Tuesday, May 30, 2023

The Worcester Public Schools before Council for FY24

 with a reminder of all of this

While we listen to the Fire Department, here are the images that I posted this afternoon on Instagram! 





And the presentation that the superintendent will be presenting is here. 

I'm not taking any notes on this, but here's a note you'll need:

"how can we work together as a city...to go to the state and say 'we want to find a solution that can work' and we need to do this together to find something that can work."

Colorio: asks what enrollment is
"it looks like we haven't been at 24,318 in over a decade"
argues that the numbers don't bear out an enrollment increase; which Allen notes our forecasting does
Colorio: how many new teachers? 75
How many new administrators? "the net increase is five"
Colorio: can you run down recent investments we've made in the schools in various areas?
McGourthy: don't necessarily have a comprehensive list
with that, the city carries debt; $15M capital debt service
(as a reminder, that is three cents of every dollar)
Colorio asks where the teachers are going

Russell: task hanging over the whole city's head
as well as the day to day operations, "from what I can see she's doing a great job"
"but that being said, it's not secret that I've been advocating for things for district 3 for a long time"
"I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not trying to micromanage anything" in city government 
"relaying concerns" from neighborhood
"but the question is where do we go...the question is could we doing something on a temporary basis"
"how many times do we look at a Parks Department construction...and get on a path to where we can correct these items"
going to request a detail report about traffic concerns 
has asked the principal, Mr. Allen, Mr. Hacker...for what it's going to take to rectify the traffic and parking around Roosevelt and Burncoat
Details around where the $3.5M would go
"and if that's the case, that's the case..."
"is there anything we can do on temporary basis"
asks if there is anything in the budget addressing these issues
Allen: looking at different options that wouldn't be those in the full ideal solution for the school
Russell: is there anything temporary thing, leasing spaces
Allen: can certainly look at that: believe the issue is the traffic loop and not the parking per se
Russell: elevate issues, look at options
"if we're going to put a number in multi-millions in the parking issue, it's probably not going to see the top of the pile"
Worcester East Middle School: how are we going with that?
Allen: cost of window replacement is for any window deemed to be inoperable
"where we will have funding struggles is where the project cost will trigger ADA upgrades"
Russell: how much is it?
Allen: will know when it fills that Gap
Russell: have you considered applying for a waver?
Allen: has been discussed
Russell: is the district going to spend the money on something else
Allen: the district is committed to doing the windows at Worcester East Middle
Russell: have there been specific asks?
Monárrez: have to come together and look at all of our needs
Look at enrollment changes 
"need to work closer with each other on all of the work"
"We need to have a strategy to ask our state to have other ways of funding districts as large as Worcester"
"a building will get to a point where the MSBA won't consider an accelerate repair" for a building because it is too run down 
Allen: "MSBA has told us that Worcester East Middle is a core replacement"
Monárrez: funds one core project at a time
Russell: "I agree with the superintendent, it's clearly something we need to work together on"
"what generation are we going to be talking about when we're building a new East Middle School"
and apply that to several others
Petty: seven millions sitting there...asks what one million in bonding gets us
I have no idea what he's talking about here
McGourthy: one million gets us ten million
Petty: I think working together we can get through this

Toomey: thanks superintendent
had a thought to use Stop and Shop parking lots which would mean even more students would walk across the street
safety audit: wondering when the Council will see them
Monárrez: once received, it will be shared with the School Committee, which will then make it public
"perhaps available at our July meeting or August"
Toomey: asking about fire alarm replacement and cameras (she's reading the capital budget)
Allen: those have been ongoing projects that we've been dealing with as they come up
expect these and others to be addressed in the findings
training, policies, practices, protocols
Toomey: repairs to Claremont front entrance
paving...could you let us know what that entails
Allen: Claremont walkway and driveway has been unusable for some years; has taken this long to get into the capital budget
Toomey: notice that fuel oil is going down due to 
Allen: still working through RFP process
Toomey: there's an increase in rent and quizzes both
understand that there is a dedicated gas station and how does funding work
Allen: Pullman Street, gas comes through the city
Toomey: are you using municipal aggregation?
Allen: have net metering credits; will defer to the ctiy
Toomey: can I get a detailed list of administrators and salaries?
Petty doesn't vote the request

Rivera: excited to see an increase of wraparound coordinators
overdue to look at a building maintenance plan
"what might have needed a bandaid needs surgery...it's really an equity issue"
concerned to see UPCS roof as late a date as that
Allen: most of the projects before this were windows, and now are roofs
"have to do bandaids until they get accepted into MSBA" (assuming they bring the program back)
Rivera: are we looking at growth for schools?
new housing by Canterbury, by Chandler
are we prepared, are we looking for the growth of children coming into these schools?
Monárrez: exactly what City Manager and I have spoken about a few times
housing development we know about, what is coming, so we're not waiting til our schools are bursting
Rivera: UPCS not equipped for any type of physical limitations
also concerned about our playgrounds: getting outdoors
hard if in the schools we don't even have that capability
Woodland has to take turns going out; "definitely a huge equity issue"
Allen: working with some community organizations to look at Woodland
the challenge there is the lack of space beyond what is on the footprint
the parking lot but creates traffic and parking issues
don't have a solution at this time
Rivera: these things weren't looked at when these spaces were created
vocational education: hope to shift it
shortage in the workforce
questions equity in AP access at Claremont and UPCS
have there been conversations with other colleges like Clark does
Monárrez: continuum of college and career a position now
formalizing some of these agreements that have been happening, now from district level
Rivera: work on diversity, equity, and inclusion
refugee population, including unaccompanied minors
speaks of a family that had a disheartening experience with a school
have seen labels put on our kids
"under the right administration, these kids just fly"
Monárrez: thank for sharing story
as part of the restructuring this school year, based on what the families said and best practice
hired directors of family and community engagement
very early on in conversation: what is WPS going to do for the needs for social justice
"will continue to train up people"
Chief Diversity Officer was to diversify workforce; moving forward, position has been reworked but will as Chief Equity Officer will be "guardian of equity" ensuring leading though an equity lens
training up leaders including on unconscious biases
equity doesn't sit with one person

