Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Martha Walz, House Chair
The Honorable Robert O’Leary, Senate Chair
Committee on Education
State House, Boston
Dear Representative Walz, Senator O’Leary, and Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association would like to offer comments on the two bills before the Committee for public hearing today.
We would like to express our general support for the purpose and framework of House 4164, an Act Establishing Readiness Schools, filed by the Governor. In addition, we would like to express our very strong opposition to House 4163, an Act relative to charter schools in under-performing districts, also filed by the Governor.
It is our view that the Readiness schools option given to the state and local school districts in House 4164 are strong tools that will help turn around under-performing schools districts and close achievement gaps that have stubbornly persisted despite the landmark education reforms enacted in 1993.
Charter Schools
We testified before this Committee in July in favor of House 4166, an Act to reform public education through the creation of in-district charter schools with pay-for-performance, filed by Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston and Representative Marie St. Fleur. This bill would empower local school districts to convert any “under-performing” school to an in-district charter school “for the purpose of promoting rapid academic improvement.” Local school districts would also be empowered to establish new in-district charter schools for the purpose of rapid improvement. There would be no cap on the number of locally approved in-district charters.
It is our view that the in-district charter school model, as outlined in House 4166, is the best way to expand charter schools here in Massachusetts. In-district charter schools would benefit all students through system-wide reform of the local school district rather than just benefit a small number of students in outside charter schools, as is proposed in House 4163.
It is critically important to note that the expansion of charter schools, as proposed in House 4163, is simply unaffordable in the economic environment that we are facing.
The Governor’s charter school bill would add an estimated “27,000 new charter school seats” in the lowest-performing school districts. Even if only 10 percent of these seats were filled in the near term, it would cost the state under current state law more than $30 million simply to reimburse municipal and regional school districts for Chapter 70 school aid deductions paid to charter schools as tuition. Given the fiscal challenges facing state government in fiscal years 2011 and beyond, the reimbursements would almost certainly have to be paid at the expense of other important municipal and education accounts, including the Chapter 70 “equity” provisions that were not funded for fiscal 2010, student transportation reimbursements and special education “circuit breaker” reimbursements that are seriously underfunded this year. The provisions of House 4163 simply cannot be afforded. By means of comparison, the charter school model in House 4166 would be paid for within the local school district budget and would not require any extra state appropriation, making the Menino Bill a vastly superior framework on which to build.
Readiness Schools
We support the general framework of the Governor’s Readiness schools legislation [House 4164] that gives the state and local school districts new tools to turn around under-performing schools and school districts.
The bill proposes a re-structured balance between state responsibilities when schools are persistently underperforming, in the form of state-established Readiness Acceleration Schools, and new authority for local school districts to improve local schools in the form of Readiness Advantage Schools and Alliance Schools.
Readiness Acceleration Schools
House 4164 includes a variety of provisions to involve stakeholders in plans to turn around failing schools, including the development, approval and implementation of an “innovation plan” and a “performance contract.” There are several improvements to the proposed process that are necessary in order for the legislation to be effective. The list of stakeholders includes a list of individuals and groups with knowledge of education programs, but there is no apparent participant for budget or financial consideration. A sound “innovation plan” or “performance contract” developed without an equally sound plan to pay for it would be extremely hard to implement. We recommend that state and municipal finance officials participate in any stakeholder group. We further recommend that any plan or contract include a budget and long-term funding plan.
In addition, the Governor’s proposal requires that the Commissioner convene the stakeholder group, but there is no requirement that this occur in the city or town where the school is located or for there to be any public participation. We would recommend that the process for developing an “innovation plan” and a “performance contract” include a local public process. We also note that the local mayor, board of selectmen or other municipal executive is not authorized to appeal a final innovation plan. Given the possible financial implication of any state-imposed plan, we strongly recommend that a municipal appeal be added.
Readiness Advantage and Alliance Schools
We support the new option for local school districts to establish Readiness schools with increased autonomy and flexibility in curriculum, budget school schedule and calendar, staffing policies and procedures, including waivers and exemptions from contracts and collective bargaining agreements.
While we support the framework of the Readiness schools plan, there needs to be careful consideration given to the process for approving and implementing these new and innovative options.
Race to the Top
Some of the urgency of this legislation is the goal of qualifying for “Race to the Top” grant funds available to states through the federal Department of Education. The U.S. DOE has released draft criteria that place a heavy emphasis on turning around under-performing school districts. It is our view that the in-district charter school model in House 4166 would put Massachusetts in an excellent position to compete for Race to the Top funds.
We support modernization of our education laws to ensure and accelerate progress in under-performing schools. We believe that the framework in the Governor’s Readiness schools initiative would provide powerful tools toward this end, and support the in-district charter school model as proposed by Mayor Menino as a major reform as well. We believe that the charter school expansion plan proposed by the Governor is unaffordable for the state, and the MMA opposes the measure because the proposal would exacerbate the deep fiscal troubles that already grip the communities and school districts targeted by the bill. This critical flaw means that H. 4163 would not be effective in helping to turn around struggling districts.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our comments on this very important issue. Please contact us at any time if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director