 |
Post Office Box 1147 ●
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945 ●
(781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
45 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Friday, October 25, 2019
Prop 2½
safe in House bill, but the threat remains
|
The Massachusetts House on Wednesday night
unanimously approved a seven-year plan to pour $1.5 billion
into the state's public education system, moving legislation
that has been the subject of persistent and passionate
advocacy a step closer to the governor's desk.
Planned investments to support low-income
students and English learners are a focal point of the bill,
which Education Committee House Chair Alice Peisch called "a
massive step toward a more equitable funding structure." The
investments are not accompanied by any new revenue sources
and legislators plan to ramp up K-12 education spending with
existing funding streams, an approach that could imperil
other state services.
A version of the bill cleared the Senate
earlier this month, and differences between the two branches
mean uncertainty remains over what a final bill will look
like and how long it may take lawmakers to produce one.
While lawmakers last session couldn't move
similar proposals out of a House-Senate conference
committee, representatives nonetheless described their vote
on Wednesday as historic and a cause for celebration.
"Today, even though Massachusetts is the
first in the nation when it comes to education, there's a
huge achievement gap that we need to close, and this bill
will level the playing field and allow us to do just that,"
Rep. Tram Nguyen, an Andover Democrat who called the bill
"an investment in our collective future."
Though Senate President Karen Spilka, House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Education Committee Chairs Peisch
and Sen. Jason Lewis rolled out a committee bill jointly and
highlighted the consensus behind it, the bills diverged in
each branch as they moved through the legislative process.
The House and Senate bills will need to be reconciled before
lawmakers ship a final version to Gov. Charlie Baker for
review....
Nearly four years ago, a state panel called
the Foundation Budget Review Commission found that the
current funding formula underestimates the cost of education
by $1 billion annually by inadequately accounting for
expenses associated with low-income students, English
learners, special education and employee health benefits....
Most of the amendments representatives filed
were withdrawn without public discussion.
State House News Service
Thursday, October 24, 2019
House Votes Sets Up Talks on Final Education $$$ Bill
The Massachusetts House of Representatives
unanimously passed sweeping legislation Wednesday to
overhaul the state’s antiquated education funding system,
setting up a clash with the Senate about how much power
state officials should be given over the $1.4 billion in
proposed additional state aid.
Amid opposition from House leadership,
sponsors withdrew two amendments that would have reduced
state influence over district plans for the new state aid.
The amendments were backed by some of the House’s more
progressive members and by teachers unions.
Rejecting those amendments puts the House at
odds with the Senate over the high-stakes legislation, which
is designed to bridge the divide in educational
opportunities between poor and affluent systems. The
Senate’s version of the bill, passed several weeks ago,
included changes that would trim the power state education
officials could exercise over local spending plans....
In all, lawmakers ultimately withdrew 60 of
the 70 amendments they had filed, approved five, and held
just one roll-call vote on an amendment over several hours
of debate....
Still, the floor debate revealed that some
members feel their school districts were being shortchanged
by the legislation, which by design targets much of the new
funding to districts that serve large concentrations of
students living in poverty or those with language barriers.
[Rep. Colleen M. Garry, D-Dracut] also gave
a nod to the controversy that erupted over the analysis
Baker’s office released on the eve of the Senate vote,
estimating the bill’s fiscal impact on school districts,
using those numbers to illustrate how much less generous the
bill was to her district than Lowell, a so-called gateway
city and among the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed
formula changes.
The Boston Globe
Thursday, October 24, 2019
House passes landmark education funding bill,
but a clash with Senate is likely
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Amendment #2 — the
scheme to "mitigate the restraints of Proposition 2½,"
sponsored in the House by Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier
(D-Pittsfield) — was withdrawn from the House education
finance reform bill before the House adjourned at 9:21
on Wednesday night. What a long day watching
Beacon Hill sausage being made beginning at 11:00 am,
just waiting for the moment when Amendment #2 would come
up for debate. It never did.
Now the House version and the
Senate version (in which the scheme to "mitigate
the restraints of Proposition 2½"
is included) will go to a House-Senate conference
committee where (in secret) compromises will be made and
a single "reconciled" version will come out for both
chambers to vote on without amendment.
