Massachusetts Association of School Committees Resolutions 2014
Resolution for Greater Transparency and Accountability for Out of District Placement Costs
Whereas the State provides approximately $35,000 on average per student placed in an out-of-district educational setting.
Whereas this is as little and in many cases less than 10% of the cost.
Whereas the State has loose recommendations for job titles and descriptions for administration, as well as staff, for approved out-of-district educational settings and only require them to publically post an organizational chart whereas in-district public schools must also post salaries and district budgets.
Whereas many out-of-district placement settings are folding in non-educational costs into tuition.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will require institutions providing out-of-district placements for education to file End of Year Reports and post salaries with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Rationale: With out-of-district educational placements tax payers not only have no reasonable amount of control but no knowledge of salaries or services being paid for by their tax dollars. Reporting for out-of-district schools should be in line with the requirements of any in-district public school.
Submitted by: Michelle Brosnahan
Sponsored by: Framingham School Committee
​
Resolution for Funding in Order to Properly Support New to District Students
Whereas any given high school or middle school in any given district is faced with 100, and in many cases much more, new to district students throughout the school year.
Whereas large populations of the new to district students are English Language Learners.
Whereas the most recent publishing of results from the Massachusetts Youth Health Survey performed by Massachusetts Department of Health reported 10.8% of blacks and 13.1% of Hispanics students report receiving D’s and F’s.
Whereas the most recent publishing of results from the Massachusetts Youth Health Survey performed by Massachusetts Department of Health report that the Black Female cohort, the Hispanic Female cohort and the Other/Multiracial female cohort, each at 17% likely to consider suicide.
Whereas there is supporting documentation of a high suicide rate among the student population that have frequent address changes.
Whereas Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education (SLIFE) have limited academic records and require increased time and effort in order to properly place in order to maximize academic achievement.
Whereas as there is supporting documentation that SLIFE have higher drop-out rates.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will provide State Wide Mandates and Funding for New to District Support in order to proper support for this at risk population.
Rationale: Many of the New to District students are English Language Learners and are not receiving supports that are available at the school or in the community. There are varied reasons for thus such as parents and students not having the ability to get information in their respective language to not filling out necessary paperwork for fear of being found as an undocumented immigrant. It has been documented that the New to District population is an underserved and a grossly at risk population. These students require social and emotional support in order to increase student achievement.
Submitted by: Michelle Brosnahan
Sponsored by: Framingham School Committee
Massachusetts Association of School Committees Resolutions 2015
Resolution: An Equitable and Sustainable Placement Program for Homeless and/or McKinney-Vento Students.
Whereas: Many families receiving services under the provision of the McKinney-Vento Act are placed in housing based on availability of affordable temporary housing.
Whereas: The current governing law puts the onus of the final decision of placement of McKinney-Vento students on the receiving district.
Whereas: The average length of stay for a family’s placement is 70 days.
Whereas: Many students receiving provisions from the McKinney-Vento Act are placed in an a districts outside their home district after the October 1st cut off date for Chapter 70 funding.
Whereas: Many receiving districts have consistently experienced a shortfall in McKinney-Vento funding negatively impacting the receiving district's budget. Leaving their taxpayers the burden from a program that was designed to be funded by federal grant monies.
Whereas: Massachusetts DESE reports show among the 399 reporting districts only and 22 have sub-grants which only provides additional support for only 5069 of the reported 15,812 students.
Whereas: The most recent published report from Massachusetts DESE (based on 2012-2013 school year) accounted for 15,812 homeless students enrolled in Massachusetts.
Whereas: The above mentioned DESE report calculated 4362 of these students to be Special Education Students.
Whereas: The above mentioned DESE report calculated that 22% more homeless students as compared to housed students are members of a gang.
Whereas: The above mentioned report calculated that 17% more homeless students become pregnant as compared to housed students.
Whereas: The above mentioned report calculated that 14% more homeless students felt sad or hopeless for more than two weeks. as compared to housed peers.
Whereas: The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that homeless children are 9 times more likely to repeat a grade than their housed peers.
Whereas: The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that homeless children are four times more likely to drop out than their housed peers.
Whereas: The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that homeless children are 3 times more likely to be placed in a special education program than their housed peers.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will design, implement, and fund a program that will provide a more sustainable and equitable placement program for the State’s Homeless and McKinney-Vento Students. A placement program needs to include consideration the social-emotional and behavioral circumstances of the student, timing of the placement in relation to budgetary considerations, proximity to the student’s previously established support system, and the availability of resources the receiving district has to accommodate the student’s needs.
