LOL, Welcome to my World!
Chapter 70 Section 6 of the Massachusetts General Laws states that each municipality in the commonwealth must annually appropriate for the support of public schools an amount equal to, not less than, the sum of the minimum required local contribution, federal impact aid, and all state school aid and grants for education for the fiscal year. In other words, municipalities are required by law to spend 100% of the net school spending requirement set forth by the state.
During the school committee meeting that took place on May 28, 2015, Mayor Kennedy stated committee members were incorrect in believing she is required by law to spend 100% of the net school spending requirement and that she is required to only spend 95%. She went on to state she would not appropriate the amount of money Kevin McHugh, the School Business Administrator, stated was needed in order to meet 100% of the expected FY16 net school spending requirement. In fact, it did not appear as though the Mayor would appropriate enough money to meet even 95% of the requirement. Districts that spend less than 100%, but at least 95% of the requirement, have the shortage amount carried over and added to the following fiscal year's requirement. Districts that fail to meet 95% of the net school spending requirement are also imposed a penalty, which may result in a loss of essential aid for the following fiscal year. According to a compliance report updated by the DESE on June 2, Lynn failed to meet 95% of the FY14 requirement, spending only 90.6% and is expected to be about $15.7 million short of the FY15 net school spending requirement, budgeted to spend just 92.1%. According to this same report, about 93% of districts exceeded the net school spending requirement in FY14 and about 95% are expected to exceed the FY15 requirement. Lynn is just one of three districts that failed to meet 95% of the requirement in FY14 and is expected to fail to meet 95% again in FY15.
In forming her budget, it appears the Mayor first goes through the total city budget and takes care of everybody on the non-school side, putting the schools last on her priority list. Therefore, the schools get only what's left, not what they need, and not what the state requires under Chapter 70. As Charlie Gallo has pointed out, aside from the penalties, there is an impact in the classroom. These include out of date textbooks and curriculum support materials, a shortage of after-school academic programs, no librarians in our schools, a shortage of guidance councilors and school social workers and the inability to expand beneficial programs, add shop programs at Tech, revive the gifted and talented program that existed years ago, etc. I agree with Mr. Gallo that the impact extends to real estate values in the City of Lynn, because the price of a home is directly tied to the quality of schools. Therefore, meeting the minimum net school spending requirement mandated by law is important for everyone - homeowners, tax payers, businesses, property owners, in addition to students, parents, and educators.
Based on my understanding of Section 260 of the state budget, as well as conversations I have had with the school finance department at the DESE, the only penalties that may be waived at the Commissioner's discretion under this section, are those incurred in FY13, FY14, and FY15. Penalties incurred in FY16 and beyond will not be waived. Therefore, the Mayor's decision to continue to spend less than what is required by law for the support of our schools in FY16 is very concerning. Failing to meet 100% of the FY16 net school spending requirement will add to the carryover amount for FY17 and perhaps another penalty.
I understand the Mayor is faced with a difficult situation. However, continuing to spend less than what is required by law for the support of our schools will only result in higher carryovers and more penalties, which, in the coming years, will most likely put the City of Lynn as a whole over a financial cliff.
http://www.itemlive.com/opinion/schools-headed-for-trouble-on-spending/article_ccb01812-1084-11e5-bef9-cf23c6c9f89d.html
ReplyDeleteYou sent a similar email to elected state officials ..? Why? Do state representatives have a voice in the municipal budget process that you've only just discovered? What is it you're expecting? A pat on the back for solving arithmetic?
ReplyDeleteI just love anonymous comments, especially intelligent ones like the above. I always get a good chuckle. Thank you!
DeleteHow does the identity of the commentator effect the substance of the comment? None of the parties you emailed participate in the city budget process. Your email has received the response it warrants: none.
ReplyDeleteHave a great day Anonymous!
DeleteActually A identity does matter. If a commentator refuses to put his or her name to a comment obviously they don't believe it a 100% themselves. How are we supposed to establish any degree of validity to it?
DeleteAnd for that matter many of those parties DO participate because they directly have an effect on the amount of money municipalities have TO spend.
This is legitimately the dumbest thing I've ever read from you Stan, and that's quite an accomplishment. As a frequent reader of your blog I am aware that you make EVERYTHING about the speaker, rather than the speech. That's why I post anonymously.
ReplyDeleteChapeter 70 is a state law. The net school spending requirement is set and mandated by the DESE. Chapter 70 aid is state aid, the amount given to Lynn is determined by the state, and this state aid pays for about 75% of the costs for education in Lynn. Penalties incurred result in a loss of this state aid. Penalties are waived at the commissioner's discretion. And section 260 is in the state budget. So yes, I did contact state officials requesting information regarding this issue. If you have any other questions or comments for me "anonymous", regarding net school spending, please feel free to contact me. My email is loridamico74@gmail.com. Enjoy your weekend!
ReplyDelete