Manufacturing Success: Improved Access to Vocational Education in Massachusetts (1)

8/11/2019 Manufacturing Success: Improved Access to Vocational Education in Massachusetts (1)

1/195

Manufacturing Success:

Improved Access to Vocational Education in Massachusetts

Northeastern University School of Law

Legal Skills in Social Context

In Conjunction with Massachusetts Communities Action Network

March 26, 2014

Law Office 14:

Daniel BallAllison BelangerAndrew Bridson

Mary ChoateFrances A. Drolette

Jacob FishmanNicole Gallerano


2/195

Nicole Gallerano

Table of Contents

I. The Answer is Vocational Education 5II. Vocational Education: Benefiting the Economy, the State and the Students 7III. Waiting Lists at MA Vocational Schools: Survey 10

A. Analysis of the Survey Waiting List 10B. The Survey Underreports the Problem 11C. Demographic Analysis of the Survey Waiting List 12

1. Underfunding 132. Low-income 133. Gateway Cities 164. Students of Color 16

D. Programs in High Demand and Programs with Vacancies 17E. Why Does a Waiting List Exist? 17F. College and Career Readiness 19

IV. Funding 20A. Annual Education Budget 20

1. Chapter 70 Foundation Budget Formula 20

2. The Annual Foundation Budget Analysis 263. Regional School Districts 334. Out-of-District Student Funding Problem Creates Vacancies 34

B. Transportation 35C. Building Assistance and Capital Funding 37D. Concluding Thoughts on Funding 38

V. Massachusetts is Failing its Obligation to Students Under State and Federal Law 39A. Massachusetts Has a Constitutional Duty to Provide Access to Vocational Education 39

1. Background on Case Law 392. How McDuffyEstablished the Duty to Provide Education to All 403. HancockDid Not Address the Specific Needs of Vocational Education 414. Applying the Constitution and RoseStandards to Vocational Education 42

i Vocational Education and the Constitution 42


3/195

4. Massachusetts Remediation Problem 555. Vocational Education Has a Key Role to Play in the 21stCentury Workforce 566. Concluding Thoughts on No Child Left Behind 57

VI. Solutions 59A. Improving Access to Vocational Education 59

1. Perception of Vocational Schools 592. Collecting Waiting List Data as Part of Mandatory Information that Schools Must

Report to Receive State Aid 603. Split-Day Scheduling 61

B. Strengthening Vocational Education 611. Guaranteed College Credit 61

2. Race to the Top 623. Common Tech Core 634. High Schools that Work 64

C. Funding 641. Chapter 70 642. School Building 653. Inter-District Transfers 664. Dollars Follow Students 675. Partner with Local Manufacturers 686. Self-Funding 687. Austin Polytechnical Academy 688. Statewide Vocational Education Planning Board 69

VII. Conclusion 71VIII. Appendices 73

Appendix D: Survey Methodology 73Appendix F: Title VI 75Appendix G: Vocational Education Survey 77

Appendix H: Expenditure Detail of Educational Cost Categories 81Appendix I: Legal Weight of Title VI Guidelines 83Appendix J: The Massachusetts Foundation Budget, as of 7/12/2013 84Appendix L: Minutemans Statement of the Problem 90


4/195

Executive Summary

This white paper addresses the need to increase access to vocational education in Massachusetts. It firstexplores the context behind why such a need exists.1It explains that the Commonwealth has a currentand future need to fill middle-skilled positions, a need in which training more students in vocationalschools can help fulfill.2This white paper will then discuss some of the obstacles that prevent vocationalschools from increasing their enrollment capacity, allowing them to accept more students.3To gain abetter understanding of the problem of access to vocational education, a survey was conducted tocapture the extent and nature of the waiting lists for vocational high schools.4Following an analysis of thissurvey is a discussion on the impediments preventing schools from accepting more students.5This whitepaper explores the complex funding system for vocational schools and reveal some of the inadequacies

in the funding scheme that have made it difficult for schools to increase their enrollment.6

Massachusettslegal duties, obligating the state to provide greater access to high quality vocational education will also beoutlined.7Lastly, there is a comprehensive list of recommendations as possible avenues to increaseaccess to vocational education for students in Massachusetts.8

Context

Education is at the heart of a childs preparation to becoming college and career ready. One-fifth ofstudents in Massachusetts have the unique opportunity to gain exposure and experience in theirprofession by attending a vocational high school.9The Commonwealth benefits immensely fromvocational education, because upon graduation students who attend these schools go on and often fill themiddle-skilled labor market, which makes up 44% of all jobs available in Massachusetts.10Furthermore, astudy conducted in 2012 projected nearly 100,000 job openings in manufacturing over the next decade.11Despite the need to fill these positions, the Commonwealths funding scheme for vocational educationmay be inadequate to meet the demands to train middle-skilled workers through vocational education.12

The vocational track also faces a problem of negative perception.13A common misconception for those

with little connection to vocational education is that the vocational career path is for students who arelooking to escape the rigors of a college-centric education.14However, the reality is that students whoattend vocational high schools must complete the same Common Core requirements as the students incollege-centric schools, in addition to the vocational curriculum.15Most vocational students are very


5/195

of their students.).16Overall, however, this misperception contributes to a current lack of support andemphasis on vocational schools, despite the value vocational education offers to its students and theCommonwealth is beyond its costs.17

Waiting List Survey

Where there is demand, simple economics dictates that there be a rise in supply to meet that demand. Inorder for the Commonwealth to fill 100,000 manufacturing job openings, it needs to train students in thesevocations.18However, according to the study conducted for this white paper, which surveyed 66vocational high schools, vocational schools across Massachusetts have placed over 4,600 students onwaiting lists since 2012.19This survey likely grossly underreports the amount of students being denied

access to vocational education, since only approximately half of the vocational schools in Massachusettsresponded to the survey.20

The survey uncovered the stark reality that schools with students in at-risk populations also had thehighest waiting lists.21These at-risk populations include minority students, students whose parents earnlow-income, students whose first language is not English, and students who live in gateway cities.22Approximately one-third of the responding schools had the amount of students on the waiting list that wasat least equivalent to 20% of their total enrollment.23One particularly striking example is a school that hada waiting list that had more students on it than their total enrollment for all four grades combined.24

In the survey, the two main factors that schools cited as barring them from accepting students on thewaiting list were insufficient funding and lack of space.25

Funding

In-depth research on Massachusetts funding scheme was conducted to better understand potentialcauses for the extensive waiting list. Prior to 1993, the Commonwealth left it up to municipalities to fund

their public school systems.26

The Supreme Judicial Court, in the 1993 McDuffycase, found that thismethod of school funding was insufficient to meet the Commonwealths state constitutional duty toprovide an education to all children.27TheMcDuffydecision and the Education Reform Act of 1993changed the way Massachusetts funded schools through increasing the amount of state aid to all


6/195

the same amount of funding as college-centric schools, the vocational schools were spending asignificantly higher amount per pupil.31Additionally, some schools spent significantly lower than theFoundation Budget rate in some cost areas, possibly due to their need to shift their budget to cover areasin which the schools received inadequate funding.32With most vocational schools spending above theFoundation Budget, and also spending above their college-centric counterparts in comparable categories,a glaring conclusion that has been inevitably reached is that Foundation Budget set by theCommonwealth is insufficient.33

Without adequate funding, schools are unwilling and unable to take in more students because it wouldlead to a further deficit.34Similarly, the ability for vocational schools to expand their student body hasbeen limited by the amount of capital funding granted for regional schools to build new buildings.35

Legal Analysis

The finding of large waiting lists and inadequate funding present potential legal claims for advocates ofincrease student access to vocational education. The Commonwealths state constitution mandates aduty to provide an education for children both rich and poor.36Low-income students can bring aconstitutional claim that Massachusetts is not meeting its constitutional duty to educate all of its students,regardless of wealth.37Advocates or minority students seeking entrance into the schools that either receive the least funding orhave the largest waiting list can file a Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 complaint with the federalDepartment of Education Office of Civil Rights against the Commonwealth for being disproportionatelydenied access to vocational education.38More generally, students currently in poorly funded and poorlyperforming schools could raise the issue that Massachusetts may be in violation of the spirit of itsElementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility Request to be exempt from No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) by not complying with the promise it made in its Request to ensure that every student iscollege and career ready.39

Solutions

This section of the white paper proposes many ways of improving access to vocational education. Onestrategy is to increase the physical capacity of vocational schools by utilizing different school schedules to


7/195


8/195

The solid base I received from the Drafting Program gave me a leg up on every jobso far in my career.

