from "The Muppet Show Theme"
Both of that, incidentally, are per MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34:
Every city and town shall annually provide an amount of money sufficient for the support of the public schools as required by this chapter, provided however, that no city or town shall be required to provide more money for the support of the public schools than is appropriated by vote of the legislative body of the city or town. In acting on appropriations for educational costs, the city or town appropriating body shall vote on the total amount of the appropriations requested and shall not allocate appropriations among accounts or place any restriction on such appropriations. The superintendent of schools in any city or town may address the local appropriating authority prior to any action on the school budget as recommended by the school committee notwithstanding his place of residence. The city or town appropriating body may make nonbinding monetary recommendations to increase or decrease certain items allocating such appropriations.The vote of the legislative body of a city or town shall establish the total appropriation for the support of the public schools, but may not limit the authority of the school committee to determine expenditures within the total appropriation.
And also, of course, the city charter in section 5-2 says:
The city council may, by majority vote, make appropriations for the purposes recommended and may reduce or reject any amount recommended in the annual budget, but except on recommendation of the city manager, shall not increase any amount in or the total of the annual budget, nor add thereto any amount for a purpose not included therein, except as provided in section thirty-three of chapter forty-four of the General Laws.
There are very few questions the Council has purview to ask, and very little they can do, and that's even if they funded schools appropriately!
So when I say I don't know why we do this: I really don't know why this is what is done!
And this is not the first time I have said this.
We start right off with city CFO Tim McGourthy characterizing WPS as "almost 60% of the budget." He does not note that the vast majority of this is state funding, instead (in line with other accounts) noting both the overall increase of 10% and the 5% increase of the Worcester Public Schools.
The capital budget for WPS is now to be $5M (an increase of $1M). McGourthy then also outlined the borrowing for the building projects now going on.
Russell asked about the $22M budget deficit and how it is being addressed. Allen outlined the SOA bridge funds of the prior year; that then left only $10M in 'new money,' while costs increased $32M, thus the $22M gap. Petty then said "and the inflation factor?" which Allen picked up by responding that the low inflation factor is what led to the amount going to schools.
Russell's follow up was if that meant we were facing layoffs or a reduction in services--he knows this, right?--or if the "funds were being replenished in a different way"
Monárrez responded that "services will remain as they always have" and said that there will be an average of 2 more students per class in grades K-12, "existing overlap in services," and "using ESSER funds, we had hired quite a few additional staff to help the youth back into schools, and now is the time and the opportunity to really right that ship and still maintain very workable caseloads."
She then said that there was no "reduction in force" as they are not laying off "any permanent status teacher...that is not happening."
This is a choice here, as this is parsing terms; there is no mention here of the number of staff being laid off nor of the loss that represents to the district.
Russell asked if he heard correctly that some of the cuts assist students with transitions; she said it was as a result of students coming back into schools, and the bridge funding "was to help students come back to in person."
That isn't what it was, though. The bridge funding was to frontload Student Opportunity Act needed increases to the district budget. If it were as characterized here, adding positions wouldn't have made sense.
Russell left then and asked about Worcester East Middle School's windows and Roosevelt's parking lot.
Allen said the windows are in schematic design and would expect to bid out this fall; the work would occur over the two following summers. Roosevelt's parking lot has now received the first feedback from the EPA (it's abuts a wetland).
Russell asked about the sidewalks along Sunderlund Road, if it was schools or city. Batista said it is both: part of it due to parking lot and the entry, and part of it city, which he said he would address with the Commissioner.
Colorio asked about projected enrollment for next year. Allen said a slight decrease is projected over the next several years, a little less than 1%. She asked how it would affect student teacher ratio; Allen said it would be based on actual enrollment by school.
Colorio then asked "I didn't hear because it was a little blurry: are there teacher cuts?" Allen said, "there are teacher position reductions, but the district is hoping that all of those will be accomplished through retirement, resignation, and through the normal non-renewal process of teachers without professional teacher status."
Colorio asked about administrative cuts. Allen said, "there are twenty-two central office reductions that are included in the FY25 budget." Colorio followed up by asking if it was "DAB...downtown, and is it mostly low level staffing or is it...directors" and asked for examples.
None of this of course is under Council purview in any way, shape, or form.
