It's a staffing issue

 You may have caught in passing the mention from today's Boston Globe that the Department is providing six million KN95 masks to school districts for staff when they come back to school next week:

To help protect school employees, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has supplied 6 million KN95 masks. That’s enough for one mask per day for each employee, including teachers and bus drivers, said a department spokeswoman.

Below, this appears to be predicated on there being about 100,000 staff in Massachusetts, so that's 60 days of masks, assuming one per day, which gets us (with February break off) to mid-March or so. 

This afternoon, the Department announced that they were sending out 200,000 tests to districts, allowing two tests per staff member: 

...strongly encourages all school personnel take one of the at-home antigen tests no more than 24 hours before they return to work 

It has been noted by others that the Department said they're spending $5.6M on this last, which would be $25 per test, and then the next email in my inbox had this headline:

I assume DESE paid what was being asked for what could be had now.

The above is occurring during a school vacation week and without warning. Masks are coming to central distribution points, from which districts need to retrieve them. I assume tests are likewise being sent out the same way, at which point districts will have to find a way to get them to staff, who are also on vacation.

As has been noted, we have been warned for weeks that this week's vacation is of concern. It's why districts that could manage it sent tests home with students before vacation for their use. Districts largely didn't have access to enough tests, and thus we have what it is difficult to describe as anything other than a very late effort. 

Students, of course, are not mentioned in any of the above--we have nearly a million of them in public schools in Massachusetts--and they're also going to be coming back into buildings on Monday morning. There are districts in Massachusetts that were among those to get tests in students' hands before vacation; some of the higher risk communities that had received the state distribution focused on schools. Not all did, and that would leave many districts out, regardless. Lines at testing centers have been long in the places where those tests are available; at home tests are difficult to find.

And the COVID rates in the state have never been this high before. As of last week's data, 41% of 5-11 year olds, 77% of 12-15 year olds, and 78% of 16-18 year olds had at least one dose, which doesn't appear to be enough to blunt the force of the virus.

There was a good deal of online (and elsewhere) outrage this week when the CDC rolled back quarantine recommendations, following staffing concerns expressed by an airline executive, after a weekend in which thousands of flights were cancelled. 

The above, on the other side, is based on protecting staff. But it is still focused on staff.

I have two concerns as we head into this holiday weekend, which has school on the other side.

The first is for students, most of whom were not sent home with tests, most of whom don't have access to free testing (as we even do in Worcester, if you can get there and can stand in line in the cold), most of whom simply, I'd guess, are not going to be tested before Monday morning.
And many of whom are not going to be walking in the door on Monday with masks equivalent to the above.

The second is actually a staff concern. The state positivity rate right now is over 13%, and that is only of those tested at medical centers; it does not count at home tests.
If anything like that many of the tests the state is sending out to districts to get to staff come back positive between Sunday night and Monday morning, what's our plan for Monday? 

UPDATE: the above was posted prior to DESE's email to superintendents Thursday night that the tests would not, in fact, be in on Friday as scheduled.

December Board of Ed laterblog

 Due to the Board changing their meeting to a Friday (they meet on Tuesday) fairly short notice (and this after they cancelled their November meeting at the last minute), I didn't get a chance to watch the meeting live. Here's a blog of meeting as watched afterwards. The agenda is here.

FY23 Joint Revenue hearing LIVEBLOG!

 Welcome to the FY23 budget discussion! 

It's supposed to broadcast here, but it isn't...

