Yes, it's taking me about a week to get to these. It's budget season...
Hey, do note that due to this being a Leap Year and February having five Thursdays, there is NOT a Worcester School Committee meeting Thursday; you can have this week off. There is, however, a Teaching, Learning, and Student Success meeting on Monday at 5 pm.
The February 15th agenda can be found here; the video is here.
Don't miss that public session was preceded by an executive session that had discussions on contract negotiations with three collective bargaining units (nurses, plumbers & pipefitters, and tradesmen), and on two lawsuits.
The Committee appears, unfortunately, not to be managing the MGL Ch. 71, sec. 38M required bimonthly meetings with the full student advisory committee; this would have been that meeting, and it is why the student section is at the top of the agenda and first in the meeting. However, Thomas Sutton, the student rep from Burncoat High, brought forward a request that the district "consider a variety of strategies that will improve communication amongst students and teachers, which can include a suggestion box or mandatory meeting that will provide a sense of comfort and understanding in a classroom setting." That item was sent to administration for consideration with the Student Advisory Committee.
The consent agenda passed unanimously.
There was no public comment.
The report of the superintendent was on family and community engagement, linking specifically to implementation of the framework for such engagement, which is one of the goals for the superintendent this year. As Dr. Monárrez notes, this was a direct outcome from her listening and learning sessions; this department was a direct outgrowth of this. This office, led by Casey Starr and Deborah Gonzalez, is now working directly with the wraparound coordinators. While you can review the slides above, it's well worth listening to the report itself, particularly the comments at the end by those working in and with this department regarding its importance and utility.
 |
| and yes, the bus moved. |
Dr. Monárrez closed by noting that this office is modeling the three mindsets that the district wants to see for everyone in and around the Worcester Public Schools:
- authentic engagement
- sense of belonging
- build and honor knowledge
Member McCullough said that the directors being at and in around community events lent itself to the legitimacy with which the office is doing its work. She noted that while the work of engaging with families and the community are of longstanding, but this organization and support is new and needed. She said that "empowered caregivers" are one of the outcomes here.
Member Mailman noted the impact of the report, and specifically praised the roundtables. She also asked about the family academy and what was missing, observing that this was also a budget year that is about not losing what we have. Dr. Gonzalez said that the family academy had a history in Worcester, and so this was replicating success; she said they were about providing families an opportunity to learn about navigating the system of the Worcester Public Schools. Ms. Starr said that they need more time for integrating the system, ensuring that everything is embedding together in the district.
She also said,
The Worcester Public Schools is not responsible for housing families. That being said, what was spoken about today from community partners and wraps is so real. The housing crisis we are seeing in our city is, it's, you know I've been in housing for the fifteen years previous to this job, and we've just never seen this type of crisis that we're having now, because we used to have families in crisis, and we used to be able to connect them to a system that could support them while they figured out their next steps. And right now, we can no longer, you know, to have EA say 'no more' to say 'we're at capacity' is really trickling down to our schools and our families and our wraps in a really intensive way. And I don't know what the answer is here, but that is something that we are really, we are having to revamp the way in which we provide housing support to our families through our wraps, and that's not an easy answer. And so, that is a real crisis that we are in right now.
Vice Chair Johnson commented that it is good to see where we are now, as when the Committee moved to hire the superintendent, one of the priorities was engagement with and getting out into the community, and Dr. Monárrez is fulfilling that vision.
Member McCullough reported out on the term's first meeting of Finance, Operations, and Governance, which was the quarterly facilities report including a sample of the capital dashboard and the quarterly budget report; that agenda is over here. The quarterly report includes additional employees electing to receive health insurance (from WPS rather than otherwise); increased numbers of students receiving out of district placements for special education; continued vacancies in teaching (75), substitutes (10), maintenance (noted as 'several), and clerical (10). Note that this quarterly report included a transfer, as recommended, of $300,000 from teacher substitutes to transportation overtime (more drivers still needed, and yes, they're training and hiring!).
The report was accepted (they didn't vote the transfer separately, which usually is done, but I think voting acceptance still counts?).
The administration responded to Mayor Petty's request for an safety advisory committee. The "Safety Advisory for Education" (inevitably abbreviated as "SAFE") will, per the memo, "consist of representatives from the Administration, building principals, assistant principals, high school deans, teachers, paraeducators, support staff, EAW leadership, parents, community members and organizations, local emergency management, and students."
There will be two subgroups, as follows:
Member McCullough asked for a report on the modern classroom project; that was referred to TLSS.
Member Mailman asked for a report on report of all afterschool programs, with funding sources, numbers of students served and suggested alternatives. That was sent to administration.
probably time to start sending these to budget...
Member Mailman requested what I'd usually call the October 1 enrollment report but also asking about school "redistribution" and when that last happened. She said she didn't want to lose the item on redistribution. She also asked that enrollment be a beginning or end of the year report regularly.
Member Binienda asked for the number of 1/5 teachers per school by grade and subject "including cost per school." I'll note here that the place to have this discussion--and the only place the Committee has any purview--was in the quarterly budget report, which Member McCullough had just given earlier in the meeting. The School Committee has cost center--not school by school--fiscal oversight. The item was referred to administration.
Member Binienda requested a report on ten years of funding for credit buyback. She framed this as related to her concern from prior meetings regarding students walking at graduation who lack 2 or fewer credits, arguing that more students would be participating though that is an unrelated thing. This should also have been referred to budget but was referred to administration.
Member Binienda, saying "it came at direct request" (this is not grounds for a committee item) asked about CPR training for health and PE teachers, as someone, it seems, had intimated to her that this was not being done. Dr. Monárrez noted that such training had been provided before the school year, with additional training on March 5. The information she received was incorrect in other words, which she could have discovered if she had made a call, as the rules direct. After a back and forth in which Binienda attempted to direct how and to whom this information would be communicated by administration (also not purview), the item was filed.
