Dignity Should Not Be a District-by-District Decision

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Education on June 25, 2019.

****************************************************************************

Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and members of the Joint Education Committee: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy organization fighting for progressive policy. 

One of the planks in our organization’s platform is an “All means all” agenda of racial and social justice. That means ensuring that underrepresented communities are treated with dignity and respect. 

The reduction of Native American identity to “mascot” status is the opposite of that. We would like to go on record in support of Bill S.247/H.443 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth). 

Such mascots have serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes. 

Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter. 

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It’s time we listen. 

One of the Wealthiest States and One of the Most Unequal

The following is testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development on Tuesday, June 18, 2019.

**********************************************************************************************

Chairwoman Jehlen, Chairman Brodeur, and members of the Joint Labor and Workforce Development Committee: 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection. 

Central to our agenda of shared prosperity is good-paying jobs with fair working conditions. As such, Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record in support of H.1609/S.092 (An Act Updating Overtime Protections to Protect the Commonwealth’s Middle Class Workers) and H.1617/S.1082 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage). 

The US remains the only country in the industrialized world without a limit to the number of work-hours per week. One partial solution to this has been to guarantee workers time and ½ pay for overtime work. If they are forced to work more hours, they should be duly compensated. 

However, this rule has only applied to wage workers, leaving out the many salaried workers in the service industry who often have to work overtime. 

The Obama Administration had sought to change this, crafting federal regulations to allow some salaried workers to get over time. But Republican attorney generals around the country are trying to block this pending regulation in the courts, and the Trump administration is fighting to roll it back. 

However, as with many issues, Massachusetts can and should lead. H.1609/S.1092 would do this by updating the salary threshold below which executive,administrative, and professional employees, such as low-level managers at retail stores and fast food chains, are guaranteed overtime pay when they work long hours. Moreover, it would align Massachusetts’s overtime law more closely to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, removing  exemptions, such as those for restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and non-profit colleges that leave out too many. 

H.1609/S.1092 would phase in the threshold for time and ½ overtime pay to kick in to $64,000 over several years, updating it each year thereafter to reflect wage growth and keep it in line with twice the minimum wage. According to MIT, $64,000 aligns with a living wage for families consisting of one parent and one child or two parents (one working full-time and one working part-time) and one child–a sensible standard. [1]

However, the lack of overtime pay is not the only problem facing workers in the service industry. The tiered wage system in the restaurant industry, by which workers are reliant on tips for a full wage, exacerbates gender and racial inequities and leaves too many workers struggling to get by. 

The tipped minimum wage in Massachusetts stands at a mere $4.35. In 2023, when the recently passed minimum wage increase takes full effect, it will stand at only $6.75. This is not a living wage. 

Although employers are supposed to guarantee that workers get the full minimum wage with tips, this has never been common practice, and wage theft is rampant in the industry. The tiered wage system allows this to happen. 

Moreover, sexual harassment remains widespread in the restaurant industry. [2] As our country is slowly but surely starting to grapple with the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault across industries, we must face up to the fact that unequal wage systems create the breeding ground for such inappropriate and predatory behaviors. 

Massachusetts is both one of the wealthiest and one of the most unequal states in this country. Reporting out H.1609/S.092 (An Act Updating Overtime Protections to Protect the Commonwealth’s Middle Class Workers) and H.1617/S.1082 (An Act Requiring One Fair Wage) favorably will take us one step further in ensuring that our Commonwealth’s prosperity is shared by all. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Cohn 

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts 


[1] http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/25

[2] http://rocunited.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TakeUsOffTheMenu_Report_2.pdf

Living up to the Ideals of Democracy in Policy and Practice

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Election Laws on Thursday, June 20, 2019.

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Election Laws,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization that fights for shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and sustainable infrastructure and environmental protection.

When the basic practices and principles of our democracy are under attack on the national level and in states across the country, it is important for Massachusetts to take steps to redouble our commitment to democracy and citizen engagement here at home.

A strong democracy is one in which all citizens have the opportunity and ability to participate and make their voices heard. Progressive Massachusetts would thus like to go on record in support of S.396 / H.685 (An Act relative to election day registration), S.389 / H.720 (An Act ensuring municipal participation of the widest eligible range), S.404 / H.646 (An Act promoting political participation), and S.392/H.669 (An Act increasing voter registration and participation to help prevent recidivism).