Okay, we're in and late...FY22 numbers, that I'm going to pick up later from people who get this stuff in writing

Geoffrey Snyder, Commissioner, Mass Department of Revenue:
forecasting revenue for FY23 to be between $36.484B to $37.684B
That is 2.1% and 2.9% higher than FY22 range
Now we're getting the subsets of where the money is from...
uncertainty about sustainability of trends going forward
significant degree of uncertainty in these forecasts
Rep. Michlewitz: any impact on this from omicron so far?
Snyder: not specifically so far

Sen. Rodrigues introduces Mass Taxpayers' Foundation
"how difficult it has been" to project revenue
like a roller-coaster ride "and I think we have one more loop"
"startling" 15% growth in tax revenue
"in large part" due to federal relief
projecting reverting to slow growth for next year
1.1% in growth for FY23, or revenue of $37.6B
capital gains slowing, they project
sale tax revenue at only 1%; spending on durable goods shifting back to services
inflation rates to slowly decline over the next 18 months
"labor force issues" taking a firmer hold
pandemic has accelerated retirement among baby boomers
MA may be able to offset with "higher productivity per worker"
"highly educated workers tend to be more productive"
(this isn't going to help us with bus drivers)
Access to talent moves to forefront
workforce screening and skill development needed from state
outside factors that impact the forecast: global pandemic and geopolitical risks
stronger and more destructive storms due to climate change
Russia, China, Middle East
Cyber threats
Divisive political climate
failure to pass Build Back Better could slow economic recovery, per Moody's

Alan Clayton-Matthews, Northeastern University
"I have a different outlook"
FY22 $38.301B (12.2% above FY21)
FY23 $40.795B (6.5% over FY22)
federal stimulus has largely achieved its objective of buffering the economy
inflation will be subsiding
corporate profits will continue
assumes strong stock market has and will continue to spur a surge in capital grains
effect of unemployment insurance programs on tax revenues is waning
MA gross state product has been growing in step with U.S. GDP for past several decades, as well as past several years specifically
by 4th Q of FY23, employment is expected to achieve the pre-pandemic peak
after that, difficult to grow further without migration into the state
core inflation expected to wane (doesn't include fuel and food): FY22 3.8% FY23 2.3%
"capital gains realizations are much more predictable than stock prices in the model I use"
"fairly reliable predictions"
(I am going to add photos of the charts in here)

Rodrigues: does this include any consideration of the Build Back Better?
Only extension of the child tax credit "so essentially no"

Michael Goodman, UMass Dartmouth
supply chains, labor supply, and continuing pandemic creating headwinds for economic recovery
third quarter recovery, continuing into fourth quarter, slowing next year
labor market recovery has been constrained, well below our pre-recession employment peak
job market and underlying economy have been pretty strong despite these headwinds
"significant wage growth"
particularly at lower end, and even representing real wage growth, in excess of inflation
people still not returning to labor market, though
"a number of good reasons" for that (chart to put in here)

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta: workers have other options, switching positions

aging of workforce also helps explain our current labor supply woes
high quality childcare very expensive; retirees caring for grandchildren?
all of these things reduce the size of the labor force
prices have been rising rapidly but supply constraints are a big part of the story
energy prices have been driving this, as well as things like new and used cars
"kinks in global supply chain are weighing heavily in our economic outlook"
national survey of CFO's suggest supply chain disruptions are likely to persist for some time
broad and uneven distribution of vaccines tied to economic trajectories: by county, higher vaccination, higher consumer spending, lower unemployment
surge in hospital admissions, but overwhelmingly those who are not vaccinated
do have hospital capacity issues, nonetheless
vaccinations "are not a force field of vulnerability"
six to eight weeks, suspect we'll see an uptick in cases
extending vaccinations and making it easier for venues to make it easier to see who is vaccinated and not so as to ride out the disruptions while having the highest levels of public health
"wind up with a little bit of humility"
chair of Federal Reserve saying that none of us knows where the economy will be in a year or more
inflation, labor supply, supply chain issues

Treasurer Deb Goldberg
long-term all weather portfolio will continue to perform well
Commonwealth's "robust economic base and its prudent fiscal management practices"

