The first Worcester School Committee meeting of the new term

The Worcester School Committee had their first business meeting of the new term (and new makeup) on January 18.
While I noted the change in the budget bottom line settled at the meeting (also noted by the T&G), it seems clear that this Committee where keeping the record straight is going to be necessary, and, while I do want to recommend you take a look at Bill Shaner's piece on last week, I think keeping track of what's going on will be helpful (and the tracking was kinda shaky in this meeting, to be honest, with roll calls consistently out of order and reported incorrectly more than once).
As always, I'm not going to pretend here to be anything other than what and who I am, writing as a citizen of the city, so you can read with that in mind. The commentary is largely in italics. 

The agenda of the meeting is here. Note that the format has changed; there are links (good!) to the backups which are in separate documents on Google Drive (not good; can't bookmark, can't copy, can't download). The meeting videos always go up on YouTube within a day or two; here's the video from the 18th.

While the Student Advisory Council section goes first on their bimonthly meetings with the School Committee, there wasn't a student there at the beginning of the meeting, so it initially was held.

The consent agenda was passed unanimously on a roll call. 

Because I'm never going to miss a chance to remind you that the Worcester Public Schools have the best dang budget team anywhere, let me note that in addition to the recognition of the Worcester Vikings football team, the budget office was recognized for their ELEVENTH consecutive Meritorious Budget Award win from the Association of School Business Officers, International (one of, as Mr. Allen noted, only about 150 districts so awarded [INTERNATIONALLY]): 

video is here

And let me note that I've also experienced what Dr. Monárrez has, of having other districts say that they're using Worcester's as an example. 

With the arrival of Burncoat student rep Thomas Sutton, the Committee went back to the Student Advisory item on student transportation, flagging concerns of buses being overcrowded (possibly that students are on it that shouldn't be), and requesting the zone of transportation for secondary students be expanded. Sutton also requested after school buses for every school every day. 
Responding (as this had parallels to an item taken up last month in Finance and Operations), Mr. Allen noted 12,000 students are currently transported, agreeing that it is about equity and access. The challenges right now are funding and availability of drivers; it would require 50 more buses to bring the walk radius down to one mile, and another 50 to transport all students. Allen did note that adding after school buses for all secondary schools is planned this year. 
The item was filed. 

There was no public comment; the public petition was held.

The report of the superintendent was on multilingual learning; you can watch it starting here, and the presentation is here. The report was given by Dr. Marie Morse, Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning, and Ms. Jessica Mandes, Director of Multilingual Education. The report stems in part from an extensive outside audit that was done of the multilingual department as part of Dr. Monárrez's entry. And, as always, note that this is actually her area of specialty. 
Dr. Monárrez specifically links the report back to the relevant goal set for her for this year, which is a best practice in governance. 

The report is well worth reviewing, particularly when we note that most of Worcester Public School students are multilingual; most students in the district speak a language other than English at home, and about a third at any one time are classified as English learners. And the grounds of concern are broader and wider than this, but to take one benchmark (as presented in the slides):

That's some dismal comparisons.

Again, the scope both looked at and embraced here is much much broader, and much much wider, and what's most refreshing is that multilingualism is being approached (and by some leaders themselves who are multilingual!) as a strength rather than something to be overcome. If nothing else, listen to Dr. Monárrez's closing words of the report about how we should be outraged about single digit outcomes for multilingual youth.

I do want to address two of the comments from the Committee members:
Dianna Biancheria's question seems to be based on the assumption that the ballot question removing on the MCAS as a graduation requirement will pass; I think it is also based on a misunderstanding of the question, from what she said; the ballot question doesn't remove the MCAS entirely, so even if it passes, the MCAS still exists. Further, even if that question passes, that isn't a Worcester-specific issue. 

Maureen Binienda's section requires a bit of parsing. You can find the DESE report she's referencing here. As the report outlines, and as Dr. Monárrez observed in her response, this is specifically a compliance review which is done every six years. It checks to be sure the district is adhering to:

• the federal Title VI, which is the Civil Rights Act
  
• the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act
• the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• MGL chapters 69; 71A; 71B; 76; ch. 218 of the laws of 2002

This is "are you doing your basic job as a school district?" stuff. Thus things done well in such a report is the district is meeting the basic requirements of federal and state laws, not anything to be especially proud about.

