michael Widmer, Mass. Taxpayers Foundation
Cameron Huff, Mass. Taxpayers Foundation
Jill Reynolds, Governor's Office
Ted Constan, Senate President Birmingham's Office
Anne Marie O'Connor, Rep. Marini's Office
Connie Rizoli, Joint Education Committee
Sylvia Smith, Senator Antonioni's Office
Robert Costrell, Administration & Finance
Rick Kingsley, Division of Local Services
Maura Lampert, Budget Bureau/Fiscal Affairs Division
Mary Frantz, League of Women Voters
Edward Moscovitch, Cape Ann Economics
John Robertson, Mass. Municipal Association
Christopher Martes, Mass. Association of School Superintendents
David Tobin (M.A.S.S.)
Kathleen Kelley, Mass. Federation of Teachers
David Danning, Mass. Teachers Association
James Caridonio, Worcester Public Schools
Mark Brophy, Worcester Education Association
Robert Silberswyth, Plymouth Regional Schools
Thomas Lamey, Fitchburg Public Schools