In the past funding of my local public schools particularly concerned me, especially as funding has been in nontrivial trouble for several years. Some of what I learned may be of use to others in the future, so I've recorded it here. The information presented here is less detailed than before simply because I haven't been as deeply involved in the minutiae as I once was. You can skip to particular sections of interest (or of course you can read linearly).
(Along with how to pay for it is the question of what will be taught. My concerns in this area focused on the overly regimented and counter productive MCAS Test [particularly requiring it to graduate].)
A "fiscal year" is any twelve-month-long period used for budgeting and accounting. It's often convenient to choose a period that's different from a "calendar year" (January through December). Any twelve months is fine, so long as it's used consistently every year. "Fiscal year" is often abbreviated FY and is referred to by the last two digits of the year in which it ends. So for example July 2012-June 2013 would be referred to as FY13.
Government budgeting in Massachusetts —including funding of public schools— is done on a July-through-June "fiscal year". Other events are meshed with this schedule. For example, Ipswich's Spring Town Meeting occurs only a few weeks before the beginning of the "fiscal year" in July. The July-June fiscal year works quite well for public schools, as an entire school year fits neatly inside a single budget year (with no complicated overlaps or carryforwards).
While "waste, fraud, and abuse" is a common generic problem in many school districts, it does not seem to be relevant to the particular case of the Ipswich school district. The school district's "Central Office" employs only a handful of people. Teachers talk directly to principals who talk directly to the superintendent; there are no other administrative or managerial layers. As a parent volunteer I had difficulties in scrounging up "routine" supplies like rubber bands, manila folders, blank CDs, and even cellophane tape. It was obvious to me there was no waste where supplies were concerned. And the most frequent gating factor for an activity was where to find an adult with time to provide supervision. Teachers and staff were stretched very thin.
Personnel costs (salaries, health insurance, retirement benefits, etc.) are approximately 85% of our schools budget. To retain both personnel and academic programs and also to provide all mandated services means all cuts have to come out of a small portion (10%-15%) of the total school budget. This is difficult.
For quite a number of years Ipswich schools have had a tradition of whenever cuts were necessary protecting direct student contact (i.e. classroom teachers) while eliminating supervisory, administrative and coordinator resources. When cuts are necessary, this is a very sensible policy; but it can't continue forever. Teachers deprived of all fallback, coordination, resources, and rejuvenation will eventually collapse. The schools look good on the surface but are in fact hollow. What's necessary in lean times does not point the direction to take all the time.
Ipswich schools funding might have continued as it was without being a dire problem if state aid hadn't been reduced for several years, even though state aid pays only about 15% of the cost of our schools with the lion's share of about 85% generated locally. (Further, it seems that Ipswich doesn't currently get its "fair share" of state aid due to a quirk in the state's Chapter 70 formula which heavily penalizes Ipswich for funding its schools well decades ago.) The good part of shifting the tax burden from the state to the town is there's even more local control of what money is collected and how it's spent. But the bad part is such a shift also changes the kind of taxation: less income tax and sales tax, and more property tax. Retirees who live on small fixed incomes and don't buy much largely escape income tax and sales tax, but are often hit significantly by property tax. One terminology calls this a shift from "progressive" taxation to "regressive" taxation. In Massachusetts shifting the tax burden from state to local brings the side effect of shifting it onto individuals who are not part of the economy.
The shortage of funds is because there really is a problem rather than because those entrusted to manage the situation were careless.
A comparison of overall ("integrated") per pupil expenditure as calculated by the state Department of Education —which is a measure of the true cost of education in different school districts— shows that the costs of Ipswich schools are almost at the bottom of those in surrounding communities. Ipswich schools provide education at a relatively low cost. (Our state changed the way it calculates per pupil cost in FY05, so earlier numbers are not directly comparable.)
