FY20 Worcester Public Schools budget

...appalling long document providing for every conceivable and inconceivable situation and opening up ramifications into everybody's death and remarriage, 'covered,' as Murbles observes, 'by THE WILL' (in capitals).
Busman's Honeymoon by Dorothy L. Sayers
because I think of this line every year when the budget comes out!

Let's talk about the Worcester Public Schools FY20 budget, which the School Committee will take up at 4 pm this Thursday, June 6, as well as in two weeks on June 20, also at 4 pm. Remember, if you don't want to download the whole massive thing, you can go to this page and click into the section you're interested in. It's been posted online since May 10.

IF YOU ARE NEW TO THIS: DON'T PANIC!  Yes, the document and the numbers are big, but that's just because it is a big system. You can do this! I recommend starting with page 7, which is the beginning of the Executive Summary, which will walk you through what is changing in this budget, then where the money is coming from, what impacts this budget, what this budget doesn't do, and what to watch for all in the following seven pages. And if you have questions, send them along!



While there has been a lot of discussion about the Foundation Budget Review Commission and the need to meet the recommendations of it, it is crucial to remember that the most important factor in the increase in the Worcester Public Schools' budget this year is inflation:

This chart happens to be mine; you can find the WPS version of it on page 125

Of the total $21.7M increase (including charter and choice) in the foundation budget, $13.3M of that comes from inflation. The House Ways and Means foundation budget changes (in line with the recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission) is a $6.2M increase, by contrast. So as you see large increases in urban budgets this year, remember that the increase is coming from a factor over which the Legislature has no control (unless they discard it).

The other crucial factor, as always, in this budget is the minimum amount of funding voluntarily allocated to the schools by the city: 

from page 132

We know the foundation budget is inadequate, and it has been for years. We are so certain of this that the city plans to sue the state if nothing is done. Cities that are Worcester's peers are funding over foundation consistently and many are working to do more. And we are going backwards. By my math, the above is .5% over the required minimum spending. The statewide average of actual net school spending last year was 29.7% over foundation. 

...all of which is to say that while the schools have funds to allocate this year in ways that they have not in years past, it isn't something for which anyone can take credit. 

However, the district DOES have funds to allocate this year, which is good news! If you're looking for a quick look at what's included, this infographic on page 119 is it: 

Also, in terms of making deliberate choices: check out which images are used for which positions. That matters.

I've already highlighted two concerns I have about allocations on the Chief Diversity Officer and on the planned switch of student data. I also noted this turnaround staffing puzzle over on Twitter: 

Here’s a Worcester Schools staffing puzzle:

The lefthand circle is the proposed new “middle school turnaround manager” (of which, you can see my note).
The right circle is a (current?) “school turnaround manager” who reports two levels down to the manager of instruction. pic.twitter.com/5zlWegBagQ

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) May 17, 2019

I also think it matters from a procedural perspective that none of this turnaround work has gone before the School Committee, nor has any of it involved the families of the students. That not only isn't okay; it's also a way of guaranteeing limited effectiveness. The best work comes of collaborating with those most involved.

The biggest news (and what ought to be seizing headlines) is the additional staffing, since we are still OVER 700 teachers short! It's clear that the allocations (both here and below) are aimed straight at the areas that have been chronically underfunded through the undercalculation of the foundation budget:

• 23.4 secondary teachers, though let me note that an "internship and community service coordinator" (at Doherty) and an "Innovations Pathways Coordinator" (at South) are not actually teaching; I hope to get to a school-by-school rundown as I have done in the past, but if you're looking for assignments, check page 7.

• 6 elementary teachers for preschool enrichment classes, which would give the preschool teachers the preps they've been asking for, plus 8 elementary teachers that will be sent where necessary to lower class sizes (projected to continue to average 21 students citywide, with 5 classes projected to be between 27 and 30 students)

• 9 guidance counselors "to assist students with college and career planning, including the early college program" to which this parent of a just-graduate says thank goodness. One hopes that they will also be appropriately trained in college and career matriculation, as sometimes that goes astray.