When Rep. Farley-Bouvier was
contacted after House passage of the bill, she said she
intends to continue pushing for her amendment to be
included in the final bill "through the conference
committee process."
I'm gratified that the stealth
assault on CLT's Proposition 2½ was not included
in the House version — better for property taxpayers
that it wasn't for the moment — but the threat remains.
If you stay vigilant — we will too and will fight on!
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House News
Service
Thursday, October 24, 2019
House Votes Sets Up Talks on Final Education $$$
Bill
By Katie Lannan
The Massachusetts House on Wednesday night
unanimously approved a seven-year plan to pour
$1.5 billion into the state's public education
system, moving legislation that has been the
subject of persistent and passionate advocacy a
step closer to the governor's desk.
Planned investments to support low-income
students and English learners are a focal point
of the bill, which Education Committee House
Chair Alice Peisch called "a massive step toward
a more equitable funding structure." The
investments are not accompanied by any new
revenue sources and legislators plan to ramp up
K-12 education spending with existing funding
streams, an approach that could imperil other
state services.
A version of the bill cleared the Senate earlier
this month, and differences between the two
branches mean uncertainty remains over what a
final bill will look like and how long it may
take lawmakers to produce one.
While lawmakers last session couldn't move
similar proposals out of a House-Senate
conference committee, representatives
nonetheless described their vote on Wednesday as
historic and a cause for celebration.
"Today, even though Massachusetts is the first
in the nation when it comes to education,
there's a huge achievement gap that we need to
close, and this bill will level the playing
field and allow us to do just that," Rep. Tram
Nguyen, an Andover Democrat who called the bill
"an investment in our collective future."
Though Senate President Karen Spilka, House
Speaker Robert DeLeo and Education Committee
Chairs Peisch and Sen. Jason Lewis rolled out a
committee bill jointly and highlighted the
consensus behind it, the bills diverged in each
branch as they moved through the legislative
process. The House and Senate bills will need to
be reconciled before lawmakers ship a final
version to Gov. Charlie Baker for review.
A significant difference is the way the bills
handle plans that school districts must prepare
outlining steps they will take to close
achievement gaps. The Senate adopted a Sen.
Patricia Jehlen amendment that removed the
education commissioner's authority to require
that districts revise plans found to be
inadequate, saying instead that the commissioner
"may recommend plan amendments."
The House Ways and Means Committee redrafted the
bill to return to the original Education
Committee language giving the commissioner power
to order new plans. Rep. James Hawkins of
Attleboro offered -- and then withdrew -- a
closely watched amendment that mirrored the
Senate language.
Rep. Joseph Wagner, speaking in opposition to
Hawkins' amendment, compared the state's role as
an entity that provides resources for education
to his providing the car that his teenage
children drive. He said that in the same way he
expects his kids to adhere to a curfew when out
in the car, the commissioner should expect
accountability from districts.
Rep. Michael Moran said the requirement that the
plans be submitted to the education department
is important because "funding increases alone"
won't guarantee improvements for students, and
"the more professional educators we have looking
at and trying to solve a problem will only mean
better chances of success for kids."
Gov. Charlie Baker had said the Jehlen amendment
"weakened" the committee bill, but Spilka on
Monday stood by her branch's changes, saying
they "made the bill even stronger." She said
Jehlen's amendment arose after senators and
staff spoke to people at the Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education who had
"voiced some concerns" about the original
accountability language and the amendment "was
adopted to make it more consistent with DESE's
practice and capacity."
Peisch told the News Service after the House's
final vote on the bill that she was "optimistic"
the two branches could work out their
differences. She said she was not yet sure if
the legislation would be bound for a conference
committee.
Peisch said she and Lewis worked for "many
months in order to get something that we thought
would have broad support."
"I'm very gratified to see that it, in fact,
does have that level of support," she said.
Praising the overall bill as a
"once-in-a-generation change," Massachusetts
Teachers Association President Merrie Najimy
said her union "will keep the pressure on in
support of the Senate's language" if the bill
goes to a conference committee. Najimy said the
Senate language "promotes greater input from
parents and educators -- the real experts on
what students need."
Charlotte Kelly, executive director of the
Massachusetts Education Justice Alliance, said
both branches "have passed the most progressive
school funding legislation in the country" and
expressed hope that "any conference committee
reaches a quick consensus and sends this bill to
the governor to sign."