Election Day Registration (S.396/H.685)

In Massachusetts elections, an unnecessary and arbitrary 20-day registration cutoff disenfranchises more than 100,000 voters from participating in our elections. Given that the average American moves more than 11 times over the course of their lives, moving near Election Day could lead to disenfranchisement under the current system. Likewise, given the stress of work, family, and myriad other commitments, many voters may first start to learn about an election after the registration window has already passed. Indeed, this is the period when media coverage of elections–and thus voter information–is the strongest. But when voters seek to update their registration or register anew, they are shut out of the process.

When there are errors in voters’ registration, they are typically asked to fill out a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are cumbersome for election workers and leave voters feeling as though their votes didn’t count. And our first experiences at the polls–indeed, all of our experiences at the polls–have an impact on our voting habits throughout our lives.

Our neighboring states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut have already realized the problems with such a cutoff and adopted Election Day Registration (EDR). Maine has had EDR since the 1970s, and New Hampshire since the 1990s. EDR creates more positive experiences at the polls and, indeed, higher turnout, with studies showing an increase in turnout of approximately 5 percent. That is what a strong democracy looks like.

Last year, voters in Maryland and Michigan approved Election Day Registration at the ballot. Legislatures in New Mexico, Utah, and Washington have passed EDR. Let’s build on our recent progress in election modernization and make Massachusetts the next state to embrace this time-tested reform.

Municipal Voting Age (S.389 / H.720)

Last year, Massachusetts created a civics requirement for our high school students, a recognition that a strong democracy depends on informed and engaged citizens.

The best way to learn is by doing. High school students have taken that mantra to heart and are advocating for legislation to allow cities and towns to lower the local voting age to 16 or 17 for municipal elections.

The home rule petition process that governs this and myriad other areas of law is fundamentally anti-democratic. If cities and towns want to make their elections more inclusive and to give students the valuable learning experience of participating in an election, they should be able to.

This legislation would not force cities and towns to make such a change; it simply allows those that wish to make that change to do so. Who can argue with that?

Promoting Political Participation (S.404/H646)

Although democracy, in theory, is a great equalizer, the inequities that exist in our economic sphere all too often get in the way. Low-income citizens face substantial obstacles in participating in politics and policymaking: they vote at lower rates than more affluent citizens, contribute to campaigns at lower rates, and contact elected officials at lower rates.

This bill would enable citizens to authorize small, regular deductions from pay, at levels

they can afford, to contribute to political and advocacy organizations, thereby eliminating transaction costs that affect unbanked and underbanked populations and encouraging greater participation.

Reducing Recidivism (S.392/H.669)

Although those serving prison terms for felony convictions are barred from voting in Massachusetts, the rest of the incarcerated population can legally vote, provided they are citizens age 18 or over. However, many jails fail to help people obtain absentee ballots and indeed provide false information to prisoners about their eligibility.

Moreover, although we are one of the 14 states that prohibit people from voting while incarcerated in prison but return the right to vote immediately upon release, many people don’t realize that they have this right.

This bill would enact systems and training to ensure that all eligible citizens are able to register and all eligible voters are able to vote.

In conclusion, Massachusetts has played such a pivotal role in democracy in the United States, and it’s time for us to do more to live up to the ideals and promise of democracy in policy and practice. We ask that you swiftly report these bills favorably out of committee.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chairman, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

No One Should Have to Cross State Lines for Health Care

Chairman Eldridge, Chairwoman Cronin, and members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chairman of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization devoted to shared prosperity and racial and social justice. 

Progressive Massachusetts would like to go on the record IN SUPPORT of H. 3320, An Act removing obstacles and expanding access to women’s reproductive health, and S. 1209, An Act to remove obstacles and expand abortion access, jointly known as the ROE Act.

Massachusetts has been a leader in health care in the US, with our 2006 health care law setting an example for the Affordable Care Act. But despite our achievement of near universality in health insurance coverage, not everyone has access to safe, legal abortion. We cannot fully achieve the goal of universal health care without reproductive justice.

Outdated, medically unnecessary laws have created insurmountable barriers for young people seeking abortion and people in need of abortion later in pregnancy after receiving fatal fetal diagnoses. Such cases force Massachusetts residents to delay care, cross state lines, or be denied care altogether.

Reproductive rights are under attack throughout the US, and the goal of the opponents of the basic right to bodily autonomy is clear: to have Roe v. Wade repealed by our conservative Supreme Court. Medically unnecessary laws and inaccurate definitions still on the books in Massachusetts could put these fundamental rights at risk here were that to happen. The ROE Act is an essential safeguard.

