Lynn School Committee Candidates Share their Thoughts School Funding, State of LPS School Buildings During LTU Education Forum

This evening, the Lynn Teachers Union hosted an education forum at Breed Middle School featuring seven of the eight candidates on the ballot for Lynn School Committee this fall. Incumbents Brian Castellanos, Donna Coppola, John Ford, Lorraine Gately, Jared Nicholson and Michael Satterwhite along with challenger Tiffany Magnolia were in attendance for tonight's forum; Sandra Lopez is on the November ballot, but was not present tonight. 

After a brief introduction by LTU President, Sheila O'Neill, the moderator started the forum with the first question regarding what each candidate saw as their responsibility as a potential School Committee member. Castellanos referenced his background as a low income, first generation student in answering the question saying that this was his "passion" and that he saw his responsibility as advocating for resources and "sticking up for educators." Coppola talked about both educating students and parents as to what is being asked them while also communicating to community members without children in the school system why good public schools are beneficial while Ford focused more the policy-making aspects of being a Committee Member along with supporting the superintendent and administration. Gately said that being a SC member involved "a lot of listening" and bringing issues of importance to the district administration. Challenger Magnolia saw being on the SC as an opportunity to bridge the gap between policy and real life application, amplify parent voices and provide a bigger voice for unions. 

Next, the candidates were asked what fully funding education means to them. Ford mentioned his background working on this issue since 2010 when he worked for former State Senator Steve Walsh and said that ultimately the city is aiming to provide between 100% and 105% of net school spending, "the best the city will do." Nicholson, however, noted that the current Chapter 70 funding formula (developed in 1993) has been identified as "broken," therefore funding allocations based on that formula are also broken. He went on to say that the current formula is undervaluing the cost of educating certain populations (English Language Learners and special education for example) and that the funding formula needs to be reformed. Satterwhite stated that he saw fully funding education as "providing all necessary services so all students receive the best education." Magnolia was of the mind that the city should start with what the students need resource-wise and work backward to advocate for certain funding allocations; specifically, she believes that Lynn's per pupil spending should be closer $15,000 per students similar to communities like Peabody (up from ~$13,000 per student). Gately was in favor of advocating for additional funding for teachers and previously attended an event in Malden earlier this year to advocate for increased state funding. 

The candidates were then asked about a particular situation that occurred this summer in which the city received an additional $18 million in state funding for education with $7.3 million going to the city budget side in terms of how that money was spent. There was mostly consensus among the current members of the School Committee on this topic with the members noting that the money was largely spent on school building maintenance and utilities, health care costs and funding the teachers' contract. Coppola did say during this portion of the forum that there have been several major emergencies that have resulted in necessary major repairs which has been a drain on resources and that she would like to see the funds spent on these major repairs being allocated toward educationally beneficial after-school programs run by teachers.

The topic of building maintenance segued into a question regarding the state of Lynn's learning environments and its effect on student learning. Gately said she would be a strong advocate for new schools as she has been concerned about Pickering Middle School's classroom space since she was a teacher there before her retirement. Castellanos was similarly concerned saying that he was "appalled" by the state of the schools and thought it was important to mobilize members of the community around this issue now even if Lynn is currently not in the pipeline for a new school. Satterwhite, however, noted some of the difficulties on this saying that some residents without children in LPS might not see the value in new schools, so the challenge was getting buy-in from the larger community; Nicholson agreed saying that communicating the need for new schools was a "top priority." Gately noted that in the last campaign for a new school in 2017 there was "misinformation" that was hard to fight against, but that, if given the opportunity, she would hold neighborhood meetings and meet with senior citizens and other constituents around this issue. Overall, Magnolia thought there was lack of uniformity in communication during that campaign for a new Pickering Middle School and that a communication structure needs to be in place with information potentially flowing out from school councils and parent-teacher organizations out to the community. While Ford was in agreement that Lynn needs new schools, he also said that the city currently cannot build them fast enough to accommodate the city's growing school population given that Lynn English as one example is on track to enroll 2,000 students next year; last week, the idea of portable classrooms was introduced at a School Committee meeting as an at least temporary solution to the city's overcrowding issue. Ford mentioned that there were ~460 new high school students in Lynn this year alone. 

