Monday, May 20, 2024

There's a Worcester Public Schools FY25 budget hearing today at 6 pm

 At the time and place so advertised or at any time or place to which such hearing may from time to time be adjourned all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard for or against the whole or any part of the proposed budget.

In adherence to MGL Ch. 71, sec. 38N, the Worcester School Committee is holding a hearing on the proposed FY25 Worcester Public Schools budget today at 6 pm. There is a remote participation link in the posting.

And you can of course always contact the School Committee directly 



Sunday, May 19, 2024

What's in the proposed FY25 Worcester Public Schools budget: just the facts

 Ahead of Monday's public hearing on the proposed FY25 budget for the Worcester Public Schools, here's a brief look at what is in the document. I'm going to attempt to leave aside opining here on the administration's recommendations (not that I don't have plenty) but stick to an overview. As always, all of this is offered in my capacity as someone who lives here and cares, not in any official capacity at all. 

First up, revenue: 

This budget is projected not meet the city's legal obligation to fund schools for the fourth year in a row:

chart from page 113 of the FY25 WPS budget document

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

Let's talk about these Senate budget amendments

They were due Friday, but I only got through them yesterday. Debate doesn't begin until Monday, though, so you still have time to contact your Senator's office to enlist their endorsement. As the Senate sorts their amendments by topic, you can find all the education-related ones here.

As per usual, if you're looking for earmarks, you're on your own: these are ones that impact more than one district and in K-12. Opining, as per usual, is entirely mine. 
Also there are several "let's have a foundation budget review!" amendments, which I am going to give their own blog post. 

On inflation:
Amendment 743 just straightforwardly adds the $217M (Thank you, Senator Moore!) which is the amount the jointly endorsed MASC/MASS/MTA/AFT-MA solution would cost.

Amendment 758 puts in $100M for "inflation relief," though it specifies that it would not go into base aid in future years, which rather misses the point.

The rest of these don't fix anything for this year:
Amendment 735 would establish an escrow bank, where any year where inflation was over 4.5%, the difference would be "banked" to be distributed in years when it was less.
Amendment 644 uses the calculation requested, but starts it in 2026. 
Amendment 798 uses the calculation requested, and, while it doesn't specify 2026, since it conflicts with the language the budget outlines, per Section 3, it wouldn't go into effect this year. 

Other Chapter 70 and core aid related things:
Showing his usual zest for amendment, Senator Tarr has submitted Amendments 615 for $125, 618 for $120, and 619 for $110 per pupil minimum aid. And this is your ongoing reminder that every increase makes it more likely that fewer districts will escape hold harmless during the implementation of SOA remaining, and that this funding has no relation to student or municipal need.

Amendment 666 is chapter 70 "extraordinary relief" of $18.5M, targeted only at places where the required local contribution is more than 30% of local revenue

Amendment 799 is $5M in relief "municipalities who rank in the lowest 10% of municipalities in both of the following categories: (i) total per-pupil dollar expenditure; and (ii) actual net school spending." This means it won't be the highest need districts, as those have required per pupil expenditures that are higher.

School choice:
Amendment 720 would raise the per pupil amount of a school choice student from $5000 to $7500.

Rural aid:
Amendment 631 would raise it from $15M to $17.5M

METCO:
Amendment 635 would raise it from $29.4M to $33M and would also allow funds to be carried to the following December

Charter school facilities:
Amendment 709 would raise the charter school facilities per pupil amount (which comes from a sending district's Chapter 70 aid) to $1288 from $1188

Regional transportation:
Amendments 623 would raise it to $106.5; 661 and 734 and 748 to $121.1M

Special education and circuit breaker:
Amendment 705 would phase in circuit breaker being 100% reimbursement of the "extraordinary" costs, with 75% for FY25 moving to 80% in FY26, 90% in FY27, 95% in FY28, and 100% in FY29, but would immediately put 100% into place for any children whose parents or guardians do not reside in Massachusetts or who are placed outside their hometown.

Amendment 639 would study the delivery of special education services

Vocational:
Amendment 611 would move the CTE line from $2.5M to $3.5M; 711 to $4.5M

Amendment 663 would move transportation reimbursement for out of district vocational from $1M to $2M

Amendment 751 would require a vocational admissions lottery

Amendment 752 would create vocational annexes to comprehensive high schools in cities

Amendment 755 would create a commission on such annexes

Advanced Placement:
Amendment 622 would increase the AP math and science line from $2M to $3.3M

Amendment 654 would require state colleges and universities to take an AP score of 3, 4, or 5 for credit

Early college:
Amendment 708 would take the early college line from $3M to $3.5M

Amendment 731 would create a five year strategic plan on early college in the state

Sex ed
Amendment 756 would require biannual collection of sex education in districts in the Commonwealth

Early literacy:
Amendments 687 and 780 would raise the "Literacy Launch" amount from $10M to the $30M that would match the Governor and House

Amendment 787 is the terrible literacy bill that would mandate curriculum be taken from a state list

SEL:
Amendment 640 would increase the SEL line from $6M to $8M

School to career:
Amendment 714 would increase the school to career line from $7.3M to $8.5M

After and out of school:
Amendment 665 would increase the budgeted $8.6M to $10.6M

Diversity in education:
Amendment 689 would student the impact of layoffs of this year and last on teachers of color

MSBA:
Amendment 760 adds "collaboratives" to the study of the MSBA that the Senate included in the outside section (starts on page 67)

Trusts:
Amendment 621 would increase the civics trust from $1.5M to $2.5M

Amendment 750 would increase the genocide trust from $2.25M to $3M



Saturday, May 11, 2024

Yes, the proposed Worcester Public Schools FY25 budget is posted

 And you can find it online here.

and there is our rueful fish in his budget habitat

I am not going to give you any analysis in this post--I haven't cracked this open yet!--but let me give you a few tips in reviewing:

  • Revenue matters. As much as we all immediately want to plunge into what the recommended allocations are and aren't, the money has to come from somewhere. The majority of the Worcester Public Schools' funding comes from the state--which is what's led to this push around inflation, which is the main reason for the FY25 budget gap--
    from page 18; as a side note: the federal grant triangle here is back down,
    because the ESSER funding that boosted it is gone
    total federal grants was $70,633,666 (FY22), $83,720,834 (FY23), $65,411,638 (FY24)


    ...but there is a state mandated balance between that and city funding for the general fund budget. The first place I always flip (and the one thing I did check right away yesterday) was if the city's budgeted spending is projected to meet the state requirement. This year that's on page 377:

    ...and the answer is no: we're $1.1M short.
    Now, if you follow the math, what's happening is that we're still catching up from the $3M from FY23; plus this current year, it was back to a little over $1M until the School Committee had to cut $800K from the budget due to the charter school tuition/reimbursement coming through other than what was expected.