If we believe that health care is a right and, consequently, abortion care is a right, then no one should be prevented from receiving necessary care due to the cost burden. When rights depend on an ability to pay, they are no longer rights.

The ROE Act understands this. By codifying the state safety net programs’ coverage of abortion care into state law, people with low incomes who are ineligible for MassHealth will be able to access pregnancy-related care. By eliminating the onerous judicial bypass teenagers must navigate to access safe, legal abortion and ensuring that individuals who receive receives a fatal fetal diagnosis later in pregnancy can access abortion care in Massachusetts, the ROE Act ensures that no one has to cross state lines (with all the prohibitive costs entailed) to access health care.

Please Give a Favorable Report to H. 3320: An Act removing obstacles and expanding access to women’s reproductive health and S. 1209, An Act to remove obstacles and expand abortion access.

Let’s Start Treating Health Care as a Right

The following testimony was delivered to the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing on Tuesday, June 11, 2019.

Chairwoman Friedman, Chairwoman Benson, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

Thank you for holding this hearing today. My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts. Progressive Massachusetts is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization devoted to shared prosperity, racial and social justice, good government and strong democracy, and environmental protection and sustainable infrastructure.

Medicare for All is a quintessential part of shared prosperity, and we are proud to support S.683 / H.1194: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

These problems will continue to exist as long as we treat health care as a commodity instead of a right. The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way.

A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

Progressive Massachusetts also opposes H.1163: An Act establishing a special commission to study the implementation of single payer health care in the Commonwealth.

Although commissions can be a valuable tool in guiding policy decisions, the commission outlined in this bill would stack the deck against single payer by design. Past bills in the House, as well as S.674 (An Act to ensure effective health care cost control) in the Senate, would require the Center for Health Information and Analysis and the Health Policy Commission to do the necessary assessment work. The commission in H.1163 would still give space to CHIA and the HPC, but it would also include spots for the insurance lobby. That’s right: the bill would put a representative of Blue Cross Blue Shield and a representative of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans in charge of determining whether or not Massachusetts should move toward a single payer system. The Massachusetts Health and Hospital Association would get a spot, too.

The hospital and insurance industries, of course, have spent large sums against Medicare for All nationally, and they are its biggest opponents here at home. We don’t need to fund a commission to know what the insurance industry and the hospital industry think about Medicare for All. You can google that.

Similarly concerning, H.1163 designates a spot for a “representative of employers,” but no representative for workers. And it includes no space for patients’ rights advocates.

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Chair, Issues Committee

Progressive Massachusetts

Withdrawal: Never an Effective Strategy

show me receipts

If we actually had mandatory sex ed in MA, everyone would know that withdrawal is not effective. As it stands, it remains one of the most popular strategies in the Massachusetts Legislature. Legislators file amendments only to withdraw them without discussion or debate.

If you were paying attention to the Senate budget debate last week or the House budget debate last month (You probably weren’t! There’s a lot going on!), then you may have noticed such a lack of robust debate or contentious votes.

Of the 36 recorded votes taken by the State Senate, 25 were unanimous. Most others just had one or two dissenting votes. Hardly controversial stuff.

Of the 15 recorded votes taken by the House, 10 were unanimous, and another 3 just had one dissenting vote.

Here at Progressive Massachusetts, we’re big fans of recorded votes. Ironically, such unanimity is a reason why a recorded vote could actually not be necessary in a given circumstance. If everyone agrees on a few extra thousand dollars for a good program, a recorded vote is just fodder for a press release, rather than a basis for real accountability.

Several senators spoke on the Senate floor about the need for new revenue (due credit to Senators Jamie Eldridge, Sonia Chang-Diaz, Jo Comerford, and Becca Rausch), but there were no votes about raising additional revenue. And in the House, there was even less discussion–and again no votes.

Give Me the Receipts

If a budget is a statement of values, why is there so little debate?

One of the reasons is that most of the amendments that would truly raise moral issues about the budget (the lack of revenue, insufficient funding in key programs, etc.) get withdrawn, or, in the House side, they get “consolidated” and hollowed out of all content (more on the “consolidation” process another day).

This issue isn’t unique to the budget, either. When the Legislature takes up major bills, many of the amendments get withdrawn without discussion or debate (let alone vote).

Just check out the four examples from last session below.