-Erik. Joseph P. Keefe Technical School.

I. THE ANSWER IS VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

Students and parents alike often feel that middle school students must continue into high school with the

eventual goal of pursuing a bachelors degree to have any competitive advantage when looking foremployment after high school. However, todays college students graduate without the training requiredfor most jobs in todays market.43

Given this, it is more important than ever to address the challenge of preparing students for the changingeconomy. It is time to move away from a singular, college-centric track and look to alternatives. Avocational technical track has a key role to play in preparing todays young people for the future jobmarket. Providing students with both academic and technical training puts them in a superior position tosucceed in their post-secondary lives.

From Franklin County to the Montachusett, students attending vocational high schools in Massachusettshave benefitted from vocational educations dual goals of college and career readiness. Ed Demetrion,who attended Roger L. Putnam Vocational Technical Academy, stressed that the technical education hereceived at Putnam exceeded anything taught at colleges he had considered attending.44My grades incollege were upper B's to all A's with very little effort on my end because of my previous training atPutnam, Demetrion said. When I went on to a career in my chosen field, I was prepared for whatevertask was given me, Demetrion explained.45According to one student at North Shore Technical High

School, [the school] set[s] the tone for who you should be and who you can be and when those twopeople meet, youre going to be someone special.46

Faculty and educators alike at vocational institutions also stress their commitment to providing students


9/195

the voc-tech component. It takes a very special person to graduate from Greater New Bedford RegionalVocational Technical High School.49

Although technical programs are providing students with much more than a traditional high schoolexperience by adding a strong focus on career-readiness, it is becoming increasingly difficult for theseschools to increase enrollment numbers, and adequately train them for the growing middle-skilled jobmarket.50Thousands of students are denied a place in a Massachusetts technical high school becauseMassachusetts is not adequately providing the resources these institutions need to respond to the needsof the growing middle-skilled job market.51

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education owes it to the public school

students wishing to enter these schools, to the technical institutions training these students and to theemployers of Massachusetts, to adequately support vocational high schools so that they can respond andtrain their students for the growing job market.52

This white paper addresses the need to better support vocational high schools, which have a crucial roleto play in Massachusetts economic future. Detailed below is the educational and economic context inwhich vocational high schools operate and the projected shortage of properly qualified workers for thegrowing sector of middle-skilled positions.53The next section goes on to describe how thousands ofstudents lack access to vocational programs, how vocational schools are funded, and why Massachusettsmust continue to refine and recalibrate its public education system to prepare students for the job marketof the future.54This white paper provides a review of the obstacles that vocational high schools face intrying to serve students. This white paper discusses in great detail the schools waiting lists and the effectof the underlying funding formula on shortages of space and lags in achieving essential curricularenhancements.55An in-depth legal analysis is provided below, outlining a series of potential claims basedon violations of students rights.56Finally, a set of solutions is proposed to address the obstaclesvocational high schools face.57The goal of these proposals is to allow Massachusetts to boast that itspublic education system values and supports its vocational high schools as much as it does its college-

centric counterparts.


10/195

Im more prepared as I leave this school to go

out in the real world and work and start a

business.

Student. Essex Agricultural and Technical School.

II. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION:BENEFITTING THE ECONOMY, THE STATE AND THE STUDENTS

Vocational education is a successful pathway to a career. Rather than preparing students solely forcollege, vocational education allows students to discover interests that the traditional college-centriccurriculum does not, and trains students to pursue these interests after high school in preparation for acareer.58Massachusetts has 77 vocational schools statewide, with programs varying widely amonginterests; from cosmetology to technical manufacturing, there is an option for a wide range of students.59Unfortunately, vocational education faces a perception problem: it is the alternative. Many proponents ofthe traditional academic track view vocational education as the easy way out, assuming vocationalstudents are not subjected to the same rigorous college preparatory coursework as traditional students.

This is not the case.Not only are vocational students preparing for a potential career in their field ofinterest, but graduates of vocational high schools are also ready to go on to two- and four-year colleges.The state has also recognized this need to increase outreach and change the perception of vocationaleducation and careers. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts launched an AdvancedManufacturing Collaborative, which includes a program to educate parents, teachers, students andguidance counselors about manufacturing careers in Massachusetts and their benefits.60

Vocational students take the sameMassachusetts ComprehensiveAssessment System (MCAS) tests astraditional students.61In order tograduate, vocational students need totake academic courses drawn from thesame Common Core Curriculum asthose students in college-centric highschool programs, as well as theindividual requirements of their

vocational coursework.62

This vocationaleducation work often includesexperiential or hands-on learningcomponents exclusive to the program.63Far from being the easy way out, vocational education represents


11/195

In a turbulent economic climate, vocational education can be a road toward a stable and productivecareer. In particular, vocational programs can provide excellent preparationfor careers inmanufacturing.65Staying Power II projected that Massachusetts will have nearly 100,000 job openings in

the manufacturing field over the next decade.66As current workers age and retire, manufacturers willneed a new generation of skilled workers, pointing to an even greater need for vocational education.67Acareer in manufacturing is particularly attractive: annual salaries in this sector average $75,000,68morethan the average in health care, education, real estate or government.69

Vocational education can also prepare students for careers in an array of other fields that provide strongsalaries and respectable work, including cosmetology, dental and medical assistance, agriculture andelectrical equipment repair and installation.70Annual salaries in these fields range from $30,000 to

$50,000.71

The average worker with only a high school diploma makes $29,000 annually thereforevocational education can help students make $1,000 to $28,000 more than these counterparts.72Thus,vocational education can be a very sound investment for the larger state economy and the students ownfuture.73

Vocational education provides students with the means to positively impact their economy, whenmeasured against vocational students secondary- and university-educated counterparts. In 2012researchers found that education enhances economic growth, [and] in turn growth increases educationas per capita income rises.74Most notably, economic productivity growth was highest among vocationaleducation students when considered in terms of public expenditures on education.75By contrast,university- and secondary-education graduates reported decreased productivity numbers per publicexpenditure.76

In Massachusetts, 71 out of 77 schools (92%) with vocational programs graduated 70% or more of theirstudents.77Only 80% of high schools without vocational programs can make the same assertion.78Ifvocational schools successfully graduate a larger percentage of their students than college preparatoryprograms,79and have the greatest impact on the economy in terms of public expenditure80 that is, the

biggest return on the publics tax dollars why does vocational education have a lower priority thancollege-centric high schools?


12/195

Instead of admitting eager students, vocational schools across the state are forced to place students onwaiting lists, admitting them only when physical space or funding becomes available.81The currentMassachusetts funding statute creates a complex roadblock that is preventing students from being

admitted to these vocational schools.82Capital funding dramatically impacts a districts ability to expand,83and transportation costs block many students from reaching certain desired schools.84Most critically, thestate aid given to districts that include a vocational school likely underestimates the true cost of vocationaleducation.85To complicate the funding scheme even further, some issues arise out of the differences infunding for municipal and regional school districts: municipal school districts are funded by one localmunicipal, while regional school districts are funded by any two ore more municipalities who choose tocombine their public school districts.86Consequently, it can be inferred that students must either stay intheir current high schools academic program until a space opens up or graduate with insufficient skills,

only to take the university path that may not advance their career goals.

