(Testimony delivered on Monday, Feb. 29, by Chelsea Supt. Mary Bourque before a special state Joint Ways & Means Committee at Everett High School)
Low-Income vs. Economically Disadvantaged
At Berkowitz Elementary School in Chelsea, MA, a fourth grade special education student named Jose has recently arrived in the country. Two years have passed since he came, and his disability substantially impairs his capacity to acquire English. Currently, he occupies a rented room within a subletted apartment alongside his mother, his 13-year-old brother, and four other families. The landlord’s requirement—that children remain confined to their rooms to keep the house quiet—means the family shares only common areas like the bathroom and kitchen. Exposure to household members intoxicated and behaving violently has marked the children’s experience; police have been summoned to the residence, and the student recalls his fear. The refrigerator’s contents, especially perishables, have vanished repeatedly due to theft among tenants. Her monthly rent consumes more than half of Jose’s mother’s income, leaving insufficient resources to supply consistent meals. Fear of deportation prevents her from contacting community support services. Jose remains absent from any State database—he does not register under the new Economically Disadvantaged methodology.
We stand before you today seeking your assistance, my colleagues and I. The proposed fiscal year 2017 state budget introduces fresh methodology for tallying low-income students, an ongoing concern for Superintendents. DESE has openly communicated intentions to revise the Chapter 70 low-income methodology from its traditional basis. Paper-based free and reduced lunch applications are transitioning toward a paperless approach in certain communities through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).
By 2015, Superintendents understood that the new Chapter 70 approach—termed Economically Disadvantaged—would parallel the Community Eligibility process. A serious flaw emerged: the novel system identified 115,000 fewer low-income students than 2014’s paper-based tallies, representing a 31 percent decrease statewide. Individual school districts experienced sharper declines exceeding 40 percent; Everett and Revere each failed to count half their low-income pupils; Chelsea’s count dropped by 34 percent, affecting 2,034 students.
What makes this challenging across all districts? Recently arrived immigrants face a five-year waiting period before qualifying for the benefit systems surveyed under the Economically Disadvantaged framework. Another complication: these systems were not built to communicate, making technical matching problematic. Within Chelsea specifically, undocumented students—whom we are legally mandated to educate—will not appear on these databases.
Throughout the past year, numerous stakeholders have invested considerable effort improving the matching methodology. We were assured not to worry; the safety net would prevent disproportionate Foundation Budget impacts on school districts where calculations proved inaccurate through best efforts. Paradoxically, a determination was made to implement this flawed system absent any safety net. Your assistance remains vital.
MassBudget projects that the Commonwealth’s ten most severely affected school districts—many represented in this room—face a combined $61.2 million reduction in Foundation Budgets under the current Economically Disadvantaged methodology. This funding proves essential for delivering education in our Gateway Cities. Success becomes impossible under such circumstances, and we cannot absorb these losses. We require your help.
Throughout the past year, I benefited from collaboration with numerous colleagues on Foundation Budget Review Commission recommendations. As an educator, working alongside so many state officials committed to fulfilling our State’s Constitutional mandate reminded me of this Commonwealth’s dedication. That commitment ensures “fblikebutton_button” continues.
The Chapter 70 proposal before you creates fundamental problems. Not all students receive counting; the mechanism itself is broken; and education reform’s promise fractures alongside it. The Chapter 70 formula’s strength—its singular capacity to achieve equity through counting our most vulnerable populations: students with special needs, English language learners, and low-income pupils—now stands compromised. School districts serving populations where education’s impact proves greatest face unfair penalties from a methodology insufficiently developed for such critical application.
This Commonwealth deserves better outcomes for these students. Much better outcomes. We urge pausing this proposal to collaborate and refine the Economically Disadvantaged model, ensuring all school districts and all students needing support receive appropriate consideration.
We appreciate your attention today.
Mary M. Bourque
Superintendent, Chelsea Public Schools
MASS President-Elect
Gerry McCue
Executive Director for Administration and Finance
Chelsea Public Schools