King: last comments are music to my ears
talk a little bit about any cost savings that were realized
has cost savings on transporation been quantified?
Allen: about 3 and a half million a year
some put back into transportation for service improvements
King: families having piece of mind
looking forward to you guys being able to experience that
daughter at Chandler Magnet
wondering if there is any cost savings due to La Familia merging into Chandler Mag
Allen: saving the lease cost and the cost of a principal (if looked at in isolation)
King: ADA upgrades 
issue of equity: support Fair Share amendment 
"is there any sort of calculus going on or strategy currently in play for the cityside and schoolside to work on access to that funding?"
Batista: currently no strategy, but that would be a conversation 
King: have heard a little about capital funding, increases of SOA, ESSER, city contribution increase
"incumbent upon us...there are times we have to intersect to advocate for our kids"
what sort of staffing and costs will there be for the Chief Diversity Officer?
Monárrez: there right now are budgeted for four additional coaches, $350K
King: want to talk about administrative positions
outside of schools, we know waitlists for clinical resources
good to see nurses, psychologists
those infrastructure, coping positions, impact the public health outside
"that comes from this administration and the School Committee"
Worcester Tech "had become a prep school": concern about equity of access
Rec Worcester: school side took on some of that, as I recall
what that amount is
McGourthy: WPS provided support for Rec Worcester programs going on in their buildings
believe that is the number that is carried within the WPS budget itself
during the pandemic, that changed
Allen: on school side, it was $100, 000; now not allocating funds
King: not sure what happened with earmarks
Batista: trying to sustain and support what we were currently doing
expanded too fast without the structure in place to support it
King: expect some sort of intersection next school year
Batista: currently focusing on summer; next year would be part of conversation with superintendent and youth office
King: safety audit
asks what happened with prior safety audit a couple of years ago
Allen: the recommendations were not adopted
one of the reasons that we needed to reengage at this point
King: push for clinical support
Monárrez: four different providers in schools
ESSER funding; then SOA will come into play
King: resources for mental health for youth in community
Batista: ARPA dollars
million dollars for crisis response team
Shannon dollars for preventative measures and intervention work
think Rec Worcester itself is such a program
King: how many dollars are we providing over required, if you take into account the loan, OPEB contribution...(this isn't a thing)
is there a round number you can give me 
McGourthy: FY24: $124M; city is contributing $138M; debt service of $15M; doesn't include OPEB contribution
"there's not one clean number...when you look at it
"upwards of $30M above the required contribution...but because of the required contribution, that is expected to be $1.5M above required"
King: former city manager would decide a certain number of dollars over net school spending "and he would hang his hat on that"
Batista: am familiar, $1M, depending on resources
King: free cash, have in past given funding "for books" (when? what?)
When was the last time?
Batista: just done in October
King: once that goes over, the School Committee figures out what to do with that?
Batista: that's correct
King: kudos on middle school coaches
city has a lot of competing issues
appreciate joint committee last Monday; looking forward how we can all do better together
"I think Roosevelt is unique"

Petty: long night, where the issues are
"especially for the city to put more money into schools"
commend superintendent for the infrastructure you've put into place

account passes






“But he hasn’t got anything on,” a little child said.*


I generally gauge how the Board of Ed meeting went by how relieved I am that we have strong local control laws in Massachusetts. And last week, boy howdy, was I glad that we have school committees working with superintendents in Massachusetts.

As I have thought back on it, it isn't, in retrospect, solely the irresponsible decision to devote Board of Ed time--and a promise of state funding--on student cell phone bans the day after an entire high school fled their building due to an active shooting swatting incident (which turned into an actual gunfire incident after a police officer fired his gun in a school bathroom accidentally; that officer remains actively working for the Danvers Police Department), a panel discussion which had zero discussion of responsibilities we have to students in teaching them to manage their time and attention, nor of the current realities of education in the United States, nor of looking to the future of work for our students. 

That was inane and not supported by research and part of a very long tradition of education always being freaked out by whatever the latest thing is--look up educators responses to paper, or store bought ink, the ballpoint pen, or even computers sometime--but while that was an indicator how troublingly out of touch the Commissioner is, it was another section that is even more worrisome. 

About 3 hours and 35 minutes in (video's here), you can watch a presentation (which isn't posted) and then discussion (I guess?) on what's being termed the Department's "Educational Vision."

Let me start from me on this: as someone who taught and as someone who now is in public office, I really think that it's important to explain things in ways that people can follow and understand. This presentation, as with the presentations I've seen associated with this work, is very lingo-driven and very difficult to follow. This is not a public-driven or -derived group of work.

I also think it's just wild that a state department is just out here...making up what their vision is, without reintegrating that to the state? or the Constitution? Or founding documentation?

I had thought it was odd when this vision work had been mentioned in passing at earlier meetings that there had been no mention of outreach: no one seemed to be going to listen to people about what they thought maybe the vision or direction of the Department ought to be. It's easy enough to be make quips about this, but it turns out it was because...
The PowerPoint isn't online, so you're getting photos

...it's using what they came up with in 2019...
I am struggling to put into words how stunning it was thought that this was the place to start, or even move from. We're not going to ask if we're in a different place; we're not going to ask if we have things to learn from the pandemic; we're not going to ask if this means we need new priorities...we're just starting from this.