Member Binienda "at a request" (not a reason for an item) requested the number of water bottle filling stations at all schools and the cost of providing them at all schools, a topic familiar to any who have been following F&O reports for the past several years, which included this information, though it turns out she meant water DELIVERY to schools. She said they'd had this conversation before and that PTO's support in some schools, but other schools would like them. Vice Chair Johnson asked Deputy Superintendent Allen to (repeat) respond. Allen said that F&O now FOG has been following the use of the state SWIG and federal ESSER grant to install water filling stations in all schools. The SWIG grant, as reported, has now been completed, with 50 units installed in 25 schools; the RFP was about to be released for the ESSER water stations, with 100 units installed in every "school that needs it" with cafeteria and gym areas focused on first. The item was filed.
Member Biancheria asked for a report on the schools offering JROTC including budget. She framed this in terms of concern about the budget, and said that in the past, there have been school committee presentations on JROTC. The superintendent requested that it be part of the budget, noting that there is trouble in filling the position, and asked that be filed and discussed then. Note that there is a national shortage of JROTC instructors, as covered, for example, by the Air Force itself. Biancheria then shifted to asking "how it is being promoted." The item submitted was filed, with a request on how the program was being promoted being sent to administration. It is not clear that the last is a report the Committee actually requested, incidentally.
...and then it all went sideways...
Both Members Roy and Biancheria filed identical items, asking for "the number of classroom doors without locks" in schools within the district from which they have been elected.
This needs commentary:
- This request, coming as it does from a member of a public body, is not only well outside of purview; sharing such information makes the district less safe. Ironic, as the members making the requests have touted their support for safety.
- There's also this issue of representing only part of the school district, which is simply not recognized by the laws of school committee work in Massachusetts, as noted in the ensuing discussion.
Roy reiterated Biancheria's notes, outlining it in terms of a possible intruder, and "under a veil of transparency." Note that safety plans are, by their very nature, not only not public but are an exception to public records laws.
Vice Chair Johnson asked that administration speak to the item; he said that this money had already been prioritized, and it encompasses "every school...we need to focus on the school district in totality." Dr. Monárrez related that after she had been hired but before she started as superintendent in June of 2022, there was an event at a school that raised to her the question of where WPS was with security. She called Mr. Allen and asked him, and the response was that it had been "a very long time" since any such audit was done.
And I will remind you that this conversation happened with Ms. Binienda was superintendent; the last security audit was completed just as she became superintendent, and she did nothing with it.
Biancheria asked that the entire safety audit be given to the Committee "so we can discuss it in executive session," saying that she "appreciate(s) that there are" things that they would not want to discuss in public.
deployment of security personnel or devices, or strategies with respect thereto
That is not a review of a full security audit: there is no deployment of personnel or devices, or is there a strategy behind such deployment being discussed. If such a discussion were necessary, unless it required either a change in policy or a budgetary allocation that rose to the Committee level or required a grant acceptance (I'm really wracking my brain for 'whys' here!), there is no reason why the Committee would be involved in that discussion. Those are administrative decisions.
Biancheria says "we've had other safety audits...that cherrypicked schools."
Mayor Petty commented, "We can go over it in detail in executive session."
Dr. Monárrez notes that procedurally, the Committee needs a vote on that.
Petty (clearly continuing to think about this) then said that the report wouldn't be given to anyone but would be reviewed in executive session.
Mailman made a motion to file both items, both because the information was provided ("It is hard, as new school committee people, not to know what was on November's report" though she noted that at least one was there), and also a question as to if this could be in executive session. She also said, "we've got to come to grips with this district business...we are not representing particular sections of the city...we are here as a body to represent as a whole," going on to note the parking question at the prior meeting. "Is this what we're going to listen to every meeting?" And she requested further training on the roles of item.
Petty, attempting to summarize said that the superintendent was going to provide an update, that there was a motion for an executive session, and "we can discuss items that are not made public in this report, as long as it meets the definition of executive session and the Open Meeting Law." (emphasis added)
Petty said that the district issue is "going to be an issue with every committee" that has district members (it isn't, though that is in part because Worcester's members' power to file an item is much more significant than many many other committees). Petty then said if it is "a schoolwide issue" it should be an item (I think he may have meant "districtwide" issue here). Mailman "clearly the instruction back to us is we're here as a whole body." Petty then went into an analogy with the city council, and said that members will get phone calls "and are going to file those items for their districts," to which Biancheria (out of order) replied "thank you, Mayor."
The item requesting an update passed on a voice vote.
The item on holding an executive session "to discuss this matter in private" was requested further clarification by Member Alvarez, asking what would happen if she voted "no."
Petty said that if you want to listen to the report in executive session, vote yes; if you don't want to receive the report, vote no.
Monárrez said that her understanding was it was "to receive a copy" of the report. Petty said that he had changed that, it was to "go over the report in executive session." Monárrez said she didn't want to provide something that would become a public records' request, as she wants to keep the district safe; you can hear Biancheria (whose mic is still on) say, "It's not going to be that." Petty said, "If it's in executive session, it's not a public records request."
Clarification: The public records law and the open meeting law are two different things; the discussion being in executive session doesn't prevent a public records request; Monárrez is entirely correct here.
Monárrez said it does, as the minutes become public; Petty said, "it does and it doesn't," that if there are things that can never become public, they can be redacted.
This is also correct, but it also doesn't deal with the public records question.
McCullough asked for clarification that it be a conversation (yes) and that it meet the parameters of executive session (yes). Mailman asked for clarification that there would not be nine copies of a report (yes).
The item passed, 9-2, Alvarez, Mailman voting no
No comments:
Post a Comment