| Cost Per Pupil Over All Grades (combined Regular and Special Education) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Town | FY05 (2005-06) | FY06 (2006-07) | FY07 (2007-08) | FY08 (2008-09) | FY09 (2009-10) | FY10 (2010-11) |
| Hamilton (Hamilton/Wenham) | $10568 | $10921 | $12105 | $12616 | $13955 | $14283 |
| Wenham (Hamilton/Wenham) | $10568 | $10921 | $12105 | $12616 | $13955 | $14283 |
| Essex (Manchester/Essex) | $11905 | $12436 | $12772 | $12998 | $13684 | $13582 |
| Manchester (Manchester/Essex) | $11905 | $12436 | $12772 | $12998 | $13684 | $13582 |
| Andover | $10487 | $11160 | $12025 | $12536 | $13122 | $13263 |
| Rockport | $10131 | $11019 | $12099 | $11436 | $11959 | $13068 |
| Gloucester | $9986 | $10351 | $8315 | $12044 | $12909 | $12812 |
| Swampscott | $10169 | $10546 | $10688 | $11875 | $12323 | $12448 |
| Marblehead | $9951 | $10810 | $11202 | $11133 | $11788 | $12235 |
| Boxford (Masconomet Secondary) | $9322 | $9922 | $10495 | $11391 | $11992 | $12161 |
| Middleton (Masconomet Secondary) | $9272 | $10363 | $10208 | $10900 | $11525 | $12044 |
| Topsfield (Masconomet Secondary) | $9248 | $9896 | $10838 | $11449 | $11879 | $11888 |
| Newbury (Triton) | $8898 | $9547 | $9792 | $10792 | $11263 | $11503 |
| Rowley (Triton) | $8898 | $9547 | $9792 | $10792 | $11263 | $11503 |
| Salisbury (Triton) | $8898 | $9547 | $9792 | $10792 | $11263 | $11503 |
| Lynnfield | $9575 | $9878 | $9715 | $10276 | $10600 | $10906 |
| Ipswich | $9042 | $9681 | $9734 | $10186 | $10679 | $10902 |
| Georgetown | $7445 | $7680 | $9532 | $8243 | $8595 | $9148 |
(Almost all numbers in the above table are simply copied from the original state DOE accounting reports. Numbers for Boxford, Middleton, and Topsfield however had to be calculated approximately, becase each town has its own elementary schools while they share the Masconomet secondary school.)
(Because they are uncommon and because their reporting is so irregular, "revised" numbers have been ignored.)
Local property taxes in Ipswich have risen significantly over what they were many years ago mainly because of projects undertaken around the turn of the century (new school building, new library extension, remodeled town hall) and the Open Space bond. At the same time, property prices (especially "waterfront") have soared because of easier access to growing Boston (for example long-time residents of Great Neck are being priced out of their homes). As a result, some of our residents on fixed incomes are having a hard time making ends meet. (Even though they're higher than they were many years ago, local property taxes in Ipswich are still not as high as in many surrounding communities.) Ipswich town government is very aware of the voices of stretched voters and is very skeptical about all spending.
Property tax rates have generally dropped in the past few years to compensate for property valuations going up. So a comparison of local property tax rates in surrounding towns shows that the tax rate in Ipswich is currently relatively low. (The comparison of average tax bills in the next table may be more meaningful, since the tax rate bounces around quite a bit as properties are reassessed and as communities grow.)
| Town | Tax Rate (FY10) |
|---|---|
| Hamilton | 16.29% |
| Wenham | 15.56% |
| Topsfield | 13.87% |
| Rowley | 12.50% |
| Boxford | 12.37% |
| Essex | 12.26% |
| Danvers (*) | 12.22% |
| Newburyport | 11.66% |
| Ipswich | 11.54% |
| Georgetown | 10.58% |
| Gloucester (*) | 10.49% |
| Newbury | 9.52% |
| Rockport | 8.96% |
(*) This town has different tax rates for residential and for non-residential properties. The residential tax rate is shown.
A comparison of average local property tax bills in surrounding towns shows that Ipswich taxes are somewhere in the middle of the range. (Note the tax bills for the towns near the bottom of the table differ by only small amounts -typically less than $100, while the tax bills for the towns near the top of the table differ by significant amounts -typically more than $500.) Of course, recent Ipswich property tax bills reflect payoffs for several projects (school building, library extension, town hall remodelling) as well as expenditures to date under the Open Space bond, all of which were begun in good economic times and may not reflect Ipswich's current fiscal priorities.