Blocking students access to vocational education is bad public policy. These waitlisted students aretypically from low- to- moderate-income households.87Unlike wealthy students, they probably cannotchoose a private school if a college-centric public school is a poor fit. Underfunding vocational education,which impacts the access to and quality of it, is also a bad choice for Massachusetts, as it ignores theCommonwealths opportunity to educate the middle-skilled workforce its economic future requires.


13/195

III. WAITING LISTS AT MA VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS: SURVEY

Vocational education helps prepare students for viable careers that will benefit the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.88However, Massachusetts students face numerous barriers to accessing vocationalprograms. Obstacles include inadequate funding to vocational programs, insufficient space toaccommodate more students, and lack of staff to provide appropriate instruction.89The effect of theseobstacles is profound; thousands of children cannot access vocational programs.90Well over 4,000students are waiting to be admitted into their preferred vocational program, and it is likely that many morestudents wish to pursue vocational education but have not applied to the programs.91The aforementionedbarriers, and others, impede a students ability to access vocational education, which could prepare themfor vibrant careers. The effect on the students is of great concern because the economic opportunity to fill

critical needs in the workforce is lost, in turn, it will likely negatively impact the health of theMassachusetts economy.

In order to assess the extent of the access gap, a survey of 66 vocational schools in Massachusetts wascompleted to determine the extent of vocational schools waiting lists.92Of the schools surveyed, 32responded (Responding Schools), representing approximately41% of all vocational schools.93Thefollowing provides an analysis of the survey and the barriers it revealed.

A. Analysis of the Survey Waiting List

There are more than 4,600 students on waiting lists for vocational programs.94Schools across theCommonwealth of Massachusetts struggle to admit all of the students that desire to participate in theirprograms and prepare themselves for a career.95These schools are located in various areas of the state,from schools in Western Massachusetts to those in the southeast, from Gateway Cities, such asLawrence and Fall River, to the more rural areas of the state.96

88See supra p. 10.

89See infraAppendix X-2.

90See infraAppendix X-1.91

See infraAppendix X-1.92

Two surveys were conducted, one in 2012 and one in 2013. Their combined results are analyzed throughout this section. Thesurveys were sent to schools that are members of the Massachusetts Association of Vocational Administrators. Not all vocational


14/195

$The solid base I received from the Drafting

Program gave me a leg up on every job so

far in my career.

Erik. Joseph P. Keefe Technical School.

The survey waiting list revealed the stark reality that schools are unable to accommodate a significantnumber of students applying to vocational schools.97This is best illustrated by focusing on communities

with the greatest access problems.98Almost one-third of the Responding Schools indicated therewas a 20% greater demand for their programsthan they could admit.99Diman RegionalVocational Technical High School in Fall Riverhad more students on the survey waiting list thanenrolled in the school.100If it had the ability toadmit all of the students from its waiting list, the

school population of Essex Agricultural andTechnical High School could grow by almost 70% over 475 people.101Similarly, programs atNorfolk County Agricultural High School andNorth Shore Technical High School each have ademand for more than 470 spots, representingmore than half of the students already enrolled in the programs.102The demand to be admitted into thevocational programs of New Bedford, Palmer, Bristol, Springfield and the Upper Cape is 20% greater thanthe number of students they can accommodate.103Each of these communities could have their vocational

programs educate at least another 20% of students, and that may be enough to keep the students inschool through graduation.104In absolute numbers, nine schools had at least 200 students on theirrespective survey waiting lists.105An additional four schools had well more than a hundred studentswaiting for acceptance.106Massachusetts economy is being denied the contribution of thousands ofeducated workers.107

B. The Survey Underreports the Problem

While the number of students captured on the survey is striking, there is reason to suspect that it providesan underestimate of the actual number of students who miss out on the opportunity to participate invocational education.108


15/195

responded, which leaves a high possibility that there were more students on waiting lists than wereactually accounted for in this survey.110Secondly, the survey was not distributed to all vocational schools,as the authors did not have access to all of the schools administrators to contact for distribution.111

Thirdly, unlike actual enrollment numbers, which schools must keep accurate to receive funding, waitinglist numbers are tracked on a voluntary basis by school administrators and as such are not met with thesame accountability standards, which could lead to inaccuracies or underreporting.112

The survey also likely understates the interest in vocational schools because school staff may alter theirbehavior based on the known problem in accessing vocational schools. For example, guidancecounselors may be aware of the long waiting lists in their community, and, knowing that it is unlikely for allinterested students to be admitted, they may advise some students to not apply.

In addition, students behaviors may be altered due to misconceptions about the quality of vocationalprograms and common misperceptions about vocational education overall.Students who may otherwisebe interested in the programs offered by vocational schools may not know about the benefits associatedwith the vocational path.113In some districts, the local vocational school also may have a bad reputation,whether or not such a reputation is warranted. In these communities, students who would otherwise liketo begin targeted career education may not want to sacrifice other academic opportunities by attending avocational school. Interested students who decline to apply because of their misperception of vocationaleducation will be absent from the survey waiting lists.

Each of these factors indicates that the survey likely underrepresents the true number of students whowould benefit from access to the states oversubscribed vocational schools.

C. Demographic Analysis of the Survey Waiting List

While the survey showed that many schools were unable to accommodate a large number of students,the demographic analysis of the survey waiting list revealed particular relationships between the

demographics and the schools with the greatest access problems.114

Specifically, the survey revealed astriking trend: Responding Schools receiving the least funding had long waiting lists, they servedcommunities with many of the most at-risk populations, and they are largely in gateway cities.115Five outof the seven most underfunded schools have waiting lists ranging from 80 to 513 students, with four of


16/195

students, 39 to 89.5%.117More than half of the schools that are more underfunded also have a greaterthan average percentage of students whose first language is not English.118Not surprisingly, thepopulations of the most underfunded schools have remediation rates above the state average; most of

these schools had 60% or more of their graduates requiring remedial coursework upon graduation.119Incontrast, none of the best-funded schools have significant survey waiting lists.120This exposes the directrelation between funding and access problems many of the schools face with regard to the number ofstudents on their waiting lists.121

Minuteman provides a prime example of the very different picture in a better-funded vocational school.122Minuteman, which has vacancies and could accommodate additional students, has lower than averagepopulations of low-income students, students of color, and students whose first language is not English.123

Less than half of its graduates need to take remedial courses.124

However, as is described in the SectionIV, Funding, funding issues regarding the difficulty in the reimbursement process for students fromoutside their district act as a disincentive for schools like Minuteman to accept more out of districtstudents even if it has the space.125

1. Underfunding

The degree to which a school is underfunded is the largest indicator of whether that school has a surveywaiting list, showing a pervasive access problem for schools with limited resources.126Massachusetts

Center for Policy and Budget divides schools in Massachusetts into five funding categories, quintiles,depending on the amount of combine local and state funding they spend.127The schools that receive themost funding are labeled as being in the fifth quintile while the ones with the least funding are in the firstquintile.128Nearly 80% of students on the survey waiting list are at schools in the bottom two fundingquintiles.129Twelve of the 16 Responding Schools in the lowest two quintiles have survey waiting lists.130Ten of the 16 schools in the bottom two spending quintiles have populations with a percentage of low-income students greater than the state average.131Four of the five largest survey waiting lists are fromschools in the bottom two quintiles.132

2. Low-Income

117The state average of low-income students is 38.3%. School name (percentage of low-income students): Greater New Bedford


17/195

The survey also revealed a trend between low-income populations, waiting lists and remediation rates.133Schools with low-income students above the state average constituted over 60% of the survey waiting

list.134Seven of the 10 schools with the greatest percentages of low-income students also havepopulations of students of color that are above the state average, four of which also have waiting lists.135Seven of the 10 lowest income schools are in gateway cities, and over half of these have waiting lists.136Eight of the 10 lowest income schools also have higher than average populations of students whose firstlanguage is not English.137The populations in all of the low-income schools required remediation at higherrates than the state average.138


18/195


19/195

I go to Bristol Aggie, and one day I want to

own my own business.

