That Pesky Regional School Formula, the first of more than one part.

I think I know the policy wonk's definition of the seventh circle of hell: trying to develop an equitable school funding formula in Massachusetts.

Nonetheless, the folks over at the Department of Education (DOE) and the legislature have been laboring away to find a formula that will distribute assistance and assign costs, in an equitable manner. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the result is a policy that is complicated, difficult to understand, probably flawed and inherently unsatisfying to those who don't get as much as they anticipated or end up paying more than they expected.

This past year, DOE required regional schools to either assess costs under its statutory method or to use an alternative method. The statutory method involves a calculation by DOE as to the community's ability to pay based on equalized property valuations (EQV's) and wealth, as measured by tax returns. The EQV and wealth calculations are developed by the Department of Revenue (DOR) and provided to the DOE.

The DOE formula is an attempt to introduce some progressivity into regional school funding. Essentially, the wealthier members of a district get to pay more of the costs.

The law also allows for an alternative assessment methodology, in accordance with the regional school agreement. This is also known as the "headcount" method, an apparent reference to dividing the net school spending up on a per student basis, without taking into account the differences in wealth among the district members.

In districts with three or more members, the statutory approach needs a two-thirds vote to pass; the alternative requires a unanimous vote of the members. So even though Amherst holds the majority of seats on the regional school committee, the other members can control the fate of the budget by action of their town meetings.

Amherst approaches the regional school budget with two votes: one to approve the formula for assessing costs and the second to actually appropriate a sum of money. The first, aka Article 16, got voted up on May 10^th, the latter (Article 17) is being fussed over as I write this.

The day of the vote on Article 16, the Hampshire Gazette chose to editorialize in favor of its passage and managed to reflect some of the confusion around the formula. The editorial maintains that the agreement was ratified "several years ago," takes into account all the revenue variables "including the amount of state aid received by Amherst," makes the school system affordable by small towns, and that it would be unfair to change the budget formula this late in the process. The editorial noted that if the state assessment model were used, Amherst's share of the budget would decrease by $154,000; Leverett's would increase by 11.2%, Shutesbury by 1.1% and Pelham's by 48.3% or $468,000.

Let's leave that last bit of innumeracy aside and ask why the three smaller towns budgets go up under the statutory formula? Because based on the data provided, DOE sees those towns with more ability to pay than Amherst. So, if one accepts the logic of the statutory formula, Amherst (Before you flame, note the qualifier at the start of the preceding sentence.) is subsidizing the educational costs of three smaller but more affluent communities.

Contrary to the Gazette, the headcount arrangement was put into effect last year (2006) and ended a series of ad hoc changes to school funding. But why not accept the state formula? More on that later, after we see how things played out at town meeting.