A more detailed comparison of local property taxes is also available if you want to know more than this sketch tells.
| Town | Average Residential Parcel Valuation (FY10) | Average Single Family Tax Bill (FY10) |
|---|---|---|
| Wenham | $585,126 | $9,105 |
| Hamilton | $492,915 | $8,030 |
| Boxford | $618,372 | $7,649 |
| Topsfield | $532,305 | $7,383 |
| Essex | $545,337 | $6,686 |
| Ipswich | $456,271 | $5,265 |
| Newburyport | $451,108 | $5,260 |
| Gloucester (*) | $475,858 | $4,992 |
| Rowley | $387,562 | $4,845 |
| Rockport | $526,739 | $4,720 |
| Danvers (*) | $374,517 | $4,577 |
| Newbury | $461,116 | $4,390 |
| Georgetown | $412,477 | $4,364 |
(*) This town has different tax rates for residential and for non-residential.
Taxes that seem typical to family-aged adults may seem outrageous to senior citizens living on fixed incomes, partly because the value of a dollar has changed slowly but inexorably over time. A dollar's worth of goods in 1962 —near the time senior citizens paid their first tax bill— now costs $5.31. Because a dollar isn't what it used to be, property valuations and taxes have risen steeply. Tax bills in current dollars can place an unfair burden on someone whose retirement income is based on their old wage dollars that were stretched much less.
Advocacy cannot overcome a large number of negative votes from a frightened group who votes heavily. Parents should help an elderly neighbor investigate the 41C (pronounced forty-one see) property tax reduction (or senior citizens should call the Assessor's office at Town Hall themselves). In many specific cases they'll be able to mitigate the unfairness. (Senior citizens should also investigate the "circuit breaker" state income tax deduction.) These reductions may allow senior citizens to vote for better support for Ipswich schools without themselves becoming the target of an outrageously high tax burden.
It might seem counter-intuitive to increase school funding by reducing the local tax base. How will aiding a senior to get their 41C property tax reduction help the schools? By reducing the tax liability of the senior, their fear of an override is reduced, perhaps even to the point of eliminating one negative vote. And the contact may give parents the opportunity to get their senior to view their kids more like grandkids than pests.
I continue to correct factual errors
in the following material, as I'm not omniscient.
(I didn't get everything entirely accurate the very first time.)
The Little Neck area of Ipswich is an (approximately) 350 year old land trust which benefits the Town of Ipswich, in particular its public schools. The trust owns all the land (but not most of the buildings) on Little Neck (reachable by going through Great Neck and past Pavilion Beach).
The trust was initiated by the will of William Paine with the words "unto the free scoole of Ipswitch the little neck of land at Ipswitch knowne as Jeferry's neck, the which is to be and remaine to the benefitt of the said scoole ... for ever as I have formerly intended and therefore for the sayd land not to be sould nor wasted." A decade previously, the state legislature had commanded each town to provide a school to train the elite, mainly for Harvard (different from universal public education, which was mandated well over a century later), but Ipswich town meeting had never properly funded their school. So William Paine's bequest may have been an example of an "elite" person using their wealth to force the rest of the town in a particular direction (or maybe of burnishing one's reputation by donating seemingly-worthless real estate to a good cause).
Because of the Little Neck trust, it would seem that, unlike most towns, the Ipswich public schools have another source of funding besides local and state taxes. However, there has been a longstanding fear that the state would simply deduct the proceeds of the trust before it sent any state tax monies, so the net to Ipswich schools would be the same despite the trust. Although this hasn't actually happened so far, the fear has been realistic. In particular this fear may partly "explain" the very low trust proceeds in the latter half of the last century.
The trust's terms have been clarified and updated several times with the cooperation of the state legislature, and are likely in the process of being updated again for the first time in over two centuries. This time the update may either once again go through the Massachusetts General Court (i.e. the state legislature), this time in response to a "home rule" petition by Ipswich citizens and office holders. Or it may instead go through the Massachusetts Probate Court, as a side effect of conflicting lawsuits over possible conversion from a "land trust" to a "money trust".
This trust is often called "The Feoffees of the Grammar School" or just "The Feoffees". Feoffee is an antique word that would probably be rendered as "trustee" today (it once had a very specific legal meaning though). Although originally The Feoffees had a separate existence and managed many things besides this land trust, all the other assets have been sold off (and the proceeds not rolled over into an endowment fund as they should have been). The Feoffees now look after only Little Neck, so nowadays "the Little Neck trust" and "The Feoffees of the Grammar School" are used interchangeably.