Amendment Withdrawal

So why would a legislator withdraw an amendment?

There are three common reasons:

  1. Pressure from colleagues
  2. Pressure from Leadership
  3. Fear of a bad message if an amendment were to fail

(1) and (2) both stem from the same root: the fact that most legislators don’t want to be put on record. Having recorded votes means that they have to take a side on sometimes controversial issues, and that means that at least some of their constituents will be unhappy. Maybe they are more progressive than their district and afraid of getting calls from rabid right-wingers. Much more likely they are much more conservative than their district and don’t want constituents contented with an image of Massachusetts’s liberalism to know. And they will press upon an amendment’s filers to make sure that no vote happens.

Regarding (2), Leadership can often promise a real debate later or a bit of extra funding for a favored program now (or threaten loss of key perks) to get a legislator to withdraw an amendment. For decades, legislators have been withdrawing righteous amendments while promises from leadership have gone unfulfilled. And yet, progressive legislators keep falling for the same trick.

(2) and (3) also stem from a misunderstanding of how power works. Too many legislators see power only from the lens of the Golden Dome. But any legislator’s power ultimately comes from their constituents. And their constituents want to see them be champions. Their constituents want well-funded schools, well-funded public transit, clean water and air, sound investments in all kinds of infrastructure, etc., etc. Their constituents probably think Massachusetts is a liberal bastion, and so we should make it just that. If legislators take hard votes, then their constituents will have their backs. And if a vote for popular progressive policy were to fail, their constituents aren’t going to turn their backs on the policy; they will know which legislators to target and to pressure and know how to organize for the next fight. Because, to be short, that’s how politics works.

2019 Boston City Council

Boston City Council

At-Large

Progressive Massachusetts itself largely does not engage in municipal-level issue advocacy; however, our chapters do.

Our Boston chapters — Downtown Progressives, JP Progressives, and Progressive WRox/Roz–collaborated on a questionnaire for the 2019 Boston municipal elections in order to offer a valuable service to the public. You can read candidates’ responses here.

Read the questionnaires:

Annissa Essaibi George
Michael Flaherty
Priscilla Flint-Banks
David Halbert
William King
Julia Mejia
Jeff Ross
Alejandra St. Guillen
Michellle Wu

District 5

District 5 spans the neighborhoods of Hyde Park, Roslindale, and Mattapan and is represented by the retiring (conservative) incumbent Councilor Tim McCarthy.

Read the questionnaires:

Ricardo Arroyo
Maria Esdale Farrell
Justin Murad
Alkia Powell
Mimi Turchinetz
Return to Elections & Endorsements >>

Want to see more questionnaires?

“It is far past time for us to stop shortchanging our students.”

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Higher Education.

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Chairwoman Gobi, Chairman Roy, and Members of the Joint Higher Education Committee,

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the chair of the Issues Committee of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide multi-issue grassroots organization committed to fighting for social justice and progressive policy. Since our founding, treating education as a public good and funding it as such has been central to our mission.

As such, we strongly support S.744 / H.1221, An Act to guarantee debt-free public higher education, and S.741, An Act committing to higher education the resources to Insure a strong and healthy public higher education system (or CHERISH), and urge you to report them out favorably.

Since 2001, Massachusetts has cut funding for public higher education by 14 percent. However, at the same time that our state was retrenching from investing in our future, enrollment was going up. As a result, per student funding has fallen by 32 percent, almost a third.

When the state pulls back, the cost burden falls onto students. Massachusetts saw some of the highest tuition and fee increases in the country from 2001 to 2016, particularly during the recession. The share of costs borne by students and their families doubled, putting a degree out of reach for more and more students, especially those of disadvantaged backgrounds.

Today, the average graduate from our state universities and the UMass system leaves with over $30,000 in student debt—the tenth highest in the country. The average debt for graduates of public, four-year postsecondary schools grew faster in Massachusetts than in all but one other state from 2004 to 2016.

A postsecondary degree provides a proven premium in lifetime wages for graduates and countless other opportunities. Cost should not be a barrier. By preventing young people from living independently, buying a home, or pursuing their career of choice, college debt is a drag on our economy. Even when students drop out due to cost, they can be saddled with debt for years after.

It is far past time for us to stop shortchanging our students. Investing more in public higher education, as the CHERISH Act would require, and making public higher education debt-free would benefit not only students. When financial concerns are no longer a hindrance for people seeking to realize their full potential, we all benefit.