• 4 adjustment counselors and 2 school psychologists; not in the budget, but coming if/when the state approves the Essential Health grant will be a "trauma support team," the staffing of which is not described. I do want to note here that 2 adjustment counselors we thought we had--that were passed in last year's budget--were converted to child study supervisors, per p. 181. That didn't require a School Committee vote, as they come out of the same cost center, but it is the sort of thing that I would think we all want to know about.

• 9 teachers, 6 tutors for ESL PLUS an Assistant Director of English Language Learners, which is crucial, as the enrollment in English learners has been growing; we're up to one in three students being English learners and (just as crucially) 59% of Worcester Public School students speak a first language other than English. The dual language program also extends to eighth grade this year. 

• 17 teachers and staff plus 14 IA positions for special education (there's a focus, if you check the list, on continued expansion of services for autistic students)

• 2 nurses!

• a wrap-around coordinator for Canterbury "in partnership with Main South family and community supports with the Greater Worcester Community Foundation." It's general fund funded, though.

• the previously mentioned Chief Diversity officer and the middle school turnaround positions

• an additional Technology Instructional coach

More remarkably, perhaps, is that this actually increases accounts that have been underfunded that do things we really need! 

• It increases the instructional supplies account by $225,000! Okay, then it sticks it in central administration rather than sending it to schools and finally increasing the per pupil allocation, but...
• It creates (because there wasn't one) a furniture account! Funded this year at $153,000 (for 25,000 students and 50 buildings; you do the math)
• It increases the substitute daily rate to $75/day with the intent of getting to $85/day in two years. 
• It "funds the workers compensation, translation, and legal accounts to reflect actual spending history," thus taking pressure off transfers midyear and recognizing realities about spending. This sounds dull but matters a lot.
• Even more remarkable, the Facilities account is going up, mostly for increases in trash removal, but partly through a straight increase in building repair, as well as one (important for those concerned with the health of our schools) for environmental management. For a line that's part of the account that's funded at something like 60% of foundation, this is a bit of hope!

The increase in school safety of $25,000 (with no reason given) is already puzzling, but it's downright concerning when a look at the actual account on page 239 shows that spending exceeded the allocation in this fiscal year by 150%: 

There's never any detail given on this account, and the transfer wasn't requested from other cost centers, so there is no transparency over the spending here. Plus, the increase in facilities spending is in part also going to school safety per p. 247. Just how much is being spent under the guise of school safety and on what?

I fear that there are a few things that won't get highlighted, so let me mention them here: 

• The "requests not funded" on page 16 are well worth reviewing; included in that is $1M in "urgent building repairs" put forward by the principals. Note, however, that the comprehensive facilities master plan found $75M in urgent building repairs (and that was leaving aside the most recently built schools). Meanwhile, the capital line for the Worcester Public Schools has been and remains $3.6M (for how that's being allocated, see page 171). This is not enough to keep up with what needs to be done, never mind to deal with the backlog. We ignore this at our peril. 
• Enrollment projections (also page 16) agree that the district will see 6.6% more students in secondary school by 2025: WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT THEM? There is a slight bump in the Doherty enrollment allowed for in that project, but otherwise, there is no plan. This is a problem.
• If you're interested in what's going on with the strategic plan, you can review what the district presents as implementation beginning on page 68. I would argue that some of this is a stretch. 
• The transportation options are supposed to be coming back in June. The bids that have been coming in from across the state remain alarming, and the relationships that Durham has with districts remains problematic. Are we going to just continue to tolerate that or fix it?
• We're continuing to see expansion of the use of technology as a student interface and additional staffing in support, as the district adds another technology coach. All well and good, but are we ever going to have a conversation with families about their access to technology at home? As it stands, students are simply expected to do work online at home with no one ever having asked what that entails. This is a massive issue for a district with the rates of poverty Worcester does.
• We're going to spend over a million dollars on police in the schools again, and the main thing we know about having police in schools is this. Plus, yes, we're also going to spend over $200K on security staff, as well. 

My understanding is that the schools are back before the City Council tonight. Cancelled; next week? Maybe?The School Committee takes this up for the first time on Thursday--you can find the order of accounts here--and then again in two weeks.