Over a century ago the Little Neck property was subdivided into lots, and has since been managed as a "summer colony". Most of its houses are occupied only in the summer, by people from other towns or states. The arrangement was similar to the old Conomo Point in Essex and Long Beach in Rockport. This was a sensible arrangement, with Ipswich using what it had (great seascapes) to get what it needed (cash). The fact all the land was owned by a single rather odd trust was seen as nothing more than a quaint legal anomaly. The trust didn't generate very much money (at least for the last generation) for Ipswich Schools or even for the Town of Ipswich.
Regular property taxes are collected on all Little Neck properties; the trust does not exempt the properties from any taxes. (Tenants directly pay taxes on both their houses [which they own] and on the property under their houses [which they currently "rent"]; The Feoffees pay the property taxes on both common lands and shared facilities.) The Feoffees have in the past severely discouraged most year-round residence (probably mostly because of inadequate waste disposal; Little Neck is a barely-permeable hard rock formation). As a result of being mainly a "summer colony", Little Neck sent almost no students to Ipswich public schools. In the past property tax income from homes without students has benefitted Ipswich schools significantly; in fact some might even say that sometimes households paying property taxes but not sending any students to school counted more than any Feoffees contribution.
Through the years cash contributions from The Feoffees (but not the property taxes) have been earmarked for a specific purpose and have been "off book" so they were not used to cut local taxes (nor deducted from state aid payments, which was a real and realistic fear). This tradition was enshrined in earlier drafts of a possible next update of the trust, which specified that the trust's monies be used for "enhancement". Whether or not such a restriction will be explicitly included in the final language of the next update of the trust is an open question. With the agreement of The Feoffees, sometimes during an "emergency" Feoffees monies have been folded into the regular school budget rather than used for enhancement; in fact that's partly how Ipswich schools have survived the past few years as well as they have. But such use is of somewhat dubious legality, certainly frowned on, and most definitely cannot be counted on. Any school district budget item that's "moved to Feoffees" and not moved back the very next year is effectively being set up for sudden discontinuance in the future.
Feoffees contributions have varied widely over the years: several grants to individual projects, a single grant to the whole school district, small amounts, very small amounts, and in some cases no contribution at all or a contribution directly to the town's General Fund. The total amounts of these Feoffees contributions were consistently very small for many decades, raising the question of what rental fees should be charged for Little Neck residency. (Here's a graph of yearly Feoffee contributions.)
There were conflicting views on what level of price/rental-fees for Little Neck residency benefitted Ipswich the most. Considering only the interests of schoolchildren, the price/rental-fees should be as high as possible to maximize trust income. Yet considering the broader interests of the whole town, price/rental-fees shouldn't be so high that only the ultra-rich can afford to live on Little Neck or that those residents have almost no contact with the rest of Ipswich. For example, the restrictions against year-round residency have meant almost no students for Ipswich schools from Little Neck, but the cost of managing Little Neck as a "summer colony" has been little involvement by those residents with the town of Ipswich.
The Feoffees started both to raise property rental fees to current market values and to make regular contributions to the school district in the mid nineties. Even so, the initial contributions were small -typically $25,000 or $50,000- because at that time the trust had to cover its previous large capital expenditures (for example for a wharf or dock shared by the Little Neck residents). In recent years when The Feoffees were no longer limited by their previous capital expenditures, they contributed considerably more than $250,000 per year to the school district.
Then an additional irritant to the Little Neck residents on top of "market rate" rental fees occurred around 2005. The Feoffees had to undertake a near-emergency drastic sewering of all of Little Neck. Cost overruns ballooned hugely, so the final cost was more than double the original estimate. The Feoffees added the cost of this sewering project to proposed new rental fees.
The strenuous efforts to collect "market rate" rental fees, skyrocketing waterfront property values, and especially the huge cost overruns of the sewering project, eventually resulted in a Little Neck renters' revolt or strike, and subsequent lawsuits and disagreements over the future structure of The Feoffees. The Feoffees agreed to temporarily put all eviction procedings on hold until the lawsuits are resolved, in return for the tenants at least continuing to pay them the previous level of rental fees and paying the disputed increase into an escrow account. The escrow account will go to either the tenants or The Feoffees depending on how the lawsuits are ultimately resolved. (At the same time, the "lack of transparency" of the current Feoffees organization was seriously questioned.) As a result of the rental fees dispute, The Feoffees were unable to contribute any money at all to Ipswich schools for the school years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, or 2010-2011. (Some of the delayed moneys were loaned to the schools by the town.)