    Nonetheless, not meeting the state mandate again. 
    And as a reminder: 


    from page 10

  • I know you're going to look at the school by school, but remember that isn't how the budget gets passed. Particularly in a year where there are cuts, anyone with a connection to a particular school is going to flip to those pages first (they start on page 234). I get it.
    The budget is not passed school by school, however, and school committees in Massachusetts don't have that level of authority over the budget (or assignment authority at all).
    The budget is passed at the cost center level, which is the account by account section of the budget that starts on page 155, as listed in the table of contents.
    I anticipate, by the way, that this may be a struggle for the Worcester School Committee this year, with the new makeup of the committee. Committee members cannot move money in such a way that it will only benefit their own district.
    If you're going to advocate, keep this in mind with your advocacy. 

  • Most of those numbers are big. This sounds silly to say, but small changes are not what makes big differences in a budget of this size. As I've said before, and no doubt will again, don't get caught bikeshedding the budget. 

  • The budget isn't done until the bottom line is voted. This is a proposed budget; each account gets reviewed and passed by the Worcester School Committee over June 6 and 20 (starting at 4), and the bottom line is approved on on the 20th.

  • They have to hear from the public first. It was only recently posted, but the public hearing date is Monday, May 20 at City Hall at 6 pm.
Go review it! Be grateful we get the comprehensive budget document we do!
And let me know if you have questions I might be able to answer. 

Friday, May 10, 2024

Updating FY25

 For those who find this useful: I've updated my FY25 spreadsheet with the Senate Ways and Means budget. Note that I have NOT waded through the House amendments that passed, but I do know that no large accounts were change (yes, there were earmarks). 

A few random observations:

  • The Senate keeps the $104 minimum per pupil, but puts it into the chapter 70 line itself, which means it is not coming out of Fair Share, but general fund revenue, on which the Senate differs from the House. 
  • The Senate drops the support for free lunch back down $20M to the $170M proposed by the Governor. The House thought it would cost $190M. This one worries me, as it's a mandate that is subject to appropriation, and the districts will be on the hook if the state doesn't come through with funding. Remember this has had to be backfilled with supplemental budget funds to run this year.
  • The Senate funds the Governor's much-advertised "Literacy Launch" at $10M, not the $30M she submitted and the House agreed on. That feels like it might be heading for less than $30M. 

FY25 proposed budget for Worcester Public Schools will be out today

 I intentionally haven't said anything on this, as I don't think we really know anything until we know the whole picture. The proposed--it is always only "proposed" until the entire budget is passed by majority vote of the school committee--budget is scheduled to be posted later today here

Monday, May 6, 2024

Highlighting Mass Budget's note on the House budget and adding one of my own

Mass Budget and Policy Center sent out a statement last week on the House budget. It says, in part, this on K-12 education:

...while we are on track with the stipulations of the 2019 Student Opportunity Act (SOA), the House budget proposal does not address the unexpected and historically high levels of inflation in recent years, nor did it adopt amendments to address or study the issue in the year ahead. Until it is addressed, the failure to fully adjust education aid to high inflation will continue to depress the value of K-12 aid because support each year is built on the prior year’s amount. 

If the Senate doesn't address inflation in their budget (filed tomorrow with amendments due by Friday), we will never get that funding back.

To that I would add: the state--the Governor and the Legislature--are through their own policy choices working against the Student Opportunity Act's lifting of districts out of hold harmless. The $60 per pupil minimum increase compounded by (should it also pass the Senate) the $104 increase this year pushes districts back further from escaping hold harmless and getting foundation aid increases. The inflation rate this year pushed what were 195 districts receiving foundation aid back to only 106. 

This is maddening. 

Sunday, May 5, 2024

Two quick notes on the framing of the city budget

The Worcester City Council sees the proposed city FY25 budget for the first time Tuesday. I don't have time now to go through everything they have going on with that, but I did want to make two quick notes, as it appears this year's passive aggressive language is surrounding the increase in required city spending.

Let's first just note that the city hasn't met the required spending for the past two years, and is projected not to meet its required spending for the current year, either: 

just realized I didn't source this; it's DESE Chapter 70 district profile, 2/21/24

And as (sigh) this inevitably, and yes, right in the budget, involves another round of "but this doesn't count capital or debt service," that is correct and also STANDARD, which means that, for example, all of those shiny new schools you see MSBA celebrating are in communities that are ALSO carrying debt services which ALSO doesn't count for them, and yet they not only are meeting net school spending, THEY ARE SPENDING WELL OVER IT.

Moving on: the increase required of the city is determined by the municipal revenue growth factor, which is also how it is calculated across the state for every community. Yes, this year's 5.01 is the highest it has been in some time: 

As noted on the slide, MRGF is calculated by the state by the actual changes in a community's:
  • State-imposed levy limit of 2.5%
  • New growth
  • State aid 
  • Prior year local receipts
Decisions the city may make regarding those inputs--not tapping the levy, pushing new growth into areas that don't include schools, and so forth--make no difference to the state, as the city's available revenue has still grown by that much.