Evan Horowitz, Center for State Policy at Tufts
FY23 $36.5B 
unappreciated risks and weaknesses of current situation
"many ways for our economy to stumble" and fewer ways for corrections
more stable revenue streams are only slightly above state benchmarks
high corporate taxes and prepayment
little jump at end of state revenue as a share of GDP 

two paths possible, either fall dramatically or have a more gradual curve down
FY23 more likely to see a reversion in corporate taxes and prepayments
not particularly concerned about runaway inflation or stagflation
"inflation is much higher right now than anticipated"
each of the (more) dollars collected is less valuable
cost of running state government is higher (AND LOCAL AS WELL)
"makes revenue projections less cheering" 
once you account for inflation, projection is actually a decline

Hearing closed

What happened last night at Worcester School Committee

When you wake up at 4:30, thinking you need a blog post…#WorcSchools pic.twitter.com/C34qnL8Ouh

— Tracy O'Connell Novick (@TracyNovick) December 17, 2021

 
The upshot, not in order, of what happened last night at Worcester School Committee (full agenda):

• Superintendent Binienda gave us an update on COVID, of which she said there has been "a great increase" in cases. For the week ending on Wednesday--the state measures from Thursday to Wednesday--there were 197 positive cases among students (up 10), with 33 quarantining (up 16). Among staff, there were 35 positive cases (up 8), with 2 quarantining (down 3). She gave us the test and stay numbers, but I missed one, so let me update that.
  There is a significant amount of contact tracing going on, as a result, which means the school nurses, who make these calls (which, can I just say, is really amazing, because it means that families are being contacted by someone who can actually answer their questions!), are working a LOT of hours. Our director of nursing, Debra McGovern, noted that we were being asked to approve a grant last night--which we did, and reconsidered it, so it can be spent immediately--which increases the dollar amount per hour nurses who are working those extra hours receive. 
  The district is emphasizing that all students need working devices that are going home. THIS DOES NOT MEAN CLASSES ARE GOING REMOTE.
  The superintendent was at pains to note that, per the Commissioner's meeting with superintendents this week, any remote decisions would be done ONLY for classes or schools--not entire districts---where positivity was "more than a half or three quarters" (that's quoting the superintendent) of the students. That would then need to be the recommendation of BOTH DPH AND the Commissioner's COVID group (?), and it would be for no more than eight days.
  PLEASE STOP SPREADING RUMORS ABOUT "ADVANCED APPLICATIONS" FOR REMOTE LEARNING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
  
  
• We took up the report from the City Manager's office on the removal of School Resource Officers from schools and the move to a liaison position (starts on page 113 on the agenda). A few additional notes on the report, which was referred to Finance and Operations for further discussion and updates with the City Council's Education Subcommittee:
     I would say that the Committee in general is supportive of the major change, which is removal of the police from the buildings. Mrs. Clancey rightly noted that the timeline on this--the report coming to the respective public bodies the week of December 13, with removal of the police happening at the end of the calendar year--left questions as to implementation of the plan regarding training and staffing in the buildings. While there was a response that some of that training will happen during January (if I was understanding that correctly), this is concerning.
    Though the liaisons will not be the schools, and this largely moves towards a neighborhood policing model, the liaison positions will still count as "police" in the Worcester Public Schools budget as a city contribution. The--I guess?--positive point here is that this removal doesn't put us any closer to plunging below required net school spending than we already were (remember, we're only $14K over this year, which isn't much of a margin for a budget of any size), but it does mean that, yes, we're still going to be spending $700K+ on police in the schools budget, which I know was something many advocates were hoping was going to be over.
     (This is reminding me that we probably are overdue for an explainer on Net School Spending around here, again. I went on at some length about this during the meeting, because I am beyond exhausted--it's been three city administrations now--of being lectured to about what the schools need to find money for, and how the schools need to be grateful for capital spending, in city where the municipality barely meets the legal requirement for operating costs, in a state where the average is spending a third more than required. In any case...)
     The joint MOU between the police department and the school department we asked to come back to us, in part because this will involve the devotion of resources (which is under our purview). The initial one is due the end of January (I hear some indications that some language already exists) for the next six months, for reconsideration this summer for an update.
     There were four focus groups. In total, those involved 12 students and 4 parents. While those weren't the only ones involved, it's...less than compelling. And, as I noted, having a school safety plan created by the city manager's office left us light on details on the "inside the school building side," which...would seem to be key? Thus this didn't appear to have a lot of voices of those inside our buildings every day.
     I should note that SROs are part of the survey that the student reps are collecting responses on, so that will be useful to have back--in January!--as well.
  