Rationale: At any given moment a child and/or family will be placed in a town or city that is foreign to them. Without a complete history, and in many cases without knowledge of the student’s social-emotional or behavioral needs, the receiving district must make a decision for placement based on what is best for the student. Placement may be chosen outside the receiving district. Current governing law does not require attendance in the “home-district” or district of parent’s choice. Students and their families often have to move two to three times a year. Statistics show that inconsistencies in, and experience of, multiple school placements, have a negative impact on the success rate of students. There are no provisions in the governing law that placement should take into account the proximity to the family or student’s established support system. Studies done by multiple credible agencies have consistently correlated data that provide evidence supporting the inequities between the educational status and success rates of homeless and McKinney-Vento students as compared to that of their housed peers. Evidence supports the facts that these students have to overcome barriers that include hunger, abuse, depression, learning disabilities, and tendencies for risky behaviors. Often these students are placed in districts that are underfunded and understaffed, because they have not been budgeted for, leaving them to improvise a way to meet the student at their level and provide a fair and equitable level of education to that of their housed peers. If the MGL states that education is to be provided to all children between the minimum and maximum ages established for school attendance by the board of education it needs to be equitable no matter the housing situation of the student. The placement of, and funding for, these students must account for all social-emotional and behavioral circumstances, timing of the placement, available support system for the student, and the ability of the receiving district to accommodate the student’s needs.
​
Submitted by: Michelle Brosnahan
Sponsored by: Framingham School Committee
Resolution: Documentation of Social-Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in Transcripts
Whereas: The US Department of Education’s Publication of Questions and Answers on Report Cards and Transcripts For Students with Disabilities Attending Public Elementary and Secondary Schools states, “ While a transcript may not disclose that a student has a disability or has received special education or related services due to having a disability, a transcript may indicate that a student took classes with a modified or alternate education curriculum.” This has been successfully done by a system of symbols or asterisks.
Whereas: FERPA protects the privacy interests of parents and students with regard to education records, and generally prohibits a policy or practice of disclosing personally identifiable information from education records without consent unless it is subject to a specific exception.
Whereas: The Massachusetts Statewide Proposal for the High School Graduation Initiative (HSGI) Program published in 2010 by Massachusetts DESE regarding a program to substantially increase the number of students who earn a high school diploma states, “Based on our collective experience, this will be best accomplished through a range of activities that promote mutual sharing of needs and promising practices at and across the state and local levels.
Whereas: There are no laws or DESE guidelines for documentation required by school guidance counselors.
Whereas: American School Counselors Association’s, last revision of 2010, of Ethical Standards for School Counselors states, “Maintain and secure records necessary for rendering professional services to the student as required by laws, regulations, institutional procedures and confidentiality guidelines.” but they can “Request a release of information signed by the student and/or parents/guardians when attempting to develop collaborative relationship with other service providers assigned to the student.”
Whereas: There are no laws or DESE guidelines for documentation required by school social workers.
Whereas: National Association of Social Workers in their Confidentiality and School Social Work: A Practice Perspective states, “To be effective in serving and meeting both the educational and social–emotional needs of the student, information must be shared and exchanged.” when sharing information “Ask the following questions when deciding to share confidential information: "Why is it important that this information be shared?" "How will the student and the student’s family benefit by a decision to share or not share information?" "Does sharing the confidential information outweigh maintaining confidentiality?" "What will be the effect on the student’s learning?"
Whereas: 603 CMR 23.04 states The term student record does not include notes, memory aids and other similar information that is maintained in the personal files of a school employee and is not accessible or revealed to authorized school personnel or any third party. Such information may be shared with the student, parent or a temporary substitute of the maker of the record, but if it is released to authorized school personnel it becomes part of the student record subject to all the provisions of 603 CMR 23.00.
Whereas: Social-Emotional and Behavioral Disorders create an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
Whereas: Social-Emotional and Behavioral Disorders create an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.
Whereas: Social and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders create inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
Whereas: Social-Emotional and Behavioral Disorders create a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
Whereas: Social-Emotional and Behavioral Disorders create a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school factors.
