You can review the draft here.
The feedback form is here.
Here's what I just wrote:
Overall, it does not look to me as if the "partners" are actual outside partners, but are actually division assignments. And when there are "partners," being specific as to whom (rather than "non-profits," for example) would give rather more credence to the plan.
In the health section, and throughout, any work with youth, the Worcester Public Schools must be listed as, but more than that, BE a partner. They aren't listed in several areas (youth violence, mental health), but instead are off in their own section, which isn't the best framing of this work.
Transportation network doesn't partner with, nor mention, the WRTA or MBTA, and both are needed and should be part of priorities here.
Focusing ONLY on funding facilities for WPS is to completely miss the ongoing responsibility of the city, which is funding operations; the city has not met net school spending for four years running. When will the city own up to having to fund *over* minimum in order both to fulfil that obligation, not to mention those to the actual children of Worcester?
It is also remarkable that rewriting the municipal agreement between city and schools is here, when it has not been mentioned by school leadership as a need. That makes me concerned that the city sees this not as a mutual process, but as a means by which more credit can be claimed for funding without meeting actual district needs.
Overall, this priority does not have strategies that "invest in quality education."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note that comments on this blog are moderated.