Although the amounts may seem large, they're really small in comparison to the total school budget (reasonable Feoffees income is only around 1% of the school budget). Even if they weren't restricted to "enhancement" items, Feoffees dollars wouldn't be enough to solve Ipswich schools funding problems. So yes the Little Neck land trust has helped significantly with funding Ipswich schools. But there are restrictions on how the monies are spent ...and even if there were no restrictions, the amount wouldn't come anywhere close to meeting the total need.
After having been nearly forgotten for many decades, a new wave of interest in —and approbation of— The Feoffees began in the 80's and rose in the 90's. Despite widespread feelings the status quo should simply be left alone, a resolution to investigate the trust in detail was passed at the April 2001 Ipswich Town Meeting.
That resolution can be considered the beginning of the process of periodic updating of the terms of the trust. The rather detailed results of that investigation of The Feoffees provide thorough background information, and should be studied by anyone interested in learning more about The Feoffees (even though a few of its findings are no longer completely current). They are available inside the Town Committee Report Portfolio on the town website. The Ipswich Finance Committee has now also involved itself intimately in the updating of the trust. In the course of their involvement, The Finance Committee have collected and published a number of documents relevant to The Feoffees, including some recent yearly financial statements from The Feoffees and most of a recent assessment of the value of Little Neck (one piece of that assessment -in the form of a "supplemental letter"- does not seem to be available via the web). The Ipswich School Committee has also published some documents relevant to The Feoffees, which are available as hyperlinks from the main school district website.
Some have characterized efforts to update the terms of the trust as "setting aside" the intentions of William Paine or "breaking the will". This characterization seems misleading (it seems to over-interpret a few secondary words in the will and miss the main point); all efforts have been to simply update the trust mechanism while scrupulously maintaining William Paine's original intentions (to say the same thing another way, efforts retain the "spirit" of the will). Also, whatever is decided must ultimately be sanctioned by either the Massachusetts Probate Court or the Massachusetts General Court; so long as there's any conflict at all with the current Feoffees, nobody in Ipswich can just unilaterally "do whatever they wish", and all Town Meeting actions are just "recommendations" without the force of law.
Several other concerns arose at about the same time as updating of the trust was being considered. The most important of these were uproar about inadequate Feoffees contributions, and questions about the future of Little Neck as a summer colony now that Essex is divesting itself of the similar Conomo Point and waterfront property values have skyrocketed and most current Little Neck occupants have refused to sign new leases (new leases which among other things would mean paying the latest/highest rental fees). All these concerns have coalesced into what's become just one problem - "The Feoffees". One proposed draft of new trust language is available inside the Town Committee Report Portfolio on the town website (note while that draft is readily available on the web, it's several years old and likely is neither current nor completely reflective of current issues).
As all these concerns have been considered, the three issues below have come to the fore. (As well over a decade has now passed with no resolution to this whole Feoffees issue, something else may be going on. Just what that something else might be remains a mystery to the author.)
Morally it would seem The Feoffees would obviously be as transparent as possible to the citizens of Ipswich. The Feoffees have nevertheless continued to hew to —and even increase— the secrecy which was typical many decades ago. (The author of this webpage does not understand why this is happening and cannot offer any explanations.) Legally The Feoffees have stoutly maintained (contrary to some legal opinions) they are a "private trust" and so not subject to public visibility requirements such as the Open Meeting Law. The federal tax status of the trust (at least until very recently The Feoffees used the town's tax id number and did not have their own) does not strongly suggest one way or the other if The Feoffees can really be legally classified as a private trust.
Currently feoffees are appointed for "life" (like Supreme Court justices). Currently feoffees choose their own replacement. And currently The Feoffees need never consult with any elected body.