  
• Last night our student reps--Adalise Rivera Lugo of UPCS, in addition to our ex officio Stacia Zoghbi of Tech--updated us on their student survey efforts (Students, if you haven't: take the survey! Check your emails!), their work on a social media policy for the student advisory council, and the Zen Den at Worcester Tech, which is something they'd like to see expanded to more schools.
  
  
• The report out from Finance and Operations--agenda here, remember this includes transportation updates!--sent me down a line of questioning that I want to explain a bit here.
    The first thing to note is that our grants department is currently under the Deputy Superintendent, which is a change from prior administrations. Much of the current committee flagged that as of concern during our budget deliberation, particularly due to the influx of ESSER spending coming to the district, but it remains as it is.
    The ARP special education grant for $1.7M that came before the Committee at the end of October had 18 positions in it. I asked that we send it to subcommittee because it wasn't clear to me how we were going to fund what, from what one could discern from the grant backup, were new positions, once the grant, which would fund then for 18 months, ran out.
     Once it got to subcommittee, it became clear that these were not, mostly, new positions. When we received the September update on the budget, the IDEA grant (the usual one) came back $58K more than was budgeted. All to the good.
     However, between then and the end of October, the funding in IDEA that we as a district can spend fell by $313K, partly due to the money we're required to set aside for private schools, and partly due to a DESE program (that I'd never heard of before) called 3M, which is a required set-aside for turnaround work.
     Thus our federal IDEA grant, which funds the salaries for 192 people in the FY22 budget, was $313K short. 
    The School Committee didn't receive an update on this in the first quarterly report--grants, remember, aren't part of the finance office--so we had no idea that we suddenly had no funding for the salaries for quite a number of employees.
    Those, it turned out--and this we only gathered in subcommittee--is most of what was being carried by this ARP IDEA grant, with the intent once the grant runs out being to pick up the positions in the increased funding through SOA (which I am beginning to think that we are overcommitting, but one thing at a time).
    In any case, I'm not sure that was clear in my line of questions last night, but it's worrying to me to have a drop in revenue that funds positions that we don't know about and have to kind of stumble across.
  
  
• Both ESSER II and III were approved, but remember, there's a lot of scope in there for application (and grants can be amended), so you should please attend our public hearing on ESSER on Monday at 7; that's the agenda with the Zoom link, so please share! 
  
  
• I asked for a report on our access to the Massachusetts Immunization Information System, which is a statewide datebase for, yes, immunizations. I know other districts have been using this access to have up-to-date information on how many of their students are vaccinated; we do have this access, so we're getting a report on how that works and, moving forward, should be able to have those percentages as part of our COVID updates.
  
  
• Mrs. Clancey requested an update on open teaching positions and what is being done to fill them. I hope we get this back soon.
  
