The Massachusetts Inter-District School Choice Program

Photo by Jeffrey Hamilton on Unsplash

The Massachusetts school choice program, G.L. c. 76, § 12B, was enacted in 1991 to allow parents and their children to “obtain a quality education in public schools” by allowing attendance in schools outside their home district. Another of the legislation’s goals was to motivate school districts to “examine and strengthen their curriculum” to better compete with other public schools.

In fiscal year 2023, 17,688 full-time equivalent pupils participated in the program, with 184 receiving school districts (districts that accept non-resident school choice students) and 316 sending districts (home districts of school choice students). According to the law, student participation in school choice cannot exceed 2% of the state’s public school enrollment. For the 2022 - 2023 school year, participating students comprised 1.9% of the state's total public school enrollment of 913,735.

The law states that all districts will accept students from other districts, provided space is available. Unless a district opts out, it is automatically considered a school choice district.

How Districts Accommodate School Choice

There are three ways for School Committees to handle school choice:

1. Take no action before June 1, which will by default make the district a school choice district. In this instance, there are no restrictions on the schools, specific grades, and programs to which non-resident students may be accepted;

2. Vote before June 1 to accept school choice with some or all restrictions to schools, grades, and programs;

3. Vote before June 1 to opt out of school choice. This vote must include a public hearing on the opt-out issue and the public hearing may occur at the same time as the meeting as long as the public hearing aspect is advertised beforehand. The reasons for opting out must be recorded in the resolution voted on. The district must notify the  Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) of the vote as soon as practicable.

Districts may opt out of receiving non-resident students but not sending resident students outside of their home district. The law provides for withdrawing from the intra-district enrollment process only and guarantees the right of students in Massachusetts to attend any school of their choice within the state.

The opt-out hearing/vote process must be done every year before June 1 and the vote will only apply to the following school year. Districts participating with restrictions must vote on those restrictions every year before June 1. If there are more applicants than available seats, the District must choose school choice students through a lottery.

Student Rights under School Choice

According to G.L. c.76, § 12B, schools cannot discriminate based on “race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, gender identity, age, sexual orientation, ancestry, athletic performance, physical handicap, special need, academic performance, or proficiency in the English language.” Schools may not consider a non-resident student’s disciplinary record when making enrollment decisions, but non-residents may be disciplined as any other student once they have gained admission. Siblings of students enrolled through school choice are given priority for acceptance to the same district. 

The law mandates that any non-resident student admitted through school choice must receive the same treatment as resident students and may participate in all programs available to residents. Once accepted, non-resident students have the right to continue their education in the chosen district until high school graduation or completion of the highest available grade in the district, unless there is a lack of funding.

If a district votes to withdraw from school choice after previously participating, non-resident students already enrolled must be retained. To protect their privacy, the names of students entering or leaving a school district cannot be made public by the School Committee.

School Choice Funding Formula

School choice funding is fairly straightforward.  Receiving districts are paid a set amount of money per student. In contrast, those districts that lose students to other school systems must pay. There are additional charges for special education students and transportation costs for those students if required by the student’s Individualized Education Program. 

In January, the MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) released the  FY 2024 Preliminary School Choice Tuition rate for school districts and the state’s two virtual schools based on the previous year’s enrollment data. The final rates will be released in June.

The FY 2024 per-student rate (except for special education students) for school districts was $5,000 – unchanged since at least 2016. This amount reflects the law’s language stating, “tuition amount shall be equal to seventy-five percent of the actual per pupil spending amount in the receiving district for such education as is required by such non-resident student, but not more than five thousand dollars”. By comparison, the per-student rate for virtual schools was reported as $9,597, which was recently increased to $9,727. Both rates include a $75 per-student administrative fee. 

The law requires tuition payments for non-resident students to be deducted from the sending district’s state Chapter 70 funds and deposited in the School Choice Tuition Fund by the state treasurer. Payments are then disbursed from the Fund to the receiving districts and placed, by law, in a special account for use by the district’s school committee.

More Questions About School Choice

My research for this overview answered some of my questions about school choice but many remain. For example:

1. Do wealthier school districts benefit more from school choice compared to less wealthy districts?

2.  Why do districts opt out of school choice, especially when they must still send their resident students to schools outside their district?

3. Does forcing underperforming (and possibly underfunded) schools to compete with others help or hurt the public school system?

4. Is the $5,000 tuition assessment sufficient to cover the cost of a student’s education?

I plan to cover these questions and more in future blog posts as I delve deeper into the complex and diverse issues surrounding the Bay State’s school choice program.

    

Momentum Builds to Abolish the Local Property Tax

Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash

Local real estate taxes are the primary funding method used by municipalities in the United States. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 75% of the $800 billion raised annually to support local government spending comes from property taxes. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis put the total value of raised state and local property taxes in the U.S. at a little over $12 billion in 2023. The graph below shows how this amount grew over time and nearly doubled since the mid-2000s. The Tax Policy Center notes that localities generally levy taxes on real estate and states are more apt to tax only personal property, such as business equipment and furnishings in second homes.