Now we're told that this then went through the Department's Racial Equity Decision Making Tool, which the Department appears to reference in a very on again off again fashion (put the charter school creation through this):


Somehow, this says this involved public input. Please let me know if that involved you, or if you even heard of it. 
That somehow then yielded this:


In essence what then has been done is that the Department took all 400+ of their programs and organized them under these themes, as best as I can tell. 

So rather than consider if what the Department is doing aligns with the above, it took what it had and sorted them.

The Board discussion then...did not involve or relate any of the above.

So, look: I am one person, who happens to serve on a school committee in Massachusetts, and who follows Board work quite closely. If I don't understand or follow and struggle to believe that this is what the Department should be doing, where are we, exactly?




*The Emperor's New Clothes, Hans Christian Anderson

Monday, May 29, 2023

And so to Council

 

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.
MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34

While I haven't said anything about the recommended FY24 WPS budget this year--I think perhaps the longer I do this, the more leery I get about pre-deliberation--I do want to note a few things as the bottom line of the WPS budget is before the Worcester City Council tomorrow.

We’re now told: after graduation. 7? Maybe? 

The total appropriation for the FY24 WPS general fund (no grants, no revolving funds) recommended for adoption is $467,693,121. Of that, $129,215,192 is recommended to come from the city. 

from page 14 of the FY24 WPS budget

Thus of the increase, 90% of it comes from the state.

Should that be what is adopted, that would put the city at $1.4M over the minimum required spending. 

You can find that on page 418, by the way, which is always one of the first places I check with our budget. That outlines actual municipal spending on schools, including the cityside spending that "counts" as school spending. It looks like this for FY24:


That right there, plus the schools' capital budget as I mentioned yesterday, is really the only thing the Council has any purview to discuss tomorrow. They cannot, as MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34 notes, control in any way the allocations internal to the school budget; that is entirely under the purview of the School Committee.

Sunday, May 28, 2023

Equity in funding school buildings

 taking off a bit here from a morning Twitter thread

The Boston Globe's piece this weekend on the Massachusetts School Building Authority features this grabber quote:

Districts with a majority white student population got about $10,000 per student for school projects, the Globe found, while districts made up mostly of students of color got about $6,400 per student.

That's terrible, right? The Globe, though, only quickly glances at why ("students of color, who tend to be clustered in urban districts with deteriorating buildings") in the previous sentence, and it's really a major part of the story.

A district can only put forward one major renovation/rebuild project to the Massachusetts School Building Authority at at time. This is in the spirit of fairness, but it also is out of a concern for any municipality or district's ability to both fund and manage more than one such thing at a time. There have been exceptions made: most notably perhaps, Worcester has had buildings under construction when a new project entered, as the MSBA was assured that the city could fund and manage more than one. 

Most students of color in Massachusetts are concentrated in 20 or so of the largest urban districts in the state. As those are large districts, they have more school buildings. They still can only apply for one project at a time on it. 

There are also many, many more school districts that are not the cities: there are about 314 school districts in Massachusetts.

As the practice is every district can have one at a time, the "one at a time" necessarily is going to hit many more white kids than kids of color, by virtue of where each tend to go to school.

Noting that, though, would mean we'd have to talk about how most kids of color are concentrated in a limited number of districts--districts that also have been historically underfunded--which also have more buildings.

The demographics on this are stark, with wild swings in demography when crossing city lines. I always recommend people pull open DESE's district profile page and compare any city to the surrounding suburbs.

That segregation--and that's exactly what it is!--doesn't happen accidentally. It also doesn't change unless and until we choose to do something about it. 

About process

'Can't argue with the truth, sir.' 
'In my experience, Vimes, you can argue with anything.
Terry Pratchett, Jingo  

One of the first challenges when you move to a new place is learning how things work: who has what authority; who gets to decide what to do what; and how are those decisions made.

In my own life, it was the state's proposal to plow an airport access road through my own neighborhood at the time that sent me into learning, rapidly, how things work. Issues since then--most notably the proposal to put a slots parlor into Green Island--have been further opportunities for learning.

The same thing is true when one joins a public body: how does one get things done? What is the process? Where are the levels? And what are the things over which your public body has control and does not.
And so one learns about filing items, having subcommittee meetings with public discussions with extensive reports from administration, making decisions in public meetings within the purview of that public body.

And then we have a week like the past one...

Tuesday, May 23, 2023

May Board of Ed: Holyoke

 Soto: started with a listening tour
"students are at the center of everything we do"
just went through a rezoning model: elementary, middle, high schools
a lot of lifting learning profile to support high expectations
strategic planning process focus on five things: early literacy, learning experiences, inclusion, whole child, educator development 

opportunity academies: working on dropout rate

advanced coursework now more closely mirroring demographics of district

continuous improvement cycle: evaluate and analyze; develop and plan; feedback; refine and plan

"now that we finally have the Student Opportunity Act"

challenges: staffing consistency and vacancies; mental health needs for students; more developed multi-tiered system of supports; more students needing out of district placements

"Junto Podemos" Together we can

May Board of Ed: early literacy

 there is a bit of a background here

responding to Craven's question, Riley says "evidence-based literacy" is what he is using as "science of reading has become politicized"
only 44% of MA third graders met or exceeded expectations on ELA last year
Mass Literacy Initiative 
Mass Literacy Guide "hopefully it's bookmarked on your browser" 
"most up to date information on" literacy
CURATE reports on curricula 
Appleseeds "DESE's own curriculum for reading foundational skills"
grants: targeted grants for screening assessments; GLEAM grant; accelerating literacy learning
educator preparation: beginning in 2024, programs will be evaluated on literacy-specific preparation
opt-in formative reviews now
rising use of high quality instructional materials
strong interest in grants/PD/resources
"seeing improved student achievement within DESE's intensive support programs"
(which...wouldn't be MCAS? As yet? or at all?)

in response to a Q from Moriarty: “We do not know exactly which curricular materials are used in every school and district statewide”