And finally, to the carrying of costs: as has been ongoingly noted, the majority of Worcester's budget is carried by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. By the percentage of the foundation budget the local community is required to contribute, Worcester is 349 out of 360 (or 12 if you want to count up from the bottom); Worcester's in red:

Possibly especially because I am going to be in the State House tomorrow alongside those who will be arguing that the state should fund the inflation rate in such a way to make up prior years under the cap which would benefit Worcester: it is difficult to have that taken seriously when the city doesn't meet its required spending, and then complains about that required spending growing when it is and remains among the lowest percentages in the state. 

Friday, May 3, 2024

Some things to read this weekend

please enjoy this tree in Palmer

 I've shared much of this on either Twitter or Bluesky, but for those not on there, or who find this easier:

  • I'm sneaking this in here due to her connection with the Worcester Public Schools: Senate President Karen Spilka recently asked for ideas on which woman deserves a statute in the state senate, and here is a suggestion it should be Frances Perkins (graduate of Classical High). 

  • There's new research out on state takeovers of school districts, and, as EdWeek writes
    Politicians typically pitch state takeovers as efforts to help steer a sinking ship to calmer waters. But existing and emerging research offers a more mixed and less rosy view.

    And speaking of state takeovers, things are not great in Houston. 

  • You may have heard a lot about Norwegian cell phone bans in school. Here's a blunt list of what was actually found.

  • The bill that passed the House this week adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which classifies most anti-Zionism as antisemitic is what has been repeatedly called for in public testimony before the Mass Board of Ed; it happened at the January meeting, from the panel invited by Chair Katherine Craven, and then again in February and March. Lest you think it only happens elsewhere. 

  • This opinion piece in the New York Times on college admissions spends too much time from the perspective of a wealthy student, but some of the points are useful. Sara Goldrick-Rab, meanwhile, reminds us of community colleges and decisions that need not be made in the spring.

  • Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law this week new penalties for those passing a stopped school bus:

    Illegally passing a stopped school bus is now classified as a high and aggravated misdemeanor, resulting in a fine of no less than $1,000,12 months in jail, or both.

  • A Marin County grand jury found that asking parents to provide school supplies was contrary the California education code:

    “Public schools in California are required to provide, at no cost to students or their families, all the supplies, materials and equipment necessary to fully participate at school,” the grand jury states in an introduction to the report. “As a result, it is improper for public schools to distribute lists of school supplies that are required or requested.”

  • This piece on rules came in response to the college response to college protests this week, but I thought it applies well to how schools run, too:

    We spend our lives being socialized to believe that failure to follow rules is harmful to society. Less remarked upon is the equally important fact that overzealous, unthinking enforcement of the rules is just as harmful to society. Inflexible as rules are, they cannot function effectively without the ability of their enforcers to compare their text to the fluctuating exigencies of the real world. Small-minded determination to use rules as the final word on all human conduct is characteristic of goons, acting with the desperate meanness that comes from the need to have an easy club with which to beat back the imposing intricacy of life.

    And speaking of those, McSweeney's doesn't miss. 

more chapter 70 resources

I got a phone call yesterday from someone wanting to understand the foundation budget inflation rate, and he asked for online resources that better explain. Here's two from me lately, should it be useful...

The conversation was stemming from this NEPM piece.

Thursday, May 2, 2024

Two new bits on the FY25 budget

The report of the superintendent starts on page 6 of the tonight's agenda (different than how they've been doing it). This is tonight's report; the meeting, public side, starts at 5:30 (ish).

The district shared a video of Dr. Monárrez speaking about the budget yesterday. 

Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Well, this is (probably) bad news for our low income count for next year

 On Tuesday, State House News Service reported that nearly 200,000 people have come off MassHealth in the past two months. And per SHNS, "Through the first 11 months of the eligibility redetermination campaign, the publicly funded health insurance system's caseload has dropped by nearly 358,000."

First, people need health insurance, and if any of this is people dropping off MassHealth because they can't be found or didn't return forms, then we don't know that they have health care: 

Most of the roughly 810,000 people who have left MassHealth since April 1, 2023 lost coverage for procedural reasons, according to state data. About 541,500 were disenrolled because they did not provide enough information for MassHealth to confirm whether they are eligible, and another 15,200 could not be reached by state officials. The remaining 259,400 Bay Staters were confirmed ineligible after a review.

Here's the additional education connection, though: If half a million people dropped off for lack of information, we don't know that they aren't eligible; they still may well be. 
If any of those are children, they now not only don't have health insurance: they no longer count as low income, unless they are on one of the other state programs that counts towards that.


This is exactly what MASC and MASS outlined before Ways and Means at the hearing earlier this year. And if I am following those numbers correctly, we have had more people drop off since October than we did prior to October, which means the hit on FY26 could be worse than that on FY25.

It isn't too early to worry about and advocate for fixes for FY26!  

Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Board of Ed: update on the House budget

 budget director Julia Jou: there is a memo ('though it is pre-amendments)
$104 minimum per pupil increase (Governor had $30 per pupil)
notes 

60% of ESSER III has been claimed by school districts
Hills asks (maybe) how much is encumbered
Jou: all grants are encumbered; DESE's are mostly encumbered
May be seeking late approval for DESE projects

Jou stresses that outstanding question of what the Senate will do in their budget in May

Board of Ed in April: update on educational vision

 Johnston: educational vision and how it relates to early college and literacy launch

Board of Ed: Safe Schools for LGBTQ

Johnston starts by remembering former Associate Commissioner John Bynoe whom he credits with some of this

what I assume was on a prior Wellesley school building

Backup on this is here

Presenting: Associate Commissioner of Student and Family Support Rachelle Engler Bennett,
Associate Commissioner of the Center for Instructional Support Erin Hashimoto-Martell,
Commission Executive Director Shaplaie Brooks
Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students Director, Jason Wheeler
Plus the superintendent of the Randolph Public Schools and a Boston Public Schools student

during 2021-22 year, 83.1% of LGBTQ+ students faced harassment or assault
Four strategies we know to be successful:

  • supportive educators
  • LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum
  • inclusive and supportive policies
  • Supportive clubs
support through professional development and training
on-demand technical assistance: "are much more complicated" than they were several years ago
student leadership initiatives

schools are facing significant challenges

Hashitmoto-Martell: fostering a cultural of respect in schools
citation of examples across standards in guiding principles
reviewing materials for inclusions of those with diverse identities, backgrounds, and perspectives

Thea R Stovell, superintendent of the Randolph Public Schools
student who came out as trans recently for whom school was the only safe place
Was working with school committee to create a gender identify policy (nooo...this doesn't need a policy; gender identity is included in antidiscrimination policy, and Committees deliberating a procedure around who someone is is yikes)
Committee was concerned about notification of parents
PD on "Queer in the classroom"
finding in our schools not seeing hostility; vitriol is coming from the community
people offended about curriculum, gender neutral bathrooms
some teachers are nervous about it
request more specific guidelines from DESE around gender identity and process
A lot of searching for content: not just LGBTQ, BIPOC as well
"anything that this Board can do to push policy that makes it clearer" on process would be appreciated

Rowyn: sit here before you as a Black and queer student
"I am Black and I am gay"
Know that I cannot come out to some family members
GSA won't entirely understand your experience as Black and queer; Black Student Union won't fully appreciate your experience as being Black and queer
didn't see anyone who looked like them at GSA
"in spaces meant to be inclusive, people shouldn't have to bring a chair to a table that should already have a space for me"

Wheeler: growing limitations on resources, both LGTBQ as well as race

Stewart asks how they go to schools: Wheeler says they are invited into schools
districts leaders, teachers go to principals or superintendents; families may reach out 

Moriarty: scope and reach of training
Wheeler: preassessment sent to schools ahead of training
Moriarty: seems like demand has exploded
"as a result of the disruption in schooling" (WHAT?) and student disregulation
Wheeler: schools are doing "incredible work"
heightened level of community concern being brought forward that I don't know that our schools are always ready to respond
could use greater capacity: train trainers

The Board of Ed April meeting: opening comments

Seal of Wellesley Public Schools as a mosaic on the floor of the high school

 

Monday, April 29, 2024

Two on Worcester Public Schools budget (this one on FY25)

At Thursday's Worcester School Committee meeting, we'll get our first high-level glimpse of the administration's recommended FY25 budget. That link is to the agenda; the backup for the report of the superintendent is not yet posted. 
Note of course that this means the budget is on the agenda, so if you have something to say on the budget, it could be a good time to do so. There also will be a (mandated) budget hearing before the Committee deliberates; as the preliminary budget calendar has the projected date for that conflicting with a graduation, I'd imagine it will be rescheduled?

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Two on Worcester Public Schools budget (this one on FY24)

It's been a bit since I've written anything on Worcester's budget at all, let alone this current year, and there are a few things worth understanding. 

Let's first note that the Finance, Operations, and Governance subcommittee meets on Monday at 4:45 PM. The agenda for that is here, and it does include proposed policies on cell phones and earbuds, on service animals in schools, and on emotional support dogs, as well as the current student handbook ahead of its annual changes. I'm not going to post on that here, but if any of that is of interest, go take a look.

The subcommittee also has the FY24 third quarter report, though, running through March 31.

Board of Ed meets Tuesday

It's at Wellesley High School this month, as that's the school of Ela Gardiner, who is the student member. 

And look at that: the agenda actually has topics the Secretary and Acting Commissioner are expected to address during the meeting! That's best practice...if only they could get the chair to do that, too...

Also on the agenda: the Commissioner's search; an update on safe schools for LGBTQ students; an update on the Department's vision; and a budget update.
No links as yet to backups

Liveblog will be coming your way.

Thursday, April 25, 2024

about this budget year for Massachusetts schools...

 It is lousy! 

"This is a really lousy year," said Tracy O’Connell Novick describing what Massachusetts public school districts are going through right now as they plan next year’s budget.

Novick is a specialist on finance and state education funding at the Massachusetts School Committee Association (MASCA).

“Right now, my job is abut 60% standing in front of groups saying, ‘your budget is terrible. The state budget is terrible. Here's why it's terrible,’” Novick said.

(60% is probably too high...it just feels that way!) 

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

There is a Worcester School Committee meeting on Thursday

 Note that there is a Worcester School Committee meeting on Thursday:

https://worcesterschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/20240419.pdf

Note that there does not appear to be an executive session, so expect it to start at 5:30

The report of the Superintendent is on climate and culture:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mpW68Tt7_vb9_6_s-5NI2Ftr4ERLijq8/view?usp=sharing

As per usual, no further comments...

Sunday, April 21, 2024

On city finances and planning

 At the April 9 meeting of the City Council: 

While it appears to be deleted, Councilor Toomey later clarified on Twitter that she was speaking of amending the city's five point financial plan. 

Recommended reading

My week went a bit sideways at the end here, so I haven't gotten around to a few things I'd intended to write on. In the meantime, here is some of what I have been reading:

Thursday, April 18, 2024

on educators responding to protests

 It is days like today that I recall then Acting Commissioner Jeff Wulfson's words in 2018, speaking of the protests that followed the Parkland shootings: 

 We talk a lot here at this board about the importance of teaching students about civic engagement and how democracy works. This is it. This is as real as it gets. If this is not what we call a teachable moment, I don't know what is, and I hope our educators take advantage of this opportunity to help model and teach their students about how we bring about change peacefully in a democracy.

Remarkably, DESE sent it out as part of the Commissioner's update that week 

Friday, April 12, 2024

House Ways and Means budget: this time with more

I am doing one of my periodic comfort re-reads of Terry Pratchett;
this is a good summary of the House budget. Alas, no answers here.