  
• We had a boatload of items come back as requests to be filed (that starts on page 59 of the agenda). I did ask to pull a few back out, including the request to put the homeschooling form on the website; we now have the PowerPoint about homeschooling, but not the actual form, and I asked that this be fixed before the end of the calendar year. 
  We also aren't following our own fundraising policy (GBEBD), which requires that all such efforts be approved by principals, first to keep the school moving the same direction, but also, because sometimes (believe it or not!), we can actually pay for things. Also, if the principals don't know, we never hear about it, and we can't fix it. With over 200 projects currently up on Donors Choose from WPS, I'm going to bet that most of them didn't follow this process.
  (And yes, I know this is a pain, teachers. But I also want us to actually fix the problem.)
  The other thing, incidentally, is we're not following is the part that doesn't allow for solicitation among those to whom someone is directly answerable; there should not be solicitation coming from any administrative office, thus, nor should solicitation go from teachers to families in a specific fashion. That section reads: 
  Employees shall not use a crowdfunding source, or set up their appeal in such a way, that they are asking for donations directly from people over whom the employee making the request has authority, or with whom the public employee is having official dealings (such as parents of student's in a teacher's classroom - the solicitation can say "Classroom X needs tissues and crayons," but it shouldn't be directed to parents who have shared email addresses with the teacher for purposes of communicating about their student).
  
  
• We did also honor our outgoing members, and I won't try to summarize that. I do want to note that Mayor Petty had each of the outgoing members chair part of the meeting, which was a very nice gesture. 

Important note: the city inauguration is on January 3 at 5:30 at Mechanics Hall, and the public is MOST welcome!

on WPS capital spending

 The Worcester School Committee just received the following email:

At the School Committee Meeting that was held on Thursday, February 27, 2021, Miss Biancheria made the following motion:

      Request that the Administration provide, in a Friday letter, any updates on the Roosevelt School traffic problems once contracts are signed.

Response from the Administration.

The Worcester Public Schools Five-Year Capital Budget allocated $1 million for the Roosevelt School traffic reconfiguration project from the FY22 allocation (see page 180 of the budget book). However, with the city’s recent purchase of several Becker College properties,  the WPS is expected to fund the purchase of the Weller Academic Building through a reduction of its capital budget allocation.      Since the acquisition of Becker College properties was not included in the district’s five-year capital plan, the district must defer $3.5 million of projects listed on the five-year plan to a later date.   The WPS Administration is working with the City of Worcester Administration to shift project funding and develop a longer-term collaborative capital funding strategy.  The district will evaluate the Roosevelt School parking lot funding plan as part of these adjustments. 

The entirety of the Worcester Public Schools' capital budget is $3.5M each year, as follows from page 192 of our budget: 

Effectively then, the capital budget of the Worcester Public Schools is being zeroed out for an entire year to purchase buildings on which the Worcester School Committee was not consulted and had no say in.

What will be postponed? Start with page 188. The memo says that it is the five year plan, so it won't necessarily be this year's plans. 

How much has Massachusetts really been trying on school funding?

This year's Shanker Institute report on the adequacy and fairness of school funding, which uses 2019 data, gives a stark picture of where we have been in Massachusetts. 

2019, of course, is when, in November, we FINALLY got a revision to the state formula, one-sixth (mostly) of which was FINALLY implemented this current fiscal year.

The work of Bruce D. Baker of Rutgers University), Matthew Di Carlo and Kayla Reist of the Shanker Institute, and Mark Weber, also at Rutgers University, the report looks at effort, progressivity, and adequacy; that is: how much are states actually trying in using the fiscal resources they have for schools, and do they make sure poor kids are getting more resources, and are districts getting enough money to get to outcomes needed.

And we don't look so hot, Massachusetts. 

First of all, given what we have in Massachusetts, we really aren't trying all that hard on funding schools. Check where we are on the map: 
 

If you take a look at the state level detail, it's honestly kind of even worse: our effort level ranks #43 in the nation (out of 49). There's a headline you're probably not going to see in the Globe. 
A few other stats from that state profile on effort: 

• In FY 2019, total direct state and local K-12 spending in MA was equivalent to 2.84% of the state’s economic capacity (GSP).
• This was 0.61 percentage points lower than the unweighted national average of 3.45%.

In other words, most other states try harder than we do to fund public education. 

While the state effort had increased prior to the recession, there was a decrease of 0.42 percentage points in MA's effort during the “K-12 recovery” period of 2012-2019.
In other words, recently, we've been going backwards.