Nearly four years ago, a state panel called the
Foundation Budget Review Commission found that
the current funding formula underestimates the
cost of education by $1 billion annually by
inadequately accounting for expenses associated
with low-income students, English learners,
special education and employee health benefits.
Since that report's release, the House and
Senate have been unable to agree on an approach
to education funding reform in each of the last
two legislative sessions. The collapse of
negotiations on school finance bills at the end
of last session prompted a renewed push from
advocates this year, including the filing of a
lawsuit alleging that chronic underfunding has
created unconstitutional disparities in public
education.
Rep. Aaron Vega of Holyoke said this year's bill
is the "silver lining" to the failed talks of
2018, calling it "10 times the bill that it was
last year."
Peisch, a Wellesley Democrat, told her
colleagues that the bill's primary goal is to
implement the Foundation Budget Review
Commission recommendations. It also features
provisions aimed at alleviating other challenges
districts face, she said, like raising the cap
on the number of projects approved by the
Massachusetts School Building Authority, fully
funding charter school tuition reimbursements
over a three-year period, and including funding
for guidance and psychological services.
"This bill, however, does not have an answer for
every lingering question and concern about
educational policy in Massachusetts," Peisch
said, adding that a proposed rural schools
commission and task force on required local
contributions could help inform future
legislation.
Most of the amendments representatives filed
were withdrawn without public discussion.
Similar to the process the Senate took ahead of
its debate, House leadership shared estimates of
district-level financial impacts with
representatives but not with the media or the
public.
Rep. Colleen Garry, a Democrat who told her
colleagues around 5:30 p.m. that she was "still
struggling very much" with how to vote on the
bill, said the numbers for her district -- the
Merrimack Valley suburbs of Dracut and
Tyngsborough -- were "difficult to look at."
Garry said the nearby city of Lowell stands to
receive far more money from the bill than her
two towns would, and that not enough discussion
is taking place about the increased local
contributions that will be required from
taxpayers.
Rep. Daniel Carey of Easthampton, one of six
lawmakers who used their first official floor
speech to tout the bill, said that he would tell
those who do not support the bill because not
all districts will receive the same level of
funding boosts that, "The old adage of a rising
tide lifting all ships is true."
He said the bill may help a child "of limited
opportunities" to discover their passion and
find happiness and fulfillment from a career as
a teacher, a nurse or a tradesperson.
"Today, Mr. Speaker, we fund miracles," Carey
said.
The Boston
Globe
Thursday, October 24, 2019
House passes landmark education funding bill,
but a clash with Senate is likely
By Victoria McGrane and Matt Stout
The Massachusetts House of Representatives
unanimously passed sweeping legislation
Wednesday to overhaul the state’s antiquated
education funding system, setting up a clash
with the Senate about how much power state
officials should be given over the $1.4 billion
in proposed additional state aid.
Amid opposition from House leadership, sponsors
withdrew two amendments that would have reduced
state influence over district plans for the new
state aid. The amendments were backed by some of
the House’s more progressive members and by
teachers unions.
Rejecting those amendments puts the House at
odds with the Senate over the high-stakes
legislation, which is designed to bridge the
divide in educational opportunities between poor
and affluent systems. The Senate’s version of
the bill, passed several weeks ago, included
changes that would trim the power state
education officials could exercise over local
spending plans.
Critics — Governor Charlie Baker among them —
said the Senate-passed changes weakened measures
designed to provide accountability of how
districts use the extra funds, which would be
doled out over the next seven years.
“We should, in fact, assume that each district
has leadership that is just and addresses
opportunity and leadership gaps. But as good
stewards of educational equity and justice, we
should verify,” said Representative Andy Vargas,
a Democrat from Haverhill, opposing one of the
two amendments to weaken state influence.
Representative James K. Hawkins, the sponsor of
one of the amendments, argued on the House floor
that local districts need to have “independence
to do whatever is right” for their students,
before withdrawing the proposal.
The Senate language had the backing of the
state’s powerful teachers unions. They charged
the original provision gave the state too strong
a hand in shaping districts’ plans. They vowed
to keep fighting for changes even as they heaped
praise on the overall bill.