Student. Bristol County Agricultural High School.

3. Gateway Cities

Gateway cities have some of the largest survey waiting lists, indicating a high interest in attending

vocational schools, yet these schools are most vulnerable to being underfunded.139Students in Gatewaycities account for a disproportionately high portion of students on survey waiting lists, demonstratingheightened demand to vocational schools for students in these areas.140Schools in Gateway citiesaccount for 40% of the Responding Schools yet over 60% of students on survey waiting lists come fromthese schools.141All but three of the schools in Gateway cities are in the lowest two quintiles of funding.142Of the 16 schools in the bottom two funding categories, 10 are in Gateway cities.143Almost half of theschools in Gateway cities have populations of students whose first language is not English that weregreater than the state average.144Eight have low-

income populations above the state average.145

Eight of the schools in gateway cities haveremediation rates at or above 50%.146

4. Students of Color

Survey data revealed that students of color arelikely being disproportionately denied services tovocational programs.147This observation is

discussed further in Part V(B): Is MassachusettsCurrent Vocational Education System in Violation

of Title VI?, but the statistics and limitations willbe introduced here for reference.148Of the eight schools with a greater than average minority population,half of them had survey waiting lists and three of them had survey waiting lists greater than 15% of thecurrent enrollment.149More than 37% of the schools with a percent of students of color greater thanaverage have significant survey waiting list.150Half of the schools with large populations of students ofcolor are in the bottom two funding quintiles.151Of the 32 responses received, only eight were from

schools with populations with a higher minority population than the state average.152


20/195


21/195

important reason for having a survey waiting list,165and 33.3% of Responding Schools put lack of financialresources as one of the top two reasons for the schools survey waiting list.166An additional 23.8% ofschools claimed students were unable to get into their first choice program as the primary reason for

being on the survey waiting list.167Clerical or administrative issues were not cited as a significant factor fora schools survey waiting list.168


22/195

Figure 2.169

Top Reasons Students Were Not Admitted from the Waiting List.Schools cited lack of space as their biggestbarrier for admitting students (42.9%). Two additional reasons for waiting list barriers of enrollment were inadequate funding(33.3%) and students not getting their first-pick schools (23.8%).


23/195

F. College and Career Readiness

The survey waiting list indicates a lack of access to vocational education, but if a student is able accessvocational programs, she often goes on to pursue post-secondary education.170Vocational studentsreceive additional rigorous coursework by being not only prepared to enter the workforce, but also to befully prepared for post-secondary education.171These students are increasingly choosing to continue theireducation and/or technical training after high school.172According to the Massachusetts Department ofEducation, 73% of students who graduated from a vocational or technical highschool between 2007 and 2011 chose to continue their education.173Nearly 46% went on to a two- or four-year college program, whereas only 26% joined the workforce immediately after high school."174

Although an increasing number of vocational students choose to continue with their education and/ortechnical training, the number of these students who require remediation is significant.175According to theMassachusetts Board of Higher Education, 56.7% of students graduating from a vocational or technicalschool are required to take remedial courses.176Although these students may wish to continue with theireducation, they have to first overcome the hurdle of remedial coursework. As discussed in Part V:Massachusetts is Failing its Obligation to Students Under State and Federal Law, requiring students topursue remedial courses after post-secondary schooling is both cost-ineffective and detrimental to thesuccess of these students.177

As the survey waiting list revealed, the most underfunded schools had long survey waiting lists, servingcommunities with many of the most-at risk populations and that are largely in gateway cities.178Obstaclesthat create access problems included lack of resources/staff and lack of physical space as the top tworeasons for the waiting list.179In addition to these hurdles, the populations of the most underfundedschools have remediation rates above the state average, contributing to the high percentage of studentsgraduating from vocational and technical schools who are required to take remedial courses aftergraduation.180If students are not college and career ready upon graduation, they may miss out onopportunities to continue their post-high school training for the workforce through post-secondaryeducation. As Section VI: Funding describes, these obstacles relate directly to the funding issuespertaining to state aid and resources laid out by the state legislature.181


24/195

IV. FUNDING

The public educations current funding scheme is potentially limiting the resources vocational high

schools have to educate all the students wishing to pursue a vocational career path. The issues pointedout in this section are consistent with the top reasons given for the survey waiting list for vocationalschools, such as lack of physical capacity and funds for programs, students, staff and equipment.182Inaddition, state aid provided to schools for transportation has steadily decreased as the costs haveincreased.183The funds that are presently allocated to vocational education in Massachusetts are likelyinsufficient to meet the current spending, which has increased above state funding. If vocationaleducation programs are to be the answer to the needs of the states labor market, vocational educationwill need more funds allocated to its programs to increase access and improve quality.

This section explains the basics of the funding system and explores how they affect access to and thequality of vocational education, as well as identifies and explains the problems therein associated with thestates funding system.

A. The Annual Education Budget

1. Chapter 70 Foundation Budget Formula

To understand Massachusetts budget for its public school system, Chapter 70 must also be explained.184The Chapter 70 Foundation Budget formula is Massachusetts budgetary scheme for providing for asystem of state and local public education funding of the municipal and regional school districts.185TheEducation Reform Act of 1993 created this program in response to growing concerns about the adequacyand equity of school funding in Massachusetts.186In developing the Educational Reform process, thestate legislature developed a model school budget, created by an economist and a group ofsuperintendents.187This model school budget provided a formula with the goal of ensuring that eachschool district had sufficient funds to provide an adequate education to all its students.188


25/195

When I came to Keefe Tech, I knew I

wanted a career working with children,but didnt know exactly what that would

be. The Early Childhood Education

Program allowed me to experience

working with several age groups, and

helped me choose the right one for me.

Tamara. Joseph P. Keefe Technical School.

There are four steps to the formula, which, incombination, determine the funds eachschool district will have to provide an

education and who will pay for how much ofthat amount.189First, the Foundation Budgetis calculated, which reflects the totalspending requirement necessary toeducation all of the districts students.190Second, the formula determines how muchthe local community is required to contributetoward funding the Foundation Budgets total

spending requirement.

191

Third, Chapter 70Aid allots state funds to make up thedifference between the Foundation Budgetand the required local contribution.192Fourth,some districts may opt to contribute abovetheir Foundation Budget after Chapter 70 Aidis determined.193

Step 1: The Foundation Budget.The initial step in establishing a districts Chapter 70 funding is to

calculate the Foundation Budget.194Generally, the budget is developed based upon the number of pupilenrollments for the district, multiplied by established cost rates depending on the type of student fordifferent cost categories.195

Enrollment Numbers

The enrollment numbers are based on the number of students forwhom a school district is financiallyresponsible for on October 1 of the previous year.196It includes the number of students who are attendingthe local municipal school and the regional school district.197For a municipal district, it includes students

enrolled in the districts schools, including any vocational students enrolled in the municipal districtsvocational school.198For a regional vocational school district, it includes the vocational students from anymember municipalities who attend the regional vocational school.199A calculation will never include bothstudents attending a municipal district school who are attributed to the municipal districts Foundation


26/195

Two additional points are worth noting. Home districts have to pay for Chapter 74 non-resident studentswhose home vocational districts do not offer the particular program they are seeking. Those students arecounted in the home districts enrollment numbers. Additionally, if a town is a member of a regional

vocational district, its resident pupils who attend the regional vocational school are not counted in localdistrict enrollment. The vocational district reports those pupils, and Chapter 70 Aid goes directly to thevocational district.202

Enrollment CategoriesEach student in the districts total enrollment is placed into one of 10 enrollment categories: pre-school/half day kindergarten, full-time kindergarten, elementary, junior/middle school, high school, limitedEnglish proficiency pre-school/kindergarten, limited English proficiency full time and vocational

students.