Craven: how do we incentivize adoption of these curricula by superintendents and school committees?
Johnston: working with superintendents, MASS

Craven: is it important to educate school committees on this, since they select curriculum?
Johnston: we have reached out to MASC as well

Moriarty: when I came here, "I can't say that this was a loved institution"
and then he told a story which involved his pronouncing "Quinsigamond"


Moriarty: whenever you bump into a "potential champion" on school boards, encourage them

West: important for the Department and the Board to not be speaking with mixed messages
could Board go on record opposing Reading Recovery, which generally has an earmark

now an ongoing back and forth about Board authority

Craven: Moriarty and I have had a back and forth about "why haven't we mandated"
Moriarty (without being recognized): that would be a moving target
"I do question why it is okay to ignore a deep level of technical assistance we provide to our districts
Lombos: want to be sure the people that are on the ground
"we have a solution that we want to propose and it's a bottom up process"
it is not, of course, a bottom up process if it is being proposed by the Board or the state

Rouhanifard asks if it is being adopted by the traditionally lower performing districts that have or haven't adopted
Moriarty notes that one cannot simply drop a curriculum on a teachers' desk

Stewart says it's perhaps the higher performing districts that may be more reluctant to adopt; kids come in reading

West: even more important there, as it's the high performing districts "where the norms for good practice come from"
(WHAT?)

I didn't write all of this down as this is so far 

May Board of Ed: early college

 there is a backup here
established in 2018/19 school year
now 48 designated programs; 58 high schools
projecting 8200 students across the state
early college students succeed in college at a higher rate despite earlier academic levels
they're now listing the new ones which is a lot but mind-numbing to listen to
grants from DESE using ESSER funds

...what we aren't getting: any data on outcomes. or intakes

There are zero statistics being offered of who is in these programs, what the demographics are, and what is happening to the students who graduate from them.

But we're expanding like topsy. 

Canavan: ESSER going away: any plans?
A:Yes; notes legislature has been generous (but those are also grants)
West: what are the cost?
A; five year cycle grant
plus $180/credit (which we know isn't enough)
Have estimated $1000 a year for students 
Moriarty: outcomes, look forward when work is done
think first or second cohort have had a chance to earn a bachelor
A; third year of college for first cohort
Moriarty: impact on families
A: looking ahead, data to analyze
Moriarty: talk about onramping
A: students go through MCAP (?), provide tutoring for students
"My College and Career Academic Plan"
Rouhanifard: how many whole school models?
A: Five?
also larger high schools may have both two and four year partners
Rouhanifard: what does a typical day look like?
A: autonomy in making it work for the high school
Scheduling is a major stepping stone
built-in time for transportation is a requirement
huge variency
academic supports built into college coursework over course of week
Moriarty: thinks of his work on this "as happy time"
"Good stuff without the bad stuff"
"complex but sort of simple"
"it's almost inspiring...the way government is supposed to be working"

Craven asks Tutwiler for thoughts: "We go as far and as wide as we can"

May Board of Ed meeting: opening comments

 The agenda is online here.

Public comment:
on proposed vision: "DESE does not value the beyond"
(this is on gifted and talented, as every month)

TECCA superintendent: request for remote MCAS was refused
requesting the contract with MCAS and requesting a review
he also wants this on the June agenda

Hills: update on Commissioner's evaluation
"going to get a self-evaluation from the Commissioner"
Then will reach out to each Board member
then will have a draft to discuss

Tutwiler: Senate has released its budget "which we're really excited about"
mental health awareness month: proposed $1M increase for mental health screening

Riley: busy several weeks traveling around the state
recognitions of the teachers 
Boston: reporting on four areas: safety, special ed, transportation, data
working on a more detailed plan
"we'll be looking on next year as a bellwether year"
Craven: what progress has been made?
Riley: progress being made not only in assessment but in the beginning of the planning
"Obviously, the Boston administration came before us and said they have this. We'll know in the fall."

Tuesday, May 16, 2023

To read this week

 Here's a few longer pieces that I'd recommend this week: 

  • Jennifer Berkshire and Jack Schneider on the Democrats needing to come back to/up with the why of public education in New Republic
     "Winning education back means reminding Americans of everything that schools can be."

  • Golly gee, maybe money matters for schools after all! Yes, we've known this for quite awhile, but that One Guy who has been arguing for years that it didn't is coming out with a review of research showing that, um, maybe he was wrong.
    Twitter has been appropriately scathing:  

  • Texas schools are saying enough already with tying school "safety" funding to equipment and not funding mental health. 

  • School avoidance (which isn't "becoming" a mental health crisis, but more IS a mental health issue) appears to be growing across the country (or at least more schools and families are talking about it).

  • And I am ongoingly appreciative of being represented by Rep. McGovern in Congress; his work on the House floor and this piece both against book bans is just one reason why.

Monday, May 15, 2023

Let's look at Senate budget amendments!

The state senate takes up budget deliberation this week, and the amendments that they are considering are posted online.

Please consider this my annual appreciation that the Senate sorts budget amendments by topic. 

Let's look at the amendment proposals that would impact more than one district. (You're on your own on earmarks; I loathe them!)

589 and 590: I'm actually pretty sure Senator Tarr understands why minimum per pupil increases are not great public policy, BUT he also is concerned about year over year increases by district, so he has filed both an $80/pupil and a $100/pupil increase (as he often does).

591: Senator Tarr with 95% regional transportation reimbursement

592: Senators Cronin and Tarr adding $750K for Reach Out and Read

593: Senator Moore doubling the line for hate crimes

594: Senator Moore bringing Mass Academy's line back up to $2M (as it was in the Governor's budget)

596: Senator Moore on a study on access to vocational programming

600: Senator Brownsburger on special ed: doubling the pothole account (to $500K) and correspondingly bumping the bottom line of circuit breaker to $504M

601: Senator Moore EXEMPTING MSBA from the (Senate) cap of $1.2B

602: Senator Moore ADDING $75,000,000 for MSBA Accelerated Repair

603: Senator Gomez adding $100K to the AP Stem account

606: Senator Gomez with a "Whole Child Grant Program" of $50M that would be used for librarians, nurses, school counselors (of various kinds), a community school program, professional development, and/or diversifying the workforce. This deserves its own post.