Finally, the candidates were asked about the disrespect some educators may feel in today's educational climate. Magnolia did not feel comfortable saying how educators felt but did say there should be some sort of the 'State of the Teachers/Staff' type update at School Committee meetings to get a better sense of how teachers are feeling and that educators should be included more in the decision-making process. Satterwhite said that educators probably feel overworked and underappreciated, noting that respect has to come from and start at the top (meaning school leadership). Castellanos agreed saying that recognition is nice but that teachers are underpaid and that has implications for equity for Lynn students. Gately thought it was important to listen more to teachers in the form of surveys and other mechanisms as a way of showing respect; Coppola said she hoped that Lynn teachers "feel the love" in Lynn but recognized it can be difficult when they are being asked to provide a 21st century education with 30 - 40 students in a classroom. 

_____

The Lynn General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 5th. For sample ballots or to check your voter registration status, see here. 

_____

For Lynn Community Television 2019 School Candidate profiles (YouTube), here. 

Lynn Schools Facing $3.5 Million Deficit in FY17

The Lynn Public School district was in the news recently as the city continues to deal with a school spending deficit that has led to the threats of decreases in Chapter 70 state aid. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's most recent report indicates that the $825,689 shortfall mentioned in the Daily Item article was for fiscal year (FY) 2016 which ended on June 30, 2016. For FY 2017 which ends at the end of June 2017, the DESE is currently reporting a shortfall of over $3.5 million.

	FY 16	FY 17
Total Net School Spending Requirement	$194,183,410	$199,700,697
Actual Net School Spending	$193,357,722	$196,198,787
Shortfall	($825,689)	($3,501,910)

In order to avoid penalties, the city would have to allocate the additional monies to the school budget by the end of June. It is unclear whether the state would permit carryovers up to the customary 5% below the net school spending requirement as Lynn was under that threshold for FY16 but the state opted to enact an $825,689 penalty as opposed to carrying that amount over to FY17.


As previously reported (here here here), this is not the first year that Lynn has dealt with deficits related to its net school spending. 

Since FY11, Lynn has had school spending deficits in varying amounts.

Looking ahead to FY 18, which begins on July 1, 2017, Lynn is expected to allocate just over $200 million on public education based on preliminary DESE reports (excluding any potential carryovers from FY17). This is based on a student population of 16,852 (including students attending charter and out of district schools).



Approximately, three-quarters of that allocation is to come from Chapter 70 state aid, while the other quarter will come from the city. This has been standard practice in Lynn's education spending as the majority of Lynn's required net school spending has come from Chapter 70 state aid. The House Ways and Means budget currently puts Lynn's Chapter 70 funding allocation slightly higher than the initial projection at $153,442,426 (Sections 2 & 3).

Compliance with net school spending totals is continuously in flux as the fiscal year has not ended and review of spending amounts occurs on an ongoing basis. While this is subject to change, Lynn is still facing a considerable under-funding of public education.


You May Also Be Interested In:

• New Metric Fails to Capture Large Number of Lynn's Low Income Student Population
• Chapter 70 Funding: Lynn's Local Public School Funding Contribution

Chapter 70 Funding: Lynn's Local Public School Funding Contribution

A common misconception is that public school districts in Massachusetts are entirely funded by local property taxes. In fact, since the Education Reform Act of 1993, public education in the state is financed through a combination of local revenue and state aid (as well as federal funding to a much lesser degree). Each year, the Massachusetts state legislature determines the amount of funding necessary for each district to adequately educate its public school population. This spending level, called the "foundation budget," is calculated via a funding formula (Chapter 70) which takes a number of factors into consideration including the number special education and economically disadvantaged students as well as vocational education costs among other categories. Additionally, there are some assumptions built into the foundation budget rates such as assumed class sizes (in FY17, it was 22 for elementary, 25 for junior/middle and 17 for high school). The goal of the Chapter 70 funding formula is to ensure that every district has sufficient resources to meet its foundation spending budget through an "equitable combination of local property taxes and state aid." The foundation budget covers all of the students that a district is financially responsible for including out of district placements and charter school students.

