| Study Title: |
"Every
Child a Winner" |
| |
|
| Date Completed: |
July
1991 |
| |
|
| Calculated Base Costs: |
|
| Professional
Judgment Methodology: |
Basic Foundation Amount: $4,950 per pupil (in 1991
dollars) |
| |
With
programs for at-risk students and teacher professional
development, the recommended spending is an average
of $5,600 per pupil statewide. |
| |
Standard
teacher salary: $37,000 (for 1990-1991 school year)
plus 2.5% of teacher salaries towards a fund for
professional development |
| |
$3,400
per year per classroom for an extraordinary maintenance
fund |
| |
Cost
for special education pupils that cannot be accommodated
in a regular school environment: $16,250 per pupil
enrolled in multi-district programs and $21,700
per pupil enrolled in private schools |
| |
Annually,
$475 million for programs for at-risk students (including
half-day preschool, full-day kindergarten, parent/outreach,
extended day, extended year, more pay for teachers
in low-income schools) and $73 million for professional
development |
| |
Additional
$167 million per year for pre-school construction,
innovation, incentives for schools that exceed improvement
targets, and "circuit breaker" tax relief
to help low-income taxpayers stay in their homes. |
| |
|
| Major Recommendations: |
Raise
money spent on schools from $4.0 billion to $4.8
billion
School
districts should not spend less than the foundation
budget (adjusted for inflation and enrollment)
School
funding should be separate from municipal finance
and supported by separate property taxes
Districts
should not impose a school tax rate greater than
1% to reach foundation amount (If districts cannot
reach the amount with local property tax revenues,
the state would provide the remaining funding
needed.)
Make
small class sizes a priority in grades 1-3; pay
competitive teacher salaries; establish a comprehensive
program for low-income students (see above); place
fewer students in segregated special education
Increase
state aid to low-wealth districts significantly
because they were spending far below the foundation
prototype amounts
|
| |
|
| Special Features of the Study: |
Critique
of the current Massachusetts funding system
Consideration
of revenue sources and preschool and kindergarten
facilities (rare for a costing-out
study)
Implementation: The
Legislature
enacted the Massachusetts Education Reform Act
of 1993 (MERA) at the same time that the school
funding case, McDuffy
v. Secretary, was decided. MERA was phased
in over seven years.
|
| |
|
| Methodology: |
Professional Judgement |
| |
The
committee conducted a "dialogue with several
school superintendents" and based this
study on an independent review of their recommendations.
The
study developed prototype schools at the elementary,
middle/junior high and high school levels, including
additional staffing for special needs students.
The cost of staffing and resources necessary to
operate these prototype schools was then calculated
and applied to the actual demographics of the
state's school districts to produce a total spending
level.
|
| Additional Factors: |
The
study included consideration of: programs for "at-risk"
students, special education, bilingual programs,
vocational education (classes of 10), and facilities
for pre-K and kindergarten. The study did not consider
food service, transportation, or facilities for
grades 1-12 |
| |
|
| Public Input: |
None |
| |
|
| Prepared for: |
Massachusetts
Business Alliance for Education |
| |
|
| Prepared by: |
Massachusetts
Business Alliance for Education Committee on School
Finance |
| |
|
| Notes: |
Two
recent costing-out studies, not yet released, have
been prepared as part of plaintiffs' evidence in
the Massachusetts school funding case, Hancock
v. Driscoll. We will report on those cost studies
when they become available. |