Wednesday's post was a quick one. Here's some more information and some thinking on the House Ways and Means budget on K-12 education; as always, this is me, out here having an opinion in my entirely unofficial capacity. 

The budget is here, though really that's where you download PDFs. Wouldn't it be amazing if instead there were updates to the posting of the Governor's budget, with nice little clickable links, and the ability to see at a glance what changes were being proposed over time?

If you'd like at least the change being proposed, I have now started a spreadsheet of the K-12 education accounts, which is here. (I did not start that with the Governor's budget this year, and, yikes, lesson learned!).

Also, the cherry sheets--municipal; regional--are now updated and seem to be up for good now (they went up and back down yesterday).

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

House Ways and Means FY25 budget

 I have barely cracked this open, but it's online here. No cherry sheet update as yet.

A few brief things I already know (as always on here, this is my personal perspective):

  • Disappointingly, this keeps the same inflation rate as the Governor's budget. 

  • Also disappointingly, this digs us further into a hole for the districts making their way out of hold harmless by making the minimum per pupil increase $104. This costs $37M, and it's coming out of the Fair Share surtax, which, as this is an allocation of funds that has nothing to do with student, district, or community need, is really disappointing.
    This is a genuinely terrible idea, and it's actively working against the reform passed unanimously in both chambers that is the Student Opportunity Act. 

  • 'Though I have not yet found this written down anywhere, I have been told that this has an increase in the low income pupil count for some districts, which has resulted in some districts moving (back?) up a low income group. There certainly is a difference in the state aid for some districts that isn't coming from the per pupil increase noted above. 
That's what I have so far...I do plan to pull together a "tracking the budget" spreadsheet this spring (I haven't yet!), and I'll run through accounts later this week. 

Monday, April 8, 2024

April 4 meeting of the Worcester School Committee

Please enjoy these daffodils from my walk from work in Boston.

While school in Worcester was cancelled, the meeting was not; my meeting was, so I got to this one in person to find that the balcony now has some who are interested in good governance of the district attending in person to keep an eye on things. Excellent. Let me know if you're coming; I'm bringing snacks. 

The agenda is here. The video of the meeting is here

Friday, April 5, 2024

Okay, Worcester, here's something else you can do!

On Tuesday's Worcester City Council agenda

That the City Council of the City of Worcester does hereby support the Worcester Public Schools’ advocacy for a higher inflation rate in the Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) foundation budget. 

Thank you, Councilor Haxhiaj!  



The Worcester Public Schools, in their FY25 budget memo to the state delegation, said the following: 

Fixing the Inflation Calculation: The inflation rate for the FY24 Chapter 70 inflation adjustment was 8.01% and for FY23 it was 7.08%. But the law caps the annual inflation adjustment of the foundation budget at 4.5%. As a result, districts did not receive funds to cover a significant portion of inflation that they had to pay for in expenses.
The way the Chapter 70 formula originally worked, that would not be a long-term problem because the lost inflation would automatically be added back to the foundation budget in the following year. But a technical change made almost a decade after the law was passed inadvertently changed that. Now when the cap reduces aid below the level needed to keep pace with inflation, that reduction is locked in forever and reduces future aid. A simple fix that maintains the 4.5% cap but makes sure that the formula makes up for lost inflation would solve the problem. That would increase Chapter 70 aid by $217 million, with additional under- inflation “catch-ups” in future years. It is important to make a permanent change in the law so that all of the aid lost is eventually made up. That is necessary to allow the Commonwealth to meet the real-dollar targets in the Student Opportunity Act.
 
Action: Support the proposed language to correct a flaw in the calculation of the inflation adjustments in Chapter 70 by the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, the Massachusetts Teachers Association, and the American Federation of Teachers of Massachusetts.

Please be sure the Worcester City Council hears from you, either this weekend, or via public comment Tuesday, to support this advocacy.

A few things that may be worth mentioning in your communication:

  • The inflation rate in the foundation budget is 1.35%. There is no aspect of any budget that is increasing by only 1.35%. That will guarantee cuts.
  • The inflation rate used to account (as noted above) for years in which there was an overage by carrying it over into future years. That is no longer the case.
  • The Student Opportunity Act, as marvelous as it has been, is NOT for cost increases from one year to the next. It very specifically is to address historic undercalculation of categories within the foundation budget. SOA in no way removes the responsibility we have as a state to ensure that the "fair and adequate minimum" keeps up with what is needed to educate our children.
  • The city's local contribution will not increase as a result of an inflation increase.
You can find the Council's contacts here. Council meets at 6:30 on Tuesday.

Thursday, April 4, 2024

Some suggested reading

Wednesday, April 3, 2024

quick note that the Worcester School Committee meets tomorrow

 The agenda is here. The report of the superintendent is on special education. 

There are ten reasons only for executive session. 

March 21 Worcester School Committee meeting

 It's budget season, which means I am all over the state, so I'll do catch up on these as I can; I wasn't at this one and I can't make the next two, either, so they'll be coming later. Do note that the Committee meets this Thursday; the report of the Superintendent is on special education. 

The March 21 agenda is here; the video of the meeting is here. The report of the superintendent on future ready pathways is here.

Note that prior to the public session, there was an executive session on two worker compensation issues and negotiations with the Mass Nurses Association.

The consent agenda was passed. 

The Burncoat High School spirit team was recognized.

Monday, April 1, 2024

What you can do on the Worcester Public Schools budget

By now, if you are the family of a Worcester Public Schools student or a staff member, you will have read the letter sent from Dr. Monárrez earlier this week regarding the FY25 budget and had a bit of a chance for it to sink in. If you haven't read it, I include the letter in full below at the end. 

You may also well have seen headlines from all over the state about school budgets facing real hardships this year.

Let's first note that it is not new information that the Worcester Public Schools are facing a budget gap. As noted in the links in the superintendent's letter (blogged about here), the district has noted the $22M budget gap since the release of the Governor's budget. We knew of the issue with the inflation budget as far back as the fall

There is a danger we run into this time of year, of the relative scope of the budget and budget issues being difficult to grasp. This isn't true exclusively of Worcester, but it is as true of Worcester as elsewhere. While, as noted, the gap is 4.4% of the WPS operating budget, that is a significant amount of money. 