For FY17, Lynn's foundation budget was determined to be $192,172,423 based on a student population 16,463; this amounts to a per pupil expenditure of $11,673. As previously mentioned, all of that funding, however, is not expected to come solely from municipal revenue (i.e. property taxes). The state provides Chapter 70 funding in order to make up the difference between a city or town's spending ability based on incomes and property values and the foundation budget [in other words: Foundation Budget - Local Spending Ability = Ch. 70 State Aid]. In Lynn's case, the local contribution for this fiscal year was calculated at $46,018,423 or 23.95% of the foundation budget; the remaining 76.05% was provided by Ch. 70 state aid. So while the amount amount that Lynn as a municipality has been required to contribute to public education has steadily increased since FY07:

The percentage of the total foundation budget figure determined by the state has remained consistently between 23 and 25%:

 

 

Again, the amount that cities or towns in Massachusetts are expected to contribute to public education varies depending on local property tax and other sources of municipal revenue. The town of Wellesley for example, has a student population listed as 5,095 in FY17 and contributed 83.27% of its foundation budget compared to Lynn's 23.95%. Lawrence, on the other hand, contributed 4.74% to its foundation in FY17. It should also be noted that the Ch. 70 funding formula does not prevent a district from spending more than its local contribution of foundation budget if additional local funds exist. In FY15, for example, Cambridge spent 2.25 its foundation budget total including amounts derived from state funding. While this does leave room for inequality between wealthier districts and poorer districts, the Chapter 70 funding formula is an attempt to create a more equitable public school funding system. As the formula was initially created in 1993 before the implementation of the MCAS test as well as the widespread use of technology in the classroom, there have been calls to revise the formula so that it accurately reflects the costs of educating students in the 21st century most notably through the Foundation Budget Review Commission's 2015 report. That and issues with the accounting of certain student populations means that while Massachusetts intends to have a fair funding system, there is still a considerable gap between some cities and towns that deems it necessary to update and revise the way that the state funds its public schools.

 

 

For more information on Chapter 70 funding: 

• Demystifying the Chapter 70 Formula: How the Massachusetts Education Funding System Works
• Building on 20 Years of Massachusetts Education Reform
• Defining Adequate School Level Funding in Massachusetts
• The State Constitutional Mandate for Education: The McDuffy and Hancock Decisions 
• Public School Funding in Massachusetts: Where We Are, What Has Changed, and How We Compare to Other States
• School Finance: Chapter 70 Program - Compliance with Net School Spending Requirements

Lynn Public School District Still Underfunded by a Considerable Amount

Over the past two years, I have reported on net school spending requirements as they relate to the Lynn Public School District. This was particularly in light of reports from early 2014 that put Lynn at a staggering $15.7 million dollars under its NSS requirement for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Since that time, Lynn's actual school spending compared to the amount required by the state has been in flux due to additional monies being allocated toward public education as well as direct dealings with the state in order to resolve some of the shortfall related to retired teacher benefits being inadvertently counted toward NSS. Lynn;s shortfall for FY14 is now listed by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) as just over $9 million compared to the $15.7 million listed nearly three years ago; as of FY16, public education in Lynn is underfunded by $6.8 million. From 2009-10 to 2015-16, the Lynn Public School District's student population did increase by 12.9% after a period of steady decline from 2000-01 to 2008-09.

Though this is a considerable amount, because Lynn is within the 5% "underfunding threshold" allowed by the state, the city is currently not facing financial or other penalties for not fully meeting its NSS requirement. Not including any carryovers from previous fiscal years, Lynn's net school spending requirement for FY17 is $197,467,144 which could potentially put its total requirement well over $200 million when one factors in the amount under from FY16. 

All data taken from: www.doe.mass.edu

Lynn School Finance FY15

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education recently released preliminary fiscal year 2015 (FY15) school finance information. Lynn's information is as follows for FY15: 

 

The difference between the city's foundation budget and required net school spending amounts was discussed here. As of this most recent report, public education in Lynn is underfunded by $11,264,249 (required net school spending minus budgeted amount); this figure is 1.2% over the state's threshold for the incurring penalties which include the loss of state (Chapter 70) aid. In order to at least meet the 95% figure which would allow the city to avoid financial penalties, the city would have to add an additional $1,741,612.80  to the school budget based on these most recent figures.

You may also be interested in: 

• Lynn School Finance FY13 & FY14
• Lynn School Finance Comparison FY13 & FY14 
• UPDATED: Lynn School Finance FY13 & FY14
• Thoughts on the Lynn City Council Net School Spending Vote

Source: Chapter 70 District Profiles; http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/

Thoughts on the Lynn City Council Net School Spending Vote

At last night's Lynn City Council meeting, the Council unanimously voted to support legislative changes to the net school spending (NSS) language which specifically allows state aid penalties associated with deficiencies in meeting NSS requirements to be waived and for the inclusion of retired teacher benefit expenditures in NSS calculations for districts currently not permitted to do so. Lynn Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Peter Caron is quoted as saying

“It...waives penalties for the community, or, rather, it gives the commissioner of education (Mitchell Chester) the ability to waive all penalties for Fiscal (years) 13, 14 and 15.”