203

While these 10 categories count each individual in each category, there are four moreenrollment categories, which are counted differently: tuitioned-out special education students, tuitioned-inspecial education students, low-income elementary students and low-income secondary students.204Thefoundation formula assumes that a certain percentage of the foundation enrollment will need somedegree of special education.205The enrollment number for low-income students is determined by usingthe preceding years actual number of low-income elementary, middle school, high school, bilingual, andvocational students, and one-half the preceding years actual number of low-income kindergarten andpre-school students.206

Cost CategoriesEach enrollment category has its own fixed cost rate for each of the educational cost categories, whichis adjusted for inflation each year.207The cost categories reflect the areas needed to be funded to providean education to Massachusetts students, not including capital costs, as determined by the legislature.The state currently uses 11 cost categories: administration, instructional leadership, teachers, otherteaching services, professional development, instructional materials/equipment and tech,guidance/psychology, pupil services, maintenance, benefits, and special education tuition.208Based onthese calculations, each pupil in the enrollment count generates a specific cost in each category.209The

number of each pupil in each enrollment category is multiplied by that categorys educational cost rate todetermine how much each different type of student will cost to educate.210The additional costs for thespecial education and low-income categories are added to the districts Foundation Budget as well.211


27/195

Figure 3 on the next page shows the cost rates in each educational cost category for all 14 differentenrollment categories for FY 2012 provided by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education (DESE).212Some cost rates are higher for some enrollment categories. Specifically,some costs for regular high school students will be the same as vocational students, while other costs willbe higher for vocational students.213For example, classroom and specialist teachers, professionaldevelopment, operations and maintenance, and employee benefits and fixed charges are higher forvocational. However, as Figure 3 indicates, the other categories remain the same for both types of highschool students.214Some enrollment categories will naturally have higher total costs due to the fixed costrates.215

The difference in cost rates is necessary to maintain the education of vocational students, as someaspects of their education justifiably cost more.216For example, vocational teachers have higher salariesbecause they likely have more classroom experience and are more likely to participate in professionaldevelopment activities, such as postsecondary education courses.217Additionally, the purchase andmaintenance of vocational instructional equipment is a significant added expense for vocationaleducation.218Equipment in vocational programs must be up to date with current industry standards inorder to properly prepare students for establishing careers after graduation.219

Once these differences in the cost to educate vocational students are taken into account, a regular high

school student costs $8,033.70, while a vocational high school student costs $12,250.07.220To determinethe Foundation Budget, the number of students in each enrollment category is multiplied by its own fixed

cost in each eleven educational cost categories.221Then, all of the totals are added up to determine that

districts Foundation Budget.222


28/195

Figure 3.223

The cost rates for each enrollment type for each educational cost category, specifically regular high school andvocational enrollment cost rates.

224The yellow highlights indicate that high schools and vocational schools are receiving the

same amount of money, whereas, the green highlights indicate the cost categories for which vocational schools receive morefunding [than college-centric high schools].

225

Step 2: Required Local Contribution.Once the Foundation Budget is calculated, the second step is tocalculate the required local contribution.226

The sources to pay for the Foundation Budget come from both state aid and local revenue. The localcontribution is the districts ability to provide funding for the minimum spending requirement determinedby the Foundation Budget.227The required local contribution was intended to recognize that communitiesshould contribute to school funding needs according to their ability.228Their ability to pay is determined bythe incomes and property values of their different cities and towns.229Since wealthier cities and towns

generate greater local revenues through higher property values, the formula was designed to have anequalizing effect, so poorer districts would receive more state aid than wealthier ones.230As will bediscussed below, the formula may give more state aid to the poorer cities and towns to help reach theirFoundation Budget spending; however, wealth distribution problems may still exist notwithstanding the


29/195

Step 3: Chapter 70 Aid.The third step is filling in the gap between the districts required localcontribution and its Foundation Budget with Chapter 70 Aid from the state.236This ensures that every

district meets its Foundation Budget.237

Step 4: Additional funds.The fourth step is the option for cities and towns to provide additional fundingbeyond the Foundation Budget.238Cities and towns are only required to provide funding based on theircalculated required local contribution, and then Chapter 70 Aid will contribute funds to meet theFoundation Budget.239However, wealthier towns may choose to contribute more, and many districts dospend substantially above their Foundation Budgets.240

Figure 4, below, shows an example of Chapter 70 funding for two sample districts.

241

It compares theFoundation Budget total (step 1) with the total actual budget spent per each district after the required localcontribution (step 2), the Chapter 70 Aid (step 3) and the extra local contribution (step 4) is determined.242


30/195

2. The Annual Foundation Budget Analysis

There are three core issues associated with the Chapter 70 formula for vocational education. First, theFoundation Budget uses the enrollment numbers from the previous year, which neglects to account forwaiting list students.244Second, the formula likely understates the additional costs necessary to educate avocational education student.245There is also a third issue regarding the overall annual FoundationBudget and its wealth distribution.246

Neglecting Future EnrollmentThe fact that the budget neglects to fund future enrollment, creates a problem for vocational school

districts with high demand. Schools within these high-demand districts are forced to place students onwaiting lists instead of enrolling them.247In contrast, a regular school district needs to serve all students inits enrollment count, so future students will always be included in the next years enrollment numbers, andwill then be funded, albeit with a one-year delay. If the enrollment numbers do not reflect futureenrollments, districts will never be able to receive enough funding to address the issues that prevent themfrom accepting more students from the waiting list.

As the waiting list survey revealed, the degree to which a school is underfunded is the largest indicator ofwhether a school has a survey waiting list.248Vocational schools have expressed explicitly that they donot have enough funds or resources to take students off their waiting lists, limiting access to theirvocational programs.249In addition, if schools are being underfunded in relation to their current enrollmentnumbers, they will likely never be able to accommodate more students from their waiting lists withoutadditional funds to address their lack of resources. Additional considerations to incorporating the waitlistnumbers into the Foundation Budget formula are discussed further in Part VI: Solutions.250

Underestimating the Actual Cost to Educate a Vocational StudentThe formula may underestimate the true additional cost of each vocational student. It is likely that thefunding vocational education requires is even greater than that provided by the formula.251The modelschool budget created by the legislature was created in 1993, and therefore it is based on an education

252


31/195

vocational enrollment category total cost with each schools actual total spending per pupil for all 11 costcategories.255

Figure 5.256Foundation Budget Rates for Vocational Enrollments for FY 2012. The number next to the name of the schoolindicates the wealth codes, with (1) representing the least wealthy municipalities, and (5) representing the wealthiestmunicipalities. The Foundation Budget of $12,250 (light blue) is contrasted to the amount of actual expenditures for each school(dark blue).