This raises two related issues:

oh, if only they were fooling

 On this, the holiday that I loathe most, it is appropriate, I suppose, that the education reform opiners at Reason have their opinion piece, a piece of poorly informed illogic entitled "Public schools wasted COVID funds, Biden’s education budget tacitly admits" in The Hill.

None of that is true or follows, to be clear. 

The argument, lest you go melting your brain looking for it, is that, since the President's proposed budget has "$8 billion grant program to further support public schools’ COVID-19 recovery efforts," the three rounds of ESSER funding didn't work!

But nearly three years after Biden signed ARP, students still aren’t caught up, despite the federal windfall.

Well, golly, people, what have we been doing out here? 
I cannot roll my eyes any harder at this.

That part is quite stunning all on its own, but we can add to that the evidence of "waste" that they cite:

Researchers at Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab estimate that 20 percent of ARP K-12 dollars have gone to facilities — HVAC upgrades and building repairs

Now, WHY, during a pandemic in which the contagion is transmitted via air, would schools want to do HVAC upgrades?

I have heard milder versions of this a number of places: how could schools--fill in the blank--add staff, pay staff more, add services when they knew this was short term funding?

This continues to lose sight of what the funding was for: it was to help schools deal with the pandemic. At the beginning--remember the spring and summer of 2020?--this included questions of if we would have state and local funding for schools at all, and if that would mean we'd need to lay staff off. As time went along, it became clear that students needed (among much else) mental health supports, which means either staffing or outside services (or both). They needed supplemental learning supports, which means either additional pay for the staff schools have currently, or additional staff, or both.
One time funding is enormously appropriate for facilities repair--a massively underfunded issue with American schools--and whether it is directly cleaning up the air or making it a bit more likely that schools won't crumble into pieces. 

I am not going to defend every last dollar spent in ESSER. I can't. I'm not all of those places. But this nonsensical and ongoing scolding, which somehow mysteriously never appears municipal side is exhausting. 

I have long since come to the conclusion that some people just don't like public entitites, even ones who are more accountable to and closer to their constituents than any other branch of government, to have money to spend on behalf of those under their care. 

Gosh, I'm tired of it.

If you'd like a look at what we know of what hasn't yet gone out to districts yet (remember: there's a delay on reporting!), K-12 Dive today looks at the 6 months left report.

a few facts on MSBA and Burncoat Middle

I'll save how angry and concerned I am that the Worcester City Council last week put a hold their vote on Burncoat Middle's Statement of Interest for a second week running, and keep this to some statements of fact:

  • Communities are allowed to submit a single core project (for a major renovation or rebuild) as their priority project to the Massachusetts School Building Authority each year. They may not "send in them all and have MSBA pick" (that's a paraphrase, to be clear).

  • The MSBA has a very strong tradition of allowing districts only a SINGLE core project at a time. For a very long time, and in most communities still, if a district is still in the process of building a new building, they will not move a district forward with another core project.

  • Worcester is an exception to the above statement, because we have a history of moving our core building projects forward in a systematic way, and the administration has a history of completing and paying for projects as needed. Once a new building has been close to completion, the MSBA has forwarded a second project. This is how we started South when Nelson Place was still going up and Doherty when South was still going up; it is how Burncoat High was admitted to the pipeline though Doherty is not yet done.

  • They will not admit a third when we are any further along than that.

  • The city doesn't have the capacity to fund two new buildings at the same time in that fashion, in any case.

  • When the state organization that will be picking up more than half of the cost of a multimillion dollar project does the organizational equivalent of nudging a community in the ribs and tell the community to send in the school that is contiguous to and shares systems with a building that they have already admitted to the pipeline, they are telling you something important.

  • MSBA is always watching communities with projects to see if they are committed to the projects and acting in ways that ensure that they will be completed.


If you are concerned about this, please share that with the Worcester City Council. 

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education: vision and mission

 There's a backup on this here
Johnston: "you are our audience right now" 
as we go into this transition, want to be make sure we're grounding this work in the vision we have of change for our schools
when he was a superintendent, "I was on the receiving side" of DESE work
"while the creativity was always clear" was not always clarity in how those spoke to each other? were they timed well? 
for students who have been historically marginalized, there is no time for DESE to lose its footing

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education: proposed virtual school

 Johnston notes it has been ten years since a new virtual school was considered
Felix Commonwealth Virtual School
Board is sole authorizer of virtual schools 
proposed to partner with Arizona State University
proposal is for 4000 students statewide, opening September 2025
recommended conditions for the applicant group 

memo allows $14K which is maximum allowed at this time; virtual school can then seek higher amount once authorized
both other virtuals have recently requested such increases
Hills and Gardiner held public hearing on proposed school

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for March: Commissioner Search

 Craven: search for Commissioner "is an orderly process"
"this is the most important selection that this Board will make"
"will provide monthly updates...think process should take several months"
drafted scope of work for a search firm 
RFP will close April 24
firm that does the public outreach 
once RFPs are in will be scored by Craven, Hills, Tutwiler
will be advisory committee
"there is a transparency to how the search is being conducted"

Moriarty: don't know if those who participated last time if we ever debriefed about the process
template that happens in every state, every school district
don't know that we need to reinvent, just want to be best in class

Craven: comprehensive outreach 

Rocha: if there were feedback learnings for this process, so we are not repeating the same mistakes "if there were any"

Stewart: asks about RFP placement

Craven: this will be a standing part of the agenda each month

Hills: recommends talking to then-Chair Sagan
all three finalists went on to be first time Commissioners

Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for March: opening comments

 The agenda is here. The livestream is here

This is of course the first meeting at which Jeff Riley is not Commissioner; Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston is here.

please enjoy these cold pigeons over the Malden River

Craven opens the meeting; Matt Hills is participating remotely

Monday, March 25, 2024

A few notes from the Worcester School Committee legislative breakfast

 I promise I'll go back and post on last Thursday's Worcester School Committee, but before we get too far away or lose the impact, I did want to share a few notes from Friday's Worcester School Committee legislative breakfast, As it was a posted public meeting--it had to be, as the School Committee was discussing the budget, which is under their purview--I attended and took a few notes.