Okay, but what about adequacy? Surely we are giving enough?

(That sound you hear is the hollow laughter of Gateway cities, among others.)
I'd argue that we already know the answer to this: 2019, which is the same year being compared here, is also when the statewide average spending over foundation--over what the Mass General Law itself calls an "adequate minimum"--was 31%. In other words, towns and cities (because remember, that addition is always local funds!) decided on their own that a third more money was called for than was required.
On this one, Massachusetts does better: a actual per-pupil (PP) spending in each state to cost model

estimates of the amount required to achieve U.S. average test scores shows Massachusetts as $997 above that amount, which places us tenth.
...I think that most of us think that we should be doing more than aiming for average U.S. test scores.

On progressivity, the news again is grim: 

Oh look: Massachusetts is a red state.

This measures "the degree to which states provide greater resources to districts serving higher-need students." This, remember, is the entire point of the foundation budget. And how have we been doing at the state level? 

• School funding in MA is regressive.
• Higher-poverty (30%) districts receive 16.2% less revenue than zero-poverty districts.
• This level of progressivity ranks #42 in the nation (out of 49).

42 and 43...leading the nation, indeed. Check out the chart: 

We've been falling since 2010, dropped below the nation in 2017, and plunged straight into regressive territory in 2019.

Now again, let me note: this is 2019 numbers. This is pre-Student Opportunity Act, and much of this is what the SOA is intended to deal with.

It should, however, be a statewide scandal that Massachusetts, which claims education as what we do and what we're about, has been doing so very very poorly on these measures. It should be in headlines, it should be active discussion in the Legislature, and the Board of Ed should be outraged that the state has let it fall so far. 

This also absolutely should be part of the story we tell about our districts: this is a Constitutional responsibility of the state, that the state has not fulfilled and has let fall to towns and cities, that the Supreme Judicial Court said in 1993 was not their issue alone. And yet it has been left to them, some of which we know, again by the SJC decision, are unable to fulfill it. 

No discussion of Lawrence or of Holyoke or of Southbridge, for certain, but also no discussion of Worcester or Fall River or Pittsfield should ever be conducted without reference to this. The state has failed students in those districts, make no mistake. 

Coming up!

 The Worcester School Committee does not have any meetings this week, but I did want to share this one right away: We're holding a hearing on ESSER spending--that's the federal pandemic grant--on Monday, December 20 at 7pm. It will be virtual.

December 2 meeting

What happened at our December 2 meeting:

• We once again had a thoughtful and insightful report from our student rep ex officio Stacio Zoghbi and South High rep Shelley Duodu. Our student reps are in the midst of collating data from student surveys (if you're a student and haven't yet taken it, please do!), but they did share two concerns that have come to the fore. The first is COVID, and in particular, student concerns that masking isn't being enforced at schools.
  The second was mental health, and I want to quote here part of what they said: 
  

  For those of us who do make it to graduation day, we spend 14 years of our lives in and out of school houses, growing, learning, and hopefully thriving. Yet, for a myriad of reasons and pressures, these places of learning and development are becoming places students dread arriving at. 

  This is not okay. I asked at our last meeting for an URGENT report on student disregulation, and it seems every day we see further evidence of how far afield we are on this issue.
  

• While we did not have a formal report of the superintendent, we did have an update from Superintendent Binienda at the request of Mayor Petty on COVID. DESE met with superintendents earlier this week; they expect an increase in cases between now and the first week of January. That was all that was shared; I don't know if they left it there or have more about it.
  The Committee was asked to vote to extend test and stay to Worcester Public School students who are considered close contacts at an after school program approved by Early Childhood Ed. It is very specifically ONLY that. We did vote all approval.
  We also heard this week's COVID numbers--those are updated on the website here--which is 140 students and 28 staff.
  We requested an update on where we are with vaccinations of students; I'll share that once we get it.