257


32/195

However, in the categories in which the cost rates are the same for both college-centric high schoolstudents and vocational education students, vocationalschools are spending significantly higher amountsper pupil.259These cost rates are administration, instructional leadership, other teaching services,

guidance and psychological and pupil services.260

A few reasons why vocational schools are spending more money in these cost rate areas could be tracedto the breakdown of what is included in each category. The 11 education cost categories are broken intosubcategories.261For example, both regular and vocational high schools receive the same cost rate forinstructional leadership.262However, that category includes Building Technology.263As already noted,the makeup of a vocational high school will vary greatly from a regular academic high school, especiallyin the technology and equipment areas.264A school that has programs in agriculture, construction,

mechanics, technical and communications will certainly need specialized building equipment to providefor the hands-on learning in those careers. It may be that the instructional leadership category as a wholeseems similar for both vocational high schools and regular academic high schools; however, when thecategories are broken down into subcategories, there may be some distinct characteristics of eachsubcategory that would require a different cost rates for vocational education versus regular academiceducation.

Additionally, some schools spend significantly less than the Foundation Budget rate in some costareas.265This may suggest that the school is forced to allocate its funds to higher priority cost categories

in which it is not receiving enough funding to compensate for its needs. This cost shifting forces theschool to spend less than the proper amount in some cost rate categories. For example, Greater NewBedford Regional Vocational Technical spent more than $1,697 per pupil on instructional materials,equipment and technology almost $500 above the allotted amount and only $35 per pupil onprofessional development almost $150 less than the allotted amount.266While equipment andtechnology may be more important in the vocational school setting, professional development is stillimportant, even though a school may spend less than the foundation rate in the latter to spend more inthe former.267

The Chapter 70 Foundation Budget formula is potentially underestimating the true cost of educating avocational student when looking at the specific cost category information. Further analysis of the totalnumber of vocational schools would confirm this trend and likely indicate that vocational schools need to

268


33/195

as to additional research topics to try to initiate a reevaluation of the Chapter 70 Foundation Budget costfor vocational education. These additional research topics are discussed further in the Part VI: Solutions.

Wealth Distribution ProblemIn addition to underestimating the true cost of educating vocational students, the fact that the cost rateshave not kept pace with the true cost of educating a vocational student seems to be causing adisproportionate negative impact on less wealthy communities.269As noted, the districts total spendingrequirementis defined as the Foundation Budget, but a district may choose to spend other resourcesabove the Foundation Budget amount.270Further, Figure 6-2illustrates that in virtually every wealth districtthe increase in spending is greater for schools offering regular education than for vocational schools.271These factors suggest that the Chapter 70 Foundation Budget formula generally favors wealthier districts

since they are able to make up the difference between what appears to be the true cost and the likelyunderestimated Foundation Budget, while low-income communities are unable to fill this potentialdeficiency. See Figures 6-1, 6-2, 6-3.

Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 provide information that is similar to the cost category analysis above, butfocuses on spending comparisons between FY 2006 and FY 2012. For this comparison, the analysislooks further at spending by wealth district and, like the cost category information, spending for regulareducation as compared to vocational education. However, it is important to note some limitations in thedata. First, those bars in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 labeled Vocational High School School do not

include any individual school that offers bothregular and vocational education within the same school.The reason for this exclusion is because the costs of college-centric versus vocational education withinthe school could not be isolated. This likely means that the data set used for the vocational spendinganalysis is reasonably accurate. However, the data used for the college-centric education spendingincludes all other non-vocational schools in the city or town. While this means that the strict comparisonfor vocational education compared to college-centriceducation is not presented, it is likely that thedisparities are skewed such that the college-centric education amounts per pupil are actually greater thanwhat might be found in a comparison of college-centric schools as a whole. With the exception of the

special education category, all other schools spend less per student than vocational education or highschool education. The total expenditure of special education as a proportion of all spending inMassachusetts is not enough to offset the amount that is likely skewed downward (see Figure 3).272


34/195


35/195


36/195


37/195


38/195

of Chapter 70, Section 6, each member community must make a minimum local contribution toward thedistricts Foundation Budget.287This Foundation Budget is calculated pursuant to much the same Chapter70 approach used for calculating minimum local contributions by municipal districts. Regions may deviate

from this methodology if the member communities unanimously agree to allocate the minimum localcontributions according to the terms of their regional district agreement instead of according to Chapter70s methodology.288The regional district can charge those sums to the member communities; manyregional agreements require that any above-foundation spending be approved by two-thirds of thedistricts member communities.289

Such a complicated decision-making process that requires either a two-thirds or unanimous vote makes itdifficult for regional schools to make needed adjustments in their budget, such as spending above theFoundation Budget or making adjustments to how the minimum local contributions are allocated. Thisdiminishes regional schools ability to be flexible to their populations needs and may contribute to theaccess problem.

4. Out-of-District Student Funding Problem Creates Vacancies

The vacancies mentioned in this section relate to the vacancies as discussed in Part III: Waiting Lists atMA Vocational Schools: Survey.290These sections are connected because schools with vacancies arepotentially able to accept more students, but they are unable to accept any new students from other

schools waitlists without proper funding.

With data from schools showing that there are some vocational schools with hundreds of students on thewaiting list, schools with vacancies may be overlooked. However, the problems in schools with vacanciesare just as important. Vocational schools with vacancies represent an underutilized resource that could beused to address the under-capacity of the schools with waiting lists. Vacancies also undermine the fiscalhealth of their school districts by diminishing revenues that are largely based on enrollments.

Minuteman Regional Vocation High School reflects how the funding structure creates these underutilizedresources that could, if funded properly, provide an immense resource for students on waiting lists atother schools. Some vocational schools, like Minuteman, rely on non-district students to fill vacant seats.Minutemans original building design capacity was 1,171 students, but it is presently only able to enroll


39/195

The Fiscal Year 2014 out-of-district funding was capped at $19,060.296This is the 150% cap set by thestate that is mentioned above.297Minuteman currently only charges $18,309 during Fiscal Year 2014,which is below the 150% cap.298If the state reduced the cap from 150% to 125%, then the new cap for

out-of-district tuition would roughly be set at $15,884. The new cap would be below the actual per-student-spending by $529.299

If the out-of-district number stated above (338 students) was to stay the same, then the membercommunities of the Minuteman region would have to absorb $178,802 annually to allow these students tocontinue to be educated at the same level.300Since the member communities are forced to spend moneymaking up the difference between the cost of educating the student and the low tuition rate, this fundingcannot be directed at providing better resources, such as building projects, classroom materials and moreinstructors. In addition, this sharp financial burden provides a powerful disincentive to schools such asMinuteman to fill their vacant seats with out-of-district students, because they will need to absorbsubstantial costs in doing so. For schools such as Minuteman, accepting more students to reduce waitinglists elsewhere, comes at a substantial cost to their member communities. This characteristic of regionalschool districts clearly limits some districts ability to improve access obstacles to vocational programs.

B. Transportation

There is a lack of funding to pay for transportation for students enrolled in a regional school district.301

Importantly, the state faces this funding challenge for transportation notwithstanding discussions in thepast years about further school consolidation.302

The state law specific to vocational education transportation, M.G.L. Chapter 74 8A, provides that,subject to appropriation, regional schools are entitled to full state reimbursement for transportationcost.303However, the state reimbursement has been decreasing over the past several years.304Figure 7-1displays a comparison of the cost of transportation, compared to the amount reimbursed from the state.305

The analysis indicates that from FY 2008 to FY 2013, transportation costs for all regional schoolsincreased from $58.1M to $75.3M.306However, the amount of these costs reimbursed from the statedecreased from $58.1M to $45.5M in the same time period.307Consequently, regional schools have borne


40/195

an increase in costs of $17.2M and have experienced a decrease in funding of $12.6M, not consideringinflation.308


41/195

Figure 7-2.309

While there is no specific data to pinpoint, it may be reasonable to assume that there is a disincentive forschool administrators to regionalize or increase enrollments because the school may not be properlyreimbursed for providing transportation. Further, the substantial funding decreases for transportation maypose a major obstacle to vocational schools that may be interested in increasing enrollments through thewaiting list or in general. Finally, since costs in other categories apart from transportation are being spentat a greater rate for vocational education as compared to college-centric education, the impact ofinadequate transportation aid hits the vocational schools harder than it does for college-centric education.