For most of the past 80 years in Feoffees meetings there have been only the four votes of The Feoffees themselves. Recently in most Feoffees meetings there have been seven votes, as the three most senior Ipswich selectemen have also begun participating, as provided by the legislature in a previous update of the trust. This participation provides a bit of visibility into what The Feoffees are doing (but not "why"), and a little bit of accountability (but not much). It seems reasonable to guess that in any vote for more transparency, the three selectmen vote "yes" but are outvoted by the four Feoffees all voting "no". Resolution of access to Feoffees proceedings will probably require either a lengthy and expensive lawsuit to compel Feoffees behavior, or a complete reorganization of the trust (which may result from the periodic updating of the terms of the trust). Resolution of the method of selecting Feoffees will probably require a complete reorganization of the trust.
A money trust was not even a possibility back in the 1660's, as the idea of an interest-bearing cash investment was uncommon, and no one had ever even heard of a mortgage. Nowadays, a money trust would be much easier to manage openly, not place such heavy burdens on the individual Feoffees, be less susceptible to possible future problems, and likely generate significantly more cash for Ipswich's schools. The public officials who will help decide the future of The Feoffees —including the Massachusetts Probate Court— are more attuned to the correct interpretation of old terms and phrases, and will likely not fall victim to this over-literal interpretation of the original will.
An agreement in principle was reached in December 2008 to sell Little Neck to its tenants, but that sale was never finalized (simply because the general economic crisis blocked financing), and the offer (especially the price) was later completely rescinded. A new sale agreement between The Feoffees and the Little Neck residents of $29.1M for all of the Little Neck lots was reached in early 2010 (or late 2009?). Whether or not such a sale actually proceeds depends on both other town boards and lawsuit resolution. An open question is whether The Feoffees can hold only money (necessitating all residents obtain private mortgages), or The Feoffees may in some cases hold the mortgage itself rather than its cash value.
While the exact course of the legal disputes is uncertain, it's possible (maybe even likely) that in the near future the trust will be converted from a land trust to a money trust and the restriction against year-round residency will either disappear or be moved into the rules of a condo association. The Feoffees would become managers of the endowment fund created with the proceeds from the sale of the property, rather than landlords. Given a reasonable rate of return, even after paying off all outstanding debts such as the amortization of the sewering project, a money trust can be expected to contribute somewhere in the ballpark of half a million dollars to the schools most years, (Proceeds from a money trust will probably be significantly higher than proceeds from a land trust, since doing a really good job of being such a large landlord requires way more time and effort and expertise than the part-time amateur Feoffees can provide.)
What's less clear just from quickly scanning these letters is this stopped long ago; it is not a recent or current problem. There has been no suspected irresponsible setting of rental fees by The Feoffees for well over a decade. The statute of limitations on possibly reprehensible behavior by some Feoffees has clearly run out. Some of these suspect Feoffees can't even explain their actions any more as they're now dead.
The best way to ensure such low contributions never happen again (at least not without adequate explanation to the general public) seems to be simply to vastly increase the openness of The Feoffees (the issue of Feoffees "openness" is point #1 above).
Schools are paid for mostly by local property taxes, but not entirely. Reimbursements from the State of Massachusetts are also important. This money is called "State Aid" or "Chapter 70" and is typically over a tenth of a total school budget. The exact amount of state aid to each town is calculated by a very complicated formula and announced each year via "Cherry Sheets".
In Ipswich, the procedure has always been to combine school (Chapter 70) and town state aid, then re-split the money 60% for the town and 40% for the schools. Doing so provides both our town and our schools a bit of a buffer against any possible dramatic fluctuations in only some parts of state aid. (The 60/40 split does not include the state's financial assistance toward paying the bond for the new school building.)
In the past the state of Massachusetts also offered very liberal financial assistance for the construction of new school buildings. This assistance was later considerably restricted because the state was going broke spending money for things different from what it had expected. The new school building in Ipswich though was launched before the state program changed, so significant financial assistance is still being provided under the old rules.
The formula by which the exact amount of state aid is calculated is called the "Chapter 70 Formula" and originated in the Education Reform Act (ERA) in 1993. It includes some historical factors that arguably aren't as important as they once were. The formula is exceedingly complicated, so it's difficult to tell exactly what's going on. Any change in the formula would affect the finances of every school in the whole state, and because of all the unforeseen side effects would likely cause more problems than it solved, so changes have not been encouraged. (The whole situation calls into doubt the wisdom of having created such a complicated formula in the first place...)