Allen said it included a 20% reduction in the superintendent's cabinet-level positions (I don't know what those are, anymore, and they aren't indicated in the budget document); about half are director or above, while some are support staff.
Colorio asked how much ESSER was; $120M in total, Allen said. Colorio asked how much was allocated to teaching positions as opposed to a capital expense (it seems clear that she doesn't understand what ESSER is here). Allen said it was being received at the same time as the increases in SOA; in FY22, the School Committee agreed to use some of those funds to bridge increases, $13M a year for four years, that the district hired staff and then put it on the next year.
Right: this is what it was...not bridging return to school.
Allen said the School Committee recognized that this would end in FY25, but noted there are two more years of SOA increases in FY26 and FY27, which will total about $30M.
Colorio, characterized them as "grant funded," and asked if they were ended; Allen again clarified that the positions were ESSER funded for a single year before going into the general fund.
Mero Carlson said her question had been answered; the newspaper "had reported that we would be losing teaching positions." She addressed the superintendent, saying "I believe you said no reduction in force, and Mr. Allen also said that this basically will be done through attrition." She said she just wanted to be clear on that, "as there's a lot of talk in the community that we're losing several teachers."
Monárrez said "reduction in force refers to having to layoff people who are on permanent teaching status" and said "at this time" that was not happening. She said retirements, resignations, and "not bringing people back as they are not the right fit" and that will happen over the summer.
What we are losing is young/new teaching staff. That is how you get new teachers, and things like this are how you retain or lose them, and also gives a district a reputation as to if it is a place to apply or if you'll be bumped if you get initially hired.
Mero Carlson asked how many it is; Monárrez said it was a "moving target"; positions are 46 in elementary and 41 in the secondary level, adding that our enrollment is "lower than it was" and "we still have the teachers necessary to maintain a 21 to 1 class size average throughout the district."
Bergman asked where snow removal is in the budget; Allen said it was done by staff, and thus would be in the salary account, and Bergman asked how he could find out how much it cost. Allen said it would depend on if it snowed during the regular shift or overtime. Bergman then requested a report on that and on the equipment; he said, "it always puzzled me that snow removal truck could be going down Grafton Street" and couldn't go on school grounds "and it seems to me that there may be some duplication of effort."
Again, this is entirely not under Council purview, and councilors have no authority to ask for any such report. As it is in internal salary cost already born by the district, save the randomness of when snow falls, and the city is doing a manifestly terrible job in removing the snow it actually is responsible for, this is an enormous waste of time.
Toomey, saying she chose Burncoat because it came first in the book, and said "there was a big increase of electric...and a big decrease in natural gas." She notes the solar panels.
She didn't look at the actual utility page, which explains why one is going up and one going down.
Allen said the contract is the same as the city side; cost are allocated by building usages.
Toomey asked about the safety assessment and asked if there was an allocation of funds.
Allen on page 207, $1.4M is allocated for school safety; it had been $125,000. Toomey asked where the funds were coming from; Allen responded the general fund budget. Toomey asked if that fully satisfied the requests; Allen said the administration envisioned that it would take a number of years of funding at that level, and that it would be a phased approach over the next 7 to 10 years. Toomey asked for a report on the costs estimates, calling it "a big nugget."
...which is not under Council purview, unless some of it were to be capital funding, though she didn't mention that, so one assumes it's just not under purview
Toomey then asked the Burncoat staffing, saying it was two history and social studies teachers being lost. Allen said the district's analysis of enrollment and course offerings, working with the school administration, lead to which positions are selected. Toomey then read the position cuts for Burncoat High. Toomey asked, in the past JROTC has been prominent at Memorial Day in past years, and said she hadn't seen them. Allen said the military has been unable to fill the instructor spots; the military has discontinued both North and Burncoat's JROTC. It is being consolidated at South High. Toomey lamented the loss of the programs.
Toomey asked about the MCAS tutors being cut. Monárrez said they were part time positions, which principals were having trouble filling, and principals had said they had other ways of meeting those needs.
King started by acknowledging the difficult times the state is facing, saying that the needs of students have to come first, and commended a focus on equity, retention and recruitment (I think he's looking at the strategic plan section), and the support for students. He asked about the reduction of the vacant school psychologist positions.
Monárrez said five positions had been added, but had not been able to be filled. Those positions are recommended to be cut, and instead add five paid internships with the plan to recruit them.
