Hey David,

I'm not sure Clark will be checking this page for comments. You can reach out to her staff at her office at 617-722-1206.

Not sure why you are bringing up the Adams quote or taking such a sharp tone with me; I'm just trying to help you get in touch with the State Senator so your questions are answered. I am sure she and her staff read local media, though it's conceivable she'd miss a comment here or there.

She's seen the comment. I've been asking the same question for a long time. As I said, I hope someone runs against her. She's a lawyer who serves on the Jt Comm on Ed. Ignoring the law is both unethical and violates her oath of office. Perhaps you could ask Clark why the ch 70 sect 4 study has not been done since 2001. Call if you need help krafting the questions. BTW, it's worth noting that Melrose, her home town, does OK by the formula.

I think I'll be fine, thanks.

Facts are stubborn things. The so-called "fix" of the formula was suppossed to start in fy 07. In fy 10 the "fix" was sidetracked. Clark was in office at the time. She lives in Melrose, thus receives the economic benefit that goes with more equitable funding and if her children go to Melrose public schools, they benefit as well. Communities that don't benefit include Woburn, Stoneham, Wakefield, and Swampscott. There are dozens more. Favoring one community over another to avaoid political conflict amongst legislators is not public policy it is reason to find a candidate to replace Ms. Clark. Too few mange the affairs of the Commonwealth. It's time for folks like Clark to speak up.

That's a cop out. A bit of common sense is all you need to understand how flawed the formula is. BTW, I'll bet Wakefield could use the $667,900 it loses in fy 13 given the broken promise to bring all districts to 17.5% by fy 11. Melrose gets 22.35%, exactly what the formula says it's entitled to. My community happens to lose $802,000. $667k and $802k pay for a lot of teachers, cops, and firemen.

It's about leadership and voting for the same leaders each and every year and expecting things to change is insane.

Mark, by NOT receiving the full Chapter 70 money, communities are forced to make a choice. Fully fund the schools, which would require a diversion of other funds to make up the difference, or fund the other town services and leave the schools under-funded. So, indirectly, an increase in Chapter 70 funds for the schools frees up a considerable amount of money for firefighters, cops and librarians.

Mark:
Consider the following scenario. You live in Reading with my friend Karl. Imagine that the entire town budget is $50,000,000. $28,000,000 for the schools and $22,000,000 for the rest of town government. You go to town meeting and TM approves the 28/22 budget for fy 13. Then sometime after TM, the Comm of MA decides to send Reading $500,000 in additional chapter 70 funding. Does the school budget go up to $28,500,000 or is the additional $500,000 subject to some sort of allocation by presumably a special TM? I'd agrue that in most towns that "extra" $500k is allocated amongst school, town government, or even set aside for a "rainy day."

Having previously served on a school committee and caring deeply about the delivery of police and fire services, I'd argue strongly that the $500k doesn't belong exclusively to the schools and the other town services have every right to some of that funding as do the schools.

Thoughts?

Mark, I'd be interested in other than the EBT cards, which mandates that the (D)Liberals came up with that you are referring to?

Peter:
Per the Mass Association of School Committees. Note the $s are about three years old, but the narrative is still accurate. Also note that there are many other unfunded mandates.

Regular Education

Provide free and equal (and appropriate) education to all students from kindergarten through grade 12. We believe that Chapter 70 is underfunded by about $1.6 billion (easily over $2 billion by now) that would be required to provide necessary and mandated services.

Special Education

Districts must provide education to special education students from age three to age twenty-two. This must be done in the least restrictive environment.

The cost of providing assessments, evaluations, and specialized instructional services exceeds the funding provided by federal and state sources. In addition, non-instructional services within the review and appeal processes such as arbitration, mediation, and hearings result in extraordinary costs to the district. The personnel, administrative, and technology costs inherent in the delivery of appropriate services are exorbitant. Individual Education Plans dictate where a student must go to school, requiring outplacements and special education transportation.

Thank you David. Now Mark, do you have a problem with either one of these mandates that David posted? Just curious.

Email me at davidwhelanjr@gmail.com for a copy of the MASC document.

Thanks Mark, I'm happy that you don't have a problem with the education mandates that I mentioned. And I agree that welfare abuse/fraud is a very serious problem, I just hope that someday we can get a handle on it.