John Monfredo: Making Education a Priority in Our City

Saturday, June 01, 2013

John Monfredo, GoLocalWorcester Education Contributor

John Monfredo: Making Education a Priority in Worcester

It’s budget season! This is the time for everyone concerned about education to look at the pending budget and review the priorities to see if there is adequate funding for our children. Since I have been a member of the school committee I have been disappointed in the amount of money allocated for education. It seems that each year we need to remind our City Manager and the city council that education should be a priority in our city.

Based on the 1993 Education Reform Act, the city of Worcester for the second year in a row is recommending that the Worcester Public Schools be given less than the minimum that is required by law. The amount is about $400,000 short of the required amount. Wouldn’t it be nice if that money were used to eliminate the many elementary schools with class sizes of over 27 children, update the schools technology equipment and expand other opportunities for the students?

Of the 328 School Districts in Massachusetts our City ranks in the bottom 2 % of giving above the state minimum. On an average, according to the Department of Education Website, many districts in Massachusetts spend 14% more than their foundation budget to support the educational needs of their district. Even small cities such as Millbury spend over 43% above the foundation budget. In addition, all of the surrounding cities spend much more above their foundation budget than the City of Worcester does. The city council last year voted to give the school less than the state required minimum... 0.4% below as was required by law.

This law, the Education Reform Act, attempts to meet the needs for increased state funding for local school districts and at the same time increase academic accountability, most notably through implementation of the statewide MCAS exam.

Using a uniform set of parameters, state’s foundation budgets are calculated individually for each of the Commonwealth's 328 school districts, and they are fully recalculated prior to every new school year in order account for changing demographics, enrollment levels, cost increases, and regional wage levels. The foundation budget is a per pupil funding formula with differentiated rates for grade or program adjusted annually for inflation. It is based on student enrollment as of October first. The formula acknowledges higher costs associated with educating English Language Learner (ELL) students through a separate base enrollment category and recognizes that low-income students and special education students have higher associated educational costs. These costs are calculated in the amount that a school system receives. In addition, each district's foundation budget is updated each year to reflect inflation and changes in enrollment

Based on the information about its students and the city’s ability to pay … factoring in property wealth and income wealth, the state informs the cities as to what their cost would be to support education. The state pays around 70% of the cost for education and the city is required to pay the rest.

Again, let me reiterate that the money received by the school department from the city to support the schools is the minimum requirement established by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts… it’s the law! Any money above the minimum has to be voted on by the City Council and taken out of our City Budget.

The school’s city-wide Parent Advisory Council last year stated that “… 1996 was the last year that Worcester played a leading role in urban district funding levels. In 1996, the City Council recognized the value of public education and contributed 5.7 percent above the state-mandated minimum to the Worcester Public Schools. Since 1998, the city has consistently contributed less than one percent above the minimum (with the exception, 2009, 1.5%) and last year (2012) allocated less than the minimum. In contrast, communities across the state continue to support public school education at an average level of more than 14% above minimum, with our peer communities (other urban districts) averaging more than 3% above minimum.”

Author William Butler Yeats stated, “Education is not the filling of the pail, but the lighting of a fire.” Unless we do something about our funding that fire will die out. We need everyone out there advocating for our children. When new families look to settle in Worcester the first thing that they do is ask about the school system. A city that spends so little on the education of its children can be a deterrent for families looking to live here. We need and want young families and business people to stay in our city for a sound economy in any city depends on a good public education system. The quality of life in this community is at stake for if we don’t have a viable school system it will impact our economy and our workforce. Education is the most important economic engine to our city’s growth. In addition, unlike businesses, we cannot make up a lost year in a child’s life for children have only one shot at each grade level.

I ask when will we as a city be able to give additional funding for education? There are areas, I believe, that we have discussed in the past but have not been enacted by the City Manager. Once again, I am asking that the city and the schools have a meaningful discussion on a 50 – 50 split of Medicaid funds that are billed by the Worcester Public Schools to the Federal Government and processed by the schools.

Here’s how it works! The Worcester Public Schools collects $3.2 million from the federal government for providing certain medical and occupational and physical therapy services to Medicaid eligible students. These are services that are required to be provided to the students as part of their school day. Because of an antiquated state law, none of these funds actually goes back to the Worcester Public Schools but the funds are placed in the city’s general fund to be used as part of the city’s budget. At least in the past, the city recognized the work of the Worcester Public Schools and provided some additional funds to defray the cost of the collection of these dollars. However, since the city isn’t meeting the required level of spending for schools, one could reasonably argue that the city is also no longer funding the contribution to collect the funds. So, the Worcester Public Schools are losing twice: receiving no benefit for collecting the money and no funds to offset the cost to collect the money.

Next, when the school department writes competitive grants and is fortunate to be the winning recipient of the grant when the money is allocated to the schools the city takes a 3% processing fee for the grants. In the past it was 1%. That amount of money lost in the grants process to the schools is around $900,000 each year and since this new arrangement has gone into effect the school department has had to give the city around four million dollars from its grants. Most districts in Massachusetts don’t even charge their school department a processing fee. Does this seem fair to you? Aren’t we all supposed to be working together in the city as one family?

The third suggestion is for the city and the schools to review the McKinney -Vento law. Under this law, school districts are required to provide transportation to homeless students so as to not disrupt their academic environment. The Worcester Public Schools spend $525,000 annually in the transportation of homeless students. Last year, the State Auditor ruled that this was an unfunded mandate and the state should provide funds for these transportation services. The state budget this year has included funds for reimbursement of these costs. Yet, just like Medicaid, these monies will go back to the city’s general fund and not to the Worcester Public Schools to defray the cost of the program. Why can’t the city council have a line item in their budget that includes giving back the money to the school department? If they do it this year they would be able to meet their state obligation of funding the schools, as required by law, at 100%

If we could work on a new arrangement with the city on Medicaid, the processing of grants, and on the McKinney-Vento law the schools would have the additional dollars to support the goals of the school and the community.

In meetings throughout the year Superintendent Melinda Boone met with students, parents, business leaders, School Committee members and interested citizens to discuss budget priorities of the Worcester Public Schools:

The priorities that emerged were:

• High quality teaching and learning
• Reasonable class sizes
• Elective course offerings
• 21st Century technology and professional development
• 21st Century expectations

Dr. Boone and her staff have attempted to align the budget with these priorities. The budget also reflects preservation of all course offerings, including Advanced Placement courses, and increases in the fine arts and world language offerings to align with the state’s new graduation requirement.

When I asked Superintendent Boone if the schools were to receive additional funding what is the recommendation of administration as to where the funds should be allocated? She replied, “Class size reduction and the restoration of tutors.” For thirty-two tutoring positions were cut due to the Federal sequestration cuts and in a number of schools we have class sizes of 27 or more students in a classroom.

Other areas that I would like to see addressed are more opportunities for our children in summer school and after school programs, more prevention work in our early education programs… full day preschool programs and additional instructional aides in our kindergarten classes, and additional AP courses for our best and brightest students.

When we as a city invest in education the winners are our students, the community and the economy. Let’s make education a priority in Worcester!