In any case, for reasons which are arguably not reasonable (nor even fully understood), Ipswich gets several hundred dollars less per pupil in state aid than surrounding towns such as Hamilton and Wenham. One probable explanation for this is Ipswich is viewed as being able to afford to pay more for education (particularly because its taxpayer contribution to education was higher than surrounding towns in 1993 - which may have been an anomaly even back then, and is certainly neither true nor reasonable any more. Another probable explanatio for this is the formula has been tweaked over the years and is now most definitely slanted toward "urban" communities at the expense of "suburban" communities such as Ipswich.
In the future, Ipswich might team up with other "suburban" communities to lobby for a change in the Chapter 70 Formula. (Although our state representatives worked on this problem for several years, it eventually became very clear that Ipswich alone didn't have the legislative clout to force a change. Teaming up with other towns now seems the only way forward.) Because the state bureaucracy moves so slowly, any such effort would take several years. Any attempt that expected to see tangible results at the end of only one year is bound to fail (and is a waste of time); only a multi-year effort has any chance of succeeding. Whether or not it's "fair", funding of Ipswich schools in the short term will be a purely local matter to be decided by the town of Ipswich itself.
My experience is that effective advocacy is necessary to make any modifications to school funding that involve taxes or an election in the Town of Ipswich. If advocacy is insufficient, the proposed modification will fail, and this failure will set up the expectation of further failures in the future.
For every proposed modification involving an election, there should be a locally registered coordinating organization. According to Massachusetts state law, that umbrella organization must
These formalities are quite simple, requiring only a little thought and a few minutes. But don't try to fudge them, as doing so can cause a lot of trouble including significant fines and possibly even nullification of election results. If in doubt, err on the safe side by registering.
Although Parent Teacher Organizations will probably be deeply involved in override advocacy, and even though "Municipal Ballot Question Committee" officers may also be significant PTO members, to avoid running afoul of state campaign finance laws the PTO should not itself be the coordinating organization. The "Municipal Ballot Question Committee" should always
In the past, the Parent-Teacher Organizations in the Town of Ipswich have been overly reluctant to "get involved in politics". But even though an election is involved, any campaign (such as an override election) is really about parents advocating for their kids, not about "politics". The State of Massachusetts does more than just permit Parent-Teacher Organizations to advocate for overrides - it expects and even encourages it. Most likely past over-squeamishness was based on a misunderstanding of some historical events and the complexity of the regulations. Parent-Teacher Organization advocacy is too important to completely forego just to stay as far away as possible from any penalty.
The State of Massachusetts fully expects PTOs to be deeply involved in advocating for an override (albeit within fairly detailed restrictions, due mostly to close interpretation of the state's campaign finance law). Sending home a flyer with every student is generally not allowed because it almost inevitably involves using a public resource (in particular teachers' time) to influence an election. (Note this interpretation has changed recently; less current information may incorrectly suggest a different course of action.) It makes no difference that no mailing list nor postage nor use of a school copying machine is involved. It may be simplest to steer completely clear of anything that might be interpreted as "use of public resources for political purposes" by distributing all materials via mail, email, social networking, websites, and other media that don't involve teachers touching the material at all.
The State of Massachusetts provides a lot of legal advice in this area. Particularly intriguing are the recent Advisory Opinion AO-07-03 which is summarized School officials may use automated phone system to advise parents of the date of an election and also to encourage them to vote. Extreme care should be taken to avoid any comment regarding the merits of a ballot question or any appearance of advocacy. and the paragraph in Interpretive Bulletin IB-91-01 that says In addition, public resources may be used to distribute information that simply advises voters of an upcoming vote, such as a notice of the time, date and place of a municipal election. In addition, such information may urge people to vote, and provide information about how to register to vote. Also, such information may include a brief neutral title describing the ballot question, and the text of the ballot question. Extreme care should be taken to avoid any appearance of advocacy. For example, the title 'school expansion project' would be appropriate. On the other hand, titles which would not be appropriate include 'ballot question relating to need for school expansion,' or 'ballot question addressing school overcrowding problem.'
Rather than attempt to provide detailed legal interpretations and advice on this rather complex subject, here are some original materials which you can peruse yourself. Almost all these materials are written for non-professional readers; you don't need a law degree to make use of them.