Now here's the thing about this: as I noted above, this is a review done every six years. That means that the last report covered from 2016-2022...which is when Maureen Binienda was superintendent.
A quick glance at the cover of the report itself also is revelatory: 

Binienda was superintendent during the site visit, the draft report, and the final report. As noted above, any strengths are "you're meeting basic legal requirements," but any weaknesses cited here are of department overseen by Binienda herself. 
And the only administration writing a report creating an action plan responding to those weaknesses that was due July 6, 2022 was Binienda's. 
Thus the answer to "how are you meeting the compliance issues cited?" should be "what was in the report Binienda's administration wrote?"

As Bill Shaner noted in his writeup, Dr. Monárrez did better than that, by speaking eloquently of Worcester now having much higher expectations that the simple compliance required by DESE, which is of course the actual job of any district.
The work that is going forward is:

After comments from Molly McCullough, Sue Mailman, and Jermaine Johnson, the report was filed. 

The next item on the agenda was the reporting out the Governance subcommittee from their meeting in December. Among the items reported out was making specific a district-level policy that seniors lacking two credits or fewer could walk in graduation; there has not been a district policy on what happens, and this was specifically a School Committee members request. Seniors do not, of course, get their diploma until they've completed the requirements to graduate.
Binienda asked that this motion be taken separately from the rest of the report, and then argued--and really angrily!--that this was a lessening of standards. She moved that this be struck from the report. It was noted both by McCullough and Dr. Morse that this was specifically walking in graduation, in order to ensure that students got that experience, and that diplomas were granted only after completion of requirements. Like any other recommendation from administration, this one was forwarded only after discussion with relevant district staff. 
This motion to implement the new policy was approved 8-1, with Binienda being the only vote in against. 
This is the first business vote of the Committee in this term.

The finance items were, collectively, accepted and approved, respectively, on a unanimous roll call vote.

The item regarding the proposed renaming of the alternative school after Dr. Michael O'Neil--an item which was sent to subcommittee to be reported out in coordination with the alternative school report, but was pulled out of subcommittee at the final Governance meeting in December by Laura Clancey (the filer of the item; this is her right) to be back on the full committee agenda--was recommended initially to be filed by Dr. Monárrez, as the administration will be reporting out on alternative programs at the March meeting; she then offered that they could instead hold. McCullough said "as we seem to be on a consensus on naming something," (note from me: the item has never been voted up or down) asked that the item be held instead pending that report. On a roll call (interrupted by a rule clarification by Johnson and comments by Biancheria that this item was "very important"), the hold passed 9-0.

The item to dedicate the auditorium of the Durkin Administration Building after Dr. Helen Friel was filed (not approved) on a voice vote.

McCulllough requested that open houses not conflict with one another; the item was sent to administration on a voice vote. 

The item next taken was submitted by Binienda and reads as follows:

A list of 2023-24 allocation requests from all principals by school and for all department heads for23-24 funding. Please bold on the list all requests that were funded in 23-24.

(as a side note, the format should read something like "Request administration provide...") 

It was argued that this was because principals and department heads had not received all that they had requested, that they might be making the same requests again this year, and that the state budget is tight and there might need to be cuts. Johnson made the motion to send it to budget (you can hear Binienda whisper "what is that?" on the video as her mic is still on), so it would be considered with the FY25 needs. Mailman rose to note that "every year there's list, and every year there's things that principals get or do not get as they need."
For example, here's page 16 of the fiscal year 2020 budget, when Binienda was superintendent: 

Mailman went on to note "as those of us who have taken the training know," as evidenced above, that school committees do not have line item authority (and, moreover, don't have building level authority; you'll note the above doesn't specify building, nor should it) and made the motion to file. Petty further noted that the City Manager gets millions of dollars in requests, that he'd imagine that most principals would "ask for the world to see what they could get, and department heads would, too, and so I'm not sure how that plays into the budget."
The motion to refer to budget takes precedence and was voted first. 
The vote was:
Yes: Alvarez, Biancheria, Binienda, Roy, Petty
No: Guardiola, Johnson, Mailman, McCullough
Though this was reported as "six yes's," this is of course a 5 yes, 4 no vote.
Dr. Monárrez then asked a clarification if the Committee was asking for line items going forward; "are we bringing two years of data"? That is not, she explained, how this has been done in the past, as the requests go to administration, who then evaluate the requests and now will make them in line with the strategic plan. 
Petty said that was a good point, that he thought they'd just have a discussion at budget, referencing McCullough (not clear why), and mused "we could reconsider the item if you want."
Binienda, who was not recognized by the chair and thus speaking out of order, interjected the information already existed, as the requests from principals were (not said: during her time) by a form and "that is not a lot of work."
And then the Mayor made the motion to reconsider the item. 
To be clear: in order to reconsider a vote during a meeting, the Committee has to suspend the rules by a 2/3 vote (that's written into the rules); they then can revote the item.
The votes on reconsideration were:
Yes: Alvarez, Guardiola, Johnson, Mailman, McCullough, Petty
No: Biancheria, Binienda, Roy
The vote was reported by the clerk as "5-4," though of course this is a 6-3, with the 2/3 necessary for the reconsideration to go forward (a 5-4 vote would not be).
After the beginning of another vote, Mailman asked for clarification; Petty said the next vote was "to have a discussion on [this item] again." McCullough said that this was "if you want to take the item again," to which Petty agreed that this "was not a vote on the item itself."
For that motion, the vote was:
Yes: Alvarez, Guardiola, Johnson, Mailman, McCullough, Petty
No: Biancheria, Binienda, Roy