The increasing burden on real estate property owners has spurred some states to consider abolishing property taxes. This is an interesting concept that begs the question: where will the funding for local government come from?

But first, a little history about property taxes.

A Tax Owed to Landlords and Kings

Property taxes were levied by kings in ancient Babylon, China, and Egypt, as well as other countries and city-states where land was taxed according to its production value. During feudal times, William the Conqueror instituted a land tax system whereby a list of property owners was kept in a book along with the land’s assessed value and the amount of tax due.

Until the 19th century, taxation schemes were disorganized and widely considered inequitable. States began the move toward uniformity, and the real property tax was seen as a realistic way for rural areas to raise money.

The 20th century saw growing discontent with property taxation methods. In some states, a mix of government entities and special districts would tax the same parcel multiple times. 

Reform efforts introduced the concept of exemptions, property classifications, and training for tax assessors. The economic expansion following World War II brought higher real estate prices, values, and tax bills. The property tax revolts of the 1970s led to the passage of Proposition 13 in California and Proposition 2 ½ in Massachusetts, both measures intended to put the brakes on escalating property taxes.

Where the Real Property Tax is Under Attack

Rapidly rising real estate prices and values have renewed the anti-tax vigor of the 1970s. Several states are considering eradicating property taxes but are finding it difficult to replace the revenue adequately.

Texas

Governor Greg Abbott has made it clear that he supports abolishing the local property tax. Last summer, Abbott signed a bill to cut local taxes by $18 billion. In November, voters approved a constitutional amendment, known as Proposition 4, to increase the state’s homestead exemption and restructure how schools are funded. Essentially, surplus state funds were used to supplement school maintenance and operations budgets, thus reducing the amount needed from property taxes.

North Dakota

In 2012, voters failed to pass a ballot question to end local property taxation. In July 2023, a group spearheaded by former state legislator Rick Becker began circulating a similar petition that, by January of this year, garnered a little more than half the signatures needed to be placed on the November ballot.

Becker claims that the lost revenue of $1+ billion would be replaced by “legacy fund earnings and operation prairie dog funds”, plus ending wasteful spending.

Florida

House Bill 1371, first filed on January 5, 2024, would have increased the homestead exemption for property owners under the age of 65 to $100,000  and for homeowners over the age of 65 to $250,000. The bill would also have required a study of the impact of replacing the real property tax with a new consumption tax.

A new filing on February 1 left only the language regarding an impact study intact; on March 8, the bill died a quiet death in the State Affairs Committee.

Michigan

An initiative seeking a place on the November ballot calls for the Michigan property tax to be voluntary for all services but “police, fire, and road commissions”. Whether or not the petition is placed before voters, the subject has elicited fiery debate between property owners on both sides of the question.

Addressing Calls for Property Tax Relief

So far, no state has eliminated the local property tax since no comprehensive plan replaces the revenue. Raising or instituting consumption taxes has been floated as a solution, though such revenues would be harder to predict than taxes on a stable tax base like real estate.

Escalating demands for relief have resulted in legislative actions to address the problem, primarily by using Covid-related relief funds to subsidize property tax revenues. With those funds drying up, some states, like Colorado, have passed bills to limit assessed valuations for tax purposes while other states, like Georgia, will put constitutional amendments limiting assessed values on the November ballot for voter approval.

With home prices continuing to rise, the momentum to reign in property taxes is not likely to slow. CoreLogic’s May 2024 report notes a 5.3% increase in home prices from March 2023 to March 2024, higher than its year-ago prediction of a 4.6% price increase–with Northeastern states leading the way. 

Massachusetts has one of the highest median home sale prices in the country. This chart from Rocket Homes, published May 8, shows our fair state sporting a median price of $571,436, with only California, Washington, D.C., and Hawaii commanding higher median prices. On May 24, The Mortgage Reports pegs Massachusetts’ median price at $622,639, nearly tied with Colorado and trailing California, Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and Washington state.

Notably, property owners in the Northeast have not joined in the current tax revolt. If home prices and values soar, that could change.

New Shutesbury Library Project Goes Out to Bid

Without fanfare or public announcement, Shutesbury’s new library bid solicitation went out on April 24, 2024. 

It was easy to miss. Because I subscribe to meeting notices through our town’s website, I received a notice for the Library Building Committee’s (LBC) June 6 meeting where they plan to “Review construction bids”. 

On May 8 I contacted the Chair of the Shutesbury Library Building Committee for details. She said the bid was submitted to Projectdog.com  on April 24. I also asked about the well water tests, to which she replied that they have received preliminary results and are waiting for final testing results. Despite requests for this information, the preliminary results have not been made public.

Projectdog requires creating an account to view information. Unable to find the project, I asked the Chair for the project code, which she gave me (861574). In the same email, I also suggested the Committee post the bid documents on the town website but received no response.

The Library Director sent a town-wide “Library News” email on May 16 with an announcement regarding the library project bid.