Here Caron is referring to Section 260, part b of of the legislation which states:

The commissioner of elementary and secondary education may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

This legislation is pertinent to Lynn as the city is facing potentially huge losses in state aid, in part, because retired teacher benefits were originally submitted and included in the city's NSS calculation but it was later determined the city was not permitted to include this particular expenditure. The penalties were quoted in the Lynn Item as "...a $300,000 fine and a $7 million reduction in state aid to schools." Both figures quoted here, however, were the original losses in state aid reported in January 2014 for two separate fiscal years (not a fine and then reduction in state aid as noted). Lynn was originally calculated as having met 94.9% of NSS in FY13 which was under the 95% threshold to avoid penalties and resulted in a $300,565 reduction in future state aid; for FY14, the city was calculated as having met 91.9% of NSS which resulted in a further loss of $7,030,507 in state funding. Penalties between FY13 and FY14 cumulatively amounted to $7,311,072 in lost Chapter 70 money. The NSS figures were recently recalculated for FY13 and FY14. As of July 3, 2014, Lynn was reported as having met 94.3% of NSS in FY13 which now amounts to a $1,267,966 loss in state aid; in FY14, Lynn is now reported at 92.1% of NSS which amounts to a $5,622,219 loss. Cumulatively, potential state aid losses are at $6,890,185. The penalty associated with FY13 was not assessed as Caron stated but the Ch. 70 aid loss for that fiscal year was supposed to be spread out over FY14 and FY15. Moreover, while the city CFO did mention FY15 in regard to the waiver, the legislation only mentions FY13 and FY14 at this time so it is unclear whether Lynn will be penalized for further deficiencies in NSS in the current fiscal year (July 2014 - June 2015).

The Item goes on to state that

...the solution allows the city, over the next four years, to start including teacher retiree’s health insurance in net school spending.

According to the legislation, however, the first year that the retired teacher benefits would begin to be phased in is FY16 as the current language states

...the commissioner of elementary and secondary education shall begin a 4-year phase-in of equal increments to include health care costs for retired teachers as part of net school spending for any district which accepts this section by a vote taken pursuant to section 4 and in which such costs were not considered part of net school spending in fiscal year 1994. For fiscal year 2016, 1/4 of the cost shall be included in calculating fulfillment of net school spending requirements... (Section 260, part a)

Thus, it would seem that the 4-year phase-in would not include the current fiscal year (FY15) and would occur over fiscal years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Section (a) also includes the following in regard to being approved for this 4-year phase-in

...provided further, that during the 4-year phase in period authorized under this section, the commissioner may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers if the commissioner approves a schedule submitted by the district to meet the requirements not later than at the end of the 4-year phase in period (FY19); and provided further, that the commissioner shall consider deficiencies in net school spending requirements in fiscal year 2015, if any, when approving such schedule. (Emphasis mine)

This could mean the commissioner could in fact deny the waiver of Lynn's penalties associated with deficiencies in NSS based the specific schedule the city submits to meet future NSS requirements by FY19. Further, any deficiencies in NSS for FY15 will be considered in the approval process. As of right now, the Mayor and Lynn School Committee are looking to at least fund the schools at 95% of NSS to avoid losses in state aid. Additionally, what is not addressed in the legislation is the issue of carryovers when a district fails to meet its NSS requirements. Currently, amounts between 95% and 99.9% of NSS are carried over to the next fiscal year as districts are still required to spend the amounts dictated by law. In FY14, Lynn had a deficit of $14,350,828 between its mandated and actual amounts. Even with the penalties waived, it still appears as though the unspent amounts from previous years will still be carried over requiring Lynn to meet an increasing threshold to get to even 95% of NSS. Lynn's FY15 foundation budget, without carryovers factored in, is $181,764,115. While one aspect of Lynn's school funding dilemma has been potentially addressed, it is not safe to say that the issue has been fully resolved at this point.