The presentation at the breakfast was largely (though not exactly) the preliminary budget presentation the School Committee heard from Deputy Superintendent Brian Allen in February after the release of the Governor's budget; my highlights of that are here. You may remember that the upshot of that is: 


If you're at all looking at headlines across the state, you will have caught that the picture has only gotten more grave since then (there are so many articles I could link to there that I don't know where to start). As shared at the breakfast by Mr. Allen, last week MASC/MASS/MTA/AFT-MA sent a joint letter of advocacy on inflation to the state legislature. 

Sunday, March 24, 2024

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday

 A short agenda, but some important stuff: 


To comment briefly, from the bottom up:
  • I genuinely do not understand what is going on with the mission and vision things, because from what I can tell, they're using stuff from 2019, and then aligning things they're already doing with that. At least, that was what was going on at the last round of this I saw.
    (Some day, someone is going to shock me, by grounding this is the constitutional reason for public education for Massachusetts, but let's say that I'm not holding my breath!)

  • I'm annoyed that they didn't share the virtual school information until well after they posted the agenda; no one had any more information, so good luck if you wished to speak. Reviewing the now posted backup, we can see that we're going for another round of "we're going to say yes with a lot of conditions" which a) is not a good plan for an educational institution, and b) should sound hauntingly familiar to any who followed DESE's last charter approval. 
    Also, I completely don't understand how the state that couldn't insist hard enough that no child should be learning via a screen, that won't allow districts the option of virtual school on snow days, wants to add another virtual school. 

  • Commissioner's search: hey! Let's not make it a whole bunch of "education is only about business, and the last time we were near a school, we were students!" people like last time, please! 

Tuesday, 9 am. I'll be blogging from Everett

CPPAC on budget Wednesday

 


I am really sorry that I haven’t shared this earlier; I only learned of it Friday, which is also when the only notice to parents went out via Remind; it doesn't appear to have been shared via social media. 

I will not be able to attend—like many, my schedule fills up much farther in advance than this—but urge you to if you can. As I've noted repeatedly here, but I fear far too few people know, it is going to be a tough year, and more people who are better informed is wise.

Saturday, March 23, 2024

for your weekend (?) viewing on MA school finance

I get the sense that people are looking all over for resources on understanding what is going on with school finances in Massachusetts. 

Let me offer three things to watch for help.

  • First, the Mass Municipal Association had Brian Allen (good recommendation, MASBO!) present on chapter 70 this past Wednesday, and they generously are offering the video beyond their membership. It's online here. MMA, remember, is townside, so there's a really good focus there on the local contribution side. 

  • I did a session called "What Happened with Chapter 70?" a week ago Friday for MASC, which never paywalls its recordings; that session is here. Yes, I had a little bit of fun with the theme there. 


  • I got to do something new this week and present to a town finance committee; Rutland's FinCom asked me to come to the session I did in January for Wachusett Regional. Wachusett, though, had me the day the Governor's budget came out, and I am not that fast, so they got FY24 numbers. Rutland FinCom got FY25 this week. That's obviously all Rutland/Wachusett numbers, but if you're a small town in a regional, it might be useful.
    BUT, I AM TOTALLY WRONG ON THE INFLATION QUESTION AT THE END. More coming on that...
    Three errors on the slides: the foundation budget comparison slide has the wrong total for FY25 (yes, Wachusett went up, not down) and the next; and House and Senate don't have a special ed rate yet; and yes, Holden's target pie chart isn't right!
I'm sensing that we may need another round of Q&A on this year's budget...let me see what kind of time I can put together this weekend. 

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

"Missing the point is a very fine art"


Missing the point is a very fine art; and has been carried to something like perfection by politicians and Pressmen to-day. For the point is generally a very sharp point; and is, moreover, sharp at both ends. That is to say that both parties would probably impale themselves in an uncomfortable manner if they did not manage to avoid it altogether.

It used to be a regular feature (?) of the blog for me to argue thoroughly and at length against whatever material the Boston Globe was circulating in their education coverage. While of course the post I finally got up about early literacy was in large part on that, for the most part, I'm doing less of that. However, I did find occasion to respond at length on Twitter to the Globe's piece last week on the challenge of inflation in the FY25 state budget, and I thought it warranted fleshing out here. 

Monday, March 18, 2024

Friends, Bay Staters, educators, lend me your ears

With apologies for not having this complete for Friday’s date which made the rewrite work, to the Bard of Avon, and to all those who will quickly note that this doesn’t scan perfectly
Dedicated to anyone who spent 2020, 2021, and 2022 dreading Friday afternoons 

Written, as it says, “to speak what I do know” and on no one else’s behalf 

Friends, Bay Staters, educators, lend me your ears!
I come to commended Jeff Riley, not to critique him.
The fulsome praise of retirement lives on after men,
The injudicious interred with their careers.
So may it be with Riley. You have been told
Jeff Riley is the “radical center.”
If it were so, it was not apparent,
And bitterly have we answered for it.
Here, the data-driven Commonwealth, we’re told,
Jeff Riley is the “radical center” —
Yet even so, three receiverships stay,
‘Though research says nay to state enjoinment.
He was a harbinger of Friday news,
But the press says he was decisive,
And Riley is the “radical center.”
He hath brought many demands home to Boston;
Whose buses did he make to run on time?
When real life did intrude, Riley hath fumed.
Ambition should be made of measured stuff;
Yet the press says he was effective,
And Riley is the “radical center.”
You all did see that on Board of Ed;
We oft presented him evidence,
Which he did oft refuse; was this effective?
Yet the press says he was accomplished,
And, sure, Riley is the “radical center.”
I speak not to disprove what was said,
But I am here to speak what I do know.
You all did quiz him once, not without cause;
What cause withholds you then, and praise him yet?
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And some have lost their reason. Bear with me.
My heart is in the classrooms there with all,
And I must pause til it come back to me.