606: Senator O'Connor requiring DESE to require new teachers be trained in "all approved programs for teachers include instruction on the appropriate use of augmentative and alternative communication and other assistive technologies"

609: Senator O'Connor also making the minimum per pupil $100

611: Senator Tarr with $10M in one time foundation assistance for communities with large jumps in local contributions

614: Senator Gobi putting regional transportation at $107M

622: Senator Feeny wanting $100K for a history day

623: Senator O'Connor wanting a foundation budget review commission every two years with the next report coming next June

624: Senator Tarr wanting a study on the delivery of special education services

625: Senator O'Connor adding $250K for economic literacy PD

627: Senator Tarr wanting a study on controlling transportation costs, including "the facilitation and authorization of purchasing collaboratives for school transportation"

628: Senator Barrett with $1.45M for military mitigation

636: Senator Timilty, continuing the regional transportation bidding war, goes for $110M

638: Senator Lewis wanting a study on nutritional standards in schools

645: Senator Crighton adding about $400K to after and out of school

647: Senator Feingold including language for bonding for school buildings under MSBA not counting towards the levy limit

648: Senator Tarr adding science labs to the green energy grant

649: Senator Tarr adding $2M to a social emotional grant (that's currently $6M)

651: Senator Rausch adding another $1M to the civics trust fund (at $1.5M as proposed)

653: Senator Rausch creating a reserve fund of $50M for increasing paraprofessional wages by vote of both the school committee and the municipality to a living wage as calculated by the MIT calculator

657: Senator Collins added $500K for the JFK Museum

662: Senator Collins adding $1.5M for school to career connecting activities 

669: Senator Lovely adding $10M in extraordinary relief for local required funding increases

698: Senator Payano adding $50 per student to the charter school reimbursement 

700: Senator Tarr wanting a study on minimum aid districts

703: Senator Miranda bumping METCO to $32M

705: Senator Finegold wanting to add $100M for projects that haven't been invited to the MSBA program through a DESE-administered program

715: Senator Feeney adding $3B (I checked the zeros twice) specifically for vocational education construction projects

721: Senator DiDomenico adding $1.1M for safe and supportive schools

723: Senator Rush adding a grant of $375K for hands-only CPR

744: Senator Oliveira also wanting $100 per pupil minimum

748: Senator Jehlen increasing the $550K for MCIEA to $750K

749: Senator Oliveira wanting a study of special education costs


FY24 in Worcester

 No analysis here, just sharing information:

The City Manager's recommended FY24 City of Worcester budget can be found online here. The Council will take it up, department by department, while meeting in Budget Committee (a committee of the whole, aka all of them) at 4:30 starting tomorrow (May 16). I have shared the preliminary schedule--sometimes things get shifted--here. The Worcester Public Schools' bottom line will be deliberated on May 30 at 4:30 (before police and fire). 

The Worcester Public Schools' proposed FY24 budget can be found online here. As required by law, the Worcester School Committee will have a public hearing on the budget on May 24 at 6 pm (at City Hall). The Worcester School Committee will deliberate and approve, cost center by cost center, on June 1 and June 15, in budget sessions beginning at 4:30. 



Thursday, May 11, 2023

DESE shared more finance data and this is VERY EXCITING!

While I was doing my periodic check of what DESE is sharing on school finance, I discovered that DESE has added to their shared resources a compilation of Net School Spending dating back to 1993, for the state and for districts. 

How fun! 

As a reminder, there are two reasons why your required net school spending could be more than 100%:

  • your community spent less than the required net school spending the prior year. That amount then gets added to the next fiscal year.
  • your district would be receiving less state funding through chapter 70 than it received in the prior fiscal year, so the state ensures you get the same amount of aid as you received the prior year--hold harmless--and a bit more (now it is $30/pupil minimum in the SOA; it has varied by year otherwise)

I took the statewide required net school spending back to the creation of the foundation budget in 1993 and put it in its own graph:


The first few years of education reform, the state was phasing in the foundation budget over a series of years, scaling up to requiring the 100% of the new foundation level of spending for 2000.

Over those next few years, you can see required net school spending running quickly up over the 100% of foundation due to the above. The Great Recession then socked revenue in 2007, with the federal government pushing funding out to bring school spending back up. 

What I found particularly interesting is the past handful of years, as we see SOA implementation coming in, which pulls enough districts out of hold harmless that you can actually see the state percentage begin to come back down. Those districts are getting real increases, rather than minimum increases, because the foundation budget has increased so much over these past few years. That means they're getting state funding that gets them closer to and then at their foundation budget, but those increases are foundation increases (much more significant funding) rather than minimum increases.
And that migration of districts out of hold harmless will continue will continue.

When you then look at actual spending, we of course know that for years, districts spent well in excess of required minimum spending due to districts finding that the foundation budget wasn't meeting actual needs. While the first few years here above 100%--see above--are due to districts catching up, districts then sustain above minimum, even during the Great Recession.

But look what just started happening recently!


Here's the thing: THIS IS GOOD NEWS! Remember, the foundation budget is increasing substantially. Thus that 100% represents significantly more money from BOTH state AND local sources. 

While required minimum generally required increases in local funding, in any case, we do need to remember that funding at 100% of net school spending as we continue Student Opportunity Act implementation is going to represent increases in funding--in some cases, substantial ones--for districts that were not funding way over what is required. 