“When the bill goes to a conference committee,
we will keep the pressure on in support of the
Senate’s language,” said Merrie Najimy,
president of the Massachusetts Teachers
Association, referring to the committee of
senators and representatives that irons out
differences between each chamber’s version of a
bill.
“If we’re asking for input from our community to
make these, why should anybody say later you
shouldn’t do that plan?” Beth Kontos, president
of the American Federation of Teachers
Massachusetts, said in a phone interview. “If
that’s what the community says that they want,
then they should do it.” But Kontos stressed
that the bill, as a whole, is a much needed step
forward, even if the Senate provisions don’t
survive.
“It still comes down to a historic bill with
historic spending, something that is long
overdue,” she said. “I take this as a victory.”
In all, lawmakers ultimately withdrew 60 of the
70 amendments they had filed, approved five, and
held just one roll-call vote on an amendment
over several hours of debate.
A so-called technical amendment that quickly
passed in the waning moments of the session did
offer one measure of victory for teachers unions
and advocates pushing to alter the
accountability language. The change added
flexibility to the kinds of programs districts
could use to address achievement gaps after the
original language required them to use at least
seven different types.
House leaders were clear from the start that
they opposed the changes the Senate made to
state oversight of the new money.
“It’s very important that we have some sense of
accountability,” Representative Alice H. Peisch,
House chairwoman of the education committee,
said shortly before debate began.
Representatives from across the state praised
the legislation, especially those who said their
districts had been grappling with persistent
funding woes and performance gaps exacerbated by
the outdated funding formula.
“The money we are investing will make a big
difference in our city of Worcester,” said
Representative Mary Keefe, a Democrat who
represents the city, one of several
municipalities that had threatened to sue if the
Legislature did not address problems with the
formula.
“It’s 10 times the bill it was last year,” said
Representative Aaron Vega of Holyoke, recalling
how many years Beacon Hill had worked on
revamping the formula, including a bill that
collapsed at the very end of last session.
Still, the floor debate revealed that some
members feel their school districts were being
shortchanged by the legislation, which by design
targets much of the new funding to districts
that serve large concentrations of students
living in poverty or those with language
barriers.
Representative Colleen M. Garry, Democrat of
Dracut, said during the floor debate that she
was concerned the bill would require
municipalities to spend more on schools without
providing much additional state money for
schools in her district.
“The vast amount of this money is going to
cities and our smaller communities are not
getting our fair share,” said Garry, who
ultimately voted for the legislation.
Garry also gave a nod to the controversy that
erupted over the analysis Baker’s office
released on the eve of the Senate vote,
estimating the bill’s fiscal impact on school
districts, using those numbers to illustrate how
much less generous the bill was to her district
than Lowell, a so-called gateway city and among
the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed
formula changes.
House and Senate leaders alike disputed the
Baker administration numbers, saying they lacked
context and threatened to confuse the public.
Peisch’s office provided different numbers —
offered as “a broad guide to how this bill may
affect districts” — to House members, but she
did not make those figures public.
While teachers unions and other progressive
groups were disappointed by the failure to win
changes in the accountability language on
Wednesday, other groups praised the House for
standing firm.
Edward Lambert, executive director of the
Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education,
which has backed stricter state oversight, said
he’s optimistic the House language can survive
the conference committee process, largely
because senators on the Joint Committee on
Education had already backed the original
language when it was first unveiled.
The House also included modified language from
the Senate version that sets a floor for what
districts get in direct state aid while the new
formula is rolled out over seven years. The
measure, lawmakers say, is intended to guarantee
that no district receives less money under the
rejiggered school funding formula, than it would
under the current version.
Peisch estimated this “transitional hold
harmless aid” provision would apply to
approximately one dozen to two dozen school
districts out of the more than 400 in the state.
It would sunset at the end of the bill’s
seven-year implementation period.
Beyond revamping the formula, the bill would
create a fund with up to $10 million annually
for grants toward school-improvement efforts,
and increase spending on school construction
projects.
It would also add $90 million more to a separate
pot that reimburses districts for some tuition
and transportation costs for students with
disabilities who attend private programs.
Those additions, lawmakers say, push the total
to $1.5 billion.
The legislation does not include new taxes or
fees, but legislative leaders have said the
state’s humming economy can provide the tax
revenue to cover the increases in state aid.
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
