 |
 |
Dr. David Hopson |
||||||||||||
November 12, 2007 Just two weeks ago, two interesting viewpoints were presented in the Boston Globe—an editorial, and an opinion piece. Both articles dealt with educational funding in Massachusetts and essentially pointed out the need for a more equitable funding formula and more funds for public education overall. While the intent of the editorial piece was to show the vast difference in funding between poor inner city schools and the more affluent suburbs, it highlighted some of the very same problems we’ve been facing for many years due to insufficient and inexplicable funding through the state’s Chapter 70 funding for education. The editorial pointed out that the ‘Foundation Formula’ (which drives Chapter 70 financial aid) was intended to be reviewed every other year. In reality, it has faced no substantial reviews or reworking for seven years. This may be one reason why Gateway’s ‘foundation’ spending level is much higher than the state says it should be (and the starting numbers used in the early 90’s appear to be low, as well). The solution proposed by the editor—that Randolph schools be deemed ‘underperforming’ in order to receive additional state aid and force that city to vote an override to fund public education—seems a strange way to solve a problem that appears to be much broader and deeper than any single school district in the state. The opinion piece was also interesting in a number of ways. It was written by Paul Reville, the current chair of the Massachusetts State Board of Education. Mr. Reville pointed out the success that Massachusetts has had in increasing student performance as measured by MCAS and the National Assessment of Educational Performance. He also wrote that Randolph had to make cuts due to their inability to get property tax overrides and the fact that our educational financing system is ‘fraying’. Mr. Reville indicates that the Massachusetts Board of Education is studying the issue of financing to see how widespread it is in the state. One hopes that the Department of Education will look beyond I-495 when they research this issue. As Mr. Reville stated, “More money does not always equal better performance. Still, it would be naive not to recognize the importance of maintaining basic services as a foundation for achievement.” I certainly appreciate the fact that our seven towns have supported Gateway’s budgetary needs and have continued to make up some of the difference between what is needed and what the state provides. Gateway has a number of budgetary issues to face over the next several years and the impact of these items will depend in large part on the state stepping up to the plate in terms of adequate funding overall, and funding of smaller and more rural school districts in particular. We’ve been very fortunate in being able to count on town support to make up some ground since the devestating cuts in state Chapter 70 revenue in FY’03. The school committee and I understand that the district cannot continue to ask for double digit increases to the towns indefinitely without severely impacting other town services. As I’ve mentioned previously, the district has a rare opportunity next year to reduce overall staffing due to some retirements in conjunction with an overall decrease in student population. But we will not be able to do this in succeeding years so it’s very important that each of us contact our state leaders to ensure that the educational funding system for public schools in Massachusetts is once again equitable and sufficient to meet the needs of students throughout the state including the inner-city schools, the suburbs, and rural districts like ours. ### |
||||||||||||