Again, we're doing this, Massachusetts! 

Wednesday, May 10, 2023

Senate FY24 Ways and Means budget

 The Senate FY 24 Ways and Means budget was submitted this afternoon. 

It can all be found here. I have been tracking the K-12 education accounts here. I tweeted a thread out on this yesterday

The Senate budget does NOT include universal provision of school lunch. Expect that to go to conference committee. 

Remember that House MSBA cap lift to $1.1B? The Senate Ways and Means Committee is proposing a lift to the cap to $1.2B, and making it retroactive to the beginning of the current fiscal year. The budget also creates a commission to look at the MSBA funding ('though the charge of that Commission doesn't look at the proportional backlog at districts that have been underfunded). And it also includes $100M for increased costs of already ongoing building projects; that's the recognition of pandemic-related inflation. I had heard that the statewide need was for $300M, but this is certainly a step in the right direction.

The Senate funds Chapter 70 the same way as the House; it just includes the additional $30/pupil minimum (making for $60/pupil) within the Chapter 70 account. That means the $60/pupil minimum increase will go forward. I'll see if I can get some time to take a look at how many districts that will pull back under hold harmless next year; I won't have exact numbers, but maybe I can get us some idea of the hole we're re-digging.

The circuit breaker is here at $503M, which is $3M less than the House passed; I suspect this might be hedging on costs being covered.

The charter mitigation account is here at $230M, which is is $13M less than the House passed, BUT the Senate W&M budget also includes language carrying forward $10M unexpended from FY23, which would seem to then fund this at $240M.

Regional transportation here is back at $97.7M; the House had amended their identical W&M number to $107M (estimated to be 100% of reimbursement). There is no municipal reimbursement. There is, however, $28.6M for homeless transportation (as does the House). 

There is the same $32M for MCAS.

METCO is down a bit here to $28.9M (the House passed it at $31M).

On early college, the Senate W&M budget keeps about the same the line at $15M (the House had an additional $150K), as well as funding a $10M expansion grant.

Rural school aid here is up another $5M to $15M. 

After & out of school grants is here at $10.5M which is below even FY23.

MCIEA is back in (the Governor's budget had it; it was out in House) at $550K.

On the trust funds:

  • Hate crime/bias prevention $400K (same)
  • 21st c. trust fund $5M (same)
  • civics project trust fund $1.5M (same)
  • genocide education trust fund $2M (up from House $500K)
  • STEM trust fund $1.5M (back in from being out)

Sunday, May 7, 2023

On the city's FY24 budget

City Manager Batista released his administration's recommended FY24 budget on Friday; you can find it here on the city website.

Maybe I missed it before, but I don't remember this jazzy graphic:

This means Worcester's at least attempting the "what are we trying to do here"
connection on budgeting, which is a good place to start.

The city, per usual (and as some other municipalities do), does again do a sort of smash up version of how funding flows to the district. We get a revenue chart on page 6: 

And yes, that means we as a city get nearly as much in state education aid as we do in property taxes, and that fully 49.5% of our funding comes from the state in one way or another.
(there's also a neat little graphic showing that our state education aid includes both ch. 70 and school choice and charter reimbursement, but if it bothers me greatly that the graphic doesn't use different sized boxes for those three things)


And we have a graphic on page 7 on overall city spending:


...but what we don't have--we will Friday!--is a representation of how much of the education spending comes from city resources, though we do get this note:
Of that total amount, $44.7M provides funding of Charter and Choice schools, leaving a Worcester Public Schools budget of $462.7M. 
Of course, that $44.7M comes nowhere near municipal coffers, moving straight out of our chapter 70 aid to the charter (mostly) and choice schools and districts.

If we did have a representation of local revenue going to the Worcester Public Schools, WPS would come between fixed costs and public safety for FY24, at $138M.

...which is of course the main reason why we in Worcester pay so much attention to the state budget, were among those who filed suit in the late 80's against the state, were among the most active and vocal of districts on the foundation budget reconsideration, and threatened to file suit against the state again just before we finally got the Student Opportunity Act. 

The McDuffy decision, the case on which the state education formula rests, held:
What emerges also is that the Commonwealth has a duty to provide an education for all its children, rich and poor, in every city and town of the Commonwealth at the public school level, and that this duty is designed not only to serve the interests of the children, but, more fundamentally, to prepare them to participate as free citizens of a free State to meet the needs and interests of a republican government, namely the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
It is the state's duty to provide. That is how we have a standard education formula that not only calculates how much a district must be funded, given the students the district services, but one that calculates--again in a standard way across the state--a community's ability to support that. 

And thus Worcester, like not only its sibling Gateways, but like other districts with high amounts of student poverty with low ability of the local community to contribute is seeing the Student Opportunity Act come through with increases in which the state is carrying the majority of the dollar increases. This is literally what we fought over a decade for. We are majority state funded; we are supposed to be!

That really is something we should be celebrating in this budget. It's year three of a six year implementation. 

In any case, thus, the WPS section of the budget is the dollars allocated to us; it doesn't include costs the city carries that get attributed as school spending. In our case, the largest chunk of that is health insurance, but it also includes water and sewer, things like the city treasurer and purchasing department, and police liaisons. You thus can't just take page 161 and figure out all that goes into the schools.

You can, though, see from how the city attributes the dollar increase; the state said city funding for schools was required to go up by $6.1M over last year's budget as passed (you can pull that out of the state's spreadsheets). Because the City Manager last fall requested, and the Council passed, just under $1M out of free cash to hold the schools' budget harmless when the charter tuition came through as less that was originally budgeted, from our (projected) budget, that looks like $5.1M. 
That amount--$6.1M over budget as passed last year, $5.1M over actual FY23--is what is here. 
That's meeting required net school spending. 