• Mrs. Clancey shared the report from Governance, after which Mr. Monfredo attempted to get passed the original item that had been rejected in subcommittee, a contract that the district would require of all families that would hold them responsible for $300 for a lost or broken Chromebook, $30 for a missing cord, and so forth. This was not moved forward from subcommittee. The subcommittee report moved the financial impact question to Finance and Operations, but did not move the superintendent's recommendation on creating a contract forward, noting that it was covered by our current policies.
  We, the district, have chosen to require these devices for students; students are required to have them; families cannot refuse them, even the three-quarters of our families who are low income.
  The superintendent argued that "kids don't take care of them," and that "we have to instill in kids that they have to take care of them." She said that we were more like a 1 to 3 district; this was later in the discussion contradicted: we are short more like a thousand now, which makes us close to one to one. We also expect to have orders coming in next week.
  If you're interested in watching the discussion, the report starts about 28 minutes into the meeting and goes from there. Mr. Foley noted that talking about about "malicious destruction" is loaded language, and that we have a responsibility as a district, as a one to one district now, to figure out how to make the funding work. Ms. McCullough called attention to the part of the student handbook that includes technology; it was decided that updating that language would be discussed in Governance at the next update. Miss Biancheria strongly noted the burden this requirement would impose on families, speaking of our students getting free breakfast and lunch for a reason, and rejected this as a family's responsibility.
  During the discussion, part of what we discovered was that some--certainly not all, but some--of the Chromebook shortage is artificial; when the new South High opened with Chromebook carts, students there were told that they could simply leave their Chromebooks at home for homework, and use the new ones for schoolwork, all while at least hundreds of other students across the district didn't have Chromebooks at all. The motion which was made on this--which passed, 5-2, Biancheria and Monfredo opposed--was to distribute the resources we currently have to our students as soon as possible. 
  The report of the Governance committee was accepted as presented.
  Later note: If you read the T&G on this, and you can't make the math work from what is said, that is because the math doesn't work: 500 Chromebooks times $300 each doesn't equal a million dollars (it's $150,000), nor does $1 million equal ten teachers, as we don't pay teachers $100,000 each. 

• Annually, the district officially counts our enrollment, and you can find our report for this October 1 on pages 36 to 39 of our agenda. This was sent to Finance and Operations for further discussion, for two reasons: 
  1. this is the best look the School Committee has at how many students are where and how that is changing. This has, of course, facilities implications.
  2. our enrollment is our budget determiner! We are down 250 students from last year. That's a $3.7M loss, per Mr. Allen. Note, further, that because our enrollment did not go back up this year, the $9.7M of ESSER funding that we used as hold harmless funding last year now needs to be...something. Considered? Thus we're starting the FY23 budget deliberation--welcome to the FY23 budget deliberation, by the way!--short $13.4M.
  It's worth noting that we have students who have joined the district since the October 1 count; the Mayor asked for a report on that. As those students are ours but are not yet counted, there was also a motion to bring this to the attention of our state and federal delegation
  

• Mr. Monfredo's item on cursive was sent to Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports.

• Ms. McCullough's item on considering "the use of Fountas and Pinnell Literacy Program in light of recent data" also went to Teaching, Learning, and Student Supports.

• Ms. McCullough's two athletic items went to the respective committees: coach salaries to negotiations and the athletic budget item to budget

• And Mayor Petty announced his appointment of the superintendent search committee, which will conduct the preliminary interviews for superintendent. They are:

Kola Akindele  

Jennifer Davis Carey 

Alex Corrales  

Patty Eppinger  

Lisa Houlihan  

Jermoh Kamara – after being sworn in. 

Laura Maloney 

Roger Nugent  

Joe O’Brien 

Hilda Ramirez 

Laurie Ross, Ph.D. 

Kimberly Salmon 

Ahn Vu Sawyer 

Kay Seale 

Ivonne Perez

Fred Taylor 

Alex Zequeira 

Stacia Zoghbi