King asked about retention and diversifying the workforce and asked that she speak to that work.
Monárrez said one of her goals for this school year was to decrease the demographic difference between the students and staff by 10%. She said she didn't have the number, but it has been surpassed.
before or after layoffs, is a good question
Monárrez "a caring adult makes a difference in a child's life"
King spoke about the trauma experienced by students this year.
He then asked about class sizes, "what about the higher end" of class sizes, including if there is a need for an additional position, how that funding will be sought.
Monárrez said that there are "pocket positions" for where there might be a split of a class needed. In the past, five to ten positions would be budgeted; fifteen are being budgeted this year. There will be daily attendance counts when school starts so those positions then can be sent where needed.
King then asked the city what their approach to the funding the district through local revenue, saying that there had been a request for more money last year during contract negotiations.
McGourthy said, "The city's contribution is based on the change in the required local contribution, year over year. It's essentially formula driven based on DESE calculations based on what Worcester can contribute looking at FY24 to FY25." He then read the numbers.
Did that answer the question?
King asked the City Manager to speak to any additional funding for building and planning for buildings.
Batista says those are day to day conversations he has with Monárrez. They've been very focused on the capital needs, were flexible on Roosevelt.
King asked about the strategy on repair and funding. Allen said the district will be updating the facilities plan next year. The district has identified all along an underfunding of maintenance; this budget again increases funding for facilities needs by $1.2M.
Batista noted the school maintenance stabilization fund through new growth, which is the financial stabilization plan that is before the Council now.
King said he appreciated, reflected that the Council likes to maintain flexibility when it comes to new growth. He applauded the addition of the middle school deans and culture and climate specialists.
King said he had been glad to support the Fair Share amendment and then...his numbers here are off by several orders of magnitude...he said the Governor estimated $100 billion and it was closer to $200 billion. It should be a billion and two billion. King said he knew there was a formula in place (there isn't) and asked the delegation what this would mean for Worcester, "and they didn't have an answer for me." Because there isn't one; it's allocated by the Legislature. King said his understanding that there is opportunity for "one time investment" and he wanted to "understand all of it." He said in April there was revenue "positivity" on the state level. King asked what "accessing the Fair Share amendment would look like," what dollars might be, and what projects or programs.
Allen said half would go to transportation and half to education; it is allocated by the Legislature. The ask from Worcester is to fix the inflation factor, and asking for support for after and out of school time and mental health supports. Thank goodness he answered.
King asked for the priorities to be sent to the Council, "so we can join them in their advocacy."
Now?
King asked about English learners and if there were any changes for them.
Monárrez said the multilingual education department is being reorganized. Some supervisor positions have been eliminated; there is a new assistant director position. Secondary students at New Citizen Center are instead using it as a language academy while being transitioned back to their home school. There will also be professional development for all teachers on language acquisition. There is also a look at the dual language programming, especially what it looks like in middle and high school, so families know what the courses are, so there is more confidence in the programs.
King said that, earlier in the year, were getting reports of influx of students, but overall, numbers are down. He asked for clarification.
Allen said during the school year, the district did see an increase of migrant students in the schools. The state is providing some supplemental funding this year to fund some of the supports for those students, some of which is being carried forward into next year.
King acknowledged that this is Monárrez's area of expertise. He closed by saying while there are challenges, he was sure the school committee "would address those challenges appropriately" and he was sure we'd be in a better place in a year.
This is like the meme of the drowning person getting a high five.
"Overall, the district saved three and a half million dollars a year by bringing transportation in house. Much of those funds were put back into improving transportation." They'd expect "normal increases going forward," where other districts are seeing, for example, 50% increase next year in Hudson.
Pacillo asked if all schools had crossing guards; Allen said there are no reductions, but it is a hard position to fill.
I don't know if she knows it, but those two are addressing accounts that don't count towards net school spending.
Pacillo asked what positions that might be left vacant in the upcoming year. Allen said there were a number of administration and support positions that were vacant when the budget was created which the administration has recommended be left vacant. Teaching positions were reviewed; those are looked at each year, building by building. The one year administrative freeze are generally on administrative and support positions.
56 minutes. No question or comment on not meeting net school spending; no comments on efforts to close the funding gap in operations. Several reports requested and most of the questions well outside of Council purview.
No comments:
Post a Comment