Bid Solicitation Highlights

As you may imagine, there were many documents uploaded for this bid, including forms, plans, and blueprints. Here are a few details to inform our understanding of where the library project now stands.

The estimated construction cost is $6 million. Recalling that a recent LBC meeting revealed a $6+ million price estimate for the 75% complete construction documents, I forwarded another question to the LBC chair. She reminded me that the $6 million is only the construction cost, not the entire project's cost. She also noted that value engineering (cost-cutting) had been done before sending out the bid.

Shutesbury has requested a base bid, with add alternates available if the base bid comes in under the cost estimate amount.

The original general contractor and subcontractor bid submission dates were May 30 and May 15, respectively. These dates have changed and may change again.

Addendum No. 1, filed on May 1, answered 7 questions from contractors. This 283-page addendum made substantive changes to the bid package, advising bidders that it “modifies, amends, and supplements designated parts of the Contract Documents” for the project.

Addendum No. 2, filed on May 6, answered 17 questions from contractors.  This addendum also made substantial changes and contains 75 pages.

Addendum No. 3, filed on May 10, answered 23 questions from contractors.  This document also extended the following dates:

• Subcontractors' bid deadline: May 23;

• General contractors’ question deadline: May 28;

• General contractors’ bid deadline: June 4.

Addendum No. 4, filed May 15, answered 30 questions from contractors. This document contains 76 pages. 

Addendum No. 5, filed May 17, answered 15 questions from contractors, and corrected answers provided to two previous questions in Addendum No. 4. There are multiple revisions, additions, and deletions to the original bid. This document contains 63 pages.

One of the revised answers in Addendum No. 5 pertains to the wood products used in this project. The new answer, with additional text bolded and underlined (per Addendum No. 5), now reads:

Wood materials for this project are not required to be obtained from forests certified by an FSC-accredited certification body to comply with FSC’s "Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship". All specification requirements will not need to be verified during submittal review.

This change surprised me since Shutesbury has been clear about wanting the building to be as environmentally responsible as possible, as is apparent in the LBC’s discussions on Net Zero and solar. All MA state-owned forests have been certified since 2004.

NOTE: All addenda documents include the list of bidders’ questions.

How Does Shutesbury’s Bid Experience Compare with Similar Projects?

I found the number of bidder inquiries and, importantly, the amount of revision done to the bid documents particularly interesting. Wondering if the number of questions from bidders and the scope of revisions was commonplace, I  compared Shutesbury’s bid with Amherst’s two recent library projects: the North Amherst Library addition and renovation, and the Jones Library renovation and addition. Both projects have readily available public information and have been extensively covered by the local media.

A recent article on the Amherst Indy expressed concern over the number of bidder inquiries as well as the voluminous addenda submitted by the Town of Amherst in response. For a $35.5 million contract, there were 98 questions and 22 answering addenda, totaling approximately 1,100 pages in addition to the original 3,400 in the bid solicitation.

By comparison, the bid documents for the North Amherst Library Addition project, originally estimated at $1.25 million, comprised the original bid document of 70 pages, plus six addenda. The N. Amherst, Jones, and Shutesbury library projects are compared in the table below.

Project	Project Cost (Original)	# of Bid Docs	Bidder Questions	# of Addenda	# of Addenda Pages	# of Bid Extensions
N. Amherst Library Addition	$1.25M	70	88	6	55	1
Shutesbury Library	$6M	130	94	5	551	1
Jones Library Renovation/Addition	$35.5M	3,400	98	22	1,100	3

 

Project variables such as size, cost, and complexity will directly impact the number of bidder questions and the issuance of addenda.

The Biggest Headwind for Local Library Projects: Price

Shutesbury is in a challenging bidding environment. Recent experiences in Amherst and Deerfield demonstrate the difficulty faced by local library projects, as each town received only a single bid for their respective projects.

Faced with a single bid for the Jones Library project that came in at $7 million above expectations, Amherst took stock of its situation. At a Special Meeting of the Amherst Town Council on April 29, the fate of the project was discussed. The general sentiment favored abandoning the new addition and concentrating on repairing and renovating the Jones Library building.

On May 3, the Trustees of the Jones Library unanimously recommended to the Town Manager to reject all general and subcontractor bids, which totaled $55 million. The Manager has until June 10 to decide whether to accept or reject the bids.

Deerfield's Tilton Library Expansion received only one bid, for $10.99 million, exceeding their estimate. Despite the disappointment, the town decided to award the project, stating that there "should be no budgetary issues" after making several adjustments. Deerfield accepted only the base bid.

The Tilton’s Project Manager noted that receiving only one higher-than-expected bid is not unusual for Pioneer Valley projects. Last June, Shutesbury’s architects warned the Library Building Committee that bids for our project will likely be higher because:

• Contractors are busy, which translates into fewer, higher bids;

• This is a small project with no economy of scale;

• Shutesbury is not close to an urban area.

At the time of publication of this post, bids are due by June 4. As long as there are no more deadline extensions, all will be revealed soon.