Tipos de segmentación

although federal stimulus funds have allowed the state to maintain Foundation levels, and for the 2012 and 2013 financial years, Chapter 70 aid increased again by 3.6% and 4.5% respectively. 8

Given the uncertainty about future funding, we argue below that it would be sensible to set a baseline level for core Chapter 70 funding for the next three years, and to focus the debate on priorities for any additional funding that might become available in the coming years. Any additional investment available – including the savings generated from increased productivity – should be directed at supporting greater innovation in the system, teacher and leadership development, and proven interventions for low-income students, including extended time and increases in access to early education.

When it comes to the sixth of our principles – provid- ing demonstrable value for every tax dollar being spent, the analysis possible on the statewide data about district spending provides only limited insight into where it is most effective. To return again to the EDI’s analysis of spending by districts on those activities most closely corre- lated with instructional improvements, Figure 5 shows that districts in the upper quartile of spending spend up to twice as much per pupil as the lowest spending district on activi- ties associated with instructional improvement.

However, when it comes to the link between this spending and the outcomes achieved by students (as measured by the percent of students who are proficient or advanced on MCAS English language arts and math tests in 2012), Figure 6 below shows that although there is a positive correlation, it is relatively weak.

The DESE has undertaken similar analysis and reached a similar conclusion: that funding appears to be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for effective teaching and learn- ing.9 _{DESE looked more closely at the use of resources in}

schools which had been commended for their performance. Even among these schools there was significant variation in spending, and the DESE concluded that the analysis provided insufficient insight into models of efficient and effective resource allocation. Given these difficulties in ana- lyzing the use of resources at a district and school level using the existing data, Massachusetts needs a new tool to increase transparency in the use of funding and to demonstrate more clearly the value of spending to taxpayers.

What should a future Massachusetts

funding system look like?

In the short term, Massachusetts needs to ensure that more funding is being spent directly by schools. This is consistent with our argument in Chapter 3 that schools need to have

Figure 5: Spending on instructional activities by district

greater responsibility for their own improvement. To hold them fairly accountable for successfully improving, schools need to control a greater proportion of their budgets. Massachusetts should therefore set a clear expectation of what proportion of total funding – both that provided by the state and by districts themselves - should be distributed to schools.

In setting this level, Massachusetts should start by looking at the current levels of spending on administration and other non-core instructional activities. As Figure 2 showed, the median spend of all districts, whatever their size, on administration is currently below 5%. And as Figure 3 showed, the median level of spend on the highest category of non-core instructional spend - insurance, retirement and other benefits - is only 17%. If all districts reduced their share of spending on administration and other non-core instructional spending to the median, they would be able to increase the proportion devolved directly to schools. There are also opportunities for greater efficiencies to be gained here, especially for smaller and lower-enrollment districts, from our proposals in Chapter 3 for greater district collaboration which should enable them to reduce admin- istrative and other non-core instructional spending further. We therefore recommend Massachusetts should start by introducing an expectation that in every district 75-80% of

all funding should be distributed to schools by 2015, and look to increase this proportion in subsequent years. Massachusetts should also ensure funds are being distrib- uted on the basis of a weighted formula that takes into account variations in the student populations at particular schools (see box on next page for a simple explanation of what this would involve.)10 _{Of course Massachusetts}

already has a weighted formula at a state level as part of the Foundation Budget. However, there is no requirement that districts distribute their budgets on a similarly weighted basis. Some districts, including Boston,11 _{have chosen to}

do so, arguing that it increases both fairness and transpar- ency. Many others haven’t – with locally bargained teacher union contracts that control staff assignment acting as a major barrier. Our proposals in Chapter 4 to develop a new grand bargain and move towards a thin statewide contract are a critical part of enabling a move to greater weighted student funding at a district level therefore. We would also recommend that Weighted Student Funding should be a