...which was correctly reported as "6 yes's"
Petty said that the reason he asked for reconsideration is that he could see the confusion that this would cause for administration and all, and that he doesn't think it makes sense to proceed with this request for a report (one can hear Binienda, whose mic is still on, say "it's already..."). He makes the motion to file.
Yes: Alvarez, Guardiola, Johnson, Mailman, McCullough, Petty
No: Biancheria (missed in the roll call), Binienda, Roy
...reported after Biancheria noted she had not been called on, as 6-3. The motion thus was filed.

The next item, also from Binienda, reads as follows:

A report on the rental costs for all buildings, including the original rental for the bus yard and all increases and dates of increase .Include cost for all additional buildouts at the bus yard for other departments and the cost of the gas station for the buses

(Again, the format should read "Request the administration provide...") 
This item is probably best explained with this headline from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, dated August 26, 2021:

from the Worcester Telegram and Gazette of August 26, 2021

Rentals, of course, are part of the Worcester School Committee cost center Miscellaneous Educational OM, which is found on page 235-237 of the current fiscal year page. The section pertaining to rentals spells out this year, as it does each year, the cost of the current rentals, as follows: 

Binienda said that they needed to know the rental costs "to be fiscally responsible," and said she'd never seen the cost of the gas station.
Mailman said, while members may file items to get information for the public, "items that get filed have to be under a context...these contracts and these increases were under a former administration."
This is the case; note the date:

from the Worcester Telegram and Gazette of December 10, 2020

Mailman said when she thinks of items, she thinks of items that are filed "for vendetta purposes or for non-vendetta purposes and this one screams out a little bit." This was probably the quote of the meeting.
She also noted the full review of the budget and said that it would be redundant to send it to subcommittee. She made a motion to file the item.

The motion to refer takes precedent--cheers to Vanessa Alvarez for, as the first one to vote, clarifying that to be able to vote to file, she had first to vote no on the referral--and the results of that vote were:
Yes: Biancheria, Binienda, Guardiola, McCullough, Roy, Petty
No: Alvarez, Johnson, Mailman (who was not called during the roll)
...and the item was sent to Finance, Operations, and Governance. 

The next item was also from Binienda and reads: 

A report on the number of weapons/drugs confiscated, and the number turned into the Worcester police for the 22-23 and 23-24 school year.

...which she framed as being about safety, which she said many on the Committee ran on. She said that the "police reform act clearly states all weapons need to be turned into the police, the local police." She said the only way to have safe schools was to have weapons and drugs confiscated and put in a safe place by the police.

The police reform law mentioned was chapter 253 of the acts of 2020, signed by Governor Baker on New Year's Day of 2021. While there is an extensive section outlining the requirements of school resource officers, and another outlining the requirements of the agreements between school districts and police departments to be created--something which Worcester did not have completed until Dr. Monárrez was in office--there is nothing in the police reform act that speaks of weapons being turned in as stated.

Mayor Petty left the chair to speak the item (something he does rarely). "I just don't want anyone thinking that there's a massive amount of weapons in the Worcester Public Schools, because we worked too hard--and I'm going to say, I worked very hard!--and I think every school committee in the present and the past" care about safe schools. He said he'd asked the superintendent to create a committee on safe schools. He said, "what I won't allow to have happen again is to have this front page story saying that we're not a safe school, that we're not a safe city. And I let it happen at North High School, which I regret, before your arrival (gestured here to the superintendent), and people used politics" on that.
Let me note: I've never heard it publicly acknowledged what a trumped up bunch of fearmongering this was. This is the first time.
He said "we've made a lot of strides...the sense from the schools, from the principals, the people I talk to..." He noted the deans of students that have been put in by this administration, and "the whole change of atmosphere...it's making a difference. It's really on the right track." He said that the School Committee moved money around to ensure that the positions were funded. He noted the audit of safety in the buildings. "I just want to make sure that people understand that we're on top of this."

