“I’m complying with state and federal law"

In case you missed Maine Governor Janet Mills stand up to President Trump earlier this week, you can watch the video here.

While it's (naturally) her refusal to back down that's making the news, what she said matters a lot: her response was "I'm complying with state and federal law."

Executive orders and "Dear Colleague" letters are not federal law.

Please repeat that as often as necessary.

Given the thin-skinned nature of the executive, it isn't surprising that the next investigation by what we used to call the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, but will need to come up with another name for was one into Maine. 

What is new on this one, and this worries me because this is where free lunch is funded from, is that the United States Department of Agriculture also launched an investigation into the University of Maine. This isn't school nutrition, but it is concerning to see this also coming from that department. 

Don't, however, think you can go along and somehow get along with this administration. They're coming for everyone, sooner or later.

Councilor Clancy

points out that he's already moved to pass the budget.
He also says he knows of three ways to balance budget:

• raise taxes
• cut more
• get more money from the state or fed, which isn't going to happen

Lauds for Loughlin and Mills now.

Teachers account again

O'Connell is referring the memo put together by Mills to curriculum (as that money has already been allocated tonight). Motion, instead, to file.

Caradonio says that the $445,000 has forwarded to the teachers' account. "Some of those items are not teacher salary items...city council accepted some and rejected some...trying to remain faithful to what we told the city council we would do with the extra funds"

Bogigian "isn't it the perogative of the School Committee to decide how this money is spent?"
Lukes confirms that it is "last time I checked"

Teachers account approved.

Where the money ought to go

There have been lots of meetings this spring...
Meetings of parents. Hearings. Meetings with city councilors. Meetings with school committee members.
I've been to plenty of them. I've heard lots of people talk about education funding.

Not once has anyone said, "you know, we really need a pre-engineering program fully funded."
Or "Gosh, let's fight hard for more AP classes."
Or "Hey, don't the special ed teachers need more in-service?"

I don't think anyone would dispute that those are great and worthy things.
I'm also sure that the time to decorate the windowboxes is not while the house is falling down.

We have schools in this city that are literally crumbling over children's heads. We've got kids getting their parent's science books. We have kids that haven't been near a computer all year. We have every elementary school library in the city closed (unless staffed by volunteers). We've got kids across the city in schools that have a only short visit by a nurse each day. And yes, we still have kids in overcrowded classrooms.

I'm not precisely sure how these glaring lack of basic necessities escaped the attention of some in the school administration. Apparently it has, though, because when asked what the administration would recommend spending additional funds on, their list mentioned not one of these basics.

Not one. Not even a start on one.

Is the rarefied air in the administration building getting to people? Is there such a disconnect between the people in the schools and the people in administration? Does someone have a particular reason for forwarding this list?

I don't really know. I do know that if you have any objection to the money that you fought for being allocated this way, you should let the school committee know before their hearing on Thursday.

Additional funding goes where?

According to the memo from Dr. Mills...

1. Health Centers Pipeline and Pre-engineering program $135,000
2. AVID $25,000
3. AP programs $50,000
4. Content instruction for SPED and ELL teachers $40,000

Now, that money is somewhat wrong, because that's based on $250,00. They got $200,000.

Got a thought on that? Come next Thursday at 3pm for the School Committee hearing!

Questions from City Council: consultants

Councilor Rushton still has the floor: how much do we spend on consultants?

Caradonio is talking about the grants that we get (he's referencing the American history grant that was written up in the T&G a bit ago) that involve our hiring consultants who come in to, for example, teach workshops to our teachers. All grants need evaluators to be sure we've used the grant correctly. Some require that.

$104,000 from the general fund for arts teachers and a doctor
All others are grant based.

Rushton is now repeating what he said last year: that he'll continue to look for additional funds throughout the budget process.

Questions from City Council: $250,000 for where?

Councilor Rushton is referencing an order he's cosponsoring at tonight's City Council meeting:

9a.

Request the City Manager include the $250,000 realized as a result of new negotiations with MassPort in the Fiscal Year 2009 budget of the Worcester Public Schools for the purpose of reducing class size or increasing funding for instructional materials or for implementing new technologies. (Rushton, Toomey, Germain, Rosen, Smith, Eddy)

Where would they put it? the councilor wants to know.

Deputy Superintendent Mills goes back to Councilor Eddy's question about class size in referencing the continued emphasis on class size (in asking the question, Councilor Rushton said his wife sent in 27 cupcakes to kindergarten this morning for his son's birthday). What else would they consider funding? A health science program in association with UMass, that was once funded by a grant. STEM courses (Science, Technology, nope, missed it) in conjunction with WPI. These programs exist, but they are a shadow of what they were; he'd like to bring them back.

(One wonders, incidentally, how much of this is a chance Rushton is giving for Mills to put on a show, as Rushton has said previously he thinks we should just hire Mills to replace Caradonio.)

Joint Subcommittee meeting: a few points

1) There's an attempt being made by the city administration and City Council to claim that next year's budget is over 102% over foundation when you include the savings from the health insurance changes (Councilor Toomey referred to it as "a matter of semantics;" Councilor Smith flat out said they were funding at over 102%).
It isn't 102%.
There's a reason that foundation is figured the way that it is, and, while the money that was before going to supply health insurance for teachers (itself a worthy thing) is now going directly to the classroom, there isn't NEW money coming into the budget. That's why it doesn't count.

And of course that doesn't include that the foundation budget doesn't include all it should nor that 102% is ridiculously low. Lower than Boston. Lower than Fall River. Lower than New Bedford.

2) There was some discussion of a seven page (!) memo regarding class sizes that has been put together by the school administration. Deputy Superintendent Mills, in addition to speaking to number shuffling that takes place at central administration, raised an important number:

Worcester has a 40% mobility rate.
With that, it's no exaggeration to say that the numbers you report today are going to be entirely different a week from now. It also boggles the mind, if you think of how that complicates anything else the schools do: teaching kids basic skills coming first to mind.

3) According to Deputy Superintendent Mills, we are dangerously close to supplanting our local funds with state and federal funds that are supposed to be supplementing our budget. If we do that, they'll take those funds away.

4) According to a number of different people who have recently spoken to state legislators, we are having more and more trouble making a case for more state funds for Worcester, as we are $12 million under our tax levy (that's the amount we could raise taxes without a 2 1/2 override).