BOSTON — Thousands of students in Massachusetts move between public school districts every year, taking millions of dollars in state education funding with them.

Critics say the system is flawed, and they are pushing to change how the money is allocated.

Under inter-district school choice, parents have the option of enrolling their children in a community other than their hometown. While public school districts can decide whether to accept out-of-district students — about 40 percent don’t participate — they cannot hold back students who want to move elsewhere.

Since the program was rolled out nearly three decades ago, the number of students moving around has grown to more than 17,000, according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Tom Scott, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, said school choice is a mixed bag.

“For receiving districts, it works pretty well,” he said. “But the problem is that low-performing districts that are losing students end up losing money that they can ill afford to lose.”

In some cases, however, districts that lose students through school choice end up making money.

The reason is, under the school choice program, districts still receive state education aid for students who’ve left. While those districts must pay students’ tuition at their new schools, the state caps the fee at $5,000 per student per year.

One proposal, filed by Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, calls for increasing the tuition cap to $6,500 per student.

School choice advocates like the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank, say raising the cap will create a fairer system.

Last year, Pioneer released a report noting the cap hasn’t kept pace with inflation, or overall education spending.

“The increases should be high enough to incentivize more high-performing districts to accept non-residents,” the report’s authors wrote. “But there needs to be a balance between those amounts and the need to maintain fiscal stability in the sending districts.”

Pioneer has also recommended raising an overall cap on the program, now set at 2 percent of statewide public school enrollment.

The Pioneer report noted school choice has become a “budget tool” for some high-performing districts that actively recruit students from economically challenged areas.

“School committees actively seek non-residents not just to fund special programs, but to balance their budgets,” the report’s authors noted.

Losses and gains

Under the current design, districts can gain or lose significant money from their budgets due to school choice.

Gloucester, for example, expects to lose more than $2 million in state funding due to 297 students leaving in the current school year, according to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. In the meantime, the district will only will bring in $292,301 from 42 pupils coming from other communities.

Lawrence schools stand to lose $424,955 from 62 students moving to other districts, but hasn’t received students this year from the program.

Same goes for Methuen, which expects to lose 42 students this year with $342,907 in funding that will follow them to other communities.

Some districts, like Peabody and Rockport, are gaining state education funding from the school choice program.

Peabody expects to receive $640,213 from 113 students coming from other communities, while losing $330,377 to 49 students opting out.

Rockport is receiving 250 students this year, which will bring more than $1.7 million in funding, and losing 34 at a cost of $257,914.

A recent state report looking at the impact of school choice on rural districts was also critical of its effects, concluding that it has “created a situation where districts are competing with one another over an ever diminishing population of students.”

Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for The Salem News newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhi.com

Study Finds MA Inter-District School Choice Program a Success, but Should Be Updated

May 15, 2018by Editorial Staff

Policy makers should raise tuition rate, cap on program enrollment

BOSTON – With little fanfare or controversy, Massachusetts’ inter-district school choice program has allowed students to access better schools and spurred competition between districts, but the 27-year-old choice law should be updated to ensure the program’s continuing success, according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute.

Download "Inter-district Choice in Massachusetts"

“By providing a way for school districts to fill empty seats and allowing them to have sufficient enrollment to sustain niche programs, inter-district choice is a vehicle for delivering better and more efficient K-12 public education,” said Jamie Gass, director of Pioneer’s Center for School Reform.

In Inter-district School Choice in Massachusetts, author Roger Hatch writes that districts choosing to accept choice students receive $5,000 plus any additional special education costs from the sending district.  When the special education increment and the Commonwealth’s two virtual schools (which are funded through the choice program and have an annual tuition rate of $6,700) are included, the average tuition was $6,123 in fiscal year 2017.

The choice program has grown steadily, from less than 1,000 students in FY 1992 to over 16,000 in FY 2017.  Admission is by lottery if districts are over-subscribed.

Inter-district choice enrollment is capped at 2 percent of statewide public school enrollment and currently accounts for 1.71 percent of overall enrollment. If the program continues to grow at its current pace, it will bump up against the cap in the next four-to-six years.

A Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) analysis of 2014 MCAS scores found that, on average, choice students outperform resident students in the accepting district.

Inter-district choice is most popular in rural areas and on Cape Cod.  Choice students account for half the enrollment in Petersham public schools and over 40 percent in Richmond and Provincetown.

Because students are counted in the sending district’s state funding allotment, known as Chapter 70, certain school districts realize an overall funding increase even when they lose students to another school district.  In these 70 districts that receive the bulk of their education funding from the Commonwealth, the $5,000 choice tuition is less than their per-pupil allotment.

Noting that the tuition payment has never gone up in the program’s 27-year history and that state and local budgets have more than doubled during that time, Hatch recommends that the $5,000 payment should rise and that policy makers should reach agreement about the increments and pace of the increase.

“We need to strike a balance that incentivizes high-performing school districts to accept school choice students but maintains the fiscal stability of sending districts,” Roger Hatch said.

He also recommends raising the cap on program enrollment, which is set at 2 percent of statewide public school enrollment.