What this doesn't include is the city capital budget, which was the topic of much discussion at our joint City Council Education and F&O meeting earlier this year, and has been part of ongoing discussion among and between the administrations. 

Saturday, May 6, 2023

Press release on filing for mediation with the EAW

 with of course no comment

WORCESTER – Friday, May 5, 2023 – Today, the Worcester School Committee filed a petition for the appointment of a mediator from the Massachusetts Department of Labor Relations to assist in reaching a contract settlement with the Educational Association of Worcester (EAW), the union for teachers in the Worcester Public Schools (WPS). The current offer would provide an average salary increase of 18.3% for teachers.

The district’s latest offer, made on Tuesday, included significant wage increases and longevity benefits for teachers by offering an additional $40.5 million over four years. This will result in wage increases between 15% and 19.4% for all teachers, including additional compensation for educators with more than 10 years of experience; and a substantial increase in hourly pay for after-school and summer work, from $37 to $60 an hour.

The 15% across-the-board increases would take place over four years. There would be a 4% raise for year 1, 4% for year 2, 3% for year 3, and 4% for year 4.

EAW rejected the School Committee’s most recent teachers’ contract offer without a counterproposal. The EAW has also not moved forward with a contract agreement for paraeducators even though the major wage terms of that deal have been established since January.

For paraeducators, the district is proposing an entry-level (step 1) salary increase of up to $14,000 annually, one-time payments of up to $1,500 each for all paraeducators, an increase in hourly pay for summer work from $17.50 to $25 an hour, and newly created stipends for additional work during school hours.

“The Worcester School Committee has repeatedly proposed sizable wage increases for our dedicated teachers and continuously engages in good-faith bargaining,” said Worcester Mayor Joseph M. Petty. “We are requesting a state-appointed mediator so that our hard-working educators do not wait any longer for the fair and competitive compensation package they truly deserve.”

For a current educator at the top of the salary scale with a master’s degree who works 185 days a year:

Their salary will increase from $85,647 now to $99,232 over four years.

If they have an additional 30 college credits, their salary will increase from $89,276 to $103,436 over four years.

In addition, the district is proposing significant increases in longevity payments as outlined below:

  • For teachers who have worked for WPS for 10 years, their longevity payment would increase from $1,144 now to $2,000.
  • For 15 years, it would increase from $1,665 now to $2,500.
  • For 20 years, it would increase from $2,185 now to $3,000.
  • For 25 years, it would increase from $2,705 now to $4,000.
  • For 30 years, it would increase from $3,225 now to $6,000.

Additional proposed increases and benefits include:

  • An hourly wage increase for after-school and summer work from $37 per hour to $60 per hour for instructional work, and from $37 per hour to $40 per hour for non-instructional work, such as professional development training.
  • Establishing new stipends for paraeducators for high-needs, specialized work during school hours.
  • Increase stipend payments to compensate for elementary class sizes and educator mentorship.
  • Increasing elementary teacher preparation periods from four to five per week.

The district has proposed that teachers work an extra two days per year outside the classroom for professional development. Currently, Worcester educators work 183 days per year while many nearby districts work between 184 and 186 days. The district also requested new employees, who are hired after the ratification of the contract, to contribute 1% of their earnings to the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund to address the City’s growing cost of supporting retiree health insurance; the proposal would not impact current union members.

The Worcester School Committee and WPS have conducted more than 20 bargaining sessions with EAW since January 2022.

Wednesday, May 3, 2023

On the House FY24 budget


First, mea culpa for essentially sitting out all of the House budget. I was scrambling when it came out, and I just never caught up. 

With the Senate budget due out the week after next (why does it feel like no one ever knows this for sure?), let me walk through what the House did, however.

Do please note that my K-12 education account by account spreadsheet is up to date through the House passage of the budget, meaning it also incorporates the amendments. Because the House passes amendments in a way that is designed to be opaque, I waited for the Legislature to sort them out before I tried to post. That is now up to date. 

On the big stuff particularly in what differs from the Governor's budget:

  • Yes, the House fully funds year three implementation of the Student Opportunity Act.
    HOWEVER, the House also (in a separate line) adds an additional $30/pupil minimum increase, bringing it to $60/pupil, which I know was asked for, and I'm sure many are going to see as the House doing a favor to districts. It's a problem, though. It is in no way tied to need (plenty of those dollars will go to districts that have funding capacity and relatively low needs student populations). It will also create a larger hole of hold harmless funding next year (this additional funding does get added to that), pushing some districts that were on the cusp of getting out of hold harmless funding and minimum increases back into it, rather than getting them out into foundation aid. 
    (I'm sure I've lost some of you, and I should write more on this.)
    (For some reason, the House version is $280K less than the Governor's version, and I don't know why.)

  • BIG DIFFERENCE #1 from the Governor's budget: The House budget includes $161M in the budget for free school lunch reimbursement for districts. The Governor, you might remember, put this into a supplemental budget. DESE CFO Bill Bell last week said there's some question as to if the amount is sufficient, but the intent is there for free lunch for all in all districts. Some districts (like Worcester) are of course still funding by the community eligibility provision of USDA. 
    There are also two studies on school lunch in the outside sections, one to study school food waste, and one to study nutritional standards for school lunch. 

  • BIG DIFFERENCE #2 from the Governor's budget: The House budget lifts the cap on the Mass School Building Authority to $1.1B (this is in an outside section, so I initially missed it). THIS IS A BIG DEAL (and, as you might remember, something some of us asked for in public testimony). It also then ties increases annually to increases in sales tax revenue, capping at 4.5%
    (Nothing on accelerated repair; nothing on inflation)

  • Circuit breaker, which this coming year is going to be reimbursing for that 14% increase in out of district tuition, is funded at $506M, up from the Governor's budget of $503M. Is this enough? It is intended to be, but we'll see. And of course districts still have to fund it this and and THEN get reimbursed. 