Guardiola spoke in support, saying that the administration and the prior committee had worked hard on it, and that it was transparency.
Mailman said that she'd like context: eight years of data and comparison with like cities like Worcester and Boston. She asked if this was data that would be sent to the advisory committee. Monárrez said that it would go first to the advisory committee, which would report back to the full committee. Petty said that he thought that the committee wanted to see the full report.

Biancheria said (as if on the verge of laughing) "this is not a major discussion...I have as a twelve year committee member received this on an annual basis...it's not a major catastrophe to ask for this information...to blow this up into anything else, is amazing to me"
I have never seen such a report. In general, getting information from the police department has been close to impossible. 
She said she has annual reports in notes. "It's a simple request, in the past, it's a simple request."
I've been blogging on this city since 2008; I do not have such reports.

Johnson made a motion to break down the weapons and drugs within the report. 
The item as amended several times was referred to administration on a voice vote.

The next item also from Binienda was: 

A report of the table of organization, names, salary and certification of all included.

The table of organization is of course annually in the budget. 

Binienda, calling the table of organization "so massive" said she didn't understand "who you contact for different things."
The rules of the Committee state that Committee members may deal with Cabinet members directly.
"I did understand that it is the Executive Director that people would like to go through...but people would like to know"
Watch out for those citations of "people."
Binienda asserted, regarding the budget ahead, "no cuts should come on the ground floor...everyone's supposed to be certified in their areas and their salaries so if we have to make cuts, we're doing it based on the salaries."

Johnson opened by saying that he was at a loss for words. Asking for salaries and certifications, he said, he's never heard of (me, either), and asked if every salary of every administrator was being requested, and their certification. He said that School Committee approves job descriptions; it is the administration that then does the hiring.
"I think that this is an overreach, Mr. Chair, and I'm going to ask that this item be filed today."
Mailman rose to agree with Johnson. 

Binienda said, "I think it's important to realize that we represent those people who voted us into office and we must be fiscally responsible."
(as a side note: elected officials also represent those who didn't vote for them.)
She said that people had the right to know salaries and that there is public look up for certifications in their jobs.

Johnson responded, “That's public record. People could look that up. You could look that up tonight if you wanted to. That's public record to find salaries of all the employees and their certifications. I don't understand why we're making a mockery of this here on the floor...I don't think this has ever been done before. Again, my motion still stands to file this away."

Petty said, "I just don't understand what this is going to do...if there's a budget cut...you base it based on how the superintendent's going to recommend how to operate the school system."

This is a crucial point: the School Committee DOES NOT CUT individual positions. Thus the context in which Binienda even framed the request is incorrect in terms of the authority of the Committee.

Petty took Johnson's motion to file first, for which the votes were:
Yes: Alvarez, Johnson, Guardiola, Mailman, McCullough, Petty
No: Biancheria, Binienda, Roy
And the motion thus was filed.

Biancheria filed the next item, which will look quite familiar to anyone who has paid any attention to either Roosevelt Elementary or F&O this past year, asking for a report on parking and transportation at Roosevelt, specific to what would happen for spring of 2024.

Mr. Allen came forward with an updated set of maps of the final design of the traffic; they're in permitting process including with EPA and the ConCom. Buses will come in and out from Sunderlund Road. There will be additional parking on the new land acquired by the city. There also will be a new parent pick up/drop off loop on and off of Grafton Street with the exit being right turn only. That will be separated from the bus traffic. There is a net 45 addition of parking spots. There also will be ADA compliant sidewalks added from across from Sunderland Woods to just across from Perkins Farm (the development off Sunderland, not the conservation area off Grafton). He also said that their understanding is that DPW will also extend that sidewalk to the south down to the Redwood Hills (also development) area (which still doesn't get all the way down Sunderland, but gets closer). Aim is to start work around May 1 subject to permits with work completed over summer; total is $1.6M, with city providing $1.2M, and the rest coming from city capital funds. 
As Biancheria went through thanks, Petty interjected that it was from Councilor Russell. Mailman reminded everyone of Member Kamara's advocacy on this issue.
Petty suggested that the item should be filed; Biancheria asked that it go elsewhere; Petty referred to administration (?), which passed on a voice vote.

I already posted on the FY24 budget settlement, though I missed that Mailman called it "baloney" which is correct. Biancheria voted against the advocacy and the budget change (because Mailman had brought up Kamara in the prior item, one assumes).

McCullough requested budgetary needs and community partners for wraparound coordinators, which passed on a voice vote.

The administration's update to the calendar of reports also passed on a voice vote.

The Committee next meets on Thursday, February 1, though that agenda is not yet posted.