C. Building Assistance and Capital Funding

The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is the agency responsible for overseeingconstruction projects for school buildings and is in charge of allocating state resources.310The MSBA wasestablished by the Commonwealth in 2004 to replace a program operating under the MassachusettsDepartment of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and operates as a quasi-independent


42/195

cannot be funded without a waiver for any district that fails to spend at least 50% of its Foundation Budgetfor foundation utility and ordinary maintenance expenses.315

The MSBA determines funding allocation levels based upon a specific base percentage and the schooldistricts ability to pay, provided that the reimbursement does not exceed 80% of total costs for theproject.316The present base rate is 31%, which works for many school districts, but disproportionatelyaffects vocational schools that take students from other districts.317According to State Sen. Ken Donnelly(D-Arlington), for schools like Minuteman where half the students do not belong to the district, memberdistricts representing 50 percent of the school [end up] paying 100% of the bill.318State. Sen. Donnellyhas introduced legislation that would adjust the base level for regional schools to 41%, and vocationaltechnical schools to 51%.319Without changing the base rate, member communities of regional vocationalschools carry a disproportionately high burden of the capital costs to improve their schools. If the schoolsare not able to afford this share, then the schools may not be able to expand their facilities to providegreater access to students on the waiting list. This may be even more problematic considering the needfor capital funds exceeds the present budgeted resources.320With lack of physical space being a topreason for a school having a waiting list, finding ways to increase capital funds and increasing the numberof applications approved for building expansion projects is needed.321The importance of the MSBA isdiscussed further in the Part VI: Solutions.

D. Concluding Thoughts on Funding

As this section lays out, there are many obstacles to overcome to increase access to vocationaleducation for thousands of students waiting to pursue a path to towards a practical career and an answerto Massachusettss need to fill future jobs. While the waiting list, the concept of college and careerreadiness, and funding are all distinct obstacles, they all interplay. To increase access to vocationalschools by removing students from the waiting list and to ensure that students are college and careerready, vocational education needs an increase in funding. More funding provides schools with theresources needed to accommodate more students, but also to insure that each student is provided withan adequate education to make each college and career ready.


43/195


44/195

At just 18 years old, I am one of the youngest

State Vehicle Inspectors in Massachusetts, if

not the youngest, and definitely the firstAssabet Valley student to get the license while

still a senior.

Nick.Assabet Valley Regional Vocational TechnicalSchool.

Twelve years after the McDuffyruling, parents approached the court once again, still dissatisfied with thelack of improvement in their childrens education.327In Hancock v. Commissioner of Education, the SJCreaffirmed the States duty to educate all children.328However, the Court refused to find that

Massachusetts was neglecting this duty.329

Rather, the Court acknowledged that the legislature hadcreated a statewide plan for education reform and noted that the McDuffyruling was beginning to workin significant ways.330The Hancock Court found that delays in the implementation of the act wereexplainable, and presumed that the statewould continue to work expeditiously tohonor its duty to educate, as prescribed byMcDuffy.331

2. How McDuffy Established the Duty toProvide Education to All

As mentioned, the McDuffydecision dictatedthat the state has a constitutional duty toprovide education to all of its students.332The16 plaintiffs, each from differentmunicipalities, alleged that the state providedthem with an inadequate education when

compared to students residing in wealthiertowns.333Before McDuffy, each municipalityfunded its own education system, almost entirely through local property taxes.334The disparities infunding, therefore, were inherent and widespread, due to the enormous differential in property taxrevenues between districts.335The plaintiffs thus claimed, and the Court agreed, that the states school-financing system effectively denied the plaintiffs an equal education to their more affluent counterparts.336The Court found that the state was neglecting its duty to cherishthe interests of literature and thesciences [emphasis added].337

Interpreting the language in the sense most obvious to the common intelligence!

according to thefamiliar and approved usage of the language, the Court determined that it is reasonable!to understandthe duty to cherishpublic schools as a duty to ensure that the public schools achieve their object and


45/195

"Keefe was a great base for my construction

career, and prepared me well for Wentworth."

Paul. Joseph P. Keefe Technical School.

poor, throughout the Commonwealth [emphasis in original].341The Court further concluded that thechildren in the less affluent communities!are not receiving their constitutional entitlement of educationas intended and mandated by the framers of the Constitution, and thus, the Commonwealth has failed to

meet its constitutional obligation.342

Having determined that Massachusetts was failing to meet its constitutional obligation to provide equalpublic education to all, the Court offered the Commonwealth guidance on how to fulfill this duty.343Specifically, the Court looked to a 1989 Kentucky case, Rose v. Council for Better Education.344It whollyadopted the benchmarks set forth in Rose, seven standards created to establish an efficient schoolsystem.345The last two standards are particularly pertinent to vocational education and read:

vi) Sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic orvocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life workintelligently; and

vii) Sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school studentsto compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or inthe job market.346

These standards will be discussed in further detail below.347

3. Hancock Did Not Address the SpecificNeeds of Vocational Education

Three days after McDuffywas decided, theMassachusetts legislature passed theEducation Reform Act (ERA), which increasedstate aid by establishing the Chapter 70foundation budget formula discussed in theFunding Section of this white paper and madeother improvements to reform the educationsystem.348However, despite the McDuffyruling


46/195

Justice Marshall stressed that the Courts judgment rested upon a trajectory of progress since McDuffy,and noted that future legal action might be necessary, writing in her opinion that nothing I say todaywould insulate [Massachusetts] from a successful challenge under the education clause in different

circumstances.353

This declaration leaves an open door for vocational education advocates to take astance. Vocational education constitutes a different circumstance. As discussed in the FundingSection, vocational education, unlike general education, requires different resources, has differentneeds, and may not be receiving adequate funding by the state making it an appealing candidate forsuccessful litigation.

4. Applying the Constitution and RoseStandards to Vocational Education

Both the state constitution and the RoseStandards require Massachusetts to provide its students with aneducation that promotes vocations.

i. Vocational Education and the Constitution

The constitutional mandate requires the promotion of trades, manufactur[ing] in education.354It is fair tosay that the current college-centric education system does not focus on such vocations; vocationaleducation does. The problem, however, lies in the fact that vocational schools cannot accept any morestudents because of physical and financial restraints.355This leaves thousands of students on waiting lists,

essentially denying them the education to which they are entitled per the states constitution.356

Further, the constitution notes that this education must prepare students to meet the needs of the state.357Currently there are deficits in middle-skilled labor positions, which make up approximately 40% of all jobsin Massachusetts.358By denying students entrance into vocational programs, by way of inadequatefunding, the state is not only denying the students a right to an education, but it is denying them their rightto be prepared to serve the interests of the state, that is, filling those empty manufacturing positions.

McDuffyextended the states constitutional duty to include equality in terms of funding.359The Courtdeclared that financial disparities in how the state funds schools are indicative of a constitutionalviolation.360This concept is especially prominent in the vocational education system. Many of the schoolswith the largest waitlists are schools that receive the least funding.361Conversely, based on the survey,


47/195

My favorite part about Shawsheen is the

positive and safe atmosphere here!

Chase. Shawsheen Valley Regional TechnicalSchool.

context of vocational education should be deemed constitutional. For example, as the Funding Sectionanalyzed from Figure 6-1, a wealth distribution issue creates financial disparities between wealthier andlow-income school districts, as well as between regular academic high schools and vocational high

schools.366

As the analysis showed, the amount of funds that were contributed above the averagefoundation budget per pupil, decreased for both regular and vocational education as one looked at theless wealthy districts spending on average expenditures per pupil spending.367In addition, the amount offunds contributed above the foundation budget per pupil was greater for regular education than forvocational education.368The assumptions surrounding this analysis suggest that a wealth distributionproblem exists. As already stated, these same financial disparities that were found in McDuffy shouldapply in the context of vocational education, and therefore, should be deemed unconstitutional.

ii. Vocational Education and the Rose Standards?