Quick note on Worcester School Committee meetings this week

 There are actually three!

  • on Wednesday at 5, there's a Teaching, Learning, and Student Success meeting; the agenda isn't up yet, but expect that today now posted: preK, gifted programming, and the "modern classroom" project


  • on Thursday, there's the regular meeting of the full Committee (exec at 5; public session thereafter). The report of the Superintendent is on future ready learning, which you might remember is a part of the Vision of a Learner adopted last year. 
    Without going into a lot of detail, note that Biancheria's student safety center item was held from the last meeting. There's a public petition (though without the petition itself, so we don't know who from) on installing electric charging meters for the public in the Forest Grove parking lot (the petition language says "free of charge" though the backup does not, nor does it mention the cost of electricity). The student advisory has submitted an item on staff mental health support. There are a number of grants for approval: homeless student supports, two on supporting community childcare, Perkins (which is voke money) for software management and a robot,  and a history field trip
    There's a request for an easement for Verizon at Doherty.
    Biancheria wants a report on therapy dogs, and one on homeschooling.
    Guardiola wants a report "on school meals and nutrition including current vendors used by the Worcester Public Schools."
    The administration is sharing the city's annual other post-employment benefits (OPEB) report.
    And on the agenda for approval ahead of the April deadline is the district's three year Student Opportunity Act plan.
    FWIW, I won't be at this, as I have a meeting to present at that evening.

  • There's also a legislative breakfast--you might remember this being proposed in February by Member McCullough on Friday morning at Worcester Tech (and yes, that's a posted meeting); no agenda posted as yet. 

Friday, March 15, 2024

Public officials don't lose their own First Amendment rights in serving: SCOTUS

 The Supreme Court issued a decision today in Lindke v. Freed, which was taken with O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier regarding if public officials can block people on social media, or if that violates the First Amendment rights of those blocked. The Court in both cases vacated the judgments of lower courts and handed them back down to have new proceedings in line with what they found. Lindke was a unanimous decision written by Justice Barrett. 

The determinant is if the public official is acting as "the government" when they are posting (and blocking) online, as the First Amendment binds only the government. The Court found: 

When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private.  We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media. 

The Court noted, "[w]hile public officials can act on behalf of the State, they are also private citizens with their own constitutional rights" and the First Amendment applies to the officials as well. In order to sort of which is what, the Court sorted through the power invested in the office holder, writing "Freed's conduct is not attributable to the State unless he was 'possessed of state authority' to post city updates and register citizen concerns." They note that simply resharing information available elsewhere is not demonstrating that authority, that "[t]he alleged censorship must be connected to speech on a matter within Freed's balliwick," concluding this idea with "[t]o misuse power...one must possess it in the first place." They also warn against too broad a brush on this:

The inquiry is not whether making official announcements could fit within the job description; it is whether making official announcements is actually part of the job that the State entrusted the official to do.
In sum, a defendant like Freed must have actual authority rooted in written law or longstanding custom to speak for the State. That authority must extend to speech of the sort that caused the alleged rights deprivation.  If the plaintiff cannot make this threshold showing of authority, he cannot establish state action. 

On the second, the Court uses an analogy close to the heart here: 

Consider a hypothetical from the offline world.  A school board president announces at a school board meeting that the board has lifted pandemic-era restrictions on public schools. The next evening, at a backyard barbecue with friends whose children attend public schools, he shares that the board has lifted the pandemic-era restrictions.  The former is state action taken in his official capacity as school board president; the latter is private action taken in his personal capacity as a friend and neighbor. While the substance of the announcement is the same, the context—an official meeting versus a private event—differs.  He invoked his official authority only when he acted as school board president. 

They do note--and in the closing of the decision, warn against--the haziness of the Facebook page in question: is it a public or private page? Posting alone isn't enough, though: 

Hard-to-classify cases require awareness that an official does not necessarily purport to exercise his authority simply by posting about a matter within it.  He might post job-related information for any number of personal reasons, from a desire to raise public awareness to promoting his prospects for reelection.  Moreover, many public officials possess a broad portfolio of governmental authority that includes routine interaction with the public, and it may not be easy to discern a boundary between their public and private lives. Yet these officials too have the right to speak about public affairs in their personal capacities. See, e.g., id., at 235–236. Lest any official lose that right, it is crucial for the plaintiff to show that the official is purporting to exercise state authority in specific posts. 

Thus the conclusion: 

 The state-action doctrine requires Lindke to show that Freed (1) had actual authority to speak on behalf of the State on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the relevant posts. 

But the Supreme Court would also like you to make your personal page clearly that.

Personal, I-am-not-a-lawyer observation: Many deliberative bodies only derive their authority from meeting as a quorum of that body; the individual members have no power, unless specifically designated (like a Chair). As such, this sure seems to point towards their lacking the authority of the first test to act as the state, and thus being unable to violate the First Amendment rights of others. Not, again, a lawyer.  
Also worth reading: LawDork, SCOTUSblog

Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Four years ago today...

 This was what I posted on Facebook:


Worcester, for what it's worth, was only calling for the single day left in the week; we'd call two weeks over the weekend, part of the weekend when literally every single district in Massachusetts (I vividly remember downloading the full list and opening a spreadsheet to track them) called school off before Governor Baker did a damn thing about it.

Am I still angry about that? Yes. And his lack of leadership--and I have some words about the outgoing Commissioner, too, at some point--and meeting the needs of schools during the pandemic would only continue from there. 

More as I have time, but I didn't want the day to pass without noting it.