  • House Ways and Means submitted charter school reimbursement at $13M less than the Governor's budget did at $230M. The House budget passed brings it up about $1.5M. In all cases, this was said to be fully funded; as there haven't been many charter school enrollment increases, this would largely be funding simply the growth in charter tuition caused by the Student Opportunity Act being implemented. 

  • Regional transportation reimbursement, which the Governor's budget funded at $97M, the House funded at $107M, which is seen as 100% reimbursement. There is no reimbursement for municipal districts. 

  • The House budget establishes a clean energy infrastructure fund of $100M for schools, which would be administered by the Department. 

  • MCAS continues to be funded at $32M.

  • METCO overall is up a bit over $2M from the Governor's budget, to $31M.

  • Early college, funded at $13M by the Governor, passed at $15M. 

  • Rural aid, which the Governor funded at $7.5M, the House passed at $10M. 

  • The Governor had zeroed out the extended learning line, but the House puts it back at $4.8M.

  • The civics education line kicks $100K for an anti-racism initiative and $500K for the USS Constitution museum into the line, which already includes funding for the JFK Museum and the Edward M. Kennedy Institute, which now totals $2.1M.

  • The Governor submitted the safe and supportive schools line at $1.6M; the House budget passed has $640K. 

  • The Governor's budget funded the alternative assessment consortium (MCIEA) at $550K; the House did not fund it. 

  • For those who wonder every year about the mystery of the JYK Networks (account 7061-9406, billed as "college and career readiness"), their line is back to funded (it was not in the Governor's budget) at $875K. 

  • The 21st century ($5M) and civics project ($1.5M) trust fund lines are funded as in the Governor's budget, but the genocide education trust fund, funded by the Governor at $1.5M, was funded at $500K during the amendment process (the House Ways and Means budget had not funded it at all). The House budget does not fund the STEM Pipeline fund, which the Governor's budget funded at $1.7M. 

Monday, May 1, 2023

What happened at the April 27 Worcester School Committee meeting

The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet.
It requires a certain relish for confusion.
Molly Ivins 

Here is the agenda for this past Thursday's Worcester School Committee meeting. The video is here.

Note that we had an executive session regarding negotiations with the teachers, the paraprofessionals, the custodians, and the computer technicians. I cannot discuss that further under state law, 'though you probably saw coverage of teachers and paras coming to speak to public session, which was the majority of public testimony, though we did also hear from several teachers in favor of the proposed literacy curriculum, and a parent speaking on the plans (or lack thereof) for the dual language program.
Please don't miss the Goddard Elementary student council (about 39 minutes in) addressing their public petition to us on bottle filling stations for their school. If that is of interest, we'll discuss it at our May 22 Finance and Operations standing committee meeting.
The report of the Superintendent was on "innovating for the future," and brought us a new draft on what was portrait of a graduate, but is now being revised. Right now it is (in draft form) "vision of a learner," and it looks like this: 



...'though this is still being revised. 
There was also a discussion of the Spark plan, which is work that will be citywide on the following: 
The plan is to run Wawecus Elementary as essentially a pilot school for this work, with Spark teachers (a position that will be stipended per administration) to spread it across the district.

We had the March report out from Finance and Operations which was entirely on transportation, and then we took the report out of Monday's Teaching, Learning, and Student Support, which was on the proposed new elementary ELA curriculum. 
I have posted my own comments on the curriculum already; Member Clancey's motion to move the curriculum forward passed 6-1 (Kamara opposed). I also made the motion to  reconsider our vote, allowing the administration to move forward with purchasing the curriculum without further delay.

Member Molly McCullough requested that we ensure we are following state regulation in setting seniors' last days.

Member Sue Mailman's item on updating lottery procedures for the next school year was amended for it to be an update for us to consider next year, as the lotteries for next school year have already taken place. 

Two items I filed--asking for updates on CNAs and on future plans for the social-emotional learning department--went to administration for a report back before the proposed budget. I believe that those will be part of the report of the Superintendent at the next meeting. On CNAs, those are positions that are filled through a contract, and if it is renewed is the question. On the SEL department, the plan is to change some lines of reporting and assignment. In both cases, I want to be sure we're doing things with people rather than to them.

I also requested that the administration clarify the plans for the rising seniors in the dual language program, for whom there is, as yet, no plan. This is not the first time that this class, which is the class with whom the program rises, has been left in this position in May. Those of us who are parents--this does include me--are really really tired. 

Member Jermoh Kamara also requested that we keep in mind holidays when set our meetings.

We also sent four policies to Governance for revision, because the authority of the School Committee had been deliberately striped out of them by the previous administration, who had filed the revised policies without School Committee approval.
Oddly, the version of the agenda on the website didn't have the redline version, so let me show you why this matters, as I noted in the meeting:

Under MGL Ch. 71, sec. 37, policy making authority is granted to the School Committee, not to administration. Policy CHD is designed to be a "what if" for emergencies, but any policies put into place without School Committee evaluation MUST go back to the School Committee for review.
The previous administration, in direct contradiction of Massachusetts General Law, struck the Committee review and approval.
Because budgetary authority is the School Committee's, naturally the provision for the management of buildings and grounds starts there. This was struck from policy EC by the previous administration.

One relevant from the same meeting: MGL Ch. 71, section 1 put curricula approval under the Committee, but this starting place for policy was struck by the previous administration.

MGL Ch. 71, section 38M quite clearly outlines an election process that results in a student advisory council that is required by that law to meet with the School Committee every other month. That was, by the previous administration, reassigned--in contravention of the law--to the superintendent. 
Even more concerningly, the entire section regarding the student ex officio member--again, required by state law--was struck by the previous administration.

And again, none of these changes were passed by the School Committee. They were placed into our policy manual by the previous administration without the legal authority required


Consider that as we consider things later this year.