The McDuffycourt adopted the RoseStandards in their entirety.369Thesestandards establish what an efficient schoolsystem must provide. It is clear that thesestandards of, vi) sufficient training inacademic or vocational fields so a child canpursue life work and vii) sufficient levels of

academic or vocational skills so students cancompete favorably in academics or in the jobmarket, suggests that the state is requiredto provide vocational training through theirschool system.370By denying students entryinto a vocational program, the state isthereby violating the ruling of McDuffy which implies a direct violation of the constitution. In adoptingthese standards, the Court recognizes that there are necessary alternatives to the college-centriceducational path, which bolsters a plea to the Court to now reform the vocational education system byincreasing access to vocational education in order to support these two standards.

B. Is Massachusetts Current Vocational Education System in Violation of Title VI?


48/195

lists, they are also disproportionately being denied access to vocational education. By disproportionatelydenying students of color access to vocational education programs the Massachusetts Department ofElementary and Secondary Education (DESE) violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its

implementing regulations, and its guidelines.375

In combination, Title VI and its regulations forbid not only deliberate or intentional discrimination, butalso otherwise well-intended practices that have a disparate negative impact on one of the groupsenumerated in Title VI.376In 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that private individualscould directly sue for a violation of Title VI only if the discrimination was intentional.377If an intent todiscriminate cannot be proven, private individuals cannot sue, but may still file a complaint with theDepartment of Justice or the Office of Civil Rights within the relevant federal agency, as will be discussedfurther below.378Federal agencies have a responsibility under Title VI to prevent both deliberate andunintended (disparate impact) discrimination in programs receiving funding under their jurisdictions.379Thefederal Department of Justice may also file lawsuits against offending parties for disparate impactviolations.380

Recipients of federal funds are obligated to follow Title VI and its implementing regulations.381A recipientof federal financial assistance (recipient) under Title VI includes any State, political subdivision of anystate!to whom federal financial assistance is extended!for any program.382The DESE is a stateeducational agency in receipt of federal funding and therefore is obligated to follow the mandates set out

in Title VI and its relevant implementing regulations.

1. Title VI Regulations Define Discriminatory Actions

As a federal agency, the federal Department of Education (DOE) has the authority to develop Title VIregulations to direct local education agencies funded by the DOE, such as the Massachusetts DESE.383

The Title VI regulations promulgated by DOE define numerous discriminatory actions by recipients offederal funds that are prohibited if they have a disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin.384For example, a recipient of funds cannot deny an individual any service, financial aid, or other benefitprovided under the program.385Additionally, a recipient cannot restrict an individual in any way in theenjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other


49/195

data showing the availability of federally financially assisted education programs and the extent to whichvarious racial and ethnic groups utilize these programs.390This requires recipients to keep demographicdata on current vocational programs, as well as make them available to the responsible DOE official in

order for that department to ensure cooperation and offer any assistance for compliance.391

If thisinformation does not exist, the recipient must ensure that efforts are being made to find and evaluate thisdata.392Recipients of federal funding must also make participants and beneficiaries i.e. vocationaleducation programs and students aware of the provisions and prohibitions of Title VI to assure them ofthe protections offered.393

i. Title VI Vocational Education Guidelines Greatly Impact the Massachusetts DESE

Title VI regulations include explicit guidelines for eliminating discrimination in vocational schools.394Theguidelines apply to recipients of any federal financial assistance from the Department of Education thatoffer or administer programs of vocational education or training. This includes state agency recipients.395The DESE is directly responsible for administering vocational programs across the state.396As its websitestates, the Office for Career/VocationalTechnical Education, a division of the DESE, administersMassachusetts' General Law (M.G.L.) Chapter 74 governing vocational technical education programs inpublic school districts !and the federal Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Serviceson the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs.397

Vocational education is a program or activity within the meaning of the 34 CFR, Part 100, Appendix Bguidelines and is required to eliminate discrimination.398The DESE is responsible for administeringvocational education and the civil rights guidelines pertaining to them. Thus, it is clear that therequirements of the guidelines apply directly to the Massachusetts DESE, not just to the vocationalschools themselves.

ii. Title VI Guidelines Define the Scope of DESEs Obligations

These guidelines, Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race,Color, National Origin, Sex, and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs,provide specific obligationsfor education agencies, such as the Massachusetts DESE.399The DESE may not require, approve of, orengage in any discrimination or denial of services to students on the basis of race, color, or national origin


50/195

Essex Aggie is a good choice. They get you

really ready for a career that you would

like!

This is a much better choice for me. Halfis academic and the other is agricultural.

These requirements apply in instances of either intentional or unintentional (disparate impact)discrimination.401

In its oversight capacity, the Massachusetts DESE must adopt a compliance program that will prevent,identify and remedy discrimination by vocational programs.402These programs must include collectingand analyzing civil rights related data !conducting periodic compliance reviews !providing technicalassistance![and] periodically reporting its activities and findings.403The demographic profiles of thewaiting lists, for example, are the type of data that the DESE could collect to understand and correct forany disparate impact on childrens access to vocational programs.404

The Title VI guidelines require that the DESE must distribute federal, state, or local vocational educationfunds so that no student or group of students is unlawfully denied an equal opportunity to benefit fromvocational education on the basis of race, color, national origin.405Further, the guidelines specify thatrecipients of federal assistance, such as the DESE, may not adopt a formula or other method for theallocation of federal, state, or local vocational education funds that has the effect of discriminating[emphasis added].406Therefore, the DESE must ensure that its funding schemes do not have adiscriminatory impact.

If the Massachusetts vocational education system is structured in a way that poses greater obstacles, or

provides less effective services, for racial minorities, then DESE, as the responsible state agency, is inviolation of DOEs Title VI regulations and guidelines.

2. Massachusetts May beDisproportionately Denying Students ofColorAccess to Vocational Education

The data revealed through the waiting listsurvey results suggest that students of colormay be disproportionately denied access tovocational programs.407Trends within the


51/195

Our students receive two educations in one.

Because of our scheduling for academic

classes, our students receive the same

amount of academic instruction as students

enrolled in academic high schools, plus

authentic, hands-on instruction in a chosen

technical area.

C.H. McCann Technical High School.

with populations with a higher minoritypopulation than the state average.410Withsuch a small sample, no definitive conclusion

can be drawn about the relative access ofdifferent populations. These results also failto account for several large metropolitanareas with high populations of students ofcolor including Holyoke, Brockton, Lowell,Somerville, and Worcester, among others.411Data from these major cities would illuminatewhether a more significant trend exists,thereby indicating disparate impact. Shouldadvocates or OCR conduct additionalinvestigation, targeted outreach to thesemetropolitan school districts would helpdetermine the extent of the impact onstudents of color. If, after further data is received, it appears that schools within these areas havedisproportionately long waitlists, then advocates will have a strong Title VI claim.

3. Distribution of Funds

As Section III Obstacles of this white paper discusses, (4. Students of Color), students of color are likelybeing disproportionately denied services to vocational programs.412To reiterate the statistics discussed inSection III Obstacles, over 37% of the schools with large populations of students of color have significantsurvey waiting lists.413Half of the schools with large populations of students of color are in the bottom twofunding quintiles.414As the Funding section of this white paper discusses, schools in wealthier cities andtowns likely have a greater ability to raise additional funds to contribu

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	masslive
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Manufacturing Success: Improved Access to Vocational Education in Massachusetts (1)

Documents