No regulations have ever been promulgated for the inter-district choice program.  Hatch calls on DESE to establish regulations once the law is updated to provide guidance for districts that administer the program and parents and students who are weighing their choice options.

About the Author

Roger Hatch spent a long career working for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the areas of school and municipal finance. For 20 years he was the Administrator of School Finance at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  In addition to supervising the school choice program, the office works with the Governor’s staff, the legislature, advocacy groups, local officials and the general public, to develop, calculate, and explain the Chapter 70 state aid formula.

Selectmen cannot deny the numbers nor the official record of Town Meeting:

Annual Town Meeting of May 2018.
Article 21 - On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to appropriate the sum of Eight Million,
Two Hundred Twenty Thousand, Two Hundred Ninety Eight Dollars and no cents ($8,220,298.00) for the operations of General Government for Fiscal Year 2019, and to meet said
appropriation with a transfer of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($250,000.00) from the Ambulance receipts reserved for appropriation, anticipated receipts, and
the balance from taxation.

Article 24 - To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Four Hundred Seventy
Thousand Two Hundred Forty Six Dollars and No Cents, ($470,246.00), subject to the successful passage of a Proposition 2 ½ Over-Ride, so-called, for supplemental appropriations to the FY 2019 Operating Budget for the following departments:
Fire/EMS $290,740
Police $23,000
Insurance & Benefits $133,890
Highway $15,000
Snow & Ice $7,616
Or take any other action related thereto.
Submitted by the Board of Selectmen
Majority Vote Required

added together, the articles = $8,690,544.00.

Annual Town Meeting May 2019.
Article 26 - FY 2019 GENERAL FUND OPERATING (OPEX) BUDGET
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate the sum of Nine Million Six Hundred Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Four Dollars and no cents ($9,690,274.00) for the operations of
General Government for Fiscal Year 2020, and to meet said appropriation with a transfer of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($250,000.00) from the Ambulance receipts reserved for appropriation, anticipated receipts, and the balance from taxation.
Or take any other action related thereto.
Submitted by the Board of Selectmen
Majority Vote Required

$9,690,274.00 - $8,690,544.00 = $990,730.00.

That $990,730.00 is the increase in FY2020 over FY2019 of the general operating budget of Templeton and those numbers come form the selectmen.

How could a selectman tell a town resident, with a straight face, that there is not an increase of 1 million dollars in Town operating costs?

So, the selectmen put forward an increase in Town costs of almost one million, then the school district followed suit with an almost one million increase; what the hell did anyone think would happen? As a member of the Advisory Committee at annual town meeting on May 2019, the committee comments stated just that; Town Meeting know that there is a one million dollar increase in Templeton operating costs for FY2020 but at least one selectmen denied it.

Again, this information is all on the record

Looking at costs of operating a Town and a School district may require doing "business" in a different way

Templeton dispatch costs may require some research and a history lesson.

Annual Town Report of 2011, page 89 shows Templeton receiving an E911 grant of $119,204.00 and on page 90, it shows dispatch total payroll of $221,161.00 with $19,179.00 turned back in to town (as unspent).

Then on page 168, it shows Town meeting appropriation for communication commission wages of $222,995.00. Back on page 18, there is a report of communication commission and no mention of that wage figure of $222,995.00, but I believe back then, that was dispatch wages.

Now if the total payroll for dispatch was $221,161.00 and town gets a grant of $119,204.00 (Phillipston paying about $57,000.00 back then) why does town meeting have to appropriate $222,995.00? If it only costs taxpayers $37,000.00, why is only $19,179.00 turned back to the town as unspent?

Forgive me, but I lost track of which cup the pea is under.

This is some of the system I walked into when elected to the board of selectmen back in 2011. So, perhaps first question is, does the money Phillipston pays to Templeton really go directly to dispatch, or it is just general revenue to the town?

There are rules and guidelines for E911 grant funds. Have those rules been strictly followed over the years?

The breakdown of the dispatch budget does not show the E911 grant money being used as part of dispatch payroll, so how does one make the point that dispatch only costs Templetom $37,000.00?

The goal of the proposal was an effort to save Templeton tax dollars while having dispatch available. The feasibility study showed potential savings to Templeton at $89,000.00. The only real way to know or realize the outcome is to do it and that did not happen. Think of this, Phillipston is scheduled to pay $65,000.00 for the same dispatch service that Templeton gets, except they do not pay retirement costs, health insurance costs nor do they cover costs of the building improvement, but you do as a Templeton resident. If it works for Phillipston, why would it not work for Templeton?

Some more history:
2007 Annual Town report, page 83 - police department:

Dispatcher: July 18, 2006, board of selectmen voted the day to day operations of dispatch center and jurisdiction to the chief of police. Former control of the dispatch center and dispatcher fell under communication board.

In that same annual town report, there is a listing of all town employees with their salaries, (pages 97-99) why is that absent from the annual town report these days? How can people who pay the bills check on what they are told, that Templeton salaries / wages are on the low side? If you question what I post, for instance, how or where can you check on that? Is there something to hide? It would be the accounting of public money after all.