Whereas: Nationally, only 40 percent of students with EBD graduate from high school.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will support design of, and implementation of, a system that could be included in a student’s educational transcripts in order for the receiving school or the receiving district can provide a proper placement of an EBD student in the most supportive and least restrictive environment while meeting the student at their level.
Rational: When a student is placed in a new school or new district their transcripts provide information used to insure proper placement which should provide the highest quality of education in the least restrictive environment possible for that student. Often students who suffer from social-emotional and/or behavioral temporary or disorders move between schools both in and out of their districts. The effects of these disorders are dependent on a management system. Patterns of behavior are formed and often go unnoticed especially in the cases where EBD students often move between schools and districts. These students do not get nor will they get the required support required to become a successful learners. These students will not be able to form the supportive relationships with their teachers or peers. Use of an indicator in transcripts will support the receiving school or district’s ability to provide the extra support that is necessary for the student at the time of entrance to the new placement. It could also indicate a need of a periodical review this student. With a staggering 60% of these students being unable to attain a high school diploma, it is clear there are too many students falling through the cracks. Evidence shows this type of coding has been successfully utilized for students with other disabilities
Submitted by: Michelle Brosnahan
Sponsored by: Framingham School Committee
Massachusetts Association of School Committees Resolutions 2016
Resolution: Accommodations for Students With IEP or 504 Plans Be Provided with the Same Support Accommodations as They Receive in Their Classroom Setting On State and/or District Wide Standardized Mandatory Testing.
Whereas since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, students with disabilities are expected to participate in state and district-wide assessments, using appropriate accommodations.
Whereas studies have shown students without disabilities significantly outperformed their peers with disabilities in English Math and Science.
Whereas studies have shown students with learning disabilities and other health impairments outperformed peers with emotional/behavioral disorders or educable mental disabilities.
Whereas studies have shown that students with learning disabilities and emotional disturbances tended to have similar patterns of discrepancy across standardized testing conditions yet similar rates of accommodation use overall.
Whereas studies have shown that students with speech/language impairments are least likely to receive extended time and/or read aloud accommodations on standardized testing.
Whereas studies have shown students with intellectual development disorder receive setting accommodations for standardized testing far more frequently than stated on the IEP or 504 Plans or provided in class.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will support the provision of the same support accommodations as written for a student with on their IEP or 504 Plan that they receive in their classroom setting.
Rationale: Given the potential negative consequences associated with mandatory testing (i.e. grade retention, withholding of high school diplomas, the rating level of schools), students, parents, and school districts all bear significant risks based upon student test scores. The historically poor performance of students with disabilities on these assessments continues to raise concerns over minimum standards, permissible test modifications, and alternate assessments. The PARCC accommodations now allow only a blank piece of paper for students who undergo testing in their classroom setting with many varied accommodations such as visual organizers. This new standard will only increase the myriad of negative consequences.
Submitted by: Michelle Brosnahan
​
Resolution: Out Of District Placement Cost Reform
Whereas the purpose of 603 CMR 28.00 is to ensure that eligible Massachusetts students receive special education services designed to develop the student's individual educational potential in the least restrictive environment in accordance with applicable state and federal laws.
Whereas nothing in 603 CMR 28.00 shall be construed to limit the rights of parents to have their children educated at private schools, completely at private expense. To the extent that public school districts provide and pay for special education services for eligible students enrolled in private schools at private expense, the following requirements shall apply:
1.Each school district shall provide special education designed to meet the needs of eligible students who are attending private schools at private expense and whose parents reside in the jurisdiction of the school district. The school district shall provide to such students genuine opportunities to participate in the public school special education program consistent with state constitutional limitations.
2.The school district shall provide or arrange for the provision of evaluation services and an IEP for any eligible private school student whose parent resides in the jurisdiction of the school district. The evaluation may take place in the public school, the private school, or an appropriate contracted facility, provided that the school district shall ensure that a representative of the student's private school is invited to participate as a member of the Team pursuant to 603 CMR 28.05.
3.The school district shall provide or arrange for the provision of the special education described by the student's IEP provided that school districts shall ensure that special education services funded with state or local funds are provided in a public school facility or other public or neutral site. When services are provided using only federal funds, services may be provided on private school grounds.
4.Special education provided by the school district to a private school student shall be comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to that provided to public school students with needs of equal importance. Programs in which both public and private school students participate may not include classes that are separated on the basis of school enrollment or the religious affiliation of the students.