Time to End a Shameful History of Disenfranchisement

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Election Laws Committee.

*************************************************************

Chairman Finegold, Chairman Lawn, and Members of the Joint Election Laws Committee,

As an organization committed to strengthening our democracy and promoting racial and social justice in our Commonwealth, Progressive Massachusetts strongly supports S.12, a proposal for a legislative amendment to the Constitution relative to voting rights and urges swift action.

In recent years, states around the US have started to realize that the decades-long phenomenon of mass incarceration was a moral, economic, and public safety failure. It destroyed communities, strained budgets, and made us no safer.

The omnibus criminal justice reform legislation passed last session to widespread public support shows that the MA House and Senate understand this. But there is more work to do.

The right to vote is a cornerstone of democracy. However, our neighbors in Maine and Vermont are the only states in the US to grant incarcerated individuals this right.

Massachusetts once did. However, in the late 1990s, Governor Paul Cellucci and other state politicians pushed to restrict this right, putting forth a constitutional amendment to prevent those convicted of a felony from voting while incarcerated.

Let us be clear. Given the inequities in our criminal justice system, this is part and parcel of our country’s shameful history of trying to disenfranchise minority voters. Although our state is only 7% Black, our prison population is 26% Black, and although our state is only 10% Latinx, our prison population is 24%. [1]

Moreover, the Supreme Court and US Congress have affirmed a variety of constitutional rights for prisoners. They have rights of religious freedom and a right to hold and express political opinions. As Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren once said, “Citizenship is not a right that expires upon misbehavior.”

Studies have repeatedly shown that maintaining a connection to the outside world is conducive to rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. [2] Allowing prisoners to participate in elections will strengthen their ties to the community, increase their sense of social responsibility, and facilitate their reintegration upon release.

We urge the committee to give this bill a favorable report.

[1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/MA.html

[2] See, e.g., https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237298166_Inmate_Social_Ties_and_the_Transition_to_Society_Does_Visitation_Reduce_Recidivism.

We Made a Promise to Our Students. We Need to Keep It.

The following testimony was submitted to the Joint Committee on Education on Friday, March 22, 2019.

Chairman Lewis, Chairwoman Peisch, and all the members of the Committee, 

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I chair the Issues Committee at Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-driven grassroots organization built from the ground up by organizers and activists from across the state to advocate for progressive policy. Other states routinely look to Massachusetts for direction, and it’s important for us to get things right.  

Quality public education for all is a central component of our platform, and no bill before the legislature better delivers on this promise than the PROMISE Act (S.238/H.586). 

Massachusetts is the birthplace of public education in the US, and our public schools routinely rank first in the nation because of high standardized test scores and postsecondary degree attainment rates. However, such high overall scores mask persistent inequities that continue to pose an obstacle to children’s ability to realize their full potential. The achievement gap between low-income and better-off students is one of the highest in the nation, as are disparities in per-pupil spending.  

A major source of this inequality lies in an outdated funding formula. The Foundation Budget, established in 1993 by the Education Reform Act, was intended as a starting point for funding school districts across the Commonwealth, based on the circumstances and needs of each student. Just like the hair styles and fashion of the early 1990s are out of date, so too are cost assumptions.  

The Foundation Budget is substantially lower than what all districts need, but only wealthy districts are able to make up for the funding shortfall. When the funding isn’t there, cuts to essential services and programs continue year after year. Communities are hamstrung by Proposition 2½ in their desire to fully provide for students’ education.  

The Legislature knows what needs to be done. The 2015 Foundation Budget Reform Commission outlined the path forward, issuing five co-equal recommendations related to transparency and tracking and four cost areas: special education, health care, English Language Learner education, and closing income-based achievement gaps. The PROMISE Act is the only bill before the Legislature that would fully implement all five recommendations, and it builds on such progress with important adjustments to make sure low-income students are properly counted and districts aren’t disproportionately impacted by the costs of charter school reimbursements.  

The other two bills under consideration fail to include adequate funding for low-income students. For example, whereas the PROMISE Act commits approximately $4,600/pupil per year in new achievement-gap-closure funding for our neediest students, the Governor’s bill promises only $473 when adjusted for inflation. These bills also fail to address the proper counting of low-income students and charter reimbursements. Now is not the time for partial solutions.  

It has taken the Legislature more than two decades to revise this formula. We owe it to students to stop punting and take bold and comprehensive action as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn