Per-pupil spending in the state’s rural school districts increased by about 31 percent over the past decade, compared to 25 percent in non-rural districts. And, rural districts spend 50 percent more per pupil on busing than other districts across the state.
Financial inequities like that were among findings from a new report on the plight of rural school systems discussed in Franklin County this week by local legislators, a state education official and local leaders.
During a public forum held in western Franklin County, state Sen. Adam Hinds said 54 rural school districts — comprising an area the size of Rhode Island — lost about 14 percent of their enrollment (about 4,000 students) over the past decade.
According to the report, per-pupil spending in rural districts averages $18,678 per student, compared to $16,692 in non-rural districts.
The report from the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education confirms what Franklin County area school superintendents have said for years: Enrollment is dropping, but per-pupil costs are rising; rural districts spend 50 percent more per-pupil on transportation costs than other districts across the state; and, as enrollment declines, some districts are relying more on School Choice for revenue to support operating costs.
Rob O’Donnell, director of school finance for the state, said Massachusetts doesn’t have a definition of “rural schools” — specific measurements to designate such a category. But, for this report, the state defined “rural” school districts as those that have fewer than 21 students per square mile, even though some local districts have even fewer than 10 students per square mile.
By that definition, the report determined 54 rural school districts statewide had a combined enrollment of 26,219 students — or 2.9 percent of statewide enrollment in public schools. In contrast, he said, other state school districts have an average student density of 60 students per square mile.
School staffing in rural districts has dropped by about 11 percent over the last decade, he said, but “fixed staffing levels” for certified teachers in low-enrollment classrooms means there are more teachers and aides per 100 students in rural schools than there are in urban and suburban school districts. O’Donnell said health insurance costs have been rising, but this disproportionately affects rural districts with high teacher-to-student ratios.
Also, some low-enrollment schools are relying more on School Choice to fill vacant classroom seats, with $5,000 coming in per student — which doesn’t come close to covering per-pupil costs for the district.
About 52 percent of Petersham’s students are School Choice, while about 30 percent of Mahar students are School Choice enrollees. O’Donnell warned against adding staff to accommodate School Choice students.
O’Donnell said the state has kept its promise to fully reimburse regional transportation costs only once in the last few decades. He said failure for full reimbursement disproportionately hurts rural districts with the largest miles to cover.
Between fiscal years 2008 and 2017, per-pupil transportation spending in rural schools grew by 36 percent — from $643 per pupil to $878 per pupil. Across the rest of the state, transportation costs rose from $431 per pupil to $587 per pupil.
O’Donnell said “hold harmless” provisions of Chapter 70 state aid for education has staved-off more devastation to rural schools, by providing the same level of aid despite the loss of student enrollment.
Solutions proposed in the report include more school regionalization, with regional “bonus aid” as an incentive, encouraging shared superintendent unions and shared business services.
Busing costs
There was much discussion on school transportation costs. The audience told Hinds some buses carry relatively few students great distances, and there are not many local school bus companies bidding on transportation contracts.
Ben Tafoya, director of division of local mandates for the state Auditor’s Office, was there to listen and take notes. After the meeting, he told Hinds special education transportation reimbursement is not offered by the state. He said if special education transportation were factored in, the state is only paying about 43 percent reimbursement for all transportation the regional school district provides.
“Rural districts now spend $18,678 per in-district student, up from $14,224 in fiscal year 2008,” the report states. In contrast, per-pupil costs in non-rural districts rose from an average of $13,138 in 2008 to $16,692 now.
The Massachusetts Rural Schools Coalition had proposed a $9.5 million rural aid plan that would provide up to $300 per student for schools in the most sparsely populated school districts. With fewer than 10 students per mile living in member towns, Mahar, Mohawk, Franklin County Technical, Frontier and Pioneer Valley regional schools would receive $300 per student. Districts with between 10 to 20 students per mile — including Athol-Royalston, Orange, Quabbin and Deerfield — would receive about $200 per student.
When asked if a rural school aid bill has yet been filed, Hinds said, “We’re going to file the amendment for a yet-to-be-determined amount.”
If voters approve the so-called “Millionaire’s Tax” — the Massachusetts Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative — in November, the additional 4 percent tax on incomes above $1 million would be used for public education, roads, bridges and public transportation. Proponents believe it would bring in about $1.9 billion in new revenue annually. But Hinds also pointed out there are tax cuts on the state ballot, which could mean less money for schools.