Fixing a Local Aid Glitch

1. Fixing a Local Aid Glitch Discretionary Decisions in the Implementation of 2006 Education Aid Reforms

2. Sen. Will Brownsberger

3. Required Local Contributions have converged, but there are still outliers. Sen. Will Brownsberger

4. Grandfathering both preserves and mitigates effects of old model. Sen. Will Brownsberger

5. An example of problematic results continuing in FY13. Note, other similar contrasts can be found – e.g., Belmont vs. Watertown. Sen. Will Brownsberger

6. We dropped Down Payment aid in the financial crunch. Sen. Will Brownsberger

7. Example Waltham has fared poorly because (a) it was among the most disadvantaged under the old formula and (b) in the crunch, we chose Effort Reduction over Down Payment. Sen. Will Brownsberger

8. Experiments that bring aid for example Waltham to 13.25% of FB. (13.25% gets Waltham $203,549 increase or 2.9% on $7,068,165 FY12 Aid.) Sen. Will Brownsberger

9. A cost-neutral (v H2) ceiling on RLC gap above target would improve future equity, although it would not help example Waltham in FY13. Sen. Will Brownsberger

10. Summary of Analysis • Elimination of Down Payment Aid while continuing effort reduction disproportionately disadvantaged those communities that (a) have above-target RLC and (b) were most disadvantaged by pre-reform aid model (Waltham, others), especially those (c) at the maximum target RLC of 82.5%. • Attractive solution is to place a ceiling on the gap between target contribution and required local contribution, so increasing aid for those furthest below target aid level at all wealth levels and improving future equity. A further effort reduction can be used to maintain current year spread of aid. Sen. Will Brownsberger

11. Options Summary Note: All options shown provide standard grandfathering of FY12 base aid. The spreadsheet distributed with this analysis allows exploration of alternative options, including cost offsets. Sen. Will Brownsberger