Here is the net school spending legislation in its entirety:

SECTION 260. (a) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the commissioner of elementary and secondary education shall begin a 4-year phase-in of equal increments to include health care costs for retired teachers as part of net school spending for any district which accepts this section by a vote taken pursuant to section 4 and in which such costs were not considered part of net school spending in fiscal year 1994. For fiscal year 2016, 1/4 of  the cost shall be included in calculating fulfillment of net school spending requirements; provided, however, that in districts currently in level IV or level V status under the commonwealth’s accountability and assistance system, the commissioner may delay or limit the  inclusion of the costs in calculating net school spending until their such district’s status is  lowered to level III or below, at which time the commissioner shall begin or resume a 4-year phase in of the remaining costs; provided further, that during the 4-year phase in period  authorized under this section, the commissioner may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers if the commissioner approves a schedule submitted by the district to meet the requirements not later than at the end of the 4-year phase in period; and provided further, that the commissioner shall consider deficiencies in net school spending requirements in fiscal year 2015, if any, when approving such schedule.

(b) The commissioner of elementary and secondary education may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be  attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

(c) The commissioner of elementary and secondary education may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers in fiscal year 2015 if the district submits a schedule under this section and the commissioner approves the schedule.

(d) Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, for the period beginning July 1, 2014 and ending June 1, 2015, this section may be accepted in a city having a Plan D or Plan E charter by majority vote of its city council and approval by the manager; in any other city, by a vote of its city council and approval by the mayor; in a town having a town council form of  government, by vote of the town council, subject to charter of such town; in a town, by a vote of the board of selectmen; and in a regional school district, by a vote of the regional district school committee. The vote shall be by approval of all members of the district. Approval of each member shall be given in a city having a Plan D or Plan E charter by majority vote of its city council and approval by the manager; in any other city, by a vote of its city council and approval by the mayor; in a town having a town council form of government, by vote of the town council, subject to the charter of such town; in a town, by a vote of the board of selectmen.

(e) Any school district which accepts this section shall annually certify to the commissioner the treatment of retired teacher health insurance costs to ensure accurate counting of such costs toward required net school spending.

You might also be interested in:

• Lynn School Finance FY13 & FY14
• Lynn School Finance Comparison FY13 & FY14
• Lynn Proposed FY15 School Budget (LPS Website)

UPDATED: Lynn School Finance FY13 & FY14

In January, I reported Lynn school finance information for FY13 and FY14 according to Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education reports. These reports were updated as of June 9, 2014; here's a look at the most recent figures. 

According to the June reports, Lynn's required net school spending (NSS) and foundation budgets have not changed compared to the January figures. What has changed, however, is the actual NSS total.

In January, Lynn's actual spending was reported as $159,747,443; as of June, this figure had decreased to $158,780,042. The change in actual net school spending compared to the required net school spending had repercussions in terms of the loss in Chapter 70 funding. In January, the loss was reported as $300,565; it has currently increased to $1,267,966.

Similar to fiscal year 2013, the required NSS and foundation budget amounts for FY14 did not change from the January to the June reports. The actual net school spending for FY14 did increase by approximately $2.4 million.

The increase in spending changed Lynn's spending as a percentage of the required amount from 91.4% to 92.7%. As a result, the loss in state aid related to FY14 spending also changed; the loss was originally over $7 million but has now decreased to $4,561,856.

Given the changes in spending, the amount under the required NSS has been updated. 

For FY13, the amount under has increased from $8,585,956 to $9,553,357; the amount under for FY14 has decreased from $15,703,157 to $13,250,465. 

There is currently legislation included in both the Massachusetts Senate and House budgets related to NSS that could potentially alleviate the Chapter 70 funding losses Lynn is facing. Most notably: 

SECTION 111. The commissioner of elementary and secondary education may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

This pertains to Lynn as much of gap between Lynn's actual NSS and the required amounts can be attributed to the fact that city had reportedly been including retired teacher benefits in its NSS totals despite the city's exclusion from doing so under the law.  A December 2013 revealed that Lynn had been including these benefits in its NSS figures when it should not have been which originally changed the city's NSS deficit from approximately $450,000 to over $8.5 million (July 2013 report compared to January 2014 report). Additionally, the Senate and House budgets contain the following: 

SECTION 112. The commissioner of elementary and secondary education may waive penalties associated with deficiencies in net school spending requirements up to an amount that can be attributed to non-inclusion of health care costs for retired teachers in fiscal year 2015 if the district submits a schedule under section 110 and the commissioner approves such schedule.

The budget is currently in the 'Conference Committee' stage and has not been finalized yet. Governor Deval Patrick is expected to sign the finished budget by the end of the month given that the new fiscal year begins on July 1, 2014. Given these potential legislative changes, Lynn's net school spending information is subject to change again in the coming months for FY13 and FY14.

All data taken from: www.doe.mass.edu

http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/compliance.html