Whereas Bill H.4141 (originally H.508) An Act relative to special education finance was voted favorably on by the Joint Committee on Education on 4/6/2016 and now sits with House Committee on Ways and Means. This means that niether private or public day or residential schools do not report their spending to the taxpayers by whom they are funded, hence by law they have no fiscal responsibility.
Whereas according to a 2011 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Massachusetts ranked second in the nation at about 18 percent of its students identified as special needs. The national average was 13 percent.
Whereas the most recent data able to found being from 2011 according to Mass DOE there were over 10,000. Out of District Placements in the State. All other available documentation report rising numbers.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will support the reform of Out Of District Placement Costs.
Rational: According to MAAPS 2012 Bottom Line Report between 2006 and 2012, special education costs in Massachusetts increased by 56% compared to 36% for all public education. In the Town of Framingham the Operating Budget has estimated its annual increase from FY13 to FY24 at the rate of 2.3% based upon the previous five years budgets.The Special Education budget has increased each fiscal year by 4.8%, again based on the previous five years budgets. If the increases continue as they historically have by FY2024 almost all of the Operating Budget will need to go to SPED.
Submitted by: Michelle Brosnahan
​
Massachusetts Association of School Committees Resolutions 2017
Resolution : Reform of Circuit Breaker Funding.
Submitted by Framingham School Committee July 1, 2017
Proponent: Michelle Brosnahan
Whereas The Special Education Circuit Breaker program includes a provision that only allows districts to claim for extraordinary relief when claimable Special Education costs exceed 125% of the year's claimed costs.
Whereas there are many districts that the have a large Special Education population especially with regard to Out of District placements will never reach the special provision of 125%. Framingham alone has budgeted $42+ million for district SPED costs.
Whereas Framingham alone, much like it’s comparable large districts, has increased from a SPED population of 3.5% above the state average in 2006 to 5.7% above the state average in 2015 and continues to increase.
Whereas in Framingham alone, again much like it’s comparable large districts, where the SPED cost have had rapid increases it is estimated that SPED costs will be approximately 69% of the district's operating budget by 2024.
Whereas Out of District placements cost are rising yet the out of district schools have not been liable for their expenditures to the taxpayers, there is no accountability for the increases. Public schools are held accountable to the taxpayers for where every dime goes. In turn districts are unable to justify their rising expenditures and are unable to receive the additional funding needed from whom they are accountable to.
Whereas Medicare and Medicaid cuts are that are being discussed threaten many districts who have their Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy and Speech Therapy services paid for by those programs to bear the burden of these costs.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will support the provision of reform for Circuit Breaker Funding and support the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission.
Rational: According to MAAPS 2012 Bottom Line Report between 2006 and 2012, special education costs in Massachusetts increased by 56% compared to 36% for all public education. In the Town of Framingham the District Operating Budget has approved a 4.5% increase for FY18. This leaves our budget for SPED with a near $2 million shortfall.
​
Resolution: Movement of the Chapter 70 Funding Enrollment Date to March 15
Submitted by: Framingham School Committee July 1, 2017
Proponent: Michelle Brosnahan
Whereas: district schools in Massachusetts Department of Education report peak enrollment in the months of January, February and March.
Whereas: House Bill No. 2846 House Docket, Number 3175 filed on: 1/20/2017 a district may only receive reimbursement from the proposed Unfunded Student Reserve Fund if the district has a net enrollment of more than 100 new students between October 1 of the previous year and March 1 of the current year.
Whereas: based on the proposed FY18 Preliminary Chapter 70 District Summary 99 unfunded students would cost any district no less than $1,083,424.00.
Whereas: many districts must have their budgets completed prior to knowing what their Chapter 70 funds amount will be.
Therefore be it resolved that Massachusetts Association of School Committees file for and support legislation that will implement the movement of the Chapter 70 Funding enrollment date to March 15th.
Rationale: Giving the districts the ability to base their budget on the enrollment rate after the peak enrollment time will allow districts to base their budget with increased accuracy to meet the needs of their student population. Underfunding leaves students at risk to fall behind due to not having the appropriate staffing, technology or needed educational materials. Smaller districts will be more so at risk as their admission rate may not reach the required 100 students proposed in House Bill 2846 (2017) and will be least able to absorb additional cost of unfunded students. For larger districts the proposed Unfunded Student Reserve Fund will still leave them underfunded as the amount proposed to